Page 35 of 44

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:05 am
by Clive
Is xianity really like a cuckoo, claiming Jewish heritage because it gives respectability? Maybe Judaism is also newer than realised, really getting going with cyrus and the Septuagint ?

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:06 am
by GakuseiDon
Robert Tulip wrote:Allow me to cite a conflicting source. Former Professor of Psychology at the University of Sydney in Australia, William O’Neil, was also a historian of astronomy. In his magnificent book Early Astronomy from Babylonia to Copernicus, O’Neil makes the following claim, which I am typing up because I would like to know if his allegations about Tertullian, Lactanius and Kosmas are true:

“... Extreme examples of the rejection of Hellenistic astronomy were provided by Tertullian (early third century), by Lactanius (early fourth century) and by Kosmas (sixth century). Without differentiating amongst the details of their several views it may be said that they rejected the Hellenistic notion of the sphericity of the earth and of the universe in favour of a layered, flat, square scheme as suggested in Genesis...”
I'd also like to know if Tertullian rejected the notion of the sphericity of the earth. I've read the English translation of his extant works, and can't recall him doing that, though that may be just my memory. I've tried to get any reference from William O'Neil's book but it doesn't appear available via Amazon or Google books. I see on another discussion site that you say that O'Neil makes the claim on p. 101 of his book. Do you have it, and if so, can you give the citation O'Neil uses for his claim about Tertullian please?

(ETA) I found in Tertullian's Ad nationes the following statement:
  • We are indeed said to be the "third race" of men. What, a dog-faced race? Or broadly shadow-footed? Or some subterranean Antipodes?
It doesn't tell us whether he believed in a spherical earth, but it does show he was aquainted with the notion.

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:08 am
by Clive
Maybe we should not use terms like Judaism, xianity etc? We should always be specific - late Victorian high Anglicanism for example?

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:14 am
by Clive
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1368

This link is to a relevant essay by o'neil

P6 discusses the various cycles used in various places to calculate months and years. I think this means the ancients assumed as a basic premise that the earth is round and the sun moon and stars circled it. I think I read somewhere that an 18 year lunar cycle was known 10,000 years ago.

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:22 am
by Clive
The discussion then moves to did anyone apart from some specific religios without any real experience actually use flat earth ideas?

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:25 am
by Leucius Charinus
Ulan wrote:Greek religion is based on Earth worship, not the sky.
CHECK Uranus as "Father Sky": [wiki]Uranus_(mythology)#Genealogy_of_the_Olympians_in_Greek_mythology[/wiki]
  • Uranus (/ˈjʊərənəs/ or /jʊˈreɪnəs/; Ancient Greek Οὐρανός, Ouranos [oːranós] meaning "sky" or "heaven") was the primal Greek god personifying the sky. His equivalent in Roman mythology was Caelus. In Ancient Greek literature, Uranus or Father Sky was the son and husband of Gaia, Mother Earth. According to Hesiod's Theogony, Uranus was conceived by Gaia alone, but other sources cite Aether as his father.[3] Uranus and Gaia were the parents of the first generation of Titans, and the ancestors of most of the Greek gods, but no cult addressed directly to Uranus survived into Classical times,[4] and Uranus does not appear among the usual themes of Greek painted pottery. Elemental Earth, Sky and Styx might be joined, however, in a solemn invocation in Homeric epic
Roman religion is based on spirit worship, not sky.
The Romans copied the Greeks. Both had places for spirit worship. For example what the Greeks referred to as the "daimon" [guardian spirit] the Romans called "genius" and it was the daimon or genius of Alexander or the Roman Emperors which was worshipped. The Romans accommodated the Greek religions and the Greek language.
It's one of the major distinguishing traits of Greek religion how little value it placed in the sky.
I don't think that is necessarily true. I think they tried to cover all the bases, including the heavens, the planets, sun, moon and stars. Sure they certain had terrestrial deities and gods, but they also had the cosmic crew as well.



LC

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:27 am
by Clive
[quote]
How did people of the medieval period explain physical phenomena, such as eclipses or the distribution, of land and water on the globe? What creatures did they think they might encounter: angels, devils, witches,

dog headed people?

This fascinating book explores the ways in which medieval people categorized the world, concentrating on the division between the natural and the supernatural and showing how the idea of the supernatural came to be invented in the Middle Ages. Robert Bartlett examines how theologians and others sought to draw lines between the natural, the miraculous, the marvelous and the monstrous, and the many conceptual problems they encountered as they did so. The final chapter explores the extraordinary thought-world of Roger Bacon as a case study exemplifying these issues. By recovering the mentalities of medieval writers and thinkers the book raises the critical question of how we deal with beliefs we no longer share./quote]

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/su ... iddle-ages

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:36 am
by Leucius Charinus
Clive wrote:Is xianity really like a cuckoo, claiming Jewish heritage because it gives respectability?
Probably. The antiquity of the Jewish sages (it was asserted) was greater than the antiquity of the Greek sages. This was very important. Like a priority date on a patent or some other form of IP. Plato (it was asserted) got all his wisdom from Moses. [Eusebius] Cuckoo Cuckoo Bullshit bullshit. :)



LC

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:41 am
by Leucius Charinus
Ulan wrote:Just to say something constructive: there were only two places in Greece where the sun god was worshiped, one of them being Corinth. Which also plays a major role in the fledgling Christian cult. I'm not aware of any connections though.
What about Apollo and his temples, shrines and oracles?
  • Apollo (Attic, Ionic, and Homeric Greek: Ἀπόλλων, Apollōn (GEN Ἀπόλλωνος); Doric: Ἀπέλλων, Apellōn; Arcadocypriot: Ἀπείλων, Apeilōn; Aeolic: Ἄπλουν, Aploun; Latin: Apollō) is one of the most important and complex of the Olympian deities in classical Greek and Roman religion and Greek and Roman mythology. The ideal of the kouros (a beardless, athletic youth), Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of light and the sun, truth and prophecy, healing, plague, music, poetry, and more.

LC

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:42 am
by Clive
Clive wrote:Thought I would check something
Uranus (/ˈjʊərənəs/ or /jʊˈreɪnəs/; Ancient Greek Οὐρανός, Ouranos [oːranós] meaning "sky" or "heaven") was the primal Greek god personifying the sky. His equivalent in Roman mythology was Caelus. In Ancient Greek literature, Uranus or Father Sky was the son and husband of Gaia, Mother Earth. According to Hesiod's Theogony, Uranus was conceived by Gaia alone, but other sources cite Aether as his father.[3] Uranus and Gaia were the parents of the first generation of Titans, and the ancestors of most of the Greek gods, but no cult addressed directly to Uranus survived into Classical times,[4] and Uranus does not appear among the usual themes of Greek painted pottery. Elemental Earth, Sky and Styx might be joined, however, in a solemn invocation in Homeric epic.[5]
Wiki

Humans have for huge periods of time been conscious that they die and babies and suns are born. We try to work out what is going on using the pieces we have - sun moon sky earth thunder love anger.

Going for one cause - the stars - is a serious mistake. All of our experiences are continually woven together in our stories, our religions, our beliefs.
I think there are some threads to bring together here -.technologies and understandings of the time are critical to understanding how different peoples understood stuff.

Geocentricity, the sun and stars cycling a round earth was widely understood. Some groups, cut off from actual experience, might have thought differently. I think Hypatia probably had concluded a heliocentric model or was almost there.

Some groups did worship the sun and stars, but not many.

Astrotheology is simplistic