Anyone attempting to refute any conspiracy theory tends to be just be accused of believing the "official version", and consequently accused of either being a mindless sheep who believes everything they're told by the media, or a government disinformation agent, or whatever, so you really can't win.

[reserved] *posted further down page

(like Zaus i'm a bit tired to address this right now hehe)

you've made the effort to come to the party and i will do the same tomorrow. and there will be some of this 'respect' you mention

That was a good response ifisurvive. Civil and logical. I guess the point I was trying to make was that alot of replies tend to be outright blasting of a poster for believing what they believe in. This being a conspiracy forum, that goes with the territory. The point i was gunning for was to question how come responses to a certain post are simply dismissed because of either who it comes from or the evidence they cite. Facts can be used to prove anything, whether it's true or false. Opinions are like ------, everyone's got one. I just don't think that you have to be one to post a counterpoint.

There are so many things in this world that are happening right now that I wholly disagree with and the reasons given to why and what the end results are supposed to be just don't make sense to me. That leads me to believe that there is something else going on. That the real truth is being withheld. That is contrary to the US constitution. A government for the people, by the people. On the face of the issue it seems to be mainly about the money. A little digging though, and it seems like something much more sinister. I don't know, but I refuse to believe all the sugarcoated explanations that are handed out. Investigation is needed to learn what the truth is and how it will affect the rest of us. We should not condone the cherrypicking of justice. Most people in this world have done things that they regret at one point in their lives. I don't think that a massive state of denial is the answer. Keeping motives shrouded in secrecy is a form of denial, especially to people who may oppose those motives.

Knowledge is power. Instead of arguing, I think everyone should be allowed to share their knowledge in a less biased way. Hate is a defeatist way of thought. It muddies the issues and creates dissent. Enemies can be made friends with very little effort. Not everyone is made equal, but it can be worked with. Most people actually do care about their fellow people. If the average person, who is the majority of people in this world, feels like they are getting a raw deal, why can't we change that? Greed is a sin and it will destroy this world. I don't perpetuate greed. Most people don't either. Life is much better when you know that you can make it to work on time, pay your bills on time, feed your family, house your family, and enjoy a sense of wellbeing. Now if you are able to enjoy that sort of lifestyle, kudos. Alot of people find it harder and harder. There are two sides to that equation. Think about it.

True enough, a lot of blasting of posters does go on. Just as long as you do see it goes both ways.

Also there's a lot of history going on. One poster attacking attacking may seen completely random in one thread, but may be based on opinions formed on other much longer detailed threads in the past.


The problem here is twofold. Firstly, a lot of what is often discussed particularly in the realm of conspiracy theories is not 'fact' as such but a lot of circumstantial points or interpretation. That opens up a lot of potential friction on whether someone is adding up 1+1 to equal 2 or 78. Secondly there is what is represented as a 'fact'. Often a 'fact' can be given which is actually completely false (whether mistakenly so or intentionally). Or actually true, but has nothing to do with the point in hand. And facts can be warped. Say I put forward the theory that bananas kill elephants. I back it up with a quote from a renounded animal expert saying "I gave the elephant a banana and he died a few minutes later". I have presented a factual statement. Of course, if I have edited the statement from "The elephant had been suffering from a painful disease for months and was close to death. I decided to ease it's last moment by giving it it's favourite fruit to eat. I gave the elephant a banana and he died a few minutes later" then I have misrepresented the fact and effectively lied.

Youtube/GoogleVideos are particularly adept at all of this.

Nevertheless, it is up to you to decide if what you have seen or heard is true, obviously, since everyone* gets their "news" from the same sources you would expect these "official" sources to have the right info? right?

Well youtube, googlevideo, all that. It is simple, it is information, and it is NOT as commercialized as television.

Imagine someone had invaluable information about conspiracy theories and what not. Real bona fide evidence, say a video showing kennedy getting shot by the driver for instance. Do you think it will EVER make it to TV?

nope... but anyone can upload anything on youtube, beit good info and bad info.

*a majority too large

Only trouble is, a lot of responses from the original poster to replies that they might get to a certain thread are simply outright blasting of a poster for not believing what they (i.e. the thread starter) believe in. It's the "I know the truth; you're just gullible fools for believing the government/the official version/ the media, or whatever" attitude that tends to make people less receptive to whatever they might have to say. If someone is willing to address questions that people might have about their verison of events, rather than just shouting at them for not being utterly convinced at once, they tend to get a rather more civil response, I think.

Well, according to my belief system we are already in the New World Order, and they are spitting in our face as they conquer the rest of the world.
some things you might find interesting.
And some media brainwashing

I dont watch TV these days, but this scares me, because you need only look to prescot bush for nazi ties to america!!!

i've been thinking about what to say and how to say it..
glad snooze came back, because can just expand on his words..

snooze

well here is a good start for the one about to journey down the rabbit hole..


hopefuly that one starting the journey gets to this part and beyond..


hopefully the one on the journey refuses to swallow the tripe also..


a quote from a prtty cool video game (alpha centauri - the series of civ games - they leave the planet due to wars, turmoil, failinglife to start a new existance on aplha centauri. sound familiar?) --> "beware the one who seeks to deny you knowledge, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master"


and since 'knowledge' is on the decline these days.. it might be further evidence for 'money is power' (ie: control the money [and the game] and you have all the power) now.. who's doing this?

not much else i'm willing to say.. already locked horns with certain people.. were nice enough to allow me to back off, i don't bother them directly, they just bother me indirectly.. we're getting along fine now.. i play their game of monopoly and am starting to learn more about it..


ifisurvive


hmm.. ok.. i have decided to interprete this in my own way (as you knew i would) i feel i have grasped what you're putting forth here, and hope my comment will be useful to you and others..

things are not how they seem.. they are simply as they are.. the situation you are seeing is what is happening around you..
the banana hypothesis is just a possible explanation..
lone voice: "something's killing the elephants.. is it banana's?"
agitater: "banana's kill elephants.. not oiling, not whaling, not harsh living conditions, not pollution, not food additives, etc etc etc"
the one who uses the phoney renowned animal expert data is the one who pushes the disinformation..
the 'painful disease' is what you are seeing all around you.. life is harsh for all now isn't it?
we can see.. the elephant (earth & its living things) are actually dying.. it is as though the earth and those on it are, suffering as from some disease..
so we keep in mind the baloney we just heard about banana's.. (not you ifisurvive, just using it as a example)
..and we start to question the whole thing..
and we learn, there are indeed those who are benefiting from the wholesale destruction of elephants..
things are not as they seem, they are as they are..

enjoy the journey

Wow, impressive twisting of my argument. I'm so glad I kept my example light-hearted; elephants killed by whaling - damn, they would have to be a bad shot

*shrugs*
have it your way then.. you're the logical pragmatic one mentioning banana's killing elephants in the first place

With all due respect to the more coherent CTers here, there have been several respectable articles that suggest belief in conspiracy theory is a form of paranoia (I'm not necessarily supporting or denying it); if it is, the way arguments get twisted like that into the paranoia would make sense. It's happened to me, too.

But I'm more than willing to admit I've done the same, too (mostly as satire, but sometime genuinely) -- but I wouldn't deny being occasionally paranoid, either.

--Jaylemurph

bw

twisting <> interpretation

there IS a difference..

kudo's for not taking a cheap shot 'murph you're not as a bad as i thought u were

No offence was intended unit; I got what you were saying, I was just amused by how far the analogy was carried.

Well, I don't think CT is paranoia; I think there are some paranoiacs who are CTers, though, but there are paranoiacs everywhere in the world. I think Zaus is by far the most 'out there' person here, now, and I don't even think he's paranoid.

--Jaylemurph

You have no idea, and who's to say, just because your paranoid does that mean there isn't entities out there with the purpose of undermining your world, and the world of many others.

EDIT: With that in mind it is of the greatest value for the powers that be to spread disinfo with the intent of causing paranoia that can grow and later be easily quelled because it has no foundation.

Of course, Satanism in Government seems just down right outrageous right?

is it?

And as far as "out there" goes the universe is fairly infinite, just fairly.

Twisting, spinning, interpreting, opinining, whatever you want to call it. It happens and it skews the real nature of the topic. Topic being of course, how we as a people are consistently being lied to. Not just by one person, but by a well-organized and limitlessly funded group of people who have different designs on the world than we do. Ever hear that old cliche that the law applies differently to rich folks? The thing of it is, it's that the rules of the law apply differently to everyone. It's based on the human factor. That is usually not a conspiracy. The law is more about power than anything else. BUT, the law is used as a tool to exert power and control. So how is that not a conspiracy? One of my favorite sayings is... What if all crime stopped tomorrow? I mean ALL CRIME ceased tomorrow. We would then be faced with an entirely new world. Cops would have noone to arrest. Judges would have noone to judge. Jails would become obsolete. Security personnel would become useless. Armies would have no wars to fight. The military/industrial complex would wield no more power. And legislators would be stuck with nothing to do.

Try looking at it that way and see if this planet could ever survive peace. We would all have to do something positive or just bomb ourselves to oblivion, just to start again.

Well then: who /exactly/ are they? Not group names like the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers or "the Rockefellers", or crudely-written, historically ignorant family trees that skip generations and assume marriages, but real, individual names, with concrete links to these mystery organizations. How exactly did they get all this power and money -- and don't use vague claims like "the made their money in oil" or "they inherited it". Which oil companies? When? How? From whom?

And just what do they want? Exactly. "Power" isn't an answer. You only seek power to use for some actual goal; it's not an ipse re thing. What exact goal do they want? What exactly have they done towards that goal -- and I mean something direct and tangible, a thing that was a direct step towards this elusive goal (whatever it is) and not done for any other purpose.

I've never had anybody here who could give a straight answer to any one of these questions. They mumble platitudes and vague replies, or ignore the questions, but if you really believe this, you should be able to come up with some answers, right?

--Jaylemurph

sorry i repeated your post without a reply.

I mean only the people who reply that a bird in the hand is not worth as much as a bush. I think that a solid claim that the bush's made their money through Harriman Brown can be made. Who in turn made alot of money off the nazi war machine. Military/industrial complex? Blind trusts? Gee, I don't know what company I own? At least the people don't. I think the senior is the mastermind. He has coddled and pulled more strings for his son that it is too unbelievable. That guy is not presidential. His brother does not even approach gubanatorial. They still get elected and the common people pay the price.

Truth is - Nobody knows who the top dog is. Their agenda is becoming a little more clear. If it is a big chess match, we are all pawns. The pawn can still take the king.
I saw the bishop once, that prick tricked me... he never once moved diagonally...

I humbly recommend everyone brush up on their social and economic philosophy regarding free markets and the demise of America which truly began about Christmas 1913 unwittingly by Pres. Woodrow Wilson and perpetrated by International Investors the likes of Max Warburg (House of Rothschild), J.P. Morgan, and Jacob Schiff. They are the Federal Reserve Bank; appointed by a government which they have financed, accountable to no one and obligated only to their own personal and International Totalitarian agenda.

Do you know what satanism actually is, Zaus? Maybe you might like to look up Aleister Crowley's, or Anton laVey's definitions of it.
I think you might find that little of it involves giant owls.

You may find this interesting, regarding laVeyan Satanism : --> Here
Funnily enough, that's more or less what you've been arguing that we should do, isn't it?



Fairly infinite? We're getting into quantum physics here.

I'm not asking for a top dog. I'd be willing to settle for one, specific middling pup, as it were. So let's put this in simple terms. that'd be a "No, I can't answer these questions" right?

--Jaylemurph

why should anyone bother, if you obviously only want the answers to debunk them? why should anyone bother telling you what(if you had an honest general interest in) you should just go look up for yourself.


Here, are some examples for your "debunking"

EDIT: as far as my knowledge can judge, we are being ruled by London, Washington DC, and the Vatican.

None of these places are parts of any countries, they are essentially countries unto themselves with seperate laws and seperate Motis operandi, as is expected when they are being that blatantly obvious.

Did i just hear its time for 2 minutes hate? oh crap.

These 'elite' must travel in "packs", now. Safety in numbers. Has been my observation. Due to mitigating circumstances, where true desire for the "Grand/All Unknowing" Event, that by the way; Never came to fruition.

At one point, under Bush, Sr., especially; they were quite successful. Under the Junior, they have become somewhat indecisive. That is to say: They no longer have the 'invulnerability' status they once proclaimed for themselves. The War in Iraq was the pinnacle/opposite of actually. When the ~Cowardice ransacked the ranks, they lost a lot of face.
When, they promised Minor Incidents, which evolved into a grand occurrence, they lost any type of actuality, they might have ever claimed for themselves.

Lies, and the counters to 'truths', are still most certainly prevalent. This, however, is mainly a projection of someone else's efforts to cause and effect. Leading a "Death March", you may say.

Most notable change though, is without question the numbers game. Where once the lies profused were insatiable, now there borderline stupid. Things like you see in the news. Personal Favorite:

"Tropical Storm Noel", now there was the classic Dead Ringer. Something to talk about most certain. And, I loved the cued waves toppling at one point almost 18 inches in height. My, God, My God...

A middling pup? GW seems to be a good example of that. If you think his policy shifts have proven beneficial to anyone, save for the top one percenters, then you should reexamine what is really happening in the world today.

There is, absolutely, controversy over the identity of Lucifer - "the light bringer" - in Christian ideology, and therefore the truth about the path to salvation in Christian thought.

That's not the same as saying most practising Christians today have beliefs and lead lives which would normally be associated with Satanism. That is obviously nonsense. But the point about the controversial identity of Lucifer in Christian thought is a a valid one.

Amen! What most Christians end prayers with...Amen. The following link may be a good start to support Zaus' claim that Christianity is the worship of the sun (unkonwingly): http://touregypt.net/amen.htm

The reality of it is that Christianity is a hodge-podge of different religions, cobbled together over centuries from Ancient Celtic beliefs to Central Asian religions to African ancestor worship, and several of those cobbled were specifically nature and sun religions. However, it's a huge and completely unsupported leap to take that fact and put any sinister motives behind it.

--Jaylemurph

Come on, everything's got sinister motives behind it.

*remembers where he is

Oh. Yeah. Right. I forgot.

--Jaylemurph

If there was a "True" religion, would we (humankind) know it when we saw it?

We'd do far better as a species, I think, abandoning the whole concept of religion. We're completely capable of coming up with morality, education and government without pretense to divine assistance. And history shows that on anything other than the strictly personal scale, religion does nothing but act as a flame to all of our bad instincts.

--Jaylemurph

I couldn't have said it better, Jayle...

murph.. what was it you said few posts back.. about 'stringing a conspiracy onto christianity' or something?

you go on to say..


so i am to understand this as... the proponents of 'religion' have done nothing but flame all our bad instincts....?

no 'conspiracy' of any kind by any definition then, is there?

socrazes

it's happening all around us every day.. and we aren't *noticing* it.. there is only ONE truth.

Well, no, there isn't. It's not as if these people were/are actively colluding together, which is the meaning of a conspiracy. At best, they were all taking advantage of the same opportunity. The situation of con men is more or less parallel: they all take advantage of people's greed and stupidity, but just because they all do something broadly similar, that's not to say they're all working together.

--Jaylemurph

sex panther not black panther, props on getting the % correct still fail to see the relevence of that quote to the context of the topic at hand. The orginal poster seems to be clinging to a belief that everything can be linked together in a massive conspiracy theory which is absurd when he can't even research basics such as when Jesus was born.

Jesus Birthday was assocaited to the 25th to entice pagans to convert to christianty pagans had winter celebrations so the church decided to tell everyone their saviour was born then too and if you join out religion you can some holidays and celebrate that !

Actually, there were no "pagans" until after the religion of Christianity had been formulated (325 c.e., Council of Nicaea). Pagans were so named because in order to avoid persecutions resulting from their refusal to accept the new religion, they fled to remote regions of Pagi.

The birth of the newly formulated "god" of Christianity was assigned (in similar fashion to other major holidays, like Easter, for instance) in respect to prior or existing religious traditions. The 25th of December was, according to the ancient lunar calendar, the winter solstice, and the birth of the Sun, as it was the lowest postion of the solar orb. It was assigned as the birth of the Son...

The roots of Christianity, due to the influence of Constantine, are rather naturally imbued with the deep seated roots of the ancient worship of the Sun.

It wasn't formulated to convert pagans, per-se...it was formulated to appeal to a largely illiterate mass of citizenry throughout the empire, many of whom were very associated with the various religious traditions of the time. Christianity was an effort to create stability in the Roman empire. It was expected that people would comply...not convert, as-it-were.

Not to dispute the general thrust of this post, which I agree with 100%, but a small etymological point: Pagi is in fact a real place (in Greece, the Ionian islands, I think), but the term Pagan is derived for from the Latin word for villager or country resident (paganus, from pagus, village -- which comes from the verb pangere, from the stakes that were used to fix the boundaries of villages). Although I certainly can see the the literal meaning shading into the figurative, locative derivation.

--Iasonis ille Murphi

i ain't no rhodes scholar.. but MID (above) is mentioning some of these diverse threads..

i've seen these big old roman buildings on the TV.. they look to me like they could seat an awful lot of conspirators at the one sitting..

when they connect this supposed jesus person to the that particular date for those particular reasons, does this maybe start to fall into a workable definition of 'a conspiracy'?


a lot of those big buildings with the large seating capacity still stand today.. i see a lot of people going into them beating the same old drums..

you mean to tell me.. with the stink going on in the world currently.. you don't smell something funny going on? O_o

You're right Jayle. Pagi was a real place...(Ionian islands...Corfu, actually), which was a remote area included in the Roman Empire. My impression was always that a certain group actually inhabited that area...and that Pagan was a term assigned to them as a result of that locale.

I imagine, however, that there has been some variation in derivation that has developed over the centuries...

Nah, I don't think so.
Despite the fact that the 1st Nicaean Council consisted of over 2000 people...initially, there wasn't any conspiring going on. It was more a matter of political expediency at work. The vast majority of the Empire's population had no idea what was going on in that little Turkish town (Nicaea is present day Iznik, Turkey), nor would they have understood...in fact, most of the participants were unaware of much--over half of them were dismissed by force for unruly conduct and disruptions...

This was just the modus operandi of the day. They created a new religion designed to stabilize the Empire, which relied heavily on religious stability for its internal peace. Then a process of setting about its spread to various regions took place...often by force. No conspiring there. It's just, "Here's the deal folks, this is what you do...if not, we kill you." Sure, they made every attempt to make it palletable, which was not a huge effort, as Christianity had most all of the features of current religions in vogue at the time. But there were those who resisted.

It took about 55 years before it was finally and officially imposed as the religion of the Empire, but they got it done.

I don't think you could call this a conspiracy.

I imagine it could be construed, some 1700 years later, as a type of conspiracy in respect to the fact that this knowledge has been suppressed by the church for centuries...but that rather falls apart in lieu of the fact that the information documenting the actual historical origins of the faith is available and has been studied by scholars at some length. The church certainly doesn't speak of it, and 17 centuries of ingrained acceptance, dogma, and all that, has set believers into a deep pattern of acceptance of this all as fact, which functionally will prohibit perhaps the majority of them as thinking all of these facts to be anything but blasphemy, or at least nonsensical jibber-jabber.

I just don't think it rises to the level of conspiracy. People have access to the real information any more, and they're permitted to choose.

I'd be loathe to call government 'conspiracy', but perhaps at times it is only a matter of scale that separates them.



No, because it's not like the whole of the Roman military or Senate was involved. It was a local event. Was it a local conspiracy? Well, conspiracy presupposes some secrecy, and I don't think any of the Romans involved were particularly secretive.



It's not so much a question of "is there anything funny going on" as much as it is "is there more funny going now than previously", and my answer to that is "No."

--Jaylemurph

Then you are lost to the world...


I know what time period im living in!

MID, i don't know what to make of this..? where does one draw the line..?


umm... yeah.. but what are this many people assembled for in the first place? (bare with me)


a duck is a duck, isn't it?


well this is pretty much the crux of the matter, isn't it? CREATING a religion.. we know religion has value because this influences how a person will behave in life.. and we know the state uses a cornerstone of religion to implement its 'rules' (church and state etc) ..as you say 'religious stability' - get all the people of the same mind, and they're easier to control, right? ... ... ... i don't get your stance tho'? are you keen on it? (you refer to it 'This was just the modus operandi of the day'?)


..i don't get why initially 2000+ people were assembled for this then?


O_o ...i don't get this.. obviously this infers control of the masses etc.. and we just saw over 2000+ people were assembled at first to 'talk about getting it up and running' ..they weren't chatting over tea and scones, you know.. as you say many were ejected.. sounds like a rather heated tea party to me.. if the end result was to formulate a system of 'getting them to do what we want' to me this is simple..?


yeh, i always refer to it as like a 'corporate merger' (bare with me)


well.. these days a corporate merger may seem desirable to some because it offers a cheaper product in the long run.. so why would people of that day 'resist' what would well turn out to be a 'cheaper product' for them.. i suspect it's because (same as today) there were those who knew what was in store.. the cheaper product was just a watered down version of the real things.. no suprises to me why people would resist that, just as today there are people who avoid these ab-blaster 2000's what-have-you etc.. there is no substitue for the real thing.. since this new product was essentially a type of 'control system' (meaningless) i'm not suprised there were people who declined (resisted) it..?


well.. to me.. i summarise.. we have this meeting of 2000+ people to establish the new control system, many are ejected due to infighting (they could not agree at first.. i envision a wall street type mental image.. with old guys screaming what they want to keep and what they want to shed and scones flying all over the place)
..it's just simple reasoning to me.. bunch of people gathered to make control system.. nothing harmfull there, right?

compare these two statements..
The church certainly doesn't speak of it, and 17 centuries of ingrained acceptance, dogma, and all that, has set believers into a deep pattern of acceptance of this all as fact
|
People have access to the real information any more, and they're permitted to choose.
..so which side of the fence do you sit on? (bare with me)


right.. as you say, if one was to confront the religious establishement on this issue, it's easy for them to stick their fingers in their ears and la-la-la-la call us 'blasphemers' ..nothing harmfull going on here, right? they have our best interests at heart - "Here's the deal folks, this is what you do...if not, we kill you." - "our god is love, and he doesn't want to punish you because he loves you.. but if you don't follow his decrees he must punish you because he loves you.. and we are his servants on the earth.. so you must do as we say.. all hail xenuuuuuuuuu"

murph

what's that you say..? a chink in the armor? so you DO smell something funny going on?


i'd venture to say if the WHOLE senate/whatever was involved then the process would have been fairly open.. you're herer telling me 'the WHOLE senate/whatever WAS NOT involved' (which supposes some form of exclusion from their ordinary process) ..but you don't see any 'conspiring' going on?


then why have just those 2000+ idiots involved? why not involve their whole senate.. that's what they made their system of gov. for wasn't it? to make decisions that affect the empire? ..but nothing 'secretive' going on here..



so you indeed agree that there IS something 'funny' about the whole thing after all?

Gore Vidal talking about his insider experiences, and how people he knew 'wanted to make a rome again' and we can even see their grandiose buildings mimicing the roman ones.. it's all there in front of us.. further you go on to say about is the funny of now any different to the funny of then?

if you saying nothing has changed.. well times have changed.. there is technology out in the open now.. don't you think it's possible they utilise some of it for their plan.. perhaps even in the way Zaus suggests with the holographic planes of 911 et al?

so you're aware of what's going on, then.. i don't understand why you (and folks such as MID) possess the knowledge of the apparatus, but you both don't critique it.. and you seem to pass it off as "nothing special"..? i don't understand why you can both take the middle ground here in a CT forum?

this seems to be the point where i expect you both to enter 'debunk mode' ..but you both haven't.. you're even entreating me to an extent?

it's like.. if you were both previously mechanics or engineers, you would have that knowledge even in your retirement, and be able to talk about it over coffee, whatever, with the grandkids at lunch.. but you would still have a particular stance on whatever engineering matter was at hand (let's say some person is incorrectly speaking of a ball bearing or some type of wheel nut.. you'd still be able to pipe up and say "Listen whippersnapper.. you don't know what you're talking about, the wheel nut functions like <such and such>" ..do u follow me here? ..maybe i am probing too much here?)

how do you both know the things you know, but take the middle ground here.. for lack of a better term if you will forgive my wording here, i would have to ask "where are your morales" on the subject of control systems and supposed open and honest governments, etc?

Zaus

lol u not helping here bro.. (why not just call them 'idiots' next time..) you catch more flies with honey
Z.. you and i, i think, would be more suited to the gentle path, are we not? i see you talking about these things a lot.. i would think in real life you are sensitive, maybe even quiet and ponderous, etc.. the way of love as opposed to the way of hate.. talk more, post youtube links less, i'm as kooky as the next person but tend to steer clear of 'tube vids for the same reasons the detracters are saying..

not everything is SINISTER as i think you and i and people such as we sometimes suggest.. but.. they (detracters) would be well advised to know that not everything is beer and skittles.. somewhere there is a common ground to work with and we will help eachother grow and learn..

at first i would get standoffish with peepz such as murph.. but over time i've come to see, he knows his stuff.. it's now time (if possible) to probe a little deeper into eachother and find out why we take our relative stances?

it's no accident that we meet here on a silly message board.. i'm not suggesting it's some cosmic event that's going to help usher in 1000 years of enlightenment.. but personally in our own lives.. we have something to offer eachother here..

we all post our second hand links and pages, throwing down our staves on one another like the pharoahs magicians and moses supposedly did many years ago.. what are we doing this for? to me it's obvious we've made some kind of connection/common ground here.. why not expand on that?

murph and MID thanks for taking the time to talk here, i understand at any time you have lives to pursue, now that the sarcasm has died down on both sides.. maybe we could actually talk?

i look foreward to the replies

Well, at least someone's clear on that!

Wow, unit...you're asking alot of stuff there!
That's a hell of a post, and your curiosity about this is endearing!
I don't even know where to being...but I shall try.




(Takes really deep breath...)


It's been an area of fascination with me to investigate this matter. Being born to a staunch Catholic family, and finding variances between my gut and the religion, I undertook a study to find out what I could about this whole dogma. I was always somewhat posessed of an analytical mind, and even as a kid I used to sit around and think about things alot.

One of my earliest questions revolved around the crucifixion of Jesus and Easter. For some reason, I noted that Easter fell on a Sunday all the time, and it was a different date every year. I wondered to myself, "How come Easter's on a different date every year and Christmas is always on the same date? If you know when someone was born, how come you don't know when the most significant date in the Christological calendar actually was?"

Ruminations like that started the investigative path.

Now, what must be understood first is the nature of the rather expansive Roman Empire at the time that Constantine became the sole Emperor. We're talking the early 4th century c.e.. We often view the Roman Empire in terms of Rome, an intellectual center, with educated, literate Senators and artisans and all sorts of folks. This was largely a viable image as pertains to Rome, and certain other centers within the empire, where a certain intellectual rigor was applied to various areas (the Jewish religious and scholarly centers, and the Royal Britons, etc...).

However, it appears that the vast majority of subjects of Roman rule were actually illiterate. I have read data indicating that as little as 1 in 10,000 could read and write Empire-wide.

One thing that was inherently important in ancient Roman society was religious stability...whatever the religion was. Be it the worship of Jupiter or various other religious movements that came and went...this stability was essential, especially as pertained to the less-then-discerning masses under Roman rule.

It's a very complex topic to explain in a few paragraphs. My impression revolves around an understanding of the Middle East today, and realizing that the religious zeal, and often crazed zealotry that we see in many regions in that area were just the same back then. Although there was no Islam at the time (that was along way off in the 4th century c.e.), the prevalent Jewish sects ranged from studious reverent and even esoteric spiritual factions to out and out violent rabble-rousing zealots who sought the Kingdom of God through the violent overthrow of Rome!

It was a tough management problem, which by the time of Constantine, had become a threat to the Empire.
Why?

Because of literally hundreds of conflicting stories being preached throughout most regions of the Empire by various men...many less than knowedgable about anything, but posessed of the gift of story-telling, and who embellished their particular versions of the stories and preached them as if they were prophets. These men were akin to "town criers", and seem to have been little more than opportunists whom preached tales they embellished and were intellectually incapable of answering for when called by some on their unlikelyhood.

These stories were told of a man who had lived centuries earlier...or variously, of two men, twin brothers who had lived centuries earlier. Various and often conflicting tales were woven by various men, for the benefit of different groups of all-too-willing people, who became zealous about their particular version of the stories. Frequently, violent unrest would occur between the story tellers, and often among groups of followers of different versions.

Describing this mess in detail would take a book.

Constantine, and in fact a couple before him, reconized the problems this lack of coherency was causing--primary among them being a disturbing lack of stability in the Empire. Roman control was jeopardized by this religious instability. His solution was to summon the known story-tellers, at that time numbering over 2000 to Nicaea for a Council which the Emperor himself would proctor, and which would decide what was what... and what should be the doctrine and stories of this varied and unstable religious movement, so as to render it universally coherent and uniform in all areas.

The 2000+ poeple were all those who were preaching these varied stories all over the place in the Empire.

...these people were called Presbyters (many today are called Church Fathers).

The crazed and violent history of this Nicaean council followed, and the result was the framework for a religion, culled from many different stories, with a new central figure, specific and selected writings which were bound together as doctrine (the rest being condemned) and a structure of hierarchy, as well as primary (albeit partially fleshed-out) doctrinal positions, holidays and festivals, and proclimations.

Within decades, this religion would be imposed as the official Roman religion, and churchmen gained more and more political power within the Empire. Eventually, they would hold all the ropes themselves, and the church was the empire.

...ever hear of the Holy Roman Empire?


But the 1st Council of Nicaea wasn't the be-all and end-all of the Catholic church's doctrine. Hardly. Many critical matters of today's doctrinal stances evolved in the many centuries that followed (for instance...the Virgin Mary, Mother of God...that was established at the 3rd council in Ephisus...106 years after Nicaea).

A really tiny capsule version of a very complex string of events...mind boggling is what it is.





I would encourage you to realize that we're talking about religion here, not government. Although at one time, the Christian religion, in the form of Catholicism, was the government, in effect, it isn't any more. It is...a religion.

If we were talking about a corrupt government...one hell bent on control and manipulation of the masses, that would be another story. We're not. We're talking about a religion, and with a religion, people can choose to be subject to it or not...to believe it, to be controlled by it even...or not. No one's gonna kill you if you decide not to follow.

In an oppressive government...deciding not to follow along can get you killed. The church can take none of your freedom. An oppressive government can.


And of course, the church was once an oppressive, heinous government...but they're not demanding you to recant your heretical views as they put a red-hot iron to the soles of your child's feet anymore.

They can't hurt you. It's just a thing you choose for yourself. Arguing against it vehemently is somewhat pointless. At once because it will do nothing beneficial for you to have someone change their mind about their religion, and also because the same conditioned dogmatic response that has been in force and fortified by many centuries of church doctrine will make any arguments against it meaningless.

Besides, examine the situation. Examine people. Some very fine, very good people have come from religions and religious backgrounds. Despite particular dogmas, illusory stories, or whatever the origins may be, the principals involving decent conduct, charitable behavior, love of fellow men can be be cultivated through them---and equally without them, of course.


Wasn't always that way, of course. But this isn't 1057 c.e., or the time of the Inquisitions. Thus, I can value it all with the importance it seems due given modern day circumstances. That importance is a matter of individual perception. That has no influence on me. What a government does may well have an influence on everyone. In that case, it makes a difference to everyone.


But to me, the religion thing is not a big deal. I may have some understanding regarding the origins of Christianity, but again, Christianity isn't holding anyone's feet to the fire, isn't infringing on anyone's rights or freedoms, or safety, or property. You can say no to religion, and you're not going to be burned at the stake, crucified, drowned, or racked until your tendons tear apart. If any one is oppressed by religion, it's through their own choice.

Government is another matter. Some of them can be like religion used to be in ancient times. That matters.

Of course, we now have to watch for Islamic fanaticism...which provides an insight into an ancient and brutal mindset which is not unlike that which Christianity posessed a thousand years ago...but that's another matter altogether.



I'm not really sure this is sufficient to answer your questions...it's a complex, difficult subject.

Whoa, there, MID -- that's just a whopper. I don't doubt you could have read that somewhere along the way, but it's a questionable result. It sounds a lot like the suspicious version of the Early Middle Ages (that usually were referred to as the Dark Ages) that though they were common up until a few decades ago, but since have been largely re-evaluated in the field of history.

Literacy rates are of course hard to judge (especially so in a multi-language, multi-alphabet society like Rome), but the figures during the reign of Augustus were closer to 1 in 10 or 1 in 5. Even given the expansion into barbarian territory, your figure is scandalously low. I refer you to W. V. Harris' article in The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 81 (1991)



No no no.... No. The christian religion was /never/ the official religion on the Empire; it wasn't even one of the official religions of the Empire. It wasn't even /legal/ until the Edict of Milan in 312 CE. After that, it was just one legal religious option. It's debatable whether or not Constantine was really a christian, or just used it politically as you say. Certainly, it didn't rub off on his children. Personally -- and there are others in the field who agree with me -- it's likely that in the West, the power of the church didn't rise until the late 5th/early 6th Centuries CE when the church filled the administrative void of the fallen Empire. It's not that they actively took over or were already in control. Supporting this is sizable number of faked documents the church produced in the Early Middle Ages that essentially re-wrote the past into the sort of history you suggest, making the church -- specifically the Latin-speaking, Roman-based church, and not any of her several competitors -- look much more solid and authoritative than it ever was. (The Donation of Constantine, a forged document dating back to 750 CE or so written by someone virtually illiterate in classical Latin, which the catholics used for centuries to claim power over Europe, is the best example of this.)


The rest of the post, dealing with the government, I whole-heartedly agree with. It's just, being an historian and all, I gots to throw my 2 cents in.

--Jaylemurph

Oh, I know, it's an astounding number, and I certainly can't rely on that figure as being accurate myself. As you say, how do you actually measure such a thing...Empire wide? It could've been a regional estimate in certain provinces, but again, I haven't any source information handy. And the much more reasonable numbers of 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 are adequate enough for me to claim illiteracy to a large degree...probably large enough (80 to 90% illiterate is a whopping large number in and of itself!).




That was rather a mis-speak on my part...attempting to be simple about something that is apparently very complex.
What I should've said, according to my own notes...was that there seemed to be a rather topsy-turvy acceptance / rejection of the new religion with Constantine's successors until around 380. At that time, The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. XII 1967) indicates that Emperor Theodosius imposed the religion on his subjects, which appears to be an edict never rescinded.

Of course, that probably didn't mean too much...! It appears to me that there were still several different religious modes of worship in place in the Empire, even after this supposed edict, and they all seemed to shall we say, be allowed to continue in accord...perhaps a reflection of a degree of toleration that produced a concord of sorts, and some stability.


And you're of course correct, the control and authority of the church rested with the Emperors well into the 5th century...



Personally, I tend to think that Constantine was a wierdo, as well as a homicidal maniac (and I suppose he shared those characteristics with a couple other Roman Emperors). I don't think anything remotely resembling modern Christian moral values was a part of his makeup...before, or after Nicaea... Likely a genius, making a move to produce some sort of stability in an Empire that appears to have been overrun by some pretty whacked out religious stuff, and certainly an opportunist...but certainly not the "Supreme Christian Pontiff" and "Father of the Church", and "Saint", that he is painted as by the church.

There is debate on his status as a Christian, or as his status as a convert to Christianity (as proposed by the church). I personally think he was the mind behind the invention of Christianity with political motives in mind. My information tells me he was, at the time of the first Nicaean council, a recent initiate into one of the two cults predominant at the time which regarded the Sun as the Supreme God, in his case, the order of Sol Invictus.

...this, to me, explains the shift of the Sabbath from Saturday, as it was in the Law of Moses, to Sunday, and the assignment of the "birth of the Sun" (the December solstice festival in the ancient lunar calendar, 12-25), to the birth of Yesu Krist...both outcomes of the 1st council of Nicaea...






If you're an historian Jayle, FEEL FREE TO CORRECT AS YOU SEE FIT!
I don't have those credentials...sure, I can read, and I've got lots of interests, but I can't claim to be an historian!

Yep thats pretty much what I meant thought i'd skip the abitrary details. the point i was making is that for all intensive purposes jesus was not born on the 25th of dec.

Political expediency? Now I know you are off your rocker.