Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

youngblood wrote:True. Beer was relevant to culture because of religion then. You can't argue that because the only document that even mentions beer then was a prayer to a goddess.

What ? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Of course beer was relevant without religion ? People have liked to get fethed up on things since before human history. The whole point of the prayer that you seem so fixated on was that it was a memory aid in a culture that was largely illiterate.

Unless you're actually claiming that aid goddess is/was real and literally just magically gave them beer ? You don't think the beer would have come first and all the BS trappings that go with it came later ? Like in the way that every other religion develops over a period of time for example.

What I said, was that according the the DOCUMENT that we have, beer and religion were interwoven. I'm just looking at the actually evidence. I'm not interpreting something that isn't there as you seem to be doing. Go look up the history of beer and see what you find. Points back to this one Sumerian document. That is a prayer. I just don't see how you can reinterpret history.

reds8n wrote:err... this would be the same flying buttress' that were used on ancient Roman and Greek buildings too yes ?

No. it was developed in the Gothic period. I'm not seeing where you're getting that (we may thinking different things). I can't thing of any instances of the flying buttresses in the classical world, but its a hallmark of Gothic Europa, and 40K (SPASS MARINIEZ HURR!!!!)

Again I posited Europe. Its akin to the argument that Irish monks saved Western Civilization (from the Scots mud in your eye MDG!!!)

I am not saying there was not art beforehand or after, or in other cultures. I'm saying modern Western Art owes a debt of gratitude to religion in keeping art alive in the dark ages and devleoping it into the glory of the Renaissance/Baroque.
Youngblood has an interestign point on the beer front. It was also used for religious festivals in Central America and not generally as a recreational product.

Although it has been used in all forms of construction since ancient times (Mesopotamian temples featured decorative buttresses, as did Roman and Byzantine structures), the buttress is especially associated with the Gothic era, when simpler, hidden masonry supports developed into what is known as the flying buttress. This semidetached, curved pier connects with an arch to a wall and extends (or “flies”) to the ground or a pier some distance away. This design increased the supporting power of the buttress and allowed for the creation in masonry of the high-ceilinged, heavy-walled churches typical of the Gothic style.

link

No, as I said. It was developed further in the period you mention but it had been around a long time. I think you might be thinking of it be rediscovered in Europe post dark ages perhaps ?

@ Mr. Youngblood. Firstly all historical evidence needs to be interpreted.Again, you're bot actually making a point. I am saying that the development of beer happened prior to the development of this religion-- and you can use the development of ALL religions to see how this would work. Unless you're actually claiming this goddess did appear and magically give beer to the people. The goddess and beer are one and the same

" Not only was Nin-kasi herself the beer — "given birth by the flowing water…" (Black, Cunningham, Robson, and Zólyomi 2004: 297) — but she was the chief brewer of the gods."

Again, this is the oldest mention of beer. You are making assumptions that have no basis. You can theorize that they drank beer outside of their religious events or that it was invented before the advent of said religion, but there is zero proof to support that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sure that we seem equally ignorant (ignoring facts, not lacking knowledge) to each other. The overall argument that I am making is that whether you like it or not, religion has contributed significantly to areas that we all enjoy today.

youngblood wrote:
I'm sure that we seem equally ignorant (ignoring facts, not lacking knowledge) to each other. The overall argument that I am making is that whether you like it or not, religion has contributed significantly to areas that we all enjoy today.

Never and not disputing that religion has helped or been responsible for a massive chunk of "arts" today-- even if only by being something "bad" or to be railed against.

I was disputing your--since admitted-- entirely spurious claim that it was responsible for "75%" of it. It's nothing to do with whether I like it or not.

Again, this is the oldest mention of beer. You are making assumptions that have no basis. You can theorize that they drank beer outside of their religious events or that it was invented before the advent of said religion, but there is zero proof to support that.

Rubbish. Explain how the religion would have led to the invention of beer ? It's preposterous to claim that if you think about how human society, indeed our very concept and use of organised religion has evolved and changed over time. We use candles in church services, and I think ti would be fair to assume that religion has clearly contributed to the development in that area. But you can't say that religion invented candles. Just likes books, crosses, robes, songs etc etc/ Do you get me ?

Beer was commonly drunk over water in Britain for many, many years. The fermentation process kills off a great many bacteria, meaning it was generally a helluva lot safer to drink than any water. It was also a damned site weaker in the olden days!

And Frazzled, thanks for yet another reason for me not to like the Irish all that much (between Boyzone, Westlife, Daniel O'Donnell, Graeme Norton and that smug arse that took my girl off me, they have a lot to answer for! )

Now, as for the Beer and Religion thing again....it was often Monks and Friars that produced much of the booze, as they had the expertise to produce it, and were for the most part relatively literate for their time, allowing them to write down their methods and recipes. But I'm pretty sure going out and getting pissed out your tree existed long before organised Religion as we know it.

reds8n wrote:
Rubbish. Explain how the religion would have led to the invention of beer ? It's preposterous to claim that if you think about how human society, indeed our very concept and use of organised religion has evolved and changed over time. We use candles in church services, and I think ti would be fair to assume that religion has clearly contributed to the development in that area. But you can't say that religion invented candles. Just likes books, crosses, robes, songs etc etc/ Do you get me ?

I get what you are saying, and that seems to make sense as a theory, but its still a theory. Our earliest mention of beer is in a prayer. How do you know that beer wasn't developed solely for religious purposes?

reds8n wrote:

Although it has been used in all forms of construction since ancient times (Mesopotamian temples featured decorative buttresses, as did Roman and Byzantine structures), the buttress is especially associated with the Gothic era, when simpler, hidden masonry supports developed into what is known as the flying buttress. This semidetached, curved pier connects with an arch to a wall and extends (or “flies”) to the ground or a pier some distance away. This design increased the supporting power of the buttress and allowed for the creation in masonry of the high-ceilinged, heavy-walled churches typical of the Gothic style.

link
Reddy that denotes buttresses. My point in the instant was the designated flying buttress, not buttresses in general. The flying buttress was a European Gothic development (more development than invention as they couldn't get the bloody dimensions right and were effectively making temporary supports permanent in stone).

Interesting aside but check this out for architecture. I've been there. its creepy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dy0TnZ_vpk

reds8n wrote:
I was disputing your--since admitted-- entirely spurious claim that it was responsible for "75%" of it. It's nothing to do with whether I like it or not.

I said that 75% was a made up number. The point I was trying to get at was that a high number of very influential artist pieces came about because of religion. But you conceded that. Just wanted to make sure that you knew that I knew that 75% was a made up number (that was the most awkward sentence I have ever written).

As for Religion inspiring Art....surely no more than any other gripping story?

The Bible was for many people, historically speaking, the only book they were even dimly aware of. The Priest was literate, and would read his sermons from the books. Mention glowing, winged angels, and that is going to stick in your mind. Look at the most popular version of Jesus, a white guy who looks like one of the BeeGees. Purely artistic interpretation, based on the people the artists would have seen around them. The Bible to my knowledge doesn't describe Jesus physically at all, though it is pretty clear he'd have been Arabic looking, and possibly even Black, but almost certainly NOT White!

So in this question of Chicken and Egg, the Bible came first. But had their been other well known stories at the time, the art could well have been less religiously influenced.

youngblood wrote:

I said that 75% was a made up number.

later on, after you'd been questionned about it.

The point I was trying to get at was that a high number of very influential artist pieces came about because of religion. But you conceded that.

Never denied it. If you'd simply said "a very high number" then, yup, I would have agreed straight away. i was really after a link or something incase someone had quantified that as being "true". Insofar as you could anyway.

Just wanted to make sure that you knew that I knew that 75% was a made up number (that was the most awkward sentence I have ever written).

It's not much easier to read, but i get ya.

...I think.

@ Mr. Frazzled :

A flying buttress is a type of architectural support which is designed to bear the load of a roof or vaulted ceiling, ensuring that the architectural integrity of the structure is preserved. Various forms of the flying buttress were used in architecture as far back as Greek and Roman times, but this unique architectural feature really came into its own in the 12th century, when it flourished under the design trends of Gothic architecture.

I disagree. I'll grant you I don't know that much about architecture, especially the "hideous carbuncles" (...cookie if you get that ! ) that appear to blight much of the modern world, but my understanding is that the flying buttress, whilst being an impressive achievement, is really just a development of older techniques. Big old gap between the predecessor and it I'll grant you, but we euro trash are lazy like that.

Modquisition mode on: Gentlemen lets ratchet down a notch and keep it polite.

Modquisition Off: We'll have to agree to disagree Reddy. I follow the view of many architects that the flying buttress is a distinct development vs. standard buttresses, akin to the Greeks being known for the Corinthian column. (sorry I have think for historical architecture and know just enough to be dangerous) but your point is valid and you could be right. We've discovered the Greeks were much more advanced in antiquity than originally thought.

Let me go back and edit all my posts then. Pardon my attraction to exaggeration, but its such an irresistible affair.

I agree with you about flying buttresses being a development of an older technique, but the newer technique became much more practical and widely used (plus it looks so damn good). I'm gonna side with frazzled on this one, but only for the sake of keeping the argument going. It would be awful if we accidentally agreed on something. I guess we could always go back to the discussion about religion itself.

reddy do you have an examples of flying buttresses in antiquity? Only saying as that would be way cool to see.

*pats pockets* damnit! where'd I put that !

Not to hand no. I'm trying to find the book I've got that was on about it, but all I have found so far is the realy important form i couldn't find last year.

And time's against me right now, best I can do is just agree to more or less differ and point you to here which has a line or two about the FB being a refinement of and development of the plain old B.

Totally agree about it being both better and an advance.

I thought beer actually goes way back to when they started to cultivate grains. I seem to remember a history channel documentary on beer, where they found beer "residue" in pottery from the fertile crescent area circa 2000 to 3000 BCE. They refered to it as liquid bread.


GG

Hmmm.... hadn't heard that or read that and I try to keep up with my beer history. Gotta know your roots ya know!


doh! and I'm proved wrong... sorta....
Stone Age Beer

Turned into an agnostic just like that

youngblood wrote:What I said, was that according the the DOCUMENT that we have, beer and religion were interwoven. I'm just looking at the actually evidence. I'm not interpreting something that isn't there as you seem to be doing. Go look up the history of beer and see what you find. Points back to this one Sumerian document. That is a prayer. I just don't see how you can reinterpret history.

First, history is pure interpretation and being a revisionist is not necessarily a bad thing.

Second, as reds8n said, religion was amazingly useful for litanizing knowledge prior to mass literacy.

Third, religion, as it is currently defined, did not give us beer. The way we use the word religion in modern times is completely different from the way it was used in past ages. The term now relates only to the metaphysical where in the past it would simply have related to reality. The divide between science and religion is only about as old as the Enlightenment.

spartanghost wrote:Sure, religion is not science, but since both are ways of understanding the universe, why shouldnt they be held to the same standard?

Would you hold literature to the same standard as news? I ask only because the difference between religion and science is comparable.

Cheese Elemental wrote:My view on the age of the earth and the things that lived on it in the past is that God made the earth look old. To be honest, carbon-dating can't always be that accurate.

Now, sorry for the confusion about the Bible. I believe that it is divine truth when it comes to the base lessons and the commandments. These things have shaped modern society. If there hadn't been a Bible, would murder be illegal? Would adultery be frowned upon?

If you read it, it's kind of obvious what the Church wrote themselves. Things like homophobia were put in there because it was deemed unnatural in those days. God loves all his subjects. He does not judge; only humans make judgements.

Don't start trying to scientifically disprove the Bible, because you can't.

I realize I am late to the discussion, but I automatically see things that are concerning me. First off, you're right, carbon dating isnt extremely accurate, but it is accurate enough to know that Dinosaurs were around some 90 million years before any semblence of humanity.

Keep in mind that the society existed long before the Bible. Social ethics and morality is what guided society to where we are now, not the Bible, I mean, everyone didnt suddenly become moral when the Bible was created. Nor did everything suddenly change from how the world had been run for well over 10,000 years. People kill other people, its in human nature because it is linked to our will to survive.

With regards to homosexuality, in religion the fear of this only stems from a very small group of MEN that because procreation requires 2 individuals of opposite sex, then it is unnatural for same sex couopling to exist. This is simply not true, as we even witness homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Not all species have 2 sexes, in fact the most developed species either dont require coupling to reproduce, or have the ability to change sex at will. The male half or more like 40% of the species WILL eventually disapear, in thousands apon thousands of years, as the Y chromosome in men is very unstable and unbalanced and that in essence is what nature, or even existence is: development towards balance.

As for scientifically disproving the bible, I believe the whole idea is moot, as many historical facts, and other writings were intentionally omitted from the bible as to give a certain few retention of power. Not the whole truth means based on true events, which means fiction in my eyes. I find it easier to think of it that way, as inspirational fiction, something to help guide and change you, but never to be taken literally. I am not christian, but I dont need to be to find some stories inspiring or to agree with certain ideas.

As a summary of where my beliefs lie, I find myself to be leaning towards what can be called a gaeatist. I belive in a collective energy that binds all things(whether you want to call that GOD is personal preference, but to call it that would be to give it intention which I dont beleive exists), living/dead does not apply as matter and energy are interchangable; after we are gone, from dust we are born and to dust we shall return: I think that conciousness is a unique form of energy that when released from a physical shell, your essence or conciousness returns to the ether, the well of energy that connects all things, therefore you could call afterlife, omnipresence, becoming one with the universe.

Here's a question for you Cheese. A man rapes and kills his 2 year old niece. The local god representative will do his usual hand ringing at a church service. If pressed about it they will say it's god's will. What I'd like to know is:

1. What sick and twisted deity allows this to happen?
2. Why can't this mouth piece of god be prosecuted in lieu of their leader not being there? If you can prosecute people for religious hate crimes, why not the church? I mean we have to accept your belief in this deity, even though all the proof there is of it is written in a book, cobbled together over hundreds of years by humans. However turn it around and try and get some sort of justice from the church for his actions and we are told you can't do it, as it's real enough. A win, win situation for the church.

I'll tell you this Cheese. I'm a man who believes in protecting the weak & vunerable, I think violence to win an arguement is for morons and wars should only be fought to protect the weak & vunerable. However in saying that, if there does turn out to be a god when I die, then The Morning Star will be the least of his problems. I will tear down those pearly gates and I will drag him off his throne and HE will be made accountable for all the pain and misery that he has allowed to happen to people like the parents of that child.

...Religion? It's for people who can't actually except that the stuff that goes on is down to their actions, not some outside force.

Sorry game, but you are just too late to comment on all of this. We are going to disregard anything that you have posted as this is now a closed conversation.

Interesting belief you have there. Sounds like you've been talking to George Lucas

Shutting this thread down as it has wandered off the topic and is now attacking the direct religious beliefs of certain posters and religions.