NationStates Jolt Archive

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the big '3'...they're only a couple of thousand years old. I mean, sheesh. I know humans have a limited lifespan, and sometimes it's hard for us to see the big picture, but what is the huge deal with religions that are so new to human history?

I say we all go back to worshipping the ancient Greek Gods. It worked for Greece, and Greece was awesome.

I say we all go back to worshipping the ancient Greek Gods. It worked for Greece, and Greece was awesome.

You remember why Socrates was killed?

I can't really complain. Wicca was 'founded' in the 1950's, so it's insanely new in comparison anyway. The concepts, however, are pretty damn old.

I say we all go back to worshipping the ancient Greek Gods. It worked for Greece, and Greece was awesome.

I'd do anything to bring back Pan and Dionysos as gods; all that sex, drinking, and endless partying would mellow people out for sure.

Perhaps they were right all along, and were silenced because of it...

I'd do anything to bring back Pan and Dionysos as gods; all that sex, drinking, and endless partying would mellow people out for sure.

How about the human sacrifice and the secret 'inner circle'.

Judaism is as old as any religion out there. The only existing major religion that can claim as much history (as in, we have no idea when it started) is Hinduism).

You remember why Socrates was killed?

Yea but that was one guy. You remember how many innocents were torched at the stake for being "witches?" How many Crusades were launched? How many theocratic monarchies were set up? How America acts today? All because of Chrisitianity? I'll take the hemlock of Socrates rather than the Inquisition...

...which nobody expects ;)

Thousands of deities -> One Deity -> No deity at all.

I'd say humanity is slowly on the right track.

The Greek gods (at least the stereotypical ones) come from after Judaism had gotten started.

The reason most religions come from the last 2,000 years or so is that at that time the western world was settling into its definitions of what constitutes religion. Later developments were characterized as sects, not religions.

Maybe it has something to do with the sucess of these religions to be political tools...*runs*

How about the human sacrifice and the secret 'inner circle'.

Well, we'll just replace it with the Roman rituals, which abhorred human sacrifice. Pan and Bacchus, then.

Yeah but who's to say if the Polytheist religions were to still be in power that they wouldn't have their own large amounts of bloodshed?

Besides Socrates was the man!

Thousands of deities -> One Deity -> No deity at all.
I'd say humanity is slowly on the right track.

I don't know, the Roman gods were a good time.

Thousands of deities -> One Deity -> No deity at all.

I'd say humanity is slowly on the right track.



Try Thousands of deities -> One Deity -> The End.

Yea but that was one guy. You remember how many innocents were torched at the stake for being "witches?" How many Crusades were launched? How many theocratic monarchies were set up? How America acts today? All because of Chrisitianity? I'll take the hemlock of Socrates rather than the Inquisition...

...which nobody expects ;)



Yes, let's not forget the many wars waged by pagans and the persecution of the early Christians. ;)

I don't know, the Roman gods were a good time.

Except they were plagiarised. But, then again, so is the Christian god, Jesus as well as Allah, so it's sort of a moot point. People just aren't very religiously inventive, it seems. Just the same rehashing of old ideas all the time.

I say we all go back to worshipping the ancient Greek Gods. It worked for Greece, and Greece was awesome.

maybe, but now all the Greeks who worshiped thusly are in hell, so what good did it do them in the end?

;)

It's just a fad, like Pokemon. They'll die out in a few centuries. Hopefully.

Yeah but who's to say if the Polytheist religions were to still be in power that they wouldn't have their own large amounts of bloodshed?

Besides Socrates was the man!

Polytheism is still in power in India. They have some bloodshed, but not as bad as some

8,000 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda) - seems to have some good things to say still

Except they were plagiarised. But, then again, so is the Christian god, Jesus as well as Allah, so it's sort of a moot point. People just aren't very religiously inventive, it seems. Just the same rehashing of old ideas all the time.

The Roman Gods came from the Greeks, who got theirs from the Egyptians and Phonecians, who got theirs from the Babylonians and Hittites, whose Gods came from the Sumerians...

I'm guessing names don't matter, only the beliefs behind them in polytheism.

maybe, but now all the Greeks who worshiped thusly are in hell, so what good did it do them in the end?

;)

Well not all of them are really. The enlightened ones like Plato are Aristotle are in Limbo, according to Dante.

It's just a fad, like Pokemon. They'll die out in a few centuries. Hopefully.

I choose you, Jesuschu!

Yes, let's not forget the many wars waged by pagans and the persecution of the early Christians. ;)
Pagans? Surely you mean the Romans, and so on and so forth...followers of other, legititmite (at the time) religions? Sheesh...blaming it all on the Pagans :p

And isn't it funny how the persecuted invariably become the persecuters?

It's just a fad, like Pokemon. They'll die out in a few centuries. Hopefully.


Acts 5:33-39 33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."



:D

Try Thousands of deities -> One Deity -> The End.

Nope.

Eventually people will ditch their views in one deity to no deities. The world will be a much better place.

NR quoting the bible... not anything new... :rolleyes: Who are you trying to convince with that dribble?

I choose you, Jesuschu!

ROFLMAO

Ten points for Vegas-Rex!

I can't really complain. Wicca was 'founded' in the 1950's, so it's insanely new in comparison anyway. The concepts, however, are pretty damn old.

The concepts were taken from Christianity, which isn't that old, and a smattering of Pagan beliefs, which are rather old.

I don't see the appeal of any of the newer belief systems, m'self.

Try Thousands of deities -> One Deity -> The End.
You mean, if we all stopped believing in any higher power, the world would end? Now isn't THAT an experiment I'd love to try!!!

Pagans? Surely you mean the Romans, and so on and so forth...followers of other, legititmite (at the time) religions? Sheesh...blaming it all on the Pagans :p

And isn't it funny how the persecuted invariably become the persecuters?



pa·gan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.

adj.
Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
Professing no religion; heathen.
Neo-Pagan.




Yep, pagans alright.

Pagans? Surely you mean the Romans, and so on and so forth...followers of other, legititmite (at the time) religions? Sheesh...blaming it all on the Pagans :p

And isn't it funny how the persecuted invariably become the persecuters?

Pagan is pretty much that catch-all word for early non-Christians. It's slightly annoying, isn't it?

pa·gan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.

adj.
Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
Professing no religion; heathen.
Neo-Pagan.




Yep, pagans alright.

That's a screwed up definition. One who has no religion? I'm atheist but that does not make me pagan.

The Roman Gods came from the Greeks, who got theirs from the Egyptians and Phonecians, who got theirs from the Babylonians and Hittites, whose Gods came from the Sumerians...

I'm guessing names don't matter, only the beliefs behind them in polytheism.

Yeah, but the beliefs and deities have played out their roles. As gradual convalescents of ignorance, we've no need for the crutch any more. It's our own physiotherapy that will get us places from now on.

That's a screwed up definition. One who has no religion? I'm atheist but that does not make me pagan.



Take it up with dictionary.com

Well I guess Monotheism came to be because it was a lot easier. I mean....I can't imagine having to run around all over the place to please 12 different Gods, especially when there wasn't even PDAs!

Take it up with dictionary.com

Look it is just plain wrong. I think I will take up with them because being atheist is not being pagan in any sense. An atheist believes in nothing when it comes to religion, so it is a misnomer to call them a pagan.

Yeah, but the beliefs and deities have played out their roles. As gradual convalescents of ignorance, we've no need for the crutch any more. It's our own physiotherapy that will get us places from now on.



To the desolate pits of hedonism, debauchery, and reveling? No thanks, I'd rather rely on the Truth than on the delusional ways of humanism, which will invariably lead to our decadence.

I have to agree, pagan and heathen both refer to followers of pre-christian religions, not to atheists. I have never heard that definition used.

Take it up with dictionary.com

You realize that it was Christians who created that specific definition of the word, as a way to disclude the "heathens" and "hedonists" of the world, right? Thus I find that definition null and void.

Look it is just plain wrong. I think I will take up with them because being atheist is not being pagan in any sense. An atheist believes in nothing when it comes to religion, so it is a misnomer to call them a pagan.

Pagan. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=pagan) It's what it means. Get over it.

*snip*


Pagan...sounds like the lazy-person's name for religions they don't care to memorise the names of.

The religious verson of 'everyone else':)

Yeah, but the beliefs and deities have played out their roles. As gradual convalescents of ignorance, we've no need for the crutch any more. It's our own physiotherapy that will get us places from now on.

Nothing wrong with that. :cool:

Well I guess Monotheism came to be because it was a lot easier. I mean....I can't imagine having to run around all over the place to please 12 different Gods, especially when there wasn't even PDAs!
What about one god that gives you 12 conflicting instructions?

You realize that it was Christians who created that specific definition of the word, as a way to disclude the "heathens" and "hedonists" of the world, right? Thus I find that definition null and void.

Ditto.

Fass, you jerk, I'm not getting over anything. It is simply wrong to call an atheist a pagan because for one an atheist does not believe in anything.

Nothing wrong with that. :cool:

I know. It just takes more from us not to be feeble, but so much the better! :)

Pagan. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=pagan) It's what it means. Get over it.

We wouldn't want anyone to indulge in pleasure, after all. That raises the question, for me, of if it's not hurting anyone and it feels good, why is it wrong?

What about one god that gives you 12 conflicting instructions?

Well if you're Catholic simple....do a few and then just go to Confession!

We wouldn't want anyone to indulge in pleasure, after all. That raises the question, for me, of if it's not hurting anyone and it feels good, why is it wrong?

Who said there was anything wrong with it? It's just a word. It's not an invective or a bad word in any sense.

Who said there was anything wrong with it? It's just a word. It's not an invective or a bad word in any sense.

Well with the way ignorant christian fundamentalists use it these days it is a very negative word.

You realize that it was Christians who created that specific definition of the word, as a way to disclude the "heathens" and "hedonists" of the world, right? Thus I find that definition null and void.



I'm sure that if we invented the word, we can choose the definition. Just like the person who invented the word "but" can choose it to mean "but"...

Who said there was anything wrong with it? It's just a word. It's not an invective or a bad word in any sense.

The people who made pagan a negative term to begin with did; personally, I like it. The original word had nothing to do with religion, it was the term for a rustic person, or countryfolk. The (insert dominant monotheistic religion) made it a negative term when they realized people actually liked those things and wanted a reason to make them stop.

To the desolate pits of hedonism, debauchery, and reveling? No thanks, I'd rather rely on the Truth than on the delusional ways of humanism, which will invariably lead to our decadence.

If that wasn't satire you are really screwed up. I haven't met very many decadent atheists, but maybe that's just me.

Well with the way ignorant christian fundamentalists use it these days it is a very negative word.

Haven't you learned to ignore them by now? They should really have no power over you at all; their words are just words. I take no offence, since I really don't care.

Well with the way ignorant christian fundamentalists use it these days it is a very negative word.



"Ignorant"? Honey, from what I've seen, it isn't me who needs to do some learning....

We wouldn't want anyone to indulge in pleasure, after all. That raises the question, for me, of if it's not hurting anyone and it feels good, why is it wrong?



Why does something need to harm others to be sinful? Sin is transgression of God's will. You're dealing with ethics, not right and wrong.

The people who made pagan a negative term to begin with did; personally, I like it. The original word had nothing to do with religion, it was the term for a rustic person, or countryfolk. The (insert dominant monotheistic religion) made it a negative term when they realized people actually liked those things and wanted a reason to make them stop.

It's no longer a negative. It never really was, in the grand scheme, but today it's just finally apparent.

Haven't you learned to ignore them by now? They should really have no power over you at all; their words are just words. I take no offence, since I really don't care.

Oh I do ignore them. I'm just pointing out the facts that the word pagan has a negative connotation to it.

"Ignorant"? Honey, from what I've seen, it isn't me who needs to do some learning....

Lets not turn this into a religious flamewar, plz, if that's alright with you.

Haven't you learned to ignore them by now? They should really have no power over you at all; their words are just words. I take no offence, since I really don't care.

Yeah Fass is right. Fundamentialists are a bunch of jerks. I don't see why they have to go and pry into other people's customs.

The people who made pagan a negative term to begin with did; personally, I like it. The original word had nothing to do with religion, it was the term for a rustic person, or countryfolk. The (insert dominant monotheistic religion) made it a negative term when they realized people actually liked those things and wanted a reason to make them stop.

Well. my understanding of it was that the country people were the last to convert (possibly because they were the last ones to truly believe in the old religions, not to mention the fact that the nature-based gods promised them a good harvest, which they needed to survive, while this new god had nothing but eternal life, which wasn't much used to them.)

Heathen has a similar connotation in a different part of the world, referring to the heaths that were very important to the northern people who were the last to be christianized.

"Ignorant"? Honey, from what I've seen, it isn't me who needs to do some learning....

Oh yes, you're very ignorant. And you go around denouncing atheists and humanists like no tomorrow... you really should get over yourself. Doesn't your religion teach you not to judge?

If that wasn't satire you are really screwed up. I haven't met very many decadent atheists, but maybe that's just me.



dec·a·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dk-dns, d-kdns)
n.
A process, condition, or period of deterioration or decline, as in morals or art; decay.
often Decadence A literary movement especially of late 19th-century France and England characterized by refined aestheticism, artifice, and the quest for new sensations.




And I'm not talking about the literary movement. It fits anyone who advocates unrestricted sexuality, indulgence, etc. perfectly.

Oh I do ignore them. I'm just pointing out the facts that the word pagan has a negative connotation to it.

Well people can turn any word into a negative word. Look how people use and call each other "Liberal" or "Conservative".

Take it up with dictionary.com

Etymology...


What is a "Pagan?"

Everybody has their favorite definition of the word "Pagan." Most people are convinced that their meaning is the correct one. But no consensus exists, even within a single faith tradition or religion as to what a pagan is.

horizontal rule
Origin of the term:

There is general agreement that the word "Pagan" comes from the Latin word "paganus." Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the precise meaning of the word in the fifth century CE and before. There are three main interpretations. 16 None has won general acceptance:
bullet Most modern Pagan sources interpret the word to have meant "rustic," "hick," or "country bumpkin" -- a pejorative term. The implication was that Christians used the term to ridicule country folk who tenaciously held on to what the Christians considered old-fashioned, outmoded Pagan beliefs. Those in the country were much slower in adopting the new religion of Christianity than were the city folks. They still followed the Greek state religion, Roman state religion, Mithraism, various mystery religions, etc., long after those in urban areas had converted.
bullet Some believe that in the early Roman Empire, "paganus" came to mean "civilian" as opposed to "military." Christians often called themselves "miles Christi" (Soldiers of Christ). The non-Christians became "pagani" -- non-soldiers or civilians. No denigration would be implied.
bullet C. Mohrmann suggests that the general meaning was any "outsider," -- a neutral term -- and that the other meanings, "civilian" and "hick," were merely specialized uses of the term. 17

By the third century CE, its meaning evolved to include all non-Christians. Eventually, it became an evil term that implied the possibility of Satan worship. The latter two meanings are still in widespread use today.

There is no generally accepted, single, current definition for the word "Pagan." The word is among the terms that the newsgroup alt.usage.english, calls "skunk words." They have varied meanings to different people. The field of religion is rife with such words. consider: Christian, cult, hell, heaven, occult, Paganism, pluralism, salvation, Witch, Witchcraft, Unitarian Universalist, Voodoo, etc. Each has so many meanings that they often cause misunderstandings wherever they are used. Unfortunately, most people do not know this, and naturally assume that the meaning that they have been taught is universally accepted. A reader must often look at the context in which the word is used in order to guess at the intent of the writer.

We recognize that many Wiccans, Neopagans, and others regularly use the terms "Pagan" and "Paganism" to describe themselves. Everyone should be free to continue whatever definitions that they wish. However, the possibility of major confusion exists -- particularly if one is talking to a general audience. When addressing non-Wiccans or non-Neopagans, it is important that the term:
bullet Be carefully defined in advance, or that
bullet Its meaning is clearly understandable from the text's context.

Otherwise, the speaker or writer will be referring to one group of people, while the listeners or readers will assume that other groups are being referred to.

Why does something need to harm others to be sinful? Sin is transgression of God's will. You're dealing with ethics, not right and wrong.

Just being nitpicky: ethics is the science of right and wrong. The point you're making is that whether or not its right or wrong, god doesn't like it. So I'll go to hell and get a cushy job in management where I can control the underworld from behind the scenes. Sounds fun.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the big '3'...they're only a couple of thousand years old. I mean, sheesh. I know humans have a limited lifespan, and sometimes it's hard for us to see the big picture, but what is the huge deal with religions that are so new to human history?


Okay, you started it... Lets hear your proof and rationale for older religions.

Now mind you, we’re not going to easily 'accept' just any old modern day reincarnation of an ancient sounding religion name with a new mysticism. (Such as modern day Wiccan, despite it old name, the rituals and books used by them are less than three hundred years old, but they like to pretend that it's pre-history 'rediscovered’ ... balderdash I say).

Native American religions are old, however, how much have they changed. Take the horse, the horse had such an impact on the northern American peoples when the Europeans introduced the species here that the American cultures changed and modified their entire existence around it. With that in mind, it is essentially, only 500 years old.

Admittedly, Incan, Mayan Aztec etc., are old and they left some writing so that we know what they are about, but outside of the mathematical astronomy stuff, I don't see much point in following any of that, with tribal warfare and sacrificing to the giant snake in the sky being a primary importance to them...

And as to Judaism/Christianity, Moses had to be at least three thousand years ago, and Abraham another five hundred or so older than that, and since the historical record is only about 5 to 6 thousand years old at all (civilization in the Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt etc., not mankind) parts of the Bible is more than half of the age of everything we know as a species of city dwellers… and since some of the older stories in the Bible are directly related to the oldest of old recorded stories of Gilgamesh (world floods and giants etc.,) then what religion can claim seniority over it? ;)

Oh I do ignore them. I'm just pointing out the facts that the word pagan has a negative connotation to it.

You should look up the meaning of "ignore." By addressing them, you aren't really doing that. Anyway, the word only has the negative connotation you give it - and you are giving it theirs. Not very productive.

Oh yes, you're very ignorant. And you go around denouncing atheists and humanists like no tomorrow... you really should get over yourself. Doesn't your religion teach you not to judge?



I'm not the one who links to a site listing apparent contradictions within the Bible then refuses to read the site of his opponent explaining how they really aren't true contradictions, because that site is "religious."

I'd do anything to bring back Pan and Dionysos as gods; all that sex, drinking, and endless partying would mellow people out for sure.

Perhaps they were right all along, and were silenced because of it...
I vote for this one :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Well. my understanding of it was that the country people were the last to convert (possibly because they were the last ones to truly believe in the old religions, not to mention the fact that the nature-based gods promised them a good harvest, which they needed to survive, while this new god had nothing but eternal life, which wasn't much used to them.)

Heathen has a similar connotation in a different part of the world, referring to the heaths that were very important to the northern people who were the last to be christianized.

That's correct; eternal life isn't exactly motivating when you're starving. The nature gods promised tangible benefits in addition to the ethereal ones promised by the higher gods, so the system was hard to eliminate.

Actually, that transformation in meaning seems quite condescending to those believing differently from the "enlightened" religions.

Okay, you started it... Lets hear your proof and rationale for older religions.
Sorry to disappoint. I never endorsed 'older' religions either. I'm an atheist. I'm simply interested in why people hold onto customs (religion) so tightly when it's really a fairly new phenomena...(these particular monotheistic, organised religions I mean).

Yeah Fass is right. Fundamentialists are a bunch of jerks.

That's not what I wrote at all. Fundamentalists can be whatever they want to be. In my eyes, they're just not worth the attention.

I'm not the one who links to a site listing apparent contradictions within the Bible then refuses to read the site of his opponent explaining how they really aren't true contradictions, because that site is "religious."

Oh but they are true contradiction and the bible is a pile of contradictions. That's all it is. The site you provided is biased.

dec·a·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dk-dns, d-kdns)
n.
A process, condition, or period of deterioration or decline, as in morals or art; decay.
often Decadence A literary movement especially of late 19th-century France and England characterized by refined aestheticism, artifice, and the quest for new sensations.


And I'm not talking about the literary movement. It fits anyone who advocates unrestricted sexuality, indulgence, etc. perfectly.

I get that decadence can apply to lots of food and sex, though your definition forgets that part, I just don't know where you get the concept that this is the humanist standpoint. Most humanists focus on serving humanity as a whole.

I vote for this one :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Yes! My first fluffle orgy!

And as to Judaism/Christianity, Moses had to be at least three thousand years ago, and Abraham another five hundred or so older than that, and since the historical record is only about 5 to 6 thousand years old at all (civilization in the Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt etc., not mankind) parts of the Bible is more than half of the age of everything we know as a species of city dwellers… and since some of the older stories in the Bible are directly related to the oldest of old recorded stories of Gilgamesh (world floods and giants etc.,) then what religion can claim seniority over it? ;)


Well you can say that the cave paintings of early humans or Neanderthals could point to a type of animal spiritualism, which would make it thousands of years older than that.

Well not all of them are really. The enlightened ones like Plato are Aristotle are in Limbo, according to Dante.

limbo is a fun game... i bet they're extremely flexible by now

limbo is a fun game... i bet they're extremely flexible by now

They should have made it twister.

Sorry to disappoint. I never endorsed 'older' religions either. I'm an atheist. I'm simply interested in why people hold onto customs (religion) so tightly when it's really a fairly new phenomena...(these particular monotheistic, organised religions I mean).

You're not really getting the gist of his point, which is the question of why the fact that they are relatively new religions makes people's beleif in them surprising.

They should have made it twister.

Yeah well Dante got angry because his ankles would give out on left foot blue.

I think unrestricted sexual activity would do humanity some good.

Pagan. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=pagan) It's what it means. Get over it.

Except it bases its definition (by its own self-admission) on an interpretation of the latin word "paganus"; which is still (in etymological circles) open to debate as to accurate usage and meaning in the original language....

Thus, the definition expresses an improper bias, based off of a sigular (non-factual) interpretation; thus rendering the definition non-authorative...

You're not really getting the gist of his point, which is the question of why the fact that they are relatively new religions makes people's beleif in them surprising.
It suprises me in the same way someone who can flip their eyelids inside out surprises me. It's odd. It strikes me as strange. And I can't help but thinking, what religions will replace the big 3 in the future (an unthinkable, but highly probably event)?

Well, we'll just replace it with the Roman rituals, which abhorred human sacrifice. Pan and Bacchus, then.
Don't forget Mars. He can help us conquer barbaric people, civilize them, exploit them, and use some of their people as slaves.

Yeah well Dante got angry because his ankles would give out on left foot blue.

You'd think a love of other's sweaty bodies would have balanced that out? Ah, well.

Oh but they are true contradiction and the bible is a pile of contradictions. That's all it is. The site you provided is biased.



See what I mean?

I think unrestricted sexual activity would do humanity some good.

Sex was suppressed so that the frustration could be rediverted in to wars and religious fervor. It functioned in the same way as the Anti-Sex League in 1984, it kept the people fanatical about something else so that they couldn't really see how much things sucked.

Don't forget Mars. He can help us conquer barbaric people, civilize them, exploit them, and use some of their people as slaves.

Well, at least it's equal opportunity enslavement, I guess. Plus, you could get free if you could pay for it; more of forced indentured servitude than modern slavery.

I get that decadence can apply to lots of food and sex, though your definition forgets that part, I just don't know where you get the concept that this is the humanist standpoint. Most humanists focus on serving humanity as a whole.



Part of humanism is to indulge in life, enjoy it to its fullest, which generally involves sex, sex and more sex.

See what I mean?

I'm doing everything I can to oppose christian fundamentalism that you spew. Christian fundamentalists are all ignorant.

Part of humanism is to indulge in life, enjoy it to its fullest, which generally involves sex, sex and more sex.

If you think that you have a really screwed up definition of humanism, and you don't quite frankly know what you are talking about. I'm a humanist (existentialist) atheist...

Except it bases its definition (by its own self-admission) on an interpretation of the latin word "paganus"; which is still (in etymological circles) open to debate as to accurate usage and meaning in the original language....

Thus, the definition expresses an improper bias, based off of a sigular (non-factual) interpretation; thus rendering the definition non-authorative...

The meaning given has no basis in etymology or authority. It's a descriptive dictionary. Hence that's what the word simply means.

I'm doing everything I can to oppose christian fundamentalism that you spew. Christian fundamentalists are all ignorant.
Well, this thread has fallen into the LCD trap.

*leaves*

Well, this thread has fallen into the LCD trap.

*leaves*

Funny how that happens. I'm joining you.

Part of humanism is to indulge in life, enjoy it to its fullest, which generally involves sex, sex and more sex.
That is not humanism

Here lets start with a simple deffinition ... it discribes a lot


hu·man·ism Audio pronunciation of "humanism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hym-nzm)
n.

1. A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
2. Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: “the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism” (Savvy).
3. Medicine. The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick.
4. The study of the humanities; learning in the liberal arts.
5. Humanism A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns as a result of the rediscovery and study of the literature, art, and civilization of ancient Greece and Rome

Look it is just plain wrong. I think I will take up with them because being atheist is not being pagan in any sense. An atheist believes in nothing when it comes to religion, so it is a misnomer to call them a pagan.
I'm an atheist. Your definition of the word 'atheist' is wrong. Atheism just means that you don't believe in any god or gods, not that you lack religion. Buddhists are religious, but have no god. Would you consider that theism or atheism?

That is not humanism

Here lets start with a simple deffinition ... it discribes a lot


I took mine from the American Humanists website.

I'm an atheist. Your definition of the word 'atheist' is wrong. Atheism just means that you don't believe in any god or gods, not that you lack religion. Buddhists are religious, but have no god. Would you consider that theism or atheism?

You know what I mean. My definition is not wrong. MY definition is right because I'm atheist and I know what I'm talking about.

You know what I mean. My definition is not wrong. MY definition is right because I'm atheist and I know what I'm talking about.



:headbang:

I took mine from the American Humanists website.

Yes, but your interpretation is false because to live life to its fullest does not mean having sex orgies. I'm existentialist and I live my life to its fullest. That simply means I enjoy every day.

Yes, but your interpretation is false because to live life to its fullest does not mean having sex orgies. I'm existentialist and I live my life to its fullest. That simply means I enjoy every day.


Hmm, then I suppose I'm seeing an illusion when the vast majority of secularists and humanists call for a lift on the sexuality restrictions?

Hmm, then I suppose I'm seeing an illusion when the vast majority of secularists and humanists call for a lift on the sexuality restrictions?

You really don't know what you're talking about. What you are seeing is not the reality. Which is typical. But yes, I was for the lifting of for example sodomy laws because the government has no right to control my body.

Hmm, then I suppose I'm seeing an illusion when the vast majority of secularists and humanists call for a lift on the sexuality restrictions?

No, they want people to have as much freedom as possible, regardless of whether or not they agree with it. It's like the Supreme Court's decision on Larry Flint, or the ACLU's defense of the Nazis; they don't agree with the material, but they respect the freedom of the person to express it.

You really don't know what you're talking about. What you are seeing is not the reality. Which is typical. But yes, I was for the lifting of for example sodomy laws because the government has no right to control my body.



*sigh*....why do I even bother? *leaves the thread with Fass and Sin*

*sigh*....why do I even bother? *leaves the thread with Fass and Sin*

No, I should be saying.. why do I even bother! Look at what you say here.. you just don't know what you are talking about.. and you speak falsehoods about the humanist movement just so you can support yourself.

Yea but that was one guy. You remember how many innocents were torched at the stake for being "witches?" How many Crusades were launched? How many theocratic monarchies were set up? How America acts today? All because of Chrisitianity? I'll take the hemlock of Socrates rather than the Inquisition...

...which nobody expects ;)


Smartest thing ive heard all week :p

Judaism is as old as any religion out there. The only existing major religion that can claim as much history (as in, we have no idea when it started) is Hinduism).
Oh? When did the religion of the Greek mythology begin? When did the religion of the Australian aboriginals, the African Bushman, the Hawaiians, the Maori, or the North American natives begin?

Oh? When did the religion of the Greek mythology begin? When did the religion of the Australian aboriginals, the African Bushman, the Hawaiians, the Maori, or the North American natives begin?
None of those are "major" relgions. At least one of them no longer exists.

I'm an atheist. Your definition of the word 'atheist' is wrong. Atheism just means that you don't believe in any god or gods, not that you lack religion. Buddhists are religious, but have no god. Would you consider that theism or atheism?

True, but a lot of buddhists worship "the enlightened one" as a god

None of those are "major" relgions. At least one of them no longer exists.
Not major because they weren't exported, and forced on others. So it's not necessarily that these religions are 'better' or 'right'...they were just more single-mindedly bloodthirsty in their religious conquests. Doesn't that shake people's faith up a bit?

Not major because they weren't exported, and forced on others. So it's not necessarily that these religions are 'better' or 'right'...they were just more single-mindedly bloodthirsty in their religious conquests. Doesn't that shake people's faith up a bit?
Who are you arguing with? I'm just saying that Judaism isn't a "new" religion.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the big '3'...they're only a couple of thousand years old. I mean, sheesh. I know humans have a limited lifespan, and sometimes it's hard for us to see the big picture, but what is the huge deal with religions that are so new to human history?
The answer is simple: writing.

I believe that prior to the invention of writing, mankind had a fluid, oral history. Religions and religious ideas mixed and mingled and evolved with the growing and expanding consciousness of Man. Concretizing the ideas in writing, though, preserved them for all time in one form; made them precious, static and "real." This gives them a significance, that of authority, that today makes them such a "big deal."

Who are you arguing with? I'm just saying that Judaism isn't a "new" religion.
I'm not sure who I'm arguing with.

But while Judaism may not be a 'new religion'...it was one of those insignificant tribal religions for most of its history. It only rose to significance on the world stage around the time as Christianity and Islam...is this not true?

The answer is simple: writing.

I believe that prior to the invention of writing, mankind had a fluid, oral history. Religions and religious ideas mixed and mingled and evolved with the growing and expanding consciousness of Man. Concretizing the ideas in writing, though, preserved them for all time in one form; made them precious, static and "real." This gives them a significance, that of authority, that today makes them such a "big deal."Writing alone can't acount for it...the Maya had writing....but it was obliterated with conquest. I think the common factor in making a religion MAJOR is conquest. Not writing. Though the writing certainly helps...

And thanks to you and Jah Bootie for shifting this thread from "fundies versus fundie-haters"!

But while Judaism may not be a 'new religion'...it was one of those insignificant tribal religions for most of its history. It only rose to significance on the world stage around the time as Christianity and Islam...is this not true?

Not really, the Jews were still oppressed even after they came to power. Islam gave them trouble, but left them alone; they were occasionally harrassed and forced to pay special taxes, but could still perform many roles in the Islamic world. They were treated worse in Christendom and used to whip up hatred based upon faulty anti-Semitic theology so that the people wouldn't notice how much things sucked in Europe.

I'm not sure who I'm arguing with.

But while Judaism may not be a 'new religion'...it was one of those insignificant tribal religions for most of its history. It only rose to significance on the world stage around the time as Christianity and Islam...is this not true?
Well, yes and no. Judaism had spread across the world because its followers were very stubborn about their religion but moved a lot because they were basically in the way of every army that wanted to invade anywhere. There were jews in southern Europe, India, Egypt, Africa, etc. Also, the Greeks always had a certain interest in Judaism because they thought of it as a very "intellectual" religion that had a god who could not be pictured. In terms of numbers, it's actually still fairly small compared to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, but it's long lasting because jews have always been so tenacious in not allowing worship of other gods, and because christians and muslims saw them as forebears and generally allowed them to live nearby without converting.

Not really, the Jews were still oppressed even after they came to power. Islam gave them trouble, but left them alone; they were occasionally harrassed and forced to pay special taxes, but could still perform many roles in the Islamic world. They were treated worse in Christendom and used to whip up hatred based upon faulty anti-Semitic theology so that the people wouldn't notice how much things sucked in Europe.
So...what you're saying is Judaism wasn't even really a major religion then? When do you think it became a major religion? (is it really? Or is it just a regional thing...how many Jews (religiously speaking) are there in comparison to Christians and Muslims anyway?)

Not really, the Jews were still oppressed even after they came to power. Islam gave them trouble, but left them alone; they were occasionally harrassed and forced to pay special taxes, but could still perform many roles in the Islamic world. They were treated worse in Christendom and used to whip up hatred based upon faulty anti-Semitic theology so that the people wouldn't notice how much things sucked in Europe.
Jews were treated differently from pagans by both Muslims and Christians. Both muslims and christians have some not-so-proud history with their jewish minorities, but overall they managed to live in relative peace among adherents of both religions.

So...what you're saying is Judaism wasn't even really a major religion then? When do you think it became a major religion? (is it really? Or is it just a regional thing...how many Jews (religiously speaking) are there in comparison to Christians and Muslims anyway?)
Pretty small, as you can see

Christianity: 2.1 billion

Islam: 1.3 billion

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

Buddhism: 376 million

primal-indigenous: 300 million

African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

Sikhism: 23 million

Juche: 19 million

Spiritism: 15 million

Judaism: 14 million

Baha'i: 7 million

Jainism: 4.2 million

Shinto: 4 million

Cao Dai: 4 million

Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million

Tenrikyo: 2 million

Neo-Paganism: 1 million

Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

Scientology: 500 thousand

NOTE: I didn't really think of Shinto and Chinese traditional religion earlier when thinking of old religions, so go back and add those along with Hinduism and Judaism

Ok, so I guess I'll just look at the Christians and Islamics with raised eyebrows...both are rapidly expanding religions, and quite powerful...yet both are young. Why are people so convinced they are right, when their faith is so new....

Old religions, such as most polytheistic religions, aren't around any more because: they became conquered by monotheistic governments, whether that government was exterior or an interior civil movement.

I really don't understand the need for religion now. Sure, back before the understanding of plate-tectonics and meteorology, when the earth shook, a volcano erupted or a hurricane devastated a region, explanation as an "act of the gods" was certainly understandable. In this day and age, the belief in invisible cloud fairies who grant wishes and send you to a place filled with cotton-candy clouds and apple-juice waterfalls (only if you believe!) is ludicrous. Most ancient philosophers and pioneers did not believe in their god(s) either. Gods were/are around to deify leaders and their tenets, quench the ignorant masses and put to rest our fears of nothingness after death (a price we pay for being so self-aware, I suppose).

By the way, I had never heard of Cao Dai, so I looked it up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Dai

Supposedly they have a few million followers already, and were founded in 1926. Victor Hugo is one of their saints. Very strange.

Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia
Why does something need to harm others to be sinful? Sin is transgression of God's will. You're dealing with ethics, not right and wrong.
Just being nitpicky: ethics is the science of right and wrong. The point you're making is that whether or not its right or wrong, god doesn't like it.
To be even more nitpiccy, ethics is not a science; it falls under the philosophies. It is the study of right and wrong behaviour.

I think the point is that sin being harmful to others takes a backseat to that it is harmful to God.

Ok, so I guess I'll just look at the Christians and Islamics with raised eyebrows...both are rapidly expanding religions, and quite powerful...yet both are young. Why are people so convinced they are right, when their faith is so new....



Because Christianity is the one True faith, and Islam has Judao-Christian roots.

None of those are "major" relgions. At least one of them no longer exists.
You said *any* religion.

Because Christianity is the one True faith, and Islam has Judao-Christian roots.
So Islam is a splinter religion?

And one true faith. Sigh. How tiresome a label. You have no proof. But you know that. It can't be proven until you die...and then you can't come back to let us in on the secret.

I'll live my life the way I choose, and suffer the dubious consequences in my 'afterlife'.

But, that being said...if Christianity (or any other claimant to the one true faith title) is so true...why wasn't it revealed to humans at the beginning of our history, instead of a mere two thousand years ago? Myabe your god said...'if it ain't broke...' until just recently?

You said *any* religion.
I said it's as old as any religion, which it is, as far as we can tell (it and several other religions go back to time immemorial). I said that the only MAJOR religion that was as old was Hinduism. I was actually wrong, because Shinto and Chinese Traditional religions are just as old.

Writing alone can't acount for it...the Maya had writing....but it was obliterated with conquest. I think the common factor in making a religion MAJOR is conquest. Not writing. Though the writing certainly helps...

And thanks to you and Jah Bootie for shifting this thread from "fundies versus fundie-haters"!
But if they hadn't been obliterated, if instead the Europeans had attempted to understand their writing and communicate... *sigh* but speculation along the lines of "what if" isn't useful here.

I agree that wiping out the opposition is a factor in their preservation, but I think that preservation is what makes them "a big deal."

(Is that a good compromise position? *grin*)

I'll take the hemlock of Socrates rather than the Inquisition...

...which nobody expects ;)

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Hmf... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surpr... I'll come in again.
*Leaves*
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition
*Bursts in again*
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!... Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!

Ta da :)

So Islam is a splinter religion?

And one true faith. Sigh. How tiresome a label. You have no proof. But you know that. It can't be proven until you die...and then you can't come back to let us in on the secret.

I'll live my life the way I choose, and suffer the dubious consequences in my 'afterlife'.

But, that being said...if Christianity (or any other claimant to the one true faith title) is so true...why wasn't it revealed to humans at the beginning of our history, instead of a mere two thousand years ago? Myabe your god said...'if it ain't broke...' until just recently?


I am so not in the mood to do the necessarily long explanation for it....could you please just read the Bible and save me the trouble? :(

I am so not in the mood to do the necessarily long explanation for it....could you please just read the Bible and save me the trouble? :(
No.

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Hmf... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surpr... I'll come in again.
*Leaves*
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition
*Bursts in again*
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!... Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!

Ta da :)
Now there's a religion I'd join...the cult of Monty Python!

*snip*
Ta da :)
Well done. :)

thanks, i try, i love that bit

*takes a bow*

(voiceover)
and now for something completely different

I'd do anything to bring back Pan and Dionysos as gods; all that sex, drinking, and endless partying would mellow people out for sure.

Perhaps they were right all along, and were silenced because of it...

Mellow my ass! While Dionysus may have been the god of wine, that job has a whole other side to it; he was also attributed to the mindless violence that drunkenness brings. He is the one behind every man that ever got drunk and went home to beat his wife. Basically bar fights, drunk drivers, domestic abuse, and that sort of thing all fall into his divine turf so to speak.

As for the polytheism ---> monotheism ---> atheism bit, I have my own thoughts on that.

Consider it this way; we always were called God's "children." Children, as I'm sure anyone who has every had to look after +3 seven year olds will tell you, are disobedient, rebellious, violent little barbarians that need constant attention and discipline to keep them in line. When they are very young they really don't know what to make of the world, so with that in mind they essentially go around making whatever the hell they want out of it. This usually takes the form of that wide eyed look of awe they usually have when they run around your house. After that they start to mature and they begin responding to your guidance and teachings but even then they are still disobedient and tend to look after there own devices. Come their teen years, they completely loose their heads. Out right rebellion against authority is the order of the day, many simply wonder off and refuse to so much as acknowledge the existence of their parents in all but the literal sense, the most angsty of them go off and become nihilists or some such. Some of course maintain respect for their parents through their teen years. After they get through that they go off on their own and become responsible adults who will realize the wisdom of their parents teachings (that is of course if their parents were wise and not assclowns) and repeat the cycle with their own children.

Humanity has gone through it's infancy were it was fearful and awed by the world around it, so much so that it worshipped the individual aspects of the natural world natural world (polytheistic gods). After that, once it realized that it's "parent" was trying to teach it something it went along for the ride while he was watching (monotheism). Next when humanity was a teenager it was a very unruly one, it went around ignoring it's Father most of the time and occasionally slammed it's bedroom door in His face. :p In it's "He just doesn't get it" episodes arose such things as atheism, existentialism, nihilism and the like, but some of the time it got along fairly well with it's Father.

Of course, we haven't grown up yet but bare in mind that we were created in his image. Once we finally do grow up and fully understand the wisdom of his teachings (we never really did understand Him in the monotheistic stage, we just sort of listened to His lessons and decided if we were going to obey them) we will enter a new era of humanity were we and God are nearly one in the same. Near the end of such time we will become stubborn in our ways up until the human race passes away of old age.

But then again, I could be wrong. :D

That is not humanism

Here lets start with a simple deffinition ... it discribes a lot

And of course, the Renaissance Humanists were firmly religious, so the use of the word is...i would say it's wrong, i wouldn't call myself a humanist, i'd call myself an atheist.

Erasmus would be horrified to hear people calling themselves Humanists didn't believe in God. And, bless his little cotton socks, i wouldn't want to horrify the dear old queen.

It suprises me in the same way someone who can flip their eyelids inside out surprises me. It's odd. It strikes me as strange. And I can't help but thinking, what religions will replace the big 3 in the future (an unthinkable, but highly probably event)?

Like I pointed out before, belief and followers of Abraham are at least (more than actually) half the age of recorded history of all mankind and civilization itself already. It has proven itself to be long lasting and enduring. Christianity is already one third the age of recorded history. What indication is there that they will not be followed for another 2 to 3 thousand years in some form or another and more? I see no sign of weakness or threat of extinction.

I have a harder time explaining Islam, although I have read the Qur'an, I have realized that these two (Christianity and Islam) are not descended one of the other or perhaps only the two linked to the history of the third. They are incompatible choices for people though. You cannot believe in both. You can believe in one or the other or neither, but anyone that tries to say they are believers of both either doesn't really believe in either or doesn't understand what they propose...

Back on point here though, you 'assume' that there is no real God that reveals himself via epiphany and thus you are stuck with trying to explain the activity and beliefs of followers that you assume are mistaken about their expressed 'revelations.'

Pagans? Surely you mean the Romans, and so on and so forth...followers of other, legititmite (at the time) religions? Sheesh...blaming it all on the Pagans :p

And isn't it funny how the persecuted invariably become the persecuters?

Ya. Christianity lost it's innocence when it started massacering pagans. ;)

Pagan. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=pagan) It's what it means. Get over it.

Quit. It's also thought to mean "old-fashioned" or "out-of-date". But, yes, it is aslso said to mean countryman (as opposed to city-dweller). I forget where i found it! :D

*sigh*....why do I even bother? *leaves the thread with Fass and Sin*

Et-Tu, Neo Regolia?

Because Christianity is the one True faith, and Islam has Judao-Christian roots.

Everybody says that about their religion. What makes you so right?

Religions have served their purpose well: Keeping the mindless, foolish, masses placated and controlled. Right now comsumerism and pop-culturalism seems to be doing a fine job.