Origin of our morals

[Guest grandad]

we once ruled the world, the british arrogance is reknowned. we thought we were pure, the good guys, we went around the world forcing our opinion on all who came before us, we made enemies everywhere. the last 2 world wars confirmed our supiority in the world. but we have god on our side, we are the worlds finest. but the football teams cant play for shit.

[Arbuscule]

we once ruled the world, the british arrogance is reknowned. we thought we were pure, the good guys, we went around the world forcing our opinion on all who came before us, we made enemies everywhere. the last 2 world wars confirmed our supiority in the world. but we have god on our side, we are the worlds finest. but the football teams cant play for shit.

@the football - Like you say grandad, we thought we were the good guys - I still thought that when I was a kid

e2a, oh bugger I'm wrecked I have no idea what I edited for Oh yeah, now however much the media reinforce the delusion that Brits are the good guys I just can't buy it :wink: (havn't bought it since I 1st heard the Clash when I was 12 )

Edited December 18, 2009 by Arbuscule

[iky]

I think it is about control of population...Uk control of the population has been stable in comparison to a lot of European countries.Some had revolutions against tyranny...We submitted and became sheep.

I thought I had escaped..But the shepherd has recaptured me, awaiting punishment, feels like school in the fifties, waiting for the cane.

Democracy is about control by those at the top.you get your freedom when you die.

I think a development of the different countries methods of control .. gives the cultural differences and acceptances we see today?. The state and the church are a good example of past control..I think fear and promises are the current method.

[Guest grandad]

i wonder what we means, we lost control of half the world, nowadays we are frightened of losing control over us.

[Arnold Layne]

Calvinism has something to do with it. Thou shalt not have a good time, it's the devil's work.

The CoE never adopted strict Calvinism a-la synod of Dort. The Scots did, but not the English. Same with the Dutch reformed - very Calvinistic.

Our reformation resulted in a more Catholic Augustinian settlement, especially after Hooker had finished. As a result, we have a more catholic form of repression and guilt at work in our social core. See the Book of Common Prayer and note the guilt that runs through every sentence.

And yes, once everyone did attend church. It was legally enforced.

Calvinism has something to do with it. Thou shalt not have a good time, it's the devil's work.

Our own protestant Taliban probably did have a great deal to do with, I can clearly picture Cromwell and his puritan hordes gnashing their teeth and getting all indignant at the thought that somewhere someone else might actually be enjoying themselves rather than bowing down to pray.

Ah Felix, you've swallowed the stereotype. Read Antonia Fraser's superb biography: "Cromwell, our chief of men" for a balanced, scholarly apprasial of his life and work. As a Catholic, Fraser shows superb insight into Calvinistic puritanism.

[Hashishin]

And yes, once everyone did attend church. It was legally enforced.

Say for example you had someone of a different religious belief or they did not want to attend, how would that have been dealt with? Also any idea on how they used to enforce people to attend church?

[Arnold Layne]

I'd have to research that mate. And I doubt if I can be arsed

I just recall it from when I was doing my degree (Theology) work and reading Ecclesiastical history.

[bizzaro]

reading 'what' AL??.. ....

[Arnold Layne]

Ecclesiastical history = the history of the Church

[Boojum]

And yes, once everyone did attend church. It was legally enforced.

Say for example you had someone of a different religious belief or they did not want to attend, how would that have been dealt with? Also any idea on how they used to enforce people to attend church?

That depends what period we're talking about. In the middle ages failure to attend church could be and was penalised by excommunication (a serious thing back then, not only in terms of the religious implications, but also because an excommunicated person was a pariah in the community, with all 'good Christians' forbidden from doing business or even speaking with them) and in some cases accusations of heresy. Members of the non-Christian community, mainly Jewish people in the middle ages, were always considered 'outside' society, and were dealt with begrudgingly if at all (antisemitism was the norm).

Edited December 19, 2009 by Boojum

[Laramie]

Do you think people genuinely believed in those days, or was it just lip service?

[Boojum]

I'd say that your average peasant in the fields probably believed, after all the Church was everything back then, educator to the illiterate masses (the only source of information for the average person - don't forget that nobody could read or write and even if they could there were pretty much no bibles in English until long after Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type in the 1430s-1440s, and even then translating the bible into English was a crime - William Tyndale was the first person to print a Bible in English in 1525, he was tried for heresy as a result and burnt at the stake for it), judge and jury in the form of Church courts (for all but the most serious offences that were tried by the Royal Court), the social hub of society etc. I'd say that the ones who merely paid lip service were mostly the corrupt Bishops who got rich & fat off the massive revenue that the Church generated, living in luxury while the peasants scraped a living off the land (while preaching that the meek shall inherit the earth, no doubt...).

Edited December 19, 2009 by Boojum

[Boojum]

Following on from above, I think we do tend to forget the religious and intellectual freedom that we have now in comparison to other times. My conjecture that the average person in the middle ages did genuinely believe is because they had no other option. A lack of literacy (and no books to read other than religious ones if you did happen to read Latin), what little education there was the province of the Church, any alternative ideas suppressed as heresy, virtually no 'scientific' understanding of the world (at least for the 'common man'). They believed because they knew nothing else, nowadays one could argue that you choose what you want to believe from a whole range of options, from a purely reductive, absolute science view at one end of the spectrum to religious fundamentalism at the other end - you have the whole spectrum of options to choose from, so belief is a choice. But in the middle ages it wasn't, there was no other alternative - Gospel truth was indeed Gospel truth, it was the only game in town (at least to most).

Which leads (or leads me) to the question that if a certain worldview (for example the medieval Christian Church worldview) is all you have ever known, all you have ever been taught, all there is, does your subscribing to that worldview actually constitute belief ? You're not treating it as an act of faith, as far as you know it's fact. Does something only become a belief when there is an alternative on offer and you have chosen between them ? I don't believe in God (but I am sensible enough to recognise that it's just that, my belief, it's not an absolute fact cos it is unproven either way), because I have been able to decide for myself what I want to believe and given plenty of alternative theories, but were I to live in a society where the idea of God is unheard of, would my non-belief in God still be a belief ? If everyone accepts a belief and there is no other opinion, does that mean that the belief becomes a fact ? (not a fact in terms of objective reality, but a fact in terms of the subjective reality of the society in question) Does the very concept of belief only begin when someone offers an alternative to the subjective reality of a society, giving them a choice of what to believe.

Or am I a bit manic today and talking utter, utter arse

Edited December 19, 2009 by Boojum

[Arnold Layne]

No arse there Boojum, all bang on the money.

[Tasty]

Nicely put (as usual) Booj.

I also do not believe in a God and while discussing this with people (remember, I live in Catholic Ireland) the subject of Faith comes up to which my answer is that I have as much faith as they do, just that my faith is in the non-belief in God. Sort of what you said but not so eloquently.