You know, if you keep dragging this stuff out of that web site, someone is going to have to keep refuting it so that later readers are not misled that it was anything other than nonsense.
Which will comes as quite a surprise to all those Latin speaking Romans, of old, who simply thought that they were talking about the day that was equal (æqui) to the night (nox).
And, of course, there is no language in which the letter “I” indicates the human (or even divine) eye,
the word queen was from various Germaninc languages, none of which used a form “quin,” more typically using cweon, cwean, or (later) quene,
etc.
We do not know when the crucifixion took place.
One tradition places it at Passover. No tradition ever placed it on the equinox. A number of early Christians (in an early burst of anti-semitism) wanted to separate the recognition of the crucifixion from the Jewish celebration of Passover. Beyond that, there was the problem of switching back and forth between the Jewish calendar and the Julian calendar in use throughout the Roman Empire. Different proposals had been put forth for calculating the date and Christians were fighting over which reckoning to use as early as 150.
Constantine did want the date resolved to stop the fighting within the church.
Constantine had no care as to what date was selected.
The Council of Nicaea did choose a single calculation for determining Easter, but it had nothing to do with “hiding” the real event.
Similarly, the author appears to confuse the none (ninth hour) with noon and draws some weird conclusion from that. The Romans had a method of dividing the daylight into quarters, naming the quarter by the hour in which it concluded. 3:00 p.m. was roughly the ninth hour from sunrise (6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), and the quarter from noon to three was called none.
I’m not denying it’s fragmented. My issue is “most.” Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, even Jewish religions are all pretty fractured. That’s not even getting into all the flavors of Neo-pagan. Christianity doesn’t seem that remarkable here.
No cites at all. That’s my point. I’ve never seen anyone compare it. So I have a hard time believing someone who’s claims to know without providing any evidence at all.
I’ve shown evidence that puts Christianity on the top of the heap-all you have to come up with a simple cite that shows a religion that is more fragmented.
No you didn’t. All your cite showed was that it is fragmented and what many of those fragments are. That’s not even remotely the same thing as what I’m asking. I’m looking for comparisons or hard numbers. Do you have that?
No. That’s why I asked for a cite. Apparently neither do you, yet you felt the need to interject with irrelevant data. No one was denying the fragmentation of Christianity. To do so would be stupid. I was questioning the claim that they were exceptional divisive. You have not addressed that. You apparently aren’t going to either. Why are you having this conversation with me if have no interest in answering the question I asked?
Dude, you made a claim, supported by no evidence whatsoever. Your cite says that Christianity is fragmented in some way. But it in no way shows that any degreeof comparison.
Let me explain what you would need even to make a statement like that without sounding foolish:
(1) An calculation of relative fragmentaion between formal Christian churches. You could potentially develop this based on numerical distribution between major groups. So if, for example, one or a few closely-related branches of Christianity took up the vast majority of worshippers, it might mean that a large number of very small minorities wouldn’t matter in your analysis. Of course, it depends on your methematical assumptions and what you want to show, since you are making a value judgement.
(2) A calculation of other major religions using the same criteria.
(3) A calculation of informal church fragmentation. This may be the key issue even beyond the difficulty of actually demonstrating point (1). Most major religions do not have format heads, heirarchies, and often no formal source of doctrine as most Christians churches do. Are two Hindu temples who have nothing in common except some legends united, or not? How do you rate the . With Islam, do you jsut lump all Sunni and Shi’a into the same bucket (since there’s no major religious dispute except over a currently-nonexistent position which is as much or more poltiical than religious), or are they two different buckets (since they form the major divisions), or are they a separate bucket for each country (since there’s a frequent nationalistic/ethnic component), or do you divide them by ideology (then how do you rate degree of similarity?)
Are you seeing why people aren’t taking your statement very seriously yet?
You were sure that Hinduism, Buddhism, Muslim and Jewish religions were more fragmented. If I posted the stats for those last three(already did Buddhism) the same way I did for Christianity would that satisfy you?*
*Hint-I’ve already looked them up, by the way…and you easily could have done the same in just a couple minutes if you really cared.
No what you’re seeing is people not taking your dismissive response to a real question that would require real research to answer as valid despite you wanting to look clever.