- 1,916
- Letchworth
- mistersafeway
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,481 comments
- 1,106,836 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Very good. There are varying interpretations of the parable. A few are found here:
http://www.medievalists.net/2015/05/the-changing-story-of-cnut-and-the-waves/
The Changing Story of Cnut and the Waves
MAY 24, 2015 BY MEDIEVALISTS.NET
There is famous story about King Cnut and the waves. However, most people know do not know the original version.
Cnut was the ruler of England for 19 years – he conquered the country in 1016 after father Sweyn Forkbeard died (he had only ruled England for a few months), and later became also the King of Denmark and King of Norway. Most historians have found him to be a very capable ruler, with one even calling him “the most effective king in Anglo-Saxon history.”
For most people, what they might remember about this Cnut is a short story where the King goes to the seashore to order the waves from the incoming tide to stop.
The original version of the story appears in the Historia Anglorum, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, a twelfth-century chronicle covering the history of England from ancient times to the year 1154. In a section following his mention of Cnut’s death in 1035, Henry offers some words of praise for the king:
In addition to the many wars in which he was most particularly illustrious, he performed three fine and magnificent deeds. The first is that he gave his daughter in marriage to the Roman emperor, with indescribable riches. The second, that on his journey to Rome, he had the evil taxes that were levied on the road that goes through France, called tolls or passage tax, reduced by half at his own expense. The third, that when he was at the height of his ascendancy, he ordered his chair to be placed on the sea-shore as the tide was coming in. Then he said to the rising tide, “You are subject to me, as the land on which I am sitting is mine, and no one has resisted my overlordship with impunity. I command you, therefore, not to rise on to my land, nor to presume to wet the clothing or limbs of your master.” But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king’s feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried, “Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and sea obey eternal laws.” Thereafter King Cnut never wore the golden crown on his neck, but placed it on the image of the crucified Lord, in eternal praise of God the great king. By whose mercy may the soul of King Cnut enjoy rest.
Historians have been a little skeptical on whether this story really happened – Henry did write this work more than a century after Cnut’s reign, and no source closer to that period mentions anything like it. Still it proved to be a good enough tale of piety to be included in later medieval works.
The story was also included in The History of England, by the 18th century writer David Hume. This best-selling work, however, adds in new details to the story:
Canute, the greatest and most powerful monarch of his time, sovereign of Denmark and Norway, as well as of England, could not fail of meeting with adulation from his courtiers; a tribute which is literally paid even to the meanest and weakest princes. Some of his flatterers breaking out, one day, in admiration of his grandeur, exclaimed that every thing was possible for him: Upon which the monarch, it is said, ordered his chair to be set on the sea-shore, while the tide was rising, and as the waters approached, he commanded them to retire, and to obey the voice who was lord of the ocean. He feigned to sit some time in expectation of their submission; but when the sea still advanced towards him, and began to wash him with its billows, he turned to his courtiers, and remarked to them, that every creature in the universe was feeble and impotent, and that power resided with one Being alone, in whose hands were all the elements of nature; who could say to ocean, ‘Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther’; and who could level with his nod the most towering piles of human pride and ambition.
While the main narrative of the story remains the same, the reasons why Cnut did this have changed – while in Huntingdon’s account he is acknowledging the supremacy of God and his piety to Him, in Hume’s version he was doing this more to rebuke his own courtiers, who were praising him too much. One could argue that both versions of the story are good tales, with King Cnut being shown in a positive light. However, in the centuries since it has been Hume’s version that most people read about, and other authors have even added more embellishments to it, such as William J. Bennett, who provides this account in his 1993 work, The Book of Virtues:
etc., etc.
...and:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Canute rebukes his courtiers" by Alphonse-Marie-Adolphe de Neuville
The story of King Canute and the waves is an apocryphal anecdote illustrating the piety or humility of King Canute the Great, recorded in the 12th century by Henry of Huntingdon.
In the story, Canute demonstrates to his flattering courtiers that he has no control over the elements (the incoming tide), explaining that secular power is vain compared to the supreme power of God. The episode is frequently alluded to in contexts where the futility of "trying to stop the tide" of an inexorable event is pointed out, but usually misrepresenting Canute as believing he had supernatural powers, when Huntingdon's story in fact relates the opposite.
--------------------------
Edit: My own take on the Canute parable takes the following into account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted earthly power to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term 'divine right of kings' and employed it as a theory in political science.
-------------------------------
My first post was immediately in response to the following conversation:
DLR_Mysterion:
"We can't judge God on His actions based on the laws given to us."
Imari:
"Sure we can. You just don't like the conclusions that would come if you did."
-----------------------------------
The thoughts occurred to me that:
1) Physics is the highest law applying equally to all men, higher than any laws applied by God or gods, separately and with major internal contradictions and differences, to tribes of humans.
2) Canute rebuked his courtiers - and the divine right of kings - in a clever demonstration of physics.
3) So if, like DLR Mysterion, you ascribe the laws of physics as authored by a higher entity,
you might indeed never be able to judge God on his actions - given their priority with physics at the top.
4) If the atheist were to judge God or gods based on the laws of physics, the conclusion must be at random, since God or gods don't exist and the laws in our universe - one among many* - are completely random. Then of course you wouldn't like the conclusions, as they would all be random.
5) Both of the guys were correct, each given their world view.
* Multiverse theory
Last edited:
- 2,857
- Australia
I can't help wondering why people think that anyone else would give a rat's that they don't believe in God. I read the tone of @Sting's post as strongly dismissive, but that would be somewhat betrayed by the fact that post was made at all.
Are we going to have to go through this painfully protracted reactionary phase when Muslims stop believing in God in their droves as well? Get over it already. This thread was started nearly a decade ago, by someone that seemed to create it just to facilitate the answer of "No", and we're still getting the same old self-serving banalities. Do they want a medal? Do they think it's still an edgy view? Are they trying to convince themselves of something? I don't get it. Enlighten me someone as to what the root of this phenomenon is, because I'm finding it agonisingly tedious.
Are we going to have to go through this painfully protracted reactionary phase when Muslims stop believing in God in their droves as well? Get over it already. This thread was started nearly a decade ago, by someone that seemed to create it just to facilitate the answer of "No", and we're still getting the same old self-serving banalities. Do they want a medal? Do they think it's still an edgy view? Are they trying to convince themselves of something? I don't get it. Enlighten me someone as to what the root of this phenomenon is, because I'm finding it agonisingly tedious.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
If the Shroud of Turin is real, then does that make Jesus real?
Apparently, a numismatist, Agostina Sferrazza, claims the coins photographed over the deceased eyes of the figure in the shroud date to the 1st century.
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/05/coins-may-date-shroud-of-turin-to-first-century/
Coins May Date Shroud of Turin to First Century
Apparently, a numismatist, Agostina Sferrazza, claims the coins photographed over the deceased eyes of the figure in the shroud date to the 1st century.
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/05/coins-may-date-shroud-of-turin-to-first-century/
Coins May Date Shroud of Turin to First Century
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Although, according to "1066 And All That", it was also to give us the saying "Paddle your own Cnut". Great joke
That seems erroneous... an "expert numismatologist", we're told, but no Spinther coins are known to have been struck for Tiberius. Probably because Spinther had been dead for many years. Other sources give the coin size as a lepton which causes more confusion: leptons were part of the Greek currency of the area, not Roman, and additionally were of such low value that no high-value Roman mint like Spinther ever struck them.
It would be interesting to see more evidence of what the scans have revealed about coins on the eyes of the figure, if indeed they are such.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,918
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
It's certainly wittier than the crude one regarding the spelling of his name I heard earlier today.Although, according to "1066 And All That", it was also to give us the saying "Paddle your own Cnut". Great joke
- 1,905
- Missouri
- RoLnD79
Didn't they carbon date the shroud to the 1600's? I haven't looked it up, but I thought I remember reading that or watching that before. In reality, just because there's old coins, that doesn't really mean squat. Someone could of took 1st century coins in the 1800's, and made the thing.If the Shroud of Turin is real, then does that make Jesus real?
Apparently, a numismatist, Agostina Sferrazza, claims the coins photographed over the deceased eyes of the figure in the shroud date to the 1st century.
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/05/coins-may-date-shroud-of-turin-to-first-century/
Coins May Date Shroud of Turin to First Century
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
You should read the article. Much of interest has been written about the shroud. But yes, the shroud has been carbon dated to much less than 2000 years ago. Although, to be fair, the dating has been disputed due to the sample being taken from a repaired area. But the method of the photographic/radiologic imaging method, a process unknown 500 years ago, remains a complete mystery. Somehow, an image of a deceased man bearing the wounds and the appearance of Jesus has been produced. If you are really interested, it would reward some basic researching.
- 5,187
- The Grid
- OnE-JoKeR_
- OneCrazedJoker
So because I choose to post a short answer, without a long explanation of my reasoning, I'm being accused of trying to be edgy? Well that certainly wasn't going through my mind. As I mentioned I didn't pay attention to the poll being in the thread otherwise I would have just voted and left it at that. However, I should be allowed to respond in any way I see fit so long as it not abusive, insulting or profanity laced without being accused.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,297
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Appearance of Christ?
Was it matched to a family photo of him?
No it matches the western idealised version of what he should look like.
When this is far more likely what he would have looked like.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35120965
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
@Scaff
Christ’s Holy Image of Edessa (and is it really the Shroud of Turin?)
by Dr Taylor Marshall
Russian copy of the Holy Image of Edessa
http://taylormarshall.com/2011/05/christs-holy-image-of-edessa-and-is-it.html
Christ’s Holy Image of Edessa (and is it really the Shroud of Turin?)
by Dr Taylor Marshall
Russian copy of the Holy Image of Edessa
http://taylormarshall.com/2011/05/christs-holy-image-of-edessa-and-is-it.html
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
@Scaff
Christ’s Holy Image of Edessa (and is it really the Shroud of Turin?)
by Dr Taylor Marshall
Russian copy of the Holy Image of Edessa
http://taylormarshall.com/2011/05/christs-holy-image-of-edessa-and-is-it.html
From that last cited article:
So there we have it. No more controversy. The good Dr Taylor Marshall instructs us that they are indeed miraculous.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I don't like the term "miraculous", as I suspect most of us don't. I think we should prefer the term anomalous, unexplained, poorly understood or mysterious instead. This way, we leave the door open for a more rational explanation. I'm sure you will agree, especially if we want to explore this material any more.
Personally, I'm skeptical of everything and hold no vested interest in any particular outcome. I enjoy the journey - the experience - of investigating the mystery.
Last edited:
- 86,488
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Do you also wonder why people think that anyone else would give a rat's that they do believe in God? Do they want a medal? Do they think it's still an edgy view? Are they trying to convince themselves of something? Do you find it agonisingly tedious?
Just about as often as someone turns up to literally post a single line that they don't believe in a deity, someone turns up to post a single line that they do:
It's no less dismissive.
- 27
- Texas
- Yttrium99
I'd like to point out something.
You clearly admit to Jesus flipping the bird to the rules of the Old Testament. While Jesus was the Son of God, he was also, wholly, a man, and many Christians agree on him being, at least to some extent, a man. Therefore, Jesus, who was a man, should have been forced to abide by the rules laid out in the OT, especially considering he was supposed to be a prime role model of what average Joe's should strive to be. What gives him a pass?
Not only that, no where in the Bible gives an expiration date to any set of rules, Ten Commandments included, nor does the Bible ever state "oh, just take what you want and toss the rest off". So unless I missed a passage that clearly stated "yeah, this expires after a certain date, then go nuts", where do humans get off to not abiding by the rules that didn't ever appear to expire?
And why does your God get to ignore his own rules? That's like if I make up a game involving NERF guns, and I clearly state it's exclusive to NERF, and then I bust out an Air Rifle. What makes your God special?
Ahahahahahaa. @GTboyz
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ia-exploiting-religion-for-political-purposes
"Religion of peace". Thank god im inherently atheist so I can explain much easier when I moved countries without any religious BS.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ia-exploiting-religion-for-political-purposes
"Religion of peace". Thank god im inherently atheist so I can explain much easier when I moved countries without any religious BS.
Last edited:
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I can't help wondering why people think that anyone else would give a rat's that they don't like a particular topic of conversation.
Do they want a medal? Do they think it makes them better to be above it all? I don't get it. It's agonizingly tedious.
There are loads of conversations on this site that bore me. Fortunately, nobody forces me to participate in them.
- 2,857
- Australia
It really wasn't a conversation at all, and that's partly my point.
Note that it was not long ago that I commented on actual conversation between several atheists in this thread......
It'll be a better world if we can get out of the reactionary phase, and either completely disregard the concept of God, or speak about it entirely pragmatically. Maybe I misread the tone of the "No. Next question" post, but to me it came across as at least a little militant, rather than just dismissive. Especially since true dismissiveness would have meant not posting at all.
A random "I hate Call Of Duty" has far less meaningful ramifications than fervent assertions about the existence or non-existence of God. My goal in posting was to say "Hey, we really should move on from this kind of thing". That we're worse off for having the pointless agitation. I'd expect it to be something that both you and @Famine would agree with. Makes me wonder what subtext was read into my post, and if it hints that there's a bit of reactionary phase in play in you guys.
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Geez Dotini ... I am a believer in God, among these a christian, among these a catholic and I have to say I won't watch a 53 minutes video about the Shroud of Turin. My attention span is too short for such a task ... would you mind to write a short post about whatever the video is about? 
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
It appears to be quite scientific and carefully done work.Geez Dotini ... I am a believer in God, among these a christian, among these a catholic and I have to say I won't watch a 53 minutes video about the Shroud of Turin. My attention span is too short for such a task ... would you mind to write a short post about whatever the video is about?
It appears to identify a series of body parts (hands, feet) and other objects and artifacts on the body which (voluntarily?) moved during the process by which the image was produced - like a series of (negative) photographs taken when illuminated by strobe lights.
Another relic located in another country was tied in to the image.
The source of light - or radiation/energy - which produced the images on the shroud appeared to be parallel, orthogonal and consistent with a space-time curve which originated from within the body.
I would hope that believers and doubters alike would take the time to view the video at their convenience. Please keep all remarks at the polite and collegial level, if you would, please.
I made this post to inform and entertain, and not to make any claims or begin any arguments. Thank you for your attention.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
Who is the "International Institute for Advanced Studies of Space Representation Sciences" anyway?
Google isn't coming up with much except that it was founded in 2002 by Giuseppe Maria Catalano; if anybody else is connected with this "institute" I can find no mention of them.
Google isn't coming up with much except that it was founded in 2002 by Giuseppe Maria Catalano; if anybody else is connected with this "institute" I can find no mention of them.
Similar threads
