NationStates Jolt Archive

No, Hawking holds that at the beginning there was no singularity and thus the laws of physics hold all the time. (it is known that time is a dimention just like the 3 space ones) All observable time/space/matter does not reduce to a singularity we have not looked that far back. Hawking's hypothesis does make testable statements about the make-up of the Universe and the preliminary tests are in favor of him (of course it needs more to evidence to be considered a theory) Read the chapter again.



So, he's basically stating what I believe? That time/space always follow physical laws? Good! :D

You can take a class on religion in college.

Then again, you can also take philosophy of the matrix.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

I learn Religious Education at school. I didn't think it was alien to others.

It is logically impossible, with the scientific method, to determine what came before the exact instant at which the universe began (if it began at all). The scientific method only applies within the realm of the universe itself.



I don't think you read what Jocabia said. He quite clearly pointed out that some of what Hawkings says is more philosophy that science. Those portions, however, are not considered scientific theory - they are in the realm of philosophy.



Philosophy and theology are not mutually exclusive, but you are right that neither is superior to the other.



Actually, I'm pretty sure he was saying those theories were scientific as opposed to philosophical. You're only repeating what I was trying to convey, that these theories cannot be verified empirically and are therefore equal.

Of course I do neither. See the problem here is that believing in God with faith is all fine and dandy. Its perfectly reasonable for someone to make that leap of faith to believe in a diety. However the problem comes in when we introduce the part about believing in god carries the bag of social, moral and numerous other codes and conducts. To justify the limiting of someones right like the right for gays to marry based on your faith in a being that may or may not be true is in itself a horrible thing. If I were to say my god is telling me to kill everyone who isnt a twin and back it up by a belief that cannot be proven logically we have a serious problem here. You can believe in god all you want with faith but once the social implications come in that shit goes out the window.



Well, then I suppose we'll just have to be at odds, because I cannot yield in that respect and remain pious. Logically, we cannot even prove we have rights at all, much less a right to travesty. It is a societal assumption.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he was saying those theories were scientific as opposed to philosophical.

He pointed out that some of what Hawking says is philosophical and some is scientific. What isn't clear is exactly what premises you are talking about.

You're only repeating what I was trying to convey, that these theories cannot be verified empirically and are therefore equal.

Philosophy cannot be verified. It is logical (or should be), but is not based on empiricism.

However, I wasn't really talking about empiricism. I was talking about the fact that, by logical constraints, science can only work within the universe - within the laws of the universe. As such, it cannot determine what (if anything) came before. This really isn't the same thing.

I shouldn't have said prove, I should have said "empirically evidenced." We cannot make judgements outside of our own laws of science using our laws of science.

The Big Bang theory does not deal with what existed before the beginning of the universe, nor can it. If it did, it would not be a scientific theory.

Well, then I suppose we'll just have to be at odds, because I cannot yield in that respect and remain pious. Oh, and this isn't even about gay marriage..

I know that its not about gay marriage it was only an example. We could use the Catholic Church's stance against the use of contraceptives in Africa as another example. Its just that when faith is used to justify beliefs which impact others and aren't good how do you stop that person? How would you stop me from going around and saying that all non twins need to die because my god told me so? How do you disprove that person's view when their belief comes from faith instead of logic and reason?

The Big Bang theory does not deal with what existed before the beginning of the universe, nor can it. If it did, it would not be a scientific theory.


My.

Point.

Exactly.

Great, I could have been writing that essay I had for Ethics, but instead I was arguing against something that wasn't even disagreeing with me because both of us thought we were disagreeing when we weren't disagreeing (gotta love redundancy)!

I'm going to get started on it now...

I know that its not about gay marriage it was only an example. We could use the Catholic Church's stance against the use of contraceptives in Africa as another example. Its just that when faith is used to justify beliefs which impact others and aren't good how do you stop that person? How would you stop me from going around and saying that all non twins need to die because my god told me so? How do you disprove that person's view when their belief comes from faith instead of logic and reason?



Because murder is observably evil and deadly to an individual whereas forbidding certain forms of sex is not. If it were, we would see many more celibates committing suicide from "emotional distress."

Actually, I'm pretty sure he was saying those theories were scientific as opposed to philosophical. You're only repeating what I was trying to convey, that these theories cannot be verified empirically and are therefore equal.

The difference in his philosophical theories and theology is that he keeps his philosophical theories grounded to the necessary components, meaning he does not inject anything into his theories that is not required for explanation, for example, intelligence. Also, a major difference is that if his theories are in conflict with what is observable then he would adjust his theories not decide what he observed is false which is not a requirement of theology. They are not actually equal.

Also, forgetting about Hawking, if you believe a theory like the idea that the universe is cyclical and continually expands and contracts then you have an explanation that is simpler than "God did it", would eventually be supportable and disprovable (assuming we were around long enough to watch it contract), and exists completely within the realm of physics. That theory says the universe was always here. Now, if you say "but where did it come from", offering God as an answer again, just pushes "where did it come from" further away, but the question remains.

Because murder is observably evil and deadly to an individual whereas forbidding certain forms of sex is not. If it were, we would see many more celibates committing suicide from "emotional distress."

I could go lower then murder. I start campaigning that blacks should all be seperated from the whites because they are infereor and this is because my god tells me it is so. I start campaigning to take away all church property because they are all false and turning people away from the one true god who has told me who he is. I start campaigning that certain books should not be allowed to be read because it disagrees with what my god says is right. How do you change a person's point of view if they are basing it on faith?

Because murder is observably evil and deadly to an individual whereas forbidding certain forms of sex is not. If it were, we would see many more celibates committing suicide from "emotional distress."

But who gave you the power to forbid certain forms of sex. Certainly not God. You have not been entrusted with enforcing God's law.

My.

Point.

Exactly.

Great, I could have been writing that essay I had for Ethics, but instead I was arguing against something that wasn't even disagreeing with me because both of us thought we were disagreeing when we weren't disagreeing (gotta love redundancy)!

I'm going to get started on it now...

We are to a degree disagreeing. You suggested there are no natural explanations for the beginning of the universe, but Big Bang is exactly that. The problem is that you're asking for an explanation of the singularity which no one can offer and still be within the realm of science.

Because murder is observably evil and deadly to an individual whereas forbidding certain forms of sex is not. If it were, we would see many more celibates committing suicide from "emotional distress."
I'm very seriously considering establishing a religion. Clearly, such a religion would never recognise heterosexuals right to be intimate, nor would it allow them to marry or have children. Only artificial insimination and homosex is pure enough for my god. You heathen hetero's are an affront to all things holy, pure and good. From now on, I shall do my utmost to save your wretched souls, because while I will most certainly roast marshmellows on your smoldering undead corpeses, as you fry for eternity, I reeeealy don't want you to fry.
I know my actions contradict it, but by refusing you equal rights, and being a thoroughly evil bastard towards you, I'm simply trying to save your souls from becomming the bonfires of the here-after. Trust me. I have nothing but good intentions, nor does my god.

I'm very seriously considering establishing a religion. Clearly, such a religion would never recognise heterosexuals right to be intimate, nor would it allow them to marry or have children. Only artificial insimination and homosex is pure enough for my god. You heathen hetero's are an affront to all things holy, pure and good. From now on, I shall do my utmost to save your wretched souls, because while I will most certainly roast marshmellows on your smoldering undead corpeses, as you fry for eternity, I reeeealy don't want you to fry.
I know my actions contradict it, but by refusing you equal rights, and being a thoroughly evil bastard towards you, I'm simply trying to save your souls from becomming the bonfires of the here-after. Trust me. I have nothing but good intentions, nor does my god.


where do I sign?

where do I sign?

Right under where it says you'll be turning over all your worldy possesions to me. :)

where do I sign?
It's easy, you don't even have to sign anything. Simply preach the gospel to the heathens. Tell them about the glory of our god & the here-after, and make sure they understand just how much our god will punish them if they don't change their ungodly, obnoxious ways.
If they tell you you're evil and maybe insane, tell them of how some random natural disaster wiped out some of the icky Christians. Tell them it's god's will that they stop being nasty hetero's and start embracing the homo ways of our lord & saviour instead. Be warned, though. HEathens, especially Christian heathens, are known to be violent & psychotic. So bring a gun when you preach, and do not be afraid to send them to meet our lord :D

Ok sorry. I'll stop now. I just hope someone, somewhere, sees some similarities.
I honestly don't have any problem at all with Christians, and in general, all this wasn't aimed at you. But the religious fanatics (regardless of religion) who thinks they have a right to decide how others can live their lives, makes me... Well.. Pretty fucking angry, to put it mildly. Making fun of their evil crap probably isn't the answer, but I don't know what is, and at least it's a bit stress relieving to make fun of them.

It's easy, you don't even have to sign anything. Simply preach the gospel to the heathens. Tell them about the glory of our god & the here-after, and make sure they understand just how much our god will punish them if they don't change their ungodly, obnoxious ways.
If they tell you you're evil and maybe insane, tell them of how some random natural disaster wiped out some of the icky Christians. Tell them it's god's will that they stop being nasty hetero's and start embracing the homo ways of our lord & saviour instead. Be warned, though. HEathens, especially Christian heathens, are known to be violent & psychotic. So bring a gun when you preach, and do not be afraid to send them to meet our lord :D

Ok sorry. I'll stop now. I just hope someone, somewhere, sees some similarities.
I honestly don't have any problem at all with Christians, and in general, all this wasn't aimed at you. But the religious fanatics (regardless of religion) who thinks they have a right to decide how others can live their lives, makes me... Well.. Pretty fucking angry, to put it mildly. Making fun of their evil crap probably isn't the answer, but I don't know what is, and at least it's a bit stress relieving to make fun of them.


Which is pretty much my whole point. Its okay to use faith to justify a belief in a being which is metaphysical in nature. I mean if you cant prove it your either going to make a guess and believe in it, make a guess and not believe in it, or reserve your judgment. However once you start making decisions that effect the natural world we live in with a basis in faith it becomes rediculous. You need logic and reason for these types of social and moral constructs and religion does not offer them. I mean imagine trying to debate with Phelps whose beliefs are based in faith. You could cite all the facts you want but he is still going to believe that god hates gays and sent the hurricane to kill NO at the end of the day.

Also, a major difference is that if his theories are in conflict with what is observable then he would adjust his theories not decide what he observed is false which is not a requirement of theology.

Throughout most of the history of theology, that has been a requirement. It is really only the newer fundamentalist versions of theology that try the, "Maybe God did it to trick us," route.

Now, there is the fact that some in theology have gone about the matter in a convoluted way to try and show how something which was observed was not actually in contradiction with their ideas, but then, that can happen in philosophy as well.

In the end, most theology doesn't allow you to simply go around contradicting the observable. They may put a different spin on things, but don't actually contradict reality.

Which is pretty much my whole point. Its okay to use faith to justify a belief in a being which is metaphysical in nature. I mean if you cant prove it your either going to make a guess and believe in it, make a guess and not believe in it, or reserve your judgment. However once you start making decisions that effect the natural world we live in with a basis in faith it becomes rediculous. You need logic and reason for these types of social and moral constructs and religion does not offer them. I mean imagine trying to debate with Phelps whose beliefs are based in faith. You could cite all the facts you want but he is still going to believe that god hates gays and sent the hurricane to kill NO at the end of the day.
Oh don't worry. I'm on the same page as you. It makes me wonder where we draw the line between schizophrenia, megalomania and religious belief.

After all, none of the monotheisms actually encourage their followers to treat people poorly, just because those people don't meet the requirements of the religion, do they?

Throughout most of the history of theology, that has been a requirement. It is really only the newer fundamentalist versions of theology that try the, "Maybe God did it to trick us," route.

Now, there is the fact that some in theology have gone about the matter in a convoluted way to try and show how something which was observed was not actually in contradiction with their ideas, but then, that can happen in philosophy as well.

In the end, most theology doesn't allow you to simply go around contradicting the observable. They may put a different spin on things, but don't actually contradict reality.

I agree that most theology does not directly contradict the observable but it is acceptable for it to do so. And to stand by it beyond all reason. It's a fact that some scientists were burned as heritics for demonstrating that some beliefs held by the Church were in contradiction with observable phenomena.

I agree that most theology does not directly contradict the observable but it is acceptable for it to do so. And to stand by it beyond all reason. It's a fact that some scientists were burned as heritics for demonstrating that some beliefs held by the Church were in contradiction with observable phenomena.
That's what I like about Islam over Christianity. Muslims just say "Well that's what you think. Now go away or shut up, because we aren't listening". Though it definitly seems silly as hell to a guy like me, at least it's not in any way a hostile response. It's more like "Nah nah nah! Can't hear you!" :p

I agree that most theology does not directly contradict the observable but it is acceptable for it to do so. And to stand by it beyond all reason. It's a fact that some scientists were burned as heritics for demonstrating that some beliefs held by the Church were in contradiction with observable phenomena.

I would say that the Church in this case was not properly practicing theology, any more than a scientist who discounted an idea simply because it did not fit with her preconceived notions would be practicing good science.

Theology is a form of philosophy, and should be based on logic.

But then again, my old theology prof pointed out that some people change their view of God based on changes in their view of the world, and some people change their view of the world based on their hard and fast set views of God. *shrug*

Religion is the primary sorce of ignorance for most of the world. It should be scorned and eradicated.

Check your "sorces" as to the primary source of ignorance.

The primary source of ignorance for humanity is laziness. Not doing the work
of actually trying to understand what others mean, or even understanding
what you yourself mean when you use words.

What should be scorned and eradicated is stubborn laziness.


-The REAL Iakeo

First, I found your quote pretty dense and hard to understand. I may have missinterpretted what you and Augastine have said, but my argument remains as thus: It is argued that God cannot do things which are Logically impossible. However, for this to be true assumes that logic is something that God has no control over, exists independantly from God and indeed can control God and bend it to it's will.

It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.

But things are only absolutely impossible to each other because of Logic, thus God is controled and confined by Logic therefore Logic is greater than God and God is not God (by your deffinition).

It must, however, be remembered that since every agent produces an effect like itself, to each active power there corresponds a thing possible as its proper object according to the nature of that act on which its active power is founded; for instance, the power of giving warmth is related as to its proper object to the being capable of being warmed. The divine existence, however, upon which the nature of power in God is founded, is infinite, and is not limited to any genus of being; but possesses within itself the perfection of all being. Whence, whatsoever has or can have the nature of being, is numbered among the absolutely possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent. Now nothing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.

Why is it impossible for soemthing to be conceived? Because Logic says it cannot be concieved and thus, God is subservient to Logic.


Reply to Objection 2. To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence. Nevertheless, the Philosopher says (Topic. iv, 3) that God can deliberately do what is evil. But this must be understood either on a condition, the antecedent of which is impossible--as, for instance, if we were to say that God can do evil things if He will. For there is no reason why a conditional proposition should not be true, though both the antecedent and consequent are impossible: as if one were to say: "If man is a donkey, he has four feet." Or he may be understood to mean that God can do some things which now seem to be evil: which, however, if He did them, would then be good. Or he is, perhaps, speaking after the common manner of the heathen, who thought that men became gods, like Jupiter or Mercury.

Again, the antecedent is impossible only because of Logic. Again God (as you describe Him) is beholden to Logic



Reply to Objection 4. The absolute possible is not so called in reference either to higher causes, or to inferior causes, but in reference to itself. But the possible in reference to some power is named possible in reference to its proximate cause. Hence those things which it belongs to God alone to do immediately--as, for example, to create, to justify, and the like--are said to be possible in reference to a higher cause. Those things, however, which are of such kind as to be done by inferior causes are said to be possible in reference to those inferior causes. For it is according to the condition of the proximate cause that the effect has contingency or necessity, as was shown above (14, 1, ad 2). Thus is it that the wisdom of the world is deemed foolish, because what is impossible to nature, it judges to be impossible to God. So it is clear that the omnipotence of God does not take away from things their impossibility and necessity.

Nonscense: The omnipotence of God implies that God is controled by nothing and nothing is above God. However, all of these arguements have been based on the premise that God is somehow impotent in the face of Logic, which means Logic is a greater force that is able to control God and thus God is not omnipotent.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Not every country is as institutionally atheistic as China (in fact no country save maybe North Korea is) but I do sympathise.

Logic is a greater force that is able to control God and thus God is not omnipotent.

Logic is primaryly a function of language. Can God create a four sided triangle? No because that is not what the word triangle means. This does not make God any less powerful. Logic is also only a function of human understanding. Its quite possible that the reason we see God as unable to do the logically impossible is because we dont have God-like understanding. If we did we could most likely understand more.

Logic is primaryly a function of language. Can God create a four sided triangle? No because that is not what the word triangle means. This does not make God any less powerful. Logic is also only a function of human understanding. Its quite possible that the reason we see God as unable to do the logically impossible is because we dont have God-like understanding. If we did we could most likely understand more.

On the contrary Logic exists independent from language; language is just how we express it. A three sided figure can not have four sides no matter if we call it a triangle, do-hicky, or nitzip. Logic is not a human understanding, like math, we can not invent it but merely discover it. It exists independantly from humans and would continue whether we existed it or not. I guess the main question is WHY is 3 different from four? And why can't God make 3 equal to 4?

To be fair, I don't think their wish is to brainwash. The problem is that fundamentalists have an irrational fear of persecution and that a lack of Christianity is somehow brainwashing people to be Atheist. They are afraid that leaving God out of the pledge, the courts and off our money is somehow persecuting them and spreading Atheism rather just respecting all people's religious freedom. They are afraid that teaching scientific theories rather than their personal religious theories is somehow going to brainwash their children to be Atheist.

The problem with some Christians and some Atheists is that they are both equally afraid that it is the wish of one side to brainwash the other. The vast majority of Atheists and the vast majority of Christians simply want to be free to practice their faith or lack thereof.
I do believe it is their wish to brainwash. How else can you sell such a hateful concept as their God embodies?

I've read many of your posts and I know of your abuse. I too was sexually abused though for me, it was by a young girl that I was not related to. I know what it means to have disappointing (yes, an understatement) parents and siblings. I know what it means to be angry about all of it. I also know that an important thing for you to find is that holding on to that anger is not to your benefit and certainly does not harm those it is aimed at. Anger can steal your faith, your life, your family, your friends and your love. It is probably the most important thing you can ever leave behind you in life. I hope one day you find a way to leave that behind you. It is then that you will find people that you can trust in. Sometimes you have to have faith in people as well, my friend. I hope you find that faith someday.
I sometimes wish I could have faith in people. I've lost my faith in people. You ever heard "once bitten, twice shy?" Well, I've been bitten thousands of times.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Because religious people tend to choose the most religious and conservative leader.. even if the leader is a crazed phycokilling nazy

I didn't realize my religious beliefs were so famous. Interestingly, one of the objections that some have to my beliefs is that they think if you don't force Christianity on people, people will never listen. I always find it interesting when others confirm that people are indeed more likely to listen when the message is tempered with respect and humility.

Of course they think no one will ever listen...they KNOW their version of God is very unappealing. That is WHY they feel a need to force it onto others.

As I said before, if you view God as an auditor before whom your books never balance...a teacher whose class you dread...or as a parent who abuses you but never affirms you...you likely will not "come boldly." In fact, you likely will not come at all!! And these fundies...they know this! So they feel the need to force their unappealing product onto others, because no one actually wants what they are selling.
Let's face it...if someone comes to you with a message as comforting as a crown of thorns, how likely are you to listen, and say they are right? On the other hand, suppose that one comes to you with a message of peace, joy, hope, love, affirmation, mercy, patience, understanding, tolerance, and forgiveness? Which message is more appealing to you? Think about it.

You don't even make the pretense of being open-minded about it, which, I suppose is a plus... at least it's not deceptive.

According to my moral code, it's no big crime for consenting adults to market their exploits in video form, if they so choose - but I consider it a form of abuse to brainwash a small child with a religion, before they have the cognitive ability to decide for themselves.

I wonder how you would feel if my moral paradigm were compelled upon you?
Make no mistake about it, Neo would be pissed and screaming about persecution. But it's perfectly okay, in her book...for her to force her moral paradigm on everyone else. Do as I say, not as I do...typical right-winger.

The Pilgrims were not the first ones here and they didn't practice Religious freedom as the myth said they were searching for. Never mind the fact they had that freedom in Holland.....

If this country was founded for Christianity then Jefferson would not have taken the Generic route on the DOI.

I would quote you Adams, Jefferson, Madison and even Washington but I know you would ignore them.....
Of course she would. Haven't you figured out yet that she ignores anything that does not 100 percent agree with her? Haven't you figured out yet that she is NEVER wrong? :rolleyes:

Of course they think no one will ever listen...they KNOW their version of God is very unappealing. That is WHY they feel a need to force it onto others.

As I said before, if you view God as an auditor before whom your books never balance...a teacher whose class you dread...or as a parent who abuses you but never affirms you...you likely will not "come boldly." In fact, you likely will not come at all!! And these fundies...they know this! So they feel the need to force their unappealing product onto others, because no one actually wants what they are selling.
Let's face it...if someone comes to you with a message as comforting as a crown of thorns, how likely are you to listen, and say they are right? On the other hand, suppose that one comes to you with a message of peace, joy, hope, love, affirmation, mercy, patience, understanding, tolerance, and forgiveness? Which message is more appealing to you? Think about it.
Mate, you'll never get that sado-masochist fundies to admit that. The dirty secret is that they like praying for mercy, only to recieve abuse...
And they absolutely love seeing the same happen to others.

That's why they don't need to have sex. One look at Bush and they cum like fountains. They thrive on the abuse & the wrongdoings. That they know their whole argument for all the misery they impose, is nothing but a house of cards, just makes it all the sweeter. I'm sure you know the type.

Through Christ alone. However, there is a passage that comes to mind casting doubt on whether or not God will condemn all unbelievers to the same fate:

12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Hey, Neo...why don't you take your own advice, in the bolded print?

a Christian that truly believes in humility and compassion over judgement and force-fed ideologies.
Perfect description for yourself, Jocaiba...I knew there was a reason I liked you!

I haven't read anything past page 1, so exscuse me if this is trite, but at my school we have a class called World Religions where people learn of all the major religions and then some... So religion isn't necessarily banned from school, but we try and keep dfiscussion on a religions merits to the minimum and focus on it's different aspects only, without judging.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jocabia
Wow, I wrote all that I wrote and all you could come up with is this. I'll take that as an admission of your blind fear of a Christian that truly believes in humility and compassion over judgement and force-fed ideologies.


If you are so humble, as you suggest of yourself, why would you want other Christians to fear you?

Maybe because, firstly, he does not WANT you to fear him...he is merely expressing the fact that you DO!

Maybe, because, secondly...he, and I...and TRUE CHRISTIANS like us would like you to experience the God of love, mercy, compassion, tolearance, understanding, and forgiveness...instead of the God of vengeance, anger, fire, hell, damnation, brimstone, and hatred.

You used me as a reference of what is wrong with Christians... what would you have me do in return?

Well, I will undertake speaking for myself, anyway...even though this was originally addressed to Jocaiba.

What would I have you do? I'd have you do what Jesus would do. Turn away from judgement of your fellow man, turn away from the vengeful, hateful, anger-filled God of fire and brimstone...and embrace the God of love, tolerance, compassion, mercy, patience, and forgiveness.

That is what I would have fundamentalists like you do, Ph33r. I think that is what Jesus would have you do...if you read the Gospels. What does God say to you?

So by failing to prove one view of something your side wins by default? I dont think so. Even if you say that the attempt to show morality as a human construct has not yet been proven neither has the attempt to classify it as some absolute made by a diety.

Especially since the existence of said diety has yet to be proved. If it could be proved, they would call it knowledge...not faith...as Jocaiba eloquently pointed out.

Especially since the existence of said diety has yet to be proved. If it could be proved, they would call it knowledge...not faith...as Jocaiba eloquently pointed out.
It has yet to be disproved either.

Antre_Travarious']It has yet to be disproved either.
... You realize the poster (Lyric) you just threw that bit of obviousness at, is in fact a practicing Christian, right?

Oh.. You didn't?

Hahahaha!

His evidence supports an unverifiable conclusion, as science relies on certain laws and the empirical method to determine its truths. Also, I'm not aware of any of his sources leading to that conclusion alone. It's simply a possibility. We would have to add a metaphysical branch to science to study that which occurs outside of time and which is not subject to physical laws. Perhaps a unification of philosophy and science, to reason that which we cannot observe?
That is outside the realm of science. The metaphysical is completely outside the realm of science. Science deals with what is observable, what is provable, and what is subject to physical laws...and can be empirically proven...and duplicated, in a laboratory. Nice way to try to weasel an argument for including ID theory into science classrooms, Neo, but it ain't gonna work.

The metaphysical is outside the realm of science, and thus, should not be taught in a science classroom. Period.

Why is religion so bad it must be brought out of everywhere?
Because the though of the existence of a higher power makes a lot of people feel small and insignificant, and that makes them lash out at religion and lash out even harder at those that practice religion. In this country, that is mostly against the Christians and the Jews. Others, it is more prevelant to persecute other religions.

Pride is what makes one think oneself so grand that one's feeble human logic is capable of discerning eternal truths such as God. One's pride in human reasoning forbids one from accepting God on faith.
So what if it does? Didn't stop Thomas from getting into Heaven, did it?

... You realize the poster (Lyric) you just threw that bit of obviousness at, is in fact a practicing Christian, right?

Oh.. You didn't?

Hahahaha!
... You realize the poster (me) you just threw that bit of obviousness at, does in fact know that.

Oh.. You didn't?

Hahahaha!

try and focus less on the funk between your toes, and more on the converstaion.

Neo I wish you'd stop pasting stuff from random sites. The rest of us aren't attatching pdf files or pasting webpages, are we?


That's because the rest of us are able to think for ourselves...compose our own thoughts, and need no validation for our beliefs, we are comfortable with, and secure in, our own faiths, whatever they may be.
That is why we are able to articulate our own thoughts on the subject.

Antre_Travarious']... You realize the poster (me) you just threw that bit of obviousness at, does in fact know that.

Oh.. You didn't?

Hahahaha!

try and focus less on the funk between your toes, and more on the converstaion.
Heh, alright then. But what prompted you to state the obvious then, especially considering how many times people have already done it? :confused:

Antre_Travarious']Because the though of the existence of a higher power makes a lot of people feel small and insignificant, and that makes them lash out at religion and lash out even harder at those that practice religion. In this country, that is mostly against the Christians and the Jews. Others, it is more prevelant to persecute other religions.
I had no idea people were like that. Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking?

I can't, which is why faith is required. One cannot rely on logic alone to believe in God, nor can one rely on logic alone to believe God is not. This is where pride arises, in that one will not submit one's own intellect to the faith and instead relies on empirical reasoning alone.
By your own admission, then, you can't prove God's existence. so why are you so insistent that strictly logical thinking people accept your assertion that rights are God-given, and morals are God-created...when you admit yourself that you can't prove God's existence?

You cannot force others to have faith, Neo. One chooses to have or to reject faith. You can lead them to water, Neo...but why do you insist on trying to force them to drink it?

You are more likely to drive people away than to bring them to God...if you force it on them. Even you must admit that God would have people come to Him of their own free will...and not come to Him because they were forced or coerced into it.

Well, I know quite a few atheists and agnostics. Some of them are actually quite prideful, it is indeed a greatly dangerous pitfall - but others don't put themselves above God, because they don't believe in God! It's not pride that's causing the unbelief. Also I remember very well being an atheist, and I really didn't like God at all (atheism does not discount the possibility of God) - it wasn't for reasons of pride, as unless you follow an Abrahamic religion, you do not perceive God as perfect - therefore it's ignorance, not pride.
Ah...well do I remember my Athiest days! The basic reason I was an Athiest is because I did not like the God that was being presented to me. It was not a God that I would ever worship. I never looked beyond what the loud-mouth fundamentalists said God was all about, never looked for myself.

Then, one day, I recieved a vision...a dream...and I recieved it because I asked. I was shown that which I was, at the time, capable of handling. It encouraged me to seek out my own answers.

that is how I came to discover the God I now worship...the God in the Gospels...the one full of love, mercy, tolerance, understanding, and forgiveness.

As I have repeated throught this thread...if you view God only as an auditor before whom your books never balance...a teacher whose class you dread...or as a parent who abuses you but never affirms you, you likely will not "come bodly." In fact, you likely won't come at all!!

Really think about it...whose God is more appealing to you?
The fundamentalist God, the Nathaniel Hawthorne inspired God of vengeance, wrath, hell, damnation, fire, and brimstone....or my God...the one of love, compassion, peace, joy, mercy, and love?

Mine is a God you can love. Whom you can respect, and who respects and loves you. One who affirms you...one who gently rebukes you, then forgives you, when you fuck up. Theirs is a God who you can only fear and despise. One whom you can only be afraid of. Which is more appealing? Which are you more likely to "come bodly" to?

I'm very seriously considering establishing a religion. Clearly, such a religion would never recognise heterosexuals right to be intimate, nor would it allow them to marry or have children. Only artificial insimination and homosex is pure enough for my god. You heathen hetero's are an affront to all things holy, pure and good. From now on, I shall do my utmost to save your wretched souls, because while I will most certainly roast marshmellows on your smoldering undead corpeses, as you fry for eternity, I reeeealy don't want you to fry.
I know my actions contradict it, but by refusing you equal rights, and being a thoroughly evil bastard towards you, I'm simply trying to save your souls from becomming the bonfires of the here-after. Trust me. I have nothing but good intentions, nor does my god.
God I love good satire!!
some people don't know how to convey satire over the 'Net very well, however, you seem adept at it! :D

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

If you want religious education attend church, mosque, synagogue etc.

Maybe because, firstly, he does not WANT you to fear him...he is merely expressing the fact that you DO!

Don't fear those that can only harm the body...

Luke 12 4-7
4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies[a]? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

But even more than fear... There are other reasons not to respond back to him in contention.

Matthew 18 15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


Maybe, because, secondly...he, and I...and TRUE CHRISTIANS like us would like you to experience the God of love, mercy, compassion, tolearance, understanding, and forgiveness...instead of the God of vengeance, anger, fire, hell, damnation, brimstone, and hatred.

Thank you, I have. I hope you do to. But you should know that anger towards brothers and sisters is not wise...

Matthew 5 22
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' (Arabic term for contempt) is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

God I love good satire!!
some people don't know how to convey satire over the 'Net very well, however, you seem adept at it! :D
Thank you, thank you. I do try. I'm glad you didn't quote the next bit though. That failed pretty miserably.

Mate, you'll never get that sado-masochist fundies to admit that. The dirty secret is that they like praying for mercy, only to recieve abuse...
And they absolutely love seeing the same happen to others.

That's why they don't need to have sex. One look at Bush and they cum like fountains. They thrive on the abuse & the wrongdoings. That they know their whole argument for all the misery they impose, is nothing but a house of cards, just makes it all the sweeter. I'm sure you know the type.
Oh, I know I'll never get THEM to admit it. But if I can save one more innocent soul from following thier ways, and falling under their thrall it will be a good thing.

Don't fear those that can only harm the body...
<Sniiiip>
*Grabs a beer & prepares for "Showdown in Heaven St."*

Don't fear those that can only harm the body...

Luke 12 4-7
4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies[a]? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

But even more than fear... There are other reasons not to respond back to him in contention.

Funny because every time I say that god does send people to hell people say no we choose to go there. I guess this supports the fact that god can send people to hell.

Oh, I know I'll never get THEM to admit it. But if I can save one more innocent soul from following thier ways, and falling under their thrall it will be a good thing.
I promise you, if I some day take up religion, fundie Christianity will NOT be it.

Antre_Travarious']It has yet to be disproved either.
It doesn't need to be disproved.
Neo is arguing that something was created by something she cannot, by her own admission, prove even exists!!
How can something that does not exist...create something else?

She is stating that God created everything...as a postulate, not a theory...as knowledge, not faith...and then expects everyone else to accept that without question, when she cannot, by her own admission, prove the existence of the one she claims created everything else.

I was merely pointing out the logical fallacy, and why she will never get an Athiest or Agnostic to accept what she is saying.

Myself, a Unitarian Christian...I have no problem with the existence of God, I accept that on faith. But to ask people who do not have that faith...to accept Neo's assertion that God created everything...when she cannot even prove that God exists in order to create anything at all...do you not see where her argument breaks down for those who do not share her faith?

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

http://www.teacheroz.com/images/pauper.gif
http://www.mirrors.org/historical/2001-09-11-World-Trade_Center/wtc/wtc_005.jpg
http://www.plattsburghforpeace.com/assets/fred1.jpg

Humanity hasn't proven itself capable of handling religion as well as, say, math.

Don't fear those that can only harm the body...

Luke 12 4-7
4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies[a]? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

But even more than fear... There are other reasons not to respond back to him in contention.

Matthew 18 15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.




Thank you, I have. I hope you do to. But you should know that anger towards brothers and sisters is not wise...

Matthew 5 22
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' (Arabic term for contempt) is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

I'd take you more seriously if you could compose and articulate your own thoughts instead of mindlessly cutting and pasting Scripture. did you think I, as a practicing Christian...was unfamiliar with that Scripture?

How about telling us what YOU think? How about telling us what God tells you...instead of just cutting and pasting? ANYONE can do that.

Thank you, thank you. I do try. I'm glad you didn't quote the next bit though. That failed pretty miserably.

That's why I didn't quote it... ;)

I promise you, if I some day take up religion, fundie Christianity will NOT be it.
Well, you and I are on the same page. It's why I self-identify as a Unitarian Christian...so as not to be confused with fundie whackjobs.
I am a Christian, who practices my faith in a Unitarian Universalist church, thus, I am a Unitarian Christian.

Humanity hasn't proven itself capable of handling religion as well as, say, math.

You mean the way we can't handle:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ww2-pix/abomb.jpg

and http://www.aesi1.com/images/air-pollution-systems.jpg

and "http://ringo.bard.edu/hrp/projects/bhopal/classroom/images/timemagazinecover.jpg" (this picture is censored by me. It is the front cover of the Times Magazine that which shows the face of an Indian woman affected by the Bhopal disaster)?

I'd take you more seriously if you could compose and articulate your own thoughts instead of mindlessly cutting and pasting Scripture. did you think I, as a practicing Christian...was unfamiliar with that Scripture?

How about telling us what YOU think? How about telling us what God tells you...instead of just cutting and pasting? ANYONE can do that.


I do not need for you to think me wise or take me seriously...

1 Corinthians 3 18-23
18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

Yes, anyone can read the scripture for themselves and learn of it for themselves. Good idea.

You mean the way we can't handle:
<Snip>
Uhm... So basically, you're saying that instead of working on some problems, we should add some more?

You mean the way we can't handle:
[IM]http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ww2-pix/abomb.jpg[/IMG]

We've had enough nuclear weaponry to kill all multicellular life on this planet for decades and only two relatively small weapons were ever used. I'd say we can handle nukes.

and [IM]http://www.aesi1.com/images/air-pollution-systems.jpg[/IMG]

Right, but what does pollution have to do with math? There's math involved? Is anyone polluting in the name of math? Its just not the same at all.

People, however, will gladly use nukes (if they can) in the name of their religious fundamentalism ... some blame the nukes. I blame the motive for wanting to use them: "God."

and "http://ringo.bard.edu/hrp/projects/bhopal/classroom/images/timemagazinecover.jpg" (this picture is censored by me. It is the front cover of the Times Magazine that which shows the face of an Indian woman affected by the Bhopal disaster)?

I'm not familiar with the Bhopal disaster. I'm betting its not relevant.

And frankly, religion isn't 'brought out of everywhere'. At least, I took a class in religion at a public school. It was called Mythology. So why are you complaining? ;)

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

Don't see relevance, but should know about it.

I do not need for you to think me wise or take me seriously...

1 Corinthians 3 18-23
18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

Yes, anyone can read the scripture for themselves and learn of it for themselves. Good idea.

And it's a good idea that they seek it out for themselves, not have it shoved down their throats by fundies like you, just because all you can do to support your arguments is to cut and paste Scripture, and are unable (or unwilling) to think for yourselves, or articulate your own thoughts. You guys really DO think free thought and free will are bad things, don't you?

P.S. Since you guys have yet to actually articulate your own thoughts...and all you have for answer to anything is more Scripture-quoting...I'm forced to this conclusion.

It's one thing to base your opinions on Scripture. It's another thing to have Scripture completely stand in for an opinion, or your own original thoughts.

It's one thing to base your opinions on Scripture. It's another thing to have Scripture completely stand in for an opinion, or your own original thoughts.

There is no such thing as real original thought. Your thoughts are the product of your experiences, which are really experiences that you do not control yourself. But you can direct your vantage point and location (from time to time). You can choose to put yourself in a position and frame of mind that is more likely to inundate yourself with 'bad' impressions, or you can choose to put yourself in a frame of mind and position to be impressed by 'good' things, but even then, you don't control it.

You have had no thoughts that are truly unique to yourself, you are a product of the consumption of the things you have seen, although you can choose to emulate some of the past things you have been exposed to and not others, and thus, you choose your own path… But sometimes, even that is not enough, if you choose poorly.

Romans 1:18-25
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

To begin with, Lyric, you are a left wing commie nutjob. I'm sorry, did that make you mad? Then please, stop calling people "ignorant fundies" or "fundie nutjobs". More then anything it is getting annoying. And please Lyric, as much as it seemed like insulting people was making a point in elementary school, it really isn't, so please make a logical good point if you can.

Moving onwards, the idea of using scripture to prove a point seems perfectly acceptable in my opinion. I mean, what they are saying is their opinion, they simply use a medium to convey it.
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser

To begin with, Lyric, you are a left wing commie nutjob. I'm sorry, did that make you mad? Then please, stop calling people "ignorant fundies" or "fundie nutjobs". More then anything it is getting annoying. And please Lyric, as much as it seemed like insulting people was making a point in elementary school, it really isn't, so please make a logical good point if you can.

Moving onwards, the idea of using scripture to prove a point seems perfectly acceptable in my opinion. I mean, what they are saying is their opinion, they simply use a medium to convey it.
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser

first of all, I am guilty as charged of being "a left-wing commie nutjob." If, of course, you define "a left-wing commie nutjob" as someone who actually GIVES A SHIT about the poor, the suffering...the people who don't have enough to make even the most basic ends meet...and who thinks that those who have great abundance ought to be stepping to the plate to carry their share of the burden, instead of picking our pockets, and picking our Treasury...and wiping the sweat off of our brows and our asses, and not saying a word. So I thank you for the compliment. If having compassion, and caring for the poor and the least among us is a bad thing, and the sign of a bad person, then I'm proud to be a bad person.

And, no, I'm not going to stop calling a horse a horse. you can't insult a horse by calling it a horse. If you are offended by being called a fundie whackjob, or an ignorant fundie...THEN QUIT BEING A FUNDIE WHACKJOB OR AN IGNORANT FUNDIE!!

I never ever referred to any single individual poster in this manner, I refer to the group of fundie whackjobs, and as long as that group, represented by people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Fred Phelps, continue to be fundie nutjobs, I'm going to call them fundie nutjobs!

And, if you want to use Scripture as the BASIS for your own original thought or opinion...or to underscore something you, yourself said...that is one thing. If all you can do is cut-and-paste Scripture, I'm not sure I want to know you...not because Scripture offends me...it doesn't...but, because I want to know and associate with people who can think for themselves, and who can articulate their own thoughts. I mean, for Christ's sake, can't they even PARAPHRASE Scripture? I do it all the time. Scripture does inform my opinions and ideas, to a point, but I do not have Scripture take the place of my own personal opinion.

As I said, it is one thing to base one's opinion in Scripture, or to have one's opinion informed by Scripture. It is quite another is Scripture is standing in for, and taking the place of...your own personal opinion.

Now, if you got a problem with my opinion on THAT, tough shit.

There is no such thing as real original thought. Your thoughts are the product of your experiences, which are really experiences that you do not control yourself. But you can direct your vantage point and location (from time to time). You can choose to put yourself in a position and frame of mind that is more likely to inundate yourself with 'bad' impressions, or you can choose to put yourself in a frame of mind and position to be impressed by 'good' things, but even then, you don't control it.

You have had no thoughts that are truly unique to yourself, you are a product of the consumption of the things you have seen, although you can choose to emulate some of the past things you have been exposed to and not others, and thus, you choose your own path… But sometimes, even that is not enough, if you choose poorly.
Then there is no "you".

There is no "you", there is no "choosing", there is no responsibility for your actions, there is no salvation, and there is no life.

What is "you"? What is this thing you call "you"? Is it your body? your mind? your soul? any combination of the three? something else?

Most people would say it is body and mind, or body, mind and soul. Some would even say it is mind alone, in the form of consciousness. If "you" are your conscious mind, and you do not have control of it, then there is no "you". There is just things that happen dispite you. There's something else in control of the body, not your mind, not "you". How can "you" have thought when they're made by circumstance, not you? How can "you" make choices when they're made by circumstance, not you?

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.


The reason is that if you put religion together with the running of everyone's lives, then you actually have a sect. If you live learning and live for your religion, the day the leader of such religion says I dont like atheist's. either A you are all going to be stupid idiots going to try and kill the non-believers (sounds like someone we know in extremist groups in arabia dont it?) or B you are going to hate those that don't believe in your religion just because they where brought up differently.

Everyone has a choice about what religion they practice if they want to be believe in a religion or be in one. If you associate a country with 50 different religions to follow a single one, problems are bound to come upon. This has happened in the past and it still happens today. That's why religion has to be apart. The association of these 2 is ike saying the devil is good god i good and the people who dont believe in what we believe in are bad : /.

Think next time hmmm if my president is atheist and I am a christian, why am I in this country that denigrates or spits upon my religion? or the most probable one and the truest one of them all, your school follows the christian religion and your a budhist and they make you pray as a christian and follow the rules and teachings of a religion that is not your own. Socially its unacceptable and in a modern society where there are so many different cultures and religions it would be stupid to even consider putting religion associated with it. For if religion was based upon presidents, then we can truelly say if bush is christian I dont care what hes going to do with the country, I am christian so is he, so I will vote for him ... bad choice!

Ignorance is considered a virtue by those who can mass the ignorant for their own cause. If religiously you are a follower and blind follower, you should be in a sect and not in a religion (holy wars? Jihad? Crusades? any of this ring a bell?). If you consider that a country should be in association with your country, we would be going back to the medieval ages where there is always a religious advicor for the kings (in this case president). And the ones elected would always be those who are with the strongest religion if not the one who gives the most money to the religion. It is simple its been done in history and stupid things have happened because of it ... why repeat the mistakes from the past just because you think that religion (not yours specifically it could be any) should be involved in the way a country is run and basic religious indoctrination.

Moving onwards, the idea of using scripture to prove a point seems perfectly acceptable in my opinion. I mean, what they are saying is their opinion, they simply use a medium to convey it.
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser

But has scripture proven that your god exists? What about the Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, or The Book of Mormon. How can you prove that your scriptures are right and their's are wrong? If you are stating an opinion you need to back that up with facts. Scripture is not a fact it is a piece of writing about a metaphysical being that may or may not exist. How do you prove that these scriptures are true? Can you test the validity of a dream where god spoke to someone? If you are going to try to make a behavior a standard or have a law dealing with behaviors facts are needed. Saying prostitution is wrong because god says so in the bible is not adequate at all.

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
You don't even make the pretense of being open-minded about it, which, I suppose is a plus... at least it's not deceptive.

According to my moral code, it's no big crime for consenting adults to market their exploits in video form, if they so choose - but I consider it a form of abuse to brainwash a small child with a religion, before they have the cognitive ability to decide for themselves.

I wonder how you would feel if my moral paradigm were compelled upon you?

Make no mistake about it, Neo would be pissed and screaming about persecution. But it's perfectly okay, in her book...for her to force her moral paradigm on everyone else. Do as I say, not as I do...typical right-winger.

Typical left-wing paranoia. :) No one can "impose" a moral paradigm on
anyone else. There is always the choice to "do your own thing", and if you
are "persecuted" for it, use that persecution as a badge of honor to show
your striving for "righteousness".

Children, by definition, don't have the cognitive or "authoritative" ("right" of
doing as they wish) power to make decisions regarding what they "believe"
within their surrounding "cult"ure.

That is simply a fact of being a human being in a human society.

What this means is that any "cult" (cultural based set of beliefs) MUST not
(but often/usually does) feed a child in it's care any premise that will
eventually be proved "silly" (unbelievable once the child's rational facilities
kick in) in the future, without having a "clever" way to explain why
the "silliness" is useful to accomplish something in practicing their "cult"
religion.

Sorry for the convolution there. :) As an example:

Our beloved puppy of 14 years died not long ago.

I choose to believe that he is having a great old time in the fields of heaven,
romping and chasing rabbits, under the protection and love of a great man
who loves him as much as we did, and will take care of him until we can be
with him.

That is my choice to believe, based on my "cult's" belief that death doesn't
separate loved-ones forever. We all "meet" in death.

Is this a "silly" belief. Of course it is. But I choose to believe it because it
comforts me, and because I truly believe that at death, through SOME
mechanism that I don't understand now, we are indeed "reunited", if only in
memory or "flashback" or "terminal dream", with our past loved-ones.

Was I told as a child that "heaven" exists? Yes. Was it "lie"?

Heaven, as portrayed to a child, cannot possibly exist as portrayed. BUT,
the "concept" of heaven cannot otherwise be conveyed to a child's mind (nor
for that matter to an un-ready adult) as it "truly is", but it can be "hinted at".

A wise religion understands the difference between "hints" and "reality", and
doesn't desperately cling to the "literal reality" of cultic beliefs.

Heaven (heaven/hell/valhalla/etc), in some form or another IS a reality, even
if that reality is a death-bed psychosis whereby delusional brain-farts create
sensory impressions experienced as semi-lucid dreaming.

I believe in heaven because my "cult" sees an intimate connection between
dreams, which I think we all agree actually exist, and the death-time
experience.

I do not believe in an actual place in the sky with opalescent gates.

Does my belief in heaven serve a purpose?

It tells me that if I want to have a relatively good experience in "heaven", it
would be wise for me not to have too many regrets about my actions in this
world.

That has profound implications on what I do in the world, as being "good" is a
very effective way to minimize regret.

..Just an example. :)


-The REAL Iakeo

(( Edit: Not "persucution",.. PERSECUTION! "Persucution" sounds almost,.. FUN..!! :) ))

But has scripture proven that your god exists? What about the Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, or The Book of Mormon. How can you prove that your scriptures are right and their's are wrong? If you are stating an opinion you need to back that up with facts. Scripture is not a fact it is a piece of writing about a metaphysical being that may or may not exist. How do you prove that these scriptures are true? Can you test the validity of a dream where god spoke to someone? If you are going to try to make a behavior a standard or have a law dealing with behaviors facts are needed. Saying prostitution is wrong because god says so in the bible is not adequate at all.

The Bible is the only Holy Book which has been accumulated over thousands of years, contains countless prophecies (some of which have come true), shows strong consistency even though written by many authors, and deals with the world at how it begins, progresses, and ends, and still reflects the world as it is about the prevalence of sin and how solidly the plan of salvation is.

You can actually take it as a history book than a religious guide. It documents events of the correct historical period.

The Bible is the only Holy Book which has been accumulated over thousands of years, contains countless prophecies (some of which have come true), shows strong consistency even though written by many authors, and deals with the world at how it begins, progresses, and ends, and still reflects the world as it is about the prevalence of sin and how solidly the plan of salvation is.

You can actually take it as a history book than a religious guide. It documents events of the correct historical period.

1. There are other religious writings that come before christianity so how long its been around is not really an arguement for it.
2. Can you verify those prophecies in sources other than the bible.
3. The bible was put together by a group of guys so of course they picked the books that would be consistant.
4. So god made the world in seven days and there were dinsoaurs that lived with humans?
5. Ironically enough that prevalence of sin seems to have come from the religious community itself more then any other group. I mean you've got the crusades, inquisition, burning witches, the dark ages, and recently terrorism. Why does it seem like the source of the most violent problems seem to come from religion.
6. A plan of salvation that we are still waiting for. I mean man how long ago was the bible writen? If its a solid plan whe should be able to know when we are going to be saved. All your solid plan of salvation really means is a piece of writing that says believe in me and you'll live forever. That really doesnt seem like a solid plan does it?
7. The bible does have historical references but to take it as a history book is a more then just a little leap of faith. When is the last time a history book had a guy walking on water or a vengeful god smiting a city? That and there are numerous history books citing events throughout history. We've got plenty of them that show the american revolution but only one book that suposed says we've got god's son comming down to save us.

Originally Posted by Ph33rdom
There is no such thing as real original thought. Your thoughts are the product of your experiences, which are really experiences that you do not control yourself. But you can direct your vantage point and location (from time to time). You can choose to put yourself in a position and frame of mind that is more likely to inundate yourself with 'bad' impressions, or you can choose to put yourself in a frame of mind and position to be impressed by 'good' things, but even then, you don't control it.

You have had no thoughts that are truly unique to yourself, you are a product of the consumption of the things you have seen, although you can choose to emulate some of the past things you have been exposed to and not others, and thus, you choose your own path… But sometimes, even that is not enough, if you choose poorly.

Then there is no "you".

There is no "you", there is no "choosing", there is no responsibility for your actions, there is no salvation, and there is no life.

What is "you"? What is this thing you call "you"? Is it your body? your mind? your soul? any combination of the three? something else?

Most people would say it is body and mind, or body, mind and soul. Some would even say it is mind alone, in the form of consciousness. If "you" are your conscious mind, and you do not have control of it, then there is no "you". There is just things that happen dispite you. There's something else in control of the body, not your mind, not "you". How can "you" have thought when they're made by circumstance, not you? How can "you" make choices when they're made by circumstance, not you?

Isn't it sad Wills..!!?

Those willing to voluntarily abrogate ANY responsibility for themselves?

It's a very handy philosophy for the happily dejected (!?) and the utterly
irresponsible though. :)

"Oh poor little insignificant me. Nothing I do matters, as I am not actually me,
and how can I be responsible for anything if there is no me to have an I? Oh
poor little me! I shall do as I wish, as it's "god's will", since I am god, as both
god and I are equally unreal, god and I are one. And as god, who is unreal, I,
who am unreal, can do as I, we, wish. For who can argue with god?"

"Oh poor little me! Oh poor little god! Aren't we a pathetic pair!"

Thus clamor the "god-less". :)

-The REAL Iakeo

1. There are other religious writings that come before christianity so how long its been around is not really an arguement for it.
2. Can you verify those prophecies in sources other than the bible.
3. The bible was put together by a group of guys so of course they picked the books that would be consistant.
4. So god made the world in seven days and there were dinsoaurs that lived with humans?
5. Ironically enough that prevalence of sin seems to have come from the religious community itself more then any other group. I mean you've got the crusades, inquisition, burning witches, the dark ages, and recently terrorism. Why does it seem like the source of the most violent problems seem to come from religion.
6. A plan of salvation that we are still waiting for. I mean man how long ago was the bible writen? If its a solid plan whe should be able to know when we are going to be saved. All your solid plan of salvation really means is a piece of writing that says believe in me and you'll live forever. That really doesnt seem like a solid plan does it?
7. The bible does have historical references but to take it as a history book is a more then just a little leap of faith. When is the last time a history book had a guy walking on water or a vengeful god smiting a city? That and there are numerous history books citing events throughout history. We've got plenty of them that show the american revolution but only one book that suposed says we've got god's son comming down to save us.

1. Granted.
2. Wuddya mean?
3. Well, scientists also pick out the evidence to compile their reports, you know? You trust those.
4. Ha. You can't disprove either.
5. When are you going to finally learn the difference between a sin and a crime?
6. The plan of salvation has already been explained to you and it has been done. Whether you accept it is, of course, another matter. If you refuse to acknowledge that salvation is already here, how will you accept it?
7. No. The Bible is a history book. What? You haven't been through a miracle before?

The Bible is the only Holy Book which has been accumulated over thousands of years, contains countless prophecies (some of which have come true), shows strong consistency even though written by many authors, and deals with the world at how it begins, progresses, and ends, and still reflects the world as it is about the prevalence of sin and how solidly the plan of salvation is.

You can actually take it as a history book than a religious guide. It documents events of the correct historical period.


This is the funniest thing I have ever read in my life. You truelly are blind aren't you? I am a roman catholic from birth but I do not believe in the bible. LOL. whether you are chrisitan or catholic your books say the same.
First the most important fact about all religious books is that they where written down by human beings. Second ALL the books refer to rules and teachings no historical facts : / third most books that are thousands of years old where altered during the dark ages and medieval ages for the purpose of the religions. I am not saying whether good or bad purposes, but all books have been changed or interpreted differently. The koran is no different, many of the people who read it interpret it differently and consider themselves to be different among the same religion.

If you want to believe in something that is accurate upon time look at the aztec calendar, and read what it says that is going to happen each year. Truthfully its the most accurate type of chronoligacal correct prophecy timed writing/calendar that has been created. And the probability that the world ends when the calendar ends is totaly unkown since we don't know if it is when another calendar was supposed to be built or when the world ends. Only theories have been made, but most if not all the things that have been said that are going to happen have happened.

if you truelly believe so blindly in your religion and god is the almighty and powerfull in the universe ... then who created time?

I bet that in your bible god was created in middle of chaos or spontaneously combusted outa planets fart, and he created the universe and what not. Then why don't your bibles speak about dinosaurs (we wherent the first ones now where we?). Or even better yet, why didn't we exist since the beginning of the formation of earth? and dont gimme all that crap about being in uthopia because of adam and eve and what not, because if Noah really existed, and the world was covered in water and after a week the WHOLE planet stabilized then you really need to get a reality check on how our planet works.

BTW just to end that part about god creating everything : / well if god was created spontaneously time must of had existed BEFORE him. Meaning that he didnt create time meaning he isn't the all powerfull being thus leaving the concept that if time wasn't created then time craeted ur god :" / and if time was created, it was created by someone more powerfull and that came before your god or gods. the devil is a reference to evil as the buddhist do to YING YANG. god is good devil is bad ... ying and yang is only a bit more complex.

Religions who are spiritual are actually true religions, while religions like the christian religion where we have people who say that you should not be greedy who your leaders only go in mercedez benz is a complete load of BS. : / even if they are donations, sell the damn cars buy a bi=ycicle and give the rest to poor people not be driven around by someone of a lesser robe or whatever rank they have. For you see all religions are like armies YOU ALL HAVE RANKS. : /

1. Granted.

2. Wuddya mean?
Are there any other outside sources that verify the happening of said prophcies. You know like another book that mentions them. Just to say that prophecies happen and point to only one source which is questionable at best doesn't help your case.
[Qutoe]3. Well, scientists also pick out the evidence to compile their reports, you know? You trust those.[/Quote]
Scientists do tests and then take that evidence and put it in reports which are then peer reviewed and either accepted or they are disproven. The bible was put togehter by clergy who did no testing, we can't know how they confirmed which reports were correct and did not let anyone else look at their work and see if it was right.
4. Ha. You can't disprove either.
I can't and I'm not trying to disprove anything here. I am only trying to say using scripture to form a basis of opinion that effects other people is dangerous. Also I find it odd that the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. I mean how kick ass is a T Rex and yet no mention of them by our "creator"
5. When are you going to finally learn the difference between a sin and a crime?
Okay murder is a sin. So all of those things involved murder hence they would be a sin.
6. The plan of salvation has already been explained to you and it has been done. Whether you accept it is, of course, another matter. If you refuse to acknowledge that salvation is already here, how will you accept it?
Who said I'm refusing anything? I reserve my judgment instead of making a choice on incomplete information. How is that refusing anything?
7. No. The Bible is a history book. What? You haven't been through a miracle before?
Have you? I mean if I had seen an act of god that I could actually equate to one I wouldn't be agnostic would I?

This is the funniest thing I have ever read in my life. You truelly are blind aren't you? I am a roman catholic from birth but I do not believe in the bible. LOL. whether you are chrisitan or catholic your books say the same.
Heh. You're funnier. Being Christian and not reading the Bible is like joining a club but not reading the rules first. You can't be Catholic "from birth". God doesn't take in grandchildren. What is being Catholic to you?

First the most important fact about all religious books is that they where written down by human beings. Second ALL the books refer to rules and teachings no historical facts : / third most books that are thousands of years old where altered during the dark ages and medieval ages for the purpose of the religions. I am not saying whether good or bad purposes, but all books have been changed or interpreted differently. The koran is no different, many of the people who read it interpret it differently and consider themselves to be different among the same religion.
Yes. But the Bible was inspired and altered by God. Now if God wants people to know Him then He wouldn't play a joke and make all the teachings wrong, would He? Common sense. When is the last time you read the Bible? So King David ruling over Israel is a rule and a teaching and not a historical fact. That's really funny. :) Okay. Then what makes you so sure that the scientific reports about evolution are correct? Aren't they written by humans and can be interpreted different blah blah blah?

If you want to believe in something that is accurate upon time look at the aztec calendar, and read what it says that is going to happen each year. Truthfully its the most accurate type of chronoligacal correct prophecy timed writing/calendar that has been created. And the probability that the world ends when the calendar ends is totaly unkown since we don't know if it is when another calendar was supposed to be built or when the world ends. Only theories have been made, but most if not all the things that have been said that are going to happen have happened.
Jesus prophesied that the Jewish state will fall and the Jewish people will be scattered. But an independent Jewish state will rise again, against all odds. That came true, didn't it?

if you truelly believe so blindly in your religion and god is the almighty and powerfull in the universe ... then who created time?

I bet that in your bible god was created in middle of chaos or spontaneously combusted outa planets fart, and he created the universe and what not. Then why don't your bibles speak about dinosaurs (we wherent the first ones now where we?). Or even better yet, why didn't we exist since the beginning of the formation of earth? and dont gimme all that crap about being in uthopia because of adam and eve and what not, because if Noah really existed, and the world was covered in water and after a week the WHOLE planet stabilized then you really need to get a reality check on how our planet works.


BTW just to end that part about god creating everything : / well if god was created spontaneously time must of had existed BEFORE him. Meaning that he didnt create time meaning he isn't the all powerfull being thus leaving the concept that if time wasn't created then time craeted ur god :" / and if time was created, it was created by someone more powerfull and that came before your god or gods. the devil is a reference to evil as the buddhist do to YING YANG. god is good devil is bad ... ying and yang is only a bit more complex.
I can't answer that question, honestly. If I could I would be God, no?

Religions who are spiritual are actually true religions, while religions like the christian religion where we have people who say that you should not be greedy who your leaders only go in mercedez benz is a complete load of BS. : / even if they are donations, sell the damn cars buy a bi=ycicle and give the rest to poor people not be driven around by someone of a lesser robe or whatever rank they have. For you see all religions are like armies YOU ALL HAVE RANKS. : /
That sounds typical Catholic. Only the Catholic Church has rich leaders. My church certainly doesn't have a rich leader.

1. Granted.
2. Wuddya mean?
3. Well, scientists also pick out the evidence to compile their reports, you know? You trust those.
4. Ha. You can't disprove either.
5. When are you going to finally learn the difference between a sin and a crime?
6. The plan of salvation has already been explained to you and it has been done. Whether you accept it is, of course, another matter. If you refuse to acknowledge that salvation is already here, how will you accept it?
7. No. The Bible is a history book. What? You haven't been through a miracle before?

3. The argument isn't whether science picks and chooses what data to include in its reports (an assertion you'd be hard pressed to prove in any case). The argument was that Biblical consistency is due to the fact that it was compiled by men who wanted it to be consistent. You're not going to make your argument true by trying sleight of hand and misdirection.

4. Are you freaking serious? You're honestly saying that science can't prove that humans and dinosaurs weren't living at the same time? Wow, man. Just.... wow. You've got some SERIOUS denial going on.

7. The "Bible as history book" thing only applies to things that are verifiable. The fact that there was a real city of Jericho does not prove that someone huffed and puffed and blew down the walls with a horn.

Are there any other outside sources that verify the happening of said prophcies. You know like another book that mentions them. Just to say that prophecies happen and point to only one source which is questionable at best doesn't help your case.
But doesn't that just prove the Bible is the one true Holy Book?


Scientists do tests and then take that evidence and put it in reports which are then peer reviewed and either accepted or they are disproven. The bible was put togehter by clergy who did no testing, we can't know how they confirmed which reports were correct and did not let anyone else look at their work and see if it was right.
Well, science deals with the stuff we can see and we can measure. Apart from that it's pretty useless. How can you prove that the clergy did no testing? How do you know that your scientists proved anything?

I can't and I'm not trying to disprove anything here. I am only trying to say using scripture to form a basis of opinion that effects other people is dangerous. Also I find it odd that the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. I mean how kick ass is a T Rex and yet no mention of them by our "creator"You mean to suggest that God only created the things that the Bible mentioned?

Okay murder is a sin. So all of those things involved murder hence they would be a sin.
Yes, true. But how far of what you said is really based on purely religious reasons? Or is it of other sins such as greed? The Crusades, we know, was certainly not a purely religious move.

Have you? I mean if I had seen an act of god that I could actually equate to one I wouldn't be agnostic would I?
Of course I have. I have seen the ill healed by God with my own two eyes. I have prayed to God and I have been satisfied with answers. Religion is about personal experience. Science is about impersonal theories and suggestions and knowledge. In a way I trust myself as to what I can feel rather than what the others tell me. Isn't that what you guys always stress?

But doesn't that just prove the Bible is the one true Holy Book?
There is no mention of anything in the Quran other than in it. Doesn't that just prove it is the one true Holy Book?


Well, science deals with the stuff we can see and we can measure. Apart from that it's pretty useless. How can you prove that the clergy did no testing? How do you know that your scientists proved anything?
So how can the clergy test the validity of a dream? How can the clergy show that jesus made wine out of water? If the bible is the only place where jesus is mentioned where is the research and independent sources that support the bible's accounts of jesus' life? You werent there and neither was I so we have no way of telling how effective they were at selecting the correct book. We can only guess and then the bible becomes valid only because you guess it was put togehter right.

You mean to suggest that God only created the things that the Bible mentioned?
No only that the T-Rex is really awsome.


Yes, true. But how far of what you said is really based on purely religious reasons? Or is it of other sins such as greed? The Crusades, we know, was certainly not a purely religious move.
They weren't but religion played a part. If there wasnt a religious motive involved I doubt it would have been in God's name? These people truely believed that their god was the one true god and because of that these heathens needed to die. Murder in the name of god is a messy deal.


Of course I have. I have seen the ill healed by God with my own two eyes. I have prayed to God and I have been satisfied with answers. Religion is about personal experience. Science is about impersonal theories and suggestions and knowledge. In a way I trust myself as to what I can feel rather than what the others tell me. Isn't that what you guys always stress?

What I always stress is to make sure you look at all of the facts. If your going to make a decision make sure its an informed and educated one instead of just a leap of blind faith. Care to elaborate on the ill healed and the prayers answered. Because unless you do I'd be trusting what others tell me instead of what I feel. ;)

Heh. You're funnier. Being Christian and not reading the Bible is like joining a club but not reading the rules first. You can't be Catholic "from birth". God doesn't take in grandchildren. What is being Catholic to you?.

You are born into a religion by most people ... you take the religion that your parents have. You don't choose your own religion when you are 1 year old in case you didn't know. Besides many people have changed their religions by the passing of time ... then wouldn't that mean that changes have happened among religions or is it that people stop believing in one god or a set of rules ... which ever it is, you can't call them sinners or can you?!



Yes. But the Bible was inspired and altered by God. Now if God wants people to know Him then He wouldn't play a joke and make all the teachings wrong, would He? Common sense. When is the last time you read the Bible? So King David ruling over Israel is a rule and a teaching and not a historical fact. That's really funny. :) Okay. Then what makes you so sure that the scientific reports about evolution are correct? Aren't they written by humans and can be interpreted different blah blah blah?]

Ok as I said it is mostly ... I did not say that ALL of it was teachings and rules and IF! i did I didn't mean to write that, yes it does have some have some history in it, but have you bothered to read how much of it is actually historical ... or is it that there is only a small part which is the one where they actually make reference to historical figures in order to portray teachings : /. and how can i believ scientists ... DIG DEEP IN THE GROUND AND YOU WILL FIND A DINOSAUR FOSSIL!! lol. I mean come on are you blind and dont got common sense? If the fossils didn't exist we wouldn't even know the word DINOSAUR. its that simple.


Jesus prophesied that the Jewish state will fall and the Jewish people will be scattered. But an independent Jewish state will rise again, against all odds. That came true, didn't it?]

Ok given how many other have become true against the aztec calendar? Just put the odds against each other and you will see that it is almost impossible to compare the 2 : /.


I can't answer that question, honestly. If I could I would be God, no?

I thought knowing everything was also portrayed as a sin or something the devil created ... so knowing wouldn't make you god but instead the devil LOL meaning its hilarious god doesnt know who or what created him and yet we dont know either ... kind of rhetorical aint it?

That sounds typical Catholic. Only the Catholic Church has rich leaders. My church certainly doesn't have a rich leader.

Who said that the leader is the one with the mercedes benz? it is not the leaders who are driven in them in case you didnt know : /. The leaders must always look humble its the only politcally correct rule in the world if not they would also be considered fakes. and yes the catholic church does have some rich high up clergy men, but the truth is one thing its the oldest religion if you look at the original unmodified bible its the oldest one in creation. That would mean catholic church is the first one ... wouldnt it? this and much more on the next ... why do people blindly follow religions into their impending doom. lol its hilarious the only religion on this planet that has a real sense of spriituality is buddhism. and it doesnt even follow a god so to speak but instead a man who reached enlightenment as they say. wouldnt that make them i dont know sinners in OH so many religions including christian religions : / god forgives and yet those who follow falls gods are punished ... ridiculous concept looking at he made us with free will, and has let us live and not punish so many people in oh so many different religions : /

Don't fear those that can only harm the body...

Luke 12 4-7
4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies[a]? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

But even more than fear... There are other reasons not to respond back to him in contention.


But you did respond in contention and only in contention. I pointed out why I disagree with your beliefs because you say they require you to force them on others and rather than defend those beliefs you chose to attack me personally. Everyone else here is having a discussion of beliefs and you are having a discussion of me and how you don't like me. I actually don't have a problem with you believing as you do so long as you don't force those beliefs on others which is what we're discussing. I'm not forcing my beliefs on you or on others, but you still feel the need to attack me for having them. If that's not fear, then where does this unnecessary animosity and contention come from. You're not even debating my views, just trying to paint me in a bad light.

You are born into a religion by most people ... you take the religion that your parents have. You don't choose your own religion when you are 1 year old in case you didn't know. Besides many people have changed their religions by the passing of time ... then wouldn't that mean that changes have happened among religions or is it that people stop believing in one god or a set of rules ... which ever it is, you can't call them sinners or can you?!
You are talking about a political designation, for census purposes. That is what you are born with. He is talking about participating in the religion.

You are talking about a political designation, for census purposes. That is what you are born with. He is talking about participating in the religion.

changing religions is participating them and changing ur mind or beliefs isn't it? Yes political designation and census purposes but its the families religions that say that when they are children they have to be baptized or consegrated in a religious form in order for the family to be true to the religion/church. It isn't the catholics who follow this rule if you didn't know. It might be associated with politics and cesus purposes, but if the churches didn't basically enforce or indoctrinate that if your family has a child it will be transformed into that religion, then all the families would have to put atheist on the census for the newly borns, and wait untill they have some type of thought to let them think what religion they would like to follow and join. Don't u think so? because i do.

The Bible is the only Holy Book which has been accumulated over thousands of years, contains countless prophecies (some of which have come true), shows strong consistency even though written by many authors, and deals with the world at how it begins, progresses, and ends, and still reflects the world as it is about the prevalence of sin and how solidly the plan of salvation is.

You can actually take it as a history book than a religious guide. It documents events of the correct historical period.
Yes, you can take it that way, if you want to eliminate entirely its usefulness to the religion.

A historical document is not religiously useful; a spiritual guide is.

That sounds typical Catholic. Only the Catholic Church has rich leaders. My church certainly doesn't have a rich leader.

Wow that was pretty ignorant.

Pat Robertson is a multi-billionaire and he is not Catholic.
The Ayatollahs in Iran are pretty wealthy and they are not Catholic.
The Grand-Ayatollah in Iraq I believe is quite wealthy and he is not Catholic.

The Catholic Church is indeed wealthy. However, the leaders don't have free will to spend it on whatever foibal attracts their eye.

*snip*

... Second ALL the books refer to rules and teachings no historical facts : / third most books that are thousands of years old where altered during the dark ages and medieval ages for the purpose of the religions. I am not saying whether good or bad purposes, but all books have been changed or interpreted differently. The koran is no different, many of the people who read it interpret it differently and consider themselves to be different among the same religion.

*snip*

I'll agree that there is interpretation variances, I will not agree with the 'altered' during the dark ages accusation though.

Perhaps they should teach a historical perspective of religion though, about 'how they know what they know' about how the various manuscripts are authenticated and real or forgery, how their age is determined and tested, and debated as the case may be. This perhaps would be a good course for general education, at least as an elective course.

Knowing what Buddha wrote, or Mohammed wrote in the Qur'an, or Confucius wrote or what is written in the New Testament and the Torah, and how we know what we know about the various histories in question. Their teachings, the time periods they were written in, and what affect they may have or not had on the centuries thereafter.

Perhaps a class like that should be offered in middle school or so, or thereabout because the students are old enough to comprehend and understand at that age and yet not be too old (like High School and college student) who become involuntarily pig-headedly opinionated and incapable of thinking clearly ~ due to hormonal frenzy and whatnot. :p

That sounds typical Catholic. Only the Catholic Church has rich leaders. My church certainly doesn't have a rich leader.

Oh yeah, generalization. I am SO turned on right now.

:rolleyes:

Wow that was pretty ignorant.

Pat Robertson is a multi-billionaire and he is not Catholic.
The Ayatollahs in Iran are pretty wealthy and they are not Catholic.
The Grand-Ayatollah in Iraq I believe is quite wealthy and he is not Catholic.

The Catholic Church is indeed wealthy. However, the leaders don't have free will to spend it on whatever foibal attracts their eye.

at least someone knows what I mean by mercedez benz driving spiritual leaders : /. Churches collect money for several reasons (they say thats for the poor and what not) but how do churches maintain their personell and all their spenditures (governments most certainly not) so not all the money that they say that is going for the poor and helping society goes anywhere elsebut the religions uses and expenditures. Beggars cant be choosers but religions can.

Isn't it sad Wills..!!?

Those willing to voluntarily abrogate ANY responsibility for themselves?

It's a very handy philosophy for the happily dejected (!?) and the utterly
irresponsible though. :)

"Oh poor little insignificant me. Nothing I do matters, as I am not actually me,
and how can I be responsible for anything if there is no me to have an I? Oh
poor little me! I shall do as I wish, as it's "god's will", since I am god, as both
god and I are equally unreal, god and I are one. And as god, who is unreal, I,
who am unreal, can do as I, we, wish. For who can argue with god?"

"Oh poor little me! Oh poor little god! Aren't we a pathetic pair!"

Thus clamor the "god-less". :)

-The REAL Iakeo
Snickering aside, it's frustrating that people can believe in determinism and still claim to participate in the Christian religion. It requires a bending of either the definition of "will" (which includes "you" and "choice") or the concept of salvation itself.

But much head-bashing has been done about it in other threads and this is off-topic here. (I go off-topic a lot, and am unsuccessfully trying to correct myself.)

I'll agree that there is interpretation variances, I will not agree with the 'altered' during the dark ages accusation though.

Perhaps they should teach a historical perspective of religion though, about 'how they know what they know' about how the various manuscripts are authenticated and real or forgery, how their age is determined and tested, and debated as the case may be. This perhaps would be a good course for general education, at least as an elective course.

Knowing what Buddha wrote, or Mohammed wrote in the Qur'an, or Confucius wrote or what is written in the New Testament and the Torah, and how we know what we know about the various histories in question. Their teachings, the time periods they were written in, and what affect they may have or not had on the centuries thereafter.

Perhaps a class like that should be offered in middle school or so, or thereabout because the students are old enough to comprehend and understand at that age and yet not be too old (like High School and college student) who become involuntarily pig-headedly opinionated and incapable of thinking clearly ~ due to hormonal frenzy and whatnot. :p

Here's something we agree on. I find it interesting that we teach mythology in school (about mythology, not preaching mythology), but we find it unacceptable to teach about religion (often referred to as a current mythology) in school (meaning in the way you described). This is particularly significant when so many of the literary works we study make references to religious documents.

Snickering aside, it's frustrating that people can believe in determinism and still claim to participate in the Christian religion. It requires a bending of either the definition of "will" (which includes "you" and "choice") or the concept of salvation itself.

But much head-bashing has been done about it in other threads and this is off-topic here.

Which is why I refrained from commenting ;)

I'll agree that there is interpretation variances, I will not agree with the 'altered' during the dark ages accusation though.

Perhaps they should teach a historical perspective of religion though, about 'how they know what they know' about how the various manuscripts are authenticated and real or forgery, how their age is determined and tested, and debated as the case may be. This perhaps would be a good course for general education, at least as an elective course.

Knowing what Buddha wrote, or Mohammed wrote in the Qur'an, or Confucius wrote or what is written in the New Testament and the Torah, and how we know what we know about the various histories in question. Their teachings, the time periods they were written in, and what affect they may have or not had on the centuries thereafter.

Perhaps a class like that should be offered in middle school or so, or thereabout because the students are old enough to comprehend and understand at that age and yet not be too old (like High School and college student) who become involuntarily pig-headedly opinionated and incapable of thinking clearly ~ due to hormonal frenzy and whatnot. :p

Well you don't have to believe my accusation but it has been written down that during an attack to some monasteries the bible among other books had to be reconstructed and rewritten. Above these alterations had to be done, for at that time i doubt that the monks at the monasteries had a way to memorize a who knows how many pages long book refering to religion alone. Alterations are not out of the question, for the time period (the dark ages) was full of attacks upon monasteries and many literature pieces from before that period where lost in their complete forms. The fact that we have no way of confirming with data carbon dating how old the pieces of the original bible or bibles are since they are guarded against just about everything ... the only thing they need now is an anti-nuclear fallout shelter for their books. And I do mean that because we don't even know if they already have one . :D

Here's something we agree on. I find it interesting that we teach mythology in school (about mythology, not preaching mythology), but we find it unacceptable to teach about religion (often referred to as a current mythology) in school (meaning in the way you described). This is particularly significant when so many of the literary works we study make references to religious documents.

How much would you like to bet that Christians would raise just as much of a ruckus if Christianity were taught in a Mythology class as they do with the fact that it's not taught at all?

You introduce religion (especially Christianity) into school curricula and sooner or later the religionists will stop being content with just having it there. They'll object to having their beliefs taught as "myths".

Here's something we agree on. I find it interesting that we teach mythology in school (about mythology, not preaching mythology), but we find it unacceptable to teach about religion (often referred to as a current mythology) in school (meaning in the way you described). This is particularly significant when so many of the literary works we study make references to religious documents.

Because it is politcally incorrect. A public school where kids go of so many different cultural and religious beliefs cannot be put intoa religious class. Both some parents and churches would find it insulting. The fact that a chrisitan learns about budhism or qoran or any other type of religious bliefs is correct and should be indoctrinated, but our societies at least on america as a whole (north central and south) would never accept such a thing. We might have an uproar in society about what is the reasoning behind trying to brainwash their children into stopping to believe in their religions. That would most probably be the reaction of highly religiously correct communities. They would think you are trying to do something against the religion instead of just making the children understand that what they believe in must not always be correct or that everyone believes the same thing.

How much would you like to bet that Christians would raise just as much of a ruckus if Christianity were taught in a Mythology class as they do with the fact that it's not taught at all?

You introduce religion (especially Christianity) into school curricula and sooner or later the religionists will stop being content with just having it there. They'll object to having their beliefs taught as "myths".
The myths that Christianity are founded in are taught in mythology classes.

The myths that Christianity are founded in are taught in mythology classes.

College or HS?

In either case, I'm sure Christians have a problem with their beliefs being taught as the "latest myth".

How much would you like to bet that Christians would raise just as much of a ruckus if Christianity were taught in a Mythology class as they do with the fact that it's not taught at all?

You introduce religion (especially Christianity) into school curricula and sooner or later the religionists will stop being content with just having it there. They'll object to having their beliefs taught as "myths".

You don't have to and shouldn't teach it as myths. You should teach it as a philosophy about the true nature of reality that some still hold to be accurate. Myth carries the connotation of being untrue.

Teaching about widely-held philosophies even ones regarding deities is not an inappropriate thing to teach to school-aged children. Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

College or HS?

In either case, I'm sure Christians have a problem with their beliefs being taught as the "latest myth".
Most certainly college level. And the Christian myths are not "late" at all. ;)

An interesting article that recognizes that the Christian Church needs to embrace the myths its beliefs are founded in, or fall:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/006/1.32.html

The myths that Christianity are founded in are taught in mythology classes.

Actually, they aren't. I never learned any flood myths in any mythology class I had in school, including college. I also never learned any similar savior myths unless you count Prometheus which would REALLY be a stretch.

Myth carries the connotation of being untrue.
Only to someone uneducated about myths.

Actually, they aren't. I never learned any flood myths in any mythology class I had in school, including college. I also never learned any similar savior myths unless you count Prometheus which would REALLY be a stretch.

Prometheus would actually be closer to some of the Lucifer myths - Satan as the lightbringer, etc.

Although I do find it interesting that you never heard, for instance, the Isis and Osiris myths? Death of a god so that Egypt could prosper?

Snickering aside, it's frustrating that people can believe in determinism and still claim to participate in the Christian religion. It requires a bending of either the definition of "will" (which includes "you" and "choice") or the concept of salvation itself.

But much head-bashing has been done about it in other threads and this is off-topic here. (I go off-topic a lot, and am unsuccessfully trying to correct myself.)

Let's see,.. the topic is (paraphrased) "Why is religion bad and so must be
expunged from all human life?"

Those who believe that have been traumatised by bad examples of applied
religiosity directed at them.

I have YET to meet a person with good experiences of their "cult"ure's
version of applied religiosity who would remove religion from ANY, much less
ALL, facets of human life.

The ONLY way that a human being could believe (at all) in determinism is by
being utterly dogmatic in holding to the principle that reality is unreal, and
therefore inconsequential, therefore nothing "I" do makes any difference,
therefore I'll do whatever I want, as it's not really ME doing it as "I'm" not
real either.

Non-volitional (deterministic) christianity is a contradiction in terms.
Practicing christianity is simply choosing to "cross" (decide and act)
consciously and with eyes open.

That definition may offend some, as not being NEARLY complex and "high-
falootin" enough, but it is the principle base on which ANY (non-destructive)
human "way of life" is practiced.

What people want removed from their lives is any impostition of someone
else's beliefs on them. Period.

It's extreme laziness that labels that imposition as "religion". And those who
do so are silly children who don't care a whit about what they mean when
they use words and actions. They just want to "make a mark" on the world.

So which are you, you folks out there? Silly children run amok, or
practitioners of concsious volition?


-The REAL Iakeo

Actually, they aren't. I never learned any flood myths in any mythology class I had in school, including college. I also never learned any similar savior myths unless you count Prometheus which would REALLY be a stretch.
You didn't learn Adonis? Or Tammuz? Or the childhood of Zeus?

Only to someone uneducated about myths.

Oh, you mean like the majority of the population. Where do you think the term "urban myth" comes from? It never references a case that is entirely true, at least not intentionally, and most often references a case that has been documented as false.

Let's see,.. the topic is (paraphrased) "Why is religion bad and so must be
expunged from all human life?"
LOL

I never noticed that! :)

As for the rest, I do, as always, find what you say very agreeable.

Prometheus would actually be closer to some of the Lucifer myths - Satan as the lightbringer, etc.

Although I do find it interesting that you never heard, for instance, the Isis and Osiris myths? Death of a god so that Egypt could prosper?

I heard about them, just didn't study them in school. The school focused primarily on Greek and Roman mythology, though I've never understood why this makes sense to anyone. Even Norse mythology is glossed over and it certainly has had as much of an effect on American culture as anything else. The days of the week, anyone?

You don't have to and shouldn't teach it as myths. You should teach it as a philosophy about the true nature of reality that some still hold to be accurate. Myth carries the connotation of being untrue.

Teaching about widely-held philosophies even ones regarding deities is not an inappropriate thing to teach to school-aged children. Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

The only difference between myth and religion is the passage of time.

"Yesterday's truths are tomorrow's superstition."

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

I am forced to take GCSE theology (re) at 15 (1 year early) and am very annoyed with it. the only religion anyone should learn is comparitive religion. all we do is catholicism

I heard about them, just didn't study them in school. The school focused primarily on Greek and Roman mythology, though I've never understood why this makes sense to anyone. Even Norse mythology is glossed over and it certainly has had as much of an effect on American culture as anything else. The days of the week, anyone?

norse, saxon and other early northern european mythology are some of the best stories ive ever read. they should be told to everyone. (also very violent... YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY)

You didn't learn Adonis? Or Tammuz? Or the childhood of Zeus?

Resurrection is all that's required for it to be linked to the savior myth? How else was Adonis the savior?

Tammuz was a savior, sort of, except his death was what caused the loss of joy in the earth (winter) rather than his birth being the purpose of saving the peoples of the Earth.

The childhood of Zeus is a savior myth? How? He eventually kills his father as a young man who obviously isn't the greatest guy around (protecting the earth), but certainly you wouldn't consider Zeus to be the origin of the savior in the Old Testament.

The only difference between myth and religion is the passage of time.

"Yesterday's truths are tomorrow's superstition."

This assumes that the religion will pass away. An assumption you can't really support.

Originally Posted by Willamena
The myths that Christianity are founded in are taught in mythology classes.

College or HS?

In either case, I'm sure Christians have a problem with their beliefs being taught as the "latest myth".

Why?

You assume "myth" means something negative. That is your own definitional imposition.

"Myth" means "a story that illustrates some (useful) human truth", to me.

"Myth" doesn't only mean "fallacy".

As a christian, I would be proud to have my stories taught (displayed for appreciation) outside of my "church". I would also welcome any connections that can be drawn between my beliefs and those of other cultures.

That merely stirs up interest in why my people believe as they do in the minds of those who are new to our beliefs, and that gives us something to talk about with each other.

..and that's what brings cultures into beneficial intercourse with each other.

But,.. once again,.. it not the job of someone OUTSIDE a (sub-)"cult"ure to teach the PRACTICE of that culture's religion. But the stories and other artifacts can be displayed for appreciation by an "appreciation teacher" (akin to an art appreciation teacher) within any culture that wishes to do so.

..or at least it shouldn't be. :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Why?

You assume "myth" means something negative. That is your own definitional imposition.

"Myth" means "a story that illustrates some (useful) human truth", to me.

"Myth" doesn't only mean "fallacy".

Yes, and niggardly is not a racist term, but if you use the term in a board meeting you are likely to lose your job. Would they be right to fire you? Nope. Does it matter when you can't pay your bills? Nope. (for the record, this actually happened at a college).

The fact is to the majority of the population, myth carries the connotation of being false and, thus, referring to current widely-held beliefs as myths will offend a large portion of people.

Why?

You assume "myth" means something negative. That is your own definitional imposition.

"Myth" means "a story that illustrates some (useful) human truth", to me.

"Myth" doesn't only mean "fallacy".

As a christian, I would be proud to have my stories taught (displayed for appreciation) outside of my "church". I would also welcome any connections that can be drawn between my beliefs and those of other cultures.

That merely stirs up interest in why my people believe as they do in the minds of those who are new to our beliefs, and that gives us something to talk about with each other.

..and that's what brings cultures into beneficial intercourse with each other.

But,.. once again,.. it not the job of someone OUTSIDE a (sub-)"cult"ure to teach the PRACTICE of that culture's religion. But the stories and other artifacts can be displayed for appreciation by an "appreciation teacher" (akin to an art appreciation teacher) within any culture that wishes to do so.

..or at least it shouldn't be. :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Noooo.... I'm saying THEY would be upset if their religion were taught as a "myth." Not me. Them. hehehe

And by them I mean the majority, not each and every one. In my experience, a Christian willing to carry on constructive, intelligent, probing debate about their faith without resorting to proselytizing, reverting to the "unfathomable god" argument or trotting out the "because god said so" evasion is a rare thing.

To those people teaching that god and Christianity is a myth on par with pagan mythos wouldn't sit well, I think.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Religion can not justify itself. There is no objective basis to check the validity of its claims. Therefor it cannot be included in science classes.

However, it should definately be addressed in social classes, history, geography and so on - since it has definately hass had an impact on humanity. Ignoring that is silly.

I am forced to take GCSE theology (re) at 15 (1 year early) and am very annoyed with it. the only religion anyone should learn is comparitive religion. all we do is catholicism

Imagine,.. "Hooray for boobs" being annoyed by catholicism?

Shocking..... :D

But on a more serious note...

*) Why are you in that school if you don't like the curriculum?
*) Do you ask interesting questions of the teachers based on your
understanding of your own "theology" (which is apparently pre-existent as
you seem to be at odds with the "catholic" version)?

Don't whine about beign "persecuted"! Show them how you're
being "persecuted" by making them explain why what they say causes
confusion and/or consternation in your little mind.

Be a flaming prophet of your beliefs! Listen to them and MAKE them make you
understand why their "theology" makes sense to them!

If they can't do that, what they teach isn't really worth learning as they're
teaching it.

..but that doesn't mean the subject isn't worth learning.


-The REAL Iakeo

Noooo.... I'm saying THEY would be upset if their religion were taught as a "myth." Not me. Them. hehehe

And by them I mean the majority, not each and every one. In my experience, a Christian willing to carry on constructive, intelligent, probing debate about their faith without resorting to proselytizing, reverting to the "unfathomable god" argument or trotting out the "because god said so" evasion.

To those people teaching that god and Christianity is a myth on par with pagan mythos wouldn't sit well, I think.

Oh good,.. you'd LOVE to keep talking to me then!!

Ask Willemina..!! :)

..although,.. I don't debate anything. I will converse with anyone about
anything, but "debate" per se is about proselytizing one's ideas, and I have
an abhorance for proselytizing,.. as apparently so do you.

Then why do you debate? Obviously, our definition of "debate" is at odds.

The only question I have in conversation is whether what I say is
understood, and whether I can freely ask the other person what they mean
by what they say, and that we can both get answers to each other's
questions.

That's much more fun than "debate". (Though,.. maybe that IS debate to
you!?)

Whatever,... keep on talking story, brah...


-The REAL Iakeo

Yes, and niggardly is not a racist term, but if you use the term in a board meeting you are likely to lose your job. Would they be right to fire you? Nope. Does it matter when you can't pay your bills? Nope. (for the record, this actually happened at a college).

The fact is to the majority of the population, myth carries the connotation of being false and, thus, referring to current widely-held beliefs as myths will offend a large portion of people.

Yes,.. I've heard of the "niggardly" story. And yet Churchill still gets paid.
What does THAT tell you?

You strike me as a 'fraidy-cat. :)

Is that true? And why do you have no backbone in the face of "the majority"?

My guess, an opinion of course, is that you feed off the "majority", and are
an active member in some sort of "collectivist sub-culture", where blind
support (even if only tacit "un-believing" support) is a requirement of
membership.

How close am I..? :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Resurrection is all that's required for it to be linked to the savior myth? How else was Adonis the savior?

Tammuz was a savior, sort of, except his death was what caused the loss of joy in the earth (winter) rather than his birth being the purpose of saving the peoples of the Earth.

The childhood of Zeus is a savior myth? How? He eventually kills his father as a young man who obviously isn't the greatest guy around (protecting the earth), but certainly you wouldn't consider Zeus to be the origin of the savior in the Old Testament.
Yes, the dying and ressurected god is the savior of the land/nation/people.

As far as I know, none of them are "the origin" of the savior in the Old Testament, although there are certainly similarities between savior myths, comparatively speaking. A myth (story) "borrowed" from another culture is not to say that the recognition of the essential idea (the non-literal meaning of the myth) was not already present in that culture. Whatever story is chosen to embrace a central truth is just window-dressing.

As to the other questions, I'll have to respond when I get home from work. My references are at home.

Here's something we agree on. I find it interesting that we teach mythology in school (about mythology, not preaching mythology), but we find it unacceptable to teach about religion (often referred to as a current mythology) in school (meaning in the way you described). This is particularly significant when so many of the literary works we study make references to religious documents.
I know this was not directed at me...but for what it is worth, I'll add my comments. I have no problem with classes that teach ABOUT religion, as long as they give equal time to all major relions, and they don't preach...and they are elective, and they are also in the correct forum, which is NOT, by the way, the science classroom!

How much would you like to bet that Christians would raise just as much of a ruckus if Christianity were taught in a Mythology class as they do with the fact that it's not taught at all?

You introduce religion (especially Christianity) into school curricula and sooner or later the religionists will stop being content with just having it there. They'll object to having their beliefs taught as "myths".

Of course. Incramentalism. The same thing they accuse us liberals of engaging in.
It's only okay when THEY do it. More do as I say, not as I do...more typical right-wing bullshit.

College or HS?

In either case, I'm sure Christians have a problem with their beliefs being taught as the "latest myth".
And I'm sure Julius Ceasar would have a problem with it, if you went back in time, and told him that 2,000 years from now, they would be teaching that Zeus was a "myth."

Actually, they aren't. I never learned any flood myths in any mythology class I had in school, including college. I also never learned any similar savior myths unless you count Prometheus which would REALLY be a stretch.
Ever read Norse mythology? Odin sacrificed himself to Odin. He hung himself from Yggdrasil, the Tree of Life.
So there is precedent for sacrificing an innocent to a powerful diety.

Most certainly college level. And the Christian myths are not "late" at all. ;)

An interesting article that recognizes that the Christian Church needs to embrace the myths its beliefs are founded in, or fall:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/006/1.32.html

WOW... that's quite the article. :) (Not that I've gotten all the way through
it yet, of course.)

I'd love to discuss THAT puppy, as I have NO training whatsoever in theology
or any experience at all with any organized religious organizations or
communities.

I'm actually very skeptical of finding any persons with a vested interest in
a "taught" theology being able to converse with any semblance of sense on
the subject of christianity.

But then,... that's just crazy talk..! :)

..there must be SOMEBODY out there with half a brain cell that's not
dedicated to the proposition that "there's only one way" (other than THE one
way that is by default *THE* one way).

Anyway,.. thanks for the reading material. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

(( Have I *PROVED* I'm the real Iakeo yet..? ))

I'm taught about religion in my public school. Except, no religion is given a bias towards or against, in fact, the only thing taught about it is it's history and stories.

It's almost the same where I go to school. We learn about the main stream religions in world history. You learn their basic beliefs and that's pretty much it. It is more of an overview but you learn about them. It does no harm and it from an unbiased opinion(or at least that's how it was taught to me.) Some may take it too far and that's why it can't be possible to learn more than just their basic beliefs in public school. Private school can learn what they want, that's why it's private and not run by the state government.

Oh, you mean like the majority of the population. Where do you think the term "urban myth" comes from? It never references a case that is entirely true, at least not intentionally, and most often references a case that has been documented as false.
Actually the term you are looking for is "urban legend" not "urban myth."

Your post is the first place I have ever heard the phrase "urban myth." But "urban legend" has been in common use for quite some time now.

Originally Posted by Glamorgane
How much would you like to bet that Christians would raise just as much of a ruckus if Christianity were taught in a Mythology class as they do with the fact that it's not taught at all?

You introduce religion (especially Christianity) into school curricula and sooner or later the religionists will stop being content with just having it there. They'll object to having their beliefs taught as "myths".

Of course. Incramentalism. The same thing they accuse us liberals of engaging in.
It's only okay when THEY do it. More do as I say, not as I do...more typical right-wing bullshit.

((( Spelling..!!! :) )))

Yet more leftist paranoia.

You should do as your parents say,.. though probably NOT as they do, as if
you're an example of their technique... what can I say..!?

Then again,.. perhaps they HAVE told you to do as you do, in which case,
YOU'RE DOOMED.

Hae ae ae... OK,.. that was blatant flame bait.

Take it as either that (blatant flame bait), or as my ACTUAL opinion couched
as an oh-so-subtle sarcastic mis-observation of what you appear to be,
which is a leftist freak-show.

..though I really don't have enough information to classify you as a leftist
freak-show. Would you care to display some more "leftist freak-show"ishness
to comfirm (or invalidate) my (probable) mis-diagnosis of your politico-
philosophical affiliation?


(( This kind of behavior, as you've no doubt already figured out, is why
my "footer" sig refers to a long banned name that I USED to post under. ))


-The REAL Iakeo

Yes,.. I've heard of the "niggardly" story. And yet Churchill still gets paid.
What does THAT tell you?

You strike me as a 'fraidy-cat. :)

Is that true? And why do you have no backbone in the face of "the majority"?

My guess, an opinion of course, is that you feed off the "majority", and are
an active member in some sort of "collectivist sub-culture", where blind
support (even if only tacit "un-believing" support) is a requirement of
membership.

How close am I..? :)


-The REAL Iakeo
I have a backbone. Standing up as a Christian and saying that you don't believe the teachings of Paul should be considered Gospel takes a bit of a backbone, I'd say and is far from blind support. Ad hominems don't become you and don't advance your point. However, I choose my battles. When it's just terminology there isn't much point in making that a part of the battle. I would say including a class that teaches about all world religions on an equal footing takes enough fortitude, don't you think? Without forcing a discussion and education process about the meaning of 'myth'.

And who is Churchill? The person I am thinking of was Howard and it turns out he was re-hired, but the use of the word hasn't helped his reputation. I mixed that with an incident at the University of Washington where use of the word by Henning during a discussion of Chaucer sparked a protest and an attempt to get use of the word banned ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS no less. Also a grade school teacher named Bell was sanctioned for using the word in a literature classroom.

Actually the term you are looking for is "urban legend" not "urban myth."

Your post is the first place I have ever heard the phrase "urban myth." But "urban legend" has been in common use for quite some time now.

Urban myth is interchangeable with urban legend.

Ever read Norse mythology? Odin sacrificed himself to Odin. He hung himself from Yggdrasil, the Tree of Life.
So there is precedent for sacrificing an innocent to a powerful diety.

Duh! Did you miss the part where I said Norse mythology was not taught to me in school? I also know that the idea of Hell (hel) is very similar to Norse mythology, where the word comes from. There are lots of comparable myths. My point is and was that myths taught about in school were not the myths that are found to be closely related to the Old Testament. At least, not the myths taught about my schools.

WOW... that's quite the article. :) (Not that I've gotten all the way through
it yet, of course.)

I'd love to discuss THAT puppy, as I have NO training whatsoever in theology
or any experience at all with any organized religious organizations or
communities.

I'm actually very skeptical of finding any persons with a vested interest in
a "taught" theology being able to converse with any semblance of sense on
the subject of christianity.

But then,... that's just crazy talk..! :)

..there must be SOMEBODY out there with half a brain cell that's not
dedicated to the proposition that "there's only one way" (other than THE one
way that is by default *THE* one way).

Anyway,.. thanks for the reading material. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

(( Have I *PROVED* I'm the real Iakeo yet..? ))

Perhaps you should look around. There are several that have participated in this thread and other similar threads.

This assumes that the religion will pass away. An assumption you can't really support.

You mean aside from the fact that all religions in known human history have passed away in time? Just because there are current religions that have stuck around for a little while doesn't mean that they will stick around forever.

And I'm sure Julius Ceasar would have a problem with it, if you went back in time, and told him that 2,000 years from now, they would be teaching that Zeus was a "myth."

Actually, I think Julius Caesar would agree with that.

But I take your point as it was meant and agree.

You mean aside from the fact that all religions in known human history have passed away in time?
Modern religions have a tremendous advantage over past religions, in that they are recorded... written in stone, so to speak. We know but a fraction of the religions that (may have) existed prior to the innovation of utilizing the marvel of writing to record things. Most of the "ancient" religions we are aware of were recorded fragmentally long after they had passed from useful understanding. The Classical Greek Myths are such a recording, that can only hint of the religions of the Mysteries.

Originally Posted by Oekai
Yes,.. I've heard of the "niggardly" story. And yet Churchill still gets paid.
What does THAT tell you?

You strike me as a 'fraidy-cat.

Is that true? And why do you have no backbone in the face of "the majority"?

My guess, an opinion of course, is that you feed off the "majority", and are
an active member in some sort of "collectivist sub-culture", where blind
support (even if only tacit "un-believing" support) is a requirement of
membership.

How close am I..?


-The REAL Iakeo


((( I just want to make sure everybody sees the "ad hominems". ))) :)


I have a backbone. Standing up as a Christian and saying that you don't believe the teachings of Paul should be considered Gospel takes a bit of a backbone, I'd say and is far from blind support. Ad hominems don't become you and don't advance your point. However, I choose my battles. When it's just terminology there isn't much point in making that a part of the battle. I would say including a class that teaches about all world religions on an equal footing takes enough fortitude, don't you think? Without forcing a discussion and education process about the meaning of 'myth'.

Ad hominems DO actually become me,.. as they always presage someone
either discovering that they like me (despite my apparent surliness), or they
spin off into the nether regions in abject disgust and self-righteous
emotionality.

I find both of these occurences as quite enjoyable and immenently helpful, as
it divides the people-I'd-like-to-converse-with from the dregs of humanity.
("Dregs" as judged by me, of course.)

Now,.. did you actually state to someone that Paul's gospel should be thrown
out? To whom did you say this? What the HELL happened, as that's GOT to
be a good story..!!! :)


And who is Churchill?

Just some doofus quasi-non indian wannabe college professor. Look it up.


The person I am thinking of was Howard and it turns out he was re-hired, but the use of the word hasn't helped his reputation. I mixed that with an incident at the University of Washington where use of the word by Henning during a discussion of Chaucer sparked a protest and an attempt to get use of the word banned ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS no less. Also a grade school teacher named Bell was sanctioned for using the word in a literature classroom.

So if you use a word correctly, it's a punishable offense?

Do you agree that that is wildly ridiculous?

If you agree to that, do you agree that any official in charge of enforcing
such ridiculous behavior (punishing people for correctly using words) should
be thrown out on their ear as a first-rate quack?

If you agree to that, do you agree that anyone who "goes along" with not
dismissing such quackery is a fool and a coward?

Are YOU a coward and a fool?

..I do hope not. And I'm glad you have a backbone. It's helpful when standing
in line, and for many other purposes.


-The REAL Iakeo

Oh good,.. you'd LOVE to keep talking to me then!!

Ask Willemina..!! :)

..although,.. I don't debate anything. I will converse with anyone about
anything, but "debate" per se is about proselytizing one's ideas, and I have
an abhorance for proselytizing,.. as apparently so do you.

Then why do you debate? Obviously, our definition of "debate" is at odds.

The only question I have in conversation is whether what I say is
understood, and whether I can freely ask the other person what they mean
by what they say, and that we can both get answers to each other's
questions.

That's much more fun than "debate". (Though,.. maybe that IS debate to
you!?)

Whatever,... keep on talking story, brah...


-The REAL Iakeo

My version of "debate" does not necessitate a winner and loser.

Indeed, to my way of thinking if we come out of the discussion both enriched, whether we've changed our fundamental opinion or not, we've BOTH won.

My mother is deeply Christian. I am just as deeply not. Yet she and I have the most fascinating discussions. I can deal with the kind of Christian she is. In fact, I really LIKE Christians like her as they make for some wonderfully stimulating talk. It's just the closeminded ones that I can't stand.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.


At our school we do it one every 2 weeks and thers only 1 R.E teacher which is wrong as it affects every aspect of human life

And I'm sure Julius Ceasar would have a problem with it, if you went back in time, and told him that 2,000 years from now, they would be teaching that Zeus was a "myth."
On the contrary, the use of the word "myth" to mean a falsehood is a very new application of the word. After you explained the (proper) meaning of "myth" to him, Julius would probably look at you and go, "D'uh!"

Modern religions have a tremendous advantage over past religions, in that they are recorded... written in stone, so to speak. We know but a fraction of the religions that (may have) existed prior to the innovation of utilizing the marvel of writing to record things. Most of the "ancient" religions we are aware of were recorded fragmentally long after they had passed from useful understanding. The Classical Greek Myths are such a recording, that can only hint of the religions of the Mysteries.

Saying that something is written down, and thereby subtly implying that because of the solidity of the written word will always have adherents, is not really the "survival" of a given religion. I suppose in the strictest sense it is, but my intent was to say that all religions decline and wither over time.

Perhaps more to the point, my intent was to show that the concept of a given religion being "right" and "true", its shelf life if you will, ALWAYS dies. New religions/paradigms will always replace the outmoded, outdated and passe.

(( Have I *PROVED* I'm the real Iakeo yet..? ))
There are false ones?

((( I just want to make sure everybody sees the "ad hominems". ))) :)



Ad hominems DO actually become me,.. as they always presage someone
either discovering that they like me (despite my apparent surliness), or they
spin off into the nether regions in abject disgust and self-righteous
emotionality.

I find both of these occurences as quite enjoyable and immenently helpful, as
it divides the people-I'd-like-to-converse-with from the dregs of humanity.
("Dregs" as judged by me, of course.)

I tend to be in a third group. I tend to just find them disappointing. If you have a question about my background I'm happy to give it and you're welcome to judge me on it as I don't particularly value your opinion on me. I find your judgement on someone I'm not of even less value.

Now,.. did you actually state to someone that Paul's gospel should be thrown
out? To whom did you say this? What the HELL happened, as that's GOT to
be a good story..!!! :)

Actually, if you read earlier in the thread this is specifically the reason that Ph33r doesn't like me. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ and thus feel it is not my place to judge the sins of other or to try and make sins illegal. I figure sin is between the sinner and God. And, trust me, what I have to say about that isn't going to amount to a hill of beans in the end.

However, I am willing to tell it to anyone who wishes to discuss theology or even philosophy with me (where appropriate). I've been physically removed from the offices of several religions leaders (priests, reverends, pastors). Admittedly, I was younger and a little more aggressive at the time and I accused them of not being very Christian when they asked me to leave.

My sister's sister-in-law (what do you call that), who spends much of her time drunk and who has slept with more people than I've shaken hands with, got angry when I suggested that Paul was just a religious leader who was giving his opinions and that the words of Jesus stand alone. Her response was to ask me if I could off the top of my head name the books of the Bible. Apparently, if you've memorized the names of the books of the Bible you are biblical scholar and if you haven't you are in no position to have an opinion. Then when I couldn't recite them all, in order, I was told I was a bad Christian and that I should learn the Bible better and stop being such a sinner. It took a lot of willpower to not call her out on that one.

So if you use a word correctly, it's a punishable offense?

Do you agree that that is wildly ridiculous?

If you agree to that, do you agree that any official in charge of enforcing
such ridiculous behavior (punishing people for correctly using words) should
be thrown out on their ear as a first-rate quack?

If you agree to that, do you agree that anyone who "goes along" with not
dismissing such quackery is a fool and a coward?

Are YOU a coward and a fool?

..I do hope not. And I'm glad you have a backbone. It's helpful when standing
in line, and for many other purposes.


-The REAL Iakeo
Admittedly, it's ridiculous for someone to 1) yell at you for correctly using a word, 2) refuse to look it up and 3) require you to apologize for their ignorance, but such is the way of the world. Like I said, I pick my battles and a battle over the word "myth" simply isn't worth it, particularly when more suitable words are available.

As a young man, I had a tendency to fight the system whenever I felt it was wrong and ALWAYS called everyone on such things. I spent a lot of time in hallways and trying to explain to my parents why I made the teacher cry (I absolutely hated some of those bitter teachers that attacked their students for being less than perfect learners). Teachers don't particularly like a nine-year-old that calls them on their improper diction or grammar or a thirteen-year-old who points out to a teacher that her probability formulas are incorrect when discussing genetics. Teachers also don't like logical fallacies pointed out in multiple choice questions. The Chemistry teacher who completely made up her past (she said she was a Marine Corps Drill Instructor) particularly didn't like it when I researched the Marine Corps and grilled her until she finally broke down into tears and admitted in front of the class that she made it up. In my defense, these were always in defense of some meek student that was being unfairly attacked by an overzealous and bitter teacher.

Then my grandfather got a hold of me. He taught me that whether you like it or not life's a game. Now you have the option of railing against the unfair rules and seeking justice, but if you don't choose your battles you just end up dismissed, a loser and unhappy (even if you are right). BUT if you choose your battles wisely you can sometimes not only win the game but also make the game more fair for those that follow behind you. It took me quite some time to accept that this is true (I still falter a bit at times), but I'm much more successful both financially and at, doing what I feel is, improving the game in as much as I have influence over it.

((( Spelling..!!! :) )))

Yet more leftist paranoia.

You should do as your parents say,.. though probably NOT as they do, as if
you're an example of their technique... what can I say..!?

Then again,.. perhaps they HAVE told you to do as you do, in which case,
YOU'RE DOOMED.

Hae ae ae... OK,.. that was blatant flame bait.

Take it as either that (blatant flame bait), or as my ACTUAL opinion couched
as an oh-so-subtle sarcastic mis-observation of what you appear to be,
which is a leftist freak-show.

..though I really don't have enough information to classify you as a leftist
freak-show. Would you care to display some more "leftist freak-show"ishness
to comfirm (or invalidate) my (probable) mis-diagnosis of your politico-
philosophical affiliation?


(( This kind of behavior, as you've no doubt already figured out, is why
my "footer" sig refers to a long banned name that I USED to post under. ))


-The REAL Iakeo

I'll do better than that, I'll confirm your diagnosis of being "a leftist freak-show." That is, of course, if you define "a leftist freak-show" as someone who gives a shit about the lesser, the weak, and the disenfranchised among us. As someone who gives a shit that our rights and freedoms are not taken away from us by fundamentalist whackjobs, just because some of our choices offend them, or make them feel "icky." If that is how you define "a leftist freak-show" then I'm guilty as charged.

And did you know that making an issue of someone's misseplling, and in that case it was a typo, anyway...can be construed as flamebait? And, if the best you can do is to attack my spelling, then you haven't much of a leg to stand on, anyway.

But, if caring for the interests of the least among us...the weakest, most vulnerable, most exploited and disenfranchised among us...if giving a shit about those people qualifies me as "a leftist freak show" then I plead guilty to all charges, and with pride. so thanks for the compliment.

Now go away. Before you join my ignore list.

I find both of these occurences as quite enjoyable and immenently helpful, as
it divides the people-I'd-like-to-converse-with from the dregs of humanity.
LOL :)

My version of "debate" does not necessitate a winner and loser.

Indeed, to my way of thinking if we come out of the discussion both enriched, whether we've changed our fundamental opinion or not, we've BOTH won.

My mother is deeply Christian. I am just as deeply not. Yet she and I have the most fascinating discussions. I can deal with the kind of Christian she is. In fact, I really LIKE Christians like her as they make for some wonderfully stimulating talk. It's just the closeminded ones that I can't stand.

Very cool indeed..!!

I'm glad to hear about your version of debate. There are many too many folks
out there that consider it a blood sport to be won at all costs, even if
winning is not possible,.. meaning they declare victory (usually with some
nasty version of "I know you are, but what am I!?" as a final rejoinder) and
go home.

All I'm really after in any conversation is being able to ask questions of others
and having them ask me questions.

The questions are the important part. Not so much the "answers".

The answers are just the prop that the conversant places in front of me so
that I can "ask into" how they think and how they see the world.

..we usually just go about placing and replacing props all day, finding
interesting ways to allow the other into our own minds.

It's a disappointment when someone thinks their prop is for display only and
can't be used to ask any questions about.

Those who say, "worship my prop" are really quite funny,.. but can either be
WAY too much work to "get into", or impossible to get into, or become the
best of conversation partners because they are newly "opened up".

Anyway,.. thanks for the banter. :)


-The REAL Iakeo

I have a backbone. Standing up as a Christian and saying that you don't believe the teachings of Paul should be considered Gospel takes a bit of a backbone, I'd say and is far from blind support.
(snippy, snippy)

OMFG!!! You mean there is another Christian out there like me...one who has a real problem with Paul of Tarsus?!?! Who has a problem with his teachings as they often seem diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus?? Damn, Jocaiba...the more I learn about you, the more I like you!!

You mean aside from the fact that all religions in known human history have passed away in time? Just because there are current religions that have stuck around for a little while doesn't mean that they will stick around forever.

Past performance doesn't necessarily suggest future performance. All past cultures have died out as well, but this says little about the viability of a current culture. No culture has even flown to the moon before either (well, that we know of).

Duh! Did you miss the part where I said Norse mythology was not taught to me in school? I also know that the idea of Hell (hel) is very similar to Norse mythology, where the word comes from. There are lots of comparable myths. My point is and was that myths taught about in school were not the myths that are found to be closely related to the Old Testament. At least, not the myths taught about my schools.

Umm...actually I did see that. AFTER I'd already posted this that you replied to.

Saying that something is written down, and thereby subtly implying that because of the solidity of the written word will always have adherents, is not really the "survival" of a given religion. I suppose in the strictest sense it is, but my intent was to say that all religions decline and wither over time.

Perhaps more to the point, my intent was to show that the concept of a given religion being "right" and "true", its shelf life if you will, ALWAYS dies. New religions/paradigms will always replace the outmoded, outdated and passe.
Ideally, all religions should grow and change over time. The reason modern religions will decline is because they are "written in stone," they will not adapt to change with the times.

The "rightness" of, for instance, the concept of the ressurection of the Christ has not deteroriated, except in that people have come to neglect the non-literal truth and advocate the literal symbol as truth.

Modern religions have a tremendous advantage over past religions, in that they are recorded... written in stone, so to speak. We know but a fraction of the religions that (may have) existed prior to the innovation of utilizing the marvel of writing to record things. Most of the "ancient" religions we are aware of were recorded fragmentally long after they had passed from useful understanding. The Classical Greek Myths are such a recording, that can only hint of the religions of the Mysteries.
The ancient religions, or myths, if you prefer...were "recorded" in the sense that the stories were passed down, generation to generation, passed on by traveling bards, etc. Until the advent of the printing press, making permanent records of anything was, at best, difficult and time-consuming.

Umm...actually I did see that. AFTER I'd already posted this that you replied to.

I just wanted the opportunity to say "Duh" to somebody. Thanks for affording me that opportunity. There's an awesome book by Richard (Somebody) called American Gods. What you said about Odin reminded me of a part in that book (where the Norse sacrifice an Indian similar to the way you described when they arrive in North America). It's a great read. Fiction. Mixing together tons of different mythologies.

((( I just want to make sure everybody sees the "ad hominems". ))) :)



Ad hominems DO actually become me,.. as they always presage someone
either discovering that they like me (despite my apparent surliness), or they
spin off into the nether regions in abject disgust and self-righteous
emotionality.

I find both of these occurences as quite enjoyable and immenently helpful, as
it divides the people-I'd-like-to-converse-with from the dregs of humanity.
("Dregs" as judged by me, of course.)

-The REAL Iakeo
In that case, considering the source, I'd be honored if you, sir, would consider ME as part of "the dregs of humanity." Read into that what you will!

The ancient religions, or myths, if you prefer...were "recorded" in the sense that the stories were passed down, generation to generation, passed on by traveling bards, etc. Until the advent of the printing press, making permanent records of anything was, at best, difficult and time-consuming.

I think the point is that, with verbal recording of events, they pass away when the culture does, unless some new culture decides to take up the torch, so to speak. Written word can be passed down forever (possibly). For example, if we could find original written works about paganism they would likely be preserved in a form as close to original as we could muster. Even if we don't accept the 'truth' of the document, we value it's history.

Past performance doesn't necessarily suggest future performance. All past cultures have died out as well, but this says little about the viability of a current culture. No culture has even flown to the moon before either (well, that we know of).

I'll go with history on this one. At least it gives me a solid foundation from which to build an opinion.

I just wanted the opportunity to say "Duh" to somebody. Thanks for affording me that opportunity. There's an awesome book by Richard (Somebody) called American Gods. What you said about Odin reminded me of a part in that book (where the Norse sacrifice an Indian similar to the way you described when they arrive in North America). It's a great read. Fiction. Mixing together tons of different mythologies.

"American Gods" was written by Neil Gaiman.

Great book.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

It's not really rediculous at all. Religion is a very personal thing for most religious people, and while people with the same beliefs usually get along quite well, almost every major religion, at one point or another, has been on both the giving and recieving end of atrocities and repression. Usually, these come about when a religion has enough of a hold on a government to make policy as much a matter of religion as as of politics.

(If you want some examples of such atrocities, the Egyptian persecution of the Jews, the Roman persecution of Christians, the Iquisition, the Crusades, Modern China & Communist Russia (State legislated atheism, and persecution of relgions is just as much religious persecution as any other), Sunni - Shiite Conflicts, and I doubt I've scratched the surface)

Most western countries, and many others, have concluded, in one way or another and at one level or another, that religion and government don't mix well, and have tried to seperate them. Given that education is typically primarily handled by governments, that removes religion from schools as well.

For my money, this is no bad thing, indeed, it may be one of the most important steps in societal evolution since the idea of individual rights. After all, government corrupts everything it touches and religion is rarely particularly fair or impartial regarding other, potentially competing religions.

Those who say, "worship my prop" are really quite funny,..
And it makes for a good pick-up line.

"American Gods" was written by Neil Gaiman.

Great book.

Yes, that's the one. I love his writing. Very enjoyable and an interesting perspective.

But wasn't your initial point that atheists are not tolerant? Dish it out but can't take it?

I am very tolerant of your silly little worship fest. If I wasn't I'd be protesting churchs every Sunday trying to help the blindly faithful see that they are wasting time and should be mowing their lawns or grocery shopping instead of hoping on miracles.

But I don't.

Our silly little worship fest? Blindly faithful? Wasting time? Timmy's in the well by the old shed? Seriously though, that's kind of offensive, insensitive and rude.

I'll go with history on this one. At least it gives me a solid foundation from which to build an opinion.

We are in a unique place in history, as has been pointed out, due to technology. One could say that no war in history was fought with no casualties on one side and millions on the other, but that wouldn't mean there will never be a war like that. With robotic technologies and such, it's fully possible for a war against a third world nation to be exactly that (though I hope not). Such things were impossible or highly unlikely in the past, but there is a lot that we don't know given the huge cultural and technological changes that have occurred and are occurring over recent centuries (i.e. in the past, a global culture was impossible).

Do you know that Santa Claus is fiction unless you study the roots of him?

SANTA ISNT REAL?!?!

SANTA ISNT REAL?!?!

:rolleyes:

The REAL Ikea...Icarus... Sorry, forgot the exact name.

Anyway, why do you think education about the current day dominant religions should be optional? I'm willing to bet my left arm that basic knowledge of them is far more important for most people that biology is. After all, all our societies are build on the back of some religion or other, and the vast majority of all humans are religious. Biology, for example, plays almost no role in social life, and it's impact on politics is - though growing - minute. I'd argue the exact opposite is true for religion.

So why should it be optional?

On an unrelated note: goddamn! You're the funniest poster around! I wish I could deliver snide remarks like that :)

Yes, that's the one. I love his writing. Very enjoyable and an interesting perspective.

Have you read "Good Omens"? That is one of the funniest books I have ever read. If you like Neil Gaiman you'll enjoy it. If you like Terry Pratchett you'll enjoy it even more.

We are in a unique place in history, as has been pointed out, due to technology. One could say that no war in history was fought with no casualties on one side and millions on the other, but that wouldn't mean there will never be a war like that. With robotic technologies and such, it's fully possible for a war against a third world nation to be exactly that (though I hope not). Such things were impossible or highly unlikely in the past, but there is a lot that we don't know given the huge cultural and technological changes that have occurred and are occurring over recent centuries (i.e. in the past, a global culture was impossible).

I would argue that the nascent dominance of science and technology makes my suspicions more likely than yours (about the durability of religion, not your thoughts on robotic warfare), though we have no way of knowing that for sure.

Personally, I believe that sometime within the next hundred years science will grow closer and closer to metaphysics. By that I mean that the whole idea of metaphysics and the "supernatural" will start to become measurable and we, as humans, will start to connect more and more with the universe around us. I think humanity is on the cusp of evolving into our next stage.

Ever read Norse mythology? Odin sacrificed himself to Odin. He hung himself from Yggdrasil, the Tree of Life.
So there is precedent for sacrificing an innocent to a powerful diety.

That's a weak comparison actually; all the hard evidence suggests that the Christ story is older than the Norse mythology. It would be the other way around, Germanic tribesmen working as mercenaries for the Christianized Romans would return and spread the tales of the Jesus story they had heard, differing versions of the story of Jesus were preserved in Scandinavian oral traditions hundreds years later.

That's a weak comparison actually; all the hard evidence suggests that the Christ story is older than the Norse mythology. It would be the other way around, Germanic tribesmen working as mercenaries for the Christianized Romans would return and spread the tales of the Jesus story they had hear, differing versions of the story of Jesus story were preserved in Scandinavia oral traditions hundreds years later.

Dude, you are so off base here...

Celtic, Scandinavian and Germanic myth has its roots in the first and second millenium BC.

I would argue that the nascent dominance of science and technology makes my suspicions more likely than yours (about the durability of religion, not your thoughts on robotic warfare), though we have no way of knowing that for sure.

Personally, I believe that sometime within the next hundred years science will grow closer and closer to metaphysics. By that I mean that the whole idea of metaphysics and the "supernatural" will start to become measurable and we, as humans, will start to connect more and more with the universe around us. I think humanity is on the cusp of evolving into our next stage.

So we agree. You have no way of knowing that for sure. That was my initial point. I suspect that some aspects of what you said are correct, however.

So we agree. You have no way of knowing that for sure. That was my initial point. I suspect that some aspects of what you said are correct, however.

I suspect our opinions don't really differ all that much... we're just too used to people not listening so we're used to talking without listening. hehehe

That's a weak comparison actually; all the hard evidence suggests that the Christ story is older than the Norse mythology. It would be the other way around, Germanic tribesmen working as mercenaries for the Christianized Romans would return and spread the tales of the Jesus story they had hear, differing versions of the story of Jesus story were preserved in Scandinavia oral traditions hundreds years later.

I can't believe you just suggested that Christianity is older than Norse mythology. Wow, that's just not even close. You could argue that the savior story of the old testament is older, but Christianity, wow.

That's a weak comparison actually; all the hard evidence suggests that the Christ story is older than the Norse mythology. It would be the other way around, Germanic tribesmen working as mercenaries for the Christianized Romans would return and spread the tales of the Jesus story they had hear, differing versions of the story of Jesus story were preserved in Scandinavia oral traditions hundreds years later.
You're about as wrong as you're right, at least according to general opinion.
It's pretty much agreed that both are inspired by pre-christian mythos.
The Christ story itself is, to the best of my knowledge, younger than the original germanic version of the norse mythos.

Our silly little worship fest? Blindly faithful? Wasting time? Timmy's in the well by the old shed? Seriously though, that's kind of offensive, insensitive and rude.

And I imagine your insistence that someone must believe in YOUR God or be forever damned to Hell...and having that idea rammed down their throat...and having fundie nutjobs trying to codify their moral paradigm into civil law...is kind of offensive, insensitive, and rude to Athiests...or anyone else who does not share your specific faith.

Try putting yourself in the other guy's shoes for once.

Dude, you are so off base here...

Celtic, Scandinavian and Germanic myth has its roots in the first and second millenium BC.

You must be thinking of the Celtic mythology. The Celtic traditions are extremely old, Roman historians mark their existence at least 500 years before Christ, however, Norse Mythology and Celtic mythology are not the same, not even related.

In much the same way as Mohammed created Islam in a previously existing ethnic group (the date is known and we know when it began) when he wrote the Qur’an and converted the Arab/Bedouin culture to it, it is a perfect example here. The ethnic culture existed previous to the introduction of their adopted religion, but their religion did not create the ethnicity. In the same fashion, the Scandinavian Norse Mythology has a beginning date less than two thousand years old.

You must be thinking of the Celtic mythology. The Celtic traditions are extremely old, Roman historians mark their existence at least 500 years before Christ, however, Norse Mythology and Celtic mythology are not the same, not even related.

In much the same way as Mohammed created Islam in a previously existing ethnic group (the date is known and we know when it began) when he wrote the Qur’an and converted the Arab/Bedouin culture to it, it is a perfect example here. The ethnic culture existed previous to the introduction of their adopted religion, but their religion did not create the ethnicity. In the same fashion, the Scandinavian Norse Mythology has a beginning date less than two thousand years old.

Actually, the records of it by Christian scholars is less that two thousand years old. It is suspected to be much, much older than that. It certainly pre-dates Christian contact. Also, the eddas which came post-Christian contact were influenced by this contact which may be what you're reflecting, but the original mythology existed before there was any contact with Christians.

Actually, the records of it by Christian scholars is less that two thousand years old. It is suspected to be much, much older than that. It certainly pre-dates Christian contact. Also, the eddas which came post-Christian contact were influenced by this contact which may be what you're reflecting, but the original mythology existed before there was any contact with Christians.
It's fairly well established that the norse mythos was around in some form or another about 1000 BC. That's around 2000 years before Christianity hit the block.
Nearly all record of norse mythos comes from Christian scholars.
It's well established that there are close ties between Celtic mythos & Norse mythos. Celtic & Norse mythos shares several gods, names, heroes and legends.

Christianity, in terms of age, is the new kid on the block here.

Actually, the records of it by Christian scholars is less that two thousand years old. It is suspected to be much, much older than that. It certainly pre-dates Christian contact. Also, the eddas which came post-Christian contact were influenced by this contact which may be what you're reflecting, but the original mythology existed before there was any contact with Christians.

The Christian scholars who recorded the Norse Mythologies onto paper for us didn't reach those areas until 700 A.D. or later (as you also pointed out). However, four hundred years before that (before the fall of the Roman Empire in the west) the interaction between Christian Rome and Germanic tribes are frequent. The technology of hammering multiple metal strands braided into one to form a stronger less brittle sword blade (for example) was a technology the Scandinavian Vikings shared with the Romans but not their Germanic ancestors.

The Germanic tribesmen who fought with the Roman legions, for example, were not followers of Odin, they were Germanic Pagan different from even the Celts of the West, perhaps closer related to the Huns and Visigoths that the Vikings who would come eight hundred years after them.

It's fairly well established that the norse mythos was around in some form or another about 1000 BC. That's around 2000 years before Christianity hit the block.
Nearly all record of norse mythos comes from Christian scholars.
It's well established that there are close ties between Celtic mythos & Norse mythos. Celtic & Norse mythos shares several gods, names, heroes and legends.

Christianity, in terms of age, is the new kid on the block here.


Fairly well established by whom? Certainly not the Roman historians who talked about them, there is no Odin nor Thor then.

Fairly well established by whom? Certainly not the Roman historians who talked about them, there is no Odin nor Thor then.
Well.. Instead of me going on about stuff from memory, or dusting off my old mythology books, why don't you go fish in the wikipedia?

I'm completely confident it will back up what I just told you, moreover, I'm sure it has online sourcematerial handy. I don't.

Oh, by the way, you should probably brush up on both germanic paganism & celtic mythos while you're at it.

Ph33rdom truelly you need to understand that the basic knowledge of the first writers of the Romans based themselves only on those place where they had conquered and had taken place for their empire at staters. Do you know the myth of how rome began? It was written around 150 years after Rome had become a citadel and was not a town or a village. That only goes to show you, that the mythology of the other cultures could be far older just because it was all by tongue and histories that they passed on teaching to their children as well as their religious beliefs. Even if at the time of the Roman Catholic church that was converting every piece of land in the Roman Empire, there where still a lot of pagans as the Catholics back then used to call them, non-believers is the basic way in which you could portray the word pagan. But yet they had no written word about their religion ir what or whom they believed in, but from father to sun and mother to daughter and w/e other generalization of back then might exist they used to carve their own gods for their own person and pray and believe in different gods and in different mythological creatures and stories before the roman cities where even created, and even before the first pebble for rome was created at all.

The Christian scholars who recorded the Norse Mythologies onto paper for us didn't reach those areas until 700 A.D. or later (as you also pointed out). However, four hundred years before that (before the fall of the Roman Empire in the west) the interaction between Christian Rome and Germanic tribes are frequent. The technology of hammering multiple metal strands braided into one to form a stronger less brittle sword blade (for example) was a technology the Scandinavian Vikings shared with the Romans but not their Germanic ancestors.

The Germanic tribesmen who fought with the Roman legions, for example, were not followers of Odin, they were Germanic Pagan different from even the Celts of the West, perhaps closer related to the Huns and Visigoths that the Vikings who would come eight hundred years after them.
It wasn't until around 1000 AD that the Christians stumbled into Northern Europe. The Germanic peoples that interacted with the Romans were not Vikings. The Vikings weren't known to come down out of the North until about 700 AD. Around that time they started to conquer parts of the north (becoming known as Vikings after the rivers they travelled) and they started to travel the seas. It's known that they reached the Americas by before 900 AD and the Northern Atlantic islands much earlier. And there is certainly no direct records of the status of Norse Mythology at that time. We do know that by the time they started to travel to anywhere that put them in contact with Romans or Christians they had the common practice of stringing up a person on a tree and cutting out their entrails as a tribute to... guess who? And this was a tribute to what legend? Any guesses.... anybody? Anybody?

Now there is some evidence that some of the REAL people that the Germanic peoples encountered during the 4th to 6th centuries made it into their myths and was then transferred into Norse myths over time (which you errantly equated though they are more different that Greek and Roman myths). This happened after there was already evidence of the Odin myths regarding the tree of life. There is no evidence that the Odin myths have anything to do Christianity or any Norse myths in fact. There is evidence that some of the myths and terms that the Germanic peoples brought down out of the north made their way into Roman and British use during various periods, for example Hel, the days of the week, and various other myths. The Norse actually didn't refer to the days of the week in this way, in fact, it was a practice that was created by the Romans and eventually transferred to Norse names of what outside influences decided were equivalent Gods.

I noticed that you just happened to only count the Germanic encounters with the Romans that happened after the Christians gained influence. No mention of the encounters with the Germanic peoples that occurred earlier. I suppose that would really muck up your argument, wouldn't it? Wouldn't want to mention that the Germanic peoples encountered the Romans around second century BC prior to the establishment of the empire. Yep, that really mucks that argument up, doesn't it?

Because people like bush try to make their religion part of everyone's life, no matter what other people think.

bush has never come knocking on my door and demanded i follow his beliefs so i fail to see where your coming from on this one

Finds from Pre-roman Norway (for example) have shown that the people were hunters. At many locations in far north Finnmark there were sizeable settlements of hunters, clear proof of seasonable cooperation between many people.

From Roman Age ( 0 -400 A.D.) grave finds we can see that there was most defiantly links with the Romanized countries to the south. Household tools of bronze and glass were discovered, as well as weapons. Writing with runic letters also became known in the Nordic lands at this time.

And back to my original point, yes of course Scandinavians existed pre-Roman period (in fact, some form of people had lived in the areas being discussed for thousands of years prior to this), but that is irrelevant to the discussion of how old Norse Mythology (the type we know of) is. Like I said before, in the same manner as Arabs and Bedouin existed before Islam, the same is true in that the ethnic Scandinavians existed before the Norse Mythology was developed.

The Scandinavian culture was vastly influenced by the contact it had via trade and knowledge, with the South, influenced everything about their culture, including their religions and methods of worship.

Here's some good general info of the age that brought Christianity stories to the north that I am speaking of... Please notice that the Visigoths come from southern Scandinavia.

http://history-world.org/germanic_tribes.htm

I noticed that you just happened to only count the Germanic encounters with the Romans that happened after the Christians gained influence. No mention of the encounters with the Germanic peoples that occurred earlier. I suppose that would really muck up your argument, wouldn't it? Wouldn't want to mention that the Germanic peoples encountered the Romans around second century BC prior to the establishment of the empire. Yep, that really mucks that argument up, doesn't it?


That's silly, it mucks up nothing, it confirms that the Romans would have recorded some version of the Norse Mythology that you claim they had then. The fact that they didn't validates my argument. They did record what they knew, and the Norse mythology of the Vikings was not yet in place during that age.

That's silly, it mucks up nothing, it confirms that the Romans would have recorded some version of the Norse Mythology that you claim they had then. The fact that they didn't validates my argument. They did record what they knew, and the Norse mythology of the Vikings was not yet in place during that age.

They didn't encounter the Norse. They encountered the Germanic peoples. You seem to have trouble telling the difference. That was the point. If encountering the Germanic peoples mattered then it would have mattered that they encountered them before the existence of Christ. Also, I'm sure you're aware that the documentation of the Germanic culture from these meeting is sparse at best. Are you even trying?

They didn't encounter the Norse. They encountered the Germanic peoples. You seem to have trouble telling the difference. That was the point. If encountering the Germanic peoples mattered then it would have mattered that they encountered them before the existence of Christ. Also, I'm sure you're aware that the documentation of the Germanic culture from these meeting is sparse at best. Are you even trying?

I referred to finds in Norway, I'm not sure how much more 'Norse' I can refer to. What are you thinking? We are talking about 400 years and more before the first Vikings would show up, I already said that. Norse Mythology and the Vikings that believed in it (the people most modern people think of when we say “Vikings”) did not exist with the Romans, they (the Vikings) came later.

They would only be possible after their ancestors had made contact with the Romans and the other cultures of the south and modified their behavior and religion to enable themselves to become the Norsemen of the middle ages. . As to your assertion that the Viking and the Germanic tribes are not related is beyond me… any preliminary study on your part will prove that they are. The Germanic peoples of Scandinavia ARE the pre- and early-Viking period peoples.

I referred to finds in Norway, I'm not sure how much more 'Norse' I can refer to. What are you thinking? We are talking about 400 years and more before the first Vikings would show up, I already said that. Norse Mythology and the Vikings that believed in it (the people most modern people think of when we say “Vikings”) did not exist with the Romans, they (the Vikings) came later.

They would only be possible after their ancestors had made contact with the Romans and the other cultures of the south and modified their behavior and religion to enable themselves to become the Norsemen of the middle ages. . As to your assertion that the Viking and the Germanic tribes are not related is beyond me… any preliminary study on your part will prove that they are. The Germanic peoples of Scandinavia ARE the pre- and early-Viking period peoples.

I didn't say they weren't related. I said they weren't the same. The Norse cultures were of Northern Scandanavia and were the precursors of Vikings. The Germanic cultures (of the periods we are talking about) had the same ancestors but the cultures of Southern Scandanavia were considered Germanic (they had common ancestors but were different by the time AD rolled around). Read your own source. The Visgoths were from Southern Scandanavia. NOT Norther Scandanavia where the Norse were from. So yes, you can get much more Norse. Not all Scandanavians were Norse. Also you have not established that the Norse Mythology did not exist. In fact, there is much evidence that it had already formed at this point and that it simply evolved a bit in later periods. It's origins are WAY before the times it was recorded as evidenced by the practices of the Norse peoples when they began to migrate out of Northern Scandanavia.

I didn't say they weren't related. I said they weren't the same. The Norse cultures were of Northern Scandanavia and were the precursors of Vikings. The Germanic cultures (of the periods we are talking about) had the same ancestors but the cultures of Southern Scandanavia were considered Germanic (they had common ancestors but were different by the time AD rolled around). Read your own source. The Visgoths were from Southern Scandanavia. NOT Norther Scandanavia where the Norse were from. So yes, you can get much more Norse. Not all Scandanavians were Norse. Also you have not established that the Norse Mythology did not exist. In fact, there is much evidence that it had already formed at this point and that it simply evolved a bit in later periods. It's origins are WAY before the times it was recorded as evidenced by the practices of the Norse peoples when they began to migrate out of Northern Scandanavia.

Where exactly do you think the "Norse" people came from? You do know that they are NOT indigenous to Norway and Sweden, right? They (the blonde haired warriors) migrated there from somewhere else, displacing the original inhabitants (dark haired farmers - Finns) as the dominate culture influence in the area. The 'Norsemen' did not come from north Scandinavia.

Regardless, I’ll refer to the age closer to the period we are talking about…

The Germanic tribes during the late roman era were migrating OUT of Scandinavia. The Vandals are from Denmark, the Visigoths from southern Scandinavia. (Northern Scandinavia being occupied by the Finns – a different group altogether).

The ancestor of all modern Scandinavian languages, beginning with the Germanic form, was developed from the languages of the Aesir (Thracian tribes) and Goths (Germanic tribes). When the Aesir integrated with the people of the lands, their families became so numerous in Scandinavia and Germany that their language became the language of all the people in that region. The linguistic and archaeological data seem to indicate that the final linguistic stage of the Germanic languages took place in an area which has been located approximately in southern Sweden, southern Norway, Denmark and the lower Elbe river which empties into the North Sea on the northwest coast of Germany.

((( Spelling..!!! :) )))

Yet more leftist paranoia.

You should do as your parents say,.. though probably NOT as they do, as if
you're an example of their technique... what can I say..!?

Then again,.. perhaps they HAVE told you to do as you do, in which case,
YOU'RE DOOMED.

Hae ae ae... OK,.. that was blatant flame bait.

Take it as either that (blatant flame bait), or as my ACTUAL opinion couched
as an oh-so-subtle sarcastic mis-observation of what you appear to be,
which is a leftist freak-show.

..though I really don't have enough information to classify you as a leftist
freak-show. Would you care to display some more "leftist freak-show"ishness
to comfirm (or invalidate) my (probable) mis-diagnosis of your politico-
philosophical affiliation?


(( This kind of behavior, as you've no doubt already figured out, is why
my "footer" sig refers to a long banned name that I USED to post under. ))


-The REAL Iakeo

Knock it off, NOW. Yea, it could be your actual opinion, but its still flamebaiting. You're also flaming by calling Lyric a "freak-show". You're really treading on thin lines here, so I suggest that you re-read everything that you would even consider posting. Insults are not allowed here on these forums.

Originally Posted by Oekai
((( I just want to make sure everybody sees the "ad hominems". )))

Ad hominems DO actually become me,.. as they always presage someone
either discovering that they like me (despite my apparent surliness), or they
spin off into the nether regions in abject disgust and self-righteous
emotionality.

I find both of these occurences as quite enjoyable and immenently helpful, as
it divides the people-I'd-like-to-converse-with from the dregs of humanity.
("Dregs" as judged by me, of course.)

-The REAL Iakeo

In that case, considering the source, I'd be honored if you, sir, would consider ME as part of "the dregs of humanity." Read into that what you will!

Hae ae ae.. very good. :D

Welcome to the severely overpopulated "dregs" category.

..and I think I mis-spelled "immenently",.. let me check,.. Yup!
It's "imminently".

Oh well,.. can't be perfect all the time.


-The REAL Iakeo

Originally Posted by Oekai
Those who say, "worship my prop" are really quite funny,..

And it makes for a good pick-up line.

Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I hadn't thought of that..!!

I was never very good with "picking up" the opposite sex. Perhaps this is why..!!?

:D

-The REAL Iakeo

Originally Posted by Balipo
But wasn't your initial point that atheists are not tolerant? Dish it out but can't take it?

I am very tolerant of your silly little worship fest. If I wasn't I'd be protesting churchs every Sunday trying to help the blindly faithful see that they are wasting time and should be mowing their lawns or grocery shopping instead of hoping on miracles.

But I don't.

Our silly little worship fest? Blindly faithful? Wasting time? Timmy's in the well by the old shed? Seriously though, that's kind of offensive, insensitive and rude.

Would you expect anything else from this goofball?

Though,.. I like to think of myself as relatively offensive, generally insensitive
and usually rude,.. so I don't think it's fair to judge the content of what this
goofball says by the offensive/insensitive/rude scale.

I prefer rather to judge said goofball by the utter lack of knowledge as to
what the heck he/she's talking about. (And I'm NOT accusing you of being a
transexual, so don't go there. :) )

..but that's just me. I actually LIKE rude people with something to say,.. as I
am one.


-The REAL Iakeo

Where exactly do you think the "Norse" people came from? You do know that they are NOT indigenous to Norway and Sweden, right? They (the blonde haired warriors) migrated there from somewhere else, displacing the original inhabitants (dark haired farmers - Finns) as the dominate culture influence in the area. The 'Norsemen' did not come from north Scandinavia.

Regardless, I’ll refer to the age closer to the period we are talking about…

The Germanic tribes during the late roman era were migrating OUT of Scandinavia. The Vandals are from Denmark, the Visigoths from southern Scandinavia. (Northern Scandinavia being occupied by the Finns – a different group altogether).

The ancestor of all modern Scandinavian languages, beginning with the Germanic form, was developed from the languages of the Aesir (Thracian tribes) and Goths (Germanic tribes). When the Aesir integrated with the people of the lands, their families became so numerous in Scandinavia and Germany that their language became the language of all the people in that region. The linguistic and archaeological data seem to indicate that the final linguistic stage of the Germanic languages took place in an area which has been located approximately in southern Sweden, southern Norway, Denmark and the lower Elbe river which empties into the North Sea on the northwest coast of Germany.

Hmmm... perhaps that's why I mentioned the common ancestor. Perhaps you missed that. However a common ancestor does not make them the same people. They were culturally and geographically different by the point we are talking about. Your argument is like saying that because Marco Polo interacted with the Chinese that he was actually interacting with Eskimos because Asians originally migrated to Alaska from Asia and then were seperated.

Would you expect anything else from this goofball?

Though,.. I like to think of myself as relatively offensive, generally insensitive
and usually rude,.. so I don't think it's fair to judge the content of what this
goofball says by the offensive/insensitive/rude scale.

I prefer rather to judge said goofball by the utter lack of knowledge as to
what the heck he/she's talking about. (And I'm NOT accusing you of being a
transexual, so don't go there. :) )

..but that's just me. I actually LIKE rude people with something to say,.. as I
am one.


-The REAL Iakeo
So...

Mind rearranging your props for me? Why do you think education about religion should be optional?
I asked you a couple of pages ago. Flip back if you want to know why I ask

The REAL Ikea...Icarus... Sorry, forgot the exact name.

Anyway, why do you think education about the current day dominant religions should be optional? I'm willing to bet my left arm that basic knowledge of them is far more important for most people that biology is. After all, all our societies are build on the back of some religion or other, and the vast majority of all humans are religious. Biology, for example, plays almost no role in social life, and it's impact on politics is - though growing - minute. I'd argue the exact opposite is true for religion.

So why should it be optional?

On an unrelated note: goddamn! You're the funniest poster around! I wish I could deliver snide remarks like that :)

Oh,. you'll turn my head...! :) I'm just a naturally sarcastic bastard with
delusions of grandeur, though very well founded delusions they are.

Anyway,... I must agree entirely that being able to converse (which is the
precursor condition to all worthwhile social interaction) in the religious realm
SHOULD be a skill of high priority to teach.

The tricky part is teaching HOW to converse without allowing proselytizing to
enter the conversation.

There's also the knotty problem of DEFINING the religious "realm". Though
that might be just a sub-topic of religion itself, come to think of it.

What do you think? :)


-The REAL Iakeo

(( PS: Iakeo got banned long ago, during the "Post-US-Election Wars", when
the moderators went psychotic having to deal with the incessant flaming. I
don't blame them for their ridiculous behavior, but,.. well,.. I *DO* blame
them, really,.. as they should have been "above" such pettiness,and allowed
people to "vent" as who REALLY needs thier little feelings protected [which
was their excuse] in this medium where all we can wield at each other are
photons in the shapes of letters? ))

(( Anyone esle remember those heady days of insanity? :) ))

Religion is not bad, it's the self-centered, we're right and everyone else is wrong attitude that's dangerous. Believe what you know to be true for yourself, but give others the same freedom.

Originally Posted by Oekai
((( Spelling..!!! )))

Yet more leftist paranoia.

You should do as your parents say,.. though probably NOT as they do, as if
you're an example of their technique... what can I say..!?

Then again,.. perhaps they HAVE told you to do as you do, in which case,
YOU'RE DOOMED.

Hae ae ae... OK,.. that was blatant flame bait.

Take it as either that (blatant flame bait), or as my ACTUAL opinion couched
as an oh-so-subtle sarcastic mis-observation of what you appear to be,
which is a leftist freak-show.

..though I really don't have enough information to classify you as a leftist
freak-show. Would you care to display some more "leftist freak-show"ishness
to comfirm (or invalidate) my (probable) mis-diagnosis of your politico-
philosophical affiliation?


(( This kind of behavior, as you've no doubt already figured out, is why
my "footer" sig refers to a long banned name that I USED to post under. ))


-The REAL Iakeo

Knock it off, NOW. Yea, it could be your actual opinion, but its still flamebaiting. You're also flaming by calling Lyric a "freak-show". You're really treading on thin lines here, so I suggest that you re-read everything that you would even consider posting. Insults are not allowed here on these forums.

Like,.. NOW? You mean, like,.. now NOW,.. or later NOW, when I'm back to
read the followups in reaction to my older postings? :)

The "freak-show" label is a (not particularly) well known socio-philosophical
label implying "rampant deviant disregard for societal norms and mores".

I simply calls 'em like I sees 'em. Who are you to command me to do anything
different than what I wish to do? Are you the <cringes> mod-fascist-zombie-
police here to enforce niceness and PC'ness?

I suggest you report me NOW to as many mods, or whatever powers that be
in these forums (would "fori" be the correct latin?) and prove yourself to be
the whiny baby that you seem to be. That would do us all the benefit of
clarifying your true character, and eliminate the need for us to wait for
further comfirmation that you're the weenie-ass you appear.

The forgoing "rant" was an example of what I "THOUGHT" about writing,.. but
decided not to,.. as it might be too much of an insult to weenie-ass whiny-
babies everywhere.

I *CERTAINLY* wouldn't want to offend THEM, now would I? Hae ae ae... :)

Hope you're having fun on your adventures in conversation! I always do.

(( By the way,.. DO you remember the old Iakeo, and did you ever have
occassion to talk with him? I vaguely remember someone who liked to "bark
orders" at me. Is that you? ))


-The REAL Iakeo

Oh,. you'll turn my head...! :) I'm just a naturally sarcastic bastard with
delusions of grandeur, though very well founded delusions they are.

Anyway,... I must agree entirely that being able to converse (which is the
precursor condition to all worthwhile social interaction) in the religious realm
SHOULD be a skill of high priority to teach.

The tricky part is teaching HOW to converse without allowing proselytizing to
enter the conversation.

There's also the knotty problem of DEFINING the religious "realm". Though
that might be just a sub-topic of religion itself, come to think of it.

What do you think? :)


-The REAL Iakeo
Well... Most countries in Europe teaches religion seperate from the history class, though they are tought in the same way; simply examining the creeds of various religions, their historical significance & their present day role in politics and popular opinion.
This usually goes on for several years around the 3-10 classes (names vary wildly). In general, the classes will steer clear of examining the merits of the religions, but simply list what the religious veiws are. For example, most of such classes will teach that the Catholic churh is dead against preservatives & abortions, while some protestant churches are for both, etc.
The classes usually won't touch on the implications of such things either.

Generally speaking, Europe is very secular, so that might explain why fundies aren't out protesting or firebombing schools on weekends... But honestly, I've never heard anyone complain about the religious education offered by public schools. Even the nutty ones tend to agree thatteaching faith is a job for private schools, and in several (almost all I believe) countries, it's possible for poor parents to have the church pay for private religious schools.

But of course, it's well known (ok it isn't, but it should be) that America is a more religious fundamentalist nation than Iran is, so I can only speculate that most Americans (if not all) would be happy with a Europe-style solution.

Still, the op is from China I think, and I guess it's not simply a matter of comming to an acceptable compromise over there... Another revolution might be easier.

To me it seems fairly straight forward to distinguish between teaching faith & teaching about religions. I myself had a practicing Christian religion teacher for a couple of years, and he had no problems making the distinction either.

Where/what do you think would be a problem Oekai/Iakeo?

NB: Hehe, thanks for the explanation. Sorry to hear though.

So...

Mind rearranging your props for me? Why do you think education about religion should be optional?
I asked you a couple of pages ago. Flip back if you want to know why I ask

Oh..! Sure..! :)

Why do I think education should be optional? I think it should be mandatory,
actually,.. but only the "artifacts" of religion should be "taught", which
by "taught" I mean as art is "taught" in art appreciation classes.

Practitioners of a particular "cult" (belief set) should be the only ones to
teach the practice of religion, and only to members of their particular sub-
"cult"ure.

I'll check on why you ask that,.. though if you want to simply state why you
ask that in reply to this post, that would be a bit more "fluid" than having to
flip backward inthe posts.

Thanks for conversing with me, as I CAN be a real pain in the backside when
not provoked quite well enough,.. if you know what I mean,.. which you
probably don't as that was a bit overly cryptic.

Anyway,.. thanks again..! :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Religion is not bad, it's the self-centered, we're right and everyone else is wrong attitude that's dangerous. Believe what you know to be true for yourself, but give others the same freedom.


Yea..!!! :D

A person of simple sense and clear mind.

Excellent...!!

I bow before your greatness. (THIS time I'm NOT being sarcastic..!)


-The REAL Iakeo

Oh..! Sure..! :)

Why do I think education should be optional? I think it should be mandatory,
actually,.. but only the "artifacts" of religion should be "taught", which
by "taught" I mean as art is "taught" in art appreciation classes.

Practitioners of a particular "cult" (belief set) should be the only ones to
teach the practice of religion, and only to members of their particular sub-
"cult"ure.

I'll check on why you ask that,.. though if you want to simply state why you
ask that in reply to this post, that would be a bit more "fluid" than having to
flip backward inthe posts.

Thanks for conversing with me, as I CAN be a real pain in the backside when
not provoked quite well enough,.. if you know what I mean,.. which you
probably don't as that was a bit overly cryptic.

Anyway,.. thanks again..! :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Hahaha! This wouldn't be half as much fun if you hadn't already answered me :D
Anyway, I appreciate your answer. Initially though, you did state that you wanted religion to be optional.

Other than that, I couldn't agree more with you, I just wish I could do it in a half as funny & comvoluted manner.

Still, try not to be too hard on the mods. It's a difficult & pretty aggrivating job.You can't imagine how many times I've wished there was a "Mods guide to everything" out there somewhere.

Hae ae ae.. very good. :D

Welcome to the severely overpopulated "dregs" category.

..and I think I mis-spelled "immenently",.. let me check,.. Yup!
It's "imminently".

Oh well,.. can't be perfect all the time.


-The REAL Iakeo

Fabulous!! Considering the source, I'm honored!

Hmmm... perhaps that's why I mentioned the common ancestor. Perhaps you missed that.

No, you missed the fact that the Germanic tribes ARE the ancestor of the Vikings.
However a common ancestor does not make them the same people. They were culturally and geographically different by the point we are talking about. Your argument is like saying that because Marco Polo interacted with the Chinese that he was actually interacting with Eskimos because Asians originally migrated to Alaska from Asia and then were seperated.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about do you? There were no Vikings anywhere in the world during the Roman age, none at all. The ancestors of the Vikings were the Germanic Tribes, the Scandinavians (et-al) living in those regions during the Roman age. It is now clearly obvious that you do not know this topic and you do not think I can be right so you do not trust me, so, go look it up for yourself or listen to someone else in regards to Scandinavian Norse history because your arguments here are just absurd at this point.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/su/suiones.html

Show any evidence whatsoever that Norse Mythology as we know it today to be even fifteen hundred years old. You have shown nothing to support your claims that is is much older. You claim that "there is plenty of evidence," balderdash I say, you are making it up. Get some references to support your unsubstantiated claims.

Scandinavia had to become settled down again after the migration period (400-550 AD) and they did during the Vandel period from 550-790 AD, when the Viking age began.... There were NO Vikings before this age. There is NO evidence that the Norse Mythology is older than the Vendel age, none at all.

Germanic tribes evolved into the tribes of the Vikings. They Migrated there from elsewhere, end of topic. Move your argument to an actual archaeological basis or just drop it. It's ridiculous at this point.

Because people like bush try to make their religion part of everyone's life, no matter what other people think.

Sounds like your typical academic's classroom, to me.

**rubs hands with glee**
Reason will not be disclosed here...but I'm waiting for some FUN, now!!

Well... Most countries in Europe teaches religion seperate from the history class, though they are tought in the same way; simply examining the creeds of various religions, their historical significance & their present day role in politics and popular opinion.

This usually goes on for several years around the 3-10 classes (names vary wildly). In general, the classes will steer clear of examining the merits of the religions, but simply list what the religious veiws are. For example, most of such classes will teach that the Catholic churh is dead against preservatives & abortions, while some protestant churches are for both, etc.
The classes usually won't touch on the implications of such things either.

Generally speaking, Europe is very secular, so that might explain why fundies aren't out protesting or firebombing schools on weekends... But honestly, I've never heard anyone complain about the religious education offered by public schools. Even the nutty ones tend to agree thatteaching faith is a job for private schools, and in several (almost all I believe) countries, it's possible for poor parents to have the church pay for private religious schools.

But of course, it's well known (ok it isn't, but it should be) that America is a more religious fundamentalist nation than Iran is, so I can only speculate that most Americans (if not all) would be happy with a Europe-style solution.

I don't know about the US being MORE fudamentalist than Iran,.. that isn't
my experience in the San Francisco bay area where I'm at, but it may be
more prevalent in the middle of the country.

The thing is that I don't much respect anyone who proselytizes religion, as
my opinion is that the practice of religion is a sub-culture matter, to be
handled by said sub-culture. I don't mind people "displaying" their religious
practices, as that is a good way to get people interested in it and perhaps
draw them into wanting to talk about it,.. but there is such a thing as "bad
advertising" of your religion.

Such as making posters that say. "All Fags Must Die!"

Actually,.. you could almost certainly go to ANY church in the US and ask for
religious training,.. and they'd be MORE than happy to give it to you for the
cost of your time to attend.

It's the ridiculous paranoia of the god-haters (atheists, lefists, etc) that
wants the over reaction of utterly eliminating ALL religious anything from
absolutely ALL public life.

It's also the ridiculous narrow-mindedness of SOME fundamentalists that
helps create that paranoia in the god-haters.

(( There is, of course, that weird connection between the god-haters and
the fundamentalists. The god-haters tend to be the children [or
grandchildren] of fundamentalists, and the fundamentalists tend to be closet
sociopaths with severe personality disorders. ))


Still, the op is from China I think, and I guess it's not simply a matter of comming to an acceptable compromise over there... Another revolution might be easier.

To me it seems fairly straight forward to distinguish between teaching faith & teaching about religions. I myself had a practicing Christian religion teacher for a couple of years, and he had no problems making the distinction either.

Where/what do you think would be a problem Oekai/Iakeo?

I don't see much of a problem with having religion classes, taught, as your
people do, as "appreciation" style classes (like art appreciation).

All the furor is from ninnies who just like to shout a lot, and disturb the
wildlife. :)


NB: Hehe, thanks for the explanation. Sorry to hear though.

Not a problem. I wear my "persucution" as a badge of honor. I expect to be
banned again (as Oekai) soon, as I think I annoyed another big-cheese
moderator again.

If I should suddenly "disappear",.. think of me as another victim of the PC
fascista..!! Hae ae ae...

We'll see. Some people just don't get it when it comes to discourse! I blame
academics (mostly leftists :) ) for destroying/polluting the concept
of "conversation" for America's youth. PC is such an idiotic concept, and has
become the replacement "religion" to young people who are indoctrinated by
our schools.

Oh well,.. whatch gonna do... :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Hahaha! This wouldn't be half as much fun if you hadn't already answered me :D
Anyway, I appreciate your answer. Initially though, you did state that you wanted religion to be optional.

Other than that, I couldn't agree more with you, I just wish I could do it in a half as funny & comvoluted manner.

Still, try not to be too hard on the mods. It's a difficult & pretty aggrivating job.You can't imagine how many times I've wished there was a "Mods guide to everything" out there somewhere.

Yeah,.. it must be a VERY annoying job, with all the yahoos out there that
really DO think that they can hurt someone by throwing words at them,.. and
even WORSE,.. those who ARE hurt by idiots throwing words at them..!!

I actually try to be as over-the-top with the mods as possible, to test their
mettle and see if they can tell that I'm here to do what THEY should be
doing, but can't effectively for fear of being labeled "biased".

I'm here to stir things up in a way that REAL conversation between people
who care about each other occurs.

As you can tell, I have a real problem with "academic nice-nice" talk, and
wish to promulgate the idea that there are other, more "traditional" ways of
conversation.

Those "rough and tumble" methods tend to annoy the CRAP out of
academics, feminists, leftists (unless they're the ones being rough and tumble
while NOT allowing YOU to be so), and very young underfed French school-
girls.

(( I apparently have a "thing" for picking on french schoolgirls. Probably a
passive-agressive attraction thing. Yeah,.. that's my theory,.. for the
moment. ))

Anyway,.. See'ya..!! :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Originally Posted by Oekai
Hae ae ae.. very good.

Welcome to the severely overpopulated "dregs" category.

..and I think I mis-spelled "immenently",.. let me check,.. Yup!
It's "imminently".

Oh well,.. can't be perfect all the time.


-The REAL Iakeo

Fabulous!! Considering the source, I'm honored!

Is that an attack..!?

Am I being persecuted..!!?

I feel like,.. like,.. like a VICTIM..!!?

..Lyric called me a "SOURCE"..!! And in a "bad and MEAN" way, too..!!

DAMN YOU FOR MAKING ME FEEL BAD..!!

Oh wait,... I like that kind of "bad and mean". So......

Thanks for making me feel good about feeling bad about myself by your being
mean and bad to me.

Wow,.. that's either creepily masochistic,.. or I've just proved that the good
guy (Lyric), who doesn't like it when people are "bad and mean" to each
other, was "bad and mean" to me,.. which means that Lyric is not only a
hypochrite, but a sadist as well.

Either way,.. I'm happy with the outcome. I got what I wanted. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Originally Posted by Caribel
Because people like bush try to make their religion part of everyone's life, no matter what other people think.

Sounds like your typical academic's classroom, to me.

WOW,.. well observed..!! :)

Anyone want to get into the "atheists are REALLY religious super
fundamentalists with a 'secular' religion" discussion (aka flame-war)..!!?

<after having released the thin glass bottle of naptha with the flaming rag
dangling out the top, our [psychopathic] hero runs for the freakin' door with
lightning speed>


-The REAL Iakeo

I don't know about the US being MORE fudamentalist than Iran,.. that isn't
my experience in the San Francisco bay area where I'm at, but it may be
more prevalent in the middle of the country.
Actually, I was referring to a study from - I think - 8 years ago. It's probably safe to assume both countries have become more fundamentalist since then, but I can't swear the US is still leading. It was mostly my own little attempt at inflaming readers.

Still, I suppose I could dig through my stuff & find it for you if you think it's relevant? (please say no, all my books are in cardboard boxes at the moment).
The thing is that I don't much respect anyone who proselytizes religion, as
my opinion is that the practice of religion is a sub-culture matter, to be
handled by said sub-culture. I don't mind people "displaying" their religious
practices, as that is a good way to get people interested in it and perhaps
draw them into wanting to talk about it,.. but there is such a thing as "bad
advertising" of your religion.

Such as making posters that say. "All Fags Must Die!"

Actually,.. you could almost certainly go to ANY church in the US and ask for
religious training,.. and they'd be MORE than happy to give it to you for the
cost of your time to attend.
I agree wholeheartedly. If we start letting in one religion, all the rest has to be let in as well - and anti-religion as well.
I seriously doubt there'd be enough time to teach all that, without ending up preaching to a bunch of stiffs in coffins. Not that I think there's anything inherently wrong with preaching to dead people, but it sort of defies the purpose of public schools.
It's the ridiculous paranoia of the god-haters (atheists, lefists, etc) that
wants the over reaction of utterly eliminating ALL religious anything from
absolutely ALL public life.

It's also the ridiculous narrow-mindedness of SOME fundamentalists that
helps create that paranoia in the god-haters.

(( There is, of course, that weird connection between the god-haters and
the fundamentalists. The god-haters tend to be the children [or
grandchildren] of fundamentalists, and the fundamentalists tend to be closet
sociopaths with severe personality disorders. ))
Shhh! Don't tell anyone, but untill recently, I was fairly anti-religious myself. And yes, it was because of people like Neo Rogolia. It's easy to percieve of everything religious as evil when such people get all the attention.
Blame these boards for thawing me up a bit. It really helps seeing Christians completely outraged by their fundie counterparts.

Honestly though, I've never wanted to remove all religious references from public space. Christianity is an integral part of my culture. Removing all references to it makes no sense. I might as well start speaking another language, and remove all historic monuments from public space.
I do think we'll eventually be rid of organised religion, and I really hope I'm right about it. I don't see any great benefits in having organised religion in this day & age. It seems counter-productive to me. Perhaps my decadent amoral western culture will someday be more of a mix of cultures, but actively trying to undermine our roots isn't my cup of tea. I'd rather have a culture, be proud of the good bits, and ashamed about the bad, than reduce everything to some clinical PC fest.
I don't see much of a problem with having religion classes, taught, as your
people do, as "appreciation" style classes (like art appreciation).

All the furor is from ninnies who just like to shout a lot, and disturb the
wildlife.
Hahaha! You kill me :D
Not a problem. I wear my "persucution" as a badge of honor. I expect to be
banned again (as Oekai) soon, as I think I annoyed another big-cheese
moderator again.

If I should suddenly "disappear",.. think of me as another victim of the PC
fascista..!! Hae ae ae...

We'll see. Some people just don't get it when it comes to discourse! I blame
academics (mostly leftists ) for destroying/polluting the concept
of "conversation" for America's youth. PC is such an idiotic concept, and has
become the replacement "religion" to young people who are indoctrinated by
our schools.

Oh well,.. whatch gonna do...
Trust me, when I was a kid PC meant Police Constable. I don't know what the fuck all the fuss is about. People should enjoy this; a media where your opponent, no matter how much you piss him off, can just curb your ugly face.

For me, this is pure therapy. In real life I'm much more likely to beat the shit out of people I disagree with. Being forced to think up suitably offensive remarks instead is great.
Yeah,.. it must be a VERY annoying job, with all the yahoos out there that
really DO think that they can hurt someone by throwing words at them,..
Those guys usually aren't the problem.
...and even WORSE,.. those who ARE hurt by idiots throwing words at them..!!
These guys, on the other hand, are a pain.
I actually try to be as over-the-top with the mods as possible, to test their
mettle and see if they can tell that I'm here to do what THEY should be
doing, but can't effectively for fear of being labeled "biased".

I'm here to stir things up in a way that REAL conversation between people
who care about each other occurs.

As you can tell, I have a real problem with "academic nice-nice" talk, and
wish to promulgate the idea that there are other, more "traditional" ways of
conversation.

Those "rough and tumble" methods tend to annoy the CRAP out of
academics, feminists, leftists (unless they're the ones being rough and tumble
while NOT allowing YOU to be so), and very young underfed French school-
girls.
The problem is that people whine & moan when they can't think up a suitable retort. Personally, I wouldn't allow 1/10 of the stuff the mods allow here. I prefer it this way (well, even more lenient actually), but there is no way in hell I'd want to be a mod in a place like this.
I mean, I've had people complain over others for calling religion stupid... Guess what I think religion is?
It's rather much a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" job. Half the time, the fine line of moddom has been snipped by some sobby-asses bunch of kids with a scissor.
(( I apparently have a "thing" for picking on french schoolgirls. Probably a passive-agressive attraction thing. Yeah,.. that's my theory,.. or the moment. ))
Doesn't everyone feel that way? :confused:

Anyway, take care mate. I hope the mods don't strangle you.

No, you missed the fact that the Germanic tribes ARE the ancestor of the Vikings.

Technically that is incorrect. It's like saying the current Europeans are the ancestors of the current Americans. They aren't. We developed into our own culture and they have also continued to evolve. It's far more accurate to say that we have common ancestors when there has been such an evolution of culture. The Norse culture (not Viking) was not descendent of the Germanic tribes that existed at the same time (first century AD). It was descendent of a much older Germanic culture (the same culture the other Germanic tribes like the Goths and Vandals came from). They were culturally different by this time. The Norse were seperate from the Germanic tribes by the time they encountered the Romans or by the time the Roman Empire even existed.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about do you? There were no Vikings anywhere in the world during the Roman age, none at all. The ancestors of the Vikings were the Germanic Tribes, the Scandinavians (et-al) living in those regions during the Roman age. It is now clearly obvious that you do not know this topic and you do not think I can be right so you do not trust me, so, go look it up for yourself or listen to someone else in regards to Scandinavian Norse history because your arguments here are just absurd at this point.

That's false. Some Norse tribes evolved into what became the Vikings (as they were referred to when they began travelling). I already explained this. You like doing that, don't you? Pretending like I haven't written a dozen other posts on this subject that already explained exactly what you're pointing out. What people began calling Vikings came about in the eighth century. Prior to that they were Norse tribes. However while some Norse tribes maintained the old culture, a new culture came about that was called Vikings (again a seperate and distinct culture) and their religious beliefs were based on the belief systems of the Norse tribes they evolved from.

You're missing it. There was not one homogenous Scandanavian culture at that time. Southern Scandanavia was populated by the Germanic Tribes and Northern Scandanavia was populated by the Norse Tribes by the first century AD. I know you want to try to paint them all with the same brush or mix Norse and Viking culture so you can make your spurious argument, but the fact is that athropological evidence suggests that Norse cultures were practicing religious rites that showed they had the beliefs before they encountered Christianity. The Vikings just made the beliefs more famous because they travelled and thus encountered more cultures but they were not the only group to hold those beliefs. They were Norse Gods worshipped by the Norse tribes that existed prior to the Vikings. Obviously, current anthropological evidence suggests they travelled even farther than originally recorded (North America).

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/su/suiones.html

Show any evidence whatsoever that Norse Mythology as we know it today to be even fifteen hundred years old. You have shown nothing to support your claims that is is much older. You claim that "there is plenty of evidence," balderdash I say, you are making it up. Get some references to support your unsubstantiated claims.

They didn't write their mythologies down until circa late ninth century. Most evidence before that is archeological. That evidence tells of the practices of the Viking people and that they had a fully developed mythology by the time they began to travel which we know was in the eighth century. We can't pinpoint the origin of the Norse Mythologies. We only know that it was fully developed BEFORE they encountered the Christians which didn't occur until after they started traveling.

Scandinavia had to become settled down again after the migration period (400-550 AD) and they did during the Vandel period from 550-790 AD, when the Viking age began.... There were NO Vikings before this age. There is NO evidence that the Norse Mythology is older than the Vendel age, none at all.

The Migration period was when the Goths moved south. The Norse people were already North at that point. The Norse tribes did not descend from the Goths of this period. The Goths and the Norse existed at the same time. The Viking age began AFTER the Vandal period, not during. I never suggested it started prior to eight century AD.

Germanic tribes evolved into the tribes of the Vikings. They Migrated there from elsewhere, end of topic. Move your argument to an actual archaeological basis or just drop it. It's ridiculous at this point.[/QUOTE]
The OLDER germanic tribes evolved into the Norse peoples and later the Vikings. Apparently you don't even know when the Vikings appeared and you're trying to correct me. You also don't seem to know that the Norse tribes existed before the Vikings. It's a little sad really.

NORSE<>VIKINGS<>GERMANIC. They are related. They all share a common ancestor, but the Germanic peoples referred to a much larger group of people and during the period we are talking about Germanics referenced the Goths (this is who the Romans were encountered in 400 AD). They did not encounter the Norse. They were not the same peoples. The Norse (or some of them, the more famous of them) became nomadic during the Viking age, near the end of eight century AD.

The amusing part is that you don't see that you're contradicting yourself.

The Vikings weren't known to come down out of the North until about 700 AD. Around that time they started to conquer parts of the north (becoming known as Vikings after the rivers they travelled) and they started to travel the seas.

Oh, look I point out how those Norse tribes became known as Vikings when they began travelling circa 700 AD. In other words, no Vikings till they started travelling. But I'm sure you read this carefully.

However a common ancestor does not make them the same people. They were culturally and geographically different by the point we are talking about. Your argument is like saying that because Marco Polo interacted with the Chinese that he was actually interacting with Eskimos because Asians originally migrated to Alaska from Asia and then were seperated.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about do you? There were no Vikings anywhere in the world during the Roman age, none at all.

Oh, wait, perhaps you didn't. Couldn't seem to notice that I pointed out when the Viking Era began. Perhaps now you know I'm talking about their Norse ancestors. "But they weren't any Norse they were the Germanics."

The Germanic tribes during the late roman era were migrating OUT of Scandinavia. The Vandals are from Denmark, the Visigoths from southern Scandinavia.

Late Roman Era. We agree. Around fourth century. Now what happened to them after they encountered the Romans. Let's check your source. http://history-world.org/germanic_tribes.htm Hmmm...

The Visigoths then moved on to southern France and Spain , where they finally settled.

in 455 sacked Rome with greater thoroughness than the Visigoths... were so weakened that they fell easy prey to the armies of the East Roman Emperor Justinian in 533.

Hmmm... your Germanic tribes that encountered the Romans and could possibly have brought Christianity back to the North to 'become the Vikings' didn't happen. Because they never returned. They encountered the Romans and ended up settling in other areas or were destroyed. The Norse at this time were in northern Scandanavia. SOOOO either by the time the Germanic peoples descended out of Scandanavia they were either seperated from the Norse or the Norse didn't descend from them. I know that they did in fact descend form Germanic peoples only it was much earlier. You forgot this apparently. Whoops.

Just to make sure we are talking about the same time.

However, four hundred years before that (before the fall of the Roman Empire in the west) the interaction between Christian Rome and Germanic tribes are frequent.

Face it. By the time the Germanic tribes encountered Christianity they were seperate from the Norse tribes. They never brought Christianity back to Northern Europe, as you claim. Your own source says they never returned to Northern Europe. Would you like to support my arguments some more or are you tired of contradicting yourself? Now I'm off to sleep. Hopefully, I'll wake up in the morning and you'll give me some more material for this comedy act of an argument.

SNIP

Are you enjoying our anthropology lesson, TSW? You're welcome to join in. I know I'm enjoying it.

Are you enjoying our anthropology lesson, TSW? You're welcome to join in. I know I'm enjoying it.
Well... I honestly think it's rather foolish, but I'm glad you decided to take him up on it so I didn't have to. I would've hated having to go through all my old history books on nordic culture... Though Ph33r does do a pretty good job of debunking himself.
- It's been years since I had an active interest in nordic culture & Aser Tro, so if I'm to do more than simply proclaim he's wrong & I'm right, I'll have to delve deep in some cardboard boxes... And I'm not really inclined to do that :p

EDIT: I have a feeling he's abandoned the thread though. He didn't exactly strike me as the type who admits when he's wrong :D

Who are you to command me to do anything
different than what I wish to do? Are you the <cringes> mod-fascist-zombie-
police here to enforce niceness and PC'ness?

I suggest you report me NOW to as many mods, or whatever powers that be
in these forums (would "fori" be the correct latin?) and prove yourself to be
the whiny baby that you seem to be. That would do us all the benefit of
clarifying your true character, and eliminate the need for us to wait for
further comfirmation that you're the weenie-ass you appear.Euroslavia is a forum mod to whom you would do well to pay attention to.

In fact, why don't you spend a fortnight pondering the proper way to act on the Forums (and, 'fora' would be the Latin) and the proper way to appeal mod decisions?

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

You know what I don't understand?

How someone as obviously intelligent as Oekai thinks that blatant confrontationalism is conducive to good discussion.

All that does is make people defensive, especially if they're intelligent and know what they're talking about.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Athiests, Satanists, etc (escentially all the same) are growing in numbers, and so are deviants. This society is degrading into the Devils playground.

Was predicted it would come. Dont be surprised. Look at the bright side, if predictions follow through, humans will be gone soon from earth. So the other life forms will have a chance before we take em with us.

Athiests, Satanists, etc (escentially all the same) are growing in numbers, and so are deviants. This society is degrading into the Devils playground.

Was predicted it would come. Dont be surprised. Look at the bright side, if predictions follow through, humans will be gone soon from earth. So the other life forms will have a chance before we take em with us.

Ok... let me get this straight...

Since I am an Atheist somehow, in your twisted logic, I now worship the Christian Satan, even though I specifically refute his existence?

Seriously, man... do you even REALIZE how stupid you sound?

Athiests, Satanists, etc (escentially all the same) are growing in numbers, and so are deviants. This society is degrading into the Devils playground.

Was predicted it would come. Dont be surprised. Look at the bright side, if predictions follow through, humans will be gone soon from earth. So the other life forms will have a chance before we take em with us.

Poor logic. Atheists do not worship or believe in Satan. In general they have well-developed morals, although not all Christians can comprehend the idea of morals without a deity.

However, if you are suggesting that non-Christians are devil worshippers, which appears to be a common Christian belief, then this makes no sense. Muslims have been around for centuries, and Hinduism and Buddhism are a lot older than Christianity. By this logic, "Satanists and deviants" have been around for a long time, and will be not be going away any time soon. I really can't understand why some religious people insist on seeing other belief systems as evil.

Religion isn't bad. Sometimes what people do with religion is an absolute abomination. Therefore, as a civilized society, it is very very smart for us to make sure that secular power and religious power are held seperate, so that no one is tempted (being the mere humans that we are,) to weild both sorts of power together. That kind of power cannot be trusted to any man or institution (and God can take care of himself.)

Secular power is for this world, religious power is for the next.

Simple and undeniable, really.

Any questions?

It depends on what type of morality you're referencing: Ethical philosophy as defined by humans, or morality as defined by God. As God requires the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice to purify the soul, one cannot be heathen and moral under that version. If you are referring to ethical philosophy, it varies depending on which standard you accept. If immorality is to cause unjust harm to another individual, then certainly agnostics and some atheists will have no problem being moral in that sense.

Curious - you argued earlier that, since we are saved by grace, god CAN save even those who have NOT accepted Christ as saviour.

Which is it? Can or can't?

Makes a big difference to your pretensions about morality.

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect.

Utter tripe.

If omnipotence is limited to that which is intrinsically possible, you are admitting that the so-called interventionist god is incapable of even the smallest biblical miracles.

After all, if a thing is 'possible', then it is no miracle if it happens, no?

Pride is what makes one think oneself so grand that one's feeble human logic is capable of discerning eternal truths such as God. One's pride in human reasoning forbids one from accepting God on faith.

By that argument, it is pride that makes you think you can know enough to believe there IS a god, no?

By your own logic, hubris makes believers or non-believers of us all... and only the Agnostic is truly humble.

Are you enjoying our anthropology lesson, TSW? You're welcome to join in. I know I'm enjoying it.
This sort of stuff really needs to be taught in schools, but I'll try one last time to explain why your speculations of pre-roman Nordic mythology and culture is ridiculous and misguided...

There was NO Norse culture hiding in the far northern areas of Scandinavia during the Roman age. Those areas were home to a different group of people entirely, the people that would become the modern day Finns in some areas the Laplanders in other areas (neither of whom would evolve into the Norse culture).
What northern ‘people’ are you talking about that you claim was evolving separated from the Germanic tribes already in the time of the Romans? Norse culture would evolve to exist in southern and mainland Sweden, the coast areas of Norway and in Denmark. It never existed in the northern parts of Scandinavia, those areas were never occupied by the Nordic culture at all. Lapland had a different culture, language and mythologies altogether.
The Nordic countries are loosely united by historical and cultural ties. During the Viking era, the Scandinavian countries all shared a common culture, language and religion; Old Norse and Norse mythology, although Finland, due to its different cultural, mythological and linguistic Finno-Ugric heritage is considered to be separate from the Scandinavian grouping.

Also look at Norse languages for more areas of occupation and identification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse

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

All of your own time formulating posts of ‘speculation’ about how their ancestors could have existed oblivious to the Roman Empire could have been better spent just looking it up and seeing for yourself. The burial sites of the areas that would become Nordic (Sweden, costal areas of Norway and Denmark) do indeed show artifacts from the southern countries. I’ve already mentioned the technology transfer from the south to the north that is shown in the archaeological record, writing, glass making and others.

Your entire premise is based on a misconception that the Nordic people were hiding in a place they never lived.

I can't, which is why faith is required. One cannot rely on logic alone to believe in God, nor can one rely on logic alone to believe God is not. This is where pride arises, in that one will not submit one's own intellect to the faith and instead relies on empirical reasoning alone.

On the contrary, the faith is something that is acquired. Thus - if it hasn't been acquired, it is not a matter of submission... it is a matter of non-existence.

Further - I am an Atheist. I do not believe in god. I do not accept the faith. I ALSO believe such faith is illogical, but that is not the reason WHY I do not believe. The lack-of-belief is an entity unto itself, akin to your belief.

By that argument, it is pride that makes you think you can know enough to believe there IS a god, no?

By your own logic, hubris makes believers or non-believers of us all... and only the Agnostic is truly humble.

Psst... logic doesn't work on Rogolia. Everything eventually comes down to Scripture and the Bible (zomg!11!11) and if it conflicts with the Bible, it's wrong.

How do we know God exists?
The Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is correct?
Because God wrote it.
So... how do we know God exists?
Because the Bible says so!
But how do we know the Bible is correct?
Because He wrote it!

... and on, and on, ad nauseum. The lack of non-circular logic makes me die inside a little every time I see it.

HOLY CRAP seven hundred and thirty-six replies! :eek:

Well, then I suppose we'll just have to be at odds, because I cannot yield in that respect and remain pious. Logically, we cannot even prove we have rights at all, much less a right to travesty. It is a societal assumption.

So, you admit that 'rights' are societal?

I wonder, then, why you cling to those that harm?

Is that an attack..!?

Am I being persecuted..!!?

I feel like,.. like,.. like a VICTIM..!!?

..Lyric called me a "SOURCE"..!! And in a "bad and MEAN" way, too..!!

DAMN YOU FOR MAKING ME FEEL BAD..!!

Oh wait,... I like that kind of "bad and mean". So......

Thanks for making me feel good about feeling bad about myself by your being
mean and bad to me.

Wow,.. that's either creepily masochistic,.. or I've just proved that the good
guy (Lyric), who doesn't like it when people are "bad and mean" to each
other, was "bad and mean" to me,.. which means that Lyric is not only a
hypochrite, but a sadist as well.

Either way,.. I'm happy with the outcome. I got what I wanted. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Good. I got what I wanted, too. And you can read into my words anything you want to. As far as I am concerned, if someone like you regards me as "the dregs of humanity" I'm honored. Like I said, read into that whatever you want.

You know what I don't understand?

How someone as obviously intelligent as Oekai thinks that blatant confrontationalism is conducive to good discussion.

All that does is make people defensive, especially if they're intelligent and know what they're talking about.

Why do you think I was honored to be considered "the dregs of humanity" by the likes of him?

On the contrary, the faith is something that is acquired. Thus - if it hasn't been acquired, it is not a matter of submission... it is a matter of non-existence.

Further - I am an Atheist. I do not believe in god. I do not accept the faith. I ALSO believe such faith is illogical, but that is not the reason WHY I do not believe. The lack-of-belief is an entity unto itself, akin to your belief.

ah, but you don't understand!! See, fundamentalists insist on painting all people who refuse to subscribe to their particular faith, for whatever reason, as evil. see why I can't stand fundamentalists?

As a Unitarian Christian myself, I am secure enough in my own faith that I needn't insist that you share mine...or that you have any faith whatsoever.

In whatever path you choose through this life...I may agree or disagree with you, but I will always respect the path you have chosen as being valid FOR YOU, and in whatever path you choose, I will respect YOU. I wish you joy, peace and happiness.

If you seek God
May you find Him.
If you seek Life
May Life return your favor
And if you simply seek a better path
May that path be found
And may you have the courage to follow it
Step by step by step.

Psst... logic doesn't work on Rogolia. Everything eventually comes down to Scripture and the Bible (zomg!11!11) and if it conflicts with the Bible, it's wrong.

How do we know God exists?
The Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is correct?
Because God wrote it.
So... how do we know God exists?
Because the Bible says so!
But how do we know the Bible is correct?
Because He wrote it!

... and on, and on, ad nauseum. The lack of non-circular logic makes me die inside a little every time I see it.
So do what I did...put her on ignore. I finally got sick of all the "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say so" that is Neo.

This sort of stuff really needs to be taught in schools, but I'll try one last time to explain why your speculations of pre-roman Nordic mythology and culture is ridiculous and misguided...

There was NO Norse culture hiding in the far northern areas of Scandinavia during the Roman age. Those areas were home to a different group of people entirely, the people that would become the modern day Finns in some areas the Laplanders in other areas (neither of whom would evolve into the Norse culture).
What northern ‘people’ are you talking about that you claim was evolving separated from the Germanic tribes already in the time of the Romans? Norse culture would evolve to exist in southern and mainland Sweden, the coast areas of Norway and in Denmark. It never existed in the northern parts of Scandinavia, those areas were never occupied by the Nordic culture at all. Lapland had a different culture, language and mythologies altogether.
The Nordic countries are loosely united by historical and cultural ties. During the Viking era, the Scandinavian countries all shared a common culture, language and religion; Old Norse and Norse mythology, although Finland, due to its different cultural, mythological and linguistic Finno-Ugric heritage is considered to be separate from the Scandinavian grouping.

Also look at Norse languages for more areas of occupation and identification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse

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

All of your own time formulating posts of ‘speculation’ about how their ancestors could have existed oblivious to the Roman Empire could have been better spent just looking it up and seeing for yourself. The burial sites of the areas that would become Nordic (Sweden, costal areas of Norway and Denmark) do indeed show artifacts from the southern countries. I’ve already mentioned the technology transfer from the south to the north that is shown in the archaeological record, writing, glass making and others.

Your entire premise is based on a misconception that the Nordic people were hiding in a place they never lived.

Your premise shows that Nordic Peoples and the Germanics that encountered the Romans encountered each other. There is no record of the Romans encountering the Norse at all and even your own sources show that the Germanics never returned to Scandanavia after encountering the Romans (during the period we are discussing). So either they didn't descend for the Germanics or they split off prior to those specific groups of Germanics migrating south. Which is it? Or is your own source wrong.

By the way, you can stop trying to ascribe arguments to me and then debunk them. It's called a strawman and doesn't convince anyone. I never said oblivious to the Romans. It's a fact that the Norse knew something of the Romans (mostly relating to the folklore of Romans that the Germanics incorporated into their cultures. However, the folklore did not tell of Gods, but of men, similar to the legend of John Henry) but they never encountered them directly.

Come on. I've seen you do better than this.

Let's use a modern day example so you can see where you're going wrong.

It's two thousand years from now. You say something silly like embargo on Cuba is enforced by Canadians in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century.

Jocabia: um, no, Canadians had nothing to do with that.
Ph33r: It's a known fact that the European peoples that inhabited the Americas had the Cuban Missle Crisis and placed an embargo on Cuba.
Jocabia: At the time that happened, the European people who had the crisis had split off from the Canadians.
Ph33r: CANADIANS CAME FROM EUROPEANS. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
Jocabia: No, technically, they had common ancestors but the people who had the crisis and the embargo were seperate from the Canadians at the time we're talking about.
Ph33r: Look the United States Europeans interacted with the Cubans and that was the crisis and the embargo.
Jocabia: Correct. But the United States Europeans inhabited the southern part of North America and the Canadians occupied the northern part.
Ph33r: WRONG. The eskimos were occupied the northern part and the Mexicans occupied the southern part.

And so on...

The Norse were occupying an area north of the Goths, south (more or less) of the Samis and west of the Finns. They were all seperate peoples. In the period you're talking about the Goth left the Norse behind, travelled south, encountered the Romans (and these are the people the Romans knew anything about, really) and either were killed in a series of conflicts with the Romans and other peoples thereabouts or migrated to other parts of Europe, this was way before the Vikings and even further before the Romans had any influence over Norse cultural beliefs.

Let's use a modern day example so you can see where you're going wrong.

It's two thousand years from now. You say something silly like embargo on Cuba is enforced by Canadians in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century.

Jocabia: um, no, Canadians had nothing to do with that.
Ph33r: It's a known fact that the European peoples that inhabited the Americas had the Cuban Missle Crisis and placed an embargo on Cuba.
Jocabia: At the time that happened, the European people who had the crisis had split off from the Canadians.
Ph33r: CANADIANS CAME FROM EUROPEANS. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
Jocabia: No, technically, they had common ancestors but the people who had the crisis and the embargo were seperate from the Canadians at the time we're talking about.
Ph33r: Look the United States Europeans interacted with the Cubans and that was the crisis and the embargo.
Jocabia: Correct. But the United States Europeans inhabited the southern part of North America and the Canadians occupied the northern part.
Ph33r: WRONG. The eskimos were occupied the northern part and the Mexicans occupied the southern part.

And so on...

The Norse were occupying an area north of the Goths, south (more or less) of the Samis and west of the Finns. They were all seperate peoples. In the period you're talking about the Goth left the Norse behind, travelled south, encountered the Romans (and these are the people the Romans knew anything about, really) and either were killed in a series of conflicts with the Romans and other peoples thereabouts or migrated to other parts of Europe, this was way before the Vikings and even further before the Romans had any influence over Norse cultural beliefs.


Why are you bothering, Jocaiba? Ph3rrdom is every bit as bad as Neo. "I'm right and you're wrong because I said so!!" Prove them wrong and they will still insist they are right using circular non-logic.

Let's use a modern day example so you can see where you're going wrong.

It's two thousand years from now. You say something silly like embargo on Cuba is enforced by Canadians in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century.


Nothing here but a Strawman.

The Norse were occupying an area north of the Goths, south (more or less) of the Samis and west of the Finns. They were all seperate peoples. In the period you're talking about the Goth left the Norse behind, travelled south, encountered the Romans (and these are the people the Romans knew anything about, really) and either were killed in a series of conflicts with the Romans and other peoples thereabouts or migrated to other parts of Europe, this was way before the Vikings and even further before the Romans had any influence over Norse cultural beliefs.

There was no Norse culture yet. The Norse/Nordic culture is a Germanic decendent directly. The Gauls are four hundred years before the first Nordic person was spotted living in Denmark, where, the Gauls came from....

Show me one piece of evidence of 'nordic' ethnicity older than 500 AD. You find one because they were still a non-distinct Germanic tribe before 700 AD... You keep forgetting that the Nordic culture was NOT indigenous to Sweden and Norway. They were immigrant to the region.

Norse Mythology sources:
The Poetic or Elder Edda, composed by unknown Icelandic authors

The Prose or Younger Edda collected and written by Snorri Sturleson of Iceland

The Heimskringla, a history of Norway written by Snorri Sturleson

The Volsunga Saga, composed by an unknown Icelandic
author

The Neiblungenlied, written by an unknown German or
Austrian

The Historia Danica, a history of Denmark, written by
Saxo Grammaticus of Denmark

The Teutonic Mythology of Jacob Grimm

http://www.zianet.com/docdavey/norsemyth.htm
None of which cite sources older than 790 AD. The burden of proof that there is older Norse Mythology is on you, it doesn’t exist in the museum and archaeological record.

Why are you bothering, Jocaiba? Ph3rrdom is every bit as bad as Neo. "I'm right and you're wrong because I said so!!" Prove them wrong and they will still insist they are right using circular non-logic.

He hasn't used one iota of evidence or outside source. He is speculating, and speculating in error.

He hasn't used one iota of evidence or outside source. He is speculating, and speculating in error.

I used your source that says the people you said became the Norse never returned to Scandanavia. If you don't trust your sources, don't use them.

Nothing here but a Strawman.



There was no Norse culture yet. The Norse/Nordic culture is a Germanic decendent directly. The Gauls are four hundred years before the first Nordic person was spotted living in Denmark, where, the Gauls came from....

Show me one piece of evidence of 'nordic' ethnicity older than 500 AD. You find one because they were still a non-distinct Germanic tribe before 700 AD... You keep forgetting that the Nordic culture was NOT indigenous to Sweden and Norway. They were immigrant to the region.

Norse Mythology sources:
The Poetic or Elder Edda, composed by unknown Icelandic authors

The Prose or Younger Edda collected and written by Snorri Sturleson of Iceland

The Heimskringla, a history of Norway written by Snorri Sturleson

The Volsunga Saga, composed by an unknown Icelandic
author

The Neiblungenlied, written by an unknown German or
Austrian

The Historia Danica, a history of Denmark, written by
Saxo Grammaticus of Denmark

The Teutonic Mythology of Jacob Grimm

http://www.zianet.com/docdavey/norsemyth.htm
None of which cite sources older than 790 AD. The burden of proof that there is older Norse Mythology is on you, it doesn’t exist in the museum and archaeological record.

I know the only sources of written Norse Myths, the first direct source written in the early tenth century (the first Edda) has been shown to have no visible Christian influence whatsoever. The second has Christian influences which is why you're confused. I already mentioned the Eddas. Why are you quoting my sources back to me when they support my point? Is it perhaps because you don't know what you're talking about? You are also aware that we learn about religious beliefs by looking at archeological evidence of practices. By 700 AD the Norse (not quite yet Vikings) had a fully formed mythology and 200 years later there was still no evidence of Christian influence. That's the point. If you want to try argue that somehow there was influence of the older sources prior to Christianity you could possibly make the argument, but you've still yet to show any interaction between the people that became the Vikings and the Christians prior to the 11th Century almost two hundred years before the Nordic myths began to show any Christian influence whatsoever.

You certainly have shown nothing of direct encounters between the Norse or their decendents and the Romans. The examples of Germanic tribes that encountered the Romans the Goths and the Vandals by your own source did not return. That was your only example of Germanics encountering the Romans after they were Christian. Are you even trying to make your argument?

Jocabia just let it go. Ph33r obviously thinks that an entire culture springs up over night, that 1000 to 2500 years ago, people took cross-country trips with trains & read newspapers, and that all archeological evidence was planted by evil heathens to confuse the issue...

Jocabia just let it go. Ph33r obviously thinks that an entire culture springs up over night, that 1000 to 2500 years ago, people took cross-country trips with trains & read newspapers, and that all archeological evidence was planted by evil heathens to confuse the issue...

OMGosh … Whatever, :rolleyes:


Here we will see that the Scandinavian territories were known, and we will see where the first bloodlines would come from that would create the people that eventually become the Norsemen who practiced Norse Mythology.

As Tacitus c. A.D. 100 had been the first to speak of the Swedes as an emergent kingdom, so it is Jordanes in the sixth century who first speaks of the Dani, the Danes, then settled in Denmark, from which they had driven the Eruli, its former occupants or recent usurpers.
The Swedes, Jordanes informs us, were famous for being taller than other northern peoples. Yet it was the Danes, of the same race as the Swedes, who claimed pre-eminence in this respect. The Norwegian tribes of Hordaland and Rogaland were likewise notably tall.

There remains Procopius, the Bysantine historian who accompanied Belisarius on his campaigns against the Vandals and Ostrogoths and shortly after the year 550 commemorated the wars of Justinian in his Histories of the Wars. In tracing the fortunes of the Eruli after their shattering defeat by the Lombards c. 505, Procopius had occasion to mention the northern lands from which the Eruli had come and to which some of them were destined to return. He speaks of the land of the Danes and of the island Thule, which must be the Scandinavian peninsula. Here the Eruli found a new home close to the Gautoi, one of its most numerous peoples, presumably the Gautar dwelling somewhere south of the Swedes of Uppland. Much of Thule was barren and desolate, but the rest of it found room for thirteen nations, each with its king.

Gwyn Jones, History of the Vikings Revised Edition, page 26.

Then again…Exchange of ideas with the inhabitants of Thule (Sweden-Scandinavia)
… The other inhabitants of Thule, Procopius judged, were not much different from the normality of men, though he found it worth recording that they had great number of gods and demons, to whom they offered human sacrifice in various cruel ways.

With Jordanes and Procopius we come clear by more than a century of the Roman Iron Age and move forward into that so-called Germanic Iron Age which leads to the Viking Age itself. Conveniently bridging these last two phases of the Iron Age, which occupy the first four and the second four centuries of the Christian era respectively, is the period of the Great Migrations…

Gwyn Jones, History of the Vikings Revised Edition, page 27.

First signs of Norse becoming singular from their Germanic ancestors (the one living during the Roman period)…Shared Religion and Art
Religion and Art of the three territories (Sweden, Norway and Denmark)

… Which was homogeneous from the Trondelag to the Gulf of Bothnia, from Uppsala to the neck of Jutland. It had it roots in the continental Germanic art, but was developing along distinctive lines as early as the fourth century A.D., and thereafter continued to do so, mainly because of the continuing devotion of Scandinavian artists to animal motifs for decoration, and their unwillingness to follow their European contemporaries into the intricacies of vegetation patterns. There is no question of their ability to do so, had they wished; nor were the minds of Scandinavian artists sealed to outside influences.

Gwyn Jones, History of the Vikings Revised Edition, page 334-335


The Norse Mythologies did NOT come from the far northern Scandinavian territories (the Norse people didn't come from there, they came from the south), the Norse People did NOT yet exist as a separate identity from the Germanic tribes during the Roman age (not until fourth century art began to show the first signs of specialization), and the Scandinavian ancestors and non-migrating members of the Germanic tribes society that stayed behind are known to later become the Norse and Nordic people in Denmark and Sweden (and then later after the forth century, in Norway too), AND the proof that they most defiantly DID have contact with art, technologies, writing, traders, prisoners and missionaries returning, outside contact to stories and religions and Christ stories too, literally hundreds of years before the Norse Mythologies we have copies of were ever developed to be recorded by anyone anywhere.

OMGosh … Whatever, :rolleyes:


Here we will see that the Scandinavian territories were known, and we will see where the first bloodlines would come from that would create the people that eventually become the Norsemen who practiced Norse Mythology.



Then again…Exchange of ideas with the inhabitants of Thule (Sweeden-Scandinavia)


First signs of Norse becoming singular from their Germanic ancestors (the one living during the Roman period)…Shared Religion and Art
Religion and Art of the three territories (Sweden, Norway and Denmark)




The Norse Mythologies did NOT come from the far northern Scandinavian territories (the norse people didn't come from there, they came from the south), the Norse People did NOT yet exist as a separate identity from the Germanic tribes during the Roman age (not until fourth century art began to show the first signs of specialization), and the Scandinavian ancestors and non-migrating members of the Germanic tribes society that stayed behind are known to later become the Norse and Nordic people in Denmark and Sweden (and then later after the forth century, in Norway too), AND the proof that they most defiantly DID have contact with art, technologies, writing, traders, prisoners and missionaries returning, outside contact to stories and religions and Christ stories too, literally hundreds of years before the Norse Mythologies we have copies of were ever developed to be recorded by anyone anywhere.

Hmmm... someone doesn't believe their own source. Either these peoples did go back to Scandanavia after their wars with the Romans and you don't use accurate sources OR there is the more likely you don't know what you're talking about. I actually like either scenario because they both amount to you don't know enough about what you're talking about to tell if your sources are accurate. How much fun is that? Here's the funny thing about sources. You can't just use the one that proves the part of the argument you're arguing at the time right. See how I was able to use YOUR source to make my argument. That's what happens when you know what on the green Earth you're talking about.