The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

I do not know why one would be so defensive about it (though the article does say that Christians in Byzantium (AKA Rome) kept on bathing except that it was discouraged on holy days). Does the Bible say your are a dirty sinner for bathing? No? Then why do you care if some early Christians who hated Rome's decadence took it too far in the opposite direction? Is that not something we should laugh about (Bubonic death tole not withstanding)?

The Amerindians thought the Europeans smelled bad too, though at that point it may have had more to do with being on a wooden boat with no kind of plumbing three to nine months just to get there than a cultural aversion to bathing.

edited 4th Apr '13 7:10:21 AM by Cider

Only on TV Tropes can we open an thread on religion and theology and spend an entire page discussing bathing.

Clearly, in order to preserve the cosmic balance, we need to open a thread on bathing and start discussing religion in it.

I did read the article in full, AND I wouldn't have minded (this) much had not bathing (water) itself ended up as the primary scapegoat for the Black Death.

The problem is not just because (some) Early Christian leaders blamed bathing, it's also because they also went around saying that if you get sick, it's because you sinned (and repentance is the cure). And as previously mentioned, some even used "daily bathing" as evidence for inquisition.

And, of course, some Christians disagreed. I am completely aware of this. I just got heated because people seemed to be acting like I'm attacking cultures for pointing out how some Early Christian Leaders equated "bathing" with "sinning".

edited 4th Apr '13 6:51:46 AM by probablyinsane

It was a lack of medical knowledge — remember, in the Middle Ages, they had Roman and Ancient Greek sources, at best.

Yeah, I get that - which is why my first complaint wasn't about how (some, not all) Early Christians believe that if you got sick (it was because of a sin you did) and that you need to do "faith healing" to get well.

I complained that some of them actually blamed the state of cleanliness itself, because it was just so stupid.

I think the most important point to take from all this is that Christianity was simultaneously both pro- and anti-bathing at various times and places (as with many important moral and practical issues). Which is rather odd, considering that a few well-placed revelations from the man upstairs could have sorted the whole thing out, saving thousands of lives and a whole lot of hassle.

edited 4th Apr '13 7:18:09 AM by Snipehamster

Corsets were just as stupid. Worse, they were done for fashion long after the effects on health were realised. For a number of reasons... including the "only loose women don't corset" argument.

Lead paint is another one. And, heck: the Romans just loved lead in practically everything and everywhere. <_<

I can guarantee you: we're probably doing something just as dangerous using the computers we're using. We just don't know it, yet.

People don't need religion to do stupid stuff for stupid reasons.

edited 4th Apr '13 7:16:18 AM by Euodiachloris

Yeah, I totally forgot to mention corsets being a more appropriate comparison to foot-binding, but my brain was too heated cause all I intended was to point out something really stupid that (some) Early Christian Leaders did and just did not expect to get into a culture debate.

Also, had not the Black Plague happened (and provided "proof"), I doubt Europeans would had needed to wear those ridiculous wigs.

Btw, why does the Middle Ages get blamed for The Dung Ages when it was actually AFTER that Europe went through The Dung Ages?

So... original sin much?

Medical knowledge they largely lost access to when Egypt and Syria fell to the Caliphate, since I early talked about how Christian policy created enemies where there previously were none it is only right we point out where the Caliphate did the same.

Christian Syrians were translating Greek texts for their Romans masters, then just kept on doing it for the Arabs when they came in, then Christians started translating from Arabic after what was translated from Arabic to Syriac to...how much more do you think we might have advanced if our ancestors just got along? It is a wonder how any record of history survived at all.

So I ran down my issue with the new testament Bible and touched a little on modern Hinduism, who wants to talk about the Islamic trilogy text?

Edit: Because most people are not Historians. They remember "Bad things happened in Europe back then, total savages!" and the finer details all run together, like Spexico or Ancient Grome.

edited 4th Apr '13 7:31:50 AM by Cider

Stupidity: the most original sin humanity has ever had, because it's the best and easiest! (And, the one we've had the longest.)

Works for all religions, beliefs and ideologies, that one. Particularly with the subtext of "you're no longer stupid, 'cos you're with us and we're clever by contrast". And, that's also the reason it's fashionable to always paint the previous generation or two or three as complete ignoramuses and blame them for making things wrong right now.

edited 4th Apr '13 7:34:57 AM by Euodiachloris

I got the impression that it's Monty Python who popularized the trope, and that they consulted a historian about it.

Hmm... maybe their setting is after the plagues hit. Or maybe medieval roads are just like ancient Rome's roads, the sewage is above ground.

As for Islam, I know nadda about it except for a few tidbits so I'll keep out of discussion. Though do I like that the leader of the Islamic side of the Crusades was admired by the Christians even though ya know, they were killing each other.

According to The History of al-Tabari (which contains part of Muhammad's biography), specifically volume 30 (XXX), the Caliphate did respect the Eastern Roman Byzantines as worthy opponents. Those people further west on the other hand...

Re: Love of God greater than that of family - Makes total sense to any practicing Christian. Now, like most things Christian, when you take it out of context and intentionally make it look bad, well, it looks bad.

But as other posters have so well put, love of family can make you do some truly evil things. Love of family can make someone remain silent while an uncle or father molests a boy; whereas love of God and his Word would compel one to bring the truth to light.

Love of family might make one side with their racist family members and cast out someone who decided not to judge based on skin color, whereas love of God and his Word would cause one to renounce racism.

The idea is that love of anyone but God means you are putting your heart into someone that no matter how noble, how caring, how generous, how intelligent, is still a mere mortal; flawed, imperfect, and prone to whatever particular lusts and sins they have.

God, on the other hand, is no respecter of individual persons. God cannot be swayed by personal attachment, or ego, or greed, or anything else people are. Loving God above all else is to hold justice, mercy, truth, and righteousness above all. And I for one can see no problem in that.

On the other hand, I would put my love into God last. Family, Friends, then Humankind, next is Nature/Animals/etc. Finally, God. The respect for those I know and can see or understand that exists far outweighs a being based upon belief, not factual existence.

The teachings of God are worth believing in(those that aren't manipulated to be used for discrimination, anyway), but I do not think God himself is absolutely needed as is. The faith, teachings, acts of good will. These are all important. Believing in a deity that may exist? Hardly important at all compared to pretty much everything else.

That's a pretty interesting way of looking at it. Hm.

If people only look at the deity and ignore the good things about it, which really does happen a lot, it misses the point of what he stands for.

Him existing is 100% irrelevant. What his teachings are are the entire point as is. What was the term; Missing the birds for the trees or something?

Trees for the forest.

On a different tangent, one might think that if God is perfect and above human needs, he stands to benefit the least from love. That's if he even benefits at all. Wouldn't love for others (expressed through action) result in a greater net benefit for all involved?

In other words, why pump water into the ocean when you could be irrigating a farm instead?

edited 4th Apr '13 8:12:50 AM by Snipehamster

If you really loved your family you wouldn't let them be abused. I have to say, that loving God over family has been leading to some horrific cases of child abuse here locally. There's been a number of scandals of priests molesting children in the name of God and even parents covering it up in the name of God being more important. Most recent was a 13 year old girl sent to a priest for counselling.

If you love God before people then it's easy to mistreat people. You're worrying about this nebulous figure and the traits you assign to him instead of the actual people your policies are hurting. It blinds you of real empathy in favour of righteous indignation.

When people hurt other people it's not because they don't love God enough. It's because they don't care enough about other people.

I'm into loving humanity, personally. Groups and labels mean nothing when it comes to the kindnesses a person should be shown, or whether an action is justified or not. You hurt or help humanity, that's what matters to me.

ninja'd!

edited 4th Apr '13 8:13:32 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

The thing to keep in mind is that God, not being prone to the lusts of a mere mortal, and having the advantage of knowing what happened, what will happen, and what might have happened, has the advantage of knowing the ultimate good. Not ultimate good for himself, but ultimate good for all.

Part of the issue is that folks think God is all about "Serve me." God is actually about "I want you guys to be happy." His rules aren't designed to soothe his ego, but rather to ensure the maximum happiness and joy a person can experience.

So following God perfectly means you are serving the good of others. That is why no Christian who isnt' helping others is a real Christian.

Meanwhile, people think a lot of things make them happy, but it doesn't. Think of parents who get their kids tons of stuff, but never actually teach them honor or respect. The Bible says such a parent actually hates their child.

Well, yes. Servitude to God and moral goodness are synonymous in Christianity. That's the problem. Because for some reason God seems to have an incredibly poor signal:noise ratio when it comes to what he actually wants. Everything has to be translated and interpreted and discussed and meditated on. At the end of the day it's always delivered from the pulpit by a mere mortal, along with the collection plate.

edited 4th Apr '13 8:20:50 AM by Snipehamster

Not everyone would call sitting by while something horrible happens love. I would call it a more loving action to stop them and make them get help.