Hello all,

Out of curiosity, how is Oliver Cromwell viewed in the UK? Our history classes in the US really just glazed over him, but I have found his story to be very intriguing. I've read a lot about him where I could find it, and it made me wonder how he is received in the UK.

Thanks for your opinions.

Ah, if only I had one of those Delorean time machines, I could travel back in time and burn him at the stake!

In our history books at school, Cromwell's time in charge is treated as a major step towards the evolution of a Constitutional Monarchy. Out of school we learned that he was a very unpleasant piece of work.
He beheaded Charles I because he wanted to. There was no real reason for it otherwise.
His troops locked Irish villagers in their "Papist" churches, then burned them down.
He dismissed Parliament and ruled as a virtual dictator.
An excellent example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

All of that needs to be read in context though - I've just finished reading Nathaniel's Nutmeg, which documents the spice trade across a time period that overlaps with Cromwell - sadly, violence, beligerence, torture and bloodshed was very much a normal part, in those days, of what we might now term 'project managment'.

Not that this excuses anything, but it's just worth noting that Cromwell wasn't really acting in a particularly exceptional manner, for the time.

He, along with King James, was renowed for burning witches :(

Fat old bloke with a round head? ;)

tried to cancel christmas or any other celebration - miserable old duffer

took over parliment when parliment would not hold a general election (which it is meant to every 4-5 years )

He, along with King James, was renowed for burning witches :(

Off on a tangent here:
Why were witches burned as opposed to some other method. Seems like an awful way to go.

Off on a tangent here:
Why were witches burned as opposed to some other method. Seems like an awful way to go.

I think that was kinda the point. Punishments were designed to be cruel and brutal, maybe not as a deterrent, but maybe more as an expression of the moral outrage of those performing the punishment.

They were also drowned, they used to put them in a dunking device and hold them under water until they died....

The theory being; if they were a witch then they wouldn't die from drowning.

A slightly flawed method of Witch identification given Witches dont actually exist. I guess a lot of innocent people died

Off on a tangent here:
Why were witches burned as opposed to some other method. Seems like an awful way to go.

Because they were made of wood. :)

Off on a tangent here:
Why were witches burned as opposed to some other method. Seems like an awful way to go.

It was effective against warts.

They were also drowned, they used to put them in a dunking device and hold them under water until they died....

The theory being; if they were a witch then they wouldn't die from drowning.


Hmmmm. I'm pretty sure it was only burning and then only if she weighed the same as a duck.

tried to cancel christmas

It should be banned from having any fake religious connections. It is a pagan festival and should be kept that way.

Col

LOL... It's called "Christmas" for a reason, if you want to celebrate its pagan roots go ahead, but don't term it "Christmas".

It should be banned from having any fake religious connections. It is a pagan festival and should be kept that way.

Col

Was it though.... what day did they used to celebrate it on .. i give you the 25th as a pagan day .. but did they used to celebrate 01/04/xx ? or there abouts ....

Was it though.... what day did they used to celebrate it on .. i give you the 25th as a pagan day .. but did they used to celebrate 01/04/xx ? or there abouts ....

The pagan festival celebrating and worship of the trees etc. was on the 25th Dec - that's why people have "christmas" trees. The celebration of the birth of the con-man Jesus was march / April time. No-one (quite rightly) too that seriously, so it was moved to coincide with the pagan festival on Dec 25th.

I think it's funny that strict christians have a christmas tree without knowing they are celebrating a pagan worship.

Col

The celebration of the birth of the con-man Jesus

Hmmm... I can take a lot of bashing of the country that I belong to... But please don't bash my religion too. I wouldn't bash others on here....


think it's funny that strict christians have a christmas tree without knowing they are celebrating a pagan worship.

You cannot assume that Christians don't know the meaning of the Christmas tree. As a matter of fact I bet you don't understand a lot of what Christians do and believe..... But, that's OK too. Fortunately for us with the things we do for fun, i.e. a Christmas tree, it doesn't matter the origins, only our heart during the practice. When my family uses a Christmas tree, it creates anticipation for the gifts that are being given under it. Similar to the gift that we received in Jesus Christ. I don't mean to go all religious. Not my intention; but I want people to understand, not just blindly think wrong thoughts about Christians....

The pagan festival celebrating and worship of the trees etc. was on the 25th Dec - that's why people have "christmas" trees. The celebration of the birth of the con-man Jesus was march / April time. No-one (quite rightly) too that seriously, so it was moved to coincide with the pagan festival on Dec 25th.

I think it's funny that strict christians have a christmas tree without knowing they are celebrating a pagan worship.

Col
Coincidentally 25th December was also celebrated by the followers of the the cult of Mithras which became very popular in the roman empire in 1st and 2nd century AD. Funny how thaey try to take over from other cults

Coincidentally 25th December was also celebrated by the followers of the the cult of Mithras which became very popular in the roman empire in 1st and 2nd century AD. Funny how thaey try to take over from other cults

I think using other dates for Christain holiday was due to a Roman Emporer... (I don't know enough history to remember the name of the emperor though, although it is a well known one.... :D)

So generally seems like Oliver Cromwell isn't looked upon very highly in the UK. I kind of guessed that after I read that once the monarchy was restored they had his body disinterred from Westminster Abbey and hung. Very interesting regardless.


Using other dates for Christian holidays was done in order to get the majority population to convert over to the new religion. Basically, as religions have been around, then lost influence, political leaders have created new religions to take the place of the old.

And honestly, I have to side with Colin this time, I think most Chrisitians probably don't know of the pagan roots of Christmas or the relation to the 'Christmas' tree.

Its like Georgle Carlin said, if they had created the 9 commandments it would have been laughed away, but the 10 commandments sounds official, sounds important.

And honestly, I have to side with Colin this time, I think most Chrisitians probably don't know of the pagan roots of Christmas or the relation to the 'Christmas' tree.

How do you know what the majority of Christians believe? How many do you know? I happen to know a lot, and the Christians I know all know the origins of the holidays. It's taught from an early age...Even as young as 2 and 3 year old Sunday school (which I have taught).

I really don't mind other peoples opinions but I dislike it when people apply generalities to a group of people that they aren't a part of and don't understand.

So generally seems like Oliver Cromwell isn't looked upon very highly in the UK. I kind of guessed that after I read that once the monarchy was restored they had his body disinterred from Westminster Abbey and hung. Very interesting regardless.

I am currently trying to study American history, as I have forgotten a lot of what I learned in school (As is usually the case with knowledge that doesn't get applied much) but I have plan to study British history as well, since a lot of my family is descended from the UK. (Also from other countries too...) Seems like an interesting guy, although I don't know much about him, Maybe I'll read a biography.

Hmmm... I can take a lot of bashing of the country that I belong to... But please don't bash my religion too. I wouldn't bash others on here....

I wouldn't advise you do any searching for threads relating to 'Christians' on this forum.

They, along with other religions and God him/her/itself, come in for waaaaaaaay more 'bashing' than a little dig about the origins of Christmas trees.

Just a word of advice, take it how you wish.:)

I wouldn't advise you do any searching for threads relating to 'Christians' on this forum.

Thanks for that, I will surely take your advice as I don't like to stir up trouble, but in areas of my faith have a really hard time keeping my mouth shut. :) -- I am beginning to wonder if I should keep my post reading away from the watercooler in general and strictly access focused, although I have enjoyed a lot of the discussions that occurs.

I really don't mind other peoples opinions but I dislike it when people apply generalities to a group of people that they aren't a part of and don't understand.

Actually, I am very involved in religious communities, as religion is one of the things I have studied for many years. Christianity, Islam, Pagan rituals, Satanism (the Anton Lavey variety), Shintoism, etc.

In my experience, the majority of people that I have encountered and spoken with or seen communicating via internet are not familiar with their religion's origins, just its modern practices.

For example, in the bible there was a flood that God created and Noah's ark, etc. Few people know that in an earlier document, the Epic of Gilgamesh, a very similiar flood occurs. The bibilical flood is thought to have been inspired from the flood from the epic by non-religious folk.

I think as some people are very defensive of their country, some others are very defensive of their religion. But from a purely academic standpoint, a lot of the components of a religion can be discussed/debated as long as you don't let your religious views influence logic.

Actually, I am very involved in religious communities, as religion is one of the things I have studied for many years. Christianity, Islam, Pagan rituals, Satanism (the Anton Lavey variety), Shintoism, etc.

Ok, I can concede this point (The point that you understand religions) So maybe my point doesn't apply to you (no offense to him but I still think it applies to Col) However, Christianity is a whole different ballgame from the point of understanding when it involves belief in Christ and as the Bible as absolute truth. And I can deal with discussion (most times, sometimes my feelings take over) as long as bashing doesn't occur.

But from a purely academic standpoint, a lot of the components of a religion can be discussed/debated as long as you don't let your religious views influence logic.

Believing in Christ involves more then logic, As a sinner, my mind and the logic it produces is just as messed up as the rest of me. For me there is no "purely academic standpoint" This is how I live my life, every aspect, so it can't be disengaged....

For example, in the bible there was a flood that God created and Noah's ark, etc. Few people know that in an earlier document, the Epic of Gilgamesh, a very similiar flood occurs. The bibilical flood is thought to have been inspired from the flood from the epic by non-religious folk.

Hmmm... I have heard about the Gilgamesh document before. But to give you a glimpse into my mind, and others like me, We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. All of the writings contained in the Bible are consistent with one another (in style and theme), and have been written over a large period of time by many different people. I sincerely hope that your study of religion brings you to more than just something to debate on. :) And that is the last you will hear of me talking about my beliefs, although I am happy to listen to anything you have to say, and will respond to it. I'll (try to) limit my response to ovjectivity, as I don't wish to offend anybody.

The practice of celebrating Christian festivals on the same dates as pagan ones was done to make it easier for the newly converted Christians. They had somthing they knew to identify with.

Christianity did not initiate this. Many of the religions that preceded it did the same thing.

Sorry I hijacked the thread. We were having a lovely discussion about Cromwell burning papists previously. :D

It should be banned from having any fake religious connections. It is a pagan festival and should be kept that way.

Col

Guess who's getting a lump of coal in his stocking this year. :D

Guess who's getting a lump of coal in his stocking this year. :D
Along with some nuts and an orange, but then what the hell's wrong with that anyway?

I am currently trying to study American history,

That shouldn't take too long. What are you going to do on day 2?

Col

That shouldn't take too long. What are you going to do on day 2?

Thank God about the outcome probably ;)

The pagan festival celebrating and worship of the trees etc. was on the 25th Dec - that's why people have "christmas" trees. The celebration of the birth of the con-man Jesus was march / April time. No-one (quite rightly) too that seriously, so it was moved to coincide with the pagan festival on Dec 25th.

I think it's funny that strict christians have a christmas tree without knowing they are celebrating a pagan worship.

Col
Now I have to take exception to this ....
JC i am sure (cannot prove it)was a decent person - who's values were good -
Saul(Paul) forced through a lot of changes (weather for good or bad ... is one for a really good arguement) and it is recorded that Peter and Paul had discussions(arguements) and it wasn't until about 200 years on that chrisitans really came into there own with Emporor Const..-something

early christian at this time were not your tree huggin hippy type - they were extremists - this i think we can agree is were it really starts to go tits up .. but if we were to look at JC the man , his values were decent -honest and can at least be seen as a spirtual person if not more depending on your stand point...
what has been said in his name and done in his name - well that is sheer madness

or it could all be fairy tale stuff ... created to keep the little people in their place .. who really knows - i sure as hell don't

but the idea of being nice to people isn't a bad one - so i try and follow that (except the french...lol)

Guess who's getting a lump of coal in his stocking this year. :D

What has that got to do with not believing in a fairy tale?

Col

That shouldn't take too long. What are you going to do on day 2?

Col


today we killed the indians ....(only kidding)

but if we were to look at JC the man , his values were decent -honest and can at least be seen as a spirtual person if not more depending on your stand point...


As was Ghandi;)

today we killed the indians ....(only kidding)
No, that bit's glossed over;)

i would say that all religous leaders (or figure heads the ones that start the religion ) were decent people -

its the nut jobs that follow them that cause a problem

i would say that all religous leaders (or figure heads the ones that start the religion ) were decent people -



The Pope in WW11?

The Pope in WW11?

he didn't start the religion (I meant the first person - not some numpty 1900 later) - i wrote it badly ...
figure head i meant - JC, any one of the various Buddas - Mohammed , etc

he didn't start the religion (
I think you'll find that there's a huge debate as to whether JC even started the religion;)

I think you'll find that there's a huge debate as to whether JC even started the religion;)

yeah I know - but he's still the main figure head -
as is mohammed as a prophet. did he start Isalm ..no just codified it a bit (tried to stop people doing stuff in gods name and put it in writing so they would not mis-understand - guess what - they still do - you can write what you want and peole will mis read or (in my case ) not write it very clearly

yeah I know - but he's still the main figure head -
as is mohammed as a prophet. did he start Isalm ..no just codified it a bit (tried to stop people doing stuff in gods name and put it in writing so they would not mis-understand - guess what - they still do - you can write what you want and peole will mis read or (in my case ) not write it very clearly

Sounds like some of the folks in this forum.
They correct your grammar and spelling as well so its not a complete loss. :D

tried to cancel christmas or any other celebration - miserable old duffer



I thought he tried, and succeeded in banning Yule, Christmas being more favourable as it was, at least a Christian celebration. That is why Christmas is celebrated in December, it was actually the 21st December, Christians changed it to the 25th. The April holiday was Ostara, named for the birth of new things and celebrated by all religions.

For the record, even though the burned witches/pagans back in the 15/1600s todays practitioners do not hate Christianity and do understand that Jesus was a true leader, a great man. It's the small minded Christians that they meet, who tend to categorise them as "satan worshipers" that they don't like.

They were also drowned, they used to put them in a dunking device and hold them under water until they died....

The theory being; if they were a witch then they wouldn't die from drowning. Actually if they didn't drown they were deemed to have "floated" in which case they were made of wood and should be burned.

A slightly flawed method of Witch identification given Witches dont actually exist.

Yes, of course SQL, what ever helps you to sleep at night, next you'll be telling me there's no such thing as faeries, goblins or angels! You're such a synic :rolleyes:

It's good to see we have progressed somewhat from the Middle Ages.

If Oumahexi had lived in Salem Mass. in the 1600's she would probably have got a dunking and a hotfoot.
If Colin had lived in Spain at about the same time he would have got a session on the rack and a hanging for airing those views.
(nothing personal guys, just examples).

At least nowadays we can air our religious views (or lack of them) without starting a holy war.

The Pope in WW11?

I am guessing you have read "Hitlers Pope"?

If Oumahexi had lived in Salem Mass. in the 1600's she would probably have got a dunking and a hotfoot.

Or Bo'ness, anywhere actually in Scotland ...

At least nowadays we can air our religious views (or lack of them) without starting a holy war.

Ah, what a lovely, yet niaive dream :eek:

I remember starting a thread about the Myth of Jesus Christ last year, and wow got some very emotive responses.

For my own part, my children go to a Church of England school and are taught about God and Jesus, not because I am peticularly keen in them learning about that, but more becuase the school is a good school with a good academic record. My children when they are older can make their own minds up as to what they want to believe, I will not influence them.

For my own part, I am a bit of cross hairs...

I believe that JC was a very clever man, ahead of his time, but a normal mortal man with a normal mother and father and nothing more.

Yet in the same breath I ask God to keep my family safe, and hope that when we die we got to a better place..

As for religion, I believe that it is the scurge of our planet, it has caused more wars and more deaths then any natural occurance or any viral infections ever have.

As for Ollie Cromwell... did anybody check his expenses?

I remember starting a thread about the Myth of Jesus Christ last year, and wow got some very emotive responses.

For my own part, my children go to a Church of England school and are taught about God and Jesus, not because I am peticularly keen in them learning about that, but more becuase the school is a good school with a good academic record. My children when they are older can make their own minds up as to what they want to believe, I will not influence them.

For my own part, I am a bit of cross hairs...

I believe that JC was a very clever man, ahead of his time, but a normal mortal man with a normal mother and father and nothing more.

Yet in the same breath I ask God to keep my family safe, and hope that when we die we got to a better place..

As for religion, I believe that it is the scurge of our planet, it has caused more wars and more deaths then any natural occurance or any viral infections ever have.

As for Ollie Cromwell... did anybody check his expenses?

I looked around for an ACE school for my daughter when she was growing up. Obviously, because my belief is that they offer a far superior education than non dominational eductional establishments. Good for you Scott.

As for Ollie's expenses, mostly he claimed for firewood ;)

I think you'll find that there's a huge debate as to whether JC even started the religion;)

I think you'll find, if you read the New Testament, that he didn't start the religion, James and John did...

For my own part, my children go to a Church of England school and are taught about God and Jesus, not because I am peticularly keen in them learning about that, but more becuase the school is a good school with a good academic record. My children when they are older can make their own minds up as to what they want to believe, I will not influence them.I'm a governor at a C of E controlled school - in my experience, the RE curriculum tends today to consist of study and appreciation of world religions.

There probably is a bias in terms of the calendar events - Christmas and Easter tend to get more coverage than Hannukah, Ramadan and Divali, BUT... the non-Christian calendar events are marked and studied (sometimes celebrated, in a sort of academic way) and that bias probably reflects (or trails behind) a similar general, national bias toward Christian calendar events.

The biggest pressure and impact that the Church explicitly applies to the curriculum and life of the school is in the area of social ethics, RRR (rights, respect and responsibility).

It's actually become somewhat common for devout folks of non-Christian religions to send their kids to a church-controlled school.

Now THAT sounds sensible!

I think you'll find, if you read the New Testament, that he didn't start the religion, James and John did...


Hmm - I am going for Saul(Paul) as the driving force behind the religion-

my opion is that if left to his own devices Peter would have left the religion as a jewish religion - Saul/Paul argue to make it available to all ....

on this basis this would be the start of chrisitan era, otherwise it would of been a Jewish sect...

however we are too removed from fact to take a view on it

How many gospels were destroyed to make way for the 4 gospels we have left ....- Man (and yes it was men ) chopped and changed things to suit what they thought was right - and this also involved killing other "chrisitans" who didn't adhere to the same books....

also the gospels were probably not written by Mark/luke etc... but by well meaning people 100-200 years after the event = there are a few "real" docs that canbe claims to be from any of the 12 desciples - letters from Peter to Corinthains (typo) and one or two other messages - but other than that - it could all be made up gibberish - (or could be 100% spot) ...


i am pretty sure that in the early days - Women would of been equal teachers to men - and when the religion got orgainsed - men decided that they would run it .. it kinda goes tits up

Priests were family folk with children of there own .Nowhere does JC say don't have kids

I agree, Paul was the one who took the "word" to the masses (Theologians, or something like that, no longer possess a bible, so much from old frail memory). However, the "Acts" were performed by all of the apostles. No matter how you cut it though, Jesus was the first Christian, it all went down hill from there, if only the rest could mimic him :D

Again, I agree, women probably had a hand in spreading the word, however, at that time Judiaism - which the religion is based on, did not agree with women as teachers, women go through cycles of being "unclean" and God apparently doesn't want them talking to him at that time, or man doesn't if truth be known.

Neither the old nor new testament asks that a teacher should not have children. In truth, would it not be wise to breed from the very people who are zealous in your religion? The reason the Catholic Church wrote that one in was that abstinence was deemed to show stregnth in your beief. Only the power of God could take away the natural desires of the body.

New question, that said, has God now got fed up helping out his priests? ;)

Although Saul/Paul was a major force in the early Christian religion, he never met JC. Therefore all of his letters and acts were based on hearsay.

As non-Jews began to embrace Christianity, a major question which the apostles asked themselves is should the male converts be forced to undergo circumcism, which is a major tenant of the Jewish faith. Paul won the day for the nays when he pointed out that this was a NEW religion.

I always thought Saul met Jesus on the Road to Damaskas.

Never understood why he had to change his name...

I always thought Saul met Jesus on the Road to Damaskas.

Never understood why he had to change his name...

According to legend, Saul was a Jew who was a main force in the persecution of Christians.
He was struck blind by God (on the road to Damascus) and at that point had a revelation that Christianity was to be God's preferred religion.
He changed his name to reflect his new faith.

So, effectively he was the first Born Again Christian?

Did his eyesight recover? I'm thinking possibly a burst artery, sometimes the sight comes back, sometimes it's permanent. It's easy to see how people back then, with no knowledge of medicine would think it was the hand of God!

So, effectively he was the first Born Again Christian?



Technically, he wasn't "born again" as he had not previously been a Christian. :D

He did recover his eyesight. Ill leave the diagnosis of his blindness to those with medical training. I just offer the information.

Technically, he wasn't "born again" as he had not previously been a Christian. :D Ah, I see, so a born again Christian is someone who was Christian, wasn't, then was again? :cool:

He did recover his eyesight. Ill leave the diagnosis of his blindness to those with medical training. I just offer the information. or with first hand experience? ;)

Dominic West portrayed him in The Devils Whore, excellent role played by a fine actor.

I am guessing you have read "Hitlers Pope"?


Maybe not.

I always thought Saul met Jesus on the Road to Damaskas.

Never understood why he had to change his name...

THey all changed there names Peter wasn't peter - james wasn't james etc (this is from memory)

THey all changed there names Peter wasn't peter - james wasn't james etc (this is from memory)

I believe that Peter was Simon before his name was changed, and I know is spoken a lot of by "Simon Peter" to clarify. James however never had his name changed, as far as I know.

[QUOTE=scott-atkinson;868247]I remember starting a thread about the Myth of Jesus Christ last year, and wow got some very emotive responses.

I believe that JC was a very clever man, ahead of his time, but a normal mortal man with a normal mother and father and nothing more.

Yet in the same breath I ask God to keep my family safe, and hope that when we die we got to a better place..

As for religion, I believe that it is the scurge of our planet, it has caused more wars and more deaths then any natural occurance or any viral infections ever have.

QUOTE]

It's the same as any other good idea once the bureaucrats get a hold of it. :D