The question I had wasn't really pointed directly at you Abra. I just wanted to know how people felt about these things. The "are you going to be nice" was more of a joke.

So what do you guys feel about calenders designed in the same period while all these religious things were going on? And dollars, coins, stuff like that?

There were people back in the day that refused to use them or go by them because of their ties to religions. And also the creation of the modern day book. From 1300 to 1600 most books had ties to religious beliefs. I'm not making a judgment here on good or bad just interested on what you guys think about how things were shaped back in that period.

I think they were shaped by the beliefs of the people who were in a position to shape them.

There clearly can be no such thing as a "perfect calender" since the earth's spin on it's axis (the days) is not in perfect synchronicity with the earth's orbit around the sun (a year). So it's impossible to have a perfect calender.

As a matter of practicality I use the calender that most of society uses. It doesn't really matter to me how that came to be. It's just a way to know when other people are doing to be doing things.

For my own personal life I designed my own calender based on pagan and Wiccan themes. This specific artwork and symbology is my own creation:



As far as money goes, I very seldom use it. I use a debit card to pay for everything. That way I have a bank record of everything I ever buy. About the only thing I carry cash for anymore is to leave tips at restaurants or toss coins in parking meters.

When I go to yard sales I'll take cash too. So there are exceptions. But for the most part I use a debit card.

How do you see the days or count them at a quick glance?

I don't really understand all the calendar stuff, although I have some books about it.



I don't "discredit" the Bible, I just don't believe it.

Last year I put up a small tree in my house at Christmas because I like the look of it and I put up one in my Mom's house for her also.



It is never 'hypocritical' to respect local customs. Hypocritical would be to go to church and pretend to be "born again" just to fit in with the locals.

A tree, is just pretty. I don't used real trees.



It is always a temptation to join some cause as it give people meaning to their existence, but I try to resist those temptations. (My involvement with the fake religion called Eckankar years ago taught me a good lesson in that regard.)

I learned that where religious beliefs are concerned, no matter how right you think you are, you are probably wrong. I would hate to wake up one day to discover that I spent my entire life trying to convert people to my beliefs only to discover that I was so completely wrong.

There are many people who have their entire lives invested in their religious beliefs. To find out that they are wrong would be more than they could stand. Their whole lives would be turned upside down.

As in the movie "Matrix" the people can't be told the truth and unplugged suddenly. This could be fatal for them. They can only know the truth when they are ready for it.

In general, I do not set out to ‘discredit’ a belief rather, I attempt to suggest alternative views or ways of thinking about the bible.

It’s nearly impossible NOT to participate in the various religious tradition, especially Christianity. For example, when my son was growing up we had a Christmas tree and we had a Hanukka Menorah. My son knew I was an atheist but I wanted him to understand what was happening at that time of year. We didn’t dwell on it but we did have one tradition, every Christmas eve he and I drove around the town and the city looking at the biggest light displays and then we had hot chocolate when we got home. That stopped when my son was 15, he had other things to do.

To this day, when my friends, of any religious belief, want to hold hand and pray, I comply with the hand holding. To me it shows respect and I offer it when I know that my friends do not expect me to take part – that is their respect for me.

I do have boundaries in fact, for I will not pray and when asked to deliver the prayer at my mother’s memorial service I politely passed on the ‘privilege’ to my aunt who is one of the most respectful, faithful, and open-minded Christian I have known.

I do give gifts but since I have been an adult all gifts have been hand-made (home crafted) or home-made (from scratch) candies, pastries, cookies, and gingerbread creations. I once crocheted a 4 foot by 2.5 foot scene of the ‘last supper’. I like to be challenged and that was a challenge. I gave it to that same aunt, whom I've just mentioned, thinking she might use it as a Sunday table cover. She had it framed and it hangs over her bed. They are farmers and at the time they certainly could not afford to have professional framing of that size done, but they did it anyway – I felt humbled that she liked my gift that much.



What is hypocritical to me, is the golden rule. Do unto others is not the kind act of a respectful person, it is the indulgent act of an egotistical person who does not care to find out how the ‘other’ would like to be treated.



You seem to confuse having a belief with behaviors of ritual. Participating in a ritual may have nothing to do with an individuals own beliefs rather, the behavior may be out of respect, or for the shear joy of what is offered, such the lovely light displays. Hey, if you display it in public, I can enjoy it without sharing the belief that ‘caused it’.



I’m afraid that tends to be what a lot of people who ‘find religion’ do as well. Do you think that kind of attitude can lead to fundamentalism? That is to say, a strong belief that is inflexible to new ideas or other possible views?

Yes many books had religious themes, and philosophy was particularly entrenched with mysticism.

I don't find that odd in any way, considering how higher eduation came about in Europe. Have you ever read the history of how universities got started, who paid for them, who attended, and what they studied?

It's really very interesting and and 'of course' THE CHURCH can be found at the heart of it. It's not easy to research because in order to understand and relate to the inforamtion requires historical knowledge of what was happening in the world during those times - as we are often told about the bible - 'context' is required for a full and balanced view of -- history.

Fundamentalism gives me the shivers! Yikes!

I have no need to count days.

The only reason I would need to keep track of time that closely would be to keep appointments with other people. For that I use the same calender that everyone else uses.

The calender we use has nothing to do with the validity or non-validity of the rumors and superstitions that may have been associated with its creation.

So I don't see the significance of your question with respect to the topic of this thread. Just because religious beliefs caused people to create a particular calendar doesn't give those religious beliefs merit.

They had incorrect pictures of the solar system too.

So clearly they were just making things up based on what they believed to be true at the time.

If Christianity never existed we'd probably still have a very similar calender to the one have today. Perhaps the year could would would have been based on the birth of some King or something instead. Or maybe they would have based it on how old they believed the earth to be.

Who knows?

But our current calendar is certainly not any kind of "evidence" for the Christian stories. It's just the way things evolved socially.

Well as you have noticed I'm just a curious type of guy. I don't really have any desires to prove any points. I just study, learn and apply.

I've been watching lectures about the works of mathematicians. They give a little personal history concerning the mathematicians in addition to what theories they had worked on etc.

In those lectures they are often explaining how various mathematicians had to convert to Christianity in order to attend universities.

The religious bigotry was so bad that a Jewish man had to convert to Christianity just to study mathematics as a student at those universities. But he could never become a professor because he had once been a Jew.

In other words, the religious bigotry didn't even stop after the conversion. It continued on indefinitely with no mercy!

These themes have come up all the time as I study the sciences and mathematics. The Church was an extremely powerful force back in those days. And their religious bigotry knew no boundaries or mercy.

So should it be any surprise that such an arrogant and bigoted religion had a strong influence on things like the making of calendars?

I guess its the teacher in me that causes me to want to share my insights and knowledge with others.

I would hope that people would be interested in truths. So I reach for the truths. And when I believe I have found them I try to teach share them with others. And that requires giving reasons and justifications for the insights.

If I simply say what I believe and don't bother to explain why I believe the things I do that can't help anyone else to understand why I believe the things I do.

Thus the need to elaborate and explain.

I'm not so sure people really want 'truth.' What they mostly want, is for what they believe to be truth. I suspect some things are true that I wish were not true, but then I resolved long ago that the truth is better than lies. But maybe its not.

So this whole true - false thing is a waste of time. Everything is just an opinion. Everybody has opinions. Nobody has truth.

The kinds of truths that I address are obvious truths. It's really not even a matter of opinion.

For example, one truth that I try to get people to acknowledge it that the Bible doesn't even contain a single solitary word written by the man named Jesus.

The truth is that the biblical writings don't even claim to have been written by Jesus. They are indeed written specifically as second-hand rumors by their own admission.

This is a truth that no one should dispute because there is not claim being made in these scriptures to the contrary. In fact, they are clearly written as second-hand rumors.

So when people say, "Jesus said this, and Jesus said that" it's actually not true. What is true is that people who were not Jesus are making claims about Jesus might have said.

The other thing too is that much of the scriptures is commentary by the authors. Not only did Jesus not write the things they claim, but in many cases the authors aren't even attributing their words to Jesus. For example, one of the most popular versus that is often quoted is John 3:16 - 18

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

This isn't even being attributed to Jesus. This is obviously just John's personal opinion.

Yet this same author later claims that Jesus said, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world."

So John's opinion isn't even in line with what John claims that Jesus said.

And the TRUTH is that we can't even be sure that Jesus said anything along those lines at all. Because all the scriptures contain are the hearsay rumors of people like John.

So the TRUTH is that no one today can claim that "Jesus said this, or Jesus said that" because we have no clue what any man named Jesus might have actually said.

That is simply the TRUTH.

In fact, think about it. According to John, Jesus supposedly said, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not:"

Well, gee whiz, assuming that this hearsay quote can even be attributed to Jesus verbatim it wouldn't be in agreement with what John had to say anyway.

Here Jesus is claiming that he won't even judge men who hear his words directly in-person and believe not.

Yet, John has God condemning people for not believing in the NAME of Jesus.

Where did John get that from what he claims that Jesus even said?

Where did Jesus supposedly even say that God would condemn anyone for not believing in his name?

Those are just obvious TRUTHS.

Some people will point to the fact that it's also true that in other places Jesus is quoted as having claimed that he will deny those before the Father who deny him before men. But then at the end of the story when Jesus is being denied and nailed to the cross these stories claim that Jesus cried out, "Forgive them father for they know not what they do".

The TRUTH is, that even at the very best these stories are nothing more than a mass of undependable hearsay claims that aren't even consistent, in fact they are extremely contradictory.

Extremely contradictory.

I will deny any man before the father who denies me before men?

Then when men deny him he pleads a case for them before the father?

Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

If that's not a blatant contradiction in principle then I don't know what it.

And those are just obvious TRUTHS.

The TRUTH is that even if someone desperately wanted to try to make these stories into some consistent statement it would be impossible because they are riddled with contradictions.

That is the TRUTH.

The TRUTH is that no human being can point to these scriptures and say that it's CRYSTAL CLEAR that this is what is being said, blah, blah, blah.

And the TRUTH is that if that can't be done, then no one has any strength in any claim of what these writings are actually saying.

That's the TRUTH.

If an individual wants to use these scriptures for their own personal spirituality fine.

But if they want to shove them in the face of other people claiming that they are saying something specific, then that is a JOKE.

Because the TRUTH is that they are riddled with contradictions and mixed messages.

In other words, believe whatever you want from these scriptures. But to shove them in the face of other people claiming that you have a crystal clear understanding of precisely what these scriptures are saying is nothing short of a LIE.

They just aren't that clear. And the myriad of different religious sects and denominations of the religions that are based on these scriptures is the ultimate and undeniable PROOF of this.

They can't even agree among themselves what these scriptures are trying to say.

That is the TRUTH. And everyone basically knows it.

I'm just trying to get people to CONFESS it.

Maybe this will help a little. There was never this big scam that took place to fool people into a false belief. There was no group of people that sat in a room that said we're going to get them. The Bible is a bunch of books written from all different perspectives about a common theme. When you start to separate the writers and the different story lines you can get a better picture of what the mind set was with the writings. You have to always keep in mind writers that came from around the same time as being similar and writers that were further apart from each other time wise having separate styles. For me the older books seem to tell the story differently than the newer books. This is because of the writing styles. The exact same thing is true with other types of books that were written around those same times. It's just how they wrote. These writings got passed down hand to hand until the period of 1300 to 1600 where the first true personal books where people switched from people reading to you to people reading themselves took place. With a series of books this vast and with so many people hanging on every word more than any other book in history it has made these books evolution become more of a slower process than normal I would think. This is why I and others recommend study books that have already dug deeper and give clearer pictures into the writings.

When I'm ask about the bible, I always recommend that people read the parts they can identify with first and go from there. If someone wanted to just stay on the topic of love and the expression of love there is more in the bible about this topic than any other history book from these time periods. If the other stuff seems conflicting don't go there till you are ready to dig a little deeper and do a historical look at the bible.

For myself I see the bible and modern day fundamentalist Christianity being two separate issues. One is a book and the other is a dogmatic view of the book that started around 1900.

The bible will always be here. Some will discredit it and others lend it credit. Calling the bible full of nonsense well, that will only go as far as picking up your grandmas book sitting on the table and tossing it. It's really not going anywhere. I think that it will be revived for the everyday reader to make more sense and give better writing historical break downs, but the books themselves are here to stay.

I would think the big question is more, What's up with Christians than What's up with the bible.

Great Dane... they attack by sitting on you or leaning on you! LOL!

Hey Abra, Have you caught the movie on Hypatia of Alexandria called Agora?! Really excellent. Talks about how the early Church considered math a thing of the Devil. And of course, Hypatia, both being female, and having some influence with the local leader in the area was brutally murdered by a Christian mob.

Regarding the questions on holidays, idols and calendars and such.

Calendars make life easier, even if they have changed over the years. If they don't note the moons, I tend to put them in. I actually don't pay attention to the Farmer's Almanac or the best times to do whatever, as I've never seen a difference on such a minimal scale. I've found with all of it, like best times to plant crops as an example, is that it's a matter of tender-loving-care with planting, watering, and upkeep. You get out of it what you put into it. Plus, Texas has a whole different range of planting times they more northern areas.

Holidays, as Abra has said, most Christian holidays are based on older pagan beliefs. Then some things, like Santa Claus is more secular. So, yes, I celebrate the secular aspect of Christmas and the spiritual aspect of Yule. In all honesty, my holidays start around Dec 17 with Saturnalia, and continue through 12th night in January. I don't celebrate the Christian holiday of Easter, unless Ostara, the pagan holiday actually falls on it.

Heck, even some of the secular holidays, like Veteran's Day, falls on older pagan holidays, like the Feast of Einherar, a Norse feast to Fallen Warriors!

I personally have a few statues of various deities. Gaia, Posiedon, and Ganesha, but that's because they're cool. There's a few others I'd like to get eventually. I also have statues of dragons, horses, faeries, wolves, rats and mice too.

Bit of a tangent, but the 12 months calendar makes no sense to me. We should have a calendar with 13 months a year, 12 of them 28 days each, and one of them with 29 days.

I haven't seen Agora yet, but I hope to watch it eventually. I am familiar with the story of Hypatia though. I've heard the story and read about her many times over. So I'm really looking forward to seeing the movie.