Pagan Influences in Christianity [Archive] - Page 2

Muravyets

07-04-2006, 20:47

I think you missed my point. The point was that just posting links to websites shows that there is someone out there that shares your particular point of view, not that the point of view that you share with the author of the website must be right. The same applies to me. I am obviously not to silly to think that you could have typed up all those websites just to provide me some reading. (However, you could have been a contributor, you know, way before we have been having this little discussion.)

Once again, it doesn't really matter if you were the author of those sites, or one of the chiefs in the religious tolerance organisations, the point is that the fact that those sites exist is hardly hard cold facts for your arguments.

Personally, I tend to think that discussions need not use links to provide persuasive arguments. The arguing should be done by you and me, with links simply to provide additional reference material. I would rather we presented our arguments and províde some good reasons for them rather than hoping that putting links in our posts will 'prove' our points.

It looks like you have no intention of having a calm and reasonable argument, free of personal insults. I suspect I shall not bother replying to anything flamatory, although I will try to read your posts, and perhaps reply to the sensible points you make, although I make no promises. But in the interests of a sensible argument, will you not consider having a sensible and rational argument?
Backing out already? Well, there's no law that says you have to stick around to witness your own defeat, but I'm not as lazy as you. You found points in my own links to use against me. I am going to carefully examine everything you did to prove how you are still wrong. I feel it's the best way to honor you as my opponent.

What I enjoy most about you is how, having cut off your own right leg, you improve your lameness by cutting off your left leg. It doesn't occur to you, does it, that if you doubted the authorship, authority or fairness of any of my cited sources, all you had to do was follow the page links of those very sites to find out who these people were, who participated, what their credentials are, what the purpose of their project is, and then you could also have quickly googled to find out if they have any critics who say they are full of crap. I gave you everything you needed to try and debunk my sources. I doubt it even occurred to you to try. All you did was come back with some weak "Well, you could have written this for all we know" bullshit. And as for your even weaker supposition that I could have been a contributor for who knows how long to, oh, say the UVA project, well I can only smile at the suggestion that if it turns out that I actually am a credentialed expert on the subject, that disqualifies me from making statements about it. :D You really are a funny person. BTW, I am not now, nor have I ever been a contributor to any site or research project on the subject animism or shamanism, ever.

As for this statement of yours: "Personally, I tend to think that discussions need not use links to provide persuasive arguments":: Yeah, it would be so much easier to debate if no one could ever prove you wrong. Let me point out that an argument that can be proved wrong is not persuasive. You made statements which you declared to be facts. You were challenged on their veracity. At that point you needed to provide actual, checkable, verifiable facts to back up your statements. If your opponent provides actual, checkable, verifiable facts that contradict your statements, then you really have to come up with some facts of your own. If you can't, then you have been proven wrong, my friend. Time to shake hands over the net and train better for next time. BTW, the way to provide facts over the internet is with links.

You will notice, however, if you keep track of my posts, that I seldom post links. I seldom argue facts. I argue arguments -- ethics, philosophies, and flaws in the internal structure of opponents' arguments, such as illogic, self-contradiction, etc. That's because I don't like to do impromptu internet research. I have a dial-up modem that ties up my phone line. It is your ill luck that I just happen to have these links on hand because I study this topic extensively.

This is why I haven't posted my detailed rebuttal to your last bit of nonsense yet -- because we are arguing fact at this point. I intend to do the necessary research off-line, compose my response and then post it. I only logged on now to download the relevant posts and take notes from the links you posted. Oh, and to write this. ;)

Muravyets

07-04-2006, 20:51

LOL :)

I was referring to the earliest religions, as you did.
I realize. Me bad. And just look at the trouble I caused by it. :( I'm sorry.

Grave_n_idle

07-04-2006, 20:53

Yes, you are right, and I was definitely wrong about her.

Me too, but...

I think it can stand as part of this thread. The divine feminine concept was definitely a part of ancient pagan religions and later monotheism definitely tried to purge it, with limited success, as pointed out by Ashmoria. I think that's an interesting wrinkle in the pagan influences question.

I agree with you that there is definitely a social drive to control and limit women, as if free women can somehow damage things magically, just by being uncontrolled. But that's hardly limited to Christianity. The ancient Egyptians were remarkable for their fair treatment of women -- property rights, divorce rights, equal pay for equal work (which we can't even get now :mad: ), etc. But the Greeks and Romans were definitely not known for it. I think that there is a definite pattern of purging converted societies of the rituals and symbols that honored goddesses as part of the elimination of pagan religions, but I wonder if that also accounts for the political and social limitations placed on women themselves? Could that also be an influence from formerly pagan cultures like Greece and Rome?

In some parts of the world, though not all, the transfer of wealth was associated with or memorialized by the exchange of women between families. Nowadays, this survives as treating women like property. I have no idea what it originally meant, but it certainly predates male-centered monotheism.

Finally, in pagan Europe, there were few such political/social limitations on women, and the woman=wealth thing was scattered spottily about the continent, but there were and continue to be many folk rituals to protect from the supposed magical power of women -- everything from nearly universal menstruation taboos up to the elaborate and quite dramatic taboos that Russians attach to the braiding and unbraiding of women's hair. And this in cultures in which women were free to travel as they pleased, work as they pleased, sleep with whomever they pleased, and even equal to men in their ability to become leaders of society, queens, priestesses, and warriors.

I personally believe that the more recent the history, the more the denigration of the divine feminine is part of a divisive effort to establish heirarchical order and control by assigning rigid social roles to people. But why women in particular must be so controlled is, I think, a very complex question that speaks to how ancient people really thought about women and, thus, what it is that the monotheisms are actually influenced by or reacting against. The historical evidence is contradictory. Therefore, I think, there must be some evidence that we are missing about the ancient world.

Well - Egypt differs from many of those 'temple age' cultures, anyway.

Firstly - they had no problems seeing their gods as 'aspects' of each other... Horus as an EMBODIMENT of Ra, Sekhmet as 'part of' Ra, for example.

This makes me think there was something fundamentally different in Egyptian society, anyway... a realisation TOTALLY out-of-it's-time, that people were something like alike... that differences could just be cosmetic.

WHY should this be? I'm not so sure... they were an educated people, but no more so than the Babylonians, for example. Part of it - I suspect is the sheer survivability of the culture. We look at our Western cultures now, and we STILL have no idea what it means to be part of a culture that has been 'civilised' for THOUSANDS of years.

Another reason, perhaps... is the unusual fertility of the region, making the division of labours during the transition from hunter/gatherer to farmer much less pronounced... the 'work' much less demanding in time and effort.

There is another aspect of the Egyptian pantheon that is noticably 'odd'... they have some 'reversed' gendering from many of their contemporary neighbours... Sekhmet is an aspect of vengeance... which is an unusual role for a female deity (not unheard of - see the Celts). Thoth was similarly unusual... a male god, but bound to the moon (and thus, fertility), and something of a mediator/peace-keeper.

It seems that Egypt is a BAD example... because it is an exception, rather than the rule.

What is it that makes the female powerful? Two connected things. The first is life. Women 'make' life. Look at the Egyptian symbol for life (Ankh), look carefully at it's shape, and tell me it isn't symbolic of female reproduction. Women, then, are arbiters of existence... and can 'create' in a way that man cannot... they can bring forth in their own image.

The second of the two connected things, is the power of 'yoni'... again, look at the symbolism of the Ankh, and consider that every symbol is a two-edged symbolic sword.

The sacred feminine is inversely the power of death... that which giveth life, can also take it away... This may seem illogical... but what if the female creativity chose NOT TO yield in it's own image? (Things like pregnancy testing and contraception weres known in Ancient Egypt, at least... it is unlikely they are JUST local phenomena).

The other, more compelling, evidence of the power of the sacred female to bring death, is the reproductive act itself.

One can think about the symbolism of the reproductive act, and IMMEDIATELY see why Jesus is 'resurrected' as he is...

Our 'brave warrior' heads towards the cave, all full of virility and power. The earth creates, and what is left is a shadow... a crippled or dead 'warrior'... drained of all his strength by the sacred female.

Jesus subverts the concept... he 'goes into the cave' dead, and forces himself to come out 'erect', due to his own superior power. More to the point, he does so 'despite' the earth (mother), and at his own will (as sky father).

DubyaGoat

07-04-2006, 20:58

As a curiousity... Melchizedek might not be the best argument in this case... where do YOU think he originated? And 'which religion'?

Haha, no thank you. I have no intention of delving into a bottomless pit of Egyptian gods and hidden meanings in numerology nor about serpents with rods nor Son’s of Noah, nor Christ himself theology and speculation with hidden codes and innuendo, nor anything of that regard. It says what it says. :)

Whatever he was, it was pre-Judaism and a High-priest, and a perfect example for this thread.

Firstborn of whom?

The Alpha.

Grave_n_idle

07-04-2006, 21:30

The simple answer is both. Of course both sources could be incorrect, but one should try to decipher the truth by using comparison, rather than 'taking the plunge' with one of them, wouldn't you say?

Oh, indeed... objective, contemporary evidence is always going to be preferable. Curious that you don't feel the need to make that distinction with regards to your OWN religion, though...

Grave_n_idle

07-04-2006, 21:36

Haha, no thank you. I have no intention of delving into a bottomless pit of Egyptian gods and hidden meanings in numerology nor about serpents with rods nor Son’s of Noah, nor Christ himself theology and speculation with hidden codes and innuendo, nor anything of that regard. It says what it says. :)

Whatever he was, it was pre-Judaism and a High-priest, and a perfect example for this thread.

Indeed... it says what it says... but, what does it say?

Hebrews 7:1-3 "For this Melchiz'edek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life..."

Never born? Undying? No mother or father? No family or lineage?

Muravyets

07-04-2006, 21:50

Well - Egypt differs from many of those 'temple age' cultures, anyway.

Firstly - they had no problems seeing their gods as 'aspects' of each other... Horus as an EMBODIMENT of Ra, Sekhmet as 'part of' Ra, for example.

This makes me think there was something fundamentally different in Egyptian society, anyway... a realisation TOTALLY out-of-it's-time, that people were something like alike... that differences could just be cosmetic.

WHY should this be? I'm not so sure... they were an educated people, but no more so than the Babylonians, for example. Part of it - I suspect is the sheer survivability of the culture. We look at our Western cultures now, and we STILL have no idea what it means to be part of a culture that has been 'civilised' for THOUSANDS of years.

Another reason, perhaps... is the unusual fertility of the region, making the division of labours during the transition from hunter/gatherer to farmer much less pronounced... the 'work' much less demanding in time and effort.

There is another aspect of the Egyptian pantheon that is noticably 'odd'... they have some 'reversed' gendering from many of their contemporary neighbours... Sekhmet is an aspect of vengeance... which is an unusual role for a female deity (not unheard of - see the Celts). Thoth was similarly unusual... a male god, but bound to the moon (and thus, fertility), and something of a mediator/peace-keeper.

It seems that Egypt is a BAD example... because it is an exception, rather than the rule.

What is it that makes the female powerful? Two connected things. The first is life. Women 'make' life. Look at the Egyptian symbol for life (Ankh), look carefully at it's shape, and tell me it isn't symbolic of female reproduction. Women, then, are arbiters of existence... and can 'create' in a way that man cannot... they can bring forth in their own image.

The second of the two connected things, is the power of 'yoni'... again, look at the symbolism of the Ankh, and consider that every symbol is a two-edged symbolic sword.

The sacred feminine is inversely the power of death... that which giveth life, can also take it away... This may seem illogical... but what if the female creativity chose NOT TO yield in it's own image? (Things like pregnancy testing and contraception weres known in Ancient Egypt, at least... it is unlikely they are JUST local phenomena).

The other, more compelling, evidence of the power of the sacred female to bring death, is the reproductive act itself.

One can think about the symbolism of the reproductive act, and IMMEDIATELY see why Jesus is 'resurrected' as he is...

Our 'brave warrior' heads towards the cave, all full of virility and power. The earth creates, and what is left is a shadow... a crippled or dead 'warrior'... drained of all his strength by the sacred female.

Jesus subverts the concept... he 'goes into the cave' dead, and forces himself to come out 'erect', due to his own superior power. More to the point, he does so 'despite' the earth (mother), and at his own will (as sky father).
Very good points. Excellent

And indeed, what more on-point symbol of the Christian claim to overcome death can there be than this anti-birth/reverse-birth resurrection? How can one overcome death without abandoning nature? And how can one persuade people to center their entire spiritual life on an after-life that is outside of nature if you permit them to continue considering the mysterious symbols that nature's processes suggest?

Bruarong

07-04-2006, 21:58

Oh, indeed... objective, contemporary evidence is always going to be preferable. Curious that you don't feel the need to make that distinction with regards to your OWN religion, though...

What makes you think that I am not careful with material from Christians? That I used only links from Christians sources? You noticed yourself that I used one of Muravyets' links. You probably know yourself that there is much that passes itself off as Christian but has little or nothing to do with Christ and his teachings. I have ample reason to be cautious with anything that calls itself Christian. However, in looking for links, I was simply happy to find anything that had an opinion on animism. It doesn't mean that I believed the sources accurate or trustworthy.

DubyaGoat

07-04-2006, 22:34

Indeed... it says what it says... but, what does it say?

Hebrews 7:1-3 "For this Melchiz'edek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life..."

Never born? Undying? No mother or father? No family or lineage?

Yup, that's what it says. I'm not going to jump though, but I will participate if you like, you've piqued my interest in speculating whom you will assert.

So, who do YOU think it is/was? Outside of him being the King of
(Jeru)Salem and high priest, I'm all ears.

Grave_n_idle

07-04-2006, 22:37

Grave_n_idle

07-04-2006, 23:16

Yup, that's what it says. I'm not going to jump though, but I will participate if you like, you've piqued my interest in speculating whom you will assert.

So, who do YOU think it is/was? Outside of him being the King of
(Jeru)Salem and high priest, I'm all ears.

Well... the immediate suggestion SEEMS to be Jesus... "King of Righteousness", and "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"... very similar to the whole alpha and omega scenario.

But, without generation? Jesus can't BE Messiah if he can't trace lineage to David.

What we SEEM to have, is some other quantity...

Is the root Moloch? In which case, we are talking another god?

Or is it Melech... in which case... we are talking about a king... consistent with the Abrahamic story, or some other manner of ruler...

Sydec occassionally turns up as a descendent of Magus (or, of that line, via either Amynus, or Amyrms)... Phoenician god, parent to Misor (Mestor - father of Thoth), the 'founder' of the Egyptians - according to Phoenician histories. Sydec is of this lineage of maybe-gods, maybe-kings.

So - maybe Melchizedek is a reference to a myth that was already old when the Hebrews formed an organised religion... a pre-Phoenician or pre-Egyptian history.

Or, perhaps it is figurative... And Melchizedek (ruler of 'Sedec') is the 'King of Egypt' or Phoenician King.

If we are talking about a reference to an earlier god, that might explain why Melchizedek is never born, and never dies...

DubyaGoat

07-04-2006, 23:35

Well... the immediate suggestion SEEMS to be Jesus... "King of Righteousness", and "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"... very similar to the whole alpha and omega scenario.

But, without generation? Jesus can't BE Messiah if he can't trace lineage to David.

Agreed on both accounts. Seems like Jesus, but shouldn’t really be.

What we SEEM to have, is some other quantity...

Is the root Moloch? In which case, we are talking another god?

But he is called a priest of the Most High God that Abraham most definitely prays so (ruling out the mere claim that it is the God of Abraham – regardless of whom the God of Abraham is, THIS must be them).

Or is it Melech... in which case... we are talking about a king... consistent with the Abrahamic story, or some other manner of ruler...

Sydec occassionally turns up as a descendent of Magus (or, of that line, via either Amynus, or Amyrms)... Phoenician god, parent to Misor (Mestor - father of Thoth), the 'founder' of the Egyptians - according to Phoenician histories. Sydec is of this lineage of maybe-gods, maybe-kings.

He is called the King of Sale‘m’ – I’ve read some ideas that this means the King of prehistory Jeru-Salem…

So - maybe Melchizedek is a reference to a myth that was already old when the Hebrews formed an organised religion... a pre-Phoenician or pre-Egyptian history.

Agreed, in fact, that is why I used the sample in this thread in the first place.

Or, perhaps it is figurative... And Melchizedek (ruler of 'Sedec') is the 'King of Egypt' or Phoenician King.

If we are talking about a reference to an earlier god, that might explain why Melchizedek is never born, and never dies...

Are they talking about the ‘man’ who is the priest, or, perhaps, they are actually referring to the ‘title’ itself. Like a ‘pre-pope’, but one where every pope accepts the name of his processor instead of picking his own.

I’ve read some other stuff as well, but it’s been awhile, I’ll see if I get a chance to reference that stuff sometime this weekend…

Grave_n_idle

07-04-2006, 23:44

Agreed on both accounts. Seems like Jesus, but shouldn’t really be.

But he is called a priest of the Most High God that Abraham most definitely prays so (ruling out the mere claim that it is the God of Abraham – regardless of whom the God of Abraham is, THIS must be them).

He is called the King of Sale‘m’ – I’ve read some ideas that this means the King of prehistory Jeru-Salem…

Agreed, in fact, that is why I used the sample in this thread in the first place.

Are they talking about the ‘man’ who is the priest, or, perhaps, they are actually referring to the ‘title’ itself. Like a ‘pre-pope’, but one where every pope accepts the name of his processor instead of picking his own.

I’ve read some other stuff as well, but it’s been awhile, I’ll see if I get a chance to reference that stuff sometime this weekend…

I'll admit, I've not really read around this subject much... I'm just putting stuff together...

Anything you find and post will be informative, and... likely... entirely new to me. :)

Grave_n_idle

07-04-2006, 23:50

Are they talking about the ‘man’ who is the priest, or, perhaps, they are actually referring to the ‘title’ itself. Like a ‘pre-pope’, but one where every pope accepts the name of his processor instead of picking his own.

Thinking about this part... there are a lot of 'melek' type names, various Ba'als, etc... that are misappropriated if you take them as 'names'... much like HaSatan... which is the rank, or job, of the angel... not his 'identity'.

It is entirely possible that Malak-Sydec (or whichever route it derives from) refers to the 'office' of King of Egypt, or Phoenician Ruler... or whatever.

Thinking further, our modern science of elements is called 'Chemistry', via alchemy, because it resembled 'magic'... the name Kem (or Egypt) being synonymous with magical secrets and arts...

Perhaps THIS is one of THOSE phrases.... based on a mythical 'king of Egypt', the title 'Mechizedek' might actually mean nothing more than... well, a priest.

Tropical Sands

08-04-2006, 00:08

Talmud, and Midrash are not Judaism. The central core, the one text which MUST be applied, is Torah. That is NOT to say that Talmud and midrash are not important... but they are 'commentary'. They are 'opinion'... Strong opinion, perhaps, and arguably justified, but they just are not Torah.

I would like to point out that according to all forms of Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, the Talmud is in fact Judaism. In fact, the Mishnah, part of the Talmud, is called an Oral Torah. In the Talmud, Rabbi Hillel stated that there are two Torahs, the Oral (which is the Mishnah) and the Written (which is the Pentetuch, what you're referring to when you say Torah).

The few sects that have rejected the Oral Law as being Judaism have always been minority sects, and either remain minority sects or have ceased to exist. For example, the Sadducees (ceased to exist), as well as the Karaites (a medieval Jewish heresy that is a vast minority). Some Reform Jews also reject the Talmud, however, many Reform Jews also reject the divine origin of the Torah.

In essence, according to the oldest standing Jewish traditions today, and the majority of Judaism (Orthodoxy and Conservative) worldwide, the Talmud is as essential as the Torah, and it really is Judaism. They aren't taught simply as commentary or opinion, but rather as the Oral Torah that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai along with the Written Torah. Only the Gemara part of the Talmud is the commentary, the Mishnah is considered divine and part of the Torah.

Tropical Sands

08-04-2006, 00:31

Even before the creation of Judaism, before Abraham had children, there was a ‘high priest to God most high,’

Genesis 14 18-19
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.

Hebrews 5 1-6
Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.

This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.

No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father. "
And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

I would like to explain something about Melchezidek and the verse from Hebrews you quoted here. In fact, like many things in the New Testament, this is unoriginal. The phrase "you are a priest forever, in the order of Melchezidek" is found in Psalm 110; a psalm about King David. The author of Hebrew simply ripped this out of our Jewish Psalms and applied it to Jesus. This is no more valid than if I turned around and wrote a book about Zoroaster, ripping verses out of the Psalms to support that Zoroaster is like Melchezidek.

Hebrews 8 1-6
[indent]The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

It would seem that the author of Hebrews made a further stretch here. Nowhere does it state that Melchezidek was a Kohein Gadol, or High Priest. It simply states that he was a priest. While the Torah defines what exactly the High Priest is, the author of Hebrews mistakenly links a High Priest with Melchezidek (who wasn't a high priest) and metaphorically interprets Jesus to be some sort of High Priest. Pretty sloppy exegesis on the anonymous author's account.

All things before, or after, are either for or against Christ Jesus, the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. What ‘religion’ was Melchizedek? Where did he originate? The important point is that that Christ is the culmination of this progression and all, or any, other priests (men or women, not trying to be sexually exclussive) but all ‘right’ priests before that, pagan or otherwise, fill the role as a gap measure. The promise fulfilled, the desire quenched is Christ Jesus. The God given desire to worship and have companionship with God is driven by and achieved by Christ. The previous priests were mirrors, a reflection of the true kingdom in Heaven, or else they were false deceivers and not followers of God at all…

This is typical Christian rhetoric, but it has no real support from the Torah. There is no such thing as a "High Priest in the order of Melchezidek." This can't be found in the Torah or Jewish scriptures anywhere. The entire concept was developed due to the anonymous author of Hebrews' misunderstanding of the Torah.

Now, if I rip verses out of the Torah, and take Psalms that are about King David (by name), then give them a metaphorical interpretation that is apart from that outlined in the Torah, I'm sure I can construct a pseudo-messianic figure from any pagan deity or any man, exactly as was done with Jesus.

Tropical Sands

08-04-2006, 00:47

Whatever he was, it was pre-Judaism and a High-priest, and a perfect example for this thread.

I know I already posted this, but I'm going to drive it home. The Torah does not state that Melchezidek was a "High Priest." It states that he was a priest of God. The High Preisthood did not exist yet. The notion that Melchezidek was a "High Priest" was something Christians invented due to their misunderstanding of the Torah and a Psalm about King David.

I think someone also asked who Melchezidek was, or something along those lines, so I'll give a brief rundown.

It states that he was the King of Salem. Of course, Salem means "peace", but it was also a city and territory. This was located near Mt. Gerizim, which is the most holy place of the Samaritans (another Torah-adhering Jewish group). Its possible that this reference to Melchezidek was a reference to a Samaritan king, even though it wouldn't give an accurate date in those circumstances (as many dates and names of peoples in the Torah relating to the story of Abraham are off-dated).

The name itself could be a compilation of Hebrew words. Melek - King, and Tzaddik, or righteous. So, a righteous king. Or possibly Melek and Zedek, which was an ancient name for Jerusalem. So this could have been a reference to some king of that area (Yes, once again the dating would be off).

Jews have compared him to Enoch, and the Jewish philosopher Philo stated that he was the logos (The references to the Logos, or Word found in the gospel of John was ripped off from Philo and applied to Jesus).

The Talmud states that he was a descendant of Shem, and a relative of Abraham. So, its not that hard to believe that he could be another Semitic nomad who was a priest-king to his own people, in the same fashion Abraham was.

It wasn't until Christianity took off that they flipped out on this Melchezidek fellow. Christian sects even began to form that saw him as another son of God, etc. We hear more myth about Melchezidek from Christian writings, with no basis in the Torah whatsoever, than we do from Jewish sources.

DubyaGoat

08-04-2006, 04:17

...
It wasn't until Christianity took off that they flipped out on this Melchezidek fellow. Christian sects even began to form that saw him as another son of God, etc. We hear more myth about Melchezidek from Christian writings, with no basis in the Torah whatsoever, than we do from Jewish sources.
That would have been a good argument except for the fact that David is the one that brought it up in the Psalm, long before Jesus was born. Surely you do not suggest that the psalm was faked, inserted after the fact. Let’s see what is said…

Psalm 110 1-4
The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."
The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion;
you will rule in the midst of your enemies.
Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth.
The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

Mark 12 35-37
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David?

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." ' David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"

John 8 52-59
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

David is not the Priest in the order of Melchizedek, and Jesus said it himself, How can David call him Lord if it is his own son? It cannot be. Like Melchizedek was priest of the Most High God before the Law, before Moses, before the Torah, Jesus testified of this very psalm as witness that David spoke of Christ.

Revnia

08-04-2006, 04:25

Well... the immediate suggestion SEEMS to be Jesus... "King of Righteousness", and "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"... very similar to the whole alpha and omega scenario.

But, without generation? Jesus can't BE Messiah if he can't trace lineage to David.

What we SEEM to have, is some other quantity...

Is the root Moloch? In which case, we are talking another god?

Or is it Melech... in which case... we are talking about a king... consistent with the Abrahamic story, or some other manner of ruler...

Sydec occassionally turns up as a descendent of Magus (or, of that line, via either Amynus, or Amyrms)... Phoenician god, parent to Misor (Mestor - father of Thoth), the 'founder' of the Egyptians - according to Phoenician histories. Sydec is of this lineage of maybe-gods, maybe-kings.

So - maybe Melchizedek is a reference to a myth that was already old when the Hebrews formed an organised religion... a pre-Phoenician or pre-Egyptian history.

Or, perhaps it is figurative... And Melchizedek (ruler of 'Sedec') is the 'King of Egypt' or Phoenician King.

If we are talking about a reference to an earlier god, that might explain why Melchizedek is never born, and never dies...

Or it could just be that the kingship of Sedec (Melchizedek) will last forever and has been since time immemorable, sort of a "Roma Aeterna" or "Thousand year Reik" for an even more ancient knigdom. Yah, I'm guessing those descriptors belong to the office.

Grave_n_idle

08-04-2006, 05:00

I would like to point out that according to all forms of Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, the Talmud is in fact Judaism. In fact, the Mishnah, part of the Talmud, is called an Oral Torah. In the Talmud, Rabbi Hillel stated that there are two Torahs, the Oral (which is the Mishnah) and the Written (which is the Pentetuch, what you're referring to when you say Torah).

The few sects that have rejected the Oral Law as being Judaism have always been minority sects, and either remain minority sects or have ceased to exist. For example, the Sadducees (ceased to exist), as well as the Karaites (a medieval Jewish heresy that is a vast minority). Some Reform Jews also reject the Talmud, however, many Reform Jews also reject the divine origin of the Torah.

In essence, according to the oldest standing Jewish traditions today, and the majority of Judaism (Orthodoxy and Conservative) worldwide, the Talmud is as essential as the Torah, and it really is Judaism. They aren't taught simply as commentary or opinion, but rather as the Oral Torah that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai along with the Written Torah. Only the Gemara part of the Talmud is the commentary, the Mishnah is considered divine and part of the Torah.

Yes... I've heard the Oral Torah thing before... I have problems with commentator scripture that claims it's OWN divinity. IN the Talmud, the guy says that the Talmud is equal to Torah. What does it say in Torah?

Corries Faith

08-04-2006, 05:08

I wonder why all three of the main religions believe in the exact samething.

They don't believe in the "exact same thing"

Ashmoria

08-04-2006, 05:13

That would have been a good argument except for the fact that David is the one that brought it up in the Psalm, long before Jesus was born. Surely you do not suggest that the psalm was faked, inserted after the fact. Let’s see what is said…

<snip>

David is not the Priest in the order of Melchizedek, and Jesus said it himself, How can David call him Lord if it is his own son? It cannot be. Like Melchizedek was priest of the Most High God before the Law, before Moses, before the Torah, Jesus testified of this very psalm as witness that David spoke of Christ.
i dont get your point, dub.

tropical said that jewish scholars dont think much about melchizedek. he has....2 small mentions?.. in the old testament? hes not right up there with job. tropical's point seems to be that christians make a big fuss out of it but jews dont. you cant use the new testament to prove to a jew that some old testament character is very important.

Corries Faith

08-04-2006, 05:16

And I'm a little confused. What exactly do you mean by the "Jesus Story?" Are you referring to only the Bible? And just curious..what exactly makes ya'll think this?

Ashmoria

08-04-2006, 05:24

And I'm a little confused. What exactly do you mean by the "Jesus Story?" Are you referring to only the Bible? And just curious..what exactly makes ya'll think this?
pretty much the bible. but i suppose its all christian tradition that dates from ancient times

mostly its because there is no part of the story of jesus, either his life, his theology, his dvinity, his death, his resurrection, his heavenly existance and anything else i might have forgotten that didnt already exist in some form before christianity ever existed.

never in the exact form, mind you. but all of the concepts of christianity existed here and there in the ancient world.

DubyaGoat

08-04-2006, 05:27

Layarteb

08-04-2006, 05:34

Pagan influences upon Christianity are overwhelming. Bezzelbub was really a Persian god, I believe he was Persian, that wasn't liked so they made him a name of Satan. Christmas trees, the cross, etc. are all pagan symbols.

Ashmoria

08-04-2006, 05:44

DubyaGoat

08-04-2006, 05:58

i still dont know what your point is.

His (overall) point seemed to be that the Book of Hebrews started the fuss about Melchizedek. So, I reminded him that the Psalm 110 (which he mentioned as saying David talked about it) was also mentioned by Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, AND that Jesus is quoted about talking about the very same psalm he mentioned, AND, for good measure, I pointed out that Jesus claimed himself to have been witnessed to by Abraham himself (the first guy to meet with Melchizedek and recognize him as the priest of the Most High God)...

Thus, the Book of Hebrew is quite late actually in bringing up the topic. The gospels of both Mark and John mention Jesus relationship with both Abraham and the psalm and Melchizedek via Abraham, before it was presented in the book of Hebrew. And any references to this issue in or from the Talmud would in fact be rebuttals to the NT issues, not precursors of it, as the Talmud was written after the gospel of Mark and the Psalm, and no more than contemporary or later than the gospel of John and even the book of Hebrews itself).

Ashmoria

08-04-2006, 06:04

His (overall) point seemed to be that the Book of Hebrews started the fuss about Melchizedek. So, I reminded him that the Psalm 110 (which he mentioned as saying David talked about it) was also mentioned by Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, AND that Jesus is quoted about talking about the very same psalm he mentioned, AND, for good measure, I pointed out that Jesus claimed himself to have been witnessed to by Abraham himself (the first guy to meet with Melchizedek and recognize him as the priest of the Most High God)...

Thus, the Book of Hebrew is quite late actually in bringing up the topic. The gospels of both Mark and John mention Jesus relationship with both Abraham and the psalm and Melchizedek via Abraham, before it was presented in the book of Hebrew. And any references to this issue in or from the Talmud would in fact be rebuttals to the NT issues, not precursors of it, as the Talmud was written after the gospel of Mark and the Psalm, and no more than contemporary or later than the gospel of John and even the book of Hebrews itself).

those are interesting points but i dont think they address his points. i better let him answer you on that.

DubyaGoat

08-04-2006, 06:34

those are interesting points but i dont think they address his points. i better let him answer you on that.

I understand. But to supplement my argument for him, and instead of waiting, I'll provide some outside evidences: Here's a big old quote specifically about how the Melchizedek was regarded BEFORE Christ, and why Christ would refer to it in the Gospels and why his audience then cared about it.

This is without disputes, solid proof that the the book of Hebrew or even Christianity itself, did not ‘begin’ the fuss about Melchizedek.

Pre-Christian Studies: Recorded since before the NT took place and before the Talmud was written down, I search the Dead Sea Scrolls, rediscovered only in the twentieth century.

II MELCHIZEDEK IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 11QMELCHIZEDEK (11Q13): SOME INTERPRETATIONS

The Dead Sea Scroll 11QMelch has become such an important witness to pre-Christian Jewish speculation on Melchizedek [6] that it has had many interpretations. Let us see some of them to have a better picture of what this fragmentary Hebrew text says. Thus,

according to Kobelski (1981: pp. 5-23), Melchizedek is featured as a heavenly end-time redeemer, with attributes of the archangel Michael. He appears in the tenth and final jubilee of world history to rescue the elect, the "men of the lot of Melchizedek", doing battle with Belial and his fellow evil spirits. Melchizedek's triumph is described as a high-priestly act of "expiation".

Hebrew Streams abstracting from different sources (Geza Vermes, 1997: 500; Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Edward Cook, 1996: 455; and Carol Newsom, 1985: 37), complementing with other Qumran texts, sees the author of the 11QMelch featuring Melchizedek as having heavenly origins and being the chief angelic priest, yet we remain without knowing how divine he is or how close he is to God [7] :

The author of 11 QMelch says that the agent of the future jubilee salvation will be a heavenly deliverer: Melchizedek. In this text, he is an exalted divine being, to whom are applied biblical titles generally reserved for God alone: the Hebrew nouns El and Elohim (though they are also applied to angelic or divine beings a few times.) The mysterious king-priest of Shalem stands in the place of God in the final judgment.

In the author's citation of Isaiah 61:2 (which speaks of "the year of the LORD's favor") the name Melchizedek is substituted for YHVH, the name of Israel's God. Also, Melchizedek is said to atone for the sins of the righteous and to execute judgment upon the wicked’s actions usually associated with God himself. The author also quotes Psalm 82:1 ("Elohim stands in the council of El") but inserts "Melchizedek" in place of "Elohim" (God). [...]

Melchizedek [...] also presides over the final judgment and condemnation of his demonic counterpart: Belial, Satan, the Prince of Darkness. In other documents from Qumran this being is called "Melchiresha." His name Melchi-resha ("king of wickedness/wicked king") darkly mirrors that Melchi-zedek (4Q280 "Curses of Melchiresha"; 4Q544 "Testament of Amram"). (The spelling "Melchi-" versus the Hebrew "Malchi-" is due to the influence of the Septuagint Greek Bible on English spellings.)

In the mystical Qumran documents known as "Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice" (originally called "The Angelic Liturgy"), Melchizedek appears to be a superior angel. The texts are broken up too badly to be sure of this identification (4Q401 11:3; 22:3). But what is certain is that the "Songs" depict a hierarchy of angelic priests who serve in the heavenly temple. They are surrounded by other divine beings known as elim or elohim (gods, divine beings) or holy ones, spirits, princes, and ministers.

In the so-called "War Scroll" (1QM 13:10; 16:6-8; 17:7), Melchizedek appears to be the archangel Michael, who is "the prince of light" (1QM 13:10-11; cf. 1QS 2:20-22; CD 5:17-19) and "the angel of [God's] truth" (1QS 3:24).

Delcor (1971: 124-125) states that in 11QMelch:

Melchizedek appears as an eschatological saviour who has a heritage. His mission is to bring back at the end of days the exiles to announce to them their liberation and the expiation of their sins. The fragment here takes up in part Is. 61,1 which Luke applies to Jesus (cf. Luke 4,18), Melchizedek appears as a celestial being who stand in the assembly of God and on this occasion will judge among the heavenly ones. He participates in the vengeance of the judgment of God. Here we find (though with some modifications) taken up Ps, 82,1 and Is.,61,2. Melchizedek is helped by the celestial armies in his struggle against Belial and his angels.

There are other references by scholars on the Melchizedek priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls [8] :

Florentino Garcia Martinez (1966) states that "Elohim will stand up in the assembly of God, in the midst of the gods he judges... all the sons of God, and he will preside over this assembly..." [called "the sons of justice"], and Melchizedek himself will free them [the deniers, or the "rebels"], from Belial. So Melchizedek takes the lead in helping the rebellious ones repent and come back to the "Zion" of God in the Dead Sea Scroll texts (p. 139f).

John J. Collins (1995) says that the "sons of El", are, to be sure, "most often heavenly beings in the Hebrew Bible, examples include Genesis 6, Psalms 82, Deut. 32:8-9..." (p. 161). Collins also notes that Melchizedek in 11QMelch is called "Michael, Melchizedek, and the Prince of Light were three names for the same figure." (p. 176).

S. Van Der Woude (1965) discusses the heavenly Melchizedek and his prominent place, as well as the close ties with The Archangel Michael. He also deals with the assembly of the Gods and their discussion among themselves.

In short, among other attributes, Melchizedek is called a “heavenly deliverer, a “divine or celestial being” who “execute(s) judgment upon the wicked’s actions”, who “presides over the final judgement of his demonic counterpart”, who is the Archangel Michael or even Michael himself. Like Melchizedek, Jesus is described as the eschatological judge of the last days (Acts 17:31; 10:42 and John 5:27 [9] ).
http://www.ubfellowship.org/studies/Melchizedek_Escobar.htm

EDIT* Note, I am not endorsing the group that sponsors and host this website. I simply find their list of Qumran/Melchizedek connections to be brief and precise.

Muravyets

08-04-2006, 06:45

What makes you think that I am not careful with material from Christians? That I used only links from Christians sources? You noticed yourself that I used one of Muravyets' links. You probably know yourself that there is much that passes itself off as Christian but has little or nothing to do with Christ and his teachings. I have ample reason to be cautious with anything that calls itself Christian. However, in looking for links, I was simply happy to find anything that had an opinion on animism. It doesn't mean that I believed the sources accurate or trustworthy.
Ooh, ooh, I'm happy you haven't forgotten about this. I'm halfway through my rebuttal to your last post, and I was reading your sources and, wowie-zowie, don't you know, one of them actually agrees with me and contradicts you. Yeah, the Missiology one -- fabulous resource, that one. The paragraph you quoted from it turns out not to be about shamans at all. The section on shamans says the exact opposite. :) And your other sources -- one of them copies the Missiology site verbatim and the others -- oh, but I don't want to spoil it. I'm just so excited. So much cutting and pasting... :D

PS: You completely misquoted my source, but I'll explain in the rebuttal (part 2 of it). These are the dangers of cherry-picking.

Abroad

08-04-2006, 08:32

From a christian point of view, this is an interesting, if odd, idea:

http://www.ldolphin.org/zodiac/index.html

(Fair warning: it's a christian site.)

I suggest you scroll down to the most relevant part "HOW GOD PREACHED THE GOSPEL TO ABRAHAM", by Barry Setterfield.

THE ORIGIN OF MYTHOLOGY AND TRADITION:

Interestingly enough, the skeptic Volney is recorded by Rolleston as saying that "Everywhere in antiquity is the existence of the tradition of the expected conqueror of the serpent, a divine person, born of a woman, who was to come." Rolleston noted that Volney "sees this tradition reflected in the constellations, but why it should be there he does not say."(Part 1 page 19). A very similar statement is made by Depuis in L'Origine des Cultes who admits that this tradition was prevalent in all nations. Greek, Roman and other pagan mythologies have been built around this message from the stars and as a result must be considered as a perversion of the original. Nevertheless as Dr. D. E. Spencer concluded "Pagan mythology still retains sufficient of the truth for you to recognise it." (Word Key "Mazzaroth," broadcast over radio HCJB 1972).

(from the above page)

Kameridoru

08-04-2006, 15:26

Jesus was, in a way, a lot like the Buddha.

-Both were of virgin birth (Buddha's mother was named Maya, a name rather similar to Mary.)
-Both their mothers had a dream when their sons were conceived
-Both had prophesies about them shortly after birth
-Both were rejected by the masses during their lifetimes
-Both were killed (Buddha was poisoned, Jesus was crucified)
-Both forgave their murderers
-Both gave a sermon on a hill
-Both had revolutionary ideas about women (that were later covered up by others)
-Both preached love for all and forgiveness for those who harm you
-Both were fed due to kindness from others
-Both had 12 main disciples who spread his message
-Both taught that one should spread his message

Buddhism, by Jesus' time, had spread to parts of Persia and even as far as Greece.

Jesus is also similar to a Bodhisattva (Buddhist saint), named Avalokitesvara.

-Both had a destiny to save the souls of people
-Both descended into hell and were reborn/ressurected again

I'm not saying that Jesus and Buddha were the same person, I am saying that the similarities can be kind of creepy.

BogMarsh

08-04-2006, 15:35

This is becoming a repeat.

3 guys went out to hunt the Snark. ( one of em was named Moses, another one was Peter, and the third was called Abu Bakr )

They all came back, claiming that they caught the Snark.
This claim cannot be verified.
You have never actually seen a Snark, and neither has anyone else.
( which is to say that the actual existence of Snarks is beyond proof )

Your Mission: prove that all 3 guys have caught one and the same Snark.

This debate is pointless, since the notion can be neither proved nor disproved.

Oh, and btw: I firmly believe in Snarks.

Grave_n_idle

08-04-2006, 20:39

Ashmoria

08-04-2006, 21:51

Muravyets

08-04-2006, 23:41

<snip
Bruarong:

Our side argument has gotten quite complicated, so I'm responding to your POST 217 with a fresh start, including a refresher on how we got here. As you will recall, our argument started with my objection to the following post:

BRUARONG POST 124
<snip>
Then those poor chaps in the Amazon jungles that worship wild spirits and follow crude and cruel practices (pretty much whatever the Shaman says) is the most valid belief? Can't agree with you on that on.
I responded with the always dangerous, “What do you mean by this remark?”, and we were off to the races. My hope in these posts is to put an end to this circular race -- in this thread at least.

MY SIDE: I say that during the course of this argument, you have defamed/slandered my religion (animism) by accusing animism of harmful/fatal abuses; you have failed to produce any facts in evidence of your claims; and you have either ignored or misrepresented the facts that I did present in rebuttal of you. I have demanded that you retract your defamatory/slanderous statements.

YOUR SIDE: You say you’ve done no such thing and that all your stories are true. You have conceded a few points to me, but you have so far refused to retract any of the remarks in question.

(BTW, I don’t know your gender, so I’m using rhetorical pronouns.)

In these posts, I am responding to your challenges in your most recent post to me. I’m breaking the argument down into its main points. Part 1 is about your statements against animism, on which you challenged me to quote you, and about whether these remarks are defamation of animism. Part 2(A & B) is about our dispute over whether you have any facts behind your remarks, in which I look at both your sources and mine. I’m trying to keep the posts manageable, but I do apologize for the lengths.

Here are our actual posts for other people's reference:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10692878&postcount=124
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10696116&postcount=144
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10697755&postcount=152
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702884&postcount=155
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10706440&postcount=158
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10707886&postcount=164
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10711482&postcount=169
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10714436&postcount=217

REMARKS AGAINST ANIMISM:
BRUARONG POST 217
Originally Posted by Muravyets
But that is not what you’ve been saying. You have been saying that shamans oppress their people, poison their people with concoctions instead of medicine, and that animists kill their own children by following the dictates of their religion, whose goal is to control them through fear. Those are not opinions -- those are accusations. You have no proof of them -- none whatever. They are untrue and defamatory, and the more you push them, the closer they get to slander and, since this is in writing, libel. You should retract all such statments immediately and never repeat them.
I did not say that animists kill their own children. Or if I did, kindly provide the quote of mine. If you think my opinion is untrue, than that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
I’ll not only show you that, I’ll also show where you accuse shamans and animism in general of cruelty and abuse. In addition to the “crude and cruel practices (pretty much whatever the Shaman says)” quote at the top of this post:

Accusation of killing children and controlling through fear:
BRUARONG POST 144
I remember one story about how children with diarrhea get treated by being wrapped in blankets and left in the midday sun. They are suffering from a sickness caused by an evil spirit, and they needed such treatment to 'sweat the evil out of them’. Of course, many of them suffer and die from dehydration.
Not all of the shaman practices cause pain and death, it seems, but they frequently appear to attempt to control the people through fear of evil.
Accusation of killing:
BRUARONG POST 155
And then there is this lecturer I once had in human evolution. He got to live in the Amazon for a year with a tribe. He didn't believe in all their spirits and rituals, but he certainly was convinced that their religion was not improving their lives. I don't ever remember him calling their religious practices cruel or crude, but he would often tell of how lives were often lost simply because the shaman was giving some concoction that was more like poison than medicine.
And when I challenged you about local medical services for those people:
BRUARONG POST 164
The lecturer wanted to live with a culture that was as 'untouched' by western civilization as possible. So, no, there wasn't any clinic available.

Accusation of instilling fear:
BRUARONG POST 155
What I find quite interesting is to hear accounts of people who have been animists but have converted to Christianity. They usually say that their former life was steeped in fear of evil spirits. Not sure about the animists that you might find on the streets of New York or Tokyo.
Accusation of control by shamans (related to the above accusations):
BRUARONG POST 164
However, the shamans that I referred to were in cultures where they have virtually supreme control. In most modern cultures, I suppose there it is likely to be as much abuse through power in just about any religion, although I am only guessing at that one.
Accusation that Shinto (an animist religion) promotes cruelty:
BRUARONG POST 217
I read your links. Perhaps you can explain how Shinto is such a peaceful religion that it tried to conquer all of Asia and Australia in an attempt of 'peace'. And not only that, how many Australian and English and American solders who survived the war came back with horrific stories of torture by the Japanese solders, far worse than the Nazis or the Italian Fascists. I'm not a racist, so I don't think cruelty is in their genes. Was it a product of Shinto? I don't know, but it would be interesting to see how you could explain it.
Since this is a new one, I'll respond to it specifically:

Oh, so now I see you’re amending your earlier claim that you’re only accusing “stoneage” animists of cruelty and abuse. Now, non-stoneage animists get to be accused of war atrocities without any evidence whatsoever that the religion had anything to do with it or that the Japanese would not have been just as violent if they’d had any other religion. I even enjoy your specious claim that the Japanese were worse than the Nazis. Plus, this is a very cute attempt to force me into trying to prove a negative. First of all, I have never claimed any religion to be “peaceful,” and second, it’s your accusation -- you prove it. I’d be very interested to see how you can compare Nazi death camps to Japanese prison camps and claim that one was worse than the other and then explain how animism made the difference. Racism isn’t the only kind of bigotry, B.

Not one of your claims/stories is backed up with any facts from any source. You only ever gave us un-documented anecdotes. I also direct readers to the post links for: yet more instances of the above; you implying a correlation between animism and poverty/lack of education; and you making your remarks about “animism” and “shamans” in general while at the same time claiming that you are only talking about individual animist religions. Religions you never name, btw.

DEFAMATION:

BRUARONG POST 217
Originally Posted by Muravyets
You're the one who has been defaming animism in its entirety.
I did not defame animism. (As if my little point of view could do that anyway.) I raised some examples to show how I came by those impressions.

You have, over and over, tried to claim that your remarks, such as those quoted above, are just opinions. But they are not opinions. They are statements claiming that certain people did certain bad things because they are animists/shamans. Those are accusations. And that’s what makes the remarks slanderous and defamatory.

Defamation is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity (such as an organization or company). It can be slander, which is the spoken false defamation of a person or entity, or it can be libel which is the written or otherwise published (including online) false defamation of a person or entity with malicious intent. Both can be actionable. Note that in the US, libel requires malice, but slander requires only that the statement be false and defaming; I believe that libel laws are even less restrictive in some other countries.

As an example, Hypothetical You are employed by XYZ Corp, where you have just been passed up for promotion. You get a bit loose at a company party and start badmouthing the company to the wives of some co-workers. You tell them that XYZ has no integrity, is always stealing competitor's material, and is set to go bankrupt because of its horrific management, none of which is true and all of which comes out of your resentment of the company. The remarks defame the reputation of the company. This is slander.

Or, for another example, you don’t like a certain religion, so you describe its followers as “poor chaps in jungles” and describe how their shamans oppress them with fear and cruelty, poison them with false medicines, and how their beliefs cause them to kill their children by using magic instead of medicine. None of this is true, and all of it is either made up or taken out of context from various sources by you and twisted to suit your prejudice (proof of this in Part 2). The remarks defame the reputation of this religion. This is slander.

Put it in writing and attach the name of a religion to it, and it becomes libel.

I’m not threatening you or anything like that. I’m just telling you that the way you play this game is going to get you into trouble some day. If you think I’m angry, I’m nothing compared to many people out there in the world. I strongly advise you to formally retract the remarks you have made about animism/shamans, and, in future, when someone says you have offended them, and you can’t actually prove what you said, don’t fight with them about it -- apologize, back off, and talk about something else. This is friendly advice, B, even if it doesn’t sound like it.

Now, I suspect the part of this that will tick you off the most is where I say you haven’t proved your claims, and that brings us to PART 2(A & B), coming up shortly.

In closing, a couple of responses to specific remarks from you to me:

BRUARONG POST 217
Originally Posted by Muravyets
Another attempt to backpedal. You claimed convert anecdotes as proof of oppression under animism. Kindly acknowledge specifically that a few individuals do not paint a picture of an entire religion. Please do this now.
Sure, I have no problem acknowledging that a few individuals do not paint a picture of an entire religion, or of religion in general. But I would have said this all along if you had asked.
I did ask, more than once, before getting this snarky concession. Read the posts if you don’t remember it.

BRUARONG POST 217
Ethically wrong. What does that mean? Do you mean ethically insensitive? Anyway, when my opinion of animism is that it is a false religion, am I being any less sensitive than any animist who thinks that Christianity is a false religion?

I mean unethical. Not insensitive. Unethical.

Oh, and by the way, most animists do not think that Christianity is a false religion. Animist religions recognize the Christian god and Jesus as divine spirits that they can worship right along with all the other spirits, if they like. Animists may judge any particular missionary, priest, or shaman to be a charlatan, but animism teaches that gods and divine spirits do exist, whether you worship them or not, so other religions are not false.

Just wanted to put that on record

Tropical Sands

08-04-2006, 23:43

That would have been a good argument except for the fact that David is the one that brought it up in the Psalm, long before Jesus was born. Surely you do not suggest that the psalm was faked, inserted after the fact. Let’s see what is said...

To begin, David didn't bring it up in the Psalm. The Psalm (110) was written by someone else about King David. In Hebrew it states haShem navim adonai. The second "lord" in this verse, adonai, is a title used to refer to temporal and earthly rulers as well, and in this instance refers to King David. It works like this "The LORD (God) said unto my lord (David)."

Now, when Christians came along they began to interpret it to be about Jesus (surprise surprise). Of coures, this is an ethnocentric interpretation and completely disregards the historical context - that it was never interpreted to be about anyone other than King David beforehand. As well as the textual context (it states that it is a Psalm about David) and the grammatical context (first paragraph above).

Christians did another little dishonest trick when they began to translate this into English. Rather than keeping titles like haShem or Adonai, they ambiguously translated everything to "lord." Then, in verses that they personally interpreted to be about Jesus, they capitolized "lord" so that it reads "Lord" as we see in this verse. As if it were a reference to God, rather than a reference to King David. A proper reading in Hebrew helps to dissolve this mythos.

Mark 12 35-37
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David?

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." ' David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"

This is just a good example of what I mentioned above. A Christian interpretation, in an anonymous gospel, of Jewish Scriptures. This is exactly what defines ethnocentrism. The fact that the author of Mark screwed up and have a historically incorrect interpretation just shoots the gospel of Mark in the foot.

John 8 52-59

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

This is another good example of an improper (or misleading) rendering of a foreign language in English translations to try and support modern Christian claims. Whereas "I am" was a title for God in Hebrew, the Greek "ergo eimi" here doesn't translate exactly to that. Rather, it accurately states "I existed." The belief of the pre-existence of souls was common among Jews, and thus for Jesus to say he existed before Abraham would not be anything spectacular.

When Christians later inventeed the myth of Jesus' divinity (hundreds of years after Mark was written), and then Bibles began getting translated into English, some slick translator saw a connection and decided to render "ergo eimi" as "I am" rather than "I existed" to try and support earlier Church doctrines of a divine Jesus.

Although, this last verse you posted has nothing to do with Melchezidek. It seems to be a red herring.

David is not the Priest in the order of Melchizedek, and Jesus said it himself, How can David call him Lord if it is his own son? It cannot be. Like Melchizedek was priest of the Most High God before the Law, before Moses, before the Torah, Jesus testified of this very psalm as witness that David spoke of Christ.

Well lets see, according to the Psalms David was a priest in the order of Melchezidek. The followers of Jesus, like they did to fomulate the Jesus myth, simply went through the Jewish scriptures and ripped things like this out and claimed they were about Jesus. There is no getting around the fact that the Psalm states that it is about David, and thus it is referring to David here.

And like I wrote about, David isn't calling his own son Lord. There is nothing in the Psalm that states this. This is a Psalm written about David, where the author refers to David as 'lord' and God by His Name.

Later interpretations that don't follow the way it has been interpreted historically or that don't fit into the linguistic and grammatical contexts (such as the interpretation that Psalm 110 is about Jesus) are forms of revisionism and ethnocentrism. It would be identical to me writing a book about a person, claiming they are the messiah, and then reinterpreting religious texts in metaphorical ways to support it. In fact, we can support any claim by doing exactly what Christians do.

An example would be here: A Chassidic Rabbi reinterprets scriptures in the same fashion Christians do to support a messianic rooster.

http://www.messiahpage.com/htmldocs/chassidicrooster.html

Tropical Sands

08-04-2006, 23:50

Yes... I've heard the Oral Torah thing before... I have problems with commentator scripture that claims it's OWN divinity. IN the Talmud, the guy says that the Talmud is equal to Torah. What does it say in Torah?

I can understand where you're coming from, I don't expect you to believe that the Mishneh was the Oral Torah given to Moses simply because the Mishneh says so or anything, that would be rather circular. I was just pointing out that is what we believe in most forms of Judaism.

We also believe that the Torah does make clear referencecs to the Oral Torah, that it supports an Oral Law, and that it gives divine sanction to proper rabbinic authorities to interpret and develop Halacha. I wrote an article about the Oral Torah on my website that explains all of this, so instead of posting it up here I'll just give you the link.

http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id16.html

Tropical Sands

08-04-2006, 23:55

i dont get your point, dub.

tropical said that jewish scholars dont think much about melchizedek. he has....2 small mentions?.. in the old testament? hes not right up there with job. tropical's point seems to be that christians make a big fuss out of it but jews dont. you cant use the new testament to prove to a jew that some old testament character is very important.

Thanks, you summed it up quite well. Although there are spurious mentions of Melchezidek in other Jewish works, there isn't nearly as much mention of Melchezidek in Jewish works as there is in Christian literature. They seem to have created a whole spin-off Melchezidek doctrine that has no basis in Judaism.

And you've also made a good point that I really wish Christians would pick up on more. You can't use later Christian writings to prove something about earlier Jewish writings. The Christian reinvention of Jewish scriptures and figures is exactly the same as what the Muslims did when the Koran came along and reinvented Jesus.

Tropical Sands

09-04-2006, 00:06

Actually I can. I used the Psalm reference (OT) and the Mark reference was written down before the Talmud references were written down.

(Edit* I don't mean to imply that he has to be convinced, by no means. Only that my written references are in fact older than his are)

It seems that you have a misunderstanding of the Talmud. The Talmud is a compilation of Jewish laws that predate Christianity by hundreds of years. Many of these laws and traditions were in fact recorded and written down before they were compiled. Those that weren't existed within the oral traditions. We know this because the Pharisees existed, and their hallmark was the oral law. The Sadducees consistently polemicized against this, and pre-Christian Jewish historians like Josephus recorded it, as well as the Jewish targums that give the same interpretations and references to the oral law.

Regardless of when the Talmud began to be compiled, the vast body of evidence demonstrates that the oral law contained within has existed as long as the Pharisees have (and longer). Certainly much earlier than the gospel of Mark.

Furthermore, the gospel of Mark is anonymous. Not once does it record within the text who wrote it. The works in the Talmud are not anonymous. They name the authors of the rabbinic decrees, correct dates, their families, etc. The Talmud is far more historically accurate than the gospels, considering that the gospels contradict one another with dates, names, and places.

Finally, you seem to be forgetting that regardless of date, the Talmud is Jewish, whereas the gospels are not. It is often assumed that the author of Mark was a Jew, and even if we let this assumption pass, this does not make it Jewish scripture any more than Spinoza was writing Jewish scripture. You are still giving a Christian interpretation of a figure from Jewish literature. That violates proper exegesis (historical context) and is a form of ethnocentrism.

Tropical Sands

09-04-2006, 00:09

His (overall) point seemed to be that the Book of Hebrews started the fuss about Melchizedek. So, I reminded him that the Psalm 110 (which he mentioned as saying David talked about it) was also mentioned by Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, AND that Jesus is quoted about talking about the very same psalm he mentioned, AND, for good measure, I pointed out that Jesus claimed himself to have been witnessed to by Abraham himself (the first guy to meet with Melchizedek and recognize him as the priest of the Most High God)...

Actually, if you go back and read my post, I stated that Hebrews simply ripped off Psalm 110. You didn't "remind" me of something that I posted beforehand.

John also does not say that Jesus was recognized by Abraham. It states that Jesus existed before Abraham. Not once does it say that the two interacted. There is no link to Jesus' ergo eimi in John with Abraham and the story of Melchezidek.

Muravyets

09-04-2006, 00:10

MURAVYETS V. BRUARONG PART 2(A) -- How to vet a source

Bruarong,

I understand that you don’t like to post links in support of arguments, but since you made accusations claiming to be factual, I have insisted on it. You did make a solid effort, but you complained that you were not able to find any sources that were not biased either for or against animism. As GnI pointed out, though, the problem with that is that you were only looking for opinion sites. You did not link to sources that present information, without opinions attached. You say you couldn’t find any, but I could and did link to them. I also used biased sites, such as the Mongolian shamanist site, that contain a lot of facts which could be checked for truth independently. You only provided links to biased, Christian sites, only one of which actually provided checkable factual references in support of its statements. I really think it is important to highlight this difference. If anyone makes a statement purporting to be factual, they must be able to provide evidence that someone else could independently verify to prove it.

In addition, in reading your sources, I found certain serious problems, which I think also need to be highlighted and explored.

In this Part 2(A), I will address the issue of unbiased, unaffiliated sources and show how my sources were unbiased. Then, in Part 2(B) I will look at the problems I found in your sources and your use of them.

BIASED/UNBIASED SOURCES

GnI POST 234
Originally Posted by Bruarong
It's called balance. Muravyets gave me his/her sites and I also read sites on the other side of the argument.
Don't you see the problem, there?

You have decided there are 'two sides'?

The internal teachings of animism, and the Christian rebuttal?

Why not try to find a source external to BOTH interests... one that has less of an 'agenda'?

What you have is a representation of balance... but it is entirely subjective.
I presented links to two sources that have nothing at all to do with either Christianity or animism: The Religious Movements Project of the Sociology Department of the University of Virginia, and Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance, an interfaith political organization. Both websites are libraries of descriptive profiles of many different religions, the sole purpose of which is to provide information to researchers and the general public. No opinions, just facts, along with the sources of the facts in case the readers doubt them and want to check for themselves.

Let’s check their credentials to see if they qualify as reasonably objective:

The UVA site:

This describes the purpose of the project: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/welcome/welcome.htm

Quote: “In addition to creating a foundation for understanding religion, this site also seeks to promote tolerance and appreciation of all religions without preference for any particular faith tradition.”

This explains the viewpoint of the project:
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/welcome/mission.htm

Here is the CV of the person in charge:
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/utilities/aboutus.htm

Quote: “A Brief Biography of Jeffrey K. Hadden: Mr. Hadden was a Professor of Sociology who began teaching at the University of Virginia in 1972. Mr. Hadden earned his PhD in 1963 at the University of Wisconsin, where he was trained as a demographer and human ecologist.” First paragraph of CV.

The Religious Tolerance site:

Home page, including defined terms and introductory mission statement:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/

Statement of Beliefs, with links to description of group members, and other info:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm

The mission and belief statements of both sites focus on dissemination of as much information as possible and declare that they are promoting neither religion in general nor any particular religion or type of religion over any other. If you doubt the inclusiveness and comprehensiveness of their data, you have only to surf the data to satisfy yourself.

I used these sources to provide overview descriptions of animism/shamanism in general. I decide to look for more specific informational sources, too. In 15 minutes on Google, I found: http://www.adherents.com/

These people are statisticians. From their home page:
Adherents.com is a growing collection of over 43,870 adherent statistics and religious geography citations: references to published membership/adherent statistics and congregation statistics for over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc. The religions of the world are enumerated here.

Basically, researchers can use this site to answer such questions as "How many Lutherans live in Wisconsin?", "What are the major religions of India?", or "What percentage of the world is Muslim?" We present data from both primary research sources such as government census reports, statistical sampling surveys and organizational reporting, as well as citations from secondary literature which mention adherent statistics. ...

Adherents.com is an Internet initiative and is not affiliated with any religious, political, or educational organization.
See also their disclaimers about their methodology on the same page.

So how many people are we arguing about anyway? Well, it’s hard to tell. Adherents.com doesn’t like the word “animist” because they think, ironically, that it’s too Victorian. Obviously, I disagree, but I know better than to argue with statisticians. Following their explanations of the ethno-geographical groups they divided animist religions into and then looking up the corresponding numbers and accounting for the sub-group variations they describe, we can conservatively estimate that there are approximately 350 million currently active, self-proclaimed, 100% animists in the world today. This does not include people who declare for another religion but also practice an animist religion (animists can do that; that’s why it’s so hard to count us), so that number could go up.

See? It’s not difficult to find facts, if you're looking for them.

I even tried to do your research for you. I searched for any official reports of abuses, cruelty or atrocities committed by animist leaders or shamans. Five searches with varied topic headings yielded nothing. I then specifically checked Amnesty International, the UN, and the US State Department country reports. I found nothing. I did find one mention of animism in connection with a well known abuse at the World Health Organization site’s fact sheets on public health issues:
FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION
In cultures where it is an accepted norm, female genital mutilation is practiced by followers of all religious beliefs as well as animists and non believers.
So, according the WHO, on this particular topic, animists are no better than anyone else, but they are no worse, either.

Finally, I took another look at my other two sources. The Mongolian site is obviously biased -- it’s a declared shamanist site -- but I used it because it contains factual claims that can be checked and links to many other sites whose factual claims can also be easily checked. The test-ability of the information is what makes me feel okay about using this site for reference.

The Heather Hobden article was not so clear. I had originally bookmarked that page for the photos, which I was referencing for a project, so I didn’t look up the author’s credentials. I have done now. Heather Hobden is not an animist, not a shaman, not a religious advocate of any kind. She is a British astronomer, a historian specializing in timekeeping and clocks, and a publisher of books about astronomy, history, and timekeeping. Cosmic Elk is her publishing company (from her site: “The Cosmic Elk is the constellation of Ursa Major. The name was originally the title of an article for Clocks Magazine as part of a series on early timekeeping. It stuck and became the imprint of the small press.”). I provide here a link to their book list -- it’s not religious. The article is part of her work on a book about the timekeeping methods of shamans in Siberia, part of long-term research on the origins of timekeeping. It was presented in a talk on the subject she gave at St. Martin’s College, UK, link below.

Cosmic Elk: http://pages.zoom.co.uk/cosmicelk/cosmicelk.htm

St. Martin’s subject source database: http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/

Also, fyi, here is another short article of hers, this time talking about a different religion:
http://www.space.com/SpaceReportersNetworkAstronomyDiscoveries/hobden_afghanistan_011017.html

I explain in Part 2(B) how you misused the Hobden article in your attempt to discredit my argument.

NOW LET’S LOOK AT YOUR SOURCES:

1. Evangelical Christian Missionary site:
http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Default.htm

Subpage of http://missiology.org -- site of Gailyn Van Rheenen, Director of Mission Alive

http://www.missionalive.org/
Mission Alive's Purpose
to discover, equip, place, and nurture church-planting leaders who will plant missional churches in suburbs, city centers, and poverty areas with unbelievers as the primary target.

2. Evangelical Christian Missionary site:
ACTION INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES
www.actionintl.org

Who We Are
Action International Ministries is an evangelical, nondenominational missionary-sending agency working in urban centers of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. ...Our goal is to know God and take action! (Daniel 11:32)
What We Believe
Among other equally Biblical truths, we believe....that the Bible, the Word of God; in its divine verbal, plenary inspiration; and in its inerrancy and infallibility in the original languages; and in its supreme and final authority in faith and life (II Tim. 3:16; II Pet.1:20-21).

3. Evangelical Christian Missionary site:
http://www.gospeloutreach.net
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/main.html
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/beliefs.html

This one took some research to identify, because the page you actually linked to contained only an article without any direct links to identify the author or the organization. I had to explore through a few layers of links to get to the group’s info. This group was the most hostile of your sources. The article you linked to is nothing but a knocking-down-dominoes style dismissal of just about every religion in the world except Evangelical Christianity. For instance, on animism:
... Animism leads to fatalism and despair because it provides no answers to the questions of life's meaning and significance, or purpose in history. There is no basis for human dignity in animism. Humans are on the same level as all other forms of life. It is essentially a religion of demons (idolatry). Missionaries who work on reservations in the American west often speak of the oppressive atmosphere as a result of spirit bondage. It is a religion of fear. Alcoholism and suicide are major problems in most animistic cultures.
And this is nothing compared to what the author says about some other religions. Not one factual source in support of any of these inflammatory claims is offered. Not even statistics on alcoholism and suicide. Nothing.

4. Evangelical Christian non-Missionary site:
This is an interesting one, the only one that attempts also to be an informational database. However, it is biased, which the author of the site acknowledges (quote below).
http://religion-cults.com/Ancient/Animism/Animism.htm
HOME PAGE: http://religion-cults.com/index.html

Site Author: J. Dominquez, MD
I am a Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. ...
In my exposition of every religion and cult I try to be objective, to present the believe and practice ot it as it is, but I also include my personal subjective commentary and opinion of what I think about that religion or cult, what I believe it has of right and wrong... we are all entitled of our personal opinion, and it is probably the best we have in us, I just give you my soul.

CONCLUSION:

I looked OUTSIDE my religion for objective and even critical information about my religion. Out of my 6 sources, 1 is biased and 5 are disinterested.

You looked only INSIDE your religion for opinions about my religion. Out of your 4 sources, 4 are biased.

I researched. You cherry-picked among the talking points of sources that already agree with you. My sources are reliable. Your sources are not.

In fact, your sources are rendered even less reliable by your misuse of them, which brings us to Part 2(B), coming shortly.

Tropical Sands

09-04-2006, 00:22

I understand. But to supplement my argument for him, and instead of waiting, I'll provide some outside evidences: Here's a big old quote specifically about how the Melchizedek was regarded BEFORE Christ, and why Christ would refer to it in the Gospels and why his audience then cared about it.

This is without disputes, solid proof that the the book of Hebrew or even Christianity itself, did not ‘begin’ the fuss about Melchizedek. *snip*

I'm familiar with the references to Melchezidek in the DSS. It seems like you may be blowing them out of preportion a bit. There are a few spurious references to Melchezidek, but this isn't nearly as much as is found in Christian literature. Christian groups wrote entire apocryphal works about Melchezidek, such as The Book of Adam and Eve in Ethiopia.

Entire Christian cults formed around Melchezidek (The Melchezidekites, etc). We find refrences to various Christian sects that attributed divinity to Melchezidek in Epiphanius' Heresies, Hippolytus' Refutation of Heresies, and Augustinus' The Heresies.

Now, I don't think I ever stated that there were only references to Melchezidek in the Torah and the Psalms, or any such thing. I did state that Melchezidek occured in Jewish apocryphal works, and in the Talmud. Melchezidek having a few spurious mentions in the vast body of DSS isn't really that suprising either. However, no Jewish groups took Melchezidek to the extreme and popularized him to the way that Christians did. It took Christians to form entire cults around Melchezidek.

Muravyets

09-04-2006, 00:39

MURAVYETS V. BRUARONG
PART 2(B) -- How to misuse/misrepresent a source

BRUARONG POST 259
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Oh, indeed... objective, contemporary evidence is always going to be preferable. Curious that you don't feel the need to make that distinction with regards to your OWN religion, though...
What makes you think that I am not careful with material from Christians? That I used only links from Christians sources? You noticed yourself that I used one of Muravyets' links. You probably know yourself that there is much that passes itself off as Christian but has little or nothing to do with Christ and his teachings. I have ample reason to be cautious with anything that calls itself Christian. However, in looking for links, I was simply happy to find anything that had an opinion on animism. It doesn't mean that I believed the sources accurate or trustworthy.

Indeed, you should be careful -- to actually read your sources, that is.

For instance, you seemed quite happy that you found a negative paragraph at the end of the Heather Hobden article, which was one of my sources. But let’s see what else that article says about shamans in Siberia:
Shamans were supposed to protect their clan, village, or neighbourhood from harm. When their clan was visited by disease or other misfortunes, the shaman would be blamed for letting this happen, accused of being an evil sorcerer, and attacked. The shaman would have to flee or they might suffer an awful death. Since shamans remained active after death - the only way to ensure an evil shaman would not continue to cause trouble was to pin them into their graves by an aspen stake hammered through the heart. ...

To avoid blame for failure, the shaman would accuse a rival shaman in a neighbouring clan of sending his spirits against them. He retaliated with his own spirits backed by the material forces of the clan's warriors. It was then the responsibility of the shamans to negotiate a peace treaty, and after the campaign to record the event in the form of an epic poem or song.
For people who are so in control of populations held captive by fear, these Siberian shamans have to go to a lot of trouble to avoid getting their asses kicked by unsatisified customers, don’t you think?

Next, just by reading your sources, I found that two of your opinion links actually post THE SAME opinion:

http://www.actionintl.org/action/content/view/223/212/
Action International Ministries’ page on animism is (quoting the AIM site):
An excerpt from Communicating Christ in Animistic Contexts - by Gailyn Van Rheenen (pgs 20-23) Please refer to the bottom of this page for purchasing information
This disclaimer refers to a section of Chapter 1 of the book you quoted from Missiology.org:
http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Chapter01.htm

The exact same text. That’s not quite a plurality of opinions in agreement with yours, is it?

And, in fact, it’s not even one opinion in agreement with you because you misrepresented the opinion of Gailyn Van Rheenen in her book, Communicating Christ in Animistic Contexts, which is a how-to manual for missionaries.

You quoted a paragraph out of Chapter 7 of the book, claiming it to be a negative description of shamans. Chapter 7: “Animistic Practitioners” is divided into sections by practitioners. The paragraph you quoted is from the section on SORCERERS AND WITCHES. SHAMANS are described in an entirely different section. They aren’t even close to each other. They are separated by the section on Mediums, and the Shamans section comes first. I really do not see how you could have made such a mistake. In fact, I’m inclined to doubt that it was a mistake.

Here again is the link to Chapter 7:
http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Chapter07.htm

Here, in its entirety, is what Gailyn Van Rheenen actually says about shamans (emphasis added):
Shaman

The shaman is a diviner who seeks to discern what spiritual being or impersonal force is causing sickness, discord, or catastrophe in order to prescribe some remedy. In contrast to community leaders, like the priest and prophet, the shaman is an individual or family practitioner. He is a "personal diviner" called upon to solve urgent personal problems. He "deals in a personal and specific way with spirits and lesser deities" but seldom, if ever, dialogues about Creator God, the source of evil in the world, or cosmological issues (Turner 1989, 88). Since he holistically treats the symptoms of disease and dispenses herbal medicines, he is sometimes called a "medicine man." In addition to medical treatment, he gives spiritual prognoses discerning what god, spirit, spiritual force, sin, or black magic has caused the illness or catastrophe. Since he frequently divines and cures problems created by witches, he is called a "witchdoctor." The shaman uses spiritual power for beneficent purposes to help people counter magic, evil spirits, and the results of sin in their lives. He champions the cause of the people as they confront the evil powers always present in the animist's world.

In many rural, face-to-face cultures every extended family has its own shaman. He contacts the ancestors and spirits on behalf of his own people and discerns what powers are being used against them. In urban centers, where specialties develop, divining the powers becomes a trade. Shamanistic specialists may join together and form spiritist centers where people come for spiritual and physical prognoses.

The term shaman originated with the Tungus people of Siberia. These nomadic reindeer herders and fishermen believe in three realms of existence: a higher sphere where good spirits and light exist, a middle realm where people live along with the spirits of the world, and a lower domain where evil spirits dwell in darkness. The shaman is understood as the beneficent practitioner who is able to go to the realm above or the realm below on behalf of the living. He divines various causes of illness. A person may have a disease spirit inside him which has to be exorcised. Or, a person may have lost his soul and the shaman may have to confront demonic powers of the lower realms to retrieve it. The shaman uses his spiritual power to help people and is given public recognition and respect by them (Howells 1962, 125-127). Although taken from the Siberian context, the term "shaman" is used for the general practitioner who helps people deal with the problem of evil in their lives and unlock the secrets of the unknown.

The shaman is the most frequently used type of religious leader in animistic contexts. When a Brazilian lady wonders how she might induce a man to pay her special attention, a diviner is used. When a Chinese family wants to find out whether an ancestor is comfortable, a shaman reveals the world of the dead. When an African child becomes seriously ill, a shaman determines the cause and cure. When a Korean family is deciding on a date for a wedding or a funeral, the shaman determines the auspicious day. When a Hong Kong businessman wants inside information about the stock market, he seeks a diviner to discern the market. When a Zinacanteco Indian of Mexico moves into a new house, the shaman first purifies it.

A shaman's universal function is healing those broken in body or soul. He first divines the cause of sickness and then prescribes some type of cure. If sin is thought to be the cause of illness, the shaman will likely lead the patient to confess so that he can be healed. For example, Rasmussen records how an Eskimo woman was led by a shaman to confess her sins. Her sins included eating taboo food, touching a dead body, concealing a miscarriage to avoid certain taboos, and having intercourse with men while unclean. As her sins were confessed, listeners pleaded for release from sickness. The shaman encouraged her to confess all, saying, "She grows cleaner with every confession, but there is more to come" (Rasmussen 1965, 410-414).

Among the Kipsigis of Kenya sickness is also frequently connected with sin. Kipsigis believe that sin disrupts society and brings disharmony. The phrase they use to speak of this is "amech tengech," literally meaning, "ours sins are eating us up." Harmony can only be re-established by forgiveness of sins and restitution. Other causes of sickness include spirit possession, witchcraft, and sorcery. In other societies, soul-loss and object intrusion, which occurs when spirits or sorcerers magically project foreign substances into their foe's body, are other plausible causes of sickness among animistic people (Burnett 1988, 179-182). In animistic societies nothing is left to chance or to the forces of nature. There is a spiritual cause for every extended illness. The shaman divines the cause of the illness and suggests a remedy.

One becomes a shaman in various ways. Among the Zulu of South Africa the outward symptoms of becoming an inyanga are abstaining from different kinds of food, complaining of pain in different parts of the body, dissipating one's wealth in order to seek a cure, becoming very sick for a long period of time, dreaming dreams, and weeping and singing loudly at night. Finally, an experienced inyanga will divine that he is being possessed and is not sick as other people are sick. A person with these symptoms disturbs the community because he is in a state of transition. He is no longer just a man but not yet a diviner. When the people perceive his being torn between two worlds, they encourage him to go to an established inyanga so that induction into shamanhood might be facilitated. After these initiatory rites he comes back a new man with the facilities to divine the unknown (Radin 1937, 123-126).

Among the Zinacanteco Indians the call to be a shaman comes by seeing into the realms of gods and ancestors through dreams and visions (Shweder 1972, 408). In much of West Africa the shaman receives his call when he is possessed by some spirit. This belief was imported by slaves into Brazil so that almost all shamanistic practitioners can only divine when they are possessed by various orixas or lesser gods. A shaman's helper can become a diviner only when an orixa possesses him in the orunko ceremony. Among Koreans sinbyong ("possession sickness") is prerequisite to becoming a shaman (Harvey 1989, 42-43).

These illustrations from throughout the world demonstrate that joining with the spiritual beings in some type of ecstatic experience, especially through possessions and dreams, is prerequisite to becoming a shaman. While Westerners might consider these people as "crazy," their transformations into sane practitioners who divine the unknown reveal to animistic peoples some sort of union between the human and the spiritual worlds. "Shamans are separated from the rest of society by the intensity of their religious experience" (Von Furer-Haimendorf 1989, 96).

How should the Christian community in animistic contexts treat the shaman? Rarely would they ridicule or question that he has the power to know the unknown. They would recognize that his power comes from a union with powers that are not of Creator God, even if the power is used for benevolent purposes. One cannot be tied to these powers and give allegiance to God. The slave girl having the spirit of divination in Acts 16:16-18 was a shaman. Using her power, she was able to accurately divine who Paul and his co-workers were. In this case Paul did not strike her blind like he had done with the sorcerer of Acts 13:8, but he healed her to show the power of God over all the non-godly powers.

In summary, the shaman does not necessarily advocate change like a prophet nor does he conduct ceremonial rituals like the priest. He is a diviner who prescribes cures for those who are sick or have other personal problems. He holds special powers because of his relationship with the spirit world and sometimes serves as a medium as well as a diviner. As a beneficent practitioner, he stands out against malevolent forces of the witch and sorcerer. Although benevolent, Christians cannot use this practitioner because his power is not of God.

One of my most effective sermons in Kipsigis contrasted the prayer of Hannah asking God for a son to a childless Kipsigis woman who seeks animistic power through a traditional shaman, called a Chepsogeiyot. While Hannah relied on God and waited faithfully for him to act, the Kipsigis lady, following the dictates of the shaman, sought to overcome the curse of a recently deceased aunt. She sought to appease through a propitiatory sacrifice. Hannah related to sovereign God, the one who gives children (Ps. 113:9; 127:3). The traditionalist related to the ancestor because she had no higher power. Hannah's relationship to God was one of praise (1 Sam. 2:1-10); the traditionalist had an allegiance which blocked her relationship with God (Isa. 8:19). Such preaching contrasts the way of God and the traditions of Animism. Chapter 3.

Hm. Seems to me that Dr. Van Rheenen, apparently a prominent person among Evangelical Christian missionaries, is of the opinion that shamans are not bad people and do not cause harm. Not quite the same as what you have been saying, is it?

END OF REBUTTAL

Ashmoria

09-04-2006, 01:15

Finally, you seem to be forgetting that regardless of date, the Talmud is Jewish, whereas the gospels are not. It is often assumed that the author of Mark was a Jew, and even if we let this assumption pass, this does not make it Jewish scripture any more than Spinoza was writing Jewish scripture. You are still giving a Christian interpretation of a figure from Jewish literature. That violates proper exegesis (historical context) and is a form of ethnocentrism.
the other point i had wanted to make, but decided that it was best to let you speak for yourself, is that no matter when each "book" was written down, i dont see the talmudic scholars using an obscure bit of christian gospel a source of inspiration. i cant imagine them using it at all except for where they might want to cite it for inaccuracies.

using the new testament to prove something about the old testament to a jew is like using the book of mormon to prove something about the new testament to a catholic. for the jew/catholic its just not going to be a reputable source.

Multiland

09-04-2006, 01:16

BTW, Multiland and Dubyagoat, I will be quite disappointed if you get this thread locked by hijacking it into an Islam bashing thread, after I troubled myself to apologize for my distracting little side fight.

Do you have anything to say about pagan influences on Christianity at all?

I wasn't "bashing islam", I was just respnding to something I felt needed responding to. Bashing islam makes it sound like I go around deliberately attacking islam and hating muslims. For the record, I think muslims in general are peaceful people. But I think that muslims are very misguided (much more so than people of other religions may be). And I think the koran (AND islam, as evidenced by some islamic countries) advocates violence far too much and the koran tells people to do stuff for rewards, rather than because it's the right thing to do (eg. the virgins promise... you'd think people would be able to guess that's silly and was not likely to have been written by God or one of God's messengers, wouldn't you?)

I generally stay out of religion threads, because they go on for ages. Unless I feel I need to respond to something. I haven't read most of the replies. Too much writing.

Muravyets

09-04-2006, 01:42

I wasn't "bashing islam", I was just respnding to something I felt needed responding to. Bashing islam makes it sound like I go around deliberately attacking islam and hating muslims. For the record, I think muslims in general are peaceful people. But I think that muslims are very misguided (much more so than people of other religions may be). And I think the koran (AND islam, as evidenced by some islamic countries) advocates violence far too much and the koran tells people to do stuff for rewards, rather than because it's the right thing to do (eg. the virgins promise... you'd think people would be able to guess that's silly and was not likely to have been written by God or one of God's messengers, wouldn't you?)

I generally stay out of religion threads, because they go on for ages. Unless I feel I need to respond to something. I haven't read most of the replies. Too much writing.
I grant that you did not mean to attack Islam. Peace?

Personally, my blunt opinion is that a significant number of Arabs have gone stark barking crazy, but I do not ascribe that to the influence of Islam. Rather, I think Islam is an excuse -- an authority the crazy ones use to try to give some kind of madman's sense to their madness. They may have any number of reasons for losing their cool completely, but Islam isn't one of them.

I fully realize the potential that all religions have to screw with people's heads by playing on their fears, but I just plain don't see Islam as doing that. I see the violence starting and then Islam being pointed to for justification. It doesn't wash, imo.

I do not blame outside forces for what individuals choose to do of their own free wills. I blame the individuals.

Grave_n_idle

09-04-2006, 05:00

I can understand where you're coming from, I don't expect you to believe that the Mishneh was the Oral Torah given to Moses simply because the Mishneh says so or anything, that would be rather circular. I was just pointing out that is what we believe in most forms of Judaism.

We also believe that the Torah does make clear referencecs to the Oral Torah, that it supports an Oral Law, and that it gives divine sanction to proper rabbinic authorities to interpret and develop Halacha. I wrote an article about the Oral Torah on my website that explains all of this, so instead of posting it up here I'll just give you the link.

http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id16.html

Good article. However, it still leaves me in the same place... the very fact that the tradition is 'oral' is a problem for me, because oral traditions are... well, not concrete.

Like Torah... what we have (now) is a written account of what seems likely to have been an oral tradition for quite a while... unless you actually believe Moses himself physically wrote the five books attributed to him. (And the text itself hints this may not be so).

Which means... we don't really have any way to 'prove' the evolution or constant nature of Torah, BEFORE the written form. Similarly, what is told to me in oral tradition can explain some of the hazier details of Torah... but what if those elements were ALSO corrupted before they were concretised?

Grave_n_idle

09-04-2006, 05:06

...END OF REBUTTAL

Excellent work. Well reasoned, well constructed responses. A pleasure to read.

DubyaGoat

09-04-2006, 05:25

This is another good example of an improper (or misleading) rendering of a foreign language in English translations to try and support modern Christian claims. Whereas "I am" was a title for God in Hebrew, the Greek "ergo eimi" here doesn't translate exactly to that. Rather, it accurately states "I existed." The belief of the pre-existence of souls was common among Jews, and thus for Jesus to say he existed before Abraham would not be anything spectacular.

If it was such a minimal thing, why did it make them want to kill him for saying it?

John 8
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”

...
When Christians later inventeed the myth of Jesus' divinity (hundreds of years after Mark was written)…

You keep saying this, but the accusation is debunked by the epistles of Paul (1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, Colossians, and other first century writings like the Didache and the Gospel of Mark, and even your much complained about book of Hebrews is one of the first century writings testifying of Jesus’ divinity being preached very early and long before the hundreds of years after Mark mis-accusation you keep making.

...
Well lets see, according to the Psalms David was a priest in the order of Melchezidek. … There is no getting around the fact that the Psalm states that it is about David, and thus it is referring to David here.

And like I wrote about, David isn't calling his own son Lord. There is nothing in the Psalm that states this. This is a Psalm written about David, where the author refers to David as 'lord' and God by His Name.

Under the law of Moses the king and high priest could not be united under one person, and yet now you are trying to suggest that the modern Judaism interpretation of psalm 110 simply dismisses this straightforward blaspheme as nonchalance lyric? Perhaps more suitably, we can see this claim that it is about David instead of by David is simply because it is the only possible way that they can claim that it’s not about an anticipated messiah king/priest, making it worthwhile to say David simply allowed himself to be worshiped as an equal to God. Additionally, to say that David was the priest in the psalm is dismissive of the fact that David was not worthy of even building the temple in Jerusalem because of the blood on his hands, nonetheless trying to pretend that he could be ‘clean’ enough to make the sacrifices or accept the tithe for others (As Melchezidek did for Abraham).

No, a more reasonable posit is that since Other psalms OF David call him King, and this one does not, it is a song David is singing. David sings praises to God in other psalms as well, using the “I praise you and you do so-and-so” syntax, Psalm 110 fits better when compared to them, twist it as they might, the psalm is about the Messiah even if the Messiah is not recognized to be Jesus.

John also does not say that Jesus was recognized by Abraham. It states that Jesus existed before Abraham. Not once does it say that the two interacted. There is no link to Jesus' ergo eimi in John with Abraham and the story of Melchezidek.

Yes it does say that they interacted, by Abraham seeing his day:

John 8
(Speaking of knowing God His Father) “If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word . Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

(p.s., side note: notice how Jesus says: my Father, and then YOUR father Abraham, it is telling. Jesus does not think that Abraham is HIS father.)

... The Talmud is far more historically accurate than the gospels, considering that the gospels contradict one another with dates, names, and places.

This is not a given. The accusing finger of historical accuracy should not be pointed by either of us. There is more than one list of “The ten commandments” there is more than one ‘creation story.’ There is more than one professional academic/archaeologist that will say that they can’t even find evidence of any exodus out of Egypt at all and that Ramses most definitely did NOT die at a young age or by being drowned in the red sea when chasing after escaped slave/refugees, or that any slave exodus or any kind occurred during his 67 year reign. Does this mean that I doubt that these events happened or occurred? No, it does not. What it means is that the historical ledger of events got mixed up during the ensuing six hundred years time (after the Babylonian slavery period at least) in the ‘oral’ tradition/record that you give so much credence to. Additionally, the historical writers of the Torah are not so identifiable; Isaiah (for example), is thought to be at least two authors living separated by hundreds of years.

Muravyets

09-04-2006, 05:36

Excellent work. Well reasoned, well constructed responses. A pleasure to read.
Thank you, sir. I'm rather pleased with it, if I do say so myself, though I must admit, B did half my work for me. ;)

Bruarong

09-04-2006, 08:23

Our side argument has gotten quite complicated, so I'm responding to your POST 217 with a fresh start, including a refresher on how we got here. As you will recall, our argument started with my objection to the following post:

Firstly, let me say that I think you have done very well with your rebuttal.

I say that during the course of this argument, you have defamed/slandered my religion (animism) by accusing animism of harmful/fatal abuses; you have failed to produce any facts in evidence of your claims; and you have either ignored or misrepresented the facts that I did present in rebuttal of you. I have demanded that you retract your defamatory/slanderous statements.

Perhaps part of the problem is that my impression of animism is not one that is terribly informed. Indeed, most of my impressions came from non-documented sources, and obvioulsy biased sources. That doesn't make my position look good, I realize, and is partly why I am interested to learn more about it. On the other hand, having biased sources does not automatically mean that I have false impressions on animism. Biased = dangerous, not biased = wrong.

YOUR SIDE: You say you’ve done no such thing and that all your stories are true. You have conceded a few points to me, but you have so far refused to retract any of the remarks in question.

I don't know if those stories are true. They come from biased people, of course, mostly Christians. On the other hand, they seem like honest people, and I believe them when they say that a place like Indonesia is hot, so why wouldn't I believe their impression of animism as frequently (but not always) having a negative impact on the people. They have been there and seen things with their own eyes, which in my view is a lot better (for them) than getting their information out of a website or a book.

I also remember one missionary giving a lecture about how the existing culture and belief system in animistic and 'stoneage' cultures is beneficial for stability reasons. Remove it and you end up with chaos. There either has to be something to replace it, or they are better off left with their belief system in tact.

I won't retract a remark I have made for any other reason than that I no longer agree with it. However, I will (and have) apologise for remarks that I thought were unnecessary and offensive.

(BTW, I don’t know your gender, so I’m using rhetorical pronouns.)

I'm a male, if that will help your writing. I have guessed you to be a female, judging by your posts on this thread. Am I right?

In these posts, I am responding to your challenges in your most recent post to me. I’m breaking the argument down into its main points. Part 1 is about your statements against animism, on which you challenged me to quote you, and about whether these remarks are defamation of animism. Part 2(A & B) is about our dispute over whether you have any facts behind your remarks, in which I look at both your sources and mine. I’m trying to keep the posts manageable, but I do apologize for the lengths.

Sure makes a lengthy read, but you don't have to apologise for that. I commend you for thoroughness and reasonableness.

I’ll not only show you that, I’ll also show where you accuse shamans and animism in general of cruelty and abuse. In addition to the “crude and cruel practices (pretty much whatever the Shaman says)” quote at the top of this post:

Accusation of killing children and controlling through fear:

One point I should make is that before doing my reading through the web sites on animism, I was not sure of the difference (or if there was any) between that of a shaman or a witch-doctor or a medium or any other spiritually significant roles among animist peoples. Indeed, I am still not sure about the differences, and suspect that the terms may depend on which particular brand of animism one happens to be observing. Thus, I have to point out that my negative impression of animism does not focus on shamans, but animism in general.

Another point is that when a shaman or shaman-like person administers his or her medicine to a sick person, and that sick person dies either because of, or in spite of the medicine, I would not say that the shaman had killed the person. However, you seemed to have quoted me as saying that shaman were killing children. You have it wrong. I was meaning that the children die because of a mispractice, and my impression is that their animism is the source of the mispractice. Thus it would be unfair to assume that the shaman was murdering people.

And in one of your points previously you pointed out that children also die in modern cultures through ignorance, or as Grave has once pointed out that some beliefs of JWs prevent the saving of lives through blood transfusion. That is a good point.

Many of these animistic people do not have access to a modern clinic, so the medicine man is the best chance they have. In such a scenario, nobody is trying to kill the child.

Accusation that Shinto (an animist religion) promotes cruelty:
BRUARONG POST 217

Since this is a new one, I'll respond to it specifically:

Oh, so now I see you’re amending your earlier claim that you’re only accusing “stoneage” animists of cruelty and abuse. Now, non-stoneage animists get to be accused of war atrocities without any evidence whatsoever that the religion had anything to do with it or that the Japanese would not have been just as violent if they’d had any other religion. I even enjoy your specious claim that the Japanese were worse than the Nazis. Plus, this is a very cute attempt to force me into trying to prove a negative. First of all, I have never claimed any religion to be “peaceful,” and second, it’s your accusation -- you prove it. I’d be very interested to see how you can compare Nazi death camps to Japanese prison camps and claim that one was worse than the other and then explain how animism made the difference. Racism isn’t the only kind of bigotry, B.

My impression was from listening to the old chaps themselves talk about their times in the hands of the Japanese, after they had compared stories with those who has spent time in the hands of the Germans, or even from writen accounts from those who had spent time in the hands of both. There is a book I read recently about it called ''The war to end all wars'' (there is a movie based on it) written by a fellow who survived the 'death camp' when building the Burmese railway. In the book, the fellow notes the exceptional cruelty of the Japanese, and he comments that he thought it was something to do with their belief system. I lent the book out, so I cannot give you a quote, or even remember his name. Sorry.

You did not claim that Shinto was peaceful, but the link that you provided on Shinto did make that claim.

Of course the Nazis were quite brutal in their treatment of the Jews. But once again, that was based on their belief system. From what I have read, I have the impression that they treated the prisoners of war a good deal better than the Jews, which is consistent with their view that the Jews represented an inferior race and that natural selection had to be helped along to exterminate them, while the British and Australian prisoners of war (and later the Americans) were often treated as fellow humans. As far as I can see, the way that the Jews were treated by the Nazis was due to some sort of evil within Nazism.

What you could probably not do is demonstrate how the behaviour of the Japanese soldiers had nothing to do with their belief system.

Not one of your claims/stories is backed up with any facts from any source. You only ever gave us un-documented anecdotes. I also direct readers to the post links for: yet more instances of the above; you implying a correlation between animism and poverty/lack of education; and you making your remarks about “animism” and “shamans” in general while at the same time claiming that you are only talking about individual animist religions. Religions you never name, btw.

Initially, I was not using links or documented sources, but presenting a point of view and explaining how I came by such a point of view. I was implying a correlation between animism and harm, not that animism caused poverty or a lack of education. I even said that there are Christian groups that are also uneducated and very poor, just to make sure you didn't get confused.

No, I didn't name those religions or the people with those animistic religions, simply because I couldn't remember them, and had no way of finding out their names except for writing to the people from whom I had first heard about them. Back then, I didn't realize that you wanted such a lengthy and detailed discussion about animism, or that either everything I said had to be recorded somewhere on the net and said by some professional, or that I was just making it up to suit my point of view.

You have, over and over, tried to claim that your remarks, such as those quoted above, are just opinions. But they are not opinions. They are statements claiming that certain people did certain bad things because they are animists/shamans. Those are accusations. And that’s what makes the remarks slanderous and defamatory.

I would say that Hitler was a nasty dictator. That is my opinion. It is also an accusation, I suppose. Is it slanderous and defamatory? Am I wrong? But before you get carried away assuming that I am comparing shamans to Hilter, I can tell you that I am not. I am simply using an extreme example to demonstrate how having a negative impression of someone does not make one slanderous or defamatory. Or does it? What do you say? Do you have a negative impression of Christianity, in general? Do you ever voice your opinion?

Defamation is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity (such as an organization or company). It can be slander, which is the spoken false defamation of a person or entity, or it can be libel which is the written or otherwise published (including online) false defamation of a person or entity with malicious intent. Both can be actionable. Note that in the US, libel requires malice, but slander requires only that the statement be false and defaming; I believe that libel laws are even less restrictive in some other countries.

Interesting. I wonder if anyone could be charged with slander and malicious intent for something posted on NS.

At any rate, I'm not interested in spreading statements about animism that I believe are false. So at least I could not be accused of slander, because I really do believe that animism can have a negative impact on the people. Having said that, I realize that any religion (Christianity included) can have a negative impact on people, depending on the particular beliefs that are held and practised within the community.

I’m not threatening you or anything like that. I’m just telling you that the way you play this game is going to get you into trouble some day. If you think I’m angry, I’m nothing compared to many people out there in the world. I strongly advise you to formally retract the remarks you have made about animism/shamans, and, in future, when someone says you have offended them, and you can’t actually prove what you said, don’t fight with them about it -- apologize, back off, and talk about something else. This is friendly advice, B, even if it doesn’t sound like it.

Well, now that is a whole lot friendlier than your previous posts, and I am more inclined to follow your advice. However, the opportunity to learn more about an area which I admit that I don't know much about would have been lost if it were not for those initial comments (for which I have apologised and for which you keep bringing up again) which offended you.

I'm not trying to fight you. And I have apologised. I'm here to learn, and if the reasons you present seem to be good ones, then I am better off for having heard your reasons and learnt from them.

Don't worry about me getting into trouble. I can handle it. But I do appreciate your friendly advice.

Oh, and by the way, most animists do not think that Christianity is a false religion. Animist religions recognize the Christian god and Jesus as divine spirits that they can worship right along with all the other spirits, if they like. Animists may judge any particular missionary, priest, or shaman to be a charlatan, but animism teaches that gods and divine spirits do exist, whether you worship them or not, so other religions are not false.

Just wanted to put that on record

That is an interesting point. But it doesn't explain why some of your posts (not necessarily directed to me) were giving the impression that you thought christianity was false. I would be interested if you could attach some references to this point. My impression is that most animists would be quick to point out falseness within Christianity (even while maintaining that some parts of it might be true).

Tropical Sands

09-04-2006, 09:29

If it was such a minimal thing, why did it make them want to kill him for saying it?

John 8
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”

Most likely, they didn't. There are no historical records of Jews picking up stones at random during the first century to stone people. For someone to be stoned, they first had to be condemned by a bet din. When we have references to Jews doing illegal things like this in anonymous Christian writings with no real historical support, it is obvious that they are simply polemics against Jews written for the Goyim audience that John was directed to.

You keep saying this, but the accusation is debunked by the epistles of Paul (1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, Colossians, and other first century writings like the Didache and the Gospel of Mark, and even your much complained about book of Hebrews is one of the first century writings testifying of Jesus’ divinity being preached very early and long before the hundreds of years after Mark mis-accusation you keep making.

A few of the Epistles you listed are in fact pseudo-Pauline. They aren't actually believed to be written by Paul anymore. Furthermore, the Didache does not support the divinity of Jesus. You seem to be just throwing things out there, as if no one is going to call your bluff.

You're also confusing the way you read those Epistles today with what they actually say. Early Christians did not interpret the writings of Paul, pseudo-Pauline writings, or any other early Christian writings as supporting a divine Jesus. Like I've stated before, there simply is no conclusive historical support for a divine Jesus prior to the second century. You can give modern interpretations of those texts that seem to support a god-man Jesus concept, but you can't actually cite early Christian sources that interpreted them this way.

In short, you're going from emic interpretation rather than edic historical exegesis.

Under the law of Moses the king and high priest could not be united under one person, and yet now you are trying to suggest that the modern Judaism interpretation of psalm 110 simply dismisses this straightforward blaspheme as nonchalance lyric? Perhaps more suitably, we can see this claim that it is about David instead of by David is simply because it is the only possible way that they can claim that it’s not about an anticipated messiah king/priest, making it worthwhile to say David simply allowed himself to be worshiped as an equal to God. Additionally, to say that David was the priest in the psalm is dismissive of the fact that David was not worthy of even building the temple in Jerusalem because of the blood on his hands, nonetheless trying to pretend that he could be ‘clean’ enough to make the sacrifices or accept the tithe for others (As Melchezidek did for Abraham).

Well gee, as a Jew I know a little bit about the Law. Excuse me if I correct you here...

Like I said before, Melchezidek was not a "High Priest." Nor does Psalm 110, or Genesis, state that he was. Furthermore, the law of Moses did not exist yet. You're confusing whatever priesthood Melchezidek was a part of with the Aaronic priesthood. They are not the same thing. You're partially correct to say that the High Priest and King could not be the same person, however, this is only applicable to the Aaronic priesthood. Such a thing did not exist during the time of Abraham, so I don't know why you are drawing a false link between Melchezidek and Aaron.

There is also no blasphemy in Psalm 110. The title "adonai" is not a divine title unless applied to haShem. In Psalm 110, it is not. Something that might help you understand the term better would be the use of "lord" in a feudal, medieval context. "Lord" is not always a reference to deity, and certainly not blasphemy.

The claim that it is about David is from the text itself, where it actually states that it is about David - mizmor David.

Keep in mind, this Psalm says nothing about the Aaronic priesthood. It only makes a reference to the Melchezidek priesthood. Your references to the Temple, etc. seem to be non sequiturs.

No, a more reasonable posit is that since Other psalms OF David call him King, and this one does not, it is a song David is singing. David sings praises to God in other psalms as well, using the “I praise you and you do so-and-so” syntax, Psalm 110 fits better when compared to them, twist it as they might, the psalm is about the Messiah even if the Messiah is not recognized to be Jesus.

Your first sentence is the fallacy of the argument from absence.

And the only "twisting" done is by non-Jews who try to interpret it as being a reference to their religion. Proper exegesis has to be in context - linguistic, historical, and cultural context. The Christian interpretation fits none of these criteria. Linguistically, historically, and culturally Psalm 110 is seen as being about David.

Yes it does say that they interacted, by Abraham seeing his day:

John 8
(Speaking of knowing God His Father) “If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word . Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

(p.s., side note: notice how Jesus says: my Father, and then YOUR father Abraham, it is telling. Jesus does not think that Abraham is HIS father.)

Nowhere in this verse does it state that Jesus and Abraham interacted. It simply states that Abraham rejoiced at the thought of Jesus' day. Where do you get interaction from this? Even Abraham "seeing it" does not imply interaction. This verse is also unrelated to the verse you posted before. Thats rather sloppy exegesis, as one doesn't modify or effect the other.

This is not a given. The accusing finger of historical accuracy should not be pointed by either of us. There is more than one list of “The ten commandments” there is more than one ‘creation story.’ There is more than one professional academic/archaeologist that will say that they can’t even find evidence of any exodus out of Egypt at all and that Ramses most definitely did NOT die at a young age or by being drowned in the red sea when chasing after escaped slave/refugees, or that any slave exodus or any kind occurred during his 67 year reign. Does this mean that I doubt that these events happened or occurred? No, it does not. What it means is that the historical ledger of events got mixed up during the ensuing six hundred years time (after the Babylonian slavery period at least) in the ‘oral’ tradition/record that you give so much credence to. Additionally, the historical writers of the Torah are not so identifiable; Isaiah (for example), is thought to be at least two authors living separated by hundreds of years.

Thats great. Its also the fallacy of the red herring.

As much as you wouldn't like the finger to be pointed at you, but elsewhere, i.e. at the lack of evidence of an exodus or authorship of some other scripture, it doesn't support your point.

Youv'e also failed to demonstre that the Gospels are more accurate than the Talmud. Rather, you created the red herring of the lack of evidence of the exodus, etc. This doesn't change the fact that the Talmud has valid authorship and far more historical accuracy, whereas the Gospels are anonymous and contradict one another regarding people, places, and events.

Now, you admitted that the archeological record doesn't support an exodus, or that Ramses was drowned in the Red Sea. Then you stated this was due to it being mixed up during the Captivity? The Oral Torah affirms the exact same things that the Written Torah does. Its silly to say that the Written Torah was preserved accurately while the Oral Torah got "mixed up", considering they teach and say the same things.

SOADfan

09-04-2006, 09:29

*cough how many times has this been done thread? cough*

Tropical Sands

09-04-2006, 09:35

*cough how many times has this been done thread? cough*

I'm not sure that a thread on the pagan influences of the Jesus myth has ever been done before.

I know the Christians get nervous when they see the sort of thing come out though. :cool:

SOADfan

09-04-2006, 09:38

Believe me its been done where they compare Christianity to other religions just to bash it.........i know, i've seen it

Tropical Sands

09-04-2006, 09:45

Believe me its been done where they compare Christianity to other religions just to bash it.........i know, i've seen it

Perhaps you could show me another thread on here where Christianity is compared to other religions just to bash it.

On that note, no one is comparing Christianity to other religions in order to bash it on this thread. Rather, we're examining the pagan origins of the Jesus myth.

SOADfan

09-04-2006, 09:48

*smiles* Those myths to some people are realitys to others :)

Muravyets

09-04-2006, 20:21

Firstly, let me say that I think you have done very well with your rebuttal.
Thank you.

Perhaps part of the problem is that my impression of animism is not one that is terribly informed. Indeed, most of my impressions came from non-documented sources, and obvioulsy biased sources. That doesn't make my position look good, I realize, and is partly why I am interested to learn more about it. On the other hand, having biased sources does not automatically mean that I have false impressions on animism. Biased = dangerous, not biased = wrong.
Yes, that is precisely your problem. Now that you have been given information to work with, and which shows your remarks to be wrong, what excuse do you have for not retracting the statements I have asked you to retract?

[1] I don't know if those stories are true. They come from biased people, of course, mostly Christians. On the other hand, they seem like honest people, and I believe them when they say that a place like Indonesia is hot, so why wouldn't I believe their impression of animism as frequently (but not always) having a negative impact on the people. [2] They have been there and seen things with their own eyes, which in my view is a lot better (for them) than getting their information out of a website or a book.
[1] Precisely. You never new them to be true, yet you spent a week defending them, even as they were proved false and even after you knew that they were deeply offensive to me personally.

[2] Even if the websites and books are also written by people who "have been there and seen things with their own eyes"? Are you under the impression that anthropologists write their books based on tv shows? How do you think the WHO compiles its data on public health issues? Through pure supposition? Or from experts in the field, working in country, with people?

I also remember one missionary giving a lecture about how the existing culture and belief system in animistic and 'stoneage' cultures is beneficial for stability reasons. Remove it and you end up with chaos. There either has to be something to replace it, or they are better off left with their belief system in tact.
Are you now backing away from your week's worth of effort to paint animistic cultures as oppressive and fear-ridden? Are you backing away from your own source at Gospel Outreach that claimed that animism forces an oppressive atmosphere of "spirit bondage," and a legacy of alcholism and suicide on Native Americans?

I won't retract a remark I have made for any other reason than that I no longer agree with it. However, I will (and have) apologise for remarks that I thought were unnecessary and offensive.
I would like to hear you say which statements of yours were unnecessary, and then I'd like to hear you explain why you said them and why you will not retract them.

I'm a male, if that will help your writing. I have guessed you to be a female, judging by your posts on this thread. Am I right?
Yes.

Sure makes a lengthy read, but you don't have to apologise for that. I commend you for thoroughness and reasonableness.
Thank you. It was a pro forma politeness-apology to the thread in general. I take as much space as I need to make my points, even if sometimes others get annoyed. So, just for the record, does this mean you no longer think of me as too upset and emotional to debate with? Because vehement expressiveness backed up by extensive quotes and research is my style. It's what I bring to the table.

One point I should make is that before doing my reading through the web sites on animism, I was not sure of the difference (or if there was any) between that of a shaman or a witch-doctor or a medium or any other spiritually significant roles among animist peoples. Indeed, I am still not sure about the differences, and suspect that the terms may depend on which particular brand of animism one happens to be observing. Thus, I have to point out that my negative impression of animism does not focus on shamans, but animism in general.
If you want to learn the differences, read Chapter 7 of Communicating Christ in Animistic Settings, your own source. That author lays it out very nicely and quite accurately. As to your assumption that it depends on the "brand of animism," you are wrong. Again, I refer you to your own source.

And finally, as to the bolded sentence, this is a direct contradiction of all of your defenses during our entire argument. I refer you and all readers to the links to our argument in Part 1 of my rebuttal for quick reference. I accused you of attacking animism in general, and you spent the entire week claiming that you were not talking about animism in general but were only talking about certain supposedly "stoneage" cultures. And now you are trying to excuse yourself by saying you were doing exactly what I accused you of and what you formerly denied.

You really are a piece of work, Bruarong.

Another point is that when a shaman or shaman-like person administers his or her medicine to a sick person, and that sick person dies either because of, or in spite of the medicine, I would not say that the shaman had killed the person. However, you seemed to have quoted me as saying that shaman were killing children. You have it wrong. I was meaning that the children die because of a mispractice, and my impression is that their animism is the source of the mispractice. Thus it would be unfair to assume that the shaman was murdering people.

And in one of your points previously you pointed out that children also die in modern cultures through ignorance, or as Grave has once pointed out that some beliefs of JWs prevent the saving of lives through blood transfusion. That is a good point.

Many of these animistic people do not have access to a modern clinic, so the medicine man is the best chance they have. In such a scenario, nobody is trying to kill the child.
You can try now to put as inoffensive a spin on your words as you like. The words are here, in writing, online for all the world to see and judge for themselves what they mean, pretty much forever. I strongly urge you to retract them formally. A formal retraction is like a little ritual. It goes like this:

You go back to Part 1 of my rebuttal and copy the quotes from that I listed there. In a new post, you paste those quotes and write the following:

"The statements listed here were made by me about animism during this thread. After further review of the matter, I hereby retract these statements as well as other similar negative statements about animism not specifically listed here. I also apologize for any offense these statements may have caused to any persons.
Bruarong."

That is a formal retraction. This argument will end when you do that.

I'll explain why you should perform this little ritual in my response to your words about defamation, below.

[1] My impression was from listening to the old chaps themselves talk about their times in the hands of the Japanese, after they had compared stories with those who has spent time in the hands of the Germans, or even from writen accounts from those who had spent time in the hands of both. There is a book I read recently about it called ''The war to end all wars'' (there is a movie based on it) written by a fellow who survived the 'death camp' when building the Burmese railway. [2] In the book, the fellow notes the exceptional cruelty of the Japanese, and he comments that he thought it was something to do with their belief system. I lent the book out, so I cannot give you a quote, or even remember his name. Sorry.

[3] You did not claim that Shinto was peaceful, but the link that you provided on Shinto did make that claim.

Of course the Nazis were quite brutal in their treatment of the Jews. But once again, that was based on their belief system. From what I have read, I have the impression that they treated the prisoners of war a good deal better than the Jews, which is consistent with their view that the Jews represented an inferior race and that natural selection had to be helped along to exterminate them, while the British and Australian prisoners of war (and later the Americans) were often treated as fellow humans. [4] As far as I can see, the way that the Jews were treated by the Nazis was due to some sort of evil within Nazism.

[5] What you could probably not do is demonstrate how the behaviour of the Japanese soldiers had nothing to do with their belief system.
You are incorrigible. Here you are, after all this, doing exactly the same thing you've been doing all week long, like the proverbial scorpion that can't stop itself from stinging.

[1] You're basing accusations against a religion on the personal (i.e. biased) accounts of individuals who suffered as prisoners of war but who were not themselves Shintoists nor were they experts on the Shinto religion. They have absolutely no knowledge as to why the Japanese chose to be so cruel.

[2] Here you do it again, based on one man's memoire -- this man was a prisoner of war, not an observer of the Shinto religion or of Japanese culture. And yes, we've all seen "A Bridge Too Far" and we all know about the Batan Death March and other well documented atrocities committed by the Japanese armed forces during WW2. Nothing in any of these accounts draws a connection between these crimes and the Shinto religion.

[3] I am not responsible for nor do I necessarily agree with anything anyone says about themselves. Every religion on the planet claims that it is "peaceful." It is my personal opinion that every religion on the planet is equally susceptible to corruption and un-peaceful extremism. But NO religion is inherently more prone to it than any other. Your negative claims agains animism are not only totally unsupported, they are unsupportable.

[4] "some sort of evil"? Now the brand of evil matters? If it's animist evil, that makes it more evil than monotheist evil? This remark of yours is just staggering.

[5] And finally, here you are, once again, hoping to make me try to prove a negative, try to prove animism's innocence of your charges. As I said, it's your accusation -- you prove it. Only you can't because there is no proof.

The bottom line here is that what YOU cannot do is demonstrate how the behaviour of the Japanese soldiers had ANYTHING to do with Shinto.

Initially, I was not using links or documented sources, but presenting a point of view and explaining how I came by such a point of view. I was implying a correlation between animism and harm, not that animism caused poverty or a lack of education. I even said that there are Christian groups that are also uneducated and very poor, just to make sure you didn't get confused.
As I said, your words are here for all the world to read. I stand by my characterization and interpretation of them. And I continue to ask for a formal retraction.

No, I didn't name those religions or the people with those animistic religions, simply because I couldn't remember them, and had no way of finding out their names except for writing to the people from whom I had first heard about them. Back then, I didn't realize that you wanted such a lengthy and detailed discussion about animism, or that either everything I said had to be recorded somewhere on the net and said by some professional, or that I was just making it up to suit my point of view.
I didn't want to talk about animism at all. The topic of this thread is Pagan Influences on Christianity, not Let's Debate about Animism. You made statements purporting to be fact, you were challenged on their veracity, you failed to prove them but you refused to back down and instead defended and expanded them. You continue to do this in this very post. If this argument is making you unhappy or uncomfortable, you have no one to blame but yourself for continuing it.

I would say that Hitler was a nasty dictator. That is my opinion. It is also an accusation, I suppose. Is it slanderous and defamatory? Am I wrong? But before you get carried away assuming that I am comparing shamans to Hilter, I can tell you that I am not. I am simply using an extreme example to demonstrate how having a negative impression of someone does not make one slanderous or defamatory. Or does it? What do you say? Do you have a negative impression of Christianity, in general? Do you ever voice your opinion?
The universe is filled with rolling eyes and ironic laughter right this very moment. Ask anyone -- I do nothing but express opinions and there are few topics on which I don't have an opinion to express. I think I've expressed my opinion about you and your statements pretty clearly. And no, I do not have a negative view of Christianity at all. I think Christianity is a perfectly decent religion although I personally choose not to follow it. I think its god and its prophet are legitimate enough. As an animist, I will even go as far as to stipulate to the literal truth of their existence if you insist upon it, even though I do not worship them. I do this for the exact same reason that I stipulate to the truth of your existence without feeling a need to worship you -- or any other person, spirit, being, or entity.

Oh, and fyi, when you use examples to illustrate points, you are inherently drawing a similarity between the example and the point being illustrated. So, when you use Nazis and terrorists to illustrate points about animism, you are making a comparison, whether you mean to or not. If you don't want to do that, you have to state so clearly at the time you cite your example. But frankly, I am inclined to disbelieve this disclaimer of yours, based on your misuse of your own sources in order to extract negative words that you could apply to shamans even though they were not about shamans in the original. I believe that was a deliberate choice of yours, and I also believe you chose to use Nazis and terrorists as examples because they resonate with your negative attitude towards animism.

Interesting. I wonder if anyone could be charged with slander and malicious intent for something posted on NS.
Yes, actually, they can. Here's a potential scenario:

You go and look up the name of one of those religions you've been slandering and post it here as proof of your claims. You have now transformed slander into libel, and adherents to that religion can now hire a lawyer to take action -- against you? Not initially because they don't know who you are. But they could bring their suit against Jolt, or more properly the owners/executives of the company in the UK, as publishers of defamatory lies against their religion. Since they can't find the author, they may as well go after the publisher, unless the publisher decides to give up the author. Do you think Jolt will take the cost of defending itself against a defamation suit rather than give up your ID? You have not committed libel yet, but on the basis of slander alone, Jolt could choose to perma-ban you to protect themselves, if I or someone else were to lodge a complaint (which I am starting to feel tempted to do, btw; it would be the first time I have ever done such a thing).

Cyber-people crack me up. They have this loony notion that the internet is some alternate reality and that nothing that happens here is real or ever touches the real world, and they think they can say anything they like because they are protected by an impenetrable mist of anonymity. Ha! The internet is a public square, my friend, where everyone can not only hear you, they can see you too, if they look. And if you piss them off enough, they will look.

This is why newspapers and public speakers issue formal retractions of statements. And this is why you should formally retract the statements in question here.

At any rate, I'm not interested in spreading statements about animism that I believe are false. So at least I could not be accused of slander, because I really do believe that animism can have a negative impact on the people. Having said that, I realize that any religion (Christianity included) can have a negative impact on people, depending on the particular beliefs that are held and practised within the community.
It is slander because whether you believe it or not, it can be proven to be false and it does hurt the reputation of animism and animists, and it is clearly meant to do so. At any rate, you cannot convincingly claim that you meant these remarks as compliments. So if you are really not interested in spreading false statements, I suggest that you stop doing so.

Well, now that is a whole lot friendlier than your previous posts, and I am more inclined to follow your advice. However, the opportunity to learn more about an area which I admit that I don't know much about would have been lost if it were not for those initial comments (for which I have apologised and for which you keep bringing up again) which offended you.

I'm not trying to fight you. And I have apologised. I'm here to learn, and if the reasons you present seem to be good ones, then I am better off for having heard your reasons and learnt from them.

Don't worry about me getting into trouble. I can handle it. But I do appreciate your friendly advice.
If you have learned anything, you should have learned that your statements need to be retracted. Kindly do so now.

That is an interesting point. But it doesn't explain why some of your posts (not necessarily directed to me) were giving the impression that you thought christianity was false. I would be interested if you could attach some references to this point. My impression is that most animists would be quick to point out falseness within Christianity (even while maintaining that some parts of it might be true).
I pulled the quotes where you made specific accusations against animism. I would like you to pull the quotes where I said anything about Christianity being a false religion.

As for references, you will find them in the sources I provided earlier.

Your impression is your own. Kindly do not try to put your thoughts into other people's brains.

DubyaGoat

09-04-2006, 20:31

Most likely, they didn't. There are no historical records of Jews picking up stones at random during the first century to stone people. For someone to be stoned, they first had to be condemned by a bet din. When we have references to Jews doing illegal things like this in anonymous Christian writings with no real historical support, it is obvious that they are simply polemics against Jews written for the Goyim audience that John was directed to.

Rabbinic Judaism "Rabbinic" texts or "Rabbinic" literature, the kind we have today and you keep pretending they had the first century ... With it’s rabbis who emerged after the destruction of the temple, were a new kind of Judaism, a Judaism that was defined and will endure from the second century of our era down to our own times today, but it is not the Judaism of the first century. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, the ‘no name insurrectionists,’ and the every day pious folk, the plain and simple people who followed the ways that they'd always done, whatever mother or father had taught them, that's what they did themselves and taught to their children.

But there was no such thing as a state approved Jewish doctrine at that time. There was no single monolithic religious or cultural entity that could be used to describe them all, at that time. What we do see more and more through continuing research and the archaeological discoveries unavailable to previous generations, is how diverse Judaism was during that period, it’s disingenuous of you to suggest that you have a clear understanding of what they did then because of what the Talmud teaches you now. At that time, the culture was going through changes, for example, the festival of Hanukkah, was a relatively new holiday celebration at the time of Jesus, it had only been around for about a hundred years. But the peoples acceptance of changes like that show that Judaism was still evolving with new ideas and new theologies and new experiences.

A few of the Epistles you listed are in fact pseudo-Pauline. They aren't actually believed to be written by Paul anymore. Furthermore, the Didache does not support the divinity of Jesus. You seem to be just throwing things out there, as if no one is going to call your bluff.

You seem to be unaware of what you speak in this regard. I did not include, in my list, the disputed epistles, and the Didache most certainly does support the divinity of Jesus.

1 Thessalonians; The epistle to the Thessalonians is certainly one of the most ancient Christian documents in existence. It is typically dated c. 50/51 CE. It is universally assented to be an authentic letter of Paul.

Philippians; is generally accepted to be authentic Pauline correspondence from 50-60 C.,E., but it is thought to be a composite of three different letters from that time all the same.

Galatians; is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted as authentic. It is typically dated c. 54 CE. The only real question here was is Paul addressing the Northern Galatians or the Southern Galations…

1 Corinthians; is another one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe "The genuineness of I Cor is not disputed: the letter is already clearly known in I Clem 37:5; 47:1-3; 49:5; Ign., Eph 16:1; 18:1; Rom 5:1; Phila 3:3."

2 Corinthians; is a third of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, and like Philippians, it is thought to be a composite of three letters written to the Corinthians after the first Corinthians.

Romans; Is the fourth of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted as authentic. It is typically dated c. 57 CE.

Philemon; is generally accepted to be an authentic letter of Paul. The grounds for acceptance are simple; the letter is a short, mundane, and presents no difficulties for Pauline authorship in style or thought. 50-60 C.E.

Colossians; This one you have an argument for. However, if it was written by Paul, it would be 50-60 C.E., but even if it is not written by Paul, it is still accepted as first century publication, being up to 80 C.E.

Didache; A Quote, Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism.
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
Gospel of Mark: dated to 60-85 C.E., believed to have been authored by a disciple of Peter, but one that was familiar with other oral gospel traditions as well, and most certainly familiar with Pauline writings.

You're also confusing the way you read those Epistles today with what they actually say. Early Christians did not interpret the writings of Paul, pseudo-Pauline writings, or any other early Christian writings as supporting a divine Jesus. Like I've stated before, there simply is no conclusive historical support for a divine Jesus prior to the second century.

Yes, you keep saying it, and I keep proving you wrong (See above about age). The Pauline epistles are usually blamed as ‘inventing’ the divinity of Christ, not denying it. Your assertion is debunked simply by reading the epistles themselves. Obviously Paul thought Christ was divine, his entire ministry/theology is based around that thesis.

Like I said before, Melchezidek was not a "High Priest." Nor does Psalm 110, or Genesis, state that he was (and neither did I this time, I simply called him Priest this time). Furthermore, the law of Moses did not exist yet (It did when the Psalm was written, and that’s what I was talking about). You're confusing whatever priesthood Melchezidek was a part of with the Aaronic priesthood (no, this time you are confused about which one I was talking about). They are not the same thing. You're partially correct to say that the High Priest and King could not be the same person, however, this is only applicable to the Aaronic priesthood (the only one in affect when David wrote the Psalms was Aaronic, the one David should have been familiar with. Such a thing did not exist during the time of Abraham, so I don't know why you are drawing a false link between Melchezidek and Aaron(the link is to the recognition of who is worthy to be a Priest to Abraham himself, Melshezidek or one of Abrahams not yet born decentents.

My responses are bolded in the quote above…

There is also no blasphemy in Psalm 110. The title "adonai" is not a divine title unless applied to haShem. In Psalm 110, it is not. Something that might help you understand the term better would be the use of "lord" in a feudal, medieval context. "Lord" is not always a reference to deity, and certainly not blasphemy.

The title was not what I was referring to, “The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand..”, that would be blaspheme part of any earthly King, to assume a seat equal with the throne of God.

Keep in mind, this Psalm says nothing about the Aaronic priesthood. It only makes a reference to the Melchezidek priesthood. Your references to the Temple, etc. seem to be non sequiturs. The temple then was the Tabernacle, the one David should have been familiar with, the Temple could not be build yet because God said David was not worthy to build it. As you very well know, but you pretend that David was worthy to be a priest.

As much as you wouldn't like the finger to be pointed at you, but elsewhere, i.e. at the lack of evidence of an exodus or authorship of some other scripture, it doesn't support your point.
It supports the point that the Torah is equally susceptible to petty accusations of not being historically accurate.

Youv'e also failed to demonstre that the Gospels are more accurate than the Talmud.

I wasn’t trying to demonstrate that the gospels are more accurate than the Talmud, why would I need to? I only demonstrate that it is not less accurate than the Talmud simply because you point out minutiae discrepancies that occur in ALL ancient manuscripts.

Rather, you created the red herring of the lack of evidence of the exodus, etc. This doesn't change the fact that the Talmud has valid authorship and far more historical accuracy, whereas the Gospels are anonymous and contradict one another regarding people, places, and events.

My point was that academic criticism is a dangerous thing for a spiritual question. If academic criticism is allowed to be brought up by you, you will then have it addressed at you as well. And you didn’t address how many authors wrote Isaiah; the first one around 700 B.C., and the other around 540 B.C (or after Cyrus freed the slaves from Babylon). Another might be the assertion that the Pentateuch was composed by Moses … basic documents Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the last of which (academically speaking) was probably compiled only after the exile in Jeremiah's day.

Now, you admitted that the archeological record doesn't support an exodus, or that Ramses was drowned in the Red Sea. Then you stated this was due to it being mixed up during the Captivity? The Oral Torah affirms the exact same things that the Written Torah does. Its silly to say that the Written Torah was preserved accurately while the Oral Torah got "mixed up", considering they teach and say the same things.

My point was a continuation of the beginning of the academic criticism, the one I didn’t want to get into … but be that as it may, the truth be told, there are no manuscripts of the written Torah preserved. You don’t have a written Torah from say the Tabernacle days or the first Temple period from Solomon’s time, to show me which books they had then and how they are not changed since then until now. You do not have a Torah from Moses hand, to show me what he actually wrote. My point being, of course, is that the oral tradition is the same as the recorded tradition now because the only preserved copy IS the oral tradition recorded after the fact. Sometime between Moses and Nebuchadnezzar, the holy of holies was raided or looted or hidden, and the artifacts were lost or hidden or stolen. Whatever Moses wrote was saved ONLY by oral tradition, and it says whatever you want it to say, now. Therefore, we either both accept it on faith or not, there is no finger of academic criticism that does not point at both the Torah and the NT.

Rather, the NT does talk about the same Torah as we have today, that’s why it’s verses are relevant to the discussion of the Torah’s verses today, because this is what the NT says about itself and the Torah. You do not have to be convinced by the argument, but it’s still there. The NT’s interpretation of the Torah that was not ‘anticipated’ at that time and it was rejected by the vast majority of everyday Jews then. Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of it’s teachings, but it was not what they were expecting, and they rejected it. Christ is very seldom what we expect, it was the lesson then, and IMO and belief, it is still a lesson for today. Theological authorship, critic and rebuttal were common then, and they are still common today. IMO, Christ is the manifestation of the promises of the covenant with God.

Grave_n_idle

09-04-2006, 21:20

1 Thessalonians; The epistle to the Thessalonians is certainly one of the most ancient Christian documents in existence. It is typically dated c. 50/51 CE. It is universally assented to be an authentic letter of Paul.

I'm not going to intrude on this, since this is obviously between you two... but, I have to point out to you that, when you use a generalisation like this "universally assented"... you are asking for trouble.

If I wanted to look, and found even ONE source that dissents, your entire argument is made false by your use of a blanket statement.

As it it - I am a dissenting voice... since I have no reason to believe the character of 'Paul' even existed... I'm inclined to believe that is just a 'name' attributed to a scripture after it was written, rather than necessarily the name OF the author.

Tropical Sands

09-04-2006, 23:52

Rabbinic Judaism "Rabbinic" texts or "Rabbinic" literature, the kind we have today and you keep pretending they had the first century ... With it’s rabbis who emerged after the destruction of the temple, were a new kind of Judaism, a Judaism that was defined and will endure from the second century of our era down to our own times today, but it is not the Judaism of the first century. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, the ‘no name insurrectionists,’ and the every day pious folk, the plain and simple people who followed the ways that they'd always done, whatever mother or father had taught them, that's what they did themselves and taught to their children.

It may shock you to learn, but Orthodox Judaism today is the Judaism of the Pharisees. Pharisees didn't develop in the second century, they existed centuries beforehand. During this time period, they also conflicted with Sadducees and Essenes regarding their oral law and rabbinic texts. We also have quite a few rabbinic texts from that period that were incorporated into the Talmud or that proceeded up to it.

For example, the Jewish Encyclopedia cites:

"A large portion of this first Mishnah is still preserved in its original form, notwithstanding the many changes to which it was subjected by the Tannaim; for many portions can be proved to have been redacted, in the form which they now bear, at the time of the schools of Shammai and Hillel, while the Temple was still standing (comp. Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 15-20; idem, "Bemerkungen zur Kritik der Mischna," in Berliner's "Magazin," 1881, pp. 170 et seq.)."

This seems to clearly refute your "second century" rabbinic literature claim. Considering that a large portion of the first Mishnah is still preserved that existed during the times of Shammai and Hillel (thats near 100 BCE) it throws your dating off by about 300 years. Far earlier than the earliest Christian texts, and before the Jesus myth even existed.

In fact, that is only the Mishnah - the central body of the Talmud. When we look at Midrash, we can find that even the Biblical writings themselves refer to it - derek dabar katab midrash nabi Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22). Here we have a reference to a non-Biblical midrash (the one of prophet Iddo) by name in the Bible. These are just the kinds of things you overlook when you read Christian English translations instead of what the Jewish scriptures actually say.

There also were no "no name folks." The Pharisees were the largets sect, represented the vast majority in the first century, and were the only sect to survive and carry on the Judaism we know today. The many schools of Pharasaic Judaism represented the populace. Keep in mind that those of us who are Jews today essentially are Pharisees. From the Jewish Encyclopedia again:

"[After the destruction of the Second Temple] Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition (Abot i. 1). Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future."

But there was no such thing as a state approved Jewish doctrine at that time. There was no single monolithic religious or cultural entity that could be used to describe them all, at that time. What we do see more and more through continuing research and the archaeological discoveries unavailable to previous generations, is how diverse Judaism was during that period, it’s disingenuous of you to suggest that you have a clear understanding of what they did then because of what the Talmud teaches you now. At that time, the culture was going through changes, for example, the festival of Hanukkah, was a relatively new holiday celebration at the time of Jesus, it had only been around for about a hundred years. But the peoples acceptance of changes like that show that Judaism was still evolving with new ideas and new theologies and new experiences.

During what time? From the Hasmonean dynasty up until 70CE Sadducees controlled the official state approved Jewish doctrine. They ran the Temple and carried out bet din justice acccording to their own laws. They were the ones who worked closely with the occupying presence at the time. Pharisees were the majority sect, but they had no real religious or temporal power until the Sadducees were gone.

You seem to be unaware of what you speak in this regard. I did not include, in my list, the disputed epistles, and the Didache most certainly does support the divinity of Jesus.

*snip*

Colossians; This one you have an argument for. However, if it was written by Paul, it would be 50-60 C.E., but even if it is not written by Paul, it is still accepted as first century publication, being up to 80 C.E.[/QUOTE]

That is what I was referring to. Colossians is a disputed epistle; and is listed as such in my text "From Jesus to Christianity" by L. White from YDM.

On another note, you shouldn't cut and paste things off websites without citing them. I don't think the folks at earlychristianwritings.com would like having their work plastered on a message board without giving them credit for it. I snipped it out, but in part I'm referring to what you plagerized on Galatians from the following page. I didn't bother to see what else was taken in this fashion:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/galatians.html

Didache; A Quote, Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism.
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever...

Nowhere in these citations from the Didache does it state that Jesus is God or divine. It simply states to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What you're giving now is your own personal, emic Christian interpretation. It doesn't state that the three are a Trinity, or that the Son is God, or any such thing. It simply says to baptize in those names. Like most Christians, you seem to be confusing your interpretation of the texts with what the texts actually state.

Yes, you keep saying it, and I keep proving you wrong (See above about age). The Pauline epistles are usually blamed as ‘inventing’ the divinity of Christ, not denying it. Your assertion is debunked simply by reading the epistles themselves. Obviously Paul thought Christ was divine, his entire ministry/theology is based around that thesis.

You can claim it, but it doesn't make it true. If you take the notion that the Pauline epistles are blamed as "inventing" the divinity of Jesus, then it is the way they were interpreted when the god-man Jesus doctrine was invented. They show no conclusive evidence of this within themselves. And like you did with the Didache, I'm sure you can give multiple interpretations of where you think they infer a divine Jesus, but you can't demonstrate an actual place where they state such a thing.

The title was not what I was referring to, “The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand..”, that would be blaspheme part of any earthly King, to assume a seat equal with the throne of God.

Who says that would be blasphemy? You? There is no blasphemy there, according to the Torah and Halacha. Unless you can demonstrate that there is some form of blasphemy via Halacha, then you're just giving a poor Christian interpretation of Jewish scriptures - thats ethnocentrism.

The temple then was the Tabernacle, the one David should have been familiar with, the Temple could not be build yet because God said David was not worthy to build it. As you very well know, but you pretend that David was worthy to be a priest.

You keep confusing the Aaronic priesthood with Melchezidek. They aren't the same. Melchezidek had no Temple or Tabernacle. Obviously God didn't want Melchezidek to be the one to build it either. Melchezidek was also not an Aaronic priest. Every time you bring up the Temple or the Aaronic priesthood, you slip into the fallacy of the non sequitur.

It supports the point that the Torah is equally susceptible to petty accusations of not being historically accurate.

Your point was a red herring too. Thats another fallacy. The original topic was the historical inaccuracy of the Gospels, and then you tried to divert attention from them to demonstrate that the Torah could be historically inaccurate too. It may be a true assertion, but your tactic commits the red herring fallacy.

I wasn’t trying to demonstrate that the gospels are more accurate than the Talmud, why would I need to? I only demonstrate that it is not less accurate than the Talmud simply because you point out minutiae discrepancies that occur in ALL ancient manuscripts.

The main character of the Gospels is often disputed as having even existed. That is why we use the terms "historical Jesus" and "Jesus of faith" as a dichcotomy. The Gospels are full of borrowed mythology from pagan sources that substantiate this character. They also contradict one another with dates, such as Jesus' birth. On top of all this, they are completely anonymous.

I've never seen anyone dispute the existence of the Rabbis cited in the Talmud, nor have I seen any historical contradictions like we see in the Gospels. The Gospels appear to be far less accurate than the Talmud.

My point was that academic criticism is a dangerous thing for a spiritual question. If academic criticism is allowed to be brought up by you, you will then have it addressed at you as well. And you didn’t address how many authors wrote Isaiah; the first one around 700 B.C., and the other around 540 B.C (or after Cyrus freed the slaves from Babylon). Another might be the assertion that the Pentateuch was composed by Moses … basic documents Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the last of which (academically speaking) was probably compiled only after the exile in Jeremiah's day.

You seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism again. Academic criticism may be a dangerous thing for you, and Christianity, but not for Judaism. Two authors writing Isaiah doesn't effect Judaism. Most Jews learn that Isaiah had two authors and that the last book in the Torah was compiled later. This isn't a threat to our religion, because Judaism is more than a bunch of books. Jews have always been the more educated demographic and we were learning these things when Christians were illterate peasants in the dark ages.

While Christians rejected education in leiu of a literal and inerrant Bible, Jews were becoming educated in astronomy and Greek philosophy in Arab countries. It doesn't surprise me that you retain the whole "academic criticism is dangerous" mentality. Education is dangerous to most Christians, and it always has been.

*snip*
My point being, of course, is that the oral tradition is the same as the recorded tradition now because the only preserved copy IS the oral tradition recorded after the fact. Sometime between Moses and Nebuchadnezzar, the holy of holies was raided or looted or hidden, and the artifacts were lost or hidden or stolen. Whatever Moses wrote was saved ONLY by oral tradition, and it says whatever you want it to say, now. Therefore, we either both accept it on faith or not, there is no finger of academic criticism that does not point at both the Torah and the NT.

Well, since you admit that oral tradition is the same as recorded tradition, you should have no problem with the Talmud being older than Christianity, since it was the later compilation of an earlier oral tradition. It accurately records people, places, events, and dates that occured centuries before Jesus. This doesn't help your second-century rabbinic Judaism argument.

Rather, the NT does talk about the same Torah as we have today, that’s why it’s verses are relevant to the discussion of the Torah’s verses today, because this is what the NT says about itself and the Torah. You do not have to be convinced by the argument, but it’s still there. The NT’s interpretation of the Torah that was not ‘anticipated’ at that time and it was rejected by the vast majority of everyday Jews then. Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of it’s teachings, but it was not what they were expecting, and they rejected it. Christ is very seldom what we expect, it was the lesson then, and IMO and belief, it is still a lesson for today. Theological authorship, critic and rebuttal were common then, and they are still common today. IMO, Christ is the manifestation of the promises of the covenant with God.

The Koran talks about the same Torah we have today, as well. It also has borrowed stories, places, events, etc. However, this does not make the Koran relevent to the study of the Torah. In the same fashion, it doesn't make the NT relevent to the study of the Torah.

The reason the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus was because Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies and what the Torah actually teaches about the Messiah. Christianity took off among Goyim who were not familiar with the Torah and who saw in Jesus something identical to their pagan gods. The Jews were correct for rejecting Jesus - that is why the Pharisees survived and why early Jewish forms of Christianity ceased to exist.

DubyaGoat

10-04-2006, 03:46

I'm not going to intrude on this, since this is obviously between you two... but, I have to point out to you that, when you use a generalisation like this "universally assented"... you are asking for trouble.

If I wanted to look, and found even ONE source that dissents, your entire argument is made false by your use of a blanket statement.

As it it - I am a dissenting voice... since I have no reason to believe the character of 'Paul' even existed... I'm inclined to believe that is just a 'name' attributed to a scripture after it was written, rather than necessarily the name OF the author.

You’re definitely allowed to dissent from a personal belief point of view, but do you have any peer reviewed evidences or published theories to support your belief?

(Actually though, I'm tending to agreeing with you. I wouldn't have normally used such a strong term, but I stole it from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ and decided if it was good enough for them, I'd stick with it as well ;) )

DubyaGoat

10-04-2006, 04:54

It may shock you to learn, but Orthodox Judaism today is the Judaism of the Pharisees. Pharisees didn't develop in the second century, they existed centuries beforehand. During this time period, they also conflicted with Sadducees and Essenes regarding their oral law and rabbinic texts. We also have quite a few rabbinic texts from that period that were incorporated into the Talmud or that proceeded up to it.

For example, the Jewish Encyclopedia cites:
*snip*

It doesn’t surprise me at all that they claim heritage with the group that had a reputation as the most meticulous observers of the ancestral laws. Even though they were only one of the groups then, it would still be an injustice on me to claim a total lack of connection between them and the modern version of Rabbinic Judaism. Nevertheless, your dispute is not with me, it is with the academic criticism of the scholarly world…

Shaye I.D. Cohen: Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies Brown University, Paula Fredriksen: William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University, L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin, have all written about this very topic. Or John R. Levison, Professor of New Testament at Seattle Pacific University, and his book: http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id10629.htm

Or this summary:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/judaism.html
Or this one:
http://www.bibarch.com/The%20First%20Christians/first-century_judaism.htm

You overstated your position.

That is what I was referring to. Colossians is a disputed epistle; and is listed as such in my text "From Jesus to Christianity" by L. White from YDM.

Is that why you called one, “a few?”

On another note, you shouldn't cut and paste things off websites without citing them. I don't think the folks at earlychristianwritings.com would like having their work plastered on a message board without giving them credit for it. I snipped it out, but in part I'm referring to what you plagerized on Galatians from the following page. I didn't bother to see what else was taken in this fashion:
Actually, the http://www.earlychristianwritings.com has been cited many a time on this forum by me personally, several times. Citing the description of a work is not plagerism. Again, you overplay your hand.

Nowhere in these citations from the Didache does it state that Jesus is God or divine. It simply states to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What you're giving now is your own personal, emic Christian interpretation. It doesn't state that the three are a Trinity, or that the Son is God, or any such thing. It simply says to baptize in those names. Like most Christians, you seem to be confusing your interpretation of the texts with what the texts actually state.

You suggest that something other than the trinity is called upon by the words, Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or that “for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ” somehow could imply that God’s power is limited by Christ but does not involve Christ, but that God’s glory could be funneled through someone who was nothing more than a dead rabbi? I think you are the one that is suffering a bout with “giving now your own personal Jewish interpretation of an early Christian document, that is called ethnocentrism.”

You can claim it, but it doesn't make it true. If you take the notion that the Pauline epistles are blamed as "inventing" the divinity of Jesus, then it is the way they were interpreted when the god-man Jesus doctrine was invented. They show no conclusive evidence of this within themselves. And like you did with the Didache, I'm sure you can give multiple interpretations of where you think they infer a divine Jesus, but you can't demonstrate an actual place where they state such a thing.

Can you cite a single academic source that claims Paul did NOT endorse a divine Jesus? There will be some that say Pauls’ writing are progressive, using stronger and stronger imagery as the time progressed, but I’ve never read any source that claimed Paul’s ministry did not involve the teaching of Jesus as the divine.

You keep confusing the Aaronic priesthood with Melchezidek. They aren't the same. Melchezidek had no Temple or Tabernacle. Obviously God didn't want Melchezidek to be the one to build it either. Melchezidek was also not an Aaronic priest. Every time you bring up the Temple or the Aaronic priesthood, you slip into the fallacy of the non sequitur.

What part of David’s psalms were known to Abraham? None, zero, zilch. David lived during the time of the Tabernacle. This is not a difficult issue. David lived during the time of the Aaronic priesthood, he could NOT utilize the services of non –Aaronic priests, how then, could be have been a priest himself of any order? Especially one that was sufficient to serve his father Abraham’s tithing and sacrificing?

Your point was a red herring too. Thats another fallacy. The original topic was the historical inaccuracy of the Gospels, and then you tried to divert attention from them to demonstrate that the Torah could be historically inaccurate too. It may be a true assertion, but your tactic commits the red herring fallacy.

It’s not a red herring in as much as it points out that your assertion was an implied negative against one is an implied bonus of the other, but this is not the case. Academic criticism goes both ways, and that’s all I pointed out.
The main character of the Gospels is often disputed as having even existed. That is why we use the terms "historical Jesus" and "Jesus of faith" as a dichcotomy. The Gospels are full of borrowed mythology from pagan sources that substantiate this character. They also contradict one another with dates, such as Jesus' birth. On top of all this, they are completely anonymous.

Similar to the way it can be argued that Moses never really existed, but was a synonym pen-name for whatever caste actually wrote the Pentateuch at a later time. Nor Abraham, nor Daniel, nor Isaiah. There is no independent Egyptian archeological record to support the idea that David or Solomon were real people either, some archaeologist even suggest that the Kingdom never existed and that the Israel Territory was never conquered by an invading Hebrew people.

None of this proves that it is not true. And equally, neither do your claims against the NT prove anything either.

You seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism again. Academic criticism may be a dangerous thing for you, and Christianity, but not for Judaism. Two authors writing Isaiah doesn't effect Judaism. Most Jews learn that Isaiah had two authors and that the last book in the Torah was compiled later. This isn't a threat to our religion, because Judaism is more than a bunch of books. Jews have always been the more educated demographic and we were learning these things when Christians were illterate peasants in the dark ages.

Interesting, you’re now arguing a pure and simple pro-Semitism racism as a defense of your position… That’s sad.

While Christians rejected education in leiu of a literal and inerrant Bible, Jews were becoming educated in astronomy and Greek philosophy in Arab countries. It doesn't surprise me that you retain the whole "academic criticism is dangerous" mentality. Education is dangerous to most Christians, and it always has been.

Then you simple attack me and say that I must be stupid because I am a Christian and Christians have always been stupid. Nice. The level of your dialogue is fully a diatribe now. Well done.

Well, since you admit that oral tradition is the same as recorded tradition, you should have no problem with the Talmud being older than Christianity, since it was the later compilation of an earlier oral tradition. It accurately records people, places, events, and dates that occured centuries before Jesus. This doesn't help your second-century rabbinic Judaism argument.

The Koran talks about the same Torah we have today, as well. It also has borrowed stories, places, events, etc. However, this does not make the Koran relevent to the study of the Torah. In the same fashion, it doesn't make the NT relevent to the study of the Torah.

Fine. You’ve earned your academic criticism argument. The oldest Talmud you have an actually copy of is how old? The Jerusalem Talmud, dating from circa 400 C.E., is based on the discussions of the sages of Palestine, and the Babylonian Talmud, from circa 500 C.E., recapitulates the debates of the rabbis in the Babylonian academies. How is that old, you barely beat Muhammad.

The reason the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus was because Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies and what the Torah actually teaches about the Messiah. Christianity took off among Goyim who were not familiar with the Torah and who saw in Jesus something identical to their pagan gods. The Jews were correct for rejecting Jesus - that is why the Pharisees survived and why early Jewish forms of Christianity ceased to exist.

That’s exactly what the NT says you would say…

However: These guys seem to disagree with you; Messianic Judaism versus Rabbinic Judaism http://www.bethemanuel.com/rabbi.htm

Straughn

10-04-2006, 06:07

I wil respond to your post in detail -- I have to look up those quotes from you that you requested, and the reply will need some composing -- but I need to address this one thing separately.

I made up this material myself? What, just for the occasion? I just whipped it up? I compiled all those links, statistics, and references? I wrote an academic article with notations and posted it to a University of Virginia project-specific database website? Just so I could lie to you? Maybe I made up that website, too, especial for the purpose. And at the same time, maybe I set up a bogus religious tolerance organization in Canada, and a bogus shamanist organization in Mongolia, too, for a total of three organizations whose bona fides could be checked, just because I really, really wanted to screw with your little brain. And I did it all in half a week. Wow, I must be the most amazing web-master ever.

This is the single most lame-ass attempt to dismiss evidence I have ever heard from anyone, about anything, anywhere, ever. With the very first sentence of your post, you destroyed your own credibility. Thanks for doing so much of my work for me. The detailed response I will post later today may be considered the eulogy for your dead argument.
Mmmm. :D

Also, for effect:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10714983&postcount=233

-
And now for the useful part of my post - i apologize that i'm unable to be more attentive to this thread. I'm on vacation. But it is as tantalizing and amusing as i would hope.

Tropical Sands

10-04-2006, 06:17

It doesn’t surprise me at all that they claim heritage with the group that had a reputation as the most meticulous observers of the ancestral laws. But it was just one of the groups then, however, it would be an injustice of me to claim a total lack of connection between them. Nevertheless, your dispute is not with me, it is with the academic criticism of the scholarly world…

Shaye I.D. Cohen: Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies Brown University, Paula Fredriksen: William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University, L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin, have all written about this very topic. Or John R. Levison, Professor of New Testament at Seattle Pacific University, and his book: http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id10629.htm

Or this summary:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/judaism.html
Or this one:
http://www.bibarch.com/The%20First%20Christians/first-century_judaism.htm

You overstated your position.

Instead of actually building an argument, you seem to have just posted these links. One of them is actually a link to buy a book, and provides no information. That was cute.

The second link had some reviews for the book. In these book reviews, it cites the author's opinion that there were "just plain Jews." However, no evidence is actually presented to support this. Thats understandable, because its a book review. They can't be held accountable for that, but you can. Unless you can support the claims of this author with the author's arguments and evidence, simply saying "look, so and so says this" is just an appeal to authority. I have yet to see any evidence for some large body of Jews that were not affiliated with a specific sect.

Ironically, in the reviews on the second link, they do mention Josephus. Josephus named four groups - three were religious, one was political. Nowhere was there any mention of the major body of Jews not being affiliated with any group. In fact, the second link reviews state this:

"He mentions ... I'm not absolutely certain. I think his figures are like 6000 Pharisees, 4000 Essenes...maybe there were 20,000 Priests. Of those Priests, how many were aristocrats and therefore Sadducees? I don't know ... but a fraction of that. So that doesn't give us very many Jews actually accounted for. But there were millions of Jews in antiquity, which means that most people belonged to none of these groups. Who were these people? What did they think? We don't know because we only have the evidence for the groups that have articulated ideologies."

That almost made me want to stop reading. Did Paula Fredriksen not even take enough time to research the materials to be certain? This is honestly the most sloppy thing I've seen in a long time. However, if this sums up the book, its even more shocking for its implications - the entire "plain old Jews" argument is founded on an absence of evidence. Here, the reviewer admits that we have no evidence for any groups except for the ones I had previously mentioned. If this sums up the book, it would seem that it is founded on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

I would also keep in mind that one book is not the entire "scholarly world." In fact, reading through the third link, it doesn't support anything execpt what I stated before. For example, it lists the three Jewish groups in existence as the ones I listed:

""Judaisms" of the period—the Judaism of the Pharisees, the Judaism of the Sadducees, the Judaism of the Essenes, and the like—embodied a great diversity of opinions, convictions, ideas, and beliefs."

There is no mention of a mass Jewish populace that did not adhere to the teachings of one of these specific sects. The only place this website conflicts with anything I stated is that it claims that the Pharisees represented a minority group. I would also keep in mind, that claim is not from one of the scholarly sources actually cited in the article, but rather from the author's own personal conclusion.

Now, in both first review in the second link, and in the third link, they seem to draw on Josephus' approximate numbering of Pharisees as evidence for how large the sect actually was. That would be fine, except it demonstrates an ignorance of Josephus and his interaction with these various sects. Consulting the Jewish Encyclopedia again we can confirm this:

"No true estimate of the character of the Pharisees can be obtained from the New Testament writings, which take a polemical attitude toward them (see New Testament), nor from Josephus, who, writing for Roman readers and in view of the Messianic expectations of the Pharisees, represents the latter as a philosophical sect"

You see, Josephus was a Pharisee at one point. He likely excluded Pharisees that were not members of his specific school or that he was not able to account for in his numbering. The number of 6000 Pharisees we find in Josephus was most likely a reference to the 6000 Pharisees his his specific Pharasaical school alone. And since Josephus considered then a philosophical group, he most likely did not include the Jews who adhered to Pharasaic law in their daily lives, but only those who were members of specific Pharasaic schools.

Actually, the http://www.earlychristianwritings.com has been cited many a time on this forum by me personally, several times. Citing the description of a work is not plagerism. Again, you overplay your hand.

It doesn't matter if its been cited many times on this forum or not, by you or anyone else. You cut a large portion of material off of that website and presented it here without giving credit to the author. That is academic plagerism, by definition.

To clarify, you didn't "cite the description of the work." A citation includes the source. You simply posted it up, as if it were your own.

You suggest that something other than the trinity is not called upon by the words, Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or that “for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ” somehow could imply that God’s power is limited by Christ but does not involve Christ, but that God’s glory could be funneled through someone who was nothing more than a dead rabbi? I think you are the one that is suffering a bout with “giving now your own personal Jewish interpretation of an early Christian document, that is called ethnocentrism.”

The Trinity doctrine didn't exist yet. It wouldn't exist for near 300 years, when it was invented at the Council of Constantinople. Even after the Bianity doctrine was created some 50 years earlier, at the Council of Nicea. To claim that a document is about a doctrine that wouldn't exist for a few hundred years is poor, emic exegesis.

In addition, I never interpreted the Didache. I simply told you that it didn't actually say what you are interpreting it as. I was going by what it literally says (or does not say). In this case, there was nothing in the text that said what you claimed. You're simply claiming that it means what you interpret it as.

Can you cite a single academic source that claims Paul did NOT endorse a divine Jesus? There will be some that say Pauls’ writing are progressive, using stronger and stronger imagery as the time progressed, but I’ve never read any source that claimed Paul’s ,ministry did not involve the teaching of Jesus as the divine.

I can do better than that, I can give you references to early Christians who used Paul's writings and did not interpret them to be about a divine Jesus. The most notable would be Marcion - the first "heretic" Christian to ever canonize Christian writings. He lived in the second century CE. He also created a NT canon that consited exclusively of Paul's epistles and the gospel of Luke. Even to this day some Marcionites exist and do not believe in a divine Jesus.

What part of David’s psalms were known to Abraham? None, zero, zilch. David lived during the time of the Tabernacle. This is not a difficult issue. David lived during the time of the Aaronic priesthood, he could NOT utilize the services of non –Aaronic priests, how then, could be have been a priest himself of any order? Especially one that was sufficient to serve his father Abraham’s tithing and sacrificing?

Why would the author of this Psalm need to be known to Abraham? You seem to be working backwards here. The author of this Psalm knew about Melchezidek from the Torah, not the other way around. Thus, when writing about David the author compared David to Melchezidek.

And you seem to be making stuff up again. How do you draw a conclusion from this that the services of non-Aaronic priests were in use? And from what Halacha do you draw the conclusion that he couldn't have been a priest of the same order Melchezidek was?

Furthermore, there is no getting around the fact that the Psalm actually states that it is about David. I cited where it does in a previous post. As much as you can try to reason away why it can't be about David, there is no getting around the fact that the Psalm actually says that it is a Psalm about David - mizmor David.

It’s not a red herring in as much as it points out that your assertion was an implied negative against one is an implied bonus of the other, but this is not the case. Academic criticism goes both ways, and that’s all I pointed out.

Well no, it was still a red herring. You see, fallacies are facts of logic. It may have even been true, and had a point to it. However, since it was an off-topic statement used to detract from the issue, it becomes a red herring. If the gospels are under heat, saying "But the Torah, but the Koran, but the BoM, etc." are all examples of red herrings.

None of this proves that it is not true. And equally, neither do your claims against the NT prove anything either.

No, the specific things I mentioned don't prove that the Gospels aren't true. However, there has been enough evidence presented throughout this thread against Jesus to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jesus of the Gospels is a myth. The pagan influences alone do that.

Then you simple attack me and say that I must be stupid because I am a Christian and Christians have always been stupid. Nice. The level of your dialogue is fully a diatribe now. Well done.

I never attacked you or said you were stupid. You were the one that first stated something antithetical to education and intelligence - that academic criticism was dangerous to your religion. I simply pointed out how, yes, it is dangerous to Christians but not to Jews. You were the one that started with the anti-education lean and how its dangerous to your faith. I don't see why you don't expect a backlash from that.

Fine. You’ve earned your academic criticism argument. The oldest Talmud you have an actually copy of is how old? The Jerusalem Talmud, dating from circa 400 C.E., is based on the discussions of the sages of Palestine, and the Babylonian Talmud, from circa 500 C.E., recapitulates the debates of the rabbis in the Babylonian academies. How is that old, you barely beat Muhammad.

Well yes, the oldest Talmuds do come a bit later. This is because that was when the Talmud was first compiled. Like I stated in the previous post (which you didn't address in this one), the oldest Mishnah predates Jesus and is from the time of Hillel. We can also find commentary and responsa on the Mishnah as well, again from Rabbis like Hillel and Shammai who predate Jesus. However, they weren't compiled into "The Talmud" until later.

I hope you are aware that the two parts of the Talmud is Mishnah and Gemara, and we see that Mishnah alone predates Christianity by quite some time.

An analogy would be to would be to say that the Bible is as old as the Talmud, because the Bible wasn't compiled until the 4th century either. It may be accurate in some way, but the fact is that most of the texts within it were written much earlier.

That’s exactly what the NT says you would say…

Well yeah, if I started a cult I would put in disclaimers in my text too to help new members refute opposition. Of course the NT has polemics against Jews - Christians had to defend their doctrine against Jews because it doesn't have harmony with Judaism and Jewish scriptures.

Just like the Book of Mormon has something to say about the NT and other earlier Christian groups.

Tropical Sands

10-04-2006, 06:27

However: These guys seem to disagree with you; Messianic Judaism versus Rabbinic Judaism http://www.bethemanuel.com/rabbi.htm

I missed this in the last post, but I had to comment on it. Messianic Jews aren't Jews. They are Christians who simply want to pretend to be Jewish.

For one, most "Messianic" groups are made up of Goyim. They were never Jews to begin with. Jews for Jesus, the largest one, is funded by Southern Baptist groups and was founded by a Goy Christian. Many Christians feel close to Jews and Judaism because of their Bible experience, so they start pretending to be Jewish and attending "Messianic Shuls" and that sort of thing. The fact is, if you dress you church up as a synagogue and put a mogen david around the cross, it doesn't make it a synagogue nor does it make you Jewish.

Second, Jews that convert to Christianity are no longer Jewish according to Halacha. They have renounced their Jewish religion, Jewish culture, heritage, and ethnicity. Thus, "Messianic Jew" is an oxymoron.

Finally, there can't be any Messianic Rabbis, because to be a Rabbi you must attend a yeshiva and receive a simicha from another rabbi. There are no messianic groups that are qualified to give simicha as outlined in the Torah.

Every time a Christian brings up "messianic Judaism" in a debate they undermine whatever credibility they had beforehand regarding Judaism.

Muravyets

10-04-2006, 07:15

Mmmm. :D

Also, for effect:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10714983&postcount=233

-
And now for the useful part of my post - i apologize that i'm unable to be more attentive to this thread. I'm on vacation. But it is as tantalizing and amusing as i would hope.
Get to work, you slacker! We don't do this just to amuse you, you know. Vacation, indeed!

(Wouldn't it be funny if we did, though? If all this hasserei between me and Bruarong and between Dubyagoat and Tropical Sands was just a ruse because we didn't want you to spend your vacation not staring at a computer screen?) :D

The Rafe System

10-04-2006, 07:25

Saluton,

Personally, PERSONALLY...

looking at it from a point of view of evidence, i.e. witch hunts in salem, mass, usa, and passeges of something to the effect of "kill the heathens";

it would make sense that christanity got its roots from many religions before it. never mind where it is in the time lines of when religions around the world started.

however, rather then be caught in the greatest plagerism of all recorded history, it was/is easier to wipe out other religions via crusades, conversions, imported disease, ad infinitum.

NOTICE:
dont bug me, i have christian friends, so if you take this as a personal affront, dont. im not saying im right, and/or my viewpoint wtfpwns you, its simply how ..I.. see things, but that viewpoint obviously is ..NOT.. concrete.

Rafe

*snip*

Pagan: a person who follows a polytheistic or pre-Christian religion (not a Christian or Muslim or Jew)

EDIT:
For these purposes we can also include non-Jewish monotheistic religions, such as Zoroastrianism. The Zoroastrian influence on Christianity was huge, and I would hate to leave that out. Essentially any non-Jewish religious influence works.

DubyaGoat

10-04-2006, 17:16

Instead of actually building an argument, you seem to have just posted these links. One of them is actually a link to buy a book, and provides no information. That was cute.

*snip*

I believe we are at an impasse in regards to this issue. You only accept evidence which agrees with the Jewish Encyclopedia, and dismiss all other sources of evidences, including works actually from the first century (Jewish, Qumran/Essene, Christian, Josephus, Roman etc., it makes no difference to you, if they dispute your position then you dismiss their evidence as being ‘flawed’ in one way or another) and I will not accept the Jewish Encyclopedia’s evidence that clearly goes against the archaeological record and other first century sources as I consider it a form of rebuttal written after the fact. As such, we are at a deadlock, I think I am right, and you think you are right.

To clarify, you didn't "cite the description of the work." A citation includes the source. You simply posted it up, as if it were your own.

I cited the description of the NT books, I did not quote an opinion nor a work nor an interpretation. Neither do I cite the dictionary every time I use a word, nor do I cite my entire academic history each time I state my opinion on a matter. In as much as the “if someone asks where did you get those dates,” or “where did you read that NT book” etc., the source is commonly available on this forum and indeed in this very thread.

The Trinity doctrine didn't exist yet. It wouldn't exist for near 300 years, when it was invented at the Council of Constantinople. Even after the Bianity doctrine was created some 50 years earlier, at the Council of Nicea. To claim that a document is about a doctrine that wouldn't exist for a few hundred years is poor, emic exegesis.

You are clearly mistaken in your belief. The Trinity was not only the common interpretation at that time, it was the prevalent opinion already (thats why it won the elections at the councils). MOST of the Christian churches (denominations if you will) were trinity believing churches from the late first century and early second century period, as the archaeological record has shown to us. Your misconception that the council (s) somehow ‘invented’ a new thought is not accurate. Although some fictional books like the Da Vinci Code, or some European traditions from a thousand years later will agree with you, the councils only formalized the beliefs of the vast majority of their time. The elections were not close, there was sparsely any contention at all as a matter of fact, hundreds were invited and less than a dozen objected and by the end of it ALL of them agreed to the documents. Far, Far easier than the compilation of any other document of it size in history that was done via elections (compare it to constitutional writings for example, by comparison the councils had unanimous consent).

The trinity teachings and the divinity of Christ were the prevalent beliefs of Christians long before any of them were asked to vote in any elections…

I can do better than that, I can give you references to early Christians who used Paul's writings and did not interpret them to be about a divine Jesus. The most notable would be Marcion - the first "heretic" Christian to ever canonize Christian writings. He lived in the second century CE. He also created a NT canon that consited exclusively of Paul's epistles and the gospel of Luke. Even to this day some Marcionites exist and do not believe in a divine Jesus.

You should be more careful in your citation of historical people. Mercion is considered a heretic NOT because he didn’t recognize the divinity of Christ in Pauline letters, rather, he ONLY believed in the divine through of the Pauline Christ. He dismissed ALL other forms of recognizing divinity. He thought the Old Testament was NOT connected to the God of Mercy and Grace that was Jesus, but that all other traditions had to be forgotten and ONLY Pauline Mercy and Grace Jesus was the divine. In other words; he wanted to remove the “Father” from the trinity, he didn’t want to remove the “Son.”

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/marcion/Harnack.html

Why would the author of this Psalm need to be known to Abraham? You seem to be working backwards here. The author of this Psalm knew about Melchezidek from the Torah, not the other way around. Thus, when writing about David the author compared David to Melchezidek.

The author of the psalm was aware of and utilized the Aaronic priests, why then would he reference a pre-history priest IF the pre-history priest was not a higher rank and memorable for some feature? Because the ancient priest WAS memorable of being the first priest, for being the God appointed priest, not the manmade priest of Aaronic fashion. The psalm writer says that the Melchezidek priest is the one that sits next to God.

And you seem to be making stuff up again. How do you draw a conclusion from this that the services of non-Aaronic priests were in use?

I said they cannot be used by David. I said that the non-Aaronic priest WAS used by Abraham though and David would have thought of THAT as being a sign he was a divine priest to be worthy of being a priest for his forefather.

Furthermore, there is no getting around the fact that the Psalm actually states that it is about David. I cited where it does in a previous post. As much as you can try to reason away why it can't be about David, there is no getting around the fact that the Psalm actually says that it is a Psalm about David - mizmor David.

As to the psalm speaking of it being of David, motif means something along the lines of: “A Psalm of David, the servant of the Lord, who spake unto the Lord the words of this song in the day that the Lord delivered him from his enemies, etc., etc., etc.” The same as it’s meaning in the other psalms of David.

Well yeah, if I started a cult I would put in disclaimers in my text too to help new members refute opposition. Of course the NT has polemics against Jews - Christians had to defend their doctrine against Jews because it doesn't have harmony with Judaism and Jewish scriptures.

Just like the Book of Mormon has something to say about the NT and other earlier Christian groups.

I’ll quote YOU for an answer to this…

Well no, it was still a red herring. You see, fallacies are facts of logic. It may have even been true, and had a point to it. However, since it was an off-topic statement used to detract from the issue, it becomes a red herring. If the gospels are under heat, saying "But the Torah, but the Koran, but the BoM, etc." are all examples of red herrings.

And yet you went against your own advice and brought in the Book of Later Day Saints? Amusing

Grave_n_idle

11-04-2006, 11:56

You’re definitely allowed to dissent from a personal belief point of view, but do you have any peer reviewed evidences or published theories to support your belief?

(Actually though, I'm tending to agreeing with you. I wouldn't have normally used such a strong term, but I stole it from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ and decided if it was good enough for them, I'd stick with it as well ;) )

I have no doubt I could actually find 'peer reviewed evidence' if I went looking for it... the whole 'Paul' issue is pretty contentious in some theological circles.

But - I don't feel the need for peer-reviewed evidence when we have a 'source' that is not only OPEN to everyone, but also that claims to educate personally. I've read the scripture, quite thoroughly, and I find no evidence in there, to vouch for Paul being a literal, real person... much less, for his having written any of the New Testament texts.

And, I've searched for confirmations of the existence of ANY of the New Testament characters, written by contemporaries, of independent origins... and there is nothing.

So - internally and externally, there is no way to 'prove' Paul wrote any texts. I don't NEED 'peer reviewed evidences' to help me doubt.

Tropical Sands

11-04-2006, 13:44

I believe we are at an impasse in regards to this issue. You only accept evidence which agrees with the Jewish Encyclopedia, and dismiss all other sources of evidences, including works actually from the first century (Jewish, Qumran/Essene, Christian, Josephus, Roman etc., it makes no difference to you, if they dispute your position then you dismiss their evidence as being ‘flawed’ in one way or another) and I will not accept the Jewish Encyclopedia’s evidence that clearly goes against the archaeological record and other first century sources as I consider it a form of rebuttal written after the fact. As such, we are at a deadlock, I think I am right, and you think you are right.

I never dismissed any works from the first century. Quite the contrary, I cited numerous works from the first century (like the pre-Christain mishnah, Josephus, etc). It was in fact the book review that you posted on a link that admitted that there weren't any actual sources or remnents of archaeological evidence that support their claims. Rather, the entire argument was created due to an absence of evidence.

You've yet to present any of this archaeological evidence you claim exists, either. In fact, I would be shocked if you could, consdering that the link to the book reviews you posted earlier admitted that there was none at all!

We can recap if you like:

In the book review, Paula Fredriksen states, "[Josephus' two books] are two of our prime sources for the history of this period. And Josephus gives a kind of catalog for what the major groups are within first century Judaism.... He talks about the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes. He also mentions another group, [for whom] my label is Insurrectionists. That's not his term for it, but he attributes to this group of people the rebelliousness and weariness with Rome that ultimately led to the Great War against Rome in 66 to 70, eventuating in the destruction of the Temple."

So, Paula admits that Josephus records only the groups of Jews that I mentioned. Now, read carefully what she actually states, because it refutes your claim that there is "archeological evidence."

Paula continues, "But there were millions of Jews in antiquity, which means that most people belonged to none of these groups. Who were these people? What did they think? We don't know because we only have the evidence for the groups that have articulated ideologies."

It seems like the links you posted as evidence admit that there is no evidence for their claims. Like I stated in the last post, the belief that there was some body of Jews en masse who were not members of one of the sects I mentioned has no evidence whatsoever. Just like Paula admits - there is only evidence for the sects I mentioned.

Since you mentioned peer-reviewed works in a previous post, I thought I would point something out to you. All of the articles in the JE are in fact peer-reviewed. However, the book reviews (and even the book) you tried to present to me are not. I have yet to see a single work of "scholarship" from your corner.

I cited the description of the NT books, I did not quote an opinion nor a work nor an interpretation. Neither do I cite the dictionary every time I use a word, nor do I cite my entire academic history each time I state my opinion on a matter. In as much as the “if someone asks where did you get those dates,” or “where did you read that NT book” etc., the source is commonly available on this forum and indeed in this very thread.

You cut and pasted full paragraphs from copyrighted websites onto these forums without citing the source. Thats plagarism, by definition. A source being "commonly available" doesn't change the fact that it is copyrighted and the work of someone else.

You are clearly mistaken in your belief. The Trinity was not only the common interpretation at that time, it was the prevalent opinion already (thats why it won the elections at the councils). MOST of the Christian churches (denominations if you will) were trinity believing churches from the late first century and early second century period, as the archaeological record has shown to us. Your misconception that the council (s) somehow ‘invented’ a new thought is not accurate. Although some fictional books like the Da Vinci Code, or some European traditions from a thousand years later will agree with you, the councils only formalized the beliefs of the vast majority of their time. The elections were not close, there was sparsely any contention at all as a matter of fact, hundreds were invited and less than a dozen objected and by the end of it ALL of them agreed to the documents. Far, Far easier than the compilation of any other document of it size in history that was done via elections (compare it to constitutional writings for example, by comparison the councils had unanimous consent).

You've yet to provide a shred of evidence that the Trinity doctrine existed when you claimed it did. The most you have done is quote the Didache and give your personal interpretation of it. Unless you can present something from the "archeological record" that you claim exists, you're just making an unsubstantiated claim.

The fact is, there is no evidence for what you're claiming. I'm calling the Christian bluff, and I've yet to have any real evidence presented except subjective, emic Christian interpretation of Scripture.

Ironically, for your claim that the canon was unanimously formed, the pinnacle of Christian scholarship today seems to have other ideas. Jaroslav Pelikan (Yale Divinity) might dispute that the books in the NT were frequently being accepted or that there was no contention or dispute. Rather, he states that the dispute existed even after canonization. I just had to pull out more old required reading - "Whose Bible is it?" - to validate that:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews belongs int his category. It seems to have been acccepted in the Eastern section of the church but disputed in the West, for it does not appear in the Muratorian canon and is also questioned by other writers. The Epistle of James was in doubt among even more writers. Although 1 Peter is almost universally acknowledged, it is not listed in the preceeding paragraph because of its absence from the Muratorian catalog. Second Peter, on the other hand, was questioned by many early Christian writers who accepted I Peter. The Epistle of Jude appears in the Muratorian canon but was rejected elsewhere. Second John and 3 John sometimes were included with I John as one book, but they did not receive the universal support that it did. The Book of Revelation probably was the objective of more antagonism than of the other books eventually canonized."

In fact, he goes on to discuss how it was even disputed after it was canonized:

"The scholars and theologians of Antioch in general accepted only three Catholic Epistles - James, 1 Peter, and 1 John - while one of its most illustrious representatives, Theodore of Mopsuetia, rejected the whole of this section of the canon. The West followed the lead of Athanasius."

Nothing about "unanimous consent" here. It seems that Bishops involved in the canonization process didn't even agree upon or accept all of the canon after it was formed.

Now, if you're referring to Jesus' divinity "winning the elections" at the councils, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. The Council of Nicea, when the Bianity doctrine was created (the divinity of Jesus), was developed to combat Arianism. It was nothing but a huge debate between Arius and Athanasius, the latter of whom excommunicated the majority of the Bishops there (Eusebius is one of the more noted ones) because they would not adhere to the divinity of Jesus and chose Arianism. Not only was it less than unanimous, Arianism was such a threat to the Roman church that they were forced to codify extreme doctrines like the Bianity to combat it.

Now, before you try to say that Arius believed Jesus was God like you did with Marcion, I'll go ahead and post it from the New Advent again:

"Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity."

And since we all know its more difficult to make it through Yeshiva than Seminary, lets see what Michael Levy says on the subject:

"At the Council of Nicea (325 CE), the doctrine of the Bianity became canonized, equating Jesus to the substance of G-d in Christian theology. The Council of Constantinople in 381 CE added the Holy Spirit to the Bianity and the Trinity was canonized."

You should be more careful in your citation of historical people. Mercion is considered a heretic NOT because he didn’t recognize the divinity of Christ in Pauline letters, rather, he ONLY believed in the divine through of the Pauline Christ. He dismissed ALL other forms of recognizing divinity. He thought the Old Testament was NOT connected to the God of Mercy and Grace that was Jesus, but that all other traditions had to be forgotten and ONLY Pauline Mercy and Grace Jesus was the divine. In other words; he wanted to remove the “Father” from the trinity, he didn’t want to remove the “Son.”

To begin, you've yet to demonstrate that the Trinity doctrine even existed at this time period. Claiming that Marcion's version of the "son" was anything simliar to the later Trinity doctrine is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Marcion was called a heretic for a number of reasons. The fact is, he recognized Jesus as doceitsts did and not that Jesus was God. The New Advent Catholic Enyclopedia on this issue states, "He recognizes another god, who, because he is essentially greater (than the World maker or Demiurge) has done greater deeds than he (hos onta meizona ta meizona para touton pepikeni) The supreme God is hagathos, just and righteous" and that to Marcion Jesus was "not God incarnate."

Making me happy I never resold them, I'll whip out some more old required reading to demonstrate my point; L. White's "From Jesus to Christianity." You should remember this name, because he was on that list of book reviews you posted. He stated that Marcion regarded Jesus as, "an entirely spiritual being who had inhabited a human body temporarily" and that he "seems to have radicalized it in a way similiar to that some some Gnostics." (409)

What you have to keep in mind is that, like I stated in a previous post, this is when we see what is called "minor divinity" first popping up. Jesus is put on par with pagan deities and the Gnostic philosophies that we are spiritual beings trapped in human bodies. The Bianity doctrine of Nicea doesn't exist yet, nor does the Trinity doctrine of Constantinople. Jesus is yet to be equated with the God of Abraham.

The author of the psalm was aware of and utilized the Aaronic priests, why then would he reference a pre-history priest IF the pre-history priest was not a higher rank and memorable for some feature? Because the ancient priest WAS memorable of being the first priest, for being the God appointed priest, not the manmade priest of Aaronic fashion. The psalm writer says that the Melchezidek priest is the one that sits next to God.

There is no reason to assume that the reference to Melchezidek was due to a higher rank. In fact, it could be that Melchezidek was of a lower rank than the Aaronic priesthood, and that is why David (a non-Levite) was compared to Melchezidek rather than Aaron.

I would also keep in mind that according to the Torah, God instated the Aaronic priesthood. It was one of the 613 mitzvot that God gave to Moses. To call it "manmade" in contrast with Melchezidek just demonstrates a lack of understanding about Levitical law. Do remember that the Torah also states that the High Priest comes into the literal presence of God as well. The Psalmist saying that David sits at the right hand of God isn't that surprising, if you're familiar with Jewish culture and literature.

I said they cannot be used by David. I said that the non-Aaronic priest WAS used by Abraham though and David would have thought of THAT as being a sign he was a divine priest to be worthy of being a priest for his forefather.

What makes you think you know what David would have thought? Christian interpretation of Jewish scripture again? Great.

Historically, culturally, and in the Torah there is no such thing as a "divine priest." Such a thing has never existed in Judaism, and thus there is no reason to assume that a Jew like David would have believed in such a thing. Once again, you're giving a Christian interpretation of a Jewish figure.

As to the psalm speaking of it being of David, motif means something along the lines of: “A Psalm of David, the servant of the Lord, who spake unto the Lord the words of this song in the day that the Lord delivered him from his enemies, etc., etc., etc.” The same as it’s meaning in the other psalms of David.

It doesn't say "A Psalm of David, etc." It simply states mizmor david, a Psalm about David. You're going to tell a Jew, who reads Hebrew, what Jewish scriptures say when you're reading a Christain Bible in English. Please.

The fact is, it isn't the same in its meaning as other Psalms. In English, it may seem ambiguous, but if you actually read them then it would be more clear. While one states mizmor david, the other states shir mizmor david. Thus, we can tell a Psalm written by David and a Psalm written about David apart. Like I stated before, this Psalm is written about David.

I'm sure you've heard that you have to "read in context" before. Context includes many factors - language, history, culture, etc. Unless you're reading Jewish scriptures as a Jew would, then you're reading out of context. Aside from the fact that it states its about David in the language it was originally written in, the historical context tells us that it was about David as well, as that is the way the tradition regarding this Jewish Psalm has been kept by Jews. You simply can't understand something outside of its context.

I’ll quote YOU for an answer to this…

Well no, it was still a red herring. You see, fallacies are facts of logic. It may have even been true, and had a point to it. However, since it was an off-topic statement used to detract from the issue, it becomes a red herring. If the gospels are under heat, saying "But the Torah, but the Koran, but the BoM, etc." are all examples of red herrings.

And yet you went against your own advice and brought in the Book of Later Day Saints? Amusing

What part of "all examples of red herrings" was unclear? Am I the only one on this thread that caught the absurdity of this paragraph?

Nomadic Mercanaries

11-04-2006, 13:47

Paganism predates christianity by ages and created many influences into the stories. Polygamy much?

ps- this is entirely unbiased seeing as i am niether christian nor pagan

Abroad

11-04-2006, 14:24

I wasn't sure if I should call this thread 'pagan influences in Christianity' or 'pagan origins of Christianity' because there are just so many. This has been a subject I've been interested in for a long time, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were.

To me, it seems as if there is very little that is original in the gospels. The Jesus story - plot, events, and even exact words - seems to be borrowed from contemporary and previous pagan religions in the Galilee area. Early Christians seem to have noticed it as well. Many of the Church Fathers wrote extensively trying to explain away the similiarities and influencecs, even going so far as to say that the devil did it.

So, I've set up a little poll. In addition to this, I'd like to hear from everyone:

1. If you think there are pagan influences, which ones effected Christianity the most and why.
2. If you don't believe there are any pagan influences, explain the similarities between the Jesus story and the host of pagan myths that were contemporary or earlier.

A couple of days ago I posted in response to the second alternative quoting from this page:

http://www.ldolphin.org/zodiac/

(For the relevant part: Scroll down to "HOW GOD PREACHED THE GOSPEL TO ABRAHAM - by Barry Setterfield")

Since it got no response what so ever (And I've not seen any other attempt to explain it from a christian point of view.), I felt i had to post it again.

Laugh at it, call me an idiot. At least read it.

Bruarong

11-04-2006, 16:40

Yes, that is precisely your problem. Now that you have been given information to work with, and which shows your remarks to be wrong, what excuse do you have for not retracting the statements I have asked you to retract?

Perhaps because your arguments have not been persuasive enough for me to think that my impressions of animism have been wrong.

[2] Even if the websites and books are also written by people who "have been there and seen things with their own eyes"? Are you under the impression that anthropologists write their books based on tv shows? How do you think the WHO compiles its data on public health issues? Through pure supposition? Or from experts in the field, working in country, with people?

I'm sure that you are aware that having a title in front of your name does not make you right. I have one in front of my name, for example. Furthermore, these websites and books that you refer to do not seem to contrast and compare religions. So they tend not to tell us whether animism harms or helps the people, which tends to be the point of our conversation. Thus one can reference the WHO or a university web page on animism to one's hearts content, but find nothing on there that says animism is harmful or helpful for the people. That doesn't mean that animism isn't harmful, nor that it is helpful. Neither will it tells us whether the sufferings of the people are due to ignorance and poverty or animism. Thus, the sites that are most useful to our debate are those sites that tend to compare animism with other beliefs systems, and comments on the effects of those beliefs. These sort of websites are likely to be found only from biased sources, which doesn't really help us with objectivity.

Are you now backing away from your week's worth of effort to paint animistic cultures as oppressive and fear-ridden? Are you backing away from your own source at Gospel Outreach that claimed that animism forces an oppressive atmosphere of "spirit bondage," and a legacy of alcholism and suicide on Native Americans?

Not necessarily. Just recently, a friend of mine was reading out little debate here and told me about a book that he was reading about this very topic. For your interest, I post a link, and a comment from the book review.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0964695235/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/002-9506943-6666459?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
''I am called Shoefoot. With my brother-in-Law and Mark I worked on this book. It is truth not lies. While we were suffering terribly the Supreme Being sent his people to us. We learned of His love. Because of His love, we now love. We live in peace. We no longer are shooting each other. We are no longer stealing women. We are alive. We have many children. They are alive. You (who say, "leave them alone") don't know anything about the Yanomamï¿½. You have never come here.
Although we are dying out, "that's OK" you say. Without seeing us, don't be lying about our condition. You are living well, so don't just want that for yourself, and try to keep us suffering. Stop lying. That is showing your contempt for our suffering. You have no idea how we lived. If you could come to my jungle I would really discuss this with you, but you are far away. I believe if you could really see how my people suffer you would not talk like this. So don't live your good life far away and talk about something you know nothing about. Just stay quite over there. Although you are far away, don't try to make us angry, and if you ever do come to my land, don't talk like this, because if the Yanomamï¿½ hear you say this, they will fight you. If the ones that are dying out hear you talk like this, they are going to believe you are mocking us and get angry. Just keep your thoughts to yourself. I am a leader in my village. I am one whose life has been changed.''

I would like to hear you say which statements of yours were unnecessary, and then I'd like to hear you explain why you said them and why you will not retract them.

I would approach this topic from a more Christian view point, perhaps by saying the Christianity has Jesus saying that 'I am the way, no one comes to the Father except through me.' In this statement, then, any other belief system that claims to have another way other than Jesus is simply misleading, and a misleading belief cannot but harm those who believe it. Thus animists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, and even Christians who believe the way to God does not lie through Jesus are simply being harmed by their belief, in one way or another.
However, to claim that things like poor health and ignorance and fear are the result of animism (although that is not exaclty how I began, but that is how you took it) is unecessary, and while they may or may not be true, I personally do not have good evidence to support it.

Thank you. It was a pro forma politeness-apology to the thread in general. I take as much space as I need to make my points, even if sometimes others get annoyed. So, just for the record, does this mean you no longer think of me as too upset and emotional to debate with? Because vehement expressiveness backed up by extensive quotes and research is my style. It's what I bring to the table.

Well, I wouldn't call your style mild. And, yes, I am getting used to it. I still think that one can be vehemnt without being insulting, whereas your vehmenance tends to result in either insults or threats. I think you have improved, but would encourage you to keep improving. It would only help your cause.

[1] You're basing accusations against a religion on the personal (i.e. biased) accounts of individuals who suffered as prisoners of war but who were not themselves Shintoists nor were they experts on the Shinto religion. They have absolutely no knowledge as to why the Japanese chose to be so cruel.

But you yourself said that something like 80% of the Japanese were Shinto. Are you suggesting that the other 20% were the source of the infamous cruelty of the Japanese soldiers?

[2] Here you do it again, based on one man's memoire -- this man was a prisoner of war, not an observer of the Shinto religion or of Japanese culture. And yes, we've all seen "A Bridge Too Far" and we all know about the Batan Death March and other well documented atrocities committed by the Japanese armed forces during WW2. Nothing in any of these accounts draws a connection between these crimes and the Shinto religion.

Well, not blatantly, perhaps, but put together with your assertions about Shinto in Japanese culture, it does raise questions in my mind, ones in which you either cannot answer or will not. Perhaps you might like to answer a simple question. Where does evil come from? (either in the Nazi cause or the Christian crusades or the Japanese imperialism or any other obvious source) What does your world view have to say about evil?

[3] I am not responsible for nor do I necessarily agree with anything anyone says about themselves. Every religion on the planet claims that it is "peaceful." It is my personal opinion that every religion on the planet is equally susceptible to corruption and un-peaceful extremism. But NO religion is inherently more prone to it than any other. Your negative claims agains animism are not only totally unsupported, they are unsupportable.

Some religions more than others, perhaps? Would that be why Islam has more terrorists than any other religion?

[4] "some sort of evil"? Now the brand of evil matters? If it's animist evil, that makes it more evil than monotheist evil? This remark of yours is just staggering.

Evil is evil, regardless of where it is found, obviously. The telling point is where evil occurs either because of one's beliefs, or in spite of it. Since your claim that the Japanese imperialism occurred in spite of the belief of Shinto, then you are essentially saying that Shinto had nothing to do with the evil that came out of Japanese imperialism.

[5] And finally, here you are, once again, hoping to make me try to prove a negative, try to prove animism's innocence of your charges. As I said, it's your accusation -- you prove it. Only you can't because there is no proof.

Proof is out of the question in this point, since neither of us are in a position to prove our point of view. We must resort to reasonable arguments.

The bottom line here is that what YOU cannot do is demonstrate how the behaviour of the Japanese soldiers had ANYTHING to do with Shinto.

I suppose I cannot demonstrate it. But in my mind it does remain a possibility, partially because you cannot provide a good reason against it.

I didn't want to talk about animism at all. The topic of this thread is Pagan Influences on Christianity, not Let's Debate about Animism. You made statements purporting to be fact, you were challenged on their veracity, you failed to prove them but you refused to back down and instead defended and expanded them. You continue to do this in this very post. If this argument is making you unhappy or uncomfortable, you have no one to blame but yourself for continuing it.

Since when have I ever said that my point of view was fact? I simply presented a point of view that you happen not to like. It was initially based on my reaction to the idea that Christianity had pagan influences. I was saying that I believe that Christianity does have pagan influences, not that that makes Christianity a bunch of myths, but that it points to truth within pagan mythology, truth that comes from the 'forgotten memories of the creator God'. And then I said that paganism (e.g. animism in 'stoneage' cultures) contains falsehood in addition to truth, and that this falsehood was contributing to human suffering. I didn't use those words, but that has been my point of view comming into this debate. You took offense at my suggestion that people suffered from animism, which lead to your challenge, and here we are debating this very point.

Not that far from the original topic, really. Because if I concede to you that animism does not harm people, then I am really saying that it contains no falsehood (since falsehood will always cause harm, sooner or later), and in that case, we don't really need Christianity, or at least the Christianity that takes the writings of Jesus seriously (the version that I like). Jesus, then, did not need to sacrifice his life for us, because what would be the point if there were other ways to God? I cannot concede that point to you without conceding my belief in the value of Jesus' great sacrifice for all humanity.

You, on the other hand, cannot concede your position and admit that animism is a source of harm for people because in doing so it would mean that you might be believing something false. So we are both in positions that are supported by our beliefs, and that is why there will be no change in those positions until one of us compromises with our beliefs. We might as well agree to disagree, and go our ways agreeably. On the other hand, we can continue this debate, since it has obviously been an opportunity to learn (for me anyway).

The universe is filled with rolling eyes and ironic laughter right this very moment. Ask anyone -- I do nothing but express opinions and there are few topics on which I don't have an opinion to express. I think I've expressed my opinion about you and your statements pretty clearly. And no, I do not have a negative view of Christianity at all. I think Christianity is a perfectly decent religion although I personally choose not to follow it. I think its god and its prophet are legitimate enough. As an animist, I will even go as far as to stipulate to the literal truth of their existence if you insist upon it, even though I do not worship them. I do this for the exact same reason that I stipulate to the truth of your existence without feeling a need to worship you -- or any other person, spirit, being, or entity.

I'll bet that you do not accept the claims of Jesus that he is the only way to the Father, since that would tend to exclude your religion as being a way to know the Truth (whatever that is in a non-Christian view point). You don't really except Christianity as truth, at least not my version of Christianity.

Oh, and fyi, when you use examples to illustrate points, you are inherently drawing a similarity between the example and the point being illustrated. So, when you use Nazis and terrorists to illustrate points about animism, you are making a comparison, whether you mean to or not. If you don't want to do that, you have to state so clearly at the time you cite your example. But frankly, I am inclined to disbelieve this disclaimer of yours, based on your misuse of your own sources in order to extract negative words that you could apply to shamans even though they were not about shamans in the original. I believe that was a deliberate choice of yours, and I also believe you chose to use Nazis and terrorists as examples because they resonate with your negative attitude towards animism.

Believe what you will, then, but you can hardly use your suspicion as evidence against my harmless intentions in using such comparisons.

You go and look up the name of one of those religions you've been slandering and post it here as proof of your claims. You have now transformed slander into libel, and adherents to that religion can now hire a lawyer to take action -- against you? Not initially because they don't know who you are. But they could bring their suit against Jolt, or more properly the owners/executives of the company in the UK, as publishers of defamatory lies against their religion. Since they can't find the author, they may as well go after the publisher, unless the publisher decides to give up the author. Do you think Jolt will take the cost of defending itself against a defamation suit rather than give up your ID? You have not committed libel yet, but on the basis of slander alone, Jolt could choose to perma-ban you to protect themselves, if I or someone else were to lodge a complaint (which I am starting to feel tempted to do, btw; it would be the first time I have ever done such a thing).

Firstly, I'm not American, or living in America. Secondly, anything I have said about any religion pales in comparison to what is frequently said against Christianity on NS. Thirdly, I'm ready to defend my comments with reasons and arguments. Fourthly, I'm not at all worried or scared or even bothered by your threat to complain. Feel free to go ahead.

Grave_n_idle

11-04-2006, 17:09

Secondly, anything I have said about any religion pales in comparison to what is frequently said against Christianity on NS...

Mommy, Mommy! They started it Mommy! They did it first! And they are the MEAN boys....

Ashmoria

11-04-2006, 18:28

Muravyets

11-04-2006, 20:24

Perhaps because your arguments have not been persuasive enough for me to think that my impressions of animism have been wrong.
This is because you are so invested in saying these slanders against my religion that you simply choose to ignore any and all facts, statements and opinions that contradict you, including those from your own sources, i.e. Evangelical Christians.

I'm sure that you are aware that having a title in front of your name does not make you right. I have one in front of my name, for example. Furthermore, these websites and books that you refer to do not seem to contrast and compare religions. So they tend not to tell us whether animism harms or helps the people, which tends to be the point of our conversation. Thus one can reference the WHO or a university web page on animism to one's hearts content, but find nothing on there that says animism is harmful or helpful for the people. That doesn't mean that animism isn't harmful, nor that it is helpful. Neither will it tells us whether the sufferings of the people are due to ignorance and poverty or animism. Thus, the sites that are most useful to our debate are those sites that tend to compare animism with other beliefs systems, and comments on the effects of those beliefs. These sort of websites are likely to be found only from biased sources, which doesn't really help us with objectivity.
Again, you are simply rejecting or ignoring information that contradicts you because you are willfully refusing to retract your slanderous statements. There is no other explanation of your current remarks. Did I ever say that animism helps people? No, I said that the charges you made against animism are false, your remarks about animists and shamans are false, that you failed to provide proof of your allegations, and that you falsified your own evidence.

Your insistence that animism is/might be the cause of people's suffering, despite a total lack of any evidence to suggest such a thing, is proof of your bigoted prejudice against it. Your insistence on only referencing biased sources is proof that you are not interested in learning anything, regardless of your personal claims otherwise.

But answer me this one: If you're so convinced by biased opinion sources, why did you falsify your evidence from your own source from missiology.org? That was the only book that was referenced, and it was your reference, not mine. It did not agree with you, and you tried to lie about it. Your lie was exposed.

Not necessarily. Just recently, a friend of mine was reading out little debate here and told me about a book that he was reading about this very topic. For your interest, I post a link, and a comment from the book review.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0964695235/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/002-9506943-6666459?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
''I am called Shoefoot. With my brother-in-Law and Mark I worked on this book. It is truth not lies. While we were suffering terribly the Supreme Being sent his people to us. We learned of His love. Because of His love, we now love. We live in peace. We no longer are shooting each other. We are no longer stealing women. We are alive. We have many children. They are alive. You (who say, "leave them alone") don't know anything about the Yanomamï¿½. You have never come here.
Although we are dying out, "that's OK" you say. Without seeing us, don't be lying about our condition. You are living well, so don't just want that for yourself, and try to keep us suffering. Stop lying. That is showing your contempt for our suffering. You have no idea how we lived. If you could come to my jungle I would really discuss this with you, but you are far away. I believe if you could really see how my people suffer you would not talk like this. So don't live your good life far away and talk about something you know nothing about. Just stay quite over there. Although you are far away, don't try to make us angry, and if you ever do come to my land, don't talk like this, because if the Yanomamï¿½ hear you say this, they will fight you. If the ones that are dying out hear you talk like this, they are going to believe you are mocking us and get angry. Just keep your thoughts to yourself. I am a leader in my village. I am one whose life has been changed.''
And now you are offering an Amazon reader review of a book as evidence of your claims? After you claimed that my UVA site, my WHO reference, and others could have been faked, you offer this? This is ridiculous beyond words. You have zero credibility.

I would approach this topic from a more Christian view point, perhaps by saying the Christianity has Jesus saying that 'I am the way, no one comes to the Father except through me.' In this statement, then, any other belief system that claims to have another way other than Jesus is simply misleading, and a misleading belief cannot but harm those who believe it. Thus animists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, and even Christians who believe the way to God does not lie through Jesus are simply being harmed by their belief, in one way or another.
However, to claim that things like poor health and ignorance and fear are the result of animism (although that is not exaclty how I began, but that is how you took it) is unecessary, and while they may or may not be true, I personally do not have good evidence to support it.
Then retract the specific allegations I listed. In this paragraph you have erased all your own reasons for not doing so.

Well, I wouldn't call your style mild. And, yes, I am getting used to it. I still think that one can be vehemnt without being insulting, whereas your vehmenance tends to result in either insults or threats. I think you have improved, but would encourage you to keep improving. It would only help your cause.
A) I have already stated that I am not threatening you. You are committing slander in this thread, but you have not trespassed into libel yet, and any way, I don't have the resources to bring an action if/when you do. I am merely pointing out the kind of trouble you are opening yourself up to with other people by running your mouth with lies all the time. I have already done more than my conscience demands to talk you out of this self-destructive habit. If you go down in flames someday, I won't blame myself for not having warned you.

B) My vehemence is not what results in insults. It's my conversation with you. But rest assured, I'm not the kind of poster who will just call you a bigot and a liar without proof to back it up. You have given me a library of proof in this thread.

But you yourself said that something like 80% of the Japanese were Shinto. Are you suggesting that the other 20% were the source of the infamous cruelty of the Japanese soldiers?
And now you have given me more proof of your bigotry. Once and yet again, it's your claim -- you prove it.

Well, not blatantly, perhaps, but put together with your assertions about Shinto in Japanese culture, it does raise questions in my mind, ones in which you either cannot answer or will not. Perhaps you might like to answer a simple question. Where does evil come from? (either in the Nazi cause or the Christian crusades or the Japanese imperialism or any other obvious source) What does your world view have to say about evil?
So now you admit that you are merely imposing an anti-animism interpretation on history without evidence to back it up?

What my belief system says about evil is utterly irrelevant to the slanderous nature of your claims against Shinto.

But since you ask. My belief system says that evil is deliberate, malicious harm to others. Because my brand of animism takes a dualistic view of the cosmos, it says that evil is an ever-present option in all choices, and that therefore, beings choose to do either evil or good. Therefore, the ultimate responsibility for evil lies with the individual who chose to do evil. It further says that individuals who choose to do good (i.e. help or not harm others; add to the beauty and pleasure of existence; maintain good relations with their fellows (both physical and spiritual beings)) automatically reduce the amount of evil in the world, by the mere fact of their choice. It will be to their credit if they make the extra, further choice to take specific action to counter other people's evil, especially if it encourages yet more people to choose to do good.

As for those who choose to do evil, they can change the choices they make at any time and become forces for good, but that does not guarantee that those they have harmed in the past will forgive them. They might be forgiven or they might not. Whatever the outcome, they must accept the fair penalty for their actions, even if they do reform themselves for the future. This applies to their spiritual condition just as much as their social condition. All of these rules -- choice, forgiveness, penalties, etc -- apply to spirits and gods just as much as they do to people. Nobody is above their own personal responsibility for the balance of good and evil.

It should be obvious that, in such a belief system, the specific religion any individual professes is irrelevant to the question of whether they are doing good or evil in the world. Therefore -- and especially in the absence of any teaching within Shinto that demands or encourages the evil acts committed by the Japanese forces in WW2 -- you cannot blame Shinto for those actions. They are the fault of the people who did them. Period.

Since you accepted this point the last time I did this, I will again flip this to a Christian example: Do the Crusades, and the Inquisition, and the European witch crazes, and the English Civil War, and the Salem witch trials, and the 17th century massacres of Native Americans by Protestant colonists, and Christians' lack of opposition and even their occasional complicity in the destruction of the Jews, gypsies and others in WW2 Europe, and the current extremist Christian calls for denunciation and even violence against gays prove that Christianity is a violent religion that promotes torture and war? Does the fact that there are many poor, ignorant, fear-ridden, superstitious Christians without access to education and medical care in the world prove that Christianity harms its followers?

I say that all this proves is that any religion can be corrupted and no religion can solve everybody's problems. It is invalid to blame a religion for the crimes of those who fail to follow it, and it is slander to blame anyone or any group for bad acts when you cannot prove it or disprove evidence to the contrary.

Some religions more than others, perhaps? Would that be why Islam has more terrorists than any other religion?
At least this remark satsifies me that I am right about you. I suspected but didn't say earlier that you are just as bigoted against other religions as you are against animism, and this proves it. I'm sure you will give me opportunities to use your lies and slanders recorded here against you in future debates. I look forward to it.

Evil is evil, regardless of where it is found, obviously. The telling point is where evil occurs either because of one's beliefs, or in spite of it. Since your claim that the Japanese imperialism occurred in spite of the belief of Shinto, then you are essentially saying that Shinto had nothing to do with the evil that came out of Japanese imperialism.
You are yet again implying that Nazi evil was an "in spite of" situation while Japanese evil was a "because of" situation, yet you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that about the Japanese.

And yes, that is what I'm saying about Japanese imperialsm viz. Shinto. Japanese imperialism, like all imperialist movements, was about wealth and territorial/political power. If there was no such thing as Shinto, the Japanese would still have invaded Manchuria, and they would still have been just as cruel as they chose to be because that's how war was fought in that region of the world for centuries by people in different countries, from different cultures, following different religions.

Proof is out of the question in this point, since neither of us are in a position to prove our point of view. We must resort to reasonable arguments.
More willful ignorance on your part. I have already proven my points several times over. Further I have shown your claims to be false. For you to deny this at this point is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalala." Do that if it amuses you. You will not un-debunk yourself.

I suppose I cannot demonstrate it. But in my mind it does remain a possibility, partially because you cannot provide a good reason against it.
And yet more willful ignorance. I have provided completely logical arguments and clear reasons against it. You just don't like them because if you accepted them you would be forced to retract your slanderous remarks.

Since when have I ever said that my point of view was fact? I simply presented a point of view that you happen not to like. It was initially based on my reaction to the idea that Christianity had pagan influences. I was saying that I believe that Christianity does have pagan influences, not that that makes Christianity a bunch of myths, but that it points to truth within pagan mythology, truth that comes from the 'forgotten memories of the creator God'. And then I said that paganism (e.g. animism in 'stoneage' cultures) contains falsehood in addition to truth, and that this falsehood was contributing to human suffering. I didn't use those words, but that has been my point of view comming into this debate. You took offense at my suggestion that people suffered from animism, which lead to your challenge, and here we are debating this very point.
That is not at all what you said. You have done nothing but heap insults and charges of specific crimes and abuses on animists and animism. You spent an entire week declaring your stories to be true, in the face of evidence that they are false. You even lied about your own sources to try to bolster your made-up claims. PLUS you completely ignored my question from my apology post in which I asked what truths you could possibly find in religions you feel so negative about, so your claim that this view has been expressed in this debate is, at best, wishful thinking on your part. We are not online mind-readers. We only deal with what you post, and your posts have been slander and defamation from start to finish.

I invite all readers to review the posts of this argument to judge if I am characterizing this accurately:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10692878&postcount=124
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10696116&postcount=144
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10697755&postcount=152
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702884&postcount=155
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10706440&postcount=158
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10707886&postcount=164
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10711482&postcount=169
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10714436&postcount=217
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10722741&postcount=288
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10722883&postcount=294
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10723020&postcount=296

Hint: Your remark that, just because Christianity has pagan influences, that doesn't mean it's nothing but a bunch of myths, is a giveaway about your real attitude towards others' religions.

Not that far from the original topic, really. Because if I concede to you that animism does not harm people, then I am really saying that it contains no falsehood (since falsehood will always cause harm, sooner or later), and in that case, we don't really need Christianity, or at least the Christianity that takes the writings of Jesus seriously (the version that I like). Jesus, then, did not need to sacrifice his life for us, because what would be the point if there were other ways to God? I cannot concede that point to you without conceding my belief in the value of Jesus' great sacrifice for all humanity.

You, on the other hand, cannot concede your position and admit that animism is a source of harm for people because in doing so it would mean that you might be believing something false. So we are both in positions that are supported by our beliefs, and that is why there will be no change in those positions until one of us compromises with our beliefs. We might as well agree to disagree, and go our ways agreeably. On the other hand, we can continue this debate, since it has obviously been an opportunity to learn (for me anyway).
Oh, I see, you think that if my religion is not actually guilty of the crimes and abuses you allege, this will ultimately invalidate your religion? That's some strong faith you got there, B. Sorry, but I decline to allow you to burn my religion on the pyre of your need to convince yourself that you're not just wasting your time believing in Christ.

I'll bet that you do not accept the claims of Jesus that he is the only way to the Father, since that would tend to exclude your religion as being a way to know the Truth (whatever that is in a non-Christian view point). You don't really except Christianity as truth, at least not my version of Christianity.
Huh-duh. If I believed that I'd be a Christian, wouldn't I? Have we peeled back all these layers of your argument just to learn that you are dim? Please, B, really.

Now explain to the class how my not being a Christian in any way contradicts the non-negative attitude towards Christianity that I described.

Believe what you will, then, but you can hardly use your suspicion as evidence against my harmless intentions in using such comparisons.
Then why did you falsify your own evidence from your own source? I bold this because although it is a simple question, it is an important one for those trying to decide whether they can trust what you say to be the truth.

Firstly, I'm not American, or living in America. Secondly, anything I have said about any religion pales in comparison to what is frequently said against Christianity on NS. Thirdly, I'm ready to defend my comments with reasons and arguments. Fourthly, I'm not at all worried or scared or even bothered by your threat to complain. Feel free to go ahead.
I'm not threatening you by saying I may complain. After all, a complaint is only that, and doesn't guarantee any outcome. I only said I was tempted to do it because I don't do that sort of thing behind a person's back. If I decide to do so, I will cc you, as a matter of form.

As for the more serious difficulties you are creating for yourself in the real world by your insistence on slandering and defaming others, slander and defamation are actionable in Europe too. I see that you are located in Germany. I'm sure that your efforts to defame a religion combined with your cavalier Nazi references in doing so would go over real well in a German court. Life will teach you the value of watching what you say. But as far as I'm concerned, you are as free as anyone else to take yourself to hell in the handbasket of your choice. I've told you why you should retract these statements. If you refuse to do so, then they will stay on the record here and be fair game to use against you in future.

Thanks for the ammo.

Muravyets

11-04-2006, 20:45

Tropical Sands

12-04-2006, 01:39

A couple of days ago I posted in response to the second alternative quoting from this page:

http://www.ldolphin.org/zodiac/

(For the relevant part: Scroll down to "HOW GOD PREACHED THE GOSPEL TO ABRAHAM - by Barry Setterfield")

Since it got no response what so ever (And I've not seen any other attempt to explain it from a christian point of view.), I felt i had to post it again.

Laugh at it, call me an idiot. At least read it.

It seems like this article would support the non-Christian position, i.e. that there are pagan influences in Christianity, than the Christian position. Right off the bat we see this:

"The sun (a type of Christ) rules the day on earth, and the moon (type of the church) rules the night (of Christ's visible absence from among us)."

The sun has long been associated with pagan christs, like Mithras and Apollo. It isn't shocking to see Christian mysticism or astrology that continues this tradition of pagan borrowing.

And here is another little gem:

"The ancients must have known this, or the magi would never have recognized the sign in the stars indicating the birth of Christ."

Magi was a Persian word for Zoroastrian priests. Its amazing that this story made it into the gospels. This is because the story of three Magi visiting the baby Zoroaster, who was born of a virgin, occurs in the earlier Avestas. They also follow a star, and bring gold, frakencense, and myrrh. The story in the gospels is copied almost exactly from the Zoroastrian Avestas. The avestas are also rich with astrology.

I've also managed to identify a few fallacies in this article:

"Psalm 147:4: "He tells the number of the stars; he calls them all by their names." if God gave them their names, surely this is added evidence that they were named not just for identification but so that He may set out His plan of salvation for fallen mankind.""

This would be a an example of a fallacy of relevance, specifically missing the point or irrelevant conclusion. If the Psalm is the premise, then the conclusion drawn doesn't really follow from the Psalm. A poem about God naming the stars does not infer in any way whatsoever that they were set out so that God could enact some form of Christian salvation.

"But the existence of powerful counterfeits in the world strongly suggests that there exists a real body of truth that was lost, or corrupted by the god of this world."

This is another example of the same fallacy. The existence of astrology (which the author refers to as "powerful counterfeits") does not imply that there was a real body of truth that was lost, even if we assume that astrology is the work of demons as the author claims. You simply can't infer from this, logically, the conclusion that is drawn.

"Paul's comment in Galatians implies that just as Abraham believed the Gospel by faith when it was preached to him by God, so, in a similar way, the Gentiles will be justified by faith in the same Gospel. The question is, "How did God preach the Gospel to Abraham, and what was that Gospel?""

This is an example of the false cause fallacy. Nowhere in the story of Abraham does it state that God preached any Christian gospel to Abraham. Rather, the Christians (like Paul, and we can find many fallacies in his epistles) went back and claimed that their later religious beliefs were the cause of these earlier events. Of course, the author shouldn't be blamed for committing this fallacy, only endorsing it. The source of this fallacy in this instance is Galatians.

"A brief glance at Genesis 15:5 shows that the stars were intimately involved in this process, while Galatians 3:16 implies it was not the number of stars but the story they told that was important. So star names seem to be involved in this process. Let us look more deeply into this."

Here is another example of a fallacy of relevance. Both premises are irrelevant to one another, and to the conclusion. Genesis 15:5 only states that Abraham's descendants would be as numerous as the stars, Galatians 3:16 even reinforces this, stating that it is about Abraham's offspring and nothing aboutu stars. And nowhere does it say anything about star names like the conclusion asserts.

"The next verse goes on to describe the SUN as the Heavenly Bridegroom, who comes forth to run his race and returns to his place of origin. But in the Bible, John the baptiser speaks of Christ (Messiah) as coming down from heaven, and calls Him the "Bridegroom" (John 3:25-31).
It is therefore apparent from Psalm 19 and the other passages that the Sun represents Christ, the heavenly Bridegroom."

This is an example of the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Because the Psalm, a poem, uses a metaphor to describe the sun and then later a gospel author uses a similiar metaphor to be about Jesus, it does not logically imply that the Psalm was actually about Jesus or that the sun was put in the sky to be an astrological message of Jesus.

I'm sure if we all looked really hard, we could find four or five more throughout the article. I'd rather save the time to point out some plain old inaccuracies in this article as well:

To begin, Paul was not a "rabbi" as the author asserted. In fact, since he converted to another religion, he was not even a Jew anymore under Jewish Law. It would be like a Christian priest converting to Islam, preaching about Muhammad, and people still calling him a priest. Of course, nowhere does it actually state that Paul was a rabbi, nor does it state that he received the simicha necssary to be one.

The author states, "Well, if you have a marginal reference, you find that Paul is quoting directly from Psalm 19:4 where the stars are being spoken of."

Psalm 19:4 doesn't say anything about stars. It simply refers to the hosts in heaven, i.e. seraphim, melekim, or angels.

The author also states, "Behind the worship of sun, moon and stars are the demonic powers of the heavenly realm (1Cor. 10:20)."

Nowhere in 1Cor. 10:20 does it state that there are demonic powers of the heavenly realm behind the sun, moon, and stars. It actually states that if you sacrifice to idols, then you sacrifice to demons. Nowhere does it mention any heavenly bodies.

The author referencecs Hebrews 2:5 as saying, "Angels, fallen and unfallen, are God's instruments in the government of the physical world and nature"

Hebrews 2:5 only states, "It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking." Nowhere does it state anything even remotely similiar to what the author claimed - that fallen or unfallen angels are God's insturments in the government of the physical world.

"The answer is given in Isaiah 40:26. when He "Brought out the (starry) host by number, He called them all by their names", that is at the Creation event."

Once again, hosts here doesnt refer to stars, but to angels. In fact, it doesn't say "starry" host anywhere - that is the author's insertion, and should actually be in brakcets [] rather than parnetheseis (). It simply states yatsa t'saba, bringing out the hosts.

"He said: "So shall your seed be." Does this mean that Abraham was to have many children? We have Rabbi Paul's exegesis of the original Hebrew on this."

Paul was from Tarsus. In Tarsus, the large Jewish communtiy spoke Greek, not Hebrew. They used a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint. Paul's epistles quote the Greek translaton rather than any Hebrew texts. There is no evidence whatsoever of (quite the contrary, all of the evidence points against) Paul knowing a lick of Hebrew. What Paul practiced is better called eisegesis (since it was subjective Chrsitian interpretation and not used to glean the author's original intent) rather than exegesis, as well.

To sum it all up, although this article was well written, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Scriptures as well as a real lack of coherency. Conclusions are drawn with no support from the premises, and based on the author's own interpretation. Fallacies are rife. Misqoting scripture, interpreting it improperly, and even adding stuff that isn't there is common.

Muravyets

12-04-2006, 03:16

It seems like this article would support the non-Christian position, i.e. that there are pagan influences in Christianity, than the Christian position. Right off the bat we see this:

"The sun (a type of Christ) rules the day on earth, and the moon (type of the church) rules the night (of Christ's visible absence from among us)."

The sun has long been associated with pagan christs, like Mithras and Apollo. It isn't shocking to see Christian mysticism or astrology that continues this tradition of pagan borrowing.

<snip for length>
Very good critique.

I read the article only superficially and then asked the poster to tell us how it connects to this debate because I saw four immediate problems with it, but I wanted to know where he wanted to take it before getting into it. You mentioned two of the obvious problems:

1. The pagan parallels can be used much more plausibly to support Christian borrowings from pagan traditions rather than an argument that pagan traditions were some misguided or mis-inspired precursor to Christianity.

2. The author's bias, and his apparent intent to try to prove that the whole universe has been trending towards Christ forever, cause him to jump quite far to his conclusions. The good part of his cited references is that, if we want to test it, we can look at those sources and see just how far he jumped. But his logical flaws are still there.

In addition to those, there is

3. It's about astrology. Does this author realize how many different kinds of astrological systems were in use in the ancient world and how many different systems have been used -- and restyled, recalculated, had meanings of stars and alignments altered -- over the years since then? Astrology is for fortunetelling -- it's entirely made up, and has been infested with charlatans since its invention. He might as well have analyzed Biblical prophecy in the context of the history of bingo.

I'm hoping there is something very specific the poster was hoping we would pull out of those articles to add to this debate.

Grave_n_idle

12-04-2006, 04:09

Very good critique.

I read the article only superficially and then asked the poster to tell us how it connects to this debate because I saw four immediate problems with it, but I wanted to know where he wanted to take it before getting into it. You mentioned two of the obvious problems:

1. The pagan parallels can be used much more plausibly to support Christian borrowings from pagan traditions rather than an argument that pagan traditions were some misguided or mis-inspired precursor to Christianity.

2. The author's bias, and his apparent intent to try to prove that the whole universe has been trending towards Christ forever, cause him to jump quite far to his conclusions. The good part of his cited references is that, if we want to test it, we can look at those sources and see just how far he jumped. But his logical flaws are still there.

In addition to those, there is

3. It's about astrology. Does this author realize how many different kinds of astrological systems were in use in the ancient world and how many different systems have been used -- and restyled, recalculated, had meanings of stars and alignments altered -- over the years since then? Astrology is for fortunetelling -- it's entirely made up, and has been infested with charlatans since its invention. He might as well have analyzed Biblical prophecy in the context of the history of bingo.

I'm hoping there is something very specific the poster was hoping we would pull out of those articles to add to this debate.

Okay - once again, you've piqued my interest.... what is the hidden secret?

("because I saw four immediate problems"... yet you only cite three... so you must be hiding sercets from us, no?)

Muravyets

12-04-2006, 04:29

Okay - once again, you've piqued my interest.... what is the hidden secret?

("because I saw four immediate problems"... yet you only cite three... so you must be hiding sercets from us, no?)
The secret is that I forgot what the fourth problem was as I was about to type it, and I forgot to edit that sentence down to three. I have to re-read TS's critique to refresh my memory. :)

DubyaGoat

12-04-2006, 04:55

Muravyets

12-04-2006, 04:58

The secret is that I forgot what the fourth problem was as I was about to type it, and I forgot to edit that sentence down to three. I have to re-read TS's critique to refresh my memory. :)
Oh, I've got it. It was this one

Originally posted by Tropical Sands
"But the existence of powerful counterfeits in the world strongly suggests that there exists a real body of truth that was lost, or corrupted by the god of this world."

This is another example of the same fallacy. The existence of astrology (which the author refers to as "powerful counterfeits") does not imply that there was a real body of truth that was lost, even if we assume that astrology is the work of demons as the author claims. You simply can't infer from this, logically, the conclusion that is drawn.

I should have said that TS mentioned three of the four immediate problems. In this one, I wanted to emphasize even more strongly the over-arching fault of assuming that there is truth behind a falsehood, whether it's lost ancient truths or brand new claims by so-called prophets, gurus, advisors, whatever.

People who ascribe so much importance to astrology really don't understand what fortunetelling is. It's gambling, it's pure guesswork. Everybody wants to know which horse will win the race before they commit their money. Everybody wants to know what tomorrow has in store for them. Astrologers in the ancient world pretty much performed the exact same function that they do today, with pretty much the same level of accuracy and the same number of registered complaints about their failures.

The problem with fortunetelling is that you can take any system whatsoever -- whether random draws like rune casting, bibliomancy, Magic 8-Ball, or pattern reading with stars, entrails, financial reports, or a combination of the two as with card reading -- assign any meaning you like to the elements of the reading -- the bones, stars, numbers, etc -- and you're in business. The problem is with these assigned meanings. They always start with the formula "if X = Y, then...", but what guarantee is there that X = Y? Nothing but the say-so of the seer and/or the arbitrary meanings accepted by any given community.

To use such an unreliable base to analyze anything is a mistake, in my opinion.

Muravyets

12-04-2006, 05:14

<snip>
According to the early editions of the Talmud, Christ is referred to as "the leper," "that one," “a fool," "the deceiver of Israel", etc., it goes on to say that Jesus was a son of Joseph conceived out of wedlock, His works (healings etc., ) are said to be done via sorcery, magic and even, sneaking into the holy of holies and upon seeing the name of God he wrote that name on a parchment and then inserting that parchment under a slit of his skin so that he could do ‘magic’ tricks with power.

At the crucifixion, according to the early forms of the Talmud, Jesus is said to have been first stoned and then hanged on the eve of a Passover. His followers are called heretics and worse. They are accused of practicing immoral customs, and the New Testament is called a book of Sin, or a sinful book (depending on how it is read/translated). There is no allusion to these subjects at all, they are made abundantly clear in a tone that is ripe full of vile and maybe even anger.

With your argument position Tropical Sands, you seem to be taking the position of a Hyam Maccoby disciple or something and he summed up Rabbinical thought regarding Jesus as this:

"With the composition of the Gospels, then, a fictitious Jesus was created, suitable for the needs of the Hellenistic Gentile-Christian Church. The Prophet King, human and Jewish, who was revered but not worshiped by the Jewish-Christian Church was turned into a Divine Sacrifice. Jesus, who was, in reality, an apocalyptic Pharisee rabbi who claimed the titles of Prophet and King, was turned into a pagan god."

And with this insight that there is no evidence producible on this forum which could steer you away from such a hard stance, I begin to question why you made this thread at all. Perhaps you simply wanted an outlet to attack Christ, the Christian faith and Christians altogether and a place for you to call them foolish. Nicely done, it worked, you have your forum.
Dubyagoat, are you aware that the negative descriptions of Jesus you list -- especially the accusations of sorcery, fraud, immorality, heresy, etc -- are extremely similar to negative remarks made by pagan Romans against early Christians, AND by Christians against Jews throughout the Middle Ages, AND by Christians and Muslims against each other during the Crusades, AND by early Protestants against Catholics, AND by Catholics against early Protestants, AND by Christians against pagans, etc, etc?

Don't you think there is some value in supposing that some things are just the expressions of the social prejudices of a time and do not express the real thinking of a religion or a religious group, especially when so many different groups use the exact same insults against each other?

Also, I don't understand why you would think that the Hyam Maccoby quote is an attack against Christ. In itself, it is only the view of an unbeliever, but it does not seem particularly unreasonable to me -- in fact, I think it suits history pretty plausibly. I don't read it as critical of Christ as a person or prophet at all. If anything, it criticizes the deification of Christ, and since the author is Jewish, that is hardly surprising. I would also point out that some Christians also hold this view -- the anti-trinitarian traditions such as the Unitarians and other descendants of puritan protestant churches.

Do you think that any differing ideas about your religion are necessarily an attack on it?

DubyaGoat

12-04-2006, 05:27

...
Do you think that any differing ideas about your religion are necessarily an attack on it?

Nope. I do not. To attack something you go out of your way to confront it, and then to do it with no intention of participating is discourse, or in acknowledging a different point of view, or in accepting an 'exchange' of evidences. Confronting it with an open ear is one thing, to confront it with a hammer and blinders on is different.

I noticed you didn't care for the negative impression of anamism to be voiced...

Tropical Sands

12-04-2006, 06:29

You’ve accused me of presenting no first century evidence, despite the fact that you accuse me of plagiarizing them later in the self same post, I’ve shown NT documents dates and I’ve quoted references to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” in first century documents.

I accused you of plagerizing the analysis of Galatians off off earlychristianwritings.com. Your citation of the Didache wasn't plagerism. And the references to the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" nowhere state that the Son is in fact divine, or that the three are one, or a Trinity. It was simply your interpretation that they meant such a thing.

But you stick plainly with the Jewish Encyclopedia and the teachings of the Talmud only ... and you counter by simply attacking everything else while at the same time claiming you are not doing what you are doing.

Actually aside from citing the JE and the Talmud, I've cited the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, L. White's text "From Jesus to Christianity", Pelikan's text "Whose Bible is it?" Michael Levy's article on the Trinity, and the book reviews that you claimed supported your point but in fact didn't.

According to the early editions of the Talmud and Rabbinic teachings, Christ is referred to as "the leper," "that one," “a fool," "the deceiver of Israel", etc., it goes on to say that Jesus was a son of Joseph conceived out of wedlock, His works (healings etc., ) are said to be done via sorcery, magic and even, sneaking into the holy of holies and upon seeing the name of God he wrote that name on a parchment and then inserting that parchment under a slit of his skin so that he could do ‘magic’ tricks with power.

Actually Jesus occurs nowhere in the Talmud. This was a common myth that was developed during the Middle Ages as a polemic against Judaism. It became so common, that some Jews began to even interpret certain verses to be about Jesus. However, there really are none.

The story of Jesus writing a name on parchment and inserting it into a slit of his skin is actually found in the Toledoth Yeshu. That was a Jewish polemic against Christianity that Celsus cited. It was not Rabbinic literature, nor was it a part of the Talmud.

At the crucifixion, according to the early forms of the Talmud, Jesus is said to have been first stoned and then hanged on the eve of a Passover. His followers are called heretics and worse. They are accused of practicing immoral customs, and the New Testament is called a book of Sin, or a sinful book (depending on how it is read/translated). There is no allusion to these subjects at all, they are made abundantly clear in a tone that is ripe full of vile and maybe even anger.

See above. There is no Jesus in the Talmud. Actually, if I didn't explain it clearly enough, here is a website that covers the alleged tractates about Jesus in depth, by Gil Student.
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

With your argument position Tropical Sands, you seem to be taking the position of a Hyam Maccoby disciple or something and he summed up Rabbinical thought regarding Jesus as this:

"With the composition of the Gospels, then, a fictitious Jesus was created, suitable for the needs of the Hellenistic Gentile-Christian Church. The Prophet King, human and Jewish, who was revered but not worshiped by the Jewish-Christian Church was turned into a Divine Sacrifice. Jesus, who was, in reality, an apocalyptic Pharisee rabbi who claimed the titles of Prophet and King, was turned into a pagan god."

And with this insight that there is no evidence producible on this forum which could steer you away from such a hard stance, I begin to question why you made this thread at all. Perhaps you simply wanted an outlet to attack Christ, the Christian faith and Christians altogether and a place for you to call them foolish. Nicely done, it worked, you have your forum.

I wouldn't say that Jesus was a Pharisee rabbi is Rabbinical thought on Jesus. I've always been taught that Jesus was either myth, heretic, or both. However, many of Jesus' teachings were borrowed from the Pharasaic Judaism of Shammai and Hillel that predated him. I think I cited a few examples of this in a previous post. So it isn't a far stretch for some to believe that Jesus may have been a Pharisee. He certainly is right about Jesus being turned into a pagan god, assuming the historical Jesus was an actual person that existed and not multiple persons or myth all together.

The "with this insight there is no evidence presentable" attitude falls into the sour grapes fallacy. Because no one has, or is able, to present evidence supporting Jesus it the fault of my attitude. Its simply that no one has been able to present any real evidence of such a thing.

The "you wanted a place to attack Christ, Christians, etc." statement seems rather like a victim statement as well. Part of the Christian martyrdom complex. I've been polite and I've avoid purjorative terms for Christians, such as calling them "foolish" or "stupid" as you accused me of doing in a previous post. Not once have I "attacked" anything except the arguments presented. And attacking arguments is perfectly acceptable.

Muravyets

12-04-2006, 06:30

Nope. I do not. To attack something you go out of your way to confront it, and then to do it with no intention of participating is discourse, or in acknowledging a different point of view, or in accepting an 'exchange' of evidences. Confronting it with an open ear is one thing, to confront it with a hammer and blinders on is different.

I noticed you didn't care for the negative impression of anamism to be voiced...
I'm glad you brought this up before my new best friend Bruarong did.

I was trying to draw a distinction between two different attitudes. First, there are the prejudicial insults against Christ/Christianity that are evident in descriptions that claim he was a charlatan or a fraud. Second, there are remarks by non-believers about the history of Christianity which are not themselves criticisms of the beliefs of the religion or its followers.

To my mind, the first set of remarks about Christ/Christianity you cited were clearly hostile, prejudicial, unfounded accusations. They would be slander if they were said about a living person now. The point I was trying to make about them was that, because exactly the same things were said by many different groups about whoever they saw as their rivals or enemies at any time, that is an indicator that such remarks are not connected to the religion of the people who say them, even if those people try to claim their religion as some kind of authority. So if there were Jews who said such things about Christ, it was probably because they were bigots, not because they were Jews.

On the other hand, the second set of remarks, by Hyam Maccoby, do not appear to criticize Christianity or the teachings of Christ. They criticize only the de-judification, if you will, of Christianity. Well, Hyam Maccoby may be right or wrong about that, and there are certainly points to be debated in his remarks, but they don't strike me as negative or meant to put down the teachings of Christ or Christianity as a religion.

Now, part of the debate could be about the divinity of Christ -- as it is between trinitarian and anti-trinitarian Christian churches -- and in that case, the debate could be about just how "Jewish" is Christianity supposed to be anyway. And then we could bring it back to the thread topic by debating the issue of whether Christianity is a sui generis religion based on a god who took human form, or whether Maccoby is right and that the Christ of later Christians was a deified human, in the old pagan Roman tradition. There is historical evidence to support such a theory, but one could still argue it, both historically and theologically.

But I still don't think that Maccoby's view, though clearly non-Christian, is an attack against Christianity.

Now compare both of these sets of remarks to what Bruarong was saying about animism, and I think you will see that his remarks were much closer to the first set. They were hostile and consisted of accusations of crimes including fraud and killings, and they were completely unfounded.

How would you have responded if anyone here had been saying that Christianity is a bad and oppressive religion because its priests pressure Christians to let their babies die by praying over them instead of giving them medicine? That is precisely what Bruarong was doing to my religion, and it follows the pattern of bigoted slanders against religions throughout the ages.

It is my opinion that Bruarong attacked my religion because he is a prejudiced person, not because he is a Christian.

In my post to you, I was trying to say that it is important to separate neutral statements or even non-hostile critiques of one's religion from actual attacks. Not only do we want to reasonably discuss the differences between belief systems, we also want to take clear stands against slander and defamation. If Bruarong had only said, "From my point of view people would do better to be Christians than animists because I think they'd be better off," that would be his opinion, to which he is entitled, and I'd have nothing to say in answer to it. But the accusations he actually did try to promote are equivalent to the fraud and immorality accusations against Christ that you complain of (and rightly so, imo).

DubyaGoat

12-04-2006, 07:33

...
The "you wanted a place to attack Christ, Christians, etc." statement seems rather like a victim statement as well. Part of the Christian martyrdom complex. I've been polite and I've avoid purjorative terms for Christians, such as calling them "foolish" or "stupid" as you accused me of doing in a previous post. Not once have I "attacked" anything except the arguments presented. And attacking arguments is perfectly acceptable.

Then you aren't very good at it...

I'll refresh your memory...

Academic criticism may be a dangerous thing for you, and Christianity, but not for Judaism

While Christians rejected education in leiu of a literal and inerrant Bible, Jews were becoming educated in astronomy and Greek philosophy in Arab countries. It doesn't surprise me that you retain the whole "academic criticism is dangerous" mentality. Education is dangerous to most Christians, and it always has been.

Christianity took off among Goyim who were not familiar with the Torah and who saw in Jesus something identical to their pagan gods. The Jews were correct for rejecting Jesus - that is why the Pharisees survived and why early Jewish forms of Christianity ceased to exist.

You are both Historically wrong (Christianity survives quite well thank you for you concern) and insulting by implication that one is right and the other is wrong is somehow a proven fact by the erroneous evidence ~ rahter, YOU were born into one and not the other... Secondly, in Choschen Hammischpat the name Goi is used in a depraved sense:

"Traitors and Epicureans and Apostates are worse than Goim."

"Rabbi Jochanan says: A Goi who pries into the Law is guilty to death. "Even a Christian who is found studying the Law of Israel merits death."

And you've chosen to use this word here simply because what? Is it English, the language we are speaking in this thread? No it is no. Is it the common understanding for simply saying "gentile?" No, it is not.

I never attacked you or said you were stupid. You were the one that first stated something antithetical to education and intelligence - that academic criticism was dangerous to your religion. I simply pointed out how, yes, it is dangerous to Christians but not to Jews. You were the one that started with the anti-education lean and how its dangerous to your faith. I don't see why you don't expect a backlash from that.

I did not begin such a position, and you were disingenuous for pretending so ~ I said that both books, both the Torah and the NT were susceptible to Academic criticisms once that door of secular archaeology is opened, that the factual realities of Moses, Elijah, Abraham, David and Solomon, et-al., would be questioned for outside sources of references to their individual existences and thus be brought to the forefront of questioning and paganism as well. But you took that and then tried to twist it into an attack on Christian theology instead of accepting my warning of starting down that road of academic criticism of historical accuracy. And when you wouldn’t quit and I mentioned the lack of collaborating evidence for OT figures and whatnot, you claimed I was citing Red Herrings for even mentioning the Old Testament writings at all and wanted to only to talk about the NT and Paganism.

Well yeah, if I started a cult I would put in disclaimers in my text too to help new members refute opposition. Of course the NT has polemics against Jews - Christians had to defend their doctrine against Jews because it doesn't have harmony with Judaism and Jewish scriptures.

Enough said. You've been insulting and demeaning, despite your claims to the contraire.

Tropical Sands

12-04-2006, 08:29

Then you aren't very good at it...

I'll refresh your memory...

Academic criticism may be a dangerous thing for you, and Christianity, but not for Judaism

While Christians rejected education in leiu of a literal and inerrant Bible, Jews were becoming educated in astronomy and Greek philosophy in Arab countries. It doesn't surprise me that you retain the whole "academic criticism is dangerous" mentality. Education is dangerous to most Christians, and it always has been.

Christianity took off among Goyim who were not familiar with the Torah and who saw in Jesus something identical to their pagan gods. The Jews were correct for rejecting Jesus - that is why the Pharisees survived and why early Jewish forms of Christianity ceased to exist.

You were the one that stated academic criticism was dangerous. Thus, me saying "it may be dangerous for you" is not an insult. Its simply affirming what you stated. Are you saying you insulted yourself?

Furthermore, Christians have traditionally been the less educated demographic in Europe and continue to be the less educated demographic in the States. Saying that Christains rejected education in lieu of religion isn't insulting, its simply history. Quite frankly, if one group is less educated than the next, there is nothing insulting or demeaning about saying so as long as it is done in a respectful way. Everything you quoted to me has no purjoratives and is in a mild tone, I was quite respectful in my criticism of the lack of education of Christians.

Nor is saying that Christians have been the less educated demographic tantamount to saying that they are "stupid" or "foolish" as you claimed I did.

You are both Historically wrong (Christianity survives quite well thank you for you concern) and insulting by implication that one is right and the other is wrong is somehow a proven fact by the erroneous evidence ~ rahter, YOU were born into one and not the other... Secondly, in Choschen Hammischpat the name Goi is used in a depraved sense:

No one said Christianity didn't survive. What I stated is that early forms of Jewish Christianity didn't survive. And they didn't. There isn't a single Christian body in existence today that can trace its roots to a Jewish first century group that followed Jesus. It died as a Jewish sect when it morphed into something else.

In fact, there are no non-Jewish Christian groups today that can trace a direct lineage to the first century. Catholic "apostolic tradition" is as close as it comes, and it is based off of subjective interpretation of Church Fathers and Scripture.

And Goy is never used in a depraved sense, see below.

"Traitors and Epicureans and Apostates are worse than Goim."

"Rabbi Jochanan says: A Goi who pries into the Law is guilty to death. "Even a Christian who is found studying the Law of Israel merits death."

And you've chosen to use this word here simply because what? Is it English, the language we are speaking in this thread? No it is no. Is it the common understanding for simply saying "gentile?" No, it is not.

And yes, Goyim is in fact the common understanding for the term "gentile." Those of us who actually know the difference between the two terms prefer the term Goyim, because it is respectful and not a purjorative as gentile is. Gentile was a word that was synonymous with "pagan" or "heathen." While it generally means non-Jew in modern usage, those of us that are aware of its origin avoid it because it was originally an insult against non-Jews and the impious. However, Goyim is not purjorative in any way. It is the only term used in the Bible, in Hebrew, for non-Jews. It literally means "nations." Its quite respectful, and is never used in any purjorative or depraved sense.

However, you've been mislead, because you consulted an anti-Semitic source for your Talmud info.

Instead of quoting what the Talmud actually states, it seems you've taken something from Pranaitis' book, "The Talmud Unmasked." He was a vicious anti-Semite. He fabricated many Talmudic verses and praised the archaic Papal decrees (that the RCC now rejects and apologized for) that supported the persecution of Jews. To take it a step further, in his hatred for Jews, he denied that Jesus, the apostles, and Paul were actually Jewish.

In fact, he was called as an expert witness to a Jewish murder case and was exposed as a fraud. He claimed that the murder had all of the hallmarks of "Jewish ritual murder" - a common anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that involved the belief that Jews kidnapped young Christian men and women to drink their blood. Parantis was essentially laughed out of court, and the Jewish man on trial (Mendel Beilis) was found to be not guilty.

So, allow me to correct you, again. The Talmud says "Christain" nowhere. The verses that Pranaitis mauled and made up in fact talk about minim - Jewish heretics and apostates. Nowhere does the Talmud advocate pre-emptive violence against Goyim.

I would suggest researching this issue a bit more thorougly. You wouldn't want your entire understanding of the Talmud to be based on a Russian anti-Semite who was exposed as a fraud and liar when he tried to cite anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jewish ritual murder in court.

I'm sure you didn't realize this. I'm sure you googled "Talmud" and "Jesus" or some other combination and came up with hundreds of anti-Semitic websites all using Justin Pranaitis as their source for information on the Talmud. White Supremacist groups love this guy. There is probably more from his little tractate on the internet than there is legitimate material regarding the Talmud.

I did not begin such a position, and you were disingenuous for pretending so ~ I said that both books, both the Torah and the NT were susceptible to Academic criticisms once that door of secular archaeology is opened, that the factual realities of Moses, Elijah, Abraham, David and Solomon, et-al., would be questioned for outside sources of references to their individual existences and thus be brought to the forefront of questioning and paganism as well. But you took that and then tried to twist it into an attack on Christian theology instead of accepting my warning of starting down that road of academic criticism of historical accuracy. And when you wouldn’t quit and I mentioned the lack of collaborating evidence for OT figures and whatnot, you claimed I was citing Red Herrings for even mentioning the Old Testament writings at all and wanted to only to talk about the NT and Paganism.

I have no problem admitting historical inaccuracies in Jewish writings. I don't need a "warning" because it isn't threatening to Judaism. Things like the fact that Jesus was invented from pagan gods is threatening to Christianity, however.

And yes, if in response to the proposition "your texts have historical inaccuracies" the reply is, "well, so do yours" that is what a red herring is. It could be true, but it is still illogical, because it is a fallacy.

Historical inaccuracy in the Torah doesn't change the historical inaccuracy in the NT. If anything, it would be more evidence against the NT, considering that the authors of the NT based their works on it. You would think if it were truly inspired, as Bible literalists and inerrant scripture adherents claim, then it wouldn't be based off of something that has historical inaccuracies. But I digress, because it all comes back to the simple fact that you used a fallacy and there really is no place for that in a logical dialogue.

Well yeah, if I started a cult I would put in disclaimers in my text too to help new members refute opposition. Of course the NT has polemics against Jews - Christians had to defend their doctrine against Jews because it doesn't have harmony with Judaism and Jewish scriptures.

Enough said. You've been insulting and demeaning, despite your claims to the contraire.

There is nothing insulting or demeaning in this remark, either. Christians did start a cult around Jesus. Christianity is a cult, by definition. You can look the word up in the dictionary if you don't believe me. Polemics in the NT against Jews is accurate too. The lack of harmony exists too, early Christians even admitted it (like Marcion). I'm not sure exactly what it is you find insulting about this.

Abroad

12-04-2006, 14:03

little bit of advice:

instead of posting a link and begging people to read it. post the link, a relevant quote from it, and say why you thought it was important enough to suggest that people take a look at it

then you might get a better response. no one wants to "debate" with a link, they want to debate with an actual poster. without your imput, there is no possibility of debate

i went to that site when you first posted it and found it to be rather..... unimpressive... and i had trouble figuring out just what it was that impressed you. so i didnt respond to your post.

Ok, I'll try to sum it up.
First I should say that the article continues further down by another author (THE GOSPEL IN THE STARS - By Malcolm Bowden), I was a little confused myself.

The main idea is based on the genesis 15:5 passage:

The context was given by Genesis 15:5. Abraham was childless and had no heir. Then God "brought him forth abroad, and said, 'Look now towards heaven, and TELL the stars if you be able to list them'; and He said unto him, 'So shall your seed be'."

8. Did Abram "tell out" the gospel story?

In Genesis 15:5, in the Authorised Version, we read that God told Abram to "tell" (Hebrew "sephar") the stars, if thou be able to number (sephar) them: and he said unto him 'so shall thy seed be'". This is usually translated in more modern versions as "count the stars" and the NKJV adds "so shall your descendants (zera, seed) be." (NIV - "offspring").

It is noticeable that the word "sephar" is used for both "tell" and "number" and to translate it as referring to "counting the number of the stars" is perfectly acceptable, but should it be used in this passage?

The Hebrew word "sephar" can also mean "recount, commune, account, declare, shew forth, speak, talk, tell (out), writer." All these imply more than just counting a number of objects but can allude to recounting a story.

Furthermore, Paul examines this passage in detail in Galatians 3:16 where he says "He saith not, 'And to Seeds', as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed, which is Christ'". He is at pains to point out that the word "seed" was singular in the Hebrew and referred to Christ (as the Coming One). Now if the word "seed" is singular, it does not fit with the translation of this passage as referring to counting innumerable stars and saying "this is how many descendants you will have".

There is therefore an alternative, or additional, view of this passage as Paul considered it. It could refer to the future advent of one person - the Saviour. God may have told Abraham to "read out" the story in the stars of the gospel record of future events that was apparently also known by ancient peoples.

Accordingly, this passage could therefore be loosely paraphrased:

Go outside your tent and recount to yourself [and to future
generations?] the story that is in names given to the stars and
constellations. They will tell you of one person, descended from
you, who will come - Christ - who will save His people.

The author(s) then goes on to examine the ancient names for the stars of the zodiac.

3. The Universality of the names of stars and constellations

Bullinger says that "the twelve signs are the same, both as to the meaning of their names and as to their order in all the ancient nations of the world (emphasis his)" (Bull:9). He then refers to the antiquity of the Chinese, Chaldean and Egyptian records but gives no evidence. Rolleston however supplies more on this.

She notes that all constellations began with Aries - in Latium, Egypt Arabia, India and China (p 11). Astronomers also measure their star positions from the "First Point of Aries". In the Chinese names, nine of them were obviously connected to the present system. The Sanskrit was also said to have a complete correlation. The Buddhist system, which started with Aries, had. eleven with similar names (p27). Traces of the zodiac were also found in China, India, Egypt, South Seas, Etruria (Etruscans) and Mexico (p15).

4. The ancient origin of the names

Rolleston says that the zodiac is attributed to Seth (the son of Adam) and to Enoch. She suggests that the Jews kept the word and the prophecy, the Arabs preserved the names of the stars while the Greeks and the Egyptians transmitted the figures to which they belong (p11).

Persian and Arab traditions and Josephus ascribe its invention to Seth and Enoch (Bull: 10). The Jews called Enoch the Great Scribe who wrote books on sacred wisdom, particularly astronomy, and he is quoted in Jude vv14-15.

Some translations of star names:

The start of the Zodiac

Although Rolleston said that the constellations start with Aries, Bullinger and Seiss start with Virgo, the woman, and the last one is Leo, the lion. Bullinger contends that this is indicated as the starting point in the Egyptian pantheon of gods by the Sphinx, which has the head of a woman and the body of a lion. Thus the two ends are joined to complete the circle.

1. VIRGO

This is the first constellation of the circuit which the Greeks wrongly renamed Ceres. A virgin (Is. 7:14) holding a branch (Jer. 23:5-6) and an ear of corn. Corn = seed (Latin Spica, the modern name of this bright star. Old name was Arabic Al Zimach seed). Star Zavijaveh means "gloriously beautiful" (Is. 4:2).

(A) Coma. Woman with a child on her lap - Name means Desire of all nations"
Albumazer, an Arabic astronomer of the 8th century, said that the Persians, Chaldeans and Egyptians said this was a young woman (Persian = virgin) on a throne nourishing an infant boy, having a Hebrew name Ihesu which in Greek is called Christos. Shakespeare referred to this as "the good boy in Virgo's lap" (Titus Andronicus Act 4 Sc. 5).
Original Egyptian name Shes-nu = the desired son. Renamed by the Egyptians as Coma Berenice = The hair or wig of Berenice.
The possible connection of this decan with the Star of Bethlehem will be discussed at the end of this section.

(B) Centaur. Half man - half horse. Said to indicate the two natures of Christ (?). Hebrew name is Beza or Al Beze (Arabic) = the despised (Is. 53:3)

(C) Bootes. A man with a spear and sickle (Rev. 14:15-16). Name The Coming One (Ps. 96:13). Arcturus, the name of the bright star in the left knee= the keeper (of those) going up on the heights. Star Nekkar the pierced (Zec. 12:10).

2. LIBRA

Latin = Libra (scales). A pair of scales (Heb. Mozanaim). Arabic - Al Zubena (= purchase or redemption).
Star names; - lower scale - Zuben al Genubi - Arabic (the price which is deficient) (Ps. 62:9) - upper scale - Zuben al Chemali - Arabic (the price that covers). Alternative name - al Gubi heaped up (the value of the redemption). Zuben al Akrab - The price of the conflict.

(A) Crux = the cross

(B) Lupus or Victima (Beast slain or victim)

(C) Corona = A crown

3. SCORPIO A Scorpion.

Cqptic = Isidis (the attack of the enemy)

(A) and (B) Ophiuchus and Serpens. The "strong man" Ophiuchus (serpent-holder) wrestles with the serpent who is reaching for the crown.
The scorpion is stinging the heel of Ophiuchus, who is treading on the
scorpion (Gen. 3:15). In his heel is the star Antares (= wounding).

(C) Hercules - the mighty vanquisher. Foot is placed on the coiled dragons neck. Star Ras al Gethi = the head of him who bruises (Gen. 3:15).

4. SAGITTARIUS - The Archer

Same meaning in several languages (Rev. 6:2). Star Naim = The gracious one.

(A) Lyra - The harp. The name indicates the praise of God. Brightest star is Vega = He shall be exalted. (Ps. 2 1:13)

(B) Ara - the Altar. The burning fire prepared for His enemies.

(C) Draco - The Dragon. The name comes from the Greek = Trodden on (Ps. 91:13). Brightest star Thuban = The subtle. Names of other stars all refer to similar aspects of the dragon.

5. CAPRICORNUS - The Sea Goat

Ancient pictures are half goat, half fish; i.e. the sacrifice and those who it is sacrificed for (Christians use of the fish as a symbol). Second brightest star Deneb al Gedi = the sacrifice cometh. Others have similar meanings.

(A) Sagitta = The Arrow that pierces (Ps. 38:2).

(B) Aquila = Eagle. This has been wounded by the arrow. Names of stars are "wounding piercing" etc.

(C) Delphinus - The Dolphin. The one who rises.

6. AQUARIUS= The Water Bearer (Is. 44:3)

(A) Piscis Australis = The Southern Fish. Star Fom al Haut = the mouth of the fish

(B) Pegasus = The Winged Horse

(C) Cygnus = The Swan. Brightest star Deneb = The Judge or Adige = flying swiftly.

7. PISCES = The Fish.

Star names indicate "the fish (multitudes) of those who will follow"- i.e. The Church (Ps. 115:14).

(A)The Band - (that unites the two fish) (Hos. 11:4)

(B) Andromeda - The Chained Woman (who will be delivered).

(C) Cepheus - The Crowned King.

8. Aries - The Ram or Lamb (John 1:29)

Brightest star El Nath = wounded, slain; (others similar).

(A) Cassiopeia - The Beautiful Enthroned Woman. The captive woman now delivered. Brightest star Schedir (Hebrew) = freed. 2nd star Caph = The Branch (of victory). (Is. 54:1-8, 62:3-5).

(B) Cetus - the sea monster. The enemy bound.

(C) Perseus - The Breaker. Hebrew = Peretz. Greek = Perses (Micah 2:13). Winged feet = coming swiftly. Head he carries wrongly called Medusa by Greeks; Hebrew Rosh Satan = Head of the Adversary.

9. Taurus - The Bull

The Pleiades = The congregation of the judge.

(A) Orion - The coming Prince. Hebrew Oarion = light. He holds a club and the head of "the roaring lion" (1 Pet. 5:8). Betelgeuz = The coming of the branch. Rigol = the foot that crushes. Al Nitak = the wounded one.

(B) Eridanus - The River of the Judge. Star names refer to "flowing" etc.
(Dan. 7:10; Nahum 1:8).

(C) Auriga - The Shepherd (Is. 40:10-11). Hebrew root = shepherd. Star
p Capella (Latin) = she goat.

10. Gemini - The Twins

There is some confusion of the pictures for this constellation in the different languages, but they generally refer to two people. Probably referring to the two natures of Christ and his eventual victory.

(A) Lepus - The Hare (the enemy); trodden under Orion's foot. Star names refer to "the deceiver" etc.

(B) Canis Major (The Dog) or Sirius (The Prince). Sirius is the brightest of all stars. (Is. 9:6).

(C) Canis Minor - The Second Dog. Star Procyon Redeemer.

11. Cancer - The Crab

There are a variety of pictures for this constellation. The meaning is uncertain.

(A) Ursa Minor - The Little Bear. No bears found in any ancient Zodiacs. Confusion may be from Hebrew Dohver Sheepfold, Dovh Bear.

(B) Ursa Major - The Great Bear. Possibly "Sheepfold" as Ursa Minor as Al Naish "assembled together"; Dubhe = "Herd of animals or a flock" etc. Many stars similarly named.

(C) Argo - The Ship. Became part of Greek Argonaut story. Meaning is the "Return of the travellers".

12. Leo - The Lion

The Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5). Hebrew name means "Lion hunting down its prey". Name in other languages similar. Denebola Judge who cometh.

(A) Hydra - The Serpent. Hydra means "He is abhorred". Star names similar.

(B) Crater - The Cup. The pouring out of wrath on the wicked (Ps. 75:8).

(C) Corvus - The Raven. Birds of prey devouring the Serpent.

Truly, "Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world'." Mankind is left with no excuses.
(from Reference 6 above, with permission of the author)

So basically the idea is: God gave names to the (zodiac/mazzaroth) star constellations and told them to Adam who passed them on. Therefore most ancient human cultures share a similar story based on the meaning of these names. Then Abraham is told that the story of the stars is about a descendant of his. The author(s) then claim that that descendant is Jesus.

DubyaGoat

12-04-2006, 14:29

...
No one said Christianity didn't survive. What I stated is that early forms of Jewish Christianity didn't survive. And they didn't. There isn't a single Christian body in existence today that can trace its roots to a Jewish first century group that followed Jesus. It died as a Jewish sect when it morphed into something else.

Christianity’s holy writings are older than the equivalent in Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity still practices the customs that began with the very first Christian/Jews (the Eucharist and Baptism, for examples) and Rabbinic Judaism (not Christianity ) is the religion that at has been forced to morph into something new, something that it had never been before. The Judaism of today would not be recognizable to any pre-first century Temple worshiping Jew. As such, if either is unsuccessful it must be Temple Judaism, if either is a cult, it must be the Rabbinic Judaism that re-rewrote their traditions and customs after they lost their Temple and were forced to reinvent itself entirely.

Grave_n_idle

12-04-2006, 14:33

Oh, I've got it. It was this one

I should have said that TS mentioned three of the four immediate problems. In this one, I wanted to emphasize even more strongly the over-arching fault of assuming that there is truth behind a falsehood, whether it's lost ancient truths or brand new claims by so-called prophets, gurus, advisors, whatever.

People who ascribe so much importance to astrology really don't understand what fortunetelling is. It's gambling, it's pure guesswork. Everybody wants to know which horse will win the race before they commit their money. Everybody wants to know what tomorrow has in store for them. Astrologers in the ancient world pretty much performed the exact same function that they do today, with pretty much the same level of accuracy and the same number of registered complaints about their failures.

The problem with fortunetelling is that you can take any system whatsoever -- whether random draws like rune casting, bibliomancy, Magic 8-Ball, or pattern reading with stars, entrails, financial reports, or a combination of the two as with card reading -- assign any meaning you like to the elements of the reading -- the bones, stars, numbers, etc -- and you're in business. The problem is with these assigned meanings. They always start with the formula "if X = Y, then...", but what guarantee is there that X = Y? Nothing but the say-so of the seer and/or the arbitrary meanings accepted by any given community.

To use such an unreliable base to analyze anything is a mistake, in my opinion.

Douglas Adams gave the perfect 'rationalisation' of Astrology... that it is about 'people', and that the stars are irrelevent, effectively... but, rather than mauling his words... let me see if I can find them:

"In astrology the rules happen to be
about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all
difference it would make. It's just a way thinking about a problem which lets
the shape of that problem begin emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules,
the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine
graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It
lets you see the words that were written on the piece of the paper above it
that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just
the means of revealing their indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to
do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people..."

As to the 'fourth thing'... now I am left wondering if you quickly made up a 'fourth thing' to cover up the (obviously secret) 'fourth thing' that you previously 'forgot'...

DubyaGoat

12-04-2006, 15:20

Douglas Adams gave the perfect...

Anybody that quotes Douglas Adams in a Paganism in Christianity thread moves up three whole pages in my book, ;) Gotsta love it. :p

Grave_n_idle

12-04-2006, 15:44

Anybody that quotes Douglas Adams in a Paganism in Christianity thread moves up three whole pages in my book, ;) Gotsta love it. :p

On topic, too... :)

I'm still waiting for the right moment to chuck in the 'puff of logic' quote.

Bruarong

12-04-2006, 16:37

This is because you are so invested in saying these slanders against my religion that you simply choose to ignore any and all facts, statements and opinions that contradict you, including those from your own sources, i.e. Evangelical Christians.

Actually, if you are referring to this link, http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Default.htm, originally one of mine, I selected a quote that specifically talks about witches and sorcerers. But because you were focussed on defending shamans, you accused me of using a quote out of context to mislead. I responded by saying that my negative impressions on animism were about religious leaders in general, which was what the whole article was about, not just shamans (although they included a section specifically dealing with shamans). Thus, my quote was not contradictory or out of context when it gave a negative description of a sorcerer, since a sorcerer is a leading figure within animism. It was specifically directed to wiches and sorcerers, rather than including mediums and shamans, but it was apparent within the quote, so I didn't think I needed to point this out to you. Apparently I did. Anyway, I haven't ignored your point, but addressed it already in post #304 of this thread.

Did I ever say that animism helps people? No, I said that the charges you made against animism are false, your remarks about animists and shamans are false, that you failed to provide proof of your allegations, and that you falsified your own evidence.

Allow me to clarify my position a little more. For me, it isn't that animism is so bad. I don't hate animism or any other religion. I think that I can learn quite a lot from animism and indeed many other religions.

However, from my point of view, when a person comes to know the personal and wonderful God of love, any other belief system that leads one away from that God is to be treated with caution. And if I care about my fellow human beings, my efforts will be to introduce them to this personal God, to point them in that direction. And my general reaction to a religion, be it Islam, or Hinduism, or even a form of Christianity, that leads away from the wonderful confidence of knowing that God loves us, is automatically going to be a negative one. Of course I am going to feel, 'poor chaps, I wish they weren't trapped in a belief system that prevents them from knowing what God is really like'. It's not that I will attack the shamans, because they are also held in the same belief system that prevents them from knowing God. My impression (of some forms of animism at least) is that rather than reaching out and allowing the Great Spirit into their lives, their fear of the lesser spirits prevents them from knowing Him.

Now, you can continue to claim that my world view is false, but you have to admit that we are both virtually saying the same thing, just on opposite sides of the debate.

Your insistence that animism is/might be the cause of people's suffering, despite a total lack of any evidence to suggest such a thing, is proof of your bigoted prejudice against it. Your insistence on only referencing biased sources is proof that you are not interested in learning anything, regardless of your personal claims otherwise.

It isn't that there is a lack of evidence for such an argument, only that I have confessed that the evidence that I do have is rather subjective. Does that make me a bigot? Maybe, but then if you were to present some objective evidence that refutes my arguments, I might be inclined to reject my prior impression of animism.

One of your criticisms of my post has been that I seem to have very few objective sources on animism. And so you gave me this link, as an example: http://www.adherents.com/
However, this site specifically refers to the size and location of religious groups, and specifically avoids interpretation of the data that they present. So how is a source like that going to shed any light on our argument? It might be objective information, but rather useless when it comes to a debate like this, since it won't tell us e.g. what sort of beliefs within animism leads to abuse, if any.

Do you see my point? How is one to find an objective source? Because the moment it favours or even includes a particular point of view that you or I might like, it is probably not an objective source. And yet you keep repeating yourself on my having a lack of objective sources, all the while you are providing examples of objective sources that have little relevance to our debate.

But answer me this one: If you're so convinced by biased opinion sources, why did you falsify your evidence from your own source from missiology.org? That was the only book that was referenced, and it was your reference, not mine. It did not agree with you, and you tried to lie about it. Your lie was exposed.

I defended my use of the quote from that site. (see above)

And now you are offering an Amazon reader review of a book as evidence of your claims? After you claimed that my UVA site, my WHO reference, and others could have been faked, you offer this? This is ridiculous beyond words. You have zero credibility.

It was a quote from the author of a book, nevermind that it was on the Amazon site. I have never claimed that information on the WHO site or any other site was faked.

So let's go back to this quote from the book about the life of an animist that was changed. What have you to say about it?

more later......

Grave_n_idle

12-04-2006, 16:40

Now, you can continue to claim that my world view is false, but you have to admit that we are both virtually saying the same thing, just on opposite sides of the debate.

Not at all... I have to assume you haven't paid any attention.

It's been VERY clear so far, Animism doesn't 'exclude' your little god... but your religion claims ALL OTHERS must be false.

The two are, sadly, world's apart... at least the way YOU practise.

Bruarong

12-04-2006, 16:44

Not at all... I have to assume you haven't paid any attention.

It's been VERY clear so far, Animism doesn't 'exclude' your little god... but your religion claims ALL OTHERS must be false.

The two are, sadly, world's apart... at least the way YOU practise.

There is a difference between our respective religions, I agree, but my point was more about our respective arguments. She says that I am wrong, and I say that she is wrong. So we are saying the same thing, but on opposite sides of the argument.

Any other irrelevant points to make, Grave?

Grave_n_idle

12-04-2006, 16:47

There is a difference between our respective religions, I agree, but my point was more about our respective arguments. She says that I am wrong, and I say that she is wrong. So we are saying the same thing, but on opposite sides of the argument.

Any other irrelevant points to make, Grave?

She's saying you are wrong about ANIMISM... she's not saying you worship a false idol.

I agree... you don't seem to 'get' animism.

You are saying the basis of her religion is a lie, she's willing to accept yours.

The two sides aren't on the same coin... they aren't near each other.

Bruarong

12-04-2006, 17:22

Then retract the specific allegations I listed. In this paragraph you have erased all your own reasons for not doing so.

What is it exactly that you would like me to retract? That people are not harmed by animism? That animism does not cause fear, or that shamans do not use fear to control the people, or that animism does not cause harmful practices? Are you wanting a retraction on the details or just the general negative impression that I have of animism?

A) I have already stated that I am not threatening you.

And then you warn me that you want to complain to the mods about my negative impression of animism. How am I suppose to take that? If you are thinking of complaining, you need not tell me about it. Just go ahead, or keep it to yourself.

You are committing slander in this thread, but you have not trespassed into libel yet, and any way, I don't have the resources to bring an action if/when you do. I am merely pointing out the kind of trouble you are opening yourself up to with other people by running your mouth with lies all the time. I have already done more than my conscience demands to talk you out of this self-destructive habit. If you go down in flames someday, I won't blame myself for not having warned you.

See, you don't need to warn me. It all could be an attempt at intimidation. If it is, it's not working. If it was meant well, then I have heard it and taken into account, and you needed repeat your point.

B) My vehemence is not what results in insults. It's my conversation with you. But rest assured, I'm not the kind of poster who will just call you a bigot and a liar without proof to back it up. You have given me a library of proof in this thread.

You have yet to provide a clear case for my lying. As for being biased, everyone is to a certain extent. Or are you an exception?

So now you admit that you are merely imposing an anti-animism interpretation on history without evidence to back it up?

I have evidence, but just not objective evidence.

What my belief system says about evil is utterly irrelevant to the slanderous nature of your claims against Shinto.

Not really, because when looking to the source of evil in people, one has to allow that it has at least something to do with their belief system.

But since you ask. My belief system says that evil is deliberate, malicious harm to others. Because my brand of animism takes a dualistic view of the cosmos, it says that evil is an ever-present option in all choices, and that therefore, beings choose to do either evil or good. Therefore, the ultimate responsibility for evil lies with the individual who chose to do evil.

Hey, did you get that from the Bible? (J/K)

It further says that individuals who choose to do good (i.e. help or not harm others; add to the beauty and pleasure of existence; maintain good relations with their fellows (both physical and spiritual beings)) automatically reduce the amount of evil in the world, by the mere fact of their choice. It will be to their credit if they make the extra, further choice to take specific action to counter other people's evil, especially if it encourages yet more people to choose to do good.

As for those who choose to do evil, they can change the choices they make at any time and become forces for good, but that does not guarantee that those they have harmed in the past will forgive them. They might be forgiven or they might not. Whatever the outcome, they must accept the fair penalty for their actions, even if they do reform themselves for the future. This applies to their spiritual condition just as much as their social condition. All of these rules -- choice, forgiveness, penalties, etc -- apply to spirits and gods just as much as they do to people. Nobody is above their own personal responsibility for the balance of good and evil.

See, this is a classic example of the benefit of these threads. I get to learn about your explanation of evil and good.

It should be obvious that, in such a belief system, the specific religion any individual professes is irrelevant to the question of whether they are doing good or evil in the world. Therefore -- and especially in the absence of any teaching within Shinto that demands or encourages the evil acts committed by the Japanese forces in WW2 -- you cannot blame Shinto for those actions. They are the fault of the people who did them. Period.

Not so fast. Let's take an extreme example to illustrate my point. There is a religion that I have read about that involves ritualism and the worship of Satan http://www.religioustolerance.org/sra.htm. It is the cause of satanic ritual abuse. This would be an example of harm that is directly caused by a belief system. Having said that, I will put in a disclaimer that says that I am in no way equating animism to SRA.

Of course, I do agree with your point that abuse can occur within a religion, in spite of the teachings of that religion, as history tells us.

Since you accepted this point the last time I did this, I will again flip this to a Christian example: Do the Crusades, and the Inquisition, and the European witch crazes, and the English Civil War, and the Salem witch trials, and the 17th century massacres of Native Americans by Protestant colonists, and Christians' lack of opposition and even their occasional complicity in the destruction of the Jews, gypsies and others in WW2 Europe, and the current extremist Christian calls for denunciation and even violence against gays prove that Christianity is a violent religion that promotes torture and war? Does the fact that there are many poor, ignorant, fear-ridden, superstitious Christians without access to education and medical care in the world prove that Christianity harms its followers?

The answer is no. Rather, does prove that abuse and wrong can occur in spite of the teachings of Christianity--or even worse, not in spite of Christianity, but in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. Not that surprising that such wrongs occurred when people deliberately ignore the words of Christ.

Let me put another question back to you. Darwinism teaches that life is a product of the survival of the fittest. So when two young lads loaded up with guns and bombs rip through a school looking for the weakest and the 'least fit' (like blacks, Christians, or any other minority, religious or otherwise) to eliminate, would that be harm caused by Darwinism, or in spite of Darwinism, or in direct opposition to Darwinism?

I say that all this proves is that any religion can be corrupted and no religion can solve everybody's problems. It is invalid to blame a religion for the crimes of those who fail to follow it, and it is slander to blame anyone or any group for bad acts when you cannot prove it or disprove evidence to the contrary.

Sure, any religion can be corrupted. But a religion such as that which a terrorists believes can definitely be blamed for the terror, IF he believes his religion supports terror as a way of waging war.
If animism teaches the people to fear the evil spirits, it can be named as a source of fear in the lives of animists.

Bruarong

12-04-2006, 17:26

She's saying you are wrong about ANIMISM... she's not saying you worship a false idol.

I agree... you don't seem to 'get' animism.

You are saying the basis of her religion is a lie, she's willing to accept yours.

The two sides aren't on the same coin... they aren't near each other.

She does not accept my religion, and has admitted it.

Originally quoted by Bruarong:
I'll bet that you do not accept the claims of Jesus that he is the only way to the Father, since that would tend to exclude your religion as being a way to know the Truth (whatever that is in a non-Christian view point). You don't really except Christianity as truth, at least not my version of Christianity.

Quoted by Muravyets
Huh-duh. If I believed that I'd be a Christian, wouldn't I? Have we peeled back all these layers of your argument just to learn that you are dim? Please, B, really.

Grave_n_idle

12-04-2006, 17:41

She does not accept my religion, and has admitted it.

Originally quoted by Bruarong:
I'll bet that you do not accept the claims of Jesus that he is the only way to the Father, since that would tend to exclude your religion as being a way to know the Truth (whatever that is in a non-Christian view point). You don't really except Christianity as truth, at least not my version of Christianity.

Quoted by Muravyets
Huh-duh. If I believed that I'd be a Christian, wouldn't I? Have we peeled back all these layers of your argument just to learn that you are dim? Please, B, really.

You are finessing again... this seems to be your approach.

As she states if she believed all the fine points of your doctrine (like, Jesus being 'required' to be saved, and that being the ONLY avenue), she WOULD be a christian.

But, you note, she doesn't dismiss your 'god' as a false idol... unlike your response to HER religion.

There is a difference between blindly accepting every word of a certain text as literally true, and 'accepting' something.

You blindly follow your book, and accept nothing else.

She accepts your 'god'... she just doesn't buy into ALL of the packaging.

Ashmoria

12-04-2006, 21:02

Ok, I'll try to sum it up.
First I should say that the article continues further down by another author (THE GOSPEL IN THE STARS - By Malcolm Bowden), I was a little confused myself.

The main idea is based on the genesis 15:5 passage:

The author(s) then goes on to examine the ancient names for the stars of the zodiac.

Some translations of star names:

So basically the idea is: God gave names to the (zodiac/mazzaroth) star constellations and told them to Adam who passed them on. Therefore most ancient human cultures share a similar story based on the meaning of these names. Then Abraham is told that the story of the stars is about a descendant of his. The author(s) then claim that that descendant is Jesus.
what an odd suggestion.

are the constellations all grouped the same way by all the mediterranean cultures? i know they arent grouped the same by everyone in the world. and im pretty sure they werent all called the same thing. (even given the difference in languages)

so what is the point? that ancient cultures looked at the stars, invented constellations and that so did the ancient jews?

"seed" in english is a plural notion. when you talk about your bratty childrent, for example, you call them hell spawn, not hell spawns. is it really singular in hebrew so that if you were to count all the decendants you would refer to them as seeds? i always thought that god was telling abraham that he was going to have lots and lots of decendants.

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 00:39

Douglas Adams gave the perfect 'rationalisation' of Astrology... that it is about 'people', and that the stars are irrelevent, effectively... but, rather than mauling his words... let me see if I can find them:

As to the 'fourth thing'... now I am left wondering if you quickly made up a 'fourth thing' to cover up the (obviously secret) 'fourth thing' that you previously 'forgot'...
Cross my heart, I swear, the astrology angle was the first thing I objected to when I read the article, and skimmed the others on the site, but then I got interested in what TS was saying and my first thought flew out of my head. I do that all the time. People laugh at me. You can laugh at me if you like. Go ahead, it's fun. :)

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 01:50

Actually, if you are referring to this link, http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Default.htm, originally one of mine, I selected a quote that specifically talks about witches and sorcerers. But because you were focussed on defending shamans, you accused me of using a quote out of context to mislead. I responded by saying that my negative impressions on animism were about religious leaders in general, which was what the whole article was about, not just shamans (although they included a section specifically dealing with shamans). Thus, my quote was not contradictory or out of context when it gave a negative description of a sorcerer, since a sorcerer is a leading figure within animism. It was specifically directed to wiches and sorcerers, rather than including mediums and shamans, but it was apparent within the quote, so I didn't think I needed to point this out to you. Apparently I did. Anyway, I haven't ignored your point, but addressed it already in post #304 of this thread.
Yeah, the difference was apparent from the quote, which is how you got caught. Read the posts of our argument and you will see that I have been following your use of words all through it. You started this argument with accusations against animism in general and against shamans in particular and you never used any other terms. You then went into your own source and selected a paragraph about an entirely different kind of person and tried to make it be about shamans. This was out and out dishonesty on your part, and this weak denial of yours is nonsense -- so is your equally weak attempt to equate sorcerers with shamans by claiming they're both animist leaders.

Your own source at missiology.org contradicts you yet again. The book makes it clear, several times that shamans are not religious leaders, just like they are not sorcerers. Further, the Sorcerers and Witches section says nothing at all about sorcerers being "leading figures in animism." What it actually says is that people fear sorcerers because they are malicious, and it also opens the possibility that they are little more than a fear, i.e. figments of fearful imaginations. The book even goes as far as drawing a cautionary comparison with the Christian witch crazes of the 16th and 17th centuries, another bad outcome of a social fiction.

Your claims about animism remain rooted only in your own negative imagination.

Allow me to clarify my position a little more. For me, it isn't that animism is so bad. I don't hate animism or any other religion. I think that I can learn quite a lot from animism and indeed many other religions.
This is the third time I've asked you what you think you can learn from animism, or any other religion. You have yet to answer.

However, from my point of view, when a person comes to know the personal and wonderful God of love, any other belief system that leads one away from that God is to be treated with caution. And if I care about my fellow human beings, my efforts will be to introduce them to this personal God, to point them in that direction. And my general reaction to a religion, be it Islam, or Hinduism, or even a form of Christianity, that leads away from the wonderful confidence of knowing that God loves us, is automatically going to be a negative one. Of course I am going to feel, 'poor chaps, I wish they weren't trapped in a belief system that prevents them from knowing what God is really like'. It's not that I will attack the shamans, because they are also held in the same belief system that prevents them from knowing God. My impression (of some forms of animism at least) is that rather than reaching out and allowing the Great Spirit into their lives, their fear of the lesser spirits prevents them from knowing Him.
Once again, your "impression" is nothing but that. It does not justify your constant insults and accusations, nor does your devout Christianity make your remarks any less slanderous. I ask you again to retract them.

Now, you can continue to claim that my world view is false, but you have to admit that we are both virtually saying the same thing, just on opposite sides of the debate.
When did I ever say that your world view is false, or anything even remotely like that? This is just like you accusing me of saying your religion was a false one. I have never said any such things, to you or anybody else. I challenge you to produce quotes.

I have called you dishonest, bigoted, and a slanderer, and I have made it clear that this is because of your specific statements and your refusal to retract them. I have never said anything negative about your religion or your personal spiritual beliefs or world view.

It isn't that there is a lack of evidence for such an argument, only that I have confessed that the evidence that I do have is rather subjective. Does that make me a bigot? Maybe, but then if you were to present some objective evidence that refutes my arguments, I might be inclined to reject my prior impression of animism.
I have already presented objective evidence that refutes your insults and accusations. You choose to reject it and then claim, disingenuously, that I never gave you any. This is just another form of dishonesty. You will not reject your prior impression of animism because you have invested value in it. You already explained to us how your sense of the worth and truth of Christianity would be undermined if you didn't think that other religions are not just false, but also abusive and harmful. That is what makes you a bigot. According to Mirriam-Webster, a "bigot" is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." The fact that you actually have to denigrate my religion to highlight how much better you think yours is, is bigotry.

One of your criticisms of my post has been that I seem to have very few objective sources on animism. And so you gave me this link, as an example: http://www.adherents.com/
However, this site specifically refers to the size and location of religious groups, and specifically avoids interpretation of the data that they present. So how is a source like that going to shed any light on our argument? It might be objective information, but rather useless when it comes to a debate like this, since it won't tell us e.g. what sort of beliefs within animism leads to abuse, if any.

Do you see my point? How is one to find an objective source? Because the moment it favours or even includes a particular point of view that you or I might like, it is probably not an objective source. And yet you keep repeating yourself on my having a lack of objective sources, all the while you are providing examples of objective sources that have little relevance to our debate.
You said you couldn't find objective facts. Adherents.com is a statistics site. Statistics (you know, numbers?) are facts. They are totally objective, i.e. they have no opinion attached to them. That's what "objective" means, by the way -- no opinion attached. You said you couldn't find objective facts. I showed you a site full of them.

As for your demands that I "prove" that animism doesn't kill or abuse people, this is just you keeping up your slanderous attacks. Bottom line: The accused doesn't have to "prove" anything. You made the accusations. You have to prove them. You can't because there is no evidence, because your accusations are false. Your constant attempts to use rumor and unsupported anecdotes are not proof. I told you that official reports by government agencies, non-governmental organizations, civil rights organizations, even large-scale church studies, would constitute proof, and there are no such reports or studies that support your accusations against animism. Not even your own Evangelical Christian sources agree with you.

I defended my use of the quote from that site. (see above)
Poorly. The lie remains in place.

It was a quote from the author of a book, nevermind that it was on the Amazon site. I have never claimed that information on the WHO site or any other site was faked.
It was listed as a reader review.

Yes you did.

So let's go back to this quote from the book about the life of an animist that was changed. What have you to say about it?
Exactly the same thing I said at the start of this argument: The story of one individual -- or 3 or 4 or a 100 -- do not paint the portrait of a religion practiced by 350 million people world wide. You already conceded this point. Now you're trying to push it again? I'll be happy to respond to this with your own concession from now on.

more later......
Why bother? You are already debunked, and you clearly have nothing new to add.

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 02:50

What is it exactly that you would like me to retract? That people are not harmed by animism? That animism does not cause fear, or that shamans do not use fear to control the people, or that animism does not cause harmful practices? Are you wanting a retraction on the details or just the general negative impression that I have of animism?
I listed the specific remarks I want retracted here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10722741&postcount=288

And then you warn me that you want to complain to the mods about my negative impression of animism. How am I suppose to take that? If you are thinking of complaining, you need not tell me about it. Just go ahead, or keep it to yourself.
Fine. I was hoping to clue you that it is not okay for you to go about slandering and insulting people, that what goes around comes around. The risks I described are realistic and I was hoping it would give you a sense of the reality of just how offensive such remarks are. But if you don't want to hear it anymore, then you won't hear about it again from me.

See, you don't need to warn me. It all could be an attempt at intimidation. If it is, it's not working. If it was meant well, then I have heard it and taken into account, and you needed repeat your point.
Not an attempt to intimidate. An attempt to clue you to reality. I'm done with that aspect.

You have yet to provide a clear case for my lying. As for being biased, everyone is to a certain extent. Or are you an exception?
The clear case that you lied is in the comparison between the content of your source and the way you pulled quotes from it and tried to use those quotes. Everyone can look and judge for themselves.

And yes, I have biases. For instance, I'm biased against people who falsify evidence to promote false accusations against others.

I have evidence, but just not objective evidence.
Then it's not evidence.

Not really, because when looking to the source of evil in people, one has to allow that it has at least something to do with their belief system.
I disagree.

Hey, did you get that from the Bible? (J/K)
No, I got it from animism. Shinto and old European traditions, to be precise.

See, this is a classic example of the benefit of these threads. I get to learn about your explanation of evil and good.
Do you have anything constructive to say about it, or do you need more time to figure out a way to make it fit your prejudiced view of animism?

Not so fast. Let's take an extreme example to illustrate my point. There is a religion that I have read about that involves ritualism and the worship of Satan http://www.religioustolerance.org/sra.htm. It is the cause of satanic ritual abuse. This would be an example of harm that is directly caused by a belief system. Having said that, I will put in a disclaimer that says that I am in no way equating animism to SRA.
Do you actually read any of the sources you cite? This article from religioustolerance.org is saying that satanic ritual abuse is a myth. That is, the claim that there is some kind of organized network or rings of satanists ritually abusing children and adults just is not true. The FBI and Interpol agree that it is a myth. Many completely innocent people have had their lives ruined by such false allegations. Of all the falsehoods you've claimed or cited so far, this is possibly the worst because it has only been used against innocent people. Actual murderers who try to claim satanist connections -- like Richard "The Nightstalker" Ramirez -- are never said to be part of such a conspiracy. SRA is always associated with community hysterias, and it is never proven. It is nothing more than a terrifyingly destructive urban myth that people use against their neighbors.

That said, I will not allow even Richard Ramirez to claim that Satan told him to commit his crimes. Such claims are nothing but excuses with which criminals try to lessen their own responsibility for their chosen actions.

Of course, I do agree with your point that abuse can occur within a religion, in spite of the teachings of that religion, as history tells us.
Then why did you spend so much time trying to say that animist bad people commit crimes because they are animists, while Christian bad people commit crimes despite being Christians?

The answer is no. Rather, does prove that abuse and wrong can occur in spite of the teachings of Christianity--or even worse, not in spite of Christianity, but in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. Not that surprising that such wrongs occurred when people deliberately ignore the words of Christ.

Let me put another question back to you. Darwinism teaches that life is a product of the survival of the fittest. So when two young lads loaded up with guns and bombs rip through a school looking for the weakest and the 'least fit' (like blacks, Christians, or any other minority, religious or otherwise) to eliminate, would that be harm caused by Darwinism, or in spite of Darwinism, or in direct opposition to Darwinism?
I give the same answer I gave regarding satanism. If they chose to murder, their excuse is irrelevant.

Sure, any religion can be corrupted. But a religion such as that which a terrorists believes can definitely be blamed for the terror, IF he believes his religion supports terror as a way of waging war.
And an insult against Islam for good measure. At least I know not to take your attacks personally. You're an equal opportunity slanderer.

If animism teaches the people to fear the evil spirits, it can be named as a source of fear in the lives of animists.
Only it doesn't, so it isn't.

Grave_n_idle

13-04-2006, 04:20

Cross my heart, I swear, the astrology angle was the first thing I objected to when I read the article, and skimmed the others on the site, but then I got interested in what TS was saying and my first thought flew out of my head. I do that all the time. People laugh at me. You can laugh at me if you like. Go ahead, it's fun. :)

As if I would! :o

I'm just trying to find out more about the Secret Animist Agenda (tm).

:D

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 04:37

As if I would! :o

I'm just trying to find out more about the Secret Animist Agenda (tm).

:D
That's the Global Secret Animist Agenda (tm), thank you. All 350 million jungle-running alcoholic scaredy-cats of us. ;) :D

Tropical Sands

13-04-2006, 04:50

Christianity’s holy writings are older than the equivalent in Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity still practices the customs that began with the very first Christian/Jews (the Eucharist and Baptism, for examples) and Rabbinic Judaism (not Christianity ) is the religion that at has been forced to morph into something new, something that it had never been before. The Judaism of today would not be recognizable to any pre-first century Temple worshiping Jew. As such, if either is unsuccessful it must be Temple Judaism, if either is a cult, it must be the Rabbinic Judaism that re-rewrote their traditions and customs after they lost their Temple and were forced to reinvent itself entirely.

You seem to be going in circles now. I've already cited in a previous post that we have a written Mishnah, Targums, and Midrash, which compose the majority and core of Jewish Rabbinic writings, that predate Christianity. The oldest Mishnah text in existence is from the period of Hillel, 100 years before Jesus. The oldest Targums that we have are mentioned in the books of Ezra and Nemeiah in the Bible. The oldest Targum parchments (like the Targum of Job) predate Jesus by a hundred years.

The only thing that came later is the Gemara (which was the commentary of the Mishnah to form the two Talmuds), various Responsas, and other commentaries. The central and most important works of Rabbinic Judaism predate every single Christian text.

Furthermore, we have Jews who have ancestry and lineage to pre-Christian Jews. They can demonstrate through DNA and genetic tables that they are descendants of persons who existed before Jesus. The very name "Cohen", for example, tends to be linked to the Kohanim priests centuries before Jesus. No Christian can demonstrate that their sect or heritage has a direct, unbroken link to anything in the first century. The practices of baptism and Eucharist, for example, don't prove that modern forms of Christianity have a direct link to first century forms, considering that virtually every pagan religion practiced both baptism and the symbolic consumption of the body of their deity, in addition to the fact that there is no evidence that baptism and Eucharist as practiced today is how it was practiced in the first century.

Jews today, on the other hand, practice the Halacha exactly as outlined in the Mishnah, of which we have texts of that predate Jesus. Because it outlines specific rituals and codes in great detail, we know we practice it in the exact same form it was practiced by the Pharisees. We also have a recorded and unbroken link between the Rabbis that predate Jesus (like Hillel and Shammi, for one) to post-Temple Rabbis like Johannan and Judah the Prince. What you have to keep in mind is that the Targums mentioned in Ezra, the Mishnah that predates Jesus were all works of Pharisees. Each Rabbi named within these pre-Christian texts is a Pharisee. And today, we still practice Judaism in exactly the same fashion, with an unbroken line of Pharasaic Rabbis from pre-first century up until the Middle Ages and on until today.

In fact, the archaeological record confirms this. We have physical evidence that Judaism was practiced by the Pharisees and other sects in exactly the same way it is practiced today. For example, we have pre-Christian tefillin, mezuzahs, etc. Here are some photos of pre-Christian tefillin, made and worn in exactly the same way they are today:

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/RelS367/Shema_sources.html

This is a good example of how Judaism has presereved these traditions not just in tact, but in exactly the same form that they existed 2000 years ago. This is solid, physical evidence of an unbroken link between modern Rabbinic Judaism and the Rabbinic Judaism that predates Jesus. There is no evidence whatsoever that the baptismal rites and eucharist of 1st century Christians is unchanged and in tact. In fact, we have no archaeological evidence that demonstrates how first century Christians practiced these rites at all. However, as we see above, tefillin is exactly the same. Another example that has archaeological support of how Judaism has remained unchanged are ancient mikvahs, which follow the same Halacha as mikvahs do today. Here is a photo of one at Masada:

http://biblelandpictures.com/gallery/gallery.asp?action=viewimage&categoryid=108&text=&imageid=12175&box=&shownew=

These sorts of things are all over virtually every Israeli archaeological site. Contrast this to Jesus, for whom there is no archaeological support. Or modern forms of Christianity, which can not make any archaeological link to first-century forms of Christianity.

I should also correct you about the Temple. The Temple was controlled by the Sadducees (who claimed to be the direct family of Zadok, thus the name) since the Hasmonean dynasty. The Rabbinic Judaism of the Pharisees that predates Jesus was not a Temple cult, only Sadducean Judaism was. The Pharisees only controlled the Temple for perhaps a decade before it was destroyed. Since the Temple was rebuilt the first time, Sadducees ran it. There is no real link between Rabbinic Judaism and the Temple, as you might believe.

They weren't "Temple worshipping Jews" as you have labeled them. Aside from offering the occasional sacrifice at the Temple, they did their prayers, religious rituals, and studies in synagogues. Synagogues that are Halachically the same as they are today, as well. The fact that these ancient, pre-Christian synagogues dot Israel today demonstrates that ancient, pre-Christian Rabbinic Judaism has a link to the Judaism of today as well. Here are some more photos:

http://www.worldisround.com/articles/16078/photo7.html
http://www.turkishodyssey.com/gallery/images/s0048.jpg
http://www.uni.edu/atkinson/oldtestament/worksheetfive.html

There is also linguistic evidence that demonstrates that Rabbinic Judaism today has a direct link to the Rabbinic Judaism of pre-Christianity. The fact that educated Jews learn both Hebrew and Aramaic studying the pre-Christian texts written in Hebrew and Aramaic, for example. In addition, common languages among Jewish populations that are directly linked to Hebrew, such as Yiddish and Ladino.

So, to sum it all up:

Modern Rabbinic Judaism has textual evidence as a direct link to pre-Christian Rabbinic Judaism (the fact that we practice the rituals outlined in the pre-Christian texts exactly as the pre-Christian Rabbis outlined proves that we practice the same form of Judaism they did). Christianity has no such thing. There is no evidence that Christians today interpret the rituals in the NT in the same fashion that early Christians did.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism has archaeological evidence that demonstrates we practice the rituals in exactly the same way pre-Christian Rabbinic Jews did. Christians have no such things.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism has a linguistic link to pre-Christian Rabbinic Judaism. The continued fluency in Hebrew, Aramaic, and the later developments of Yiddish and Ladino. Whereas Christianity, in the first century a possible Jewish sect, retained no linguistic link to any first-century groups, adopting the languages of Goyim like Greek and Latin.

We have living Rabbinic Jews today who can trace their genetics to pre-Christian Rabbinic Jews, whereas no modern Christian groups have any genetic or physical linkage to any first-century Christian groups.

It would seem that the body of evidence supports that Rabbinic Judaism of today is the older and more authentic tradition, whereas Christianity developed among the pagan Goyim of Rome.

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 05:13

<snip> ...Goyim of Rome.
That band rocks! :)

Tropical Sands

13-04-2006, 05:41

That band rocks! :)

rofl, is there really a band called that? If not, there should be.

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 06:31

rofl, is there really a band called that? If not, there should be.
I'll let you know when I've started it. Unfortunately they might actually have to be Romans, and Italian popular music sucks horribly. Oh, well. Maybe we could start it in Brooklyn instead. :D

Bruarong

13-04-2006, 10:35

You are finessing again... this seems to be your approach.

As she states if she believed all the fine points of your doctrine (like, Jesus being 'required' to be saved, and that being the ONLY avenue), she WOULD be a christian.

But, you note, she doesn't dismiss your 'god' as a false idol... unlike your response to HER religion.

There is a difference between blindly accepting every word of a certain text as literally true, and 'accepting' something.

You blindly follow your book, and accept nothing else.

She accepts your 'god'... she just doesn't buy into ALL of the packaging.

So you argue that the point about Jesus being the way to God is only a minor detail in Christianity. That would be your mistake. Jesus was quite clear about it. And if there was another way, it would have made his great sacrifice quite pointless. Not only does the text support this point, but the whole basis of Christianity (the version that I believe in) rests on this point. Hardly finessing, Grave.

And since she does not accept this point about Christianity, all her other statements about being willing to believe in the Christian God are irrelevant. It means that she does not accept Christianity (otherwise she would be a Christian, as she put it). Thus any claim to accept Christianity is merely superficial. She may not claim openly that Christianity is false. But the claims of Christ means that you either believe in Christ, or you reject Him, and the middle ground between these points is occupied only by those who are ignorant of the claims of Christ or are in the process of making up their minds about Him.

Tropical Sands

13-04-2006, 11:26

So you argue that the point about Jesus being the way to God is only a minor detail in Christianity. That would be your mistake. Jesus was quite clear about it. And if there was another way, it would have made his great sacrifice quite pointless. Not only does the text support this point, but the whole basis of Christianity (the version that I believe in) rests on this point. Hardly finessing, Grave.

Actually, the few sayings actually attributed to Jesus are not very clear about it and rather ambiguous. What the Gospel writers wrote surrounding the story of Jesus clarify it some, and then what Paul's Epistles and Revelation and the such state really solidify the doctrine. However, Christians need to stop confusing "Jesus said" with "so-and-so said about Jesus."

And his "great sacrifice" was pointless if you believe that the Torah (first five books of your Bible) is true, considering that it states that God is the only real savior, sin atonement can be made without sacrifice, one man can't die for another's sins, and that human sacrifice is an abomination.

And since she does not accept this point about Christianity, all her other statements about being willing to believe in the Christian God are irrelevant. It means that she does not accept Christianity (otherwise she would be a Christian, as she put it). Thus any claim to accept Christianity is merely superficial. She may not claim openly that Christianity is false. But the claims of Christ means that you either believe in Christ, or you reject Him, and the middle ground between these points is occupied only by those who are ignorant of the claims of Christ or are in the process of making up their minds about Him.

You seem to assume that all forms of Christianity are the forms that you believe in, that are based on the Bible. I suppose you don't believe that anyone was a Christian before the 4th century, since they had no Bible and did not all believe that Jesus' sacrifice or a belief in Jesus was what really saved you.

So, when you say "ignorant of the claims of Christ" you're actually talking about what four out of dozens of works about the life of Jesus claim about Jesus. You really don't know what the "claims of Christ" are, outside of your narrow sect of Christianity. It seems like her views of Jesus might be right along the lines of the views of Jesus held by many early Christians. Just not early Christians you would have anything to do with.

Neu Leonstein

13-04-2006, 11:35

I always thought that Arianism was the most sensible breed of Christianity.

Now, I'm not religious, nor particularly informed, but the more a religion sticks to what I can observe to a real world, the better it is.
A Jesus who was just a man fits certainly better than a Jesus who was some sort of confusing entity which is the father and the holy spirit at the same time (and apparently talking to himself on numerous occasions?).

Bruarong

13-04-2006, 14:22

Yeah, the difference was apparent from the quote, which is how you got caught. Read the posts of our argument and you will see that I have been following your use of words all through it. You started this argument with accusations against animism in general and against shamans in particular and you never used any other terms. You then went into your own source and selected a paragraph about an entirely different kind of person and tried to make it be about shamans. This was out and out dishonesty on your part, and this weak denial of yours is nonsense -- so is your equally weak attempt to equate sorcerers with shamans by claiming they're both animist leaders.

You continually claim dishonesty on my part. That means, you are continually calling me a liar, based on your interpretation of my posts. But you only have subjective evidence of my lying, which I feel has more to do with your bias. So you have nothing more than your bias to demonstrate that I was lying, and yet you have continually called me a liar. Are you not afraid of being a slanderer? You think it so bad of me to criticise your religion, based on subjective evidence, and yet you do not hesitate to do a similar thing. Isn't that hypocrisy? You accuse me of slandering a religion once or twice, all the while you take the opportunity to slander me in every one of your posts. What is worse? To post negative things about a belief system, or to post negative things about a person? Which would you find more offensive?

Your own source at missiology.org contradicts you yet again. The book makes it clear, several times that shamans are not religious leaders, just like they are not sorcerers. Further, the Sorcerers and Witches section says nothing at all about sorcerers being "leading figures in animism." What it actually says is that people fear sorcerers because they are malicious, and it also opens the possibility that they are little more than a fear, i.e. figments of fearful imaginations. The book even goes as far as drawing a cautionary comparison with the Christian witch crazes of the 16th and 17th centuries, another bad outcome of a social fiction.

Your claims about animism remain rooted only in your own negative imagination.

Here is a quote from the link http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Chapter07.htm that we have been referring to. It is actually the second paragraph.

Field research by later ethnographers showed these animistic practitioners typically to be respected leaders who divined misfortune and maintained the authority system of their culture. Shweder, in his formative study of the Zinacanteco Indians of Chiapas, Mexico, describes shamans as practitioners who refuse to say, "I don't know," when confronted by events and ideas that baffle the common man. They creatively devise answers concurrent with their worldviews. Shweder says that they have learned to order "the chaos set before their eyes" by imposing "form on unstructured stimuli." He describes their role in society as both "interpretive and constructive" (1972, 408-412).''

In this quote, animistic practioners are typically the respected leaders.

Then we have this quote: ''Formal, institutional religious leaders are first described in this section followed by informal religious leaders. ''

Accordingly, the text deals with priests, prophets, shamans, mediums, new age channelers, witches and sorcerers. I suppose witches and sorcerers would be considered as informal religious leaders within animism, according to the article.

Under the description of witches and sorcerers is a comment: ''Differentiating between types of malevolent religious practitioners is especially helpful in Africa, where the distinction between witchcraft and sorcery is necessary for clarity of cultural understanding.''

So witches and sorcerers are described here as malevolent practitioners within animism, and they go on to say that ''Witches and sorcerers both use spiritual power to inflict harm on others.'' Although they point out that ''A witch, whose power is internal, may not be aware that he is a witch until he is accused.'' and then later ''Unlike a witch, whose power is internal and may be used unconsciously, a sorcerer uses the external power of magical rites and paraphernalia to consciously inflict harm on others.''

None of these statements are taken out of context or misleading when I used them to point out that they describe animistic leaders as causing harm among the people, despite your claims that I am being misleading and lying.

I have never claimed that shaman were sorcerers, but rather have pointed out that there does appear to be a difference, although that difference may not remain constant, depending on which version of animism is being described.

The article goes on to show how fear plays a large role in animism, and that the leaders have their power because they are feared by the people for their spiritual powers.

Then they finish the section with the comment,
''Christians are called to be holy as their father in heaven is holy (1 Pet. 1:15-16). A people of holiness cannot touch anything as wicked as sorcery. Attitudes of jealousy and hatred which breed witchcraft are uprooted by Christian love. Where Christianity takes root, sorcery and witchcraft wane. Paulo Koech, a long-time Kipsigis friend and helper, testified that "we have not been affected by witchcraft since the days of my father because we have been Christians." The holiness of God abhors all contact with sorcery and displaces all attitudes which breed witchcraft.''

This article goes as far to say that sorcery is wicked, and gives a typical Christian response to sorcery. Perhaps it is because of the sorcery within animism that I have such a negative opinion of animism. So how do you feel about sorcery within animism? Is it an abuse of animism, or a necessary part?

This is the third time I've asked you what you think you can learn from animism, or any other religion. You have yet to answer.

Animism is an alternative way (to Christianity) with which to view the world. I can learn a good deal about both animism and Christianity by comparing and contrasting the foundational beliefs of both religions. I can also learn things such as the great variety of beliefs that exists within animism, and seek explanations for that variety, and explanations for the parts of animism that remain similar right around the world. It could potentially tell me a good deal about people in general, and how a religion evolves or develops. Someone pointed out earlier that a religion like astrology tells us not so much about the stars and magic, but more about the people who constructed and believed this religion to hold truth.

It's important for everyone, I feel, to step outside of their own world view from time to time, and have a good look at the world from the point of view of someone who does not share their beliefs. It's important for objectivity, for understanding, and for things like tolerance and empathy. You may claim that I am lacking in all these things, because I have criticised your religion, and you might be right. But it does not necessarily follow that the more I learn about animism, the more I like it. In fact, the opposite would probably be more accurate.

Once again, your "impression" is nothing but that. It does not justify your constant insults and accusations, nor does your devout Christianity make your remarks any less slanderous. I ask you again to retract them.

I have already told you that I will retract them when I feel that they are wrong. You may as well give up complaining, and begin to provide a decent argument as to why I might have been wrong about animism.

When did I ever say that your world view is false, or anything even remotely like that? This is just like you accusing me of saying your religion was a false one. I have never said any such things, to you or anybody else. I challenge you to produce quotes.

Its not that you have said that my world view is false, but that I think you believe it to be false. So I ask you now, do you think the claims of Christ as recorded in the Bible, are false?

I have called you dishonest, bigoted, and a slanderer, and I have made it clear that this is because of your specific statements and your refusal to retract them. I have never said anything negative about your religion or your personal spiritual beliefs or world view.

But you have plenty of negative things to say about me because of my personal spiritual beliefs or world view, which means that you can't think too highly of my personal beliefs.

I have already presented objective evidence that refutes your insults and accusations. You choose to reject it and then claim, disingenuously, that I never gave you any. This is just another form of dishonesty. You will not reject your prior impression of animism because you have invested value in it. You already explained to us how your sense of the worth and truth of Christianity would be undermined if you didn't think that other religions are not just false, but also abusive and harmful. That is what makes you a bigot. According to Mirriam-Webster, a "bigot" is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." The fact that you actually have to denigrate my religion to highlight how much better you think yours is, is bigotry.

I have read your defense, and it amounts to 'you are a liar, you are slandering, retract your statements now'.

It is my sense of the truth of Christ that brings me to believe that, although other religions may have truth in them, they are not the way to the Truth, and are thus harmful in the sense that they are misleading when they claim to be a way to the Truth. I do not believe this because I like to believe this, but because this is what the claims of Christ means. I am not a bigot, just a believer. If I didn't believe this, I would compromise my belief in Christ.

You said you couldn't find objective facts. Adherents.com is a statistics site. Statistics (you know, numbers?) are facts. They are totally objective, i.e. they have no opinion attached to them. That's what "objective" means, by the way -- no opinion attached. You said you couldn't find objective facts. I showed you a site full of them.

Wrong. I said that I had trouble finding an objective site that contains opinions on animism. The facts about animism do not declare ''animism is evil'', but interpretations of the data will always be subjective. Therefore I suspect that there isn't a website to be found that will provide us an objective answer to the question of whether animism is harming its people or not. There might be plenty of objective sites, but I doubt any of them will tell us whether animism harms the people or not.

As for your demands that I "prove" that animism doesn't kill or abuse people, this is just you keeping up your slanderous attacks. Bottom line: The accused doesn't have to "prove" anything. You made the accusations. You have to prove them. You can't because there is no evidence, because your accusations are false. Your constant attempts to use rumor and unsupported anecdotes are not proof. I told you that official reports by government agencies, non-governmental organizations, civil rights organizations, even large-scale church studies, would constitute proof, and there are no such reports or studies that support your accusations against animism. Not even your own Evangelical Christian sources agree with you.

Would controlling the people through fear constitute an abuse, in your opinion?

Exactly the same thing I said at the start of this argument: The story of one individual -- or 3 or 4 or a 100 -- do not paint the portrait of a religion practiced by 350 million people world wide. You already conceded this point. Now you're trying to push it again? I'll be happy to respond to this with your own concession from now on.

But if this point of view was affirmed by many more people, including those who were once animists themselves, would you still argue that such a point of view is still invalid? Would you accuse those people of lying and slander?

Bruarong

13-04-2006, 14:31

Actually, the few sayings actually attributed to Jesus are not very clear about it and rather ambiguous. What the Gospel writers wrote surrounding the story of Jesus clarify it some, and then what Paul's Epistles and Revelation and the such state really solidify the doctrine. However, Christians need to stop confusing "Jesus said" with "so-and-so said about Jesus."

You may claim that they are ambiguous, but that is only your point of view. My point of view is that Jesus was recorded as leaving no doubt about it.

And his "great sacrifice" was pointless if you believe that the Torah (first five books of your Bible) is true, considering that it states that God is the only real savior, sin atonement can be made without sacrifice, one man can't die for another's sins, and that human sacrifice is an abomination.

And so, if Jesus was God, where is your problem?

You seem to assume that all forms of Christianity are the forms that you believe in, that are based on the Bible. I suppose you don't believe that anyone was a Christian before the 4th century, since they had no Bible and did not all believe that Jesus' sacrifice or a belief in Jesus was what really saved you.

I do not assume that, and it is obvious from my posts that I have frequently alluded to different forms of Christianity. And, yes, before Christ, there were no Christians, but there were people who had faith in God, like Abraham, which Christianity teaches is necessary for salvation, not the Christian religion itself.

So, when you say "ignorant of the claims of Christ" you're actually talking about what four out of dozens of works about the life of Jesus claim about Jesus. You really don't know what the "claims of Christ" are, outside of your narrow sect of Christianity. It seems like her views of Jesus might be right along the lines of the views of Jesus held by many early Christians. Just not early Christians you would have anything to do with.

No, the ignorant people would be those who have never heard the good news that God loves them and has provided a way that they can become his friends.

Bruarong

13-04-2006, 15:33

The clear case that you lied is in the comparison between the content of your source and the way you pulled quotes from it and tried to use those quotes. Everyone can look and judge for themselves.

And since I have shown that I used the quotes in their context, and that your comments on my posts about those quotes are inaccurate, will you consider that I was not lying, or will you continue in your own biased belief that I have been lying?

And yes, I have biases. For instance, I'm biased against people who falsify evidence to promote false accusations against others.

So if you are biased, what do you accuse me of being biased? Wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

No, I got it from animism. Shinto and old European traditions, to be precise.

Interesting. What would be even more interesting is how such religions came by their beliefs. For example, the idea that each person has a free will and can choose between good and evil and that every person is responsible for his or her own choices is not necessarily found in every religion.

In contrast to this, I have read that religions like Hinduism are more deterministic.

"Hinduism, ..... has no rationale for why people should be helped. This system asserts that the poor are poor because of what they did in their past lives, and their quickest way out of poverty in the next life is to suffer in this one."
Discipling Nations by Darrow L. Miller

Do you have anything constructive to say about it, or do you need more time to figure out a way to make it fit your prejudiced view of animism?

I was not aware of your desire for me to say something constructive about your beliefs. But I can say that some of what you have said is quite similar to what I believe the Bible has to say about good and evil, which is, I think, something good I can say about your religion. And it seems to encourage people to be good to one another. It touches on forgiveness, a wonderful thing IMO. I like that, because in Jesus time, he was a great contrast to the existing religion because he was so seemingly willing to forgive, even when they were hanging him on a cross. It showed just how little forgiveness featured in the religion of his day, and how much forgiveness is available in the heart of God. Thus any religion that focuses on the importance of forgiveness is helping the people a great deal, with regards to that aspect at least. If you would like a comment on something more specific about what you believe, you have only to ask.

Do you actually read any of the sources you cite? This article from religioustolerance.org is saying that satanic ritual abuse is a myth. That is, the claim that there is some kind of organized network or rings of satanists ritually abusing children and adults just is not true. The FBI and Interpol agree that it is a myth. Many completely innocent people have had their lives ruined by such false allegations. Of all the falsehoods you've claimed or cited so far, this is possibly the worst because it has only been used against innocent people. Actual murderers who try to claim satanist connections -- like Richard "The Nightstalker" Ramirez -- are never said to be part of such a conspiracy. SRA is always associated with community hysterias, and it is never proven. It is nothing more than a terrifyingly destructive urban myth that people use against their neighbors.

Yes, perhaps not the best extreme example I could have pointed to. But it doesn't matter if it really is a religion or just an invention based on fear (I would not use the word myth interchangeably with invention, because myth at least contains truth, while invention may not), the point is that SRA would be an example of how a religion harms its people. If you are interested, I give you another site about it http://www.newsmakingnews.com/karencuriojonesarchive.htm
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of SRA, whether it really is an invention or something more sinister, since there does seem to be something, judging by the number of cases. Alternatively, since there could be other explanations, it may be just an invention. It certainly does not seem so widespread as many people have claimed, at any rate, although I cannot say. People are curious creatures.

Then why did you spend so much time trying to say that animist bad people commit crimes because they are animists, while Christian bad people commit crimes despite being Christians?

I actually never said that at all, but you have taken my posts to mean that that is what I think.

And an insult against Islam for good measure. At least I know not to take your attacks personally. You're an equal opportunity slanderer.

No, that wasn't an insult against Islam. It wasn't even an insult. I simply said that if a persons' religion commands him to wage war, using terror if necessary, then that religion can be said to be a cause for terror. I personally know several Muslims who believe that their religion condemns terror, so I do not think that Islam necessarily supports terror. I think that the terrorists are waging war in spite of Islam, not because of it, but the particular brand of Islam that they believe in supports the use of terror, because of the way they chose to interpret the Koran and other Islamic teachings.
Any religion is capable of being re-interpreted and altered to support terror. And thus it is the altered form of Islam that supports terror. Thus this version of Islam is a cause for terror in the world. And the terrorist would certainly claim that their religion supports the use of terror.

Now, you, in typical fashion, are trying to make my post into an insult against Islam, where there was neither in insult intended, nor implied. When you do this, you are in danger of lying and slander, not to mention hypocrisy (again).

DubyaGoat

13-04-2006, 16:24

You seem to be going in circles now. I've already cited in a previous post that we have a written Mishnah, Targums, and Midrash, which compose the majority and core of Jewish Rabbinic writings, that predate Christianity. The oldest Mishnah text in existence is from the period of Hillel, 100 years before Jesus. The oldest Targums that we have are mentioned in the books of Ezra and Nemeiah in the Bible. The oldest Targum parchments (like the Targum of Job) predate Jesus by a hundred years.

The only thing that came later is the Gemara (which was the commentary of the Mishnah to form the two Talmuds), various Responsas, and other commentaries. The central and most important works of Rabbinic Judaism predate every single Christian text.
...

Really? Well I have this other authority over here that says the Talmud IS Judaism…

...
In essence, according to the oldest standing Jewish traditions today, and the majority of Judaism (Orthodoxy and Conservative) worldwide, the Talmud is as essential as the Torah, and it really is Judaism. They aren't taught simply as commentary or opinion, but rather as the Oral Torah that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai along with the Written Torah. Only the Gemara part of the Talmud is the commentary, the Mishnah is considered divine and part of the Torah.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10717345&postcount=266

Hey. What do you know, that was YOU. So which is it? But anyway you look at it the Talmud was inked onto parchment after the NT was.

And here you are talking to Bruarong

...
I suppose you don't believe that anyone was a Christian before the 4th century, since they had no Bible and did not all believe that Jesus' sacrifice or a belief in Jesus was what really saved you.

Fourth Century? Let’s try first century (50-60 A.D.) And see what Paul taught about abandoning the Law and Judaism of his day in favor of a resurrection with and through Christ:

Philippians 3 1-11 (NRSV)
Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard.

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh-- 4 even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

7 Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 8 More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, 11 if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Perhaps you should take your own advice again, and remember that what you think about early Christian writings is not in fact universally accepted by the academic or theological field, but is simply your views of the evidences prompted up by your personal beliefs. Reverse your own quote below...

Perhaps
Why is it that Christians always argue with Jews about Judaism? Who really knows more?
...

Grave_n_idle

13-04-2006, 18:34

I'll let you know when I've started it. Unfortunately they might actually have to be Romans, and Italian popular music sucks horribly. Oh, well. Maybe we could start it in Brooklyn instead. :D

There's a 'Rome' near me... in Georgia....

Grave_n_idle

13-04-2006, 18:45

So you argue that the point about Jesus being the way to God is only a minor detail in Christianity. That would be your mistake. Jesus was quite clear about it. And if there was another way, it would have made his great sacrifice quite pointless. Not only does the text support this point, but the whole basis of Christianity (the version that I believe in) rests on this point. Hardly finessing, Grave.

And since she does not accept this point about Christianity, all her other statements about being willing to believe in the Christian God are irrelevant. It means that she does not accept Christianity (otherwise she would be a Christian, as she put it). Thus any claim to accept Christianity is merely superficial. She may not claim openly that Christianity is false. But the claims of Christ means that you either believe in Christ, or you reject Him, and the middle ground between these points is occupied only by those who are ignorant of the claims of Christ or are in the process of making up their minds about Him.

I call bullshit.

You imply that the ONLY way to be in the 'middle ground' is to be either indecisive or ignorant.

On the contrary - I believe the only way to make claims like those YOU have made, is to be ignorant... perhaps willfully so.

For example - the 'sacrifice' on the cross. You seem to be implying that 'believing in Christ' is necessary for salvation... but there are problems with that:

1) If Christ WAS fictional, the whole 'christ' angle becomes irrelevent.

2) If you've read the Hebrew scripture, and STILL believe Jesus even COULD be 'messiah', you have clearly failed to grasp the scripture.

3) The favourite cited passage about the necessity for 'belief', is John 14:6... "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me".

However, even a basic grasp of Koine Greek shows that the KJV translation is horribly flawed. Not least, in the respect of saying "but [b]by[/i] me"... when "because of" would be a much better translation.

In other words... believe or no, the sacrifice on calvary saves - because the door to the father is opened 'because of' Jesus.

But, again... you finesse. Jesus is an aspect of 'god'... and the stories about him do not have to be assumed to be literally, factually true... EXCEPT by those who BELIEVE they must.

So - Muravyets can 'accept your little god', WITHOUT believing all the little stories.

Willamena

13-04-2006, 19:45

Abroad

13-04-2006, 21:42

what an odd suggestion.

are the constellations all grouped the same way by all the mediterranean cultures? i know they arent grouped the same by everyone in the world. and im pretty sure they werent all called the same thing. (even given the difference in languages)

The constellations are the zodiac (babylonian name?) circle.
It's not the same everywhere, but the authors say that striking similarities suggest a common root.

so what is the point? that ancient cultures looked at the stars, invented constellations and that so did the ancient jews?

The authors' point is that the original meaning of the star names of the zodiac tells the story of a divine yet human person born of a virgin who defeats the adversary, the serpent. These star (and constellation) names was supposedly given from God as a kind of prophecy to the first humans, and from there spread over the world and became mythology and astronomy.

"seed" in english is a plural notion. when you talk about your bratty childrent, for example, you call them hell spawn, not hell spawns. is it really singular in hebrew so that if you were to count all the decendants you would refer to them as seeds?
I checked the latin vulgate translation and it has the singular form, I can't read hebrew though. (Not latin either really, but i checked with a dictionary.)
i always thought that god was telling abraham that he was going to have lots and lots of decendants.
Yes, the standard reading/understanding of the passage has been "lots of descendants".

The same story could also be read into Genesis 3:14-15 (from NLT)

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, you will be punished. You are singled out from all the domestic and wild animals of the whole earth to be cursed. You will grovel in the dust as long as you live, crawling along on your belly. From now on, you and the woman will be enemies, and your offspring and her offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

The offspring (same word as seed in the Gen. 15:5 passage I think) of the woman, HE will crush the head of the serpent (that is: totally destroy), and the serpent will bite him in the heel (lethally?)

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 22:10

So you argue that the point about Jesus being the way to God is only a minor detail in Christianity. That would be your mistake. Jesus was quite clear about it. And if there was another way, it would have made his great sacrifice quite pointless. Not only does the text support this point, but the whole basis of Christianity (the version that I believe in) rests on this point. Hardly finessing, Grave.

And since she does not accept this point about Christianity, all her other statements about being willing to believe in the Christian God are irrelevant. It means that she does not accept Christianity (otherwise she would be a Christian, as she put it). Thus any claim to accept Christianity is merely superficial. She may not claim openly that Christianity is false. But the claims of Christ means that you either believe in Christ, or you reject Him, and the middle ground between these points is occupied only by those who are ignorant of the claims of Christ or are in the process of making up their minds about Him.
Once again you are trying to project your thoughts onto me. You're the one who cops this either-or attitude. You're the one who rejects other people's religions. Apparently you also think your way of thinking is the only way of thinking. That's just another detail you're wrong about.

I clearly stated that I believe in the existence of your god in the exact same sense that I believe in the existence of other people. In the view of animism, all beings are spirits and all beings/spirits really exist. That fact alone does not demand that one must worship them -- either humans or gods. You can think that's a silly idea if you like, but don't presume to tell me that it's not what I think.

Abroad

13-04-2006, 22:47

I found this page concerning "The pagan-christianity" issue:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/

This is about the supposed influence of Mithras-worship on christianity, which has been mentioned in this thread:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Our walking papers are laid out for us by a leading proponent of that view, Acharya S, who, in her magnum opus The Christ Conspiracy (118-120), lays out over a dozen things that Jesus supposedly has in common with Mithras and, by extension, Christianity allegedly borrowed to create the Jesus character; some of these points she now defends further in a work titled Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, which is presently only available in sample chapters on her Internet page. The points are:

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Here is part of the reply to #1:
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

This claim, which I have seen repeated in part by the Secular Web's James Still, is a mix of truth and obfuscations. Let's begin with the December 25th part by noting Glenn Miller's reply, which is more than sufficient: "...the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all." This is something the later church did, wherever they got the idea from -- not the apostolic church, and if there was any borrowing at all, everyone did it, for Dec. 25th was "universally distinguished by sacred festivities" [Cum.MM, 196] being that it was (at the time) the winter solstice.

Next, the cave part. First of all, Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! (The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36.)

That leaves the shepherds, and this is one that is entirely true; although the shepherds did more than "attend" (unlike Luke's shepherds, they were witnesses to the birth; there was no angelic mediator), they also helped Mithra out of the rock, and offered him the first-fruits of their flock -- quite a feat for these guys in any event, considering that Mithra's birth took place at a time when (oops!) men had supposedly not been created on earth yet. [Cum.MM, 132] But the clincher here is that this scene, like nearly all Roman Mithraic evidence, dates at least a century after the time of the New Testament. It is too late to say that any "borrowing" was done by the Christian church -- if there was any, it was the other way around; but there probably was not. (It is fair to note also that the Iranian Mithra didn't have a "born out of rock" story...his conception was attributed, variously, to an incestuous relationship between Ahura-Mazda and his mother, or to the plain doings of an ordinary mortal woman...but there is no virgin conception/birth story to speak of.

And the reply to number 13:

His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

This saying is appealed to also by Freke and Gandy [Frek.JM, 49], and it took me some digging to discover it's actual origin. Godwin says that the reference is from a "Persian Mithraic text," but does not give the dating of this text, nor say where it was found, nor offer any documentation; that I found finally in Vermaseren [Verm.MSG, 103] -- the source of this saying is a medieval text; and the speaker is not Mithras, but Zarathustra! Although Vermaseren suggested that this might be the formula that Justin referred to (but did not describe at all) as being part of the Mithraic "Eucharist," there is no evidence for the saying prior to this medieval text. (Freke and Gandy, and now Acharya, try to give the rite some ancestry by claiming that it derives from an Iranian Mithraic ceremony using a psychadelic plant called Haoma, but they are clearly grasping at straws and adding speculations of meaning in order to make this rite seem similar to the Eucharist.) This piece of "evidence" is far, far too late to be useful -- except as possible proof that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity! (Christianity of course was in Persia far earlier than this medieval text; see Martin Palmer's Jesus Sutras for details.)

The closest thing that Mithraism had to a "Last Supper" was the taking of staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebration of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity after slaying the bull. However, the meal of the initiates is usually seen as no more than a general fellowship meal of the sort that was practiced by groups all over the Roman world -- from religious groups to funereal societies. [MS.348]

...

Here is also an interesting (at least I think so) quote relating to my previous posts:
But before too long, Mithraic scholars noticed something (or actually, revived something first posited in 1869 that Cumont, because of his biases, dismissed -- Ulan.OMM, 15) about the bull-slaying scene: The various human, animal, and other figures comprised a star-map! The bull corresponded with Taurus; the scorpion coincided with Scorpio; the dog matched up with Canis Major, and so on. What Mithra himself corresponded to took a bit longer to decide; Spiedel first made a case for a correspondence with Orion [Spie.MO], but Ulansey has led the way with the thesis that Mithra is here to be identified with Perseus [Ulan.OMM, 26ff], and that Roman Mithraism was founded upon a "revolutionary" discovery in ancient astronomy (which was closely linked to astrology in that time) that "the entire cosmic structure was moving in a way which no one had even known before" -- a process we now call the precession of the equinoxes. In line with the Stoic belief that a divine being was the "source of every natural force," the personifying of natural forces in the form of mythical divine figures, and the origin on the cult in Tarsus, a city long under Persian domination and where Perseus was the leading god, Perseus was the perfect choice -- but this wasn't the type of thing that the cultists wanted everyone to know about, so, Ulansey theorizes, they chose the name of Mithra (a Persian god), partly to cover the identity of Perseus (who was often associated with Persia), partly because of an alliance between the Ciclian pirates who first introduced Mithraism to the Romans and a leader in Asia Minor named Mithridates ("given of Mithra"). [Ulan.OMM, 89] Quite a tangled web, this story.

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 23:39

You continually claim dishonesty on my part. That means, you are continually calling me a liar, based on your interpretation of my posts. But you only have subjective evidence of my lying, which I feel has more to do with your bias. So you have nothing more than your bias to demonstrate that I was lying, and yet you have continually called me a liar. Are you not afraid of being a slanderer? You think it so bad of me to criticise your religion, based on subjective evidence, and yet you do not hesitate to do a similar thing. Isn't that hypocrisy? You accuse me of slandering a religion once or twice, all the while you take the opportunity to slander me in every one of your posts. What is worse? To post negative things about a belief system, or to post negative things about a person? Which would you find more offensive?
I am not slandering you because my negative comments about you are true. The proof is right here in this thread. Anyone who think I might be lying about you has only to read it to judge for themselves. If anyone presents proof that I am wrong, I will immediately retract my statements about you, but nobody has yet, including you.

You, however, have no proof at all of your allegations against animism. I have presented evidence that directly contradicts your claims. You have failed to counter that evidence or my assertions that what you are saying is false. My statement that you are slandering my religion stands.

Here is a quote from the link http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Chapter07.htm that we have been referring to. It is actually the second paragraph.

Field research by later ethnographers showed these animistic practitioners typically to be respected leaders who divined misfortune and maintained the authority system of their culture. Shweder, in his formative study of the Zinacanteco Indians of Chiapas, Mexico, describes shamans as practitioners who refuse to say, "I don't know," when confronted by events and ideas that baffle the common man. They creatively devise answers concurrent with their worldviews. Shweder says that they have learned to order "the chaos set before their eyes" by imposing "form on unstructured stimuli." He describes their role in society as both "interpretive and constructive" (1972, 408-412).''

In this quote, animistic practioners are typically the respected leaders.

Then we have this quote: ''Formal, institutional religious leaders are first described in this section followed by informal religious leaders. ''
Except that Chapter 7 then makes clear that shamans are not leaders, neither does it claim that sorcerer or witches are leaders. On the contrary, it states specifically that shamans are personal practitioners who deal with people's personal problems and that they do not talk about or teach about the religion -- neither religious nor social leaders. It also makes it clear that sorcerers are anti-social and that witches may not even know that they are producing negative effects -- so how could they possibly be leaders?

When are you going to give up these futile efforts to cherry pick evidence out of a source that clearly contradicts you?

Accordingly, the text deals with priests, prophets, shamans, mediums, new age channelers, witches and sorcerers. I suppose witches and sorcerers would be considered as informal religious leaders within animism, according to the article.
What article? Do you mean Chapter 7 of the book? It says nothing of the sort. Go and read it again. This supposition is just you repeating your vain attempt to impose your assumptions over the facts so that you can keep saying things that are not true.

Under the description of witches and sorcerers is a comment: ''Differentiating between types of malevolent religious practitioners is especially helpful in Africa, where the distinction between witchcraft and sorcery is necessary for clarity of cultural understanding.''

So witches and sorcerers are described here as malevolent practitioners within animism, and they go on to say that ''Witches and sorcerers both use spiritual power to inflict harm on others.'' Although they point out that ''A witch, whose power is internal, may not be aware that he is a witch until he is accused.'' and then later ''Unlike a witch, whose power is internal and may be used unconsciously, a sorcerer uses the external power of magical rites and paraphernalia to consciously inflict harm on others.''

None of these statements are taken out of context or misleading when I used them to point out that they describe animistic leaders as causing harm among the people, despite your claims that I am being misleading and lying.
Oh, yes they were. I refer all readers back to your post 217:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10714436&postcount=217

Nowhere did you make any effort to apply these words to anyone other than shamans, in direct contradiction of the content of the source. Now you are trying to apply them to "animistic leaders" in general, also in direct contradiction of the content of the source. You are lying right now, and the proof of it is in the paragraph I'm responding to.

I have never claimed that shaman were sorcerers, but rather have pointed out that there does appear to be a difference, although that difference may not remain constant, depending on which version of animism is being described.
Again, I refer you to post 217. And again, you are trying to impose your own thoughts onto your source. The book does not say this.

The article goes on to show how fear plays a large role in animism, and that the leaders have their power because they are feared by the people for their spiritual powers.
Another lie. It does not do this. Unless you are now referring to a different source that you are failing to name? We have been talking about Chapter 7 of Communicating Christ in Animistic Settings at missiology.org (see your link, above). This is a chapter of a book, not an article.

Then they finish the section with the comment,
''Christians are called to be holy as their father in heaven is holy (1 Pet. 1:15-16). A people of holiness cannot touch anything as wicked as sorcery. Attitudes of jealousy and hatred which breed witchcraft are uprooted by Christian love. Where Christianity takes root, sorcery and witchcraft wane. Paulo Koech, a long-time Kipsigis friend and helper, testified that "we have not been affected by witchcraft since the days of my father because we have been Christians." The holiness of God abhors all contact with sorcery and displaces all attitudes which breed witchcraft.''
This is the last paragraph of the Sorcerers and Witches section, which talks about evil people. No kidding Christians shouldn't deal with evil people. The last paragraph of the Shamans section says that Christians can recognize that shamans are benevolent even though their power doesn't come from god and that they should avoid dealing with them only because their power isn't from god, even though it is a beneficent thing.

This article goes as far to say that sorcery is wicked, and gives a typical Christian response to sorcery. Perhaps it is because of the sorcery within animism that I have such a negative opinion of animism. So how do you feel about sorcery within animism? Is it an abuse of animism, or a necessary part?
Then you are as ignorant as people who believe in sorcery -- and who can't read their own sources.

I think of sorcery in animism exactly the same way I think of witch crazes in Christianity -- a parallel that your own source draws, by the way. There is no such thing as sorcery. No amount of chanting, wand waving, diagram drawing or bone crossing is going to put any magic hex on anybody or anything. It's a nonsensical notion. People who believe in it are superstitious. People who claim to do it are liars and con artists trying to extort money or privileges from superstitious people. Every now and then, when a community is under a lot of pressure, a witch craze breaks out in which people claim they are being hexed right and left and start blaming the neighbors they don't like. It's nothing but a type of scapegoat syndrome.

I see absolutely no difference between animists who fear sorcerers and Christians who fear witches or satanists. So I would say sorcery is as much a part of animism as satanism is a part of Christianity, and in exactly the same way.

Animism is an alternative way (to Christianity) with which to view the world. I can learn a good deal about both animism and Christianity by comparing and contrasting the foundational beliefs of both religions. I can also learn things such as the great variety of beliefs that exists within animism, and seek explanations for that variety, and explanations for the parts of animism that remain similar right around the world. It could potentially tell me a good deal about people in general, and how a religion evolves or develops. Someone pointed out earlier that a religion like astrology tells us not so much about the stars and magic, but more about the people who constructed and believed this religion to hold truth.

It's important for everyone, I feel, to step outside of their own world view from time to time, and have a good look at the world from the point of view of someone who does not share their beliefs. It's important for objectivity, for understanding, and for things like tolerance and empathy. You may claim that I am lacking in all these things, because I have criticised your religion, and you might be right. But it does not necessarily follow that the more I learn about animism, the more I like it. In fact, the opposite would probably be more accurate.
I look forward to the day you start following the policy you outline here, rather than just spouting insults and accusations against others.

BTW, astrology is not a religion. It's a fortunetelling system used by religious and non-religious people alike.

I have already told you that I will retract them when I feel that they are wrong. You may as well give up complaining, and begin to provide a decent argument as to why I might have been wrong about animism.
You have my facts in rebuttal. I will continue to ask for my retractions until I get them. I am not optimistic, however.

Its not that you have said that my world view is false, but that I think you believe it to be false. So I ask you now, do you think the claims of Christ as recorded in the Bible, are false?
Oh, so now you admit that you tried to put words in my mouth falsely? Yet again, I ask you to stop trying to impose your thoughts on me.

As for the Bible, I've never read the whole thing. It's not my religion, so it's content is not my concern. Are you asking if I think the events actually happened? I have no idea, but I am inclined to think they are stories that contain some history enhanced with religious symbolism. But that is nothing but a personal opinion. As I say, it's not my religion, so I don't have to believe it.

By the way, I don't believe the stories and myths of animist religions, either. They are art, meant to express feelings and give insights. I personally don't need religion to be history in order for it to be meaningful. But again, that's just my personal feeling about religion in general.

But you have plenty of negative things to say about me because of my personal spiritual beliefs or world view, which means that you can't think too highly of my personal beliefs.
Again, I demand to see quotes of me doing any such thing. I have stated explicitly several times that my comments are about you, not your religion.

I have read your defense, and it amounts to 'you are a liar, you are slandering, retract your statements now'.

It is my sense of the truth of Christ that brings me to believe that, although other religions may have truth in them, they are not the way to the Truth, and are thus harmful in the sense that they are misleading when they claim to be a way to the Truth. I do not believe this because I like to believe this, but because this is what the claims of Christ means. I am not a bigot, just a believer. If I didn't believe this, I would compromise my belief in Christ.
Let's be clear. I'm not defending anything. I don't have to defend against false accusations. What I'm doing is exposing your slanders.

And this paragraph of yours seems to contradict your earlier paragraph about what you feel you can learn from other religions, above. How do you reconcile them?

Wrong. I said that I had trouble finding an objective site that contains opinions on animism. The facts about animism do not declare ''animism is evil'', but interpretations of the data will always be subjective. Therefore I suspect that there isn't a website to be found that will provide us an objective answer to the question of whether animism is harming its people or not. There might be plenty of objective sites, but I doubt any of them will tell us whether animism harms the people or not.
That might be because there's no such thing as an objective opinion. Opinions are, by definition, slanted or biased.

Would controlling the people through fear constitute an abuse, in your opinion?
Who are you saying this about and where is your proof? That's the magic word: PROOF. You have none.

But if this point of view was affirmed by many more people, including those who were once animists themselves, would you still argue that such a point of view is still invalid? Would you accuse those people of lying and slander?
Proof, proof, proof, proof..... Where is it? There is none. Not one shred. That's what makes it slander.

And since you're so invested in a few disgruntled animists as evidence that animism abuses people, then tell me how Christianity is proven to be a bad and abusive religion by the hundreds of people who abandon it every year, telling stories about how they were abused by priests or harassed by threats of hell, etc.?

Muravyets

13-04-2006, 23:43

There's a 'Rome' near me... in Georgia....
And I'll bet it's full of goyim. :D

Muravyets

14-04-2006, 00:14

And since I have shown that I used the quotes in their context, and that your comments on my posts about those quotes are inaccurate, will you consider that I was not lying, or will you continue in your own biased belief that I have been lying?
See my post 379 for my comments about how you have been using your own sources.

So if you are biased, what do you accuse me of being biased? Wouldn't that be hypocrisy?
No, it would not, becuase I've never claimed not to be biased against you as an individual.

Interesting. What would be even more interesting is how such religions came by their beliefs. For example, the idea that each person has a free will and can choose between good and evil and that every person is responsible for his or her own choices is not necessarily found in every religion.

In contrast to this, I have read that religions like Hinduism are more deterministic.

"Hinduism, ..... has no rationale for why people should be helped. This system asserts that the poor are poor because of what they did in their past lives, and their quickest way out of poverty in the next life is to suffer in this one."
Discipling Nations by Darrow L. Miller
Well, you won't like my answer to that. Current academic theories based on archeological evidence suggest that animism was the first religion, so it would have invented these ideas. But that's just an academic theory. I personally don't see why it matters.

BTW, your quote concerning Hinduism is inaccurate. I assume from the title of the source, it's from yet another Evangelical site (no link this time?). Don't you read anything else? Do you look to missionary websites for sports scores?

I was not aware of your desire for me to say something constructive about your beliefs. But I can say that some of what you have said is quite similar to what I believe the Bible has to say about good and evil, which is, I think, something good I can say about your religion. And it seems to encourage people to be good to one another. It touches on forgiveness, a wonderful thing IMO. I like that, because in Jesus time, he was a great contrast to the existing religion because he was so seemingly willing to forgive, even when they were hanging him on a cross. It showed just how little forgiveness featured in the religion of his day, and how much forgiveness is available in the heart of God. Thus any religion that focuses on the importance of forgiveness is helping the people a great deal, with regards to that aspect at least. If you would like a comment on something more specific about what you believe, you have only to ask.
Noted.

Yes, perhaps not the best extreme example I could have pointed to. But it doesn't matter if it really is a religion or just an invention based on fear (I would not use the word myth interchangeably with invention, because myth at least contains truth, while invention may not), the point is that SRA would be an example of how a religion harms its people. If you are interested, I give you another site about it http://www.newsmakingnews.com/karencuriojonesarchive.htm
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of SRA, whether it really is an invention or something more sinister, since there does seem to be something, judging by the number of cases. Alternatively, since there could be other explanations, it may be just an invention. It certainly does not seem so widespread as many people have claimed, at any rate, although I cannot say. People are curious creatures.
SRA would be an example of a harmful religion if it existed. It doesn't, so it's not. And it doesn't have to be "something more sinister" than an invention. It is a lie that destroys people's lives. That's sinister enough for me.

I actually never said that at all, but you have taken my posts to mean that that is what I think.
More dishonesty, in an attempt to disavow your earlier slanders. You most certainly did say it, throughout all of your allegations about how the Japanese were as cruel as they were during WW2 because of Shinto. If you didn't mean that, then why don't you just retract those statements about Shinto now?

No, that wasn't an insult against Islam. It wasn't even an insult. I simply said that if a persons' religion commands him to wage war, using terror if necessary, then that religion can be said to be a cause for terror. I personally know several Muslims who believe that their religion condemns terror, so I do not think that Islam necessarily supports terror. I think that the terrorists are waging war in spite of Islam, not because of it, but the particular brand of Islam that they believe in supports the use of terror, because of the way they chose to interpret the Koran and other Islamic teachings.
Any religion is capable of being re-interpreted and altered to support terror. And thus it is the altered form of Islam that supports terror. Thus this version of Islam is a cause for terror in the world. And the terrorist would certainly claim that their religion supports the use of terror.
What does this mean? Are you saying that terrorists are wrong to claim Islam as authority for their crimes or are you saying that terrorism has altered Islam to the point where it is a cause for terrorism?

And if you are saying that Islam is not a cause for terrorism, does this mean that you are going to retract the allegations you made against Shinto?

Now, you, in typical fashion, are trying to make my post into an insult against Islam, where there was neither in insult intended, nor implied. When you do this, you are in danger of lying and slander, not to mention hypocrisy (again).
I respond to the statements you make in the context you make them. If I misread you, then I retract the statement that it was an insult against Islam. Now, do you intend to reconcile these statements of yours about religion in general and Islam in particular with your earlier allegations against animism in general and Shinto in particular? You may do so easily by retracting your allegations against animism and Shinto.

Grave_n_idle

14-04-2006, 00:17

And I'll bet it's full of goyim. :D

Problem solved. :)

Muravyets

14-04-2006, 01:06

Problem solved. :)
The Goyim of Rome -- they'll be one of those tv sitcom bands like the Monkees or the Partridge Family. We'll be rich!! You, me and Tropical Sands.

I kept saying to myself, "Don't give up. Keep arguing with him. Something good will come of it." :D

Grave_n_idle

14-04-2006, 01:17

The Goyim of Rome -- they'll be one of those tv sitcom bands like the Monkees or the Partridge Family. We'll be rich!! You, me and Tropical Sands.

I kept saying to myself, "Don't give up. Keep arguing with him. Something good will come of it." :D

And, now we are going to be fantastically wealthy beyond my wildest dreams?

Yes, yes! Keep arguing!

:D

Tropical Sands

14-04-2006, 08:44

Really? Well I have this other authority over here that says the Talmud IS Judaism…

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10717345&postcount=266

Hey. What do you know, that was YOU. So which is it? But anyway you look at it the Talmud was inked onto parchment after the NT was.

The Talmud is Judaism. So are the pre-Christian texts that lead up to the Talmud. You've slipped into the fallacy of the false dichotomy. There is no "which is it?", because its both.

And like I stated, only the Gemara was "inked onto parchment" after the NT. The body of the Talmud, the part that is referred to as the "Oral Law" or "Oral Torah", the Mishnah, was inked onto parchment before Christianity all together.

I think you may be confused about what exactly the Talmud is. Let me try to explain it in a way you'll understand better. The Talmud is an anthology, like the Bible. It is composed of different parts that were written at different times, just like the books in the Bible were written at different times. No one sat down and wrote the entire Talmud in one sitting, or even during the same century. There are two parts to the Talmud, the main part a stand-alone text that was inked before Christianity. These are the Mishnah, and Gemara. The Mishnah was in fact written down before Christianity even existed; as I cited in a previous post, we have a pre-Christian Mishnah. The Gemara is the commentary of the Mishnah, this was written down after most Christian texts. Both were compiled into the Talmud.

Thus, it is not entirelly accurate to say "The Talmud was inked later" when in fact the body of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was inked before Christianity.

Fourth Century? Let’s try first century (50-60 A.D.) And see what Paul taught about abandoning the Law and Judaism of his day in favor of a resurrection with and through Christ:

It seems you've practiced selective reading. I did not state that no Christians believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation before the 4th century, I stated that not all Christians believed this. And they didn't. Gnostics being one example, who believed that Gnosis (rather than faith in Jesus) was the salvation. The only reference I made to the 4th century was that they had no Bible before then. And they didn't. Individual Christian groups used whatever texts their communities selected. And many developed radically different doctrines than the doctrine post-canon Christians developed, due to the different selection of texts.

Perhaps you should take your own advice again, and remember that what you think about early Christian writings is not in fact universally accepted by the academic or theological field, but is simply your views of the evidences prompted up by your personal beliefs. Reverse your own quote below...
Why is it that Christians always argue with Jews about Judaism? Who really knows more?

Everything I've cited about early Christian writings so far I've backed up with contemporary scholarship. I've even cited textbooks from Seminary. You've yet to actually address or refute any of the individual claims, but rather you make a blanket statement of dismissal. Unless you want to make an argument against something I've stated or dispute the sources I've cited to back them up, then there is no sense in saying that it isn't "universally accepted." And "universally accepted" is a non sequitur anyway. Virtually nothing is "universally accepted" by modern scholarship - including the existence of Jesus as a real person.

Furthermore, you commit the fallacy of questionable analogy when you compare Judaism to Christainity in terms of knowledge about your own religion. To begin, to be a Jew you must either be born a Jew or you must go through a conversion process where you are required to rigorously learn about Judaism in depth. Those Jews that are born Jews, assuming they are religious, spend more time in Ketanas (schools where Jews go to learn Judaism) by 16 than most Christian ministers have spent in post-grad Seminary.

Thus, to be a religious Jew essentially means that you are educated in Judaism. The two go hand in hand, and you can't be a good Jew without a thorough and difficult Jewish education.

Contrast this to Christianity. To be a Christian, according to many sects, one never even has to read the Bible. They simply have to confess that they believe in Jesus and viola! They're Christians. There is no required education or training to be a Christian, as there is to be a Jew. Some sects may require converts and adherents to be baptized, take Eucharist, or go to Church. Even so, the education that they would get is minimal and pales in comparison to the education that a Jewish convert must undergo or that a typical religious Jew receives as a child. I recall watching TBN (Christian TV station) and they cited a poll that stated over 70% of Christians have never read their Bibles. Many Jews have read the Torah in Hebrew before 12 years old, and I would venture to say the majority have read it in English completely before 12 years old.

In short, to be a religious Jew you are required to have an education in Judaism. There is an inherent part of study and learning about Judaism in the Jewish religion. However, there is no such requirement in Christianity. I don't have to study a lick to be a Christian, I simply have to claim that I am one. It is much more safe to assume that a religious Jew knows far more about Judaism than a religious Christian knows about Christianity. Thus, there is no reason to assume that a Christian knows more about Christianity than a Jew does, whereas it is quite obvious that Jews in general know more about Judaism than Christians do.

And just out of curiousity, how many years of formal education have you had in Christianity? Do you feel you have been as thorougly educated in Christianity as the average Jew has been in Judaism, and if so how and why? I don't mean to put you on the spot, I'm just curious as to how you relate to the premises above.

Tropical Sands

14-04-2006, 09:02

The authors' point is that the original meaning of the star names of the zodiac tells the story of a divine yet human person born of a virgin who defeats the adversary, the serpent. These star (and constellation) names was supposedly given from God as a kind of prophecy to the first humans, and from there spread over the world and became mythology and astronomy.

I think you summed up the author's point well with this. I just wanted to say that the entire point actually relies on the false cause fallacy. What we know from history is that Jesus came second, these myths came first, and early Christians and non-Christian historians and philosophers admitted that pagan religions influenced and shaped Christianity.

Using the author's mode of reasoning (the false cause fallacy), I can say that the stars, other religious texts, etc. all lead up to Krishna, or that Jesus himself was just an incarnation of Krishna. No one can really "prove" it wrong, and I could make strong arguments for Jesus being an incarnation of Krishna (as the Bahai religion tends to do).

I checked the latin vulgate translation and it has the singular form, I can't read hebrew though. (Not latin either really, but i checked with a dictionary.)

Yes, the standard reading/understanding of the passage has been "lots of descendants".

The same story could also be read into Genesis 3:14-15 (from NLT)

The offspring (same word as seed in the Gen. 15:5 passage I think) of the woman, HE will crush the head of the serpent (that is: totally destroy), and the serpent will bite him in the heel (lethally?)

I probably should have responded sooner, but the word is actually rather ambiguous. Just like "seed" in English can be plural or singular, depending on context, the same functions with zara in Hebrew. We should be able to tell from the context that in the story with Abraham at least it refers to multiple descendants, rather than just one, because it talks about them being numbered more than the dust, stars, etc. The plurality of the context would make it plural in this instance. In short, I don't buy the author's interpretation that it refers to Jesus alone. If we insert "Jesus" where zara occurs in reference to Abraham's descendants, it would say things along the lines of, "I will multiply your Jesus" and "your Jesus shall be a stranger in a land." Since the former makes no sense, and the latter is inaccurate if in reference to Jesus (Jesus wasn't a stranger in a land that wasn't his, he lived in Israel. Rather, this is a reference to the Jews in Egypt), I think we can disregard the author of the astrology article's interpretation here.

Genesis 3:15 on the other hand was actually just a story that demonstrated why humans and snakes are incompatable. Of course, Christians came along later and interpeted it to be about Jesus. Christians have done this with lots of texts that are not actually prophecies. They are generally known as "proof-texts."

To see an example of how Christians have fit Jesus into scriptures that are not really about Jesus, here is a very short article that gives a wonderful example:

http://www.messiahpage.com/htmldocs/chassidicrooster.html

Muravyets

14-04-2006, 18:23

<snip>
Thus, to be a religious Jew essentially means that you are educated in Judaism. The two go hand in hand, and you can't be a good Jew without a thorough and difficult Jewish education.

Contrast this to Christianity. To be a Christian, according to many sects, one never even has to read the Bible. They simply have to confess that they believe in Jesus and viola! They're Christians. There is no required education or training to be a Christian, as there is to be a Jew. Some sects may require converts and adherents to be baptized, take Eucharist, or go to Church. Even so, the education that they would get is minimal and pales in comparison to the education that a Jewish convert must undergo or that a typical religious Jew receives as a child. I recall watching TBN (Christian TV station) and they cited a poll that stated over 70% of Christians have never read their Bibles. Many Jews have read the Torah in Hebrew before 12 years old, and I would venture to say the majority have read it in English completely before 12 years old.

In short, to be a religious Jew you are required to have an education in Judaism. There is an inherent part of study and learning about Judaism in the Jewish religion. However, there is no such requirement in Christianity. I don't have to study a lick to be a Christian, I simply have to claim that I am one. It is much more safe to assume that a religious Jew knows far more about Judaism than a religious Christian knows about Christianity. Thus, there is no reason to assume that a Christian knows more about Christianity than a Jew does, whereas it is quite obvious that Jews in general know more about Judaism than Christians do.

And just out of curiousity, how many years of formal education have you had in Christianity? Do you feel you have been as thorougly educated in Christianity as the average Jew has been in Judaism, and if so how and why? I don't mean to put you on the spot, I'm just curious as to how you relate to the premises above.
My understanding is that it's not quite that simple (except for a few extremist sects). Ideally, there has to be a demonstration of sincerity as well.

But I think one of the core issues here is the degree to which Christian sects emphasize the concept of "obedience." Obedience to god's will, obedience to scripture, obedience to the rules of their church, what have you. Traditions that emphasize obedience tend to discourage -- or at least, don't encourage -- individual study of primary sources. Rather, they prefer to see adherents submit to external authority/leadership (like, say, the Pope) as an expression of their total submission to god as the controlling power in their lives.

In addition, there are other Christian sects that emphasize personal experience of god over any prior authority, even scripture, which is usually cited to back up accounts of personal experience, not to validate or invalidate them. In such traditions, personal experience -- revelation, ecstacy, epiphany -- are valued most highly as immediate proof of divine presence, and as long as the expression is sincere, it will not be questioned.

These influences in Christianity must be taken into account, but it's my opinion that the debate gets distorted by people who say that these traditions represent all of Christianity. There are many, many Christians who follow a path similar to Judaism, in which scriptural study and comment are vital to religious practice, and these tend to be the sects that keep alive the general debates about Christ's divinity, the meaning of the trinity, the nature of miracles, how sins get forgiven, etc.

Obviously, regardless of what some fundamentalists might claim, there is more than one path within Christianity. There is the long hard learning path of obedience to the rules, the immediate, do-it-now path of direct, personal experience, and the intellectual path of study and questioning.

Ashmoria

14-04-2006, 18:38

My understanding is that it's not quite that simple (except for a few extremist sects). Ideally, there has to be a demonstration of sincerity as well.

But I think one of the core issues here is the degree to which Christian sects emphasize the concept of "obedience." Obedience to god's will, obedience to scripture, obedience to the rules of their church, what have you. Traditions that emphasize obedience tend to discourage -- or at least, don't encourage -- individual study of primary sources. Rather, they prefer to see adherents submit to external authority/leadership (like, say, the Pope) as an expression of their total submission to god as the controlling power in their lives.

In addition, there are other Christian sects that emphasize personal experience of god over any prior authority, even scripture, which is usually cited to back up accounts of personal experience, not to validate or invalidate them. In such traditions, personal experience -- revelation, ecstacy, epiphany -- are valued most highly as immediate proof of divine presence, and as long as the expression is sincere, it will not be questioned.

These influences in Christianity must be taken into account, but it's my opinion that the debate gets distorted by people who say that these traditions represent all of Christianity. There are many, many Christians who follow a path similar to Judaism, in which scriptural study and comment are vital to religious practice, and these tend to be the sects that keep alive the general debates about Christ's divinity, the meaning of the trinity, the nature of miracles, how sins get forgiven, etc.

Obviously, regardless of what some fundamentalists might claim, there is more than one path within Christianity. There is the long hard learning path of obedience to the rules, the immediate, do-it-now path of direct, personal experience, and the intellectual path of study and questioning.
what christian sects are you thinking of when you say they are following a similar educational plan as religious jews do?

Tropical Sands

14-04-2006, 22:03

These influences in Christianity must be taken into account, but it's my opinion that the debate gets distorted by people who say that these traditions represent all of Christianity. There are many, many Christians who follow a path similar to Judaism, in which scriptural study and comment are vital to religious practice, and these tend to be the sects that keep alive the general debates about Christ's divinity, the meaning of the trinity, the nature of miracles, how sins get forgiven, etc.

Obviously, regardless of what some fundamentalists might claim, there is more than one path within Christianity. There is the long hard learning path of obedience to the rules, the immediate, do-it-now path of direct, personal experience, and the intellectual path of study and questioning.

To be fair, you are right that there are many Christians who follow a path similiar to Judaism, in that it consists of more study and ritual. Of course there is more than one path within Christianity.

However, it would seem that those Christians would be the exception. And while they make that choice as a personal one, there is still a bit of a difference. In Judaism, study and education is actually a mitzvah, a requirement under the Torah. So while we have some Christians who do go out and educate themselves about their religion extensively, I don't think Christianity in general places the same emphasis on it or makes it a religious requirement as Judaism does.

Grave_n_idle

15-04-2006, 03:50

To be fair, you are right that there are many Christians who follow a path similiar to Judaism, in that it consists of more study and ritual. Of course there is more than one path within Christianity.

However, it would seem that those Christians would be the exception. And while they make that choice as a personal one, there is still a bit of a difference. In Judaism, study and education is actually a mitzvah, a requirement under the Torah. So while we have some Christians who do go out and educate themselves about their religion extensively, I don't think Christianity in general places the same emphasis on it or makes it a religious requirement as Judaism does.

The only 'Christian' group I have encountered that REALLY seems to place the same 'requirement' on study and education, are the Witnesses... which is ironic, since many Christians claim that Witnesses are NOT 'Christian'...

Other than that - it seems that even having read their whole 'holy book' is more than many Christians have ever done. (Note - this is personal experience... I'm not saying it is some 'universal truth').

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 05:46

what christian sects are you thinking of when you say they are following a similar educational plan as religious jews do?
Uh...two off the top of my head: Jesuits and Unitarians. I'd have to look up more, but I don't feel like it at the moment.

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 05:56

To be fair, you are right that there are many Christians who follow a path similiar to Judaism, in that it consists of more study and ritual. Of course there is more than one path within Christianity.

However, it would seem that those Christians would be the exception. And while they make that choice as a personal one, there is still a bit of a difference. In Judaism, study and education is actually a mitzvah, a requirement under the Torah. So while we have some Christians who do go out and educate themselves about their religion extensively, I don't think Christianity in general places the same emphasis on it or makes it a religious requirement as Judaism does.
Exception? I wouldn't say that. They are definitely the minority, but I don't know how small a minority. The thing of it is that intellectualists lost the early church battle to control the canon. The obedience faction won that one and has set the tone ever since, trying to control, if not outright stifle, both the intellectualists and the personal experience factions. Even though the Protestant movement opened opportunities for the other factions, the obedience tradition remained strong -- possibly because it makes for a nice, centrally organized, power structure. A cynical thought, but hard to avoid.

Ashmoria

15-04-2006, 06:02

Uh...two off the top of my head: Jesuits and Unitarians. I'd have to look up more, but I don't feel like it at the moment.
well the jesuits are, in effect, the intellectual arm of the catholic church so they dont really count eh? every mainstream sect has SOME intellectuals

i dont know anything about unitarians.

i think you were just giving christianity the benefit of the doubt. but i think that tropical is right, there are no sects with educational requirements or who feel that all members should study theology. some DO emphasize reading the bible but i dont think they recommend any other theological reading or education for all members.

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 06:53

well the jesuits are, in effect, the intellectual arm of the catholic church so they dont really count eh? every mainstream sect has SOME intellectuals

i dont know anything about unitarians.

i think you were just giving christianity the benefit of the doubt. but i think that tropical is right, there are no sects with educational requirements or who feel that all members should study theology. some DO emphasize reading the bible but i dont think they recommend any other theological reading or education for all members.
Perhaps I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. My reading on specific Christian sects is spottier than my reading on my own religion, naturally. Unfortunately, I don't have the time this season to do the reading necessary to pursue this in depth.

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 07:00

The Talmud is Judaism. So are the pre-Christian texts that lead up to the Talmud. You've slipped into the fallacy of the false dichotomy. There is no "which is it?", because its both.

And like I stated, only the Gemara was "inked onto parchment" after the NT. The body of the Talmud, the part that is referred to as the "Oral Law" or "Oral Torah", the Mishnah, was inked onto parchment before Christianity all together.

So here we see that you are saying that you believe that people are capable of holding verbatim oral instructions and teachings from generation to generation, for literally hundreds (and even a thousand) years and you have no problem believing that they have done it successfully…

It’s interesting then that you would be so concerned that the NT books were written within a mere seventy years or less, one or two generations at most.

Now why is that exactly? Why do you think Judaism can be remembered and then recoreded by oral recall for a thousand years and yet the gospels and epistles etc., (all NT books), are some how tainted by less then a tenth of that time by the exact same recording methodology of people of the same ethnic group?

Thus, it is not entirelly accurate to say "The Talmud was inked later" when in fact the body of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was inked before Christianity.

Ah, but here you run into your other problem, you’ve stated over and over again that the Judaism tradition you believe in is untainted by ‘anonymous’ authors and odd denomination ‘break-offs'. But if we now take this NEW position of yours to heart, that you religious history goes all the way back to pre-first century Palestine, how then are we to know if it was the Sadducees or the Pharisees or the Essenes (or anyone else) actually involved with what you believe?

Additionally, surely YOU of all people cannot not NOW claim any religious relation, or heritage, to the anonymously written Pseudepigrapha (pre-first century Judaism books) because, OMGosh, they were written in the assumed names of the prophets that came before them, the authors were NOT themselves related to their namesakes (especially after you claimed that this practice was so horrible for the NT authors)…

Again, make up you mind. You can’t have it both ways, attack the NT for having anonymous authors writing under the names of other people and THEN claiming yourself to having a heritage to pre-first century Judaism writings which were also anonymously written.

It seems you've practiced selective reading. I did not state that no Christians believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation before the 4th century, I stated that not all Christians believed this. And they didn't. Gnostics being one example, who believed that Gnosis (rather than faith in Jesus) was the salvation. The only reference I made to the 4th century was that they had no Bible before then. And they didn't. Individual Christian groups used whatever texts their communities selected. And many developed radically different doctrines than the doctrine post-canon Christians developed, due to the different selection of texts.

Now you are completely making up something new. YOU said that the NT books did not endorse a divine Christ teaching and that the councils invented the belief in the Triune God and the Trinity AND the divinity of Christ only after the third century (or fourth century, depending on which post of yours we reference) … NOW you are simply saying that not ALL first century Christians believed in the divinity of Christ. You’ve changed your position due to the evidences produced and yet you continue to claim that no evidences have been produced…

*snipped great big section accusing a predominate portion of all Christians or encouraging ignorance in their congregations to assume superiority post*

What’s the point of this? You’ve stated several times now that you think Jewish theologians are better educated than Christian theologians. This is pointless insulting. Start naming schools and graduation requirements and then we can talk.

And just out of curiousity, how many years of formal education have you had in Christianity? Do you feel you have been as thorougly educated in Christianity as the average Jew has been in Judaism, and if so how and why? I don't mean to put you on the spot, I'm just curious as to how you relate to the premises above.

If this argument is going to be won by a process of revealing higher and higher degrees and diplomas and certificates, we could have simply started with a list of published articles on our side and been done with it. However, that was not your real point, you simply try to sugarcoat your motive for asking…

...
...

Hmmm, interesting that you are both so obsessed with the education of the congregation of the various sects… Read between the lines of this article.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

Tropical Sands

15-04-2006, 08:16

So here we see that you are saying that you believe that people are capable of holding verbatim oral instructions and teachings from generation to generation, for literally hundreds (and even a thousand) years and you have no problem believing that they have done it successfully…

It’s interesting then that you would be so concerned that the NT books were written within a mere seventy years or less, one or two generations at most.

Now why is that exactly? Why do you think Judaism can be remembered and then recoreded by oral recall for a thousand years and yet the gospels and epistles etc., (all NT books), are some how tainted by less then a tenth of that time by the exact same recording methodology of people of the same ethnic group?

This seems to be a non squitur. You made a claim that the Christian scritpures were actually inked onto parchment earlier than the equivalent Jewish texts, and I demonstrate that this was not the case, as the Misnhnah and quite a bit else was inked earlier than Christianity.

Now, if I believe that this tradition was an oral tradition that existed a thousand years earlier is another story. I also wasn't the one that placed the emphasis on dating - you were. It doesn't follow from the original discussion or what I stated, so its a non sequitur, but I'll answer it anyway.

To begin, it isn't difficult to believe that an oral tradition can be as accurate as a written text. Many cultures all over the world today have only oral traditions (as we see with many African and South American natives). Yet, they are astoundingly accurate. By cross-examining two, you can find they recite the exact same traditions word for word. Even if you cross-examine two from generations apart. So, the belief in an accurate oral tradition isn't far fetched.

To begin, Rabbinic Judaism was a tradition that had already been established. Because it was established and formed previously, it was simply in the process of passing things on. Christianity in the first 70 years, however, was not formed. It was just beginning. Thus, there is more of a margin for error in the first 70 years of a forming cult than there is for a religion that existed for hundreds of years.

Second, Rabbinic Judaism is internally consistent. While there are of course differing positions on issues of Halacha, they are relatively minor and can be accounted for easily. Early Christian texts, however, are completely contradictory to one another. Of course, the most consistent ones were canonized so it doesn't seem that way. But you would think that if Christian literature recorded a real person and real events, there would be some coherency. Early Christians didn't even agree on if Jesus was a real preson or a metaphorical spiritual being. So, the consistency of Rabbinic Judaism vs the inconsistency of early Christian literature is a good point too.

The fact that more Christian literature is inconsistent than more Jewish Rabbinic literature is a good example of how the former is more "tainted." In addition to the fact that we can find numerous examples of outside pagan influence in the Gospels. That would be a good point for its degree of taintedness.

I'll also point out that there is no evidence that most Christian literature is from the same ethnic group. It is not written in the same language, it doesn't use the same mnemonic devices Rabbinic lit. does (which is a good example of how oral tradition could have been preserved), it doesnt follow the same styles, and it is written with a pro-Rome anti-Jew bias. Most are anonymous. I would say that there are some good arguments that they were written by non-Jews, rather than the same ethnic group.

Now, I don't necessarily believe that the Mishnah is completely preserved and in tact from thousands of years ago. I can't say with certainty that it is the exact same Law Moses followed. As mentioned before, I can't even prove (and thus say with certainty) that Moses was a real person. But some traditions and laws within it are distinctly ancient, and there is evidence for quite ancient forms of Rabbinic Judaism.

Ah, but here you run into your other problem, you’ve stated over and over again that the Judaism tradition you believe in is untainted by ‘anonymous’ authors and odd denomination ‘break-offs'. But if we now take this NEW position of yours to heart, that you religious history goes all the way back to pre-first century Palestine, how then are we to know that that it was the Sadducees or the Pharisees or the Essenes (or anyone else) actually involved with what you believe?

Additionally, surely YOU of all people cannot not NOW claim any religious relation, or heritage, to the anonymously written Pseudepigrapha (pre-first century Judaism books) because, OMGosh, they were written in the assumed names of the prophets that came before them, the authors were NOT themselves related to their namesakes (especially after you claimed that this practice was so horrible for the NT authors)…

Again, make up you mind. You can’t have it both ways, attack the NT for having anonymous authors writing under the names of other people and THEN claiming yourself to having a heritage to pre-first century Judaism writings which were also anonymously written.

Because the documents from pre-Christian Palestine say so? Because the artifacts that I've shown you from pre-Christian Judea were found in the communities of Pharisees and Essenes. I think I've already presented a world of evidence for an unbroken chain of Rabbinic Judaism since the Hasmonean dynasty, at least. Now, I can't prove to you that it goes back all the way to Moses or anything. Just that its less corrupted from an earlier point than Christianity.

And I havn't claimed any tradition from anonymous works. The mishnah isn't anonymous. As I've stated before, it lists historically accurate persons, places, and dates. These are all confirmed by secular historical sources as well. Nothing in the Mishnah is written in the anonymously or in the namesake of ancient prophets. They all list the teachings of Rabbis, by name. The exception would be when a Rabbi attributes something by tradition to a Biblical figure, in which case, it still isn't anonymous because it is the teaching of that Rabbi.

I don't know where you got the idea that Rabbinic literature is anonymous, because it isn't.

Now you are completely making up something new. YOU said that the NT books did not endorse a divine Christ teaching and that the councils invented the belief in the Triune God and the Trinity AND the divinity of Christ only after the third century (or fourth century, depending on which post of yours we reference) … NOW you are simply saying that not ALL first century Christians believed in the divinity of Christ. You’ve changed your position due to the evidences produced and yet you continue to claim that no evidences have been produced…

And like I've stated before, if it is unclear, no first century Christians believed that Jesus was God. In fact I'm not even sure if you really read what I wrote correctly. Lets look at my post again:

It seems you've practiced selective reading. I did not state that no Christians believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation before the 4th century, I stated that not all Christians believed this. And they didn't. Gnostics being one example, who believed that Gnosis (rather than faith in Jesus) was the salvation. The only reference I made to the 4th century was that they had no Bible before then. And they didn't. Individual Christian groups used whatever texts their communities selected. And many developed radically different doctrines than the doctrine post-canon Christians developed, due to the different selection of texts.

When did I say anything about the divinity of Jesus? The only thing I mentioned here was salvation through Jesus. Some early Christians did believe that Jesus was the way to be saved, yet none believed that Jesus was God. You've confused what I said about Jesus being the way to salvation, with Jesus being God. Not once did I say what you said, that "not all first century Christians believed in the divinity of Jesus." I simply said not all of them believed he was the way to salvation. None of them believed in the divinity of Jesus.

What’s the point of this? You’ve stated several times now that you think Jewish theologians are better educated than Christian theologians. This is pointless insulting. Start naming schools and graduation requirements and then we can talk.

Schools and graduation requirements are only a minor portion of it, as I stated in the long explanation you snipped out. The fact that Jews are required by their religion to study on a daily basis, while Christians in general are not, is an example of my point. There is a whole socio-cultural emphasis on study in Judaism that doesn't exist in Christianity, and as a result Jews have traditionally been (and continue to be) the more educated demographic.

I should also point out that in many situations there are no listed graudation requirements. You may have to attend yeshiva for ten years before receiving semicha. So, you can see how this can be more difficult than simply having to get C's for three years in a Seminary based on classes you get to pick for yourself.

If this argument is going to be won by a process of revealing higher and higher degrees and diplomas and certificates, we could have simply started with a list of published articles on our side and been done with it. However, that was not your real point, you simply try to sugarcoat your motive for asking…

No one said anything about winning an argument by revealing higher degrees or diplomas. I just asked a friendly question to see if you were an example in my point. If you've had no formal education in Christianity, then you're an example of how Christians in general are less educated than Jews. A religious Jew your age (assuming you're 16 or over) would have had at least a few years of formal religious education under his belt.

Going off about degrees, diplomas, and published articles is another story. Those measure academic accomplishment, but not "education" in a field overall.

And I don't think I sugarcoated that my point was to see if you fit the example of the typical Christian who has no formal education in Christianity. I was quite clear about that.

Hmmm, interesting that you are both so obsessed with the education of the congregation of the various sects… Read between the lines of this article.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

Does "read between the lines" mean to put an anti-female spin on it? Because it seems like that would be your intention, although not the intention of this article. Like it states, the Talmud notes many women who were educated, and even states they are more naturally intelligent than men. Funny you should try to make an appeal to femaninity. Judaism teaches that men and women are equal, and that women have rights and are not subject to their husbands. Whereas Paul and Christianity taught that women were not equal to their husbands, that they were to be subservant, etc.

Just like the article stated, "The rights of women in traditional Judaism are much greater than they were in the rest of Western civilization until this century." And why is that? Because Western civilization up until this century was dominated by an inherently cheuvanistic religion called Christianity.

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 17:32

<snip>
Hmmm, interesting that you are both so obsessed with the education of the congregation of the various sects… Read between the lines of this article.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm
I read the article, but if you were hoping I would read into it a message that Judaism is misogynistic, sorry, but I didn't see that. The article was clear in its explanation of the role of women in Judaism and that women are at least equal with men spiritually and, until historically recently, socially equal as well. The separation of male and female spheres of influence that are nevertheless seen as being of equal importance to society may not jibe with the modern western way of doing things (or perhaps with some ancient European/Asian cultures as well), but it is hardly unusual in the world and has been a common social system throughout history. I see nothing inherently anti-feminine in it.

I saw only two sections of the article that invited additional comment: the part about women's limitations in the synagogue, and the part about Lilith.

As the article points out, there is a historical context for the separation of the sexes in the desire of the ancient Hebrews to differentiate themselves as much as possible from the pagans who surrounded them and whose religious practices often involved explicit sexuality. To this extent, the separation is not even inherent to the religion. In some modern, liberal synagogues, this practice is being relaxed, possibly as it is seen by some to be less important than it used to be.

The exclusion of women from religious practice in the synagogue also makes sense if you keep in mind that, in Judaism, as in many other religions, spiritual practice and awareness of the divine permeates all of daily life. There is nothing that is not part of the continuous "dialogue" with god that is life. This puts the synagogue into a certain social perspective and explains how it can be seen as little loss to women not to participate in the rituals of the synagogue along with the men. It falls under the heading of "Gender-Specific Spheres of Influence." If it has turned out over time that this difference has led to the curtailment of women's liberties, I see that as a fault of society, not of the religion -- i.e. men twisting the system to benefit themselves to some degree. There are a few synagogues in which this exclusion is also being questioned.

As to the Lilith story: I assume that you, of all people, are not sponsoring the demon Lilith as an emblem of women's proper place in society, right? ;)

It has been my experience and understanding that the feminists who latched onto the Lilith story are not interested in repudiating Judaism. They use it as an attack on the historical trend, common among all the monotheistic religious cultures, of stripping women of social status as part of a heirarchical socio-political power structure. It may have started in campaigns to crush competing religions but it has proven very effective in the profane work of concentrating property, wealth and the ability to produce wealth into the hands of fewer people, a good foundation for a program of centralizing power in general. The brutality with which it has been applied, historically, and the misogynistic propaganda used to keep it going qualify it as a grave social injustice that deserves to be challenged in the strongest terms possible.

By adopting Lilith as a symbol, feminists are forcing misogynists to confront all the negative things they have said about women throughout the generations, all in one symbol. They are also encouraging women to embrace as positive all the parts of themselves that a misogynistic society had condemned as negative. But it is a symbol has been rendered secular, used in the context of society and politics. It no longer is attached to Judaism.

All this being said, regardless of what might be said about the relative equality of Jewish men and women, there is little doubt that, throughout the Christian period, Jewish women have had greater social power and liberty, greater access to education, and greater recognition for their contributions to society and to their religious culture, than Christian women have enjoyed.

I think this has more to do with who has been holding the reins of social power than with the dictates of the religions.

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 17:34

...
Does "read between the lines" mean to put an anti-female spin on it? Because it seems like that would be your intention, although not the intention of this article.

Of course it wasn't the intention of the article, that's what makes it so surprising. However, IF I had selected an expose article you would have claimed that it was a false attack or some other thing. Instead, let the pro-judaim websites tie their own rope around their collective necks...

Like it states, the Talmud notes many women who were educated, and even states they are more naturally intelligent than men. Funny you should try to make an appeal to femaninity. Judaism teaches that men and women are equal, and that women have rights and are not subject to their husbands. Whereas Paul and Christianity taught that women were not equal to their husbands, that they were to be subservant, etc.

Funny that you should accuse Paul, the great liberator of womens rights for that day and age, telling them that they didn’t need to be married to become whole, and seeing as how he came from a religion that didn’t even allow women to enter the temple with the men at all, he was quite forward thinking and preaching…

Just like the article stated, "The rights of women in traditional Judaism are much greater than they were in the rest of Western civilization until this century." And why is that? Because Western civilization up until this century was dominated by an inherently cheuvanistic religion called Christianity.

How interesting. Let’s see what else it says about making excuses why women are separated from men in the practice of following the Judaism religion:

Because women are not obligated to perform certain commandments, their observance of those commandments does not "count" for group purposes. Thus, a woman's voluntary attendance at daily worship services does not count toward a minyan (the 10 people necessary to recite certain prayers), a woman's voluntary recitation of certain prayers does not count on behalf of the group (thus women cannot lead services), and a woman's voluntary reading from the Torah does not count towards the community's obligation to read from the Torah.

In addition, because women are not obligated to perform as many commandments as men are, women are regarded as less privileged. It is in this light that one must understand the man's prayer thanking G-d for "not making me a woman." The prayer does not indicate that it is bad to be a woman, but only that men are fortunate to be privileged to have more obligations. The corresponding women's prayer, thanking G-d for making me "according to his will," is not a statement of resignation to a lower status (hardly an appropriate sentiment for prayer!) On the contrary, this prayer should be understood as thanking G-d for giving women greater binah, for making women closer to G-d's idea of spiritual perfection, and for all the joys of being a woman generally.

The second thing that must be understood is the separation of men and women during prayer. According to Jewish Law, men and women must be separated during prayer, usually by a wall or curtain called a mechitzah or by placing women in a second floor balcony. There are two reasons for this: first, your mind is supposed to be on prayer, not on the pretty girl praying near you. Second, many pagan religious ceremonies at the time Judaism was founded involved sexual activity and orgies, and the separation prevents or at least discourages this.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

So, since they are afraid of spontaneous orgies erupting in the pews of the synagogue during services, women are delegated to sit in seclusion or behind and above the men to be out of their view. Thus, the men are brought ‘closer to G-d’ and cannot be allowed to be 'tempted' by the 'pretty girls' who might otherwise sit next to them.... What utter hogwash. Pure and simple justification for the separation and denigration. Sounds a lot like the Catholic church, you know, one of those ‘Christian Idol worshiping cult things you have so little regard for.’

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 17:42

...
The exclusion of women from religious practice in the synagogue also makes sense if you keep in mind that, in Judaism, as in many other religions, spiritual practice and awareness of the divine permeates all of daily life. There is nothing that is not part of the continuous "dialogue" with god that is life. This puts the synagogue into a certain social perspective and explains how it can be seen as little loss to women not to participate in the rituals of the synagogue along with the men. It falls under the heading of "Gender-Specific Spheres of Influence." If it has turned out over time that this difference has led to the curtailment of women's liberties, I see that as a fault of society, not of the religion -- i.e. men twisting the system to benefit themselves to some degree. There are a few synagogues in which this exclusion is also being questioned.

LOL. Um, okay. You bit into it hook line and sinker didn't you? LOL

*snicker*

...All this being said, regardless of what might be said about the relative equality of Jewish men and women, there is little doubt that, throughout the Christian period, Jewish women have had greater social power and liberty, greater access to education, and greater recognition for their contributions to society and to their religious culture, than Christian women have enjoyed.

Prove it.

It seems to me that comparing Russian peasant Jewish women with French or Italian aristocracy (for example) the comparison would favor so well with your premise. So,. What exactly are you thinking of when you make that statement?

Ashmoria

15-04-2006, 17:52

Hmmm, interesting that you are both so obsessed with the education of the congregation of the various sects… Read between the lines of this article.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm
i cant say as im obsessed with the education of anyone.

i do wonder how the confirmation classes that i took compare to bar mitzvah classes

...

looking at the webpage for barmitzvah classes that i pulled off the web, id say that there is no comparison. the jewish kids have way more preperation than i ever did.

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 18:04

Of course it wasn't the intention of the article, that's what makes it so surprising. However, IF I had selected an expose article you would have claimed that it was a false attack or some other thing. Instead, let the pro-judaim websites tie their own rope around their collective necks...

Funny that you should accuse Paul, the great liberator of womens rights for that day and age, telling them that they didn’t need to be married to become whole, and seeing as how he came from a religion that didn’t even allow women to enter the temple with the men at all, he was quite forward thinking and preaching…

How interesting. Let’s see what else it says about making excuses why women are separated from men in the practice of following the Judaism religion:

Because women are not obligated to perform certain commandments, their observance of those commandments does not "count" for group purposes. Thus, a woman's voluntary attendance at daily worship services does not count toward a minyan (the 10 people necessary to recite certain prayers), a woman's voluntary recitation of certain prayers does not count on behalf of the group (thus women cannot lead services), and a woman's voluntary reading from the Torah does not count towards the community's obligation to read from the Torah.

In addition, because women are not obligated to perform as many commandments as men are, women are regarded as less privileged. It is in this light that one must understand the man's prayer thanking G-d for "not making me a woman." The prayer does not indicate that it is bad to be a woman, but only that men are fortunate to be privileged to have more obligations. The corresponding women's prayer, thanking G-d for making me "according to his will," is not a statement of resignation to a lower status (hardly an appropriate sentiment for prayer!) On the contrary, this prayer should be understood as thanking G-d for giving women greater binah, for making women closer to G-d's idea of spiritual perfection, and for all the joys of being a woman generally.

The second thing that must be understood is the separation of men and women during prayer. According to Jewish Law, men and women must be separated during prayer, usually by a wall or curtain called a mechitzah or by placing women in a second floor balcony. There are two reasons for this: first, your mind is supposed to be on prayer, not on the pretty girl praying near you. Second, many pagan religious ceremonies at the time Judaism was founded involved sexual activity and orgies, and the separation prevents or at least discourages this.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

So, since they are afraid of spontaneous orgies erupting in the pews of the synagogue during services, women are delegated to sit in seclusion or behind and above the men to be out of their view. Thus, the men are brought ‘closer to G-d’ and cannot be allowed to be 'tempted' by the 'pretty girls' who might otherwise sit next to them.... What utter hogwash. Pure and simple justification for the separation and denigration. Sounds a lot like the Catholic church, you know, one of those ‘Christian Idol worshiping cult things you have so little regard for.’
Excuse me, DG, but you are not actually claiming Paul (the same one who used to be Saul of Tarsus, right?) as a champion of women's rights, are you? Please correct me if I'm wrong -- maybe I'm confusing Paul with other Christian writers (there are plenty of them in this vein, after all) -- but didn't Paul produce volumes of writings complaining about the inherent sinfulness of women? Isn't he one of the most often cited authorities for why the only good women are virgin nuns in cloisters; for why women are to blame for original sin and why they should submit to either men or the church or both to atone for original sin; why they are dumber and more lustful than men; even -- for some outrageous commentators -- for why women might not even have souls? Maybe I'm thinking of Augustine, but I could swear it was Paul, too. I wish someone would clear this up, because Paul would obviously have made a much better a symbol for the feminist movement, if we had but known.

As for your quotes from the article, you are either cherry-picking info from it or you are misunderstanding it altogether. Perhaps your view is that religion only occurs within the church and is only expressed through the performance of church rituals (prayer, preaching, etc), but that is not the Jewish view, according to this article. You cannot simply dismiss what the article writer is saying about the importance of women's roles in society and that these social functions count as religious expression/experience as well. The article clearly states that women's function in the religion is not curtailed because the religion is not confined to the synagogue.

The "not counting" part specifically says that this apparent spiritual scorekeeping is dependent on the person doing the ritual being obligated to do it -- i.e. not just doing because he/she wants to; i.e. such actions could be thought of as sacrifices to god. Women are not obligated to do these things because they are obligated to do other things. They can do these things if they like, but if they want to do them, then they are not really sacrificing anything by doing them, so in the tally of sacrifices offered to god, they don't count. We're talking quantity here, not quality.

Finally, DG, if you are such an advocate for the rights and liberties of women, then I expect that you will not be one of those people who go into abortion rights threads advocating laws that would force women to bear children as the price for choosing to have sex, thus taking away their control over their own bodies in obligation to your idea of morals. If I am wrong about that, and you do actually advocate such laws, then kindly do not claim here to be standing up for my rights as a woman -- which in practical terms would turn out to be nothing more than my right to be subjugated by your religious beliefs.

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 18:17

LOL. Um, okay. You bit into it hook line and sinker didn't you? LOL

*snicker*
What is this little snidery supposed to mean? I bit into your bait and failed to go along with your attempt to condemn another religion based soley on your selective misreading of a single article?

Prove it.

It seems to me that comparing Russian peasant Jewish women with French or Italian aristocracy (for example) the comparison would favor so well with your premise. So,. What exactly are you thinking of when you make that statement?
Now what are you talking about? Are you actually trying to say that the difference in education, liberty, and socio-political power between a Russian peasant and a French or Italian aristocrat is due to their religion? Riiiight, because everyone knows all Russian peasants are Jews. Whatever you're smoking, get off it. It's not good for you.

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 18:23

Excuse me, DG, but you are not actually claiming Paul (the same one who used to be Saul of Tarsus, right?) as a champion of women's rights, are you? Please correct me if I'm wrong -- maybe I'm confusing Paul with other Christian writers (there are plenty of them in this vein, after all)

Yes, for his day and age, he as a Women's rights advocate.

As for your quotes from the article, you are either cherry-picking info from it or you are misunderstanding it altogether.

How is it cherry picking to quote entire paragraphs, three at a time and in sequence?

On the other hand, here, just for you, is another nice example of justification of segregation.
Women are discouraged from pursuing higher education or religious pursuits, but this seems to be primarily because women who engage in such pursuits might neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers.

...
Finally, DG, if you are such an advocate for the rights and liberties of women, then I expect that you will not be one of those people who go into abortion rights threads advocating laws that would force women to bear children as the price for choosing to have sex, thus taking away their control over their own bodies in obligation to your idea of morals. If I am wrong about that, and you do actually advocate such laws, then kindly do not claim here to be standing up for my rights as a woman -- which in practical terms would turn out to be nothing more than my right to be subjugated by your religious beliefs.

Interesting. Abortion in history has always been the first choice of the married man for his Mistresses, all those bastard children running around were embarrassing and pregnancy ruined a good concubine … inventing the right to a legal “choice” was the best thing since sliced bread for the male rich and aristocratic. That's women's rights for ya, convince women that marriage is a scam and they should be liberated in their own freedom to be able to submit to rich men as they feel fit. How forward thinking of you (at least according to your view that everyone must agree with you or they are most certainly anti-women’s rights :rolleyes: ).

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 18:25

Now what are you talking about? Are you actually trying to say that the difference in education, liberty, and socio-political power between a Russian peasant and a French or Italian aristocrat is due to their religion? Riiiight, because everyone knows all Russian peasants are Jews. Whatever you're smoking, get off it. It's not good for you.

You’re the one that made and claimed the sweeping generalization that their 'religion' and not their social/economical or cultural status 'liberated them above and beyond their contemporaries of a different religion.'

Grave_n_idle

15-04-2006, 18:47

Interesting. Abortion in history has always been the first choice of the married man for his Mistresses, all those bastard children running around were embarrassing and pregnancy ruined a good concubine … inventing the right to a legal “choice” was the best thing since sliced bread for the male rich and aristocratic. That's women's rights for ya, convince women that marriage is a scam and they should be liberated in their own freedom to be able to submit to rich men as they feel fit. How forward thinking of you (at least according to your view that everyone must agree with you or they are most certainly anti-women’s rights :rolleyes: ).

I think you're talking crap, I'm afraid.

For most of 'civilised' history, I'd say the 'virility' inherent in fathering children has FAR outweighed any social stigma that MIGHT have accompanied progeny by 'non-wives'.

I'd argue that abortion has always been a 'female issue'.

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 18:53

Yes, for his day and age, he as a Women's rights advocate.
Forgive me if I don't just take your word for it. You've posted plenty of quotes to support your other statements. Kindly do so here so we can debate it properly.

How is it cherry picking to quote entire paragraphs, three at a time and in sequence?

On the other hand, here, just for you, is another nice example of justification of segregation.
Women are discouraged from pursuing higher education or religious pursuits, but this seems to be primarily because women who engage in such pursuits might neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers.

Lots of religions say this about women, but I know of no period in history when Jewish women were actually barred from getting the same education as men or from using those educations to study religion, science, law, politics, and to publish and work in those fields. Unlike Christian-dominated Western culture, under which women, who had had those same rights under pagan governments, were progressively stripped of those rights over time, from country to country, to the point that if they did want to publish, they had to do so under male pseudonyms as recently as the 19th century. This is to say nothing of the parallel trend of stripping women of their rights to own property, money, and businesses, and to seek redress for wrongs under the law.

As I clearly said, I don't know if you are cherry-picking or simply misunderstanding the article. What I do know is that you are ignoring the context of the sentences you choose to highlight and comment on. Wrap your brain around this: Traditional Jewish culture is one of obligation. All members, male and female, are obligated to fulfill certain social functions in order to keep the society whole and stable in the manner prescribed by God. The article states explicitly that women are not barred from pursuing higher education, but that the tradition demands that they give a higher priority to their social function, which is seen as part of the plan prescribed by God for all of society, not just them. If they can do what God asks and pursue additional interests in education and religious practice, there's no problem. Do you understand that, because these social roles are considered to be prescribed by God to allow the culture to survive and flourish, it is thought that if any member, male of female, fails to fulfill their function, it is a rejection or rebellion against God. They are not limited to only doing what God tells them, but they must at least do that.

Interesting. Abortion in history has always been the first choice of the married man for his Mistresses, all those bastard children running around were embarrassing and pregnancy ruined a good concubine … inventing the right to a legal “choice” was the best thing since sliced bread for the male rich and aristocratic. That's women's rights for ya, convince women that marriage is a scam and they should be liberated in their own freedom to be able to submit to rich men as they feel fit. How forward thinking of you (at least according to your view that everyone must agree with you or they are most certainly anti-women’s rights :rolleyes: ).
And now you're going to try to tell me that taking away my right to contol my own reproductive life is restoring liberty to me? Do everyone in this thread a favor and don't try to tell me that. Instead, go look at some old abortion threads, read the arguments I've made in those, and realize you are trying to sell that bill of goods to the wrong person.

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 18:59

You’re the one that made and claimed the sweeping generalization that their 'religion' and not their social/economical or cultural status 'liberated them above and beyond their contemporaries of a different religion.'
I said no such thing, your misleading use of quote marks notwithstanding. I said Judaism doesn't bar women from civil rights, and that to the extent that Jewish women lack rights, that's not due to the dictates of the religion. I said the exact same thing about Christianity, too.

Now, explain to the class what Russian peasants and French and Italian aristocrats have to do with that or any other part of this debate or anything else that does not involve you just pulling crap out of thin air.

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 19:11

I think you're talking crap, I'm afraid.

For most of 'civilised' history, I'd say the 'virility' inherent in fathering children has FAR outweighed any social stigma that MIGHT have accompanied progeny by 'non-wives'.

I'd argue that abortion has always been a 'female issue'.

OMYGoodness. Sometimes this is just too easy. Quick Wiki article on the history of Abortion in the Ancient world says EXACTLY what I said it was for...
Ancient period
The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from a Chinese document which records abortions performed upon royal concubines in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[1] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

(We can get into linking the locations of the archaeologically found preby infant and pre-born fetus burial grounds to show that they were always located next to 'sex-trade' houses and whatnot, but why bother)

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 19:15

I said no such thing, your misleading use of quote marks notwithstanding. I said Judaism doesn't bar women from civil rights, and that to the extent that Jewish women lack rights, that's not due to the dictates of the religion. I said the exact same thing about Christianity, too.

Now, explain to the class what Russian peasants and French and Italian aristocrats have to do with that or any other part of this debate or anything else that does not involve you just pulling crap out of thin air.

MY immediate apologies for the misleading 'quote' marks. I was simply trying to use them for emphasis of meaning and not as full quote marks, I was substituting them for italics in this forum as they are easier to use than actual italics...

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 19:25

MY immediate apologies for the misleading 'quote' marks. I was simply trying to use them for emphasis of meaning and not as full quote marks, I was substituting them for italics in this forum as they are easier to use than actual italics...
Here's a typographical trick: use asterisks thusly: "...use them for *emphasis*..." Asterisks are a typographical code for boldface type.

And I still never said what you claimed I did.

Muravyets

15-04-2006, 19:29

OMYGoodness. Sometimes this is just too easy. Quick Wiki article on the history of Abortion in the Ancient world says EXACTLY what I said it was for...
Ancient period
The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from a Chinese document which records abortions performed upon royal concubines in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[1] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

(We can get into linking the locations of the archaeologically found preby infant and pre-born fetus burial grounds to show that they were always located next to 'sex-trade' houses and whatnot, but why bother)
I long for the day when people will quit citing Wikipedia articles in support of arguments. Anyone can post articles to it and, worse, can edit posted articles. It is not a reliable source. It is only useful when it includes links to other sources which may be better but which still have to be vetted.

That said, what does your quote have to do with your argument?

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 19:48

Forgive me if I don't just take your word for it. You've posted plenty of quotes to support your other statements. Kindly do so here so we can debate it properly.
...

This is a huge discussion, instead of posting a hundred verses, this article sums up my viewpoint pretty well (be forewarned it is a big article though), it concludes with:

Paul is known as "the Apostle of Liberty." He was converted overnight from a legalistic, persecuting, pharisaic rabbi to a preacher of freedom in Christ, equality within the Body, of universal giftedness of the Spirit, to mutual submission after the model of the "meekness and gentleness of Christ."

His actions showed that his understanding of male and female alike was informed by the radical position we have in Christ. His practice and his words alike encourage ALL to accept the 'yoke' of service to the Master Servant of All...He consistently 'stays after women' to learn and grow and use their gifts for His precious Lord...He instructs his disciples to make sure that they are taught and utilized in the Body...He praises them in his letters for their faithfulness and hard work and 'co-laboring' with him...
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html

I long for the day when people will quit citing Wikipedia articles in support of arguments. Anyone can post articles to it and, worse, can edit posted articles. It is not a reliable source. It is only useful when it includes links to other sources which may be better but which still have to be vetted.

That said, what does your quote have to do with your argument?

I tend to agree with the anti-Wiki articles stance, however, it was sufficient for that simple post…

The quote was relevant to GnI because he said men liked having babies even when they are *illegitimate* and thus abortion was always a women’s issue in history and was not sponsored by rich men for women whom were not their wives (in other words, he said my example was flatly false, and I flatly showed he was wrong).

Kavenna

15-04-2006, 19:48

They're worse than the Mormons baptising people after they die. Instead of getting you to convert, you're already in, and there isn't jack you can do about it. :p

Ahem, ahem... That's a little mistaken. There is a choice; just because you're baptized doesn't mean you have to accept it, it just gives you the opportunity to do so.

Ashmoria

15-04-2006, 20:09

The quote was relevant to GnI because he said men liked having babies even when they are *illegitimate* and thus abortion was always a women’s issue in history and was not sponsored by rich men for women whom were not their wives (in other words, he said my example was flatly false, and I flatly showed he was wrong).
but concubines are a kind of wife and their children are not illegitimate. i dont know what reason an emperor would have for ordering abortions but it would not be to hide that he was having sex with his own concubines.

DubyaGoat

15-04-2006, 20:19

but concubines are a kind of wife and their children are not illegitimate. i dont know what reason an emperor would have for ordering abortions but it would not be to hide that he was having sex with his own concubines.

You're not thinking *shallow* enough.

You're emperor, you have as many women/slaves/concubines as you want, and a thousand children (over-emphasis or not) ... Why ruin a good concubine by allowing her to go through nine months of pregnancy and ruining her 'quality' as a concubine?

The same would hold true for just one of the rationales for not wanting your mistresses to have children (a thousand years later in Europe)... Hiding the sexual relationship might be irrelevant to the desires of the man to control the woman he has sex with, he doesn’t want his *sexual* gratification put behind the needs of a woman pregnant with his unwanted offspring... (but I still assert that embarrassment of bastard children did have an affect during some periods of European history).

Markiria

15-04-2006, 20:30

Pagens have great influences on Christanity. Look at Wicca, Some people belive in God while a Wiccan but mutch dont!
http://witchvox.com

Muravyets

16-04-2006, 03:26

This is a huge discussion, instead of posting a hundred verses, this article sums up my viewpoint pretty well (be forewarned it is a big article though), it concludes with:

Paul is known as "the Apostle of Liberty." He was converted overnight from a legalistic, persecuting, pharisaic rabbi to a preacher of freedom in Christ, equality within the Body, of universal giftedness of the Spirit, to mutual submission after the model of the "meekness and gentleness of Christ."

His actions showed that his understanding of male and female alike was informed by the radical position we have in Christ. His practice and his words alike encourage ALL to accept the 'yoke' of service to the Master Servant of All...He consistently 'stays after women' to learn and grow and use their gifts for His precious Lord...He instructs his disciples to make sure that they are taught and utilized in the Body...He praises them in his letters for their faithfulness and hard work and 'co-laboring' with him...
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html
I'd like to ask you to pull out more quotes from this article to help us figure out where you want us to go with it. I skimmed it rather quickly, but it seems an almost legalistically minute examination of specific lines from Paul -- even individual words -- looking at two or three different possible interpretations for each of them. The only thing I took from it was that Paul broke with Jewish tradition by advocating an active role for women within church rituals/activities and recognizing women's spiritual potential. But I have already pointed out the (to my mind) completely plausible social -- i.e. not religious -- explanations for the separation of women in the synagogue. Was it fair to women to limit their ritual participation just to set the Hebrews apart from their pagan neighbors? Possibly not, but it falls within my argument that this was a socio-political impulse, not a religious-spiritual one. If the ancient Jews separated women in the synagogue to set themselves apart from pagans, isn't it also possible that early Christians made a point of including women to set themselves apart from the Jewish traditions they used to belong to?

In addition, this fails to address two points:

1. The perceived value of religious practice/experience outside the ritualized synagogue setting. Remember, according to the article we are debating, the entire world of daily existence was considered a spiritual domain dominated by women. If the gender spheres were to be separate but equal shouldn't men have been allowed to have some form of spiritual practice that they dominated? (BTW, this is a second possible explanation for the separation of women in the synagogue.)

2. Although your article appears to be clear on Paul's position about women in the church, I could not pin-point what it was saying about Paul's position on women in society. Are women equal to men or not in his view? Did he believe that women should be subservient to men or not? Even the article doesn't seem sure. On this, I would appreciate more quotes pulled out by you. As it's your argument, you would understand it better than I.

As for the quote you did pull out, I'm sorry, but that particular paragrah tells me nothing about Paul's position on the proper status of women. Remember, we are disagreeing on the religion's respective rules regarding the social status and civil rights of women. It seems that neither religion tries to claim that women are spiritually inferior to men, but our discussion is not about spirituality on this one issue.

Also, once we've cleared up Paul's stance, if you demonstrate to me that Paul was an advocate for women's rights (even by his own times' standards), then I would like you to try to reconcile for me the difference between Paul's teachings and the way women have been generally treated by Christian-dominated societies -- and then explain how I'm right that the religion has nothing to do with it when Christians oppress women, but I'm wrong and religion does have something to do with it when Jews oppress women.

I tend to agree with the anti-Wiki articles stance, however, it was sufficient for that simple post…

The quote was relevant to GnI because he said men liked having babies even when they are *illegitimate* and thus abortion was always a women’s issue in history and was not sponsored by rich men for women whom were not their wives (in other words, he said my example was flatly false, and I flatly showed he was wrong).
I disagree. I saw nothing in your quote that said abortions were imposed on women by men. I saw only that, in some places in ancient times, sex workers disposed of their unwanted babies near where they worked (and trust me, this was not outrageously callous of them by the standards of their time for the disposal of dead infants or fetuses), and that there is a story about a certain abortifacient recommended by a certain Chinese emperor. Nowhere did I see any claim that this emperor's concubines were forced to take this medicine.

BTW, as bad as Wiki is as a source, folklore is even worse. For instance, did you know that, according to European folklore, bears who leave their house unlocked during the day, would have their stuff stolen by little German girls? Surely we can take this as an explanation of why bears don't own stuff nowadays -- the Germans stole it all.

Muravyets

16-04-2006, 03:41

You're not thinking *shallow* enough.

You're emperor, you have as many women/slaves/concubines as you want, and a thousand children (over-emphasis or not) ... Why ruin a good concubine by allowing her to go through nine months of pregnancy and ruining her 'quality' as a concubine?

The same would hold true for just one of the rationales for not wanting your mistresses to have children (a thousand years later in Europe)... Hiding the sexual relationship might be irrelevant to the desires of the man to control the woman he has sex with, he doesn’t want his *sexual* gratification put behind the needs of a woman pregnant with his unwanted offspring... (but I still assert that embarrassment of bastard children did have an affect during some periods of European history).
Uh...because you're a despotic emperor and there are always more where they came from?

And besides, if an emperor had all that many concubines/etc, how often do you think he'd have sex with each of them? It's my understanding that, at their height of power, the Chinese emperors had an entire half a city full of women who were given to them to establish political connections by all kinds of people. It's highly unlikely that any emperor had sex more than once with each of them, ever -- if that. I mean, they had to run the government too, you know -- protect themselves from assasins, bury 400 scholars alive, etc, etc. How much stamina do you think these men got from tiger's pizzle tea?

Ashmoria

16-04-2006, 04:01

Uh...because you're a despotic emperor and there are always more where they came from?

And besides, if an emperor had all that many concubines/etc, how often do you think he'd have sex with each of them? It's my understanding that, at their height of power, the Chinese emperors had an entire half a city full of women who were given to them to establish political connections by all kinds of people. It's highly unlikely that any emperor had sex more than once with each of them, ever -- if that. I mean, they had to run the government too, you know -- protect themselves from assasins, bury 400 scholars alive, etc, etc. How much stamina do you think these men got from tiger's pizzle tea?

the more ive thought about it the more likely it seems that the abortions were for concubines who had gotten pregnant from someone other than the emperor but for political reasons he couldnt have her killed or turned out for it.

or maybe it was for his first wife who was the one who really decided who would and would not have babies.

there isnt any good reason for the emperor to not want every one of his children.

Muravyets

16-04-2006, 06:27

the more ive thought about it the more likely it seems that the abortions were for concubines who had gotten pregnant from someone other than the emperor but for political reasons he couldnt have her killed or turned out for it.

or maybe it was for his first wife who was the one who really decided who would and would not have babies.

there isnt any good reason for the emperor to not want every one of his children.
I agree. Producing lots of sons, especially, would have been a mark of emperorly virility, especially for a Chinese emperor -- the more, the merrier.

From what little I've read about life in the Forbidden City, back in the day, there could be a couple hundred women living there as wives and concubines of the emperor at any time, and they had as rigid a hierarchy as the rest of their society. The highest ranking wives were extremely jealous of their rank and the power that came with it. If anyone was forcing women to have abortions, it would have been the high ranking wives who would not want the emperor's chippy-of-the-month producing a son before they did, or producing competition for their sons' future positions. Add that to the imperial women wanting to hide dalliances with other men, and the health-related decisions of doctors and midwives for pregnant women, and once again we see that, for good or ill, abortion is a decision made by women, not men.

Tropical Sands

16-04-2006, 07:01

Good posts so far, I havn't been keeping up with the whole women issue as of late. However, I will say that women have traditionally had far more rights in Judaism (and continue to do so) than they have had in Christian culture. Issues like birth control, abortion, divorce, and other liberating issues for women are things that Judaism has supported (and continues to support) while Christianity has not.

Here are some quotes from Christian leaders throughout history that I got from religioustolerance.org regarding the role of women in Christianity:

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die." - Tertullian

""What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." - St. Augustine

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence." - Thomas Aquinas

"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there." - Martin Luther

"Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line." - Jerry Falwell

And no, Paul was not progressive for his day toward the attitude of women. The fact that Christianity forbade divorce whereas Judaism permitted divorce demonstrates that much. Specifically the fact that a woman could divorce a man, in Judaism, on more grounds than a man could divorce a woman. Women have more marital rights in Judaism than men do. A woman could divorce a man for not keeping her satisfied in bed, for example.

Lets see what Paul really had to say about women:

1 Cor 11:3 "A husband is the head of his wife."
1 Cor 11 "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (Contrast this to Judaism, where a man is required to cover his head, but a woman is not)
1 Cor 14:33 "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." (Which Law is Paul talking about? In Judaism, both men and women are required to be equally silent and reverent during services. Why has Paul bumped men up a notch?)
1 Tim 2:11 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

The fact of the matter is, according to Paul women have no rights. They are to submit completely to men. Women in Christianity during the Middle Ages had less rights than women in Islam did. In fact, the roles of women in Christianity and Isalm are easily comparable. In both, liberating concepts like contraceptives and abortions are prohibited. As I stated before, Judasim permits both. In fact, Judaism requires abortion if the woman's life is in danger. That is how valuable a wife's life is in Judaism. Contrast this with Paul's "women are saved through childbearing." In Judaism, women are saved in the same way men are.

You'll also note that women play a much larger role in the Jewish scriptures than they do in Christian writings. Like the article at jewfaw.org noted, women have been advisors to their rabbi husbands, etc. However, the most obvious would be the books of Esther and Ruth. We have a woman as a national hero and an entire holiday based off of her story. The closest parallel Christianity has is Mary, and her merit is 100% dependent on her virtue as a barefoot, pregnant mother!

Of course, the real way to tell that Judaism has always promoted more equality for women than Christianity is to look at modern times. Rabbinic Judaism is virtually unchanged. Christianity has certainly reformed itself in the past few centuries regarding women. However, even after Christianity has reformed itself in part, women's rights are championed by Judaism, not by Christianity. Judaism is the only religion (out of the two) that supports the woman's right to choose across the board, the woman's right to divorce across the board, the woman's complete secular and marital equality across the board, etc. The fact of the matter is, unless you adhere to a very liberal, personal interpretation of the Bible and Christianity, then it doesn't support women's rights. Rabbinic Judaism, Halacha, does.

Tropical Sands

16-04-2006, 07:24

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html

Just thought I would comment on the errors on this website. I'm pretty familiar with christian-thinktank.com. Its one of those typical apologetics websites. The first thing that everyone should keep in mind is that apologetics and scholarship is dichotomous. One cannot be the other, because the former has an inherent goal and bias that prevents any real scholarship. Stating that, I'll give a quick analysis of the article:

The entire first section titled "Jesus vs The Rabbis with a Glance at Paul." Makes a few mistakes. To begin, it infers things about Paul based on what the Gospels claim about Jesus. This is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. What Jesus did does not equal what Paul did, nor does what Paul did mean that Jesus taught it, or that it was based on what Jesus taught. The author fails to demonstrate a link in any of his instances.

A lot of what he stated about the "Rabbis" in general was either false or misappropriated. For example, there may be a few accurate citations from the Talmud. Although, the author never actually states where in the Talmud they are from. Why? Because the Talmud records opposing opinions of Rabbis - and lists which is Halacha and which isn't. Anti-Semites and uneducated Christians frequently quote the antithesis of what the Talmud teaches from the Talmud as Halacha, because they aren't familiar with it. The author of this website does exactly this when he refers to rabbis not wanting women to serve them at tables (women always serve the tables, check every sabbath), rabbis didn't say only a man could initiate divorce (as I stated in a previous post, women can divorce for more reasons than men can), rabbinic parables don't avoid mentioning women (pfft, we have holidays about women), Jesus used racial and demeaning slurs for Samaritan women (calling them dogs in John), contrary to what the author states. Really, I could go on and on. It seems almost as if the author of this website just started writing with the assumption he could get the uneducated Christian masses to believe him, without anyone really checking up on it.

Particularly when it comes to Jews and Judaism. Christianity is so inherently anti-Semitic, and most Christians don't know anything about it, that they can get away with saying virtually anything they want. "Rabbis this, rabbis that." There is no standard in Christian apologetics that they are actually held to when it comes to these references. Then occassionally a Jew comes by and calls them on it, and they act shocked.

Muravyets

16-04-2006, 17:20

DubyaGoat

16-04-2006, 18:59

...The first thing that everyone should keep in mind is that apologetics and scholarship is dichotomous. One cannot be the other, because the former has an inherent goal and bias that prevents any real scholarship. ...

*holds up Mirror for TS to see himself*

Just as I thought.

I'm particularly interested in these quotes from Corinthians:

These directly contradict what Dubyagoat was trying to claim for Paul.

Why would you ask him instead of just reading how the article responds to that accusation. As to women in the synagogue, women aren't even allowed to sit next to men in his place of worship, how would he know if they were speaking or not where they are sitting (in a place the men can't see them so that they are not distracted).

p.s., why don't you click on a few of the references in the article as well, to see which books were used to make those claims (like: Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, Tal Ilan, Hendrickson:1995, Woman in the Bible by Mary J. Evans, IVP:1983, and I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2.11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, Baker: 1992.

Or this one...
Paul received from the early Church both a practice of thus including women in the ministries of catechesis, prophecy, local Church leadership, and traveling evangelism (the role Paul calls that of "apostle"), and also a baptismal theology of male-female equivalence in Christ as reflected in the Galatians 3:28 reference. This formula was not original with Paul; he cites it from early Christian tradition. The Galatians baptismal text expresses the early Christian vision of the new humanity in Christ. It was consciously moulded to contrast with the traditions of rabbinic piety, adapted from Hellenistic philosophy, in which the Jewish male thanks God for having been born male and not female, free and not slave, and Jew rather than Gentile. By declaring that in Christ these divisions had been overcome and all these groups made "one," the early Christian stated the essence of his or her new identity as one where the equivalence of all humans in the image of God had been restored."
(Women in World Religions, Arvind Sharma (ed.), SUNY:1987:212-213) ]

Grave_n_idle

16-04-2006, 22:16

OMYGoodness. Sometimes this is just too easy. Quick Wiki article on the history of Abortion in the Ancient world says EXACTLY what I said it was for...
Ancient period
The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from a Chinese document which records abortions performed upon royal concubines in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[1] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

(We can get into linking the locations of the archaeologically found preby infant and pre-born fetus burial grounds to show that they were always located next to 'sex-trade' houses and whatnot, but why bother)

Because, of course... Wiki is both incredibly accurate, AND the greatest authority known to man?

I find it hard to believe that abortions began in China only two and a half thousand years ago - or even five thousand years. As long as there has been 'Pennyroyal', I assume there have been people that have noticed it was an abortifactant.

You are confusing "earliest RECORDED" abortions, with 'earliest abortions'.

Grave_n_idle

16-04-2006, 22:18

The quote was relevant to GnI because he said men liked having babies even when they are *illegitimate* and thus abortion was always a women’s issue in history and was not sponsored by rich men for women whom were not their wives (in other words, he said my example was flatly false, and I flatly showed he was wrong).

That's not quite what I said, and it's nothing LIKE what you showed.

For all your source shows... the Chinese palace might have been aborting NON-heir foetuses.... i.e. those of OTHER people that got into the kings 'coop'.

Tropical Sands

17-04-2006, 06:46

Why would you ask him instead of just reading how the article responds to that accusation. As to women in the synagogue, women aren't even allowed to sit next to men in his place of worship, how would he know if they were speaking or not where they are sitting (in a place the men can't see them so that they are not distracted).

What do you mean, how would I know if they were speaking or not where they were sitting? Why would I need to? It isn't a man's job to check up on women to keep them in line in my religion, like it is in Christianity. :cool:

Straughn

17-04-2006, 10:41

*bump* for good measure.
This is certainly an interesting thread - given its frequenters, though, i'm not surprised.

Litherai

17-04-2006, 11:02

I've not put any extensive research into this subjet, but I have noticed things.

1) Some of the most important dates in the Christian calendar - Easter and Christmas, for example - coincide with Pagan (Greek, Roma, Celtic etc.) festivals (of Spring/fertility and the Winter Solstice respectively).

2) The very way we celebrate these 'Christian' dates is a little odd - the flowers, newborn animals, eggs etc. used in Easter decorations are more Pagan than Christian, celebrating the coming of spring and fertility... although the Christian argument may be that these are symbolic of 'rebirth', it's odd that they chose natural as opposed to religious symbols for the public eye, restricting Christ, the crucifix etc. to the churches.

These two things suggest that the Christian festivals, rather than celebrating actual dates in Christ's lifetime, were times to coincide with the pagan ones, so that 'converting the heathens' (in the crudest terms) was much easier.

["Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line." - Jerry Falwell

That reminds me of that fantastic sentence spoken by Pat Robertson in 1992:

"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Oh, how I laugh at his daftness.]

Muravyets

17-04-2006, 17:37

<snip>
Why would you ask him instead of just reading how the article responds to that accusation. As to women in the synagogue, women aren't even allowed to sit next to men in his place of worship, how would he know if they were speaking or not where they are sitting (in a place the men can't see them so that they are not distracted).

p.s., why don't you click on a few of the references in the article as well, to see which books were used to make those claims (like: Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, Tal Ilan, Hendrickson:1995, Woman in the Bible by Mary J. Evans, IVP:1983, and I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2.11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, Baker: 1992.

Or this one...
Paul received from the early Church both a practice of thus including women in the ministries of catechesis, prophecy, local Church leadership, and traveling evangelism (the role Paul calls that of "apostle"), and also a baptismal theology of male-female equivalence in Christ as reflected in the Galatians 3:28 reference. This formula was not original with Paul; he cites it from early Christian tradition. The Galatians baptismal text expresses the early Christian vision of the new humanity in Christ. It was consciously moulded to contrast with the traditions of rabbinic piety, adapted from Hellenistic philosophy, in which the Jewish male thanks God for having been born male and not female, free and not slave, and Jew rather than Gentile. By declaring that in Christ these divisions had been overcome and all these groups made "one," the early Christian stated the essence of his or her new identity as one where the equivalence of all humans in the image of God had been restored."
(Women in World Religions, Arvind Sharma (ed.), SUNY:1987:212-213) ]
I did read the article and posted my initial responses here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767637&postcount=417

As to your post, above:

1) So what if I addressed my remarks to TS? It's an open forum. You can read them, too. Why don't you answer the question -- how do you reconcile your claims about Paul's position on women with the quotes from Corinthians that I bolded?

2) What TS knows or doesn't know about women in synagogues is irrelevant to my question. I'm asking about Paul's attitudes towards women, not TS's or Judaism's.

3) The quote you posted above does not address the inconsistencies that exist within Paul's writings. Its argument that Christianity made men and women equal in order to appear different from Judaism (a) is not relevant to my question about Paul, (b) does not jibe with the information about Judaism that comes from Jewish sources (as opposed to Christian sources), and (c) does not jibe with the un-equal treatment of women and men within Christianity that we see evident throughout history.

I consider it pointless to insist that Christianity treats the sexes equally when we can see very clearly that it does not. I'm not even arguing that point because it is nonsensical, imo. What I'm arguing here is your claim that Paul considered men and women to be equals. His own writings contradict you. I don't think that your article proved your argument, but because it seems to go all over the place with a fine-toothed comb, I'm allowing that you might be able to make your argument out of it. So I invited you to do so, if you can.

4) This is a debate forum, not a study course. You made an assertion about Paul's writings in support of an argument of yours. I can take a look at your sources and your sources' sources if I want to check their authority or objectivity, but I should not have to read them in their entirety to answer a question about your argument that I posed to you.

Muravyets

17-04-2006, 17:41

<snip>
That reminds me of that fantastic sentence spoken by Pat Robertson in 1992:

"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Oh, how I laugh at his daftness.]
Where's the downside, Pat? ;) :p

Ashmoria

17-04-2006, 17:47

<snip>
["Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line." - Jerry Falwell

That reminds me of that fantastic sentence spoken by Pat Robertson in 1992:

"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Oh, how I laugh at his daftness.]
are you suggesting that jerry falwell and pat robertson are pagan influences?

Muravyets

17-04-2006, 23:43

are you suggesting that jerry falwell and pat robertson are pagan influences?
Or maybe just wacky ones.

Abroad

18-04-2006, 17:21

Here goes one lengthy post...

I think you summed up the author's point well with this. I just wanted to say that the entire point actually relies on the false cause fallacy. What we know from history is that Jesus came second, these myths came first, and early Christians and non-Christian historians and philosophers admitted that pagan religions influenced and shaped Christianity.
Well, if one doesn't accept the possibility of these myths having a prophetic origin I believe you can call it 'false cause fallacy'.

I found an online version of one of the books inspiring the article. MAZZAROTH; or, the CONSTELLATIONS. (http://philologos.org/__eb-mazzaroth/default.htm) - by Frances Rolleston, written in the 1860:ies. It is elaborating on the quote from Job 38:31-33, where God asks Job: "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades,
Or loose the belt of Orion?
Can you bring out *Mazzaroth in its season?
Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs?
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you set their dominion over the earth?
*Mazzaroth is the constellations of stars, as is the Zodiac.

Rolleston says:

By Plato we are informed that Solon made an investigation, apparently on scientific and theological subjects, into the power of names, and found that the Egyptians, from whom the Greeks derived them, had transferred them from "barbarian" dialects into their own language. According to ancient authorities, the Egyptians had learnt their astronomy from the Chaldeans. The meaning of the names of astronomy transmitted by the Greeks should therefore be sought in the dialect of those from whom the Egyptians received the science. In the Chaldee contained in the Hebrew Scriptures it may be seen that every Chaldee word is explicable by the cognate Hebrew root, to which, therefore, those names are here referred. The early Arabic is thus equally intelligible. The refinements of modern Arabic have scarcely at all affected the names of ancient astronomy. Its descriptive epithets used as synonyms, and its melodious profusion of inserted vowels, ornament and may a little obscure the original idea, but do not alter the sense.

In whatever obscurity the origin of the emblems of astronomy may appear to be enveloped, in the traditions of the nations where they are preserved, no such doubts hang over that of the science itself. It has always and every where been traced back to the earliest race of man. The Hebrews, Chaldeans, Persians, and Arabs imputed its invention to Adam, Seth, and Enoch; the earlier Greeks to their mythical and mysterious personage Prometheus. Soon after the usual date assigned to Noah's flood, astronomy is found in high cultivation in the commencing empire of China; and equally early records of observed eclipses were preserved at Babylon, proving considerable attainments in that science. Those modern writers who acknowledge the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, if only as historical, generally refer its origination to the antediluvian patriarchs; and to Noah, its transmission to the ancient nations. Those who do not admit that authority, claim for astronomy, from its internal evidence, the antiquity of between five and six thousand years. There is no appearance of the science ever having existed separate from the emblems; and as they are in no way essential to it, their constant connexion with it can only be explained by their having been invented at the same time and by the same persons. Why did those inventors adopt these particular emblems, when others might equally have marked out the division of the sun's path by that of the moon?* It has been pointed out that with the phenomena of the circling year they cannot be consistently made to agree, nor with those of the climate of Egypt.** The mythology of the nations, though reflecting their shadow, will be found insufficient to account for their imagery. If these traditional names and figures can be shown to symbolize prophecy, as imparted in the earliest ages, sufficient reason appears for the selection of such images, at such a time, and by such persons as those primeval fathers of mankind, with whom the science has always been supposed to originate.

Should the tradition of the Divine yet woman-born Conqueror of the serpent, crushing His foe, but suffering from its venom, be met with among all nations, it is only what might have been anticipated among the descendants of one common father. From the Grecian Hercules, half human and half divine, subduing the hydra and dying from its poison; from the Indian incarnation of the Divinity, the virgin-born Krishna, slaying a serpent and wounded by it in the heel, to the serpent-worship of Mexico, and that of the woman-born and unfathered deity Mexitli, this image is every where present, pointing to one origin of the tradition and of the race.

Though by some it has been suggested* that these mythological tales were derived from the constellations, yet it has not by them been even conjectured why the constellations should have been so designated as to give rise to these stories. If, however, they were so named to record the revelation made to the first fathers of mankind, their connexion with the mythologies of the nations is explained.

* Dupuis and the writers of his school have done much to establish the facts that confute their inferences. Dupuis himself has collected ancient authorities abundantly proving that in all nations the tradition had always prevailed, of a Divine person, born of a woman, suffering in the conflict with a serpent, but triumphing over him at last. This tradition he finds reflected in the emblems of the ancient constellations. He seems to take it for granted, that because the stars themselves existed before the tradition, that therefore the emblems annexed to them also preceded it. Who, then, annexed those ideas to the stars, which certainly do not suggest them? When and why did such an annexation occur to the mind of man? These questions he does not anticipate, and assuredly he does not answer. He calls his attack on revelation "L'Origine des Cultes," "The Origin of Religions," which he would find in the constellations. The defence shows that the first religion was the origin of the emblems of the constellations.

It should be borne in mind that these constellations are not natural groups of stars, but arbitrary connexions of various stars by means of imaginary figures, sometimes so interwoven with each other as to be inseparable by the unaccustomed eye. This is particularly observable in the figures of the serpent, of which Sir J. Herschell complains, that "the heavens are scribbled over with interminable snakes." Even so are intertwined the wiles of the enemy with the course and history of redemption.

Rolleston provides translations (http://philologos.org/__eb-mazzaroth/201.htm#authorities) of the ancient names for the constellations and its stars to support his notion that much of ancient mythology and religion is derived from astronomy and the Mazzaroth/Zodiac.

Using the author's mode of reasoning (the false cause fallacy), I can say that the stars, other religious texts, etc. all lead up to Krishna, or that Jesus himself was just an incarnation of Krishna. No one can really "prove" it wrong, and I could make strong arguments for Jesus being an incarnation of Krishna (as the Bahai religion tends to do).
If one could "prove" or "disprove" a religion, we wouldn't have as many, right? Everyone is argumenting from their preference.

I probably should have responded sooner, but the word is actually rather ambiguous. Just like "seed" in English can be plural or singular, depending on context, the same functions with zara in Hebrew. We should be able to tell from the context that in the story with Abraham at least it refers to multiple descendants, rather than just one, because it talks about them being numbered more than the dust, stars, etc. The plurality of the context would make it plural in this instance. In short, I don't buy the author's interpretation that it refers to Jesus alone. If we insert "Jesus" where zara occurs in reference to Abraham's descendants, it would say things along the lines of, "I will multiply your Jesus" and "your Jesus shall be a stranger in a land." Since the former makes no sense, and the latter is inaccurate if in reference to Jesus (Jesus wasn't a stranger in a land that wasn't his, he lived in Israel. Rather, this is a reference to the Jews in Egypt), I think we can disregard the author of the astrology article's interpretation here.

The context is Abraham complaining that he has no 'seed', or heir of his own flesh and blood:

After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I [am] thy shield, [and] thy exceeding great reward.

And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house [is] this Eliezer of Damascus?
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

And, behold, the word of the LORD [came] unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Is the word for 'tell' same as for 'number'? I agree it is ambiguous if 'seed' can be both singular and plural.
(Later God undoubtedly speaks of Abrahams descendants as many.)

Genesis 3:15 on the other hand was actually just a story that demonstrated why humans and snakes are incompatable. Of course, Christians came along later and interpeted it to be about Jesus. Christians have done this with lots of texts that are not actually prophecies. They are generally known as "proof-texts."
How do you know that this "story", the curse allegedly spoken by God at Mankinds first breach of his command is not prophetic? Is it just a: "And by the way guys, beware of snakes, they can bite!"

I tend to agree more with this explanation of the passage:
The Nachash and His Seed:Some Explanatory Notes on Why the “Serpent” in Genesis 3 Wasn’t a Serpent (http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf) by Michael S. Heiser, PhD. Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, UW-Madison
What is different about this approach is that I view the base word, nachash, as an adjective, not a noun. The NOUN spelled nachash in Hebrew can mean: snake / serpent or one who practices of divination. The adjective means “bright, brazen” and is itself the base word for other nouns in Hebrew, like “shining brass”

Here is a small quote from Rolleston:
Dupuis says, "The ancient Persians called the starry serpent the Serpent of Eve." He refers to a book of Zoroaster, the Boundesh, which he calls their Genesis.

To see an example of how Christians have fit Jesus into scriptures that are not really about Jesus, here is a very short article that gives a wonderful example:

http://www.messiahpage.com/htmldocs/chassidicrooster.html
Wonderful.
I saw that this page claimed that Jesus couldn't be the Messiah since the Messiah must trace his ancestry from Solomon given some biblical passages, for example 1 Chron 28:4-6. However, the following verses says:
Moreover I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is steadfast to observe My commandments and My judgments, as it is this day.' Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of the Lord, and in the hearing of our God, be careful to seek out all the commandments of the Lord your God, that you may possess this good land, and leave it as an inheritance for your children after you forever.
"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever
Since Solomon fell to idolatry I suppose this "if you forsake him, He will cast you off forever" is in effect and the Messiah has to descend from another of David's sons. Is it standard jewish teaching that the Messiah shall be of Solomon?

Tropical Sands

19-04-2006, 06:22

How do you know that this "story", the curse allegedly spoken by God at Mankinds first breach of his command is not prophetic? Is it just a: "And by the way guys, beware of snakes, they can bite!"

I base it off the fact that it was never interpreted as being prophetic until after some Christians noticed that they could squeeze the Jesus story into it. Part of reading things like this in context includes historical context; if it wasn't interpreted as prophetic in its history and culture, it most likely was never intended to be such. And if it was later interpreted as being prophetic by another culture, they obviously revised it.

I tend to agree more with this explanation of the passage:
The Nachash and His Seed:Some Explanatory Notes on Why the “Serpent” in Genesis 3 Wasn’t a Serpent (http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf) by Michael S. Heiser, PhD. Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, UW-Madison

The article sure was interesting and well written, but it really fails in proper exegesis when it ignores all of the historical and cultural context behind the Torah. Jews have been reading this Torah for thousands of years, and not once have they interpreted the serpent in this fashion - "a bright, shining being who was serpentine in appearance who tried to bewitch her with lies."

Christian apologists and people like this really try to stretch Hebrew much further than they could in English, because frankly they can get away with it. If someone tried to redefine a word commonly used in English based on its etymology or root word, we would probably reject it because it simply isn't what the word means or how it is used. In Hebrew, people like Heiser here can bend and twist the words to extreme degrees that no one can really check up on unless they have a working knowledge of Hebrew. Here is an example:

"What we have in Genesis 3 is a wordplay using all the meanings of the nun-heh-shin semantic range"

But do we really? No. Its simply a word, neshash, which means serpent. There is not a solid exegetical principle that he used where he could come to the conclusion that he did. Rather, he arbitrarily took the meaning of an adjective that sounds similiar to the word, and attempted to say that because they sounded similiar they were int he same "semantic range." No such thing exists.

This would be like if I took the statement "There was a frog sitting in the pond" and reinterpreted the word "frog" based on the word "froggy" (which means someone who likes to fight). And thus, I came up with the conclusion that this was not about a little green animal sitting in a pond, but about a person who wanted to fight sitting in a pond. Its just nonsensical.

He also shows inconsistency in his interpretation with statements such as this, "I take the fall event literally. I think the curses, on the other hand, are metaphorical." This is completely outside of proper exegesis, and is based on his arbitrary and subjective interpretation. The curses are part of the fall story. If we interpret parts of the fall story as being literal, and parts as metaphor, then we are being inconsistent to the point of fallaciousness. It causes an internal contradiction (N * ~N). And this is exactly how Christians make Jesus and their interpretations fit - they interpret some parts to be literal, to make Jesus fit, and when Jesus doesn't fit they interpret it to be metaphorical. Thus, Heiser interprets the fall as literal (because it must be literal for us to need Jesus to get back to Eden) but interprets the curses as metaphorical (because if they are literal, then the serpent is a literal serpent, and not a cosmic being that Jesus must save us from).

I recall two major modes of thought on the serpent in Judaism, and thus in its historical context. The first I mentioned, that it was a literal serpent, and that the story is just the warning "hey, watch out for snakes." The second is that it is sexual allegory. It is amazing how many commentators have interpreted this as being about sexual allegory, and how serpent was a metaphor for a sexual seducer. In either case, it seems that Heiser's interpretation is rather shaky and far out there.

Wonderful.
I saw that this page claimed that Jesus couldn't be the Messiah since the Messiah must trace his ancestry from Solomon given some biblical passages, for example 1 Chron 28:4-6. However, the following verses says:

Since Solomon fell to idolatry I suppose this "if you forsake him, He will cast you off forever" is in effect and the Messiah has to descend from another of David's sons. Is it standard jewish teaching that the Messiah shall be of Solomon?

Yes, its standard Jewish teaching that the messiah must be descended from David and Solomon. The geneaologies of Jesus caused quite a bit of a problem for the early Jewish persons who wanted to believe Jesus was the messiah, because he didn't fit. That is one reason we have polemics against the Jews who realized this in the Bible, like in 1 Tim 1:4, "[they] occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith." They seemed to have discouraged Christians from studying these geneaologies because they refute the idea that Jesus is the Messiah.

And I don't think that "if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever" would imply that the messiah couldn't be though Solomon. It doesn't say anything about Solomon's descendants, as the curse of Jeconiah did.

Muravyets

19-04-2006, 07:06

<snip>
This would be like if I took the statement "There was a frog sitting in the pond" and reinterpreted the word "frog" based on the word "froggy" (which means someone who likes to fight). And thus, I came up with the conclusion that this was not about a little green animal sitting in a pond, but about a person who wanted to fight sitting in a pond. Its just nonsensical.
Or it could even be about a Frenchman. ;)

<snip>
He also shows inconsistency in his interpretation with statements such as this, "I take the fall event literally. I think the curses, on the other hand, are metaphorical." This is completely outside of proper exegesis, and is based on his arbitrary and subjective interpretation. The curses are part of the fall story. If we interpret parts of the fall story as being literal, and parts as metaphor, then we are being inconsistent to the point of fallaciousness. It causes an internal contradiction (N * ~N). And this is exactly how Christians make Jesus and their interpretations fit - they interpret some parts to be literal, to make Jesus fit, and when Jesus doesn't fit they interpret it to be metaphorical. Thus, Heiser interprets the fall as literal (because it must be literal for us to need Jesus to get back to Eden) but interprets the curses as metaphorical (because if they are literal, then the serpent is a literal serpent, and not a cosmic being that Jesus must save us from).
<snip>
It occurs to me, as it often does, that all this argument could be avoided if Christians accepted all of the Jesus story as metaphorical. I'm an outsider to their religion. I do not understand, and I wish they could explain to me, why it has to be literally true. My religion has tons of stories. None of them are true. They are allegories, not history. Was there a historical Jesus -- sure, why not? But why does he need to have literally done all the fantastical things described in the Bible? There was a historical Buddha, but he did not literally defeat an army of demons by the power of his meditation and he was not literally given 4 magic begging bowls from the kings of the 4 directions, which he stacked together, thus making one from many -- that's a metaphor. I do not understand why the crucifixion and resurrection have to be real events, rather than a metaphor for the purging of the soul of sin and the spiritual liberation that results from that.

Bruarong

19-04-2006, 11:48

Once again you are trying to project your thoughts onto me. You're the one who cops this either-or attitude. You're the one who rejects other people's religions. Apparently you also think your way of thinking is the only way of thinking. That's just another detail you're wrong about.

In order to be religious, doesn't one have to reject? The claims made by every religion means that you cannot follow all religions. You have to choose what you believe. In your mind you can mentally accept that your religion may not be the truth, but even then, if you didn't think it was the most likely to be at least closest to the truth, you would be a fool. Whatever you believe, you cannot avoid rejecting claims that contradict your belief. Thus, you too are rejecting other people's religions. But isn't that simple logic? We all reject, since belief cannot avoid it.

I clearly stated that I believe in the existence of your god in the exact same sense that I believe in the existence of other people. In the view of animism, all beings are spirits and all beings/spirits really exist. That fact alone does not demand that one must worship them -- either humans or gods. You can think that's a silly idea if you like, but don't presume to tell me that it's not what I think.

I say that you do not really believe in the existence of my god, at least not really the god that I believe in. For if you were to believe in him, you would either run to him and embrace him as the long lost parent who is the only one to ever have loved you perfectly, or you would turn away from him just as the demons do, and tremble (as it says in the book of James), knowing that you have committed yourself to evil and a rejection of god. No, I don't think you don't believe in my god, any more than I think that you are committed to evil. Rather, it's more likely that you believe in a god that the Christians have misunderstood and perhaps misrepresented, or even invented. You can claim all you like that you believe in the existence of my god, but surely such a claim cannot be consistent with you current beliefs.

You may not like the either/or situation, but I don't think you can be free of it. The claims made by Jesus don't leave us any alternative. The same might be said of any other person in any other religion. If anyone makes similar ultimatums as Jesus, with respect to those claims, we must be either/or. Stephen Hawkins once commented that if anyone didn't believe in evolution as the way in which people came about, they were either insane or deliberately ignorant. I don't care much for his options, but with respect to his claim about evolution, it means that I am in an either/or situation, as far as he is concerned. I may not like the man, or his beliefs, or I may like him and agree with what he said, but I cannot avoid the confrontation that he has constructed. Neither can you.

Lemmyouia

19-04-2006, 11:50

I don't think there are pagan influences in the bible, just in peoples' interpretations of "Christian festivals". Namely Christmas trees and Easter eggs

Bruarong

19-04-2006, 12:19

Except that Chapter 7 then makes clear that shamans are not leaders, neither does it claim that sorcerer or witches are leaders. On the contrary, it states specifically that shamans are personal practitioners who deal with people's personal problems and that they do not talk about or teach about the religion -- neither religious nor social leaders. It also makes it clear that sorcerers are anti-social and that witches may not even know that they are producing negative effects -- so how could they possibly be leaders?

When are you going to give up these futile efforts to cherry pick evidence out of a source that clearly contradicts you?

From http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Chapter07.htm

''The shaman is a diviner who seeks to discern what spiritual being or impersonal force is causing sickness, discord, or catastrophe in order to prescribe some remedy. In contrast to community leaders, like the priest and prophet, the shaman is an individual or family practitioner. He is a "personal diviner" called upon to solve urgent personal problems. He "deals in a personal and specific way with spirits and lesser deities" but seldom, if ever, dialogues about Creator God, the source of evil in the world, or cosmological issues (Turner 1989, 88). Since he holistically treats the symptoms of disease and dispenses herbal medicines, he is sometimes called a "medicine man." In addition to medical treatment, he gives spiritual prognoses discerning what god, spirit, spiritual force, sin, or black magic has caused the illness or catastrophe. Since he frequently divines and cures problems created by witches, he is called a "witchdoctor." The shaman uses spiritual power for beneficent purposes to help people counter magic, evil spirits, and the results of sin in their lives. He champions the cause of the people as they confront the evil powers always present in the animist's world.

In many rural, face-to-face cultures every extended family has its own shaman. He contacts the ancestors and spirits on behalf of his own people and discerns what powers are being used against them. In urban centers, where specialties develop, divining the powers becomes a trade. Shamanistic specialists may join together and form spiritist centers where people come for spiritual and physical prognoses.

The term shaman originated with the Tungus people of Siberia. These nomadic reindeer herders and fishermen believe in three realms of existence: a higher sphere where good spirits and light exist, a middle realm where people live along with the spirits of the world, and a lower domain where evil spirits dwell in darkness. The shaman is understood as the beneficent practitioner who is able to go to the realm above or the realm below on behalf of the living. He divines various causes of illness. A person may have a disease spirit inside him which has to be exorcised. Or, a person may have lost his soul and the shaman may have to confront demonic powers of the lower realms to retrieve it. The shaman uses his spiritual power to help people and is given public recognition and respect by them (Howells 1962, 125-127). Although taken from the Siberian context, the term "shaman" is used for the general practitioner who helps people deal with the problem of evil in their lives and unlock the secrets of the unknown.

The shaman is the most frequently used type of religious leader in animistic contexts. When a Brazilian lady wonders how she might induce a man to pay her special attention, a diviner is used. When a Chinese family wants to find out whether an ancestor is comfortable, a shaman reveals the world of the dead. When an African child becomes seriously ill, a shaman determines the cause and cure. When a Korean family is deciding on a date for a wedding or a funeral, the shaman determines the auspicious day. When a Hong Kong businessman wants inside information about the stock market, he seeks a diviner to discern the market. When a Zinacanteco Indian of Mexico moves into a new house, the shaman first purifies it.''

I guess you will have to relinquish that point.

I think of sorcery in animism exactly the same way I think of witch crazes in Christianity -- a parallel that your own source draws, by the way. There is no such thing as sorcery. No amount of chanting, wand waving, diagram drawing or bone crossing is going to put any magic hex on anybody or anything. It's a nonsensical notion. People who believe in it are superstitious. People who claim to do it are liars and con artists trying to extort money or privileges from superstitious people.

I see absolutely no difference between animists who fear sorcerers and Christians who fear witches or satanists. So I would say sorcery is as much a part of animism as satanism is a part of Christianity, and in exactly the same way.

In that case, I see little similarity between your version of animism and that found in the jungles of the Amazon, for there they do believe in evil spirits and tend to live their lives in fear of them, if I have my impression right. You may claim that evil spirits are nonsense, but they are clearly not so in the lives of those who fear their power (regardless of whether they do indeed exist or not).
Thus, your arguments seem to have been defending your version of animism, not the animism to which I was originally commenting on. And you version of animism is possibly not that different from some versions of Christianity which do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.

BTW, astrology is not a religion. It's a fortunetelling system used by religious and non-religious people alike.

What's a religion?

As for the Bible, I've never read the whole thing. It's not my religion, so it's content is not my concern. Are you asking if I think the events actually happened? I have no idea, but I am inclined to think they are stories that contain some history enhanced with religious symbolism. But that is nothing but a personal opinion. As I say, it's not my religion, so I don't have to believe it.

By the way, I don't believe the stories and myths of animist religions, either. They are art, meant to express feelings and give insights. I personally don't need religion to be history in order for it to be meaningful. But again, that's just my personal feeling about religion in general.

Your point of view is vastly different from animists who actually believe in spirits. Do you 'look down' on literalist animism? Or do you regard it as a primitive belief, in somewhat the same way that liberal Christians view literalist interpretations of the Bible?

And this paragraph of yours seems to contradict your earlier paragraph about what you feel you can learn from other religions, above. How do you reconcile them?

On one hand, I value truth wherever I find it, and try to learn from it, regardless of who the teacher is. And on the other hand, I try to distinguish truth from invention, particularly invention that claims to be the truth. This is obviously not an easy objective process, but it will mean that I should take an interest in other religions, in order to learn what I can about the world in which I find myself.

And since you're so invested in a few disgruntled animists as evidence that animism abuses people, then tell me how Christianity is proven to be a bad and abusive religion by the hundreds of people who abandon it every year, telling stories about how they were abused by priests or harassed by threats of hell, etc.?

I have never denied that Christianity is open to abuse, as is any religion. But the point that I keep saying is that we need to distinguish between abuse that occurs in spite of the teachings of the religion, and abuse that happens because of the teachings of the religion. In other words, is the cause of the abuse outside of the teachings of the religion (e.g., man's desire to control his fellows, which is clearly against the teachings of Christ) or is the cause the religion itself (e.g., the concept bribing the spirits in order to avert evil). This is a relatively simple (but important) distinction, although finding a concensus on what is the cause of the abuse may not be.

Bruarong

19-04-2006, 13:19

Well, you won't like my answer to that. Current academic theories based on archeological evidence suggest that animism was the first religion, so it would have invented these ideas. But that's just an academic theory. I personally don't see why it matters.

I thought also that animism was an original religion. If there was any borrowing, it is more likely that Hinduism borrowed from animism.

BTW, your quote concerning Hinduism is inaccurate. I assume from the title of the source, it's from yet another Evangelical site (no link this time?). Don't you read anything else? Do you look to missionary websites for sports scores?

Missionary websites for sport scores :)
But seriously, if you want to assert that it is inaccurate, shouldn't you at least be giving some sort of brief reason why?

More dishonesty, in an attempt to disavow your earlier slanders. You most certainly did say it, throughout all of your allegations about how the Japanese were as cruel as they were during WW2 because of Shinto. If you didn't mean that, then why don't you just retract those statements about Shinto now?

I'm not sure if you can tell the difference between my asking you for an explanation, and my believing that I have found a cause and effect. Does that mean that when I ask you for an explanation for the widespread belief within animism in evil spirits (and good and neutral ones too) that you take it to mean that I believe in spirits. Can't you distinguish between my debate and my beliefs. Never once did I assert that Japanese cruelty was due to Shinto. Neither am I asserting that now, although I may be suspicious that they are not unrelated in some way. I was merely curious to see how you would explain it.

What does this mean? Are you saying that terrorists are wrong to claim Islam as authority for their crimes or are you saying that terrorism has altered Islam to the point where it is a cause for terrorism?

This means that the terrorists would defend their claim that their version of Islam supports terrorism. Because you and I think terrorism is wrong, then we could probably agree that their version of Islam is a cause, or at least a contribution (because it gives them a license to kill) to abuse. It would be an extreme example of a religion (militant Islam, not the more general Islam) that causes abuse. One might argue that such a religion was interpreted that way to allow abuse, and thus the cause for abuse was more like the desire for revenge, hatred, etc., rather than the actual religion itself. But for each new suicide bomber, specifically the brainwashed ones, the militant religion is presented as a set of beliefs and reasons and he/she is not given the chance to interpret the Koran in a peaceful way, but taught that Jihad means war in any shape of form. Thus the teaching directly contributes to the abuse. The same sort of thing can happen in any religion, so I'm not attacking Islam.

And if you are saying that Islam is not a cause for terrorism, does this mean that you are going to retract the allegations you made against Shinto?

I would say that the militant version of Islam is a cause for terror. Perhaps there is a version of Shinto that is a cause for cruelty? But that is not a claim of mine (and never has been) but a speculation that you are welcome to refute if you have good reasons.

Tropical Sands

19-04-2006, 13:51

Or it could even be about a Frenchman. ;)

It occurs to me, as it often does, that all this argument could be avoided if Christians accepted all of the Jesus story as metaphorical. I'm an outsider to their religion. I do not understand, and I wish they could explain to me, why it has to be literally true. My religion has tons of stories. None of them are true. They are allegories, not history. Was there a historical Jesus -- sure, why not? But why does he need to have literally done all the fantastical things described in the Bible? There was a historical Buddha, but he did not literally defeat an army of demons by the power of his meditation and he was not literally given 4 magic begging bowls from the kings of the 4 directions, which he stacked together, thus making one from many -- that's a metaphor. I do not understand why the crucifixion and resurrection have to be real events, rather than a metaphor for the purging of the soul of sin and the spiritual liberation that results from that.

Interestingly enough, many early Christians felt the same way you do about it. The Gnostics mostly. They didn't believe that they were real events, but rather metaphor in one way or another depending on the sect.

The fact that there were first century groups that denied things like this and interpreted them as metaphor is pretty strong evidence against the Jesus mythos being literal. Many apologists like to claim "but everyone would have questioned it if it wasn't true" while ignoring the massive groups of people who did question it like Gnostics, and even non-believers like Celsus.

Lemmyouia

19-04-2006, 14:31

Woah, that was a long post :cool:

Domici

19-04-2006, 14:49

I don't think there are pagan influences in the bible, just in peoples' interpretations of "Christian festivals". Namely Christmas trees and Easter eggs

Well, you're wrong there. Even the stories in the old testament are based on the myths of the Babylonians, under whose dominion the Yawehist Hebrews lived. Things like Noah and the flood. The Old Testament version of that is almost exactly like the Babylonian one except they crossed out Utnapishtim and wrote Noah. All religions are influenced by the religions of those around them. That's why Buddha in India is skinny and a bit feminine, but in China he's big and fat.

Bruarong

19-04-2006, 15:54

Well, you're wrong there. Even the stories in the old testament are based on the myths of the Babylonians, under whose dominion the Yawehist Hebrews lived. Things like Noah and the flood. The Old Testament version of that is almost exactly like the Babylonian one except they crossed out Utnapishtim and wrote Noah. All religions are influenced by the religions of those around them. That's why Buddha in India is skinny and a bit feminine, but in China he's big and fat.

Or there was a flood to which both the Babylonian and the Hebrews wrote about.

Or there is something about humans that tends to like inventing flood myths, which would explain why some cultures have flood myths but were not so influenced by Babylonian culture (or had nothing to do with it).

And why is being skinny more feminine than big and fat?

Grave_n_idle

19-04-2006, 16:11

Or there was a flood to which both the Babylonian and the Hebrews wrote about.

It would be a good story, if it wan't for the fact that the Babylonian text is MUCH older than the Hebrew one... and yet, strangely, certain elements of the Hebrew one are word-for-word duplicates of the Babylonian....

Maybe it's coincidental... it doesn't look like it, though.

Or there is something about humans that tends to like inventing flood myths, which would explain why some cultures have flood myths but were not so influenced by Babylonian culture (or had nothing to do with it).

Like who? I remember reading about some groups of Polynesians myth cycles that had 'always' had flood myths... until it turned out that the flood myths they'd 'always had'... hadn't started being told in their country until AFTER they encountered Christian missionaries...

Bruarong

19-04-2006, 16:55

It would be a good story, if it wan't for the fact that the Babylonian text is MUCH older than the Hebrew one... and yet, strangely, certain elements of the Hebrew one are word-for-word duplicates of the Babylonian....

Maybe it's coincidental... it doesn't look like it, though.

Prove it. Otherwise that sounds like wild speculation.

Like who? I remember reading about some groups of Polynesians myth cycles that had 'always' had flood myths... until it turned out that the flood myths they'd 'always had'... hadn't started being told in their country until AFTER they encountered Christian missionaries...

try this one

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

DubyaGoat

19-04-2006, 16:57

Like who? I remember reading about some groups of Polynesians myth cycles that had 'always' had flood myths... until it turned out that the flood myths they'd 'always had'... hadn't started being told in their country until AFTER they encountered Christian missionaries...

Picked out a few from a summary of flood mythologies website...

Greek:
Zeus sent a flood to destroy the men of the Bronze Age. Prometheus advised his son Deucalion to build a chest. All other men perished except for a few who escaped to high mountains.

Persian:
In early times, the earth was full of malign creatures fashioned by the evil Ahriman. The angel Tistar (the star Sirius) descended three times, in the form of man, horse, and bull respectively, causing ten days and nights of rain each time. The first flood drowned the creatures, but the seeds of evil remained. Before returning to cause the second flood, Tistar, in the form of a white horse, battled the demon Apaosha, who took the form of a black horse. Ormuzd blasted the demon with lightning, making the demon give a cry which can still be heard in thunderstorms, and Tistar prevailed. The poison washed from the land by the second flood made the seas salty. The waters were driven to the ends of the earth by a great wind and became the seas.

Roman:
Jupiter, angered at the evil ways of humanity, resolved to destroy it. He was about to set the earth to burning, but considered that that might set heaven itself afire, so he decided to flood the earth instead. With Neptune's help, he caused storm and earthquake to flood everything but the summit of Parnassus, where Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha came by boat and found refuge. Recognizing their piety, Jupiter let them live and withdrew the flood.

Neo-Pagan:
Oden, Vili, and Ve fought and slew the great ice giant Ymir, and icy water from his wounds drowned most of the Rime Giants. The giant Bergelmir escaped, with his wife and children, on a boat. Ymir's body became the world we live on.

Celtic:
Heaven and Earth were great giants, and Heaven lay upon the Earth so that their children were crowded between them, and the children and their mother were unhappy in the darkness. The boldest of the sons led his brothers in cutting up Heaven into many pieces. From his skull they made the firmament. His spilling blood caused a great flood which killed all humans except a single pair, who were saved in a ship made by a beneficent Titan. The waters settled in hollows to become the oceans.

Welsh:
The lake of Llion burst, flooding all lands. Dwyfan and Dwyfach escaped in a mastless ship with pairs of every sort of living creature. They landed in Prydain (Britain) and repopulated the world.

Lithuanian:
From his heavenly window, the supreme god Pramzimas saw nothing but war and injustice among mankind. He sent two giants, Wandu and Wejas (water and wind), to destroy earth. After twenty days and nights, little was left. Pramzimas looked to see the progress. He happened to be eating nuts at the time, and he threw down the shells. One happened to land on the peak of the tallest mountain, where some people and animals had sought refuge. Everybody climbed in and survived the flood floating in the nutshell.

Africa and Far East Flood Stories
http://www.crystalinks.com/floodstories2.html

Australasia and Pacific Islands & North and Central America Flood Stories
http://www.crystalinks.com/floodstories3.html

etc., etc., etc.
http://www.crystalinks.com/floodstories4.html

Bruarong

19-04-2006, 17:50

To DubyaGoat

This is not related to this thread, but just how does one pronounce your name? Would Dub-ya-Goat be right? Would that be some sort of joke?

Grave_n_idle

19-04-2006, 18:27

Prove it. Otherwise that sounds like wild speculation.

Parallels Between Flood Myths

Distinctive story elements and phrases that are common to three or more of the six Ancient
Near East flood myths indicate a common origin. Parallel quotations make it obvious that
these six flood myths did not originate independently:

"Side-wall... pay attention" Ziusudra iv,155
"Wall, listen to me." Atrahasis III,i,20
"Wall, pay attention" Gilgamesh XI,22

"Destroy your house, spurn property, save life" Atrahasis III,i,22
"Tear down house, abandon property, save life" Gilgamesh XI,24-26

"the decision that mankind is to be destroyed" Ziusudra iv,157-158
"The gods commanded total destruction" Atrahasis II,viii,34
"The great gods decided to make a deluge" Gilgamesh XI,14
"God...decided to make an end of all flesh" Genesis 6:13

"Enki...over the capitals the storm will sweep" Ziusudra iv,156
"He [Enki] told him of the coming of the flood" Atrahasis III,i,37
"God said to Noah...I will bring a flood" Genesis 6:13,17
"Kronos...said...mankind would be destroyed by a flood" Berossus

"...the huge boat" Ziusudra v,207
"Build a ship" Atrahasis III,i,22
"Build a ship" Gilgamesh XI,24
"Make yourself an ark" Genesis 6:14
"build a boat" Berossus

"who protected the seed of mankind" Ziusudra vi,259
"Bring into the ship the seed of life of everything" Gilgamesh XI,27
"to keep their seed alive" Genesis 7:3 (KJV)

"Like the apsu you shall roof it" Atrahasis III,i,29
"Like the apsu you shall roof it" Gilgamesh XI,31
"Make a roof for the ark" Genesis 6:16

"coming of the flood on the seventh night" Atrahasis,III,i,37
"after seven days the waters of the flood came" Genesis 7:10

"...and addressed the elders" Atrahasis III,i,41
"I answer the city assembly and the elders" Gilgamesh XI,35

"This is what you shall say to them..." Gilgamesh XI,38
"If asked where he was sailing he was to reply..." Berossus

"I cannot live in [your city]" Atrahasis III,i,47
"I cannot live in your city" Gilgamesh XI,40

"An abundance of birds, a profusion of fishes" Atrahasis III,i,35
"[an abundance of] birds, the rarest fish" Gilgamesh XI,44

"pitch I poured into the inside" Gilgamesh XI,66
"cover it inside and out with pitch" Genesis 6:14
"some people scrape pitch off the boat" Berossus

"your family, your relatives" Atrahasis DT,42(w),8
"he sent his family on board" Atrahasis III,ii,42
"into the ship all my family and relatives" Gilgamesh XI,84
"Go into the ark, you and all your household" Genesis 7:1
"he sent his wife and children and friends on board" Berossus

"animals which emerge from the earth" Ziusudra vi,253
"all the wild creatures of the steppe" Atrahasis DT,42(w),9
"The cattle of the field, the beast of the plain" Gilgamesh XI,85
"clean animals and of animals that are not clean" Genesis 7:8
"and put both birds and animals on board" Berossus

"Enter the boat and close the boat's door" Atrahasis DT,42(w),6
"Pitch was brought for him to close his door" Atrahasis III,ii,51
"I entered the ship and closed the door" Gilgamesh XI,93
"And they that entered...and the Lord shut him in" Genesis 7:16

"Ninurta went forth making the dikes [overflow]" Atrahasis U rev,14
"Ninurta went forth making the dikes overflow" Gilgamesh XI,102

"One person could [not] see another" Atrahasis III,iii,13
"One person could not see another" Gilgamesh XI,111

"the storm had swept...for seven days and seven nights" Ziusudra 203
"For seven days and seven nights came the storm" Atrahasis III,iv,24
"Six days and seven nights the wind and storm flood" Gilgamesh XI,127
"rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights" Genesis 7:12

"consigned the peoples to destruction" Atrahasis III,iii,54
"All mankind was turned to clay" Gilgamesh XI,133
"And all flesh died...and every man" Genesis 7:21

"Ziusudra made an opening in the large boat" Ziusudra vi,207
"I opened the window" Gilgamesh XI,135
"Noah opened the window of the ark" Genesis 8:6
"he pried open a portion of the boat" Berossus

"On Mount Nisir the boat grounded" Gilgamesh XI,140
"the ark came to rest upon the mountains" Genesis 8:4
"the boat had grounded upon a mountain" Berossus
"After Khsisuthros... landed ... a long mountain" Moses of Khoren.

"The dove went out and returned" Gilgamesh XI,147
"sent forth the dove and the dove came back to him" Genesis 8:10b-11
"let out the birds and they again returned to the ship" Berossus.

"When a seventh day arrived" Gilgamesh XI,145
"He waited another seven days" Genesis 8:10a.

"I sent forth a raven" Gilgamesh XI,152
"Noah... sent forth a raven" Genesis 8:7

"The king slaughtered...bulls and sheep" Ziusudra vi,211
"He offered [a sacrifice]" Atrahasis III,v,31
"And offered a sacrifice" Gilgamesh XI,155
"offered burnt offerings on the altar" Genesis 8:20
"built an altar and sacrificed to the gods" Berossus

"[The gods smelled] the savor" Atrahasis III,v,34
"The gods smelled the sweet savor" Gilgamesh XI,160
"And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." Genesis 8:21

"the lapis around my neck" Atrahasis III,vi,2
"the lapis lazuli on my neck" Gilgamesh XI,164

"That I may remember it [every] day" Atrahasis III,vi,4
"I shall remember these days and never forget" Gilgamesh XI,165
"I shall remember my covenant...I may remember" Genesis 9:15-16

"How did man survive the destruction?" Atrahasis III,vi,10
"No man was to survive the destruction" Gilgamesh XI,173

"[on the criminal] impose your penalty" Atrahasis III,vi,25
"On the criminal impose his crimes" Gilgamesh XI,180
"Who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood be shed" Genesis 9:6

"he touched our foreheads to bless us" Gilgamesh XI,192
"And God blessed Noah" Genesis 9:1

"elevated him to eternal life, like a god" Ziusudra vi,257
"they shall be like gods to us" Gilgamesh XI,194

"I lived in the temple of Ea, my lord" Atrahasis RS 22.421,7
"go down to dwell with my lord Ea" Gilgamesh XI,42
"he had gone to dwell with the gods" Berossus.

http://www.flood-myth.com/parallels.htm

Bruarong

19-04-2006, 18:56

Parallels Between Flood Myths

Distinctive story elements and phrases that are common to three or more of the six Ancient
Near East flood myths indicate a common origin. Parallel quotations make it obvious that
these six flood myths did not originate independently:

-- snip --

http://www.flood-myth.com/parallels.htm

Interesting. But I would not call it 'word for word' likeness between Genesis and the other accounts, but rather my impression was that it was different ways of telling the same story, such as what you might expect from several witnesses of a multiple event crime scene. It does indeed seem that there is too much similarity between the accounts to have been independent inventions.

Thus one explanation is that there really was a flood.

The other explanation is that it was a single invention, and copied several times. Since you are assuming that the Babylonian accounts are older, you obviously think that the Hebrews borrowed the Genesis flood account from their Babylonian captives. Personally, I do not find enough similarities to support the assumption that the Hebrews copied the Babylonian account. It is hardly word for word, and there are significant differences in the details, such as the number of days of the storm/rain. More likely the Hebrew and Babylonian account refer to the same event, as do many of the other myths right around the world.

The other point is that dating the Hebrew account as being from their time in Babylon captivity is rather speculative, and I haven't seen any good support from you for that idea. Indeed, I'm not sure how one is suppose to 'date' such accounts, other than assumptions of borrowing from other cultures.

Grave_n_idle

19-04-2006, 19:26

Interesting. But I would not call it 'word for word' likeness between Genesis and the other accounts, but rather my impression was that it was different ways of telling the same story, such as what you might expect from several witnesses of a multiple event crime scene. It does indeed seem that there is too much similarity between the accounts to have been independent inventions.

Thus one explanation is that there really was a flood.

The other explanation is that it was a single invention, and copied several times. Since you are assuming that the Babylonian accounts are older, you obviously think that the Hebrews borrowed the Genesis flood account from their Babylonian captives. Personally, I do not find enough similarities to support the assumption that the Hebrews copied the Babylonian account. It is hardly word for word, and there are significant differences in the details, such as the number of days of the storm/rain. More likely the Hebrew and Babylonian account refer to the same event, as do many of the other myths right around the world.

The other point is that dating the Hebrew account as being from their time in Babylon captivity is rather speculative, and I haven't seen any good support from you for that idea. Indeed, I'm not sure how one is suppose to 'date' such accounts, other than assumptions of borrowing from other cultures.

First: It's not a matter of 'assuming' that the Babylonian form is older. There are 'solid' records of the babylonian version that are older than about 900 BC, which is when the first Hebrew scriptures were constructed in 'hard copy'

Second: There was a flood. The Euphrates shows evidence of repeated flooding, some of it VERY severe. Since the land beside the Euphrates is relatively flat - the flooding would indeed be 'as far as the eye could see'... but that is not the same as the world-wide flood the Bible claims. The difference is - the Babylonian flood has evidence.

Third: The 'word-for-word' doesn't survive QUITE as well when the texts are translated into english... but the very close resemblence is still obvious, even in translation. Also - bear in mind that the Gilgamesh Epic is written 'first hand', whereas the Bible account is a 'history'... allowing for the change of perspective, MUCH is scarily similar.

Especially compare: ""The gods smelled the sweet savor" Gilgamesh XI,160 with: "And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." Genesis 8:21... and, bear in mind that the Hebrew word translated 'lord' is 'elohim', which could (more properly) be translated as 'gods'.

As to the conflicting 'numbers'... a simple answer is that Hebrew doesn't actually use a 'number' system (it uses letters, instead), and the earliest Mesopotamian versions were probably cuneiformic iconography... yet ANOTHER level of translational error.

DubyaGoat

19-04-2006, 19:48

To DubyaGoat

This is not related to this thread, but just how does one pronounce your name? Would Dub-ya-Goat be right? Would that be some sort of joke?

Yes.

Goat for 'butting heads' ...

Muravyets

19-04-2006, 19:53

Bruarong! Where have you been? I almost forgot you existed for a while. :p Well, since it seems you're not yet finished being wrong about me and my religion, let's get back into it. (I feel like I'm playing with my cat, always wiggling the same piece of string for him.)

In order to be religious, doesn't one have to reject? The claims made by every religion means that you cannot follow all religions. You have to choose what you believe. In your mind you can mentally accept that your religion may not be the truth, but even then, if you didn't think it was the most likely to be at least closest to the truth, you would be a fool. Whatever you believe, you cannot avoid rejecting claims that contradict your belief. Thus, you too are rejecting other people's religions. But isn't that simple logic? We all reject, since belief cannot avoid it.
Maybe you have this problem, but not everyone does. There's a thing called syncretism, in which different religious or philosophical belief systems overlap and are used at the same time. This happens if they are not seen to compete or conflict with each other.

Christianity is primarily concerned with preparing for the afterlife. Animism is primarily concerned with living this life. Animist gods have specific spheres of influence that they are in charge of -- weather, crops, traffic safety, etc. They have no authority over the fate of human souls and are not prayed to for that. They do not compete with the Christian god for that. Spirits in general are not gods and not subject to worship, per se, at all. They are beings, just like other people (who are also spirits; we are all spirits), and we interact with them the same way. The festivals and offerings that honor them are just that -- acknowledgments of beings who share our world with us and with whom we'd like to have good relations. They are not very different from our own life passage celebrations (birthdays, weddings, graduations, etc) or from special event celebrations (parades for sports champions, for instance). From the animist point of view, there is no conflict between this way of living and seeing the world and the Christian rules of morality for spiritual purity and life after death. You can do both.

I say that you do not really believe in the existence of my god, at least not really the god that I believe in. For if you were to believe in him, you would either run to him and embrace him as the long lost parent who is the only one to ever have loved you perfectly, or you would turn away from him just as the demons do, and tremble (as it says in the book of James), knowing that you have committed yourself to evil and a rejection of god. No, I don't think you don't believe in my god, any more than I think that you are committed to evil. Rather, it's more likely that you believe in a god that the Christians have misunderstood and perhaps misrepresented, or even invented. You can claim all you like that you believe in the existence of my god, but surely such a claim cannot be consistent with you current beliefs.
You can say anything you like. That won't make it any more true than anything else you've said about animism or about me. All you are doing here is insisting that I must think the same way you do and refusing to accept that I do not. This does not give you any insight into how I think -- rather, it blinds you to my thoughts by stopping you from even trying to imagine the possibility of them. It is the epitome of closed-mindedness.

BTW, you continue to not endear yourself to me with little details like "...it's more likely that you believe in a god that the Christians have misunderstood and perhaps misrepresented, or even invented." What is that even supposed to mean? Where is your mind going? And talk about thoughts that contradict each other! How do you reconcile this with your statement in another post (which I'll get to soon) that animsim is in fact the first religion? How could Chrisitianity then have invented gods for animists? And why would Christianity do such a thing?

I think you need to keep in mind, too, that animists are polytheists. There are many, many gods and infinite numbers of spirits. They all really exist, but a person can't worship -- or even acknowledge -- them all. So it is incorrect to describe me as "believing in a god." I believe in lots of gods, but I don't worship them all. Some animists also believe that there is a supreme creator spirit, but animists do not worship this spirit. For some, it no longer exists because it broke itself up into myriads of manifestations. For others, it is withdrawn from active participation in the universe it created and does not interact with us. In either case, it is irrelevant to our lives. Some animists don't think about it at all. I'm one of them.

You may not like the either/or situation, but I don't think you can be free of it. The claims made by Jesus don't leave us any alternative. The same might be said of any other person in any other religion. If anyone makes similar ultimatums as Jesus, with respect to those claims, we must be either/or. Stephen Hawkins once commented that if anyone didn't believe in evolution as the way in which people came about, they were either insane or deliberately ignorant. I don't care much for his options, but with respect to his claim about evolution, it means that I am in an either/or situation, as far as he is concerned. I may not like the man, or his beliefs, or I may like him and agree with what he said, but I cannot avoid the confrontation that he has constructed. Neither can you.Again, you can think anything you like, but if it doesn't match the facts, then you are wrong, as a matter of fact. For instance, you are assuming that all religions issue ultimatums similar to the claims of Jesus. In fact, animism does not make ultimatums of any kind, let alone any similar to those of Jesus. Also, despite his skill with math, I do not allow Stephen Hawking to dictate the scope of my beliefs. He is just as entitled to his opinions as you are, and they are just as unlikely to reflect the whole of reality.

At this point, I'd like to ask you to list some of Jesus's ultimatums so that I can contrast them to animist beliefs. I think you are operating on the idea that both religions try to answer the same questions and have the same spiritual goals. This is not true, but rather than just blindly throw out info that may or may not be relevant, I'd like to know where you're coming from so I can meet you along the way.

Ashmoria

19-04-2006, 20:01

Muravyets

19-04-2006, 20:28

From http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Chapter07.htm

''The shaman is a diviner who seeks to discern what spiritual being or impersonal force is causing sickness, discord, or catastrophe in order to prescribe some remedy. In contrast to community leaders, like the priest and prophet, the shaman is an individual or family practitioner. He is a "personal diviner" called upon to solve urgent personal problems. He "deals in a personal and specific way with spirits and lesser deities" but seldom, if ever, dialogues about Creator God, the source of evil in the world, or cosmological issues (Turner 1989, 88). Since he holistically treats the symptoms of disease and dispenses herbal medicines, he is sometimes called a "medicine man." In addition to medical treatment, he gives spiritual prognoses discerning what god, spirit, spiritual force, sin, or black magic has caused the illness or catastrophe. Since he frequently divines and cures problems created by witches, he is called a "witchdoctor." The shaman uses spiritual power for beneficent purposes to help people counter magic, evil spirits, and the results of sin in their lives. He champions the cause of the people as they confront the evil powers always present in the animist's world.

In many rural, face-to-face cultures every extended family has its own shaman. He contacts the ancestors and spirits on behalf of his own people and discerns what powers are being used against them. In urban centers, where specialties develop, divining the powers becomes a trade. Shamanistic specialists may join together and form spiritist centers where people come for spiritual and physical prognoses.

The term shaman originated with the Tungus people of Siberia. These nomadic reindeer herders and fishermen believe in three realms of existence: a higher sphere where good spirits and light exist, a middle realm where people live along with the spirits of the world, and a lower domain where evil spirits dwell in darkness. The shaman is understood as the beneficent practitioner who is able to go to the realm above or the realm below on behalf of the living. He divines various causes of illness. A person may have a disease spirit inside him which has to be exorcised. Or, a person may have lost his soul and the shaman may have to confront demonic powers of the lower realms to retrieve it. The shaman uses his spiritual power to help people and is given public recognition and respect by them (Howells 1962, 125-127). Although taken from the Siberian context, the term "shaman" is used for the general practitioner who helps people deal with the problem of evil in their lives and unlock the secrets of the unknown.

The shaman is the most frequently used type of religious leader in animistic contexts. When a Brazilian lady wonders how she might induce a man to pay her special attention, a diviner is used. When a Chinese family wants to find out whether an ancestor is comfortable, a shaman reveals the world of the dead. When an African child becomes seriously ill, a shaman determines the cause and cure. When a Korean family is deciding on a date for a wedding or a funeral, the shaman determines the auspicious day. When a Hong Kong businessman wants inside information about the stock market, he seeks a diviner to discern the market. When a Zinacanteco Indian of Mexico moves into a new house, the shaman first purifies it.''

I guess you will have to relinquish that point.
Guess again. I refer you back to the entire section on shamans. Despite the casual use of the word "leader", the chapter makes it clear that shamans are not religious leaders the way priests (both pagan and Christian) are, which is the way you have been using the term throughout this argument in attempting to paint shamans as oppressors. Shamans do not give religious instruction to adherents of a religion. They do not teach rules of morality, or good/evil, or the nature of the divine, or any of that. They perform certain spiritual services at weddings, births, funerals (such as blessings and purifications), but they do not conduct/lead these major rituals.

This is made clear even in the long section you quoted above: "In contrast to community leaders, like the priest and prophet, the shaman is an individual or family practitioner. He is a "personal diviner" called upon to solve urgent personal problems. He "deals in a personal and specific way with spirits and lesser deities" but seldom, if ever, dialogues about Creator God, the source of evil in the world, or cosmological issues (Turner 1989, 88)."

"In many rural, face-to-face cultures every extended family has its own shaman. He contacts the ancestors and spirits on behalf of his own people and discerns what powers are being used against them. In urban centers, where specialties develop, divining the powers becomes a trade. Shamanistic specialists may join together and form spiritist centers where people come for spiritual and physical prognoses."

Plus, all the uses of shamans described in the section are no different from the services provided by psychics and alternative healers in the good, old, secular, non-animist USA. In fact, the chapter draws this parallel, too. Is every palm reader or rebirthing therapist with a parlor-shop-office in every shopping mall in the midwest a "religious leader"? No, at their best, they are just individual, private practitioners of specialties within a certain spiritual system. Not leaders of it.

In that case, I see little similarity between your version of animism and that found in the jungles of the Amazon, for there they do believe in evil spirits and tend to live their lives in fear of them, if I have my impression right. You may claim that evil spirits are nonsense, but they are clearly not so in the lives of those who fear their power (regardless of whether they do indeed exist or not).
Thus, your arguments seem to have been defending your version of animism, not the animism to which I was originally commenting on. And you version of animism is possibly not that different from some versions of Christianity which do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.
As I've told you before, your impression is wrong. Lots of people, including Christians, live in superstitious fear of evil spirits. That's the fault of those particular people, not of their religion. Your assumption that all South American animists -- or even the majority of them -- "live in fear" is nothing more than that -- your assumption.

What's a religion?
Do you really want me to answer this for you? Think about it. ;)

Talking just about astrology, let me try to answer thusly: Is the Daily Racing Form (a horse racing publication used by gamblers) a religious text? Is the Magic 8-Ball a miraculous object? When you read your horoscope in the newspaper, are you getting a message from god? No, no, and no.

Your point of view is vastly different from animists who actually believe in spirits. Do you 'look down' on literalist animism? Or do you regard it as a primitive belief, in somewhat the same way that liberal Christians view literalist interpretations of the Bible?
You have proven more than sufficiently in this thread that you don't know the first thing about animism or what the views/thoughts of animists are. Now you're trying to invent terms like "literalist animism"? Please. This is nothing but another attempt to claim that I don't understand my own religion better than you do.

On one hand, I value truth wherever I find it, and try to learn from it, regardless of who the teacher is. And on the other hand, I try to distinguish truth from invention, particularly invention that claims to be the truth. This is obviously not an easy objective process, but it will mean that I should take an interest in other religions, in order to learn what I can about the world in which I find myself.
Good luck with that.

I have never denied that Christianity is open to abuse, as is any religion. But the point that I keep saying is that we need to distinguish between abuse that occurs in spite of the teachings of the religion, and abuse that happens because of the teachings of the religion. In other words, is the cause of the abuse outside of the teachings of the religion (e.g., man's desire to control his fellows, which is clearly against the teachings of Christ) or is the cause the religion itself (e.g., the concept bribing the spirits in order to avert evil). This is a relatively simple (but important) distinction, although finding a concensus on what is the cause of the abuse may not be.
And here we are back at square one, with you claiming that my religion promotes abuse. It is slander. I refer you back to the entire argument, here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10692878&postcount=124
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10696116&postcount=144
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10697755&postcount=152
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702884&postcount=155
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10706440&postcount=158
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10707886&postcount=164
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10711482&postcount=169
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10714436&postcount=217
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10722741&postcount=288
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10722883&postcount=294
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10723020&postcount=296

Muravyets

19-04-2006, 20:58

I thought also that animism was an original religion. If there was any borrowing, it is more likely that Hinduism borrowed from animism.
And not just Hinduism.

Missionary websites for sport scores :)
But seriously, if you want to assert that it is inaccurate, shouldn't you at least be giving some sort of brief reason why?
I have given lengthy exlanations of why missionary sites are inaccurate sources in general. I refer you back to our entire argument.

As for the specific issue of whether there is any basis for helping others in Hinduism:

http://www.beliefnet.com/features/charity_chart2.html
"The husband and wife of the house should not turn away any who comes at eating time and asks for food. If food is not available, a place to rest, water for refreshing one's self, a reed mat to lay one's self on, and pleasing words entertaining the guest--these at least never fail in the houses of the good." --Apastamba Dharma Sutra 8.2

"When help is rendered by weighing the receiver's need And not the donor's reward, its goodness grows greater than the sea."
--Tirukkural 11: 103

"He is liberal who gives to anyone who asks for alms, to the homeless, distressed man who seeks food; success comes to him in the challenge of battle, and for future conflicts he makes an ally.

He is no friend who does not give to a friend, to a comrade who comes imploring for food; let him leave such a man--his is not a home-- and rather seek a stranger who brings him comfort.

Let the rich man satisfy one who seeks help; and let him look upon the long view: For wealth revolves like the wheels of a chariot, coming now to one, now to another.
-- Rig Veda 10.117.1-6

http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_food.htm
Charity
Hindus believe that serving food to the poor and the needy,* or to a begging mendicant is a very good karma.

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/articles_hinduism/132.htm
SOCIAL (CHARITY) WORK-*It has been said, by the propaganda machine of the missionaries that Hinduism does not support charity work, and that only they do. This is a myth, because niskaam karma, which essentially means, charity work is not only recognised as a good work, but one of the very works to attain salvation.

(Disclaimer: That last one is an article written in rebuttal to missionary statements about Hinduism.)

I'm not sure if you can tell the difference between my asking you for an explanation, and my believing that I have found a cause and effect. Does that mean that when I ask you for an explanation for the widespread belief within animism in evil spirits (and good and neutral ones too) that you take it to mean that I believe in spirits. Can't you distinguish between my debate and my beliefs. Never once did I assert that Japanese cruelty was due to Shinto. Neither am I asserting that now, although I may be suspicious that they are not unrelated in some way. I was merely curious to see how you would explain it.
Again, I refer you back to the argument. You most certainly did infer it. In fact, you did it again in your post immediately previous to this one -- and you're doing it again right here, in the bolded part of the paragraph above.

This means that the terrorists would defend their claim that their version of Islam supports terrorism. Because you and I think terrorism is wrong, then we could probably agree that their version of Islam is a cause, or at least a contribution (because it gives them a license to kill) to abuse. It would be an extreme example of a religion (militant Islam, not the more general Islam) that causes abuse. One might argue that such a religion was interpreted that way to allow abuse, and thus the cause for abuse was more like the desire for revenge, hatred, etc., rather than the actual religion itself. But for each new suicide bomber, specifically the brainwashed ones, the militant religion is presented as a set of beliefs and reasons and he/she is not given the chance to interpret the Koran in a peaceful way, but taught that Jihad means war in any shape of form. Thus the teaching directly contributes to the abuse. The same sort of thing can happen in any religion, so I'm not attacking Islam.
This statement does nothing but outline again your view in contrast to mine without either supporting or undermining either of them. This is, of course, the only thing that can be done with opinions like this.

I would say that the militant version of Islam is a cause for terror. Perhaps there is a version of Shinto that is a cause for cruelty? But that is not a claim of mine (and never has been) but a speculation that you are welcome to refute if you have good reasons.
There is not such a version of Shinto. I don't need to refute speculations. Speculations are, by definition, made-up stuff. If there was any proof to back them up, they would not be speculations. I have already given you links to sites that describe the beliefs of Shinto. That is all I need to do. If you refuse to let go of your prejudicial notions, that's your failing, not mine.

Abroad

19-04-2006, 22:38

Yes, its standard Jewish teaching that the messiah must be descended from David and Solomon. The geneaologies of Jesus caused quite a bit of a problem for the early Jewish persons who wanted to believe Jesus was the messiah, because he didn't fit. That is one reason we have polemics against the Jews who realized this in the Bible, like in 1 Tim 1:4, "[they] occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith." They seemed to have discouraged Christians from studying these geneaologies because they refute the idea that Jesus is the Messiah.

And I don't think that "if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever" would imply that the messiah couldn't be though Solomon. It doesn't say anything about Solomon's descendants, as the curse of Jeconiah did.

Moreover I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is steadfast to observe My commandments and My judgments, as it is this day.'
"I will establish his kingdom forever, IF he is steadfast..." To me, that forever should logically include his descendants. Forever is a long time.
"IF you forsake him, he will cast you off forever" Same here.

Hniz

19-04-2006, 22:45

Read Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Sure, the book is fiction, but many things in it are true.

Tropical Sands

20-04-2006, 04:51

"I will establish his kingdom forever, IF he is steadfast..." To me, that forever should logically include his descendants. Forever is a long time.
"IF you forsake him, he will cast you off forever" Same here.

"I will establish his kingdom forever" makes more sense as referring to descendants, as a kingdom consists of the descendants of the king. However, "If you forsake him" seems to be personal and excluded to the "you." Forever occurs in both, but forever is applying to the kingdom in the first whereas forever is applied only to the person being spoken to ("you") in the second.

Straughn

20-04-2006, 08:51

Read Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Sure, the book is fiction, but many things in it are true.
Opus Dei fan, to be presumed?

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 10:44

First: It's not a matter of 'assuming' that the Babylonian form is older. There are 'solid' records of the babylonian version that are older than about 900 BC, which is when the first Hebrew scriptures were constructed in 'hard copy'

That would mean that we have found written forms of the Babylonian account before 900 BC, but not found written forms of the Hebrew accounts before 900 BC. That does not mean that the Babylonian account is older. And if Moses was indeed a contributing writer of the current forms of the first five books of the Bible, as many scholars believe, then your opinion would be at odds with them.

Second: There was a flood. The Euphrates shows evidence of repeated flooding, some of it VERY severe. Since the land beside the Euphrates is relatively flat - the flooding would indeed be 'as far as the eye could see'... but that is not the same as the world-wide flood the Bible claims. The difference is - the Babylonian flood has evidence.

There is evidence of floods all over the earth, Grave. One can even find fossilised sea shells in the middle of Australia, on tops of mountains in South America, etc. The great coal and oil beds right around the globe testify to some sort of rapid burial of organic matter.

However, the words in Genesis need not be made to include the whole earth under water at one single time, but just the whole known earth, since Moses or whoever wrote the account probably didn't even know how big the earth was, or if it was round, etc.

Third: The 'word-for-word' doesn't survive QUITE as well when the texts are translated into english... but the very close resemblence is still obvious, even in translation. Also - bear in mind that the Gilgamesh Epic is written 'first hand', whereas the Bible account is a 'history'... allowing for the change of perspective, MUCH is scarily similar.

The resemblance could easily be accounted for by a single source of the story telling, before either Hebrew or Babylonian cultures existed. This would make sense, since the survivors would have told the story to their descendents. As the descendents went their separate ways, and founded their respective civilisations, the bones of the story would have remained the same, while some of the details got changed with the retelling, possible to fit in with their concept of god or the gods and the world as they saw it.

It would only be your speculation that makes the Bible account 'history' and the Babylonian account 'first hand telling'. Indeed, the Babylonian account could not be 'first hand', unless the survivors themselves knew how to write. That would be a biggish assumption on your part, wouldn't it?

Especially compare: ""The gods smelled the sweet savor" Gilgamesh XI,160 with: "And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." Genesis 8:21... and, bear in mind that the Hebrew word translated 'lord' is 'elohim', which could (more properly) be translated as 'gods'.

'Gods smelling the sweet savor' is a particularly critical part of the story, explaining why there was no more destruction of life, and it is not surprising that this part of the account was particularly conserved well.
Plurality of 'gods' is not altogether that rare in various cultures around the world, so I see no particularity in that aspect.

As to the conflicting 'numbers'... a simple answer is that Hebrew doesn't actually use a 'number' system (it uses letters, instead), and the earliest Mesopotamian versions were probably cuneiformic iconography... yet ANOTHER level of translational error.

And yet another form of your speculation that you can throw around as much as you please. It's like you are saying that the Hebrews get their maths mixed up because they are not using a good numbering system. If they did copy their account from the Babylonians, why would they get the numbers mixed up? The difference in numbers is more likely in the telling of the tale, such as the way the modern humans might get their numbers mixed up in a game of Chinese whispers.

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 10:54

are you implying that you believe the noah's ark story is literal truth?

It would seem that, based on our little discussion here, there was indeed a literal great flood. But that is not surprising, since we know that floods can happen, even big ones that could wipe out an entire civilisation.

Jesuites

20-04-2006, 11:22

Before Christians were the Catholics.
Without paganism Catholics would never have existed.
(50% of old churches in Europe are on the site of an old temple devoted to some old god or godess)

The old testimony is s Summerian history rewritten for some semitic people.
The new Testimony is an very elaborated text written by some jewish monks to open some doors to the jewish religion. They missed their goal and christianity arose from their mistake.
(See the Dead See Scrolls)

But is that important? If someone wants that text to be true you can do nothing, and in schools kids will learn that an old stinky bearded god invented earth, universe and man in a couple of days. Science is shit, religion is true.
(I dreamt I were a prophet on another planet...)

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 12:55

Bruarong! Where have you been? I almost forgot you existed for a while. :p Well, since it seems you're not yet finished being wrong about me and my religion, let's get back into it.

Easter holidays. Went and spent some time with the family.

Maybe you have this problem, but not everyone does. There's a thing called syncretism, in which different religious or philosophical belief systems overlap and are used at the same time. This happens if they are not seen to compete or conflict with each other.

IF! That is my point right there. You can only accept different religions IF they do not contradict. And wherever there is a contradiction or a conflict, then there has to be a rejection of some sort.

Christianity is primarily concerned with preparing for the afterlife.

I don't agree. My Christianity is primarily concerned with now, with the future and the past also being very important because of their relationship to the present. The aim of Christianity is a relationship with God, right here and now.

Animism is primarily concerned with living this life. Animist gods have specific spheres of influence that they are in charge of -- weather, crops, traffic safety, etc. They have no authority over the fate of human souls and are not prayed to for that. They do not compete with the Christian god for that. Spirits in general are not gods and not subject to worship, per se, at all. They are beings, just like other people (who are also spirits; we are all spirits), and we interact with them the same way. The festivals and offerings that honor them are just that -- acknowledgments of beings who share our world with us and with whom we'd like to have good relations. They are not very different from our own life passage celebrations (birthdays, weddings, graduations, etc) or from special event celebrations (parades for sports champions, for instance). From the animist point of view, there is no conflict between this way of living and seeing the world and the Christian rules of morality for spiritual purity and life after death. You can do both.

It depends on what you mean by 'Christianity'. The heart of Christianity is the love of Christ for his creation, which was the cause for his sacrifice for us. Take that away, and you would be left with a form of Christianity that perhaps any religion could accept.

You can say anything you like. That won't make it any more true than anything else you've said about animism or about me. All you are doing here is insisting that I must think the same way you do and refusing to accept that I do not. This does not give you any insight into how I think -- rather, it blinds you to my thoughts by stopping you from even trying to imagine the possibility of them. It is the epitome of closed-mindedness.

It means that I get to post my opinions and you get to disagree with them. I see no harm in that. It's not like I think you must agree with me. And there is plenty of evidence that you do not agree with me. I don't even agree with some views of other Christians. There is nothing wrong with having a disagreement.

Getting back to my previous point, all I was saying was that for you to accept Christianity, the version of Christianity that I like, you would have to be a Christian. Since you are not, the obvious reason is that you do not agree with everything that I believe, most likely because you disagree with the most basic points that my version of Christianity asserts.

BTW, you continue to not endear yourself to me with little details like "...it's more likely that you believe in a god that the Christians have misunderstood and perhaps misrepresented, or even invented." What is that even supposed to mean? Where is your mind going? And talk about thoughts that contradict each other! How do you reconcile this with your statement in another post (which I'll get to soon) that animsim is in fact the first religion? How could Chrisitianity then have invented gods for animists? And why would Christianity do such a thing?

You misunderstood my point. I was not saying that you think Christianity has invented the animistic gods, but that if you believe in the Christian god, that belief would most likely be that we Christians have misunderstood our god, or misrepresented him, or even invented him. For example, when we claim that our god said that he was the only way to the Truth (Gospel of John), you obviously would reject this. Your options are probably that Christianity had misunderstood our god, or misrepresented his original assertion (whatever they might have otherwise been), or simply invented his assertions, or invented him.

I think you need to keep in mind, too, that animists are polytheists. There are many, many gods and infinite numbers of spirits. They all really exist, but a person can't worship -- or even acknowledge -- them all. So it is incorrect to describe me as "believing in a god." I believe in lots of gods, but I don't worship them all. Some animists also believe that there is a supreme creator spirit, but animists do not worship this spirit. For some, it no longer exists because it broke itself up into myriads of manifestations. For others, it is withdrawn from active participation in the universe it created and does not interact with us. In either case, it is irrelevant to our lives. Some animists don't think about it at all. I'm one of them.

Interesting. Yes, I have read about this aspect of animism. Makes me wonder if animism was originally derived from monotheism (or more likely from a time when there was no religion), where you made the comment about the supreme creator spirit, which is typically what the Hebrews would have said about Jehovah. But that is mere speculation.

Again, you can think anything you like, but if it doesn't match the facts, then you are wrong, as a matter of fact. For instance, you are assuming that all religions issue ultimatums similar to the claims of Jesus. In fact, animism does not make ultimatums of any kind, let alone any similar to those of Jesus. Also, despite his skill with math, I do not allow Stephen Hawking to dictate the scope of my beliefs. He is just as entitled to his opinions as you are, and they are just as unlikely to reflect the whole of reality.

Actually, I never said that all religions have ultimatum's. And I also didn't suggest that an ultimatum like Steven Hawkin's actually made much difference to the scope of our beliefs. But in his view, he would put us in one category or another. Just like Jesus puts us in one category or another. Personally, I don't care much about Hawkin's ultimatum. I do care about Jesus' though.

At this point, I'd like to ask you to list some of Jesus's ultimatums so that I can contrast them to animist beliefs. I think you are operating on the idea that both religions try to answer the same questions and have the same spiritual goals. This is not true, but rather than just blindly throw out info that may or may not be relevant, I'd like to know where you're coming from so I can meet you along the way.

The same spiritual goals.....mmmm, actually I'm not sure about that. In Christianity, the emphasis is the surrender of one's life to God, giving up control, recognition of the authority of God, to find a way to make life better through giving the control to Christ. In animism, it would appear to be an attempt to gain control over one's life, to find a way to make life better through control. Both would appear to have the goal of making life better, but two very different ways of going about it. However, the Christian's sense of 'better' is a relationship with God, even if that costs a good deal of suffering.

Christianity has ultimatum's like these:

Luke 9
23Then he said to the crowd, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must put aside your selfish ambition, shoulder your cross daily, and follow me. 24If you try to keep your life for yourself, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for me, you will find true life. 25And how do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose or forfeit your own soul in the process? 26

62But Jesus told him, "Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God."

John 3
5Jesus replied, "The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.[b] 6Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven.

Matthew 5
So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20"But I warn you--unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 14:04

Guess again. I refer you back to the entire section on shamans. Despite the casual use of the word "leader", the chapter makes it clear that shamans are not religious leaders the way priests (both pagan and Christian) are, which is the way you have been using the term throughout this argument in attempting to paint shamans as oppressors. Shamans do not give religious instruction to adherents of a religion. They do not teach rules of morality, or good/evil, or the nature of the divine, or any of that. They perform certain spiritual services at weddings, births, funerals (such as blessings and purifications), but they do not conduct/lead these major rituals.

So now you are saying that shamans are religious leaders, but with a different leadership to the 'prophets' and 'priests'. (Although I thought the section that dealt with prophets and priests was about the different styles of leadership (rather than the different types of leaders), with the prophets instigating change and the priests maintaining the status quo, and that a shaman could be either a prophet or a priest type leader, depending on whether he was trying to instigate change or maintain the current belief system.)

Previously, you asserted that shamans were not leaders. Period. Now you are saying that they are not leaders like the other leaders. More like a medical doctor, I suppose, than a bishop, to put it in Western context.

As for your assertion that shamans do not lead at major rituals, wouldn't that depend on the particular type of animism he/she was in? We are not necessarily discussing only your version of animism. (Even though your version is interesting.)

No, at their best, they are just individual, private practitioners of specialties within a certain spiritual system. Not leaders of it.

I suppose that would put them in 'middle management' positions, rather than popes and bishops. However, that is exactly what I was referring to when I considered them to be leaders. Not necessarily THE leaders, but nonetheless occupying leading roles within the community.

As I've told you before, your impression is wrong. Lots of people, including Christians, live in superstitious fear of evil spirits. That's the fault of those particular people, not of their religion. Your assumption that all South American animists -- or even the majority of them -- "live in fear" is nothing more than that -- your assumption.

I have never said that all of them live in fear. However, if the religion teaches people to live in fear of evil spirits, then the 'true believers' would probably live in fear. Christianity does not teach us to live in fear of evil spirits, (rather the opposite) therefore those that do cannot blame Christianity for their fear.

Talking just about astrology, let me try to answer thusly: Is the Daily Racing Form (a horse racing publication used by gamblers) a religious text? Is the Magic 8-Ball a miraculous object? When you read your horoscope in the newspaper, are you getting a message from god? No, no, and no.

I suppose a good many of people think of of astrology in this way, but does that mean all of them do? Or more to the point, does that mean that every person has thought of astrology as form of gambling in all the ages of human history? If astrology is no longer a religion, it probably was once, and who knows, for 'true believers', it may continue to be the only way of looking at the world that makes sense. Would you still consider it to be something like the Daily Racing Form for them? Or another question is probably relevant. What is the difference between the 'true believers' in the luck of the Daily Racing Form, and the 'true believers' in any religion?

You have proven more than sufficiently in this thread that you don't know the first thing about animism or what the views/thoughts of animists are. Now you're trying to invent terms like "literalist animism"? Please. This is nothing but another attempt to claim that I don't understand my own religion better than you do.

What do you call those animists that really believe in evil spirits then? 'True believers'? I was not trying to invent a new term, but noting the obvious difference between your version of animism and the others who really fear evil spirits and do not assume that they do not exist.

And here we are back at square one, with you claiming that my religion promotes abuse. It is slander. I refer you back to the entire argument, here:

I suppose the Islamic terrorists would be upset if you or I were to claim that their version of Islam promotes abuse. But would they have a leg to stand on? They obviously think terrorism isn't such a bad thing. I hope both you and I can agree to disagree with them. You, at least, have the opportunity to provide good reasons why something like the teaching to fear evil spirits is either not a correct form animism, or that it doesn't really happen.

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 14:18

As for the specific issue of whether there is any basis for helping others in Hinduism:

http://www.beliefnet.com/features/charity_chart2.html
"The husband and wife of the house should not turn away any who comes at eating time and asks for food. If food is not available, a place to rest, water for refreshing one's self, a reed mat to lay one's self on, and pleasing words entertaining the guest--these at least never fail in the houses of the good." --Apastamba Dharma Sutra 8.2

"When help is rendered by weighing the receiver's need And not the donor's reward, its goodness grows greater than the sea."
--Tirukkural 11: 103

"He is liberal who gives to anyone who asks for alms, to the homeless, distressed man who seeks food; success comes to him in the challenge of battle, and for future conflicts he makes an ally.

He is no friend who does not give to a friend, to a comrade who comes imploring for food; let him leave such a man--his is not a home-- and rather seek a stranger who brings him comfort.

Let the rich man satisfy one who seeks help; and let him look upon the long view: For wealth revolves like the wheels of a chariot, coming now to one, now to another.
-- Rig Veda 10.117.1-6

http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_food.htm
Charity
Hindus believe that serving food to the poor and the needy,* or to a begging mendicant is a very good karma.

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/articles_hinduism/132.htm
SOCIAL (CHARITY) WORK-*It has been said, by the propaganda machine of the missionaries that Hinduism does not support charity work, and that only they do. This is a myth, because niskaam karma, which essentially means, charity work is not only recognised as a good work, but one of the very works to attain salvation.

(Disclaimer: That last one is an article written in rebuttal to missionary statements about Hinduism.)

OK, so there does seem to be some sort of defense made for Hinduism on the subject of helping one another. That's interesting.

Again, I refer you back to the argument. You most certainly did infer it. In fact, you did it again in your post immediately previous to this one -- and you're doing it again right here, in the bolded part of the paragraph above.

Speculation, Muraveyets, speculation. I hope you can see the difference between speculation and belief. I don't firmly believe that Shinto causes cruelty, but I have been speculating over how such cruelty existed among the Japanese soldiers. It began with your assertion that most Japanese (80%) were Shinto. Are you able to provide good reasons why such speculations are obviously false?

Here are some links to show that I'm not the only one that had such an impression of Japanese soldiers at war.

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Nanjing Massacres.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8245
http://www.keepingapace.com/blogarchives/war_history/wwii_government_suppressed_stories.php

There is not such a version of Shinto. I don't need to refute speculations. Speculations are, by definition, made-up stuff. If there was any proof to back them up, they would not be speculations. I have already given you links to sites that describe the beliefs of Shinto. That is all I need to do. If you refuse to let go of your prejudicial notions, that's your failing, not mine.

I guess that's a no.

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 14:22

Yes.

Goat for 'butting heads' ...

Does that mean that when you were thinking up a good name for yourself, you were actually anticipating debates like these, or do you simply have a reputation for head butting?

Grave_n_idle

20-04-2006, 14:38

That would mean that we have found written forms of the Babylonian account before 900 BC, but not found written forms of the Hebrew accounts before 900 BC. That does not mean that the Babylonian account is older. And if Moses was indeed a contributing writer of the current forms of the first five books of the Bible, as many scholars believe, then your opinion would be at odds with them.

Moses MIGHT have been involved in the continuation of the ORAL tradition - if there ever even WAS a 'Moses' (I have several reasons to believe that Moses is an entirelt fictional figure, perhaps based on a number of real people) - but even the Biblical account places Moses several centuries BEFORE the earliest written records of the Hebrew texts.

It is, perhaps, worth noting that there are no Hebrew texts older than the Hebrew 'containment' under the Babylonians... and that the texts they DID write, during and after their internship with Babylon, bear a striking resemblence to the Babylonian histories.

There is evidence of floods all over the earth, Grave. One can even find fossilised sea shells in the middle of Australia, on tops of mountains in South America, etc. The great coal and oil beds right around the globe testify to some sort of rapid burial of organic matter.

"Fossilised sea shells in the middle of Australia" is your evidence for a flood? Do you have ANY idea how long it takes to form fossils?

However, the words in Genesis need not be made to include the whole earth under water at one single time, but just the whole known earth, since Moses or whoever wrote the account probably didn't even know how big the earth was, or if it was round, etc.

Indeed, reading it in Hebrew - it loks very much to me, like the specific implication of the Genesis account IS a limited geography. Literally, as far as the eye can see.

The resemblance could easily be accounted for by a single source of the story telling, before either Hebrew or Babylonian cultures existed. This would make sense, since the survivors would have told the story to their descendents. As the descendents went their separate ways, and founded their respective civilisations, the bones of the story would have remained the same, while some of the details got changed with the retelling, possible to fit in with their concept of god or the gods and the world as they saw it.

That doesn't explain why the texts are so similar. The only ways to explain texts being so similar is that they were either written in collaboration (which doesn't REALLY work, since the Babylonian accounts are so much older), or that one set is heavily based on the other set.

It would only be your speculation that makes the Bible account 'history' and the Babylonian account 'first hand telling'. Indeed, the Babylonian account could not be 'first hand', unless the survivors themselves knew how to write. That would be a biggish assumption on your part, wouldn't it?

You are misunderstanding me.

Go back and compare the accounts.

I didn't say the Gilgamesh Epic was autobiographical... just that it is WRITTEN in the 'first person'.

'Gods smelling the sweet savor' is a particularly critical part of the story, explaining why there was no more destruction of life, and it is not surprising that this part of the account was particularly conserved well.
Plurality of 'gods' is not altogether that rare in various cultures around the world, so I see no particularity in that aspect.

I don't know what you are getting at. The native version of the Hebrew is almost identical to the Babylonian text. Except - we NOW read 'elohim' as though it were singular, in our translations. The point I was making, was that this reference is IDENTICAL between texts.

That smacks of more than just koh-winky-dink.

And yet another form of your speculation that you can throw around as much as you please. It's like you are saying that the Hebrews get their maths mixed up because they are not using a good numbering system. If they did copy their account from the Babylonians, why would they get the numbers mixed up? The difference in numbers is more likely in the telling of the tale, such as the way the modern humans might get their numbers mixed up in a game of Chinese whispers.

I didn't say their numbering system wasn't good.

(You need to get back to the Emerald City, King Scarecrow).

Have you EVER looked at Hebrew or Cuneiformic texts? Ever? Have you done ANY research AT ALL in this field?

If you and I tried to exchange numerical data, it would be easy... because you and I use the same number conventions.

Babylonians are known to have used different 'bases', the 'number' zero, constructed mathematical tables, and used a system of different PATTERNS of 'cuts' for their numbers. Hebrews used a system of 'fractions' based on body parts, and used their alphabet for their numbers, also.

It isn't the simple matter that communication would be between you and I... it is a much more intricate process of translation and interpretation.

(Just as an example... the Bible uses a different 'time scheme' to that which we might consider usual today... they used several different literal 'years' to our modern understanding, for starters. And, when the Bible says "in the third hour of the day"... you or I MIGHT assume they would mean 3:00 AM... but we'd be wrong).

Grave_n_idle

20-04-2006, 14:40

I don't firmly believe that Shinto causes cruelty, but I have been speculating over how such cruelty existed among the Japanese soldiers.

Christians murdered Indians.

The Spanish Inquisition.

Christianity 'causes' cruelty, yes?

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 16:49

Moses MIGHT have been involved in the continuation of the ORAL tradition - if there ever even WAS a 'Moses' (I have several reasons to believe that Moses is an entirelt fictional figure, perhaps based on a number of real people) - but even the Biblical account places Moses several centuries BEFORE the earliest written records of the Hebrew

Rubbish Grave. That is speculation, with little basis other than people wanting to discredit the historicity of the Hebrew account. Post like that show your bias. You don't want the Bible to be historically accurate, thus you will believe any speculation that will contradict it.

It is, perhaps, worth noting that there are no Hebrew texts older than the Hebrew 'containment' under the Babylonians... and that the texts they DID write, during and after their internship with Babylon, bear a striking resemblence to the Babylonian histories.

How would anyone know that there were no Hebrew texts older than the Hebrew captivity? More speculation.

"Fossilised sea shells in the middle of Australia" is your evidence for a flood? Do you have ANY idea how long it takes to form fossils?

What has that got to do with them actually being there? Most scientists believe that a 'young' fossil would be about 200,000 years old. But nobody actually knows how long it would take to make a fossil. Given the right conditions, it could range from a few thousand years to even just a few hundred years.

Such fossils might be evidence for a flood, although fossils can be formed without needing a flood. The point is that you said that there is no evidence for a world wide flood, and I pointed out that we have evidence that is compatible with floods, and that this evidence is found right around the globe.

Indeed, reading it in Hebrew - it loks very much to me, like the specific implication of the Genesis account IS a limited geography. Literally, as far as the eye can see.

All depends on what is already in your head as you are reading it, I suggest.

That doesn't explain why the texts are so similar. The only ways to explain texts being so similar is that they were either written in collaboration (which doesn't REALLY work, since the Babylonian accounts are so much older), or that one set is heavily based on the other set.

Rubbish. They are not similar enough to support the hypothesis that the Hebrews copied from the Babylonians. Consider that you pulled out of the text the most similar parts, and ignoring the parts that were not so similar. You keep asserting that the Babylonian accounts are so much older, but you only reason for this seems to be that we have found ancient Babylonian texts, but we haven't found the ancient Hebrew ones. Maybe they got destroyed when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, or taken by the Egyptians, or the Assyrians, or the Ethiopians, or the Romans.....did I miss anyone else? Oh, of course, the Greeks. They did try to set up their own religion in the Jewish temple. Perhaps they removed all the old copies of the Hebrew scriptures. See how far speculation can go?

You are misunderstanding me.

Go back and compare the accounts.

I didn't say the Gilgamesh Epic was autobiographical... just that it is WRITTEN in the 'first person'.

And if you or me were to write our version of a great flood in the 'first person', would that have any relevancy to the age of our account?

I don't know what you are getting at. The native version of the Hebrew is almost identical to the Babylonian text. Except - we NOW read 'elohim' as though it were singular, in our translations. The point I was making, was that this reference is IDENTICAL between texts.

That smacks of more than just koh-winky-dink.

Almost every culture had 'gods' (plural) rather than 'god' (singular). There really isn't anything that special about it.

I didn't say their numbering system wasn't good.

(You need to get back to the Emerald City, King Scarecrow).

If it was good, they wouldn't have gotten mixed up between the numbers 40 and 7, assuming that they copied their account from the Babylonians.

Have you EVER looked at Hebrew or Cuneiformic texts? Ever? Have you done ANY research AT ALL in this field?

No, but then again, I don't need to in order to see your bias. However, I do find it rather interesting (the texts, not your bias).

If you and I tried to exchange numerical data, it would be easy... because you and I use the same number conventions.

This is not an issue of conversion of numbers (or mis-conversion), otherwise the Hebrews would have certainly had a good deal of trouble coping in captivity. For example, they would always be getting mixed up between the number 40 and the number 7 when trying to count their money for purchasing something at the local Babylonian market. That would be a bit far-fetched, wouldn't it?

Babylonians are known to have used different 'bases', the 'number' zero, constructed mathematical tables, and used a system of different PATTERNS of 'cuts' for their numbers. Hebrews used a system of 'fractions' based on body parts, and used their alphabet for their numbers, also.

That falls miserably short of explaining the difference between 40 and 7.

It isn't the simple matter that communication would be between you and I... it is a much more intricate process of translation and interpretation.

It's more an issue of being careful not to believe whatever happens to suit your world view.

(Just as an example... the Bible uses a different 'time scheme' to that which we might consider usual today... they used several different literal 'years' to our modern understanding, for starters. And, when the Bible says "in the third hour of the day"... you or I MIGHT assume they would mean 3:00 AM... but we'd be wrong).

Yes, I am aware of some of these differences. Instead of starting the hour count at midnight, they started at sunrise. Thus the third hour of the day was three hours after sunrise, and the third hour of the night was three hours after sunset.

But one year was generally about 354 days, or 384 days if the previous year was a leap year.

But what does this have to do with the confusion between 7 days and 40 days?

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 17:00

Christians murdered Indians.

The Spanish Inquisition.

Christianity 'causes' cruelty, yes?

If that form of Christianity taught that cruelty was a valid way to subdue the Indians and dissenters, then, yes, that form of Christianity was a cause of that cruelty.

If it goes against the teachings of Christ, I have no trouble saying that I disagree with that form of Christianity, or even that I hate that form of Christianity.

Evil masquerading as good is always the most hateful form of evil.

Grave_n_idle

20-04-2006, 17:13

Rubbish Grave. That is speculation, with little basis other than people wanting to discredit the historicity of the Hebrew account. Post like that show your bias. You don't want the Bible to be historically accurate, thus you will believe any speculation that will contradict it.

Okay - when do you believe Moses lived?

(Can you prove it, outside of the scripture.... but, I digress)

Now - show me evidence of a SINGLE recorded account that conforms to THAT dating.

How would anyone know that there were no Hebrew texts older than the Hebrew captivity? More speculation.

Because, all around the world, the oldest evidences have all been about 900BC or later.

What has that got to do with them actually being there? Most scientists believe that a 'young' fossil would be about 200,000 years old. But nobody actually knows how long it would take to make a fossil. Given the right conditions, it could range from a few thousand years to even just a few hundred years.

Such fossils might be evidence for a flood, although fossils can be formed without needing a flood. The point is that you said that there is no evidence for a world wide flood, and I pointed out that we have evidence that is compatible with floods, and that this evidence is found right around the globe.

I'd like to see evidence of a fossil being formed in a 'few hundred years'... I think you are talking about calcifying, not fossilising.

All depends on what is already in your head as you are reading it, I suggest.

Not really - the LITERAL text is what is physically written. If the wording of the LITERAL text uses (for example) a word for 'sky' that SUGGESTS the actual translation 'the VISIBLE extent of the sky', and then includes the 'water' in the same clause - the implication is that both are limited to the visible extent.

The difference between us, is that I have LOOKED at the 'literal' account, rather than ASSUMING a given translation is right, JUST because it matches my notions.

Until I had read it in the Hebrew, I was quite happy to accept the translation as accurate.

Rubbish. They are not similar enough to support the hypothesis that the Hebrews copied from the Babylonians. Consider that you pulled out of the text the most similar parts, and ignoring the parts that were not so similar. You keep asserting that the Babylonian accounts are so much older, but you only reason for this seems to be that we have found ancient Babylonian texts, but we haven't found the ancient Hebrew ones. Maybe they got destroyed when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, or taken by the Egyptians, or the Assyrians, or the Ethiopians, or the Romans.....did I miss anyone else? Oh, of course, the Greeks. They did try to set up their own religion in the Jewish temple. Perhaps they removed all the old copies of the Hebrew scriptures. See how far speculation can go?

You seem to forget that Babylon was ALSO conquered, and is ruins today. And yet, Babylonian evidence STILL predates Hebrew evidence.

It's quite simple, really - SHOW me ANY evidence, that Hebrew scripture actually predates the Babylonian?

And if you or me were to write our version of a great flood in the 'first person', would that have any relevancy to the age of our account?

Erm.. no. And, that has nothing t do with the point.

The point was, if you ALLOW for the fact that one of the accounts IS 'first person', the texts are actually even MORE similar... because MANY of the differences are simple "I said" versus "he said" differences.

Almost every culture had 'gods' (plural) rather than 'god' (singular). There really isn't anything that special about it.

No - again, missing the point.

If it was good, they wouldn't have gotten mixed up between the numbers 40 and 7, assuming that they copied their account from the Babylonians.

That makes no sense.

Welsh is a 'good' language. How much can you translate?

No, but then again, I don't need to in order to see your bias. However, I do find it rather interesting (the texts, not your bias).

So - you are arguing from a point of ignorance?

Then, how can you honestly assert that my argument is 'from bias'?

Surely, since you've done NO research yourself, the HONEST thing to do, would be to allow that the 'bias' you see is JUST a reflection of the reality?

This is not an issue of conversion of numbers (or mis-conversion), otherwise the Hebrews would have certainly had a good deal of trouble coping in captivity. For example, they would always be getting mixed up between the number 40 and the number 7 when trying to count their money for purchasing something at the local Babylonian market. That would be a bit far-fetched, wouldn't it?

Babylonians and Hebrews both used the same currency - weights of precious metals. (Shekels).

That falls miserably short of explaining the difference between 40 and 7.

Not really. If I write "10" on a page, what is the TEXT equivalent.

Straight off the top of my head, I could write it as either 'two' or 'ten'.

It's more an issue of being careful not to believe whatever happens to suit your world view.

Bullshit.

You keep CLAIMING bias - but you are the one who cannot produce evidence, and has no experience in the matter - by your OWN admission.

Yes, I am aware of some of these differences. Instead of starting the hour count at midnight, they started at sunrise. Thus the third hour of the day was three hours after sunrise, and the third hour of the night was three hours after sunset.

But one year was generally about 354 days, or 384 days if the previous year was a leap year.

But what does this have to do with the confusion between 7 days and 40 days?

What about the 300 day year? or the fact that, when detailing reigns, for example, Hebrew kings are described in units of whole years - like three years for a period that MIGHT have only been two literal years and a few months?

What this has to do with it, is that different cultures, then, used very different number conventions. What one group might 'read' something as, might be nothing LIKE what was actually written.

DubyaGoat

20-04-2006, 17:14

Does that mean that when you were thinking up a good name for yourself, you were actually anticipating debates like these, or do you simply have a reputation for head butting?

Both would be a fair assessment, but the first is the reason I picked it.

Grave_n_idle

20-04-2006, 17:15

If that form of Christianity taught that cruelty was a valid way to subdue the Indians and dissenters, then, yes, that form of Christianity was a cause of that cruelty.

If it goes against the teachings of Christ, I have no trouble saying that I disagree with that form of Christianity, or even that I hate that form of Christianity.

Evil masquerading as good is always the most hateful form of evil.

But you don't see ANY parallel between Christian and Shinto beliefs, versus the things that MIGHT be done in their names?

Muravyets

20-04-2006, 17:41

Easter holidays. Went and spent some time with the family.

IF! That is my point right there. You can only accept different religions IF they do not contradict. And wherever there is a contradiction or a conflict, then there has to be a rejection of some sort.
And I explained that, from the animist point of view, there is no conflict, therefore no need to reject.

I don't agree. My Christianity is primarily concerned with now, with the future and the past also being very important because of their relationship to the present. The aim of Christianity is a relationship with God, right here and now.
I still don't see a conflict. Loving Christ does not require you to reject your fellow man, does it? Animists treat spirits exactly the same way as other humans, so why can't they believe in the Christian God and still also interact with spirits?

It depends on what you mean by 'Christianity'. The heart of Christianity is the love of Christ for his creation, which was the cause for his sacrifice for us. Take that away, and you would be left with a form of Christianity that perhaps any religion could accept.
I still don't see a conflict. How does believing in spirits negate Christ's sacrifice? Why would you have give that up?

It means that I get to post my opinions and you get to disagree with them. I see no harm in that. It's not like I think you must agree with me. And there is plenty of evidence that you do not agree with me. I don't even agree with some views of other Christians. There is nothing wrong with having a disagreement.

Getting back to my previous point, all I was saying was that for you to accept Christianity, the version of Christianity that I like, you would have to be a Christian. Since you are not, the obvious reason is that you do not agree with everything that I believe, most likely because you disagree with the most basic points that my version of Christianity asserts.
You seem to be using the word "accept" in the sense of an affirmation of belief, as in "I accept Christ as my personal savior," which means that you are joining a religion.

I am using "accept" in the sense of not disagreeing that a thing is as stated without trying to prove it myself, as in "I accept the assertion that x=y." I imply nothing more than that.

From my point of view, the problem here is that you cannot accept (my usage) that a person can believe that god exists without feeling a need to worship him. Maybe this is because you can't understand how a person can not be awed by god or how a person can be unconcerned about the future of their soul. But while it's nice to understand others' minds, it is not strictly necessary for you to understand how or why I think the way I do. You only need to understand that I do think this way and that it is different from the way you think. Anything else is extra.

You misunderstood my point. I was not saying that you think Christianity has invented the animistic gods, but that if you believe in the Christian god, that belief would most likely be that we Christians have misunderstood our god, or misrepresented him, or even invented him. For example, when we claim that our god said that he was the only way to the Truth (Gospel of John), you obviously would reject this. Your options are probably that Christianity had misunderstood our god, or misrepresented his original assertion (whatever they might have otherwise been), or simply invented his assertions, or invented him.
Oh, I see. I did misunderstand you.

But no, that's still not the way I see things. I do not think you are wrong about your religion, only about mine.

Interesting. Yes, I have read about this aspect of animism. Makes me wonder if animism was originally derived from monotheism (or more likely from a time when there was no religion), where you made the comment about the supreme creator spirit, which is typically what the Hebrews would have said about Jehovah. But that is mere speculation.
I think it is unlikely that monotheism existed before animism. I think it is unlikely that polytheism or any concept of "theos" existed before animism, i.e. the concept of "anima", spirit. If we want to speculate about the original form of religion, I think the proper question is what kind of spirits did humans first start to venerate with rituals/offerings -- nature spirits or human spirits (i.e. ancestor worship/veneration of the dead)? All cultures contain elements of both.

Actually, I never said that all religions have ultimatum's. And I also didn't suggest that an ultimatum like Steven Hawkin's actually made much difference to the scope of our beliefs. But in his view, he would put us in one category or another. Just like Jesus puts us in one category or another. Personally, I don't care much about Hawkin's ultimatum. I do care about Jesus' though.

Yes you did:
Originally posted by Bruarong
You may not like the either/or situation, but I don't think you can be free of it. The claims made by Jesus don't leave us any alternative. The same might be said of any other person in any other religion. If anyone makes similar ultimatums as Jesus, with respect to those claims, we must be either/or. Stephen Hawkins once commented that if anyone didn't believe in evolution as the way in which people came about, they were either insane or deliberately ignorant. I don't care much for his options, but with respect to his claim about evolution, it means that I am in an either/or situation, as far as he is concerned. I may not like the man, or his beliefs, or I may like him and agree with what he said, but I cannot avoid the confrontation that he has constructed. Neither can you.

As for Stephen Hawking, his views are utterly irrelevant to this conversation. This confrontation you claim he has constructed is really constructed by you in your reaction to his words. But why should his words matter at all? Who cares what Stephen Hawking thinks about anything other than the age of the universe? I respect the man, yes -- he's a genius and all that -- but seriously, if I'm not awed by god, do you really think I give a flip about Stephen Hawking? (flippancy, but seriously, enough with Hawking already)

The same spiritual goals.....mmmm, actually I'm not sure about that. In Christianity, the emphasis is the surrender of one's life to God, giving up control, recognition of the authority of God, to find a way to make life better through giving the control to Christ. In animism, it would appear to be an attempt to gain control over one's life, to find a way to make life better through control. Both would appear to have the goal of making life better, but two very different ways of going about it. However, the Christian's sense of 'better' is a relationship with God, even if that costs a good deal of suffering.
Hm. I notice that you presume to guess what animism is about rather than asking the animist you are talking to. I asked you to explain your religion. You did not show the same courtesy to me. I wish you think about that.

Responding to your point: You're wrong about animism. (You would hear that so much less if you would ask, rather than guess.) Animism is about relationships, not control. Animists seek to preserve harmony between humans and spirits in the same way we seek harmony just among humans. Evil spirits are the same as evil people -- they seek to destroy harmony. There are charms and rituals to keep them out of people's lives, just like there are precautions to protect ourselves from human enemies, such as criminals. Good spirits are the same as good people -- they also desire harmony and the freedom to live their lives in peace and happiness. Humans and spirits interact with each other constantly. We can't help it; we share the same world. In the process of living, we bump up against each other all the time, taking from each other and giving to each other. Harmony is maintained by making sure taking never outweighs giving. Whatever we take from the world -- food, resources, etc -- we must be aware that something/someone is giving something up in order for us to have it, and we must not take it for granted. We must be ready to pay it back either now or later, either directly (by ritual or caretaking) or indirectly (by our participation in the life cycle).

Most animists do not think that life is something that needs to be made "better." Life is what it is, depending on circumstances. Happiness and harmony are made by the relationships we maintain with our neighbors, including the invisible ones. The same goes for conflict and unhappiness.

Christianity has ultimatum's like these:
I wish you had explained your beliefs, not just quoted scripture. These have been interpreted by different people in different ways. How do you expect me, as an unbeliever, to interpret them? How do you know I wouldn't reach a conclusion that is different from yours?

Luke 9
23Then he said to the crowd, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must put aside your selfish ambition, shoulder your cross daily, and follow me. 24If you try to keep your life for yourself, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for me, you will find true life. 25And how do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose or forfeit your own soul in the process? 26
I always thought this was a warning against materialism.

62But Jesus told him, "Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God."
I don't understand this one at all. What does it mean?

John 3
5Jesus replied, "The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.[b] 6Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven.
The ritual of baptism?

Matthew 5
So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20"But I warn you--unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!
But this doesn't tell me what rules I'm supposed to follow.

I'm sorry, but these do not tell me what Christianity's goals are for its followers or how it expects its followers to attain those goals.

Muravyets

20-04-2006, 18:04

So now you are saying that shamans are religious leaders, but with a different leadership to the 'prophets' and 'priests'. (Although I thought the section that dealt with prophets and priests was about the different styles of leadership (rather than the different types of leaders), with the prophets instigating change and the priests maintaining the status quo, and that a shaman could be either a prophet or a priest type leader, depending on whether he was trying to instigate change or maintain the current belief system.)
You're annoying me again. Do you have serious reading comprehension problems, or do you just intend to keep misinterpreting and misprepresenting your own source in hopes of trying to make it mean what you wish it meant?

Bottom line: Shamans are not leaders of any religion.

Previously, you asserted that shamans were not leaders. Period. Now you are saying that they are not leaders like the other leaders. More like a medical doctor, I suppose, than a bishop, to put it in Western context.
Bottom line: Shamans are not leaders of any religion.

There is nothing equivalent to a bishop in animism because no animist religions are organized the way Christian churches are.

As for your assertion that shamans do not lead at major rituals, wouldn't that depend on the particular type of animism he/she was in? We are not necessarily discussing only your version of animism. (Even though your version is interesting.)
No, it would not. Shamans have their own rituals that they conduct by themselves or with trained helpers (usually musicians, as many shamanist rituals involve dance). They do not lead rituals -- as in leading worshippers in prayer. They perform rituals -- as in an exorcism or a blessing -- with or without an audience present.

I suppose that would put them in 'middle management' positions, rather than popes and bishops. However, that is exactly what I was referring to when I considered them to be leaders. Not necessarily THE leaders, but nonetheless occupying leading roles within the community.
No. Bottom line: Shamans are not leaders of any religion.

There is no such thing as a "middle management position" in animism because there is no heirarchical organization to animist religions.

I have never said that all of them live in fear. However, if the religion teaches people to live in fear of evil spirits, then the 'true believers' would probably live in fear. Christianity does not teach us to live in fear of evil spirits, (rather the opposite) therefore those that do cannot blame Christianity for their fear.
Welcome back to Slander 101. I have shown you and explained to you over and over that animism does not teach people to live in fear. This is nothing but your personal prejudice. Be a bigot towards others if you like, but stop making accusations that have already been proven false.

I suppose a good many of people think of of astrology in this way, but does that mean all of them do? Or more to the point, does that mean that every person has thought of astrology as form of gambling in all the ages of human history? If astrology is no longer a religion, it probably was once, and who knows, for 'true believers', it may continue to be the only way of looking at the world that makes sense. Would you still consider it to be something like the Daily Racing Form for them? Or another question is probably relevant. What is the difference between the 'true believers' in the luck of the Daily Racing Form, and the 'true believers' in any religion?
"If astrology is no longer a religion, it probably was once, and who knows, for 'true believers'" Truly, there is no limit to the nonsense you will spout to avoid admitting the most minor of mistakes.

"What is the difference between the 'true believers' in the luck of the Daily Racing Form, and the 'true believers' in any religion?" Even to the point of making horse racing a religion.

If astrology is a religion, show me its churches or temples. Show me its holidays, its rituals, its spiritual beliefs.

What do you call those animists that really believe in evil spirits then? 'True believers'? I was not trying to invent a new term, but noting the obvious difference between your version of animism and the others who really fear evil spirits and do not assume that they do not exist.
Animists do believe that evil spirits exist, just like evil people. We do not all live in fear of them, any more than we all live in fear of evil people. Those who do live in fear, tend to live in fear of people just as much as spirits. Take a good look at people, and this will become evident. People bring their fear with them, religion does not teach it to them.

And stop claiming that I follow some different version of animism. You do not understand animism. You are not in a position to define it. All you are doing is trying to push me into some out of the way cubbyhole so I'll stop ruining your neat picture of "poor chaps in jungles" suffering fear and oppression.

I suppose the Islamic terrorists would be upset if you or I were to claim that their version of Islam promotes abuse. But would they have a leg to stand on? They obviously think terrorism isn't such a bad thing. I hope both you and I can agree to disagree with them. You, at least, have the opportunity to provide good reasons why something like the teaching to fear evil spirits is either not a correct form animism, or that it doesn't really happen.
And here we've returned to you "not insulting" Islam -- and repeating your false accusation against my religion, too.

Muravyets

20-04-2006, 18:18

OK, so there does seem to be some sort of defense made for Hinduism on the subject of helping one another. That's interesting.
Yeah, it's interesting how you have yet to say anything that's actually true about any religion other than your own.

Speculation, Muraveyets, speculation. I hope you can see the difference between speculation and belief. I don't firmly believe that Shinto causes cruelty, but I have been speculating over how such cruelty existed among the Japanese soldiers. It began with your assertion that most Japanese (80%) were Shinto. Are you able to provide good reasons why such speculations are obviously false?
Weak attempt at spin control, Bruarong. If I speculated in public that you cheat on your taxes and beat children while drunk, you'd have good reason to tell me to shut the hell up, and my claim of "but I don't firmly believe he does that, I'm just speculating that he might do it, over and over and over again, in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary" would not carry much weight, now would it? Stop slandering, defaming, and insulting my religion. At this time I repeat my request for you to formally retract all statements made by you that animism, any animist religion, or shamans or any other animist practitioner commit abuse or crimes as part of the religion.

Here are some links to show that I'm not the only one that had such an impression of Japanese soldiers at war.

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Nanjing Massacres.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8245
http://www.keepingapace.com/blogarchives/war_history/wwii_government_suppressed_stories.php

What has any of this to do with Shinto? The first link did not work. The other two articles don't even mention religion in the war.

I guess that's a no.
It's not a no. I already refuted your prejudicial fantasies. I refer you back to the earlier parts of our argument. I see no reason to keep repeating the same posts over and over again.

Bruarong

20-04-2006, 19:55

Okay - when do you believe Moses lived?

(Can you prove it, outside of the scripture.... but, I digress)

Now - show me evidence of a SINGLE recorded account that conforms to THAT dating.

Because, all around the world, the oldest evidences have all been about 900BC or later.

The lastest possible date for Moses' death was about 1250 BC. Most conservative scholars seem to have placed him either late fifteenth or mid-thirteenth century BC.

Deut 31:9 states that ''Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests.''

By Ezra's time (450 BC), he was quoting the Pentateuch as Scripture (Neh. 8:1-18)

The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings refer to the law of Moses, presenting it as a cannonical fixture. In 622 BC, King Josiah's people discovered (or re-discovered) ''the Book of the Law''. In fact, the most dicussed canon related text is perhaps 2 Kings 18-25, where it appears that the writer intended to convey that a full body of legislation was discovered, covering such details as Passover observances, destruction of idols and forbidden places of worship.

Interestingly, I found this in an book about Biblical interpretations (A complete foundations for biblical interpretation, edited by Dockery, Mathews, and Sloan). A cuneiform tablet was apparently found at Megiddo dating ca. 1479-1350 BC. It records part of the Gilgamesh epic which refers to the flood story and shows that this story was known in the Holy Land as early as the fourteenth for fifteenth centruy B.C., perhaps around the time of Moses. This suggests that the Israelites knew about the Babylonian account prior to captivity in Babylon.

Another artifact from the twelfth centry BC was found at the small village of Izleet Sartah, 3 kilometers east of Aphek (Josh 12:18), I Sam 4:1, 29:1). It contained a complete Hebrew abecedary (alphabet), and it the oldest and most complete one yet discovered. What is so interesting about it seems to be that it was discovered in an Israelite agricultureal settlement in central Palestine, suggesting that the alphabet was alreading in use in a rural village at such a time.

I'd like to see evidence of a fossil being formed in a 'few hundred years'... I think you are talking about calcifying, not fossilising.

The real answer is that nobody seems to know how long it takes to make a fossil.

Not really - the LITERAL text is what is physically written. If the wording of the LITERAL text uses (for example) a word for 'sky' that SUGGESTS the actual translation 'the VISIBLE extent of the sky', and then includes the 'water' in the same clause - the implication is that both are limited to the visible extent.

One obviously needs to keep in mind the limitation of the writer of the Hebrew account. On the other hand, one must be careful not to assume that the writer didn't literally mean the whole earth was covered by the water. We aren't really in a position to say, I suggest.

The difference between us, is that I have LOOKED at the 'literal' account, rather than ASSUMING a given translation is right, JUST because it matches my notions.

Until I had read it in the Hebrew, I was quite happy to accept the translation as accurate.

Well that puts you at odds with a great many conservative Bible scholars. Who should I believe? Your conclusions, or theirs?

You seem to forget that Babylon was ALSO conquered, and is ruins today. And yet, Babylonian evidence STILL predates Hebrew evidence.

There could be all sorts of reasons for this. Perhaps the Hebrews weren't in the habit of chiseling their literature in stones all over the joint, or molding them in clay at virtually every religiously important location. Or it could be that one of the nations that conquered the Hebrews specifically and methodically destroyed every piece of Hebrew literature they could find, whereas the Persians were not that way inclined when they captured Babylon.

It's quite simple, really - SHOW me ANY evidence, that Hebrew scripture actually predates the Babylonian?

Like I pointed out before, Moses may have had access to the Babylonian accounts. But that does not mean that Moses copied the Babylonian accounts.

The point was, if you ALLOW for the fact that one of the accounts IS 'first person', the texts are actually even MORE similar... because MANY of the differences are simple "I said" versus "he said" differences.

Oh, now I see your point. But really, the first person/third person differences does not contribute to any differences, other than the use of pronouns instead of nouns.

So - you are arguing from a point of ignorance?

Then, how can you honestly assert that my argument is 'from bias'?

Surely, since you've done NO research yourself, the HONEST thing to do, would be to allow that the 'bias' you see is JUST a reflection of the reality?

We are all rather ignorant about the past. Even the best scholars are left to speculation about much of the ancient world. Perhaps I am a shade more ignorant that you, but I wouldn't crow about that too loudly, if I were you.

Not really. If I write "10" on a page, what is the TEXT equivalent.

Straight off the top of my head, I could write it as either 'two' or 'ten'.

That doesn't resolve the issue, since the Hebrews seemed to be quite successful in Babylonian culture. How could they be so successful if they were constantly mixing up their 'two' and 'ten'?

Bullshit.

You keep CLAIMING bias - but you are the one who cannot produce evidence, and has no experience in the matter - by your OWN admission.

I also speculate, true, and am not free of bias in my speculations. That's because I am looking at the world through my world view. So are you. And I think your world view plays a very important part in your speculations, as does mine. That's not bullshit, Grave, that's fact.

What about the 300 day year? or the fact that, when detailing reigns, for example, Hebrew kings are described in units of whole years - like three years for a period that MIGHT have only been two literal years and a few months?

What this has to do with it, is that different cultures, then, used very different number conventions. What one group might 'read' something as, might be nothing LIKE what was actually written.

Which still does not explain the difference in the accounts of 40 days and 7 days.

Grave_n_idle

20-04-2006, 22:04

The lastest possible date for Moses' death was about 1250 BC. Most conservative scholars seem to have placed him either late fifteenth or mid-thirteenth century BC.

Why is that the 'latest possible date'?

I question your methodology.

Deut 31:9 states that ''Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests.''

By Ezra's time (450 BC), he was quoting the Pentateuch as Scripture (Neh. 8:1-18)

The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings refer to the law of Moses, presenting it as a cannonical fixture. In 622 BC, King Josiah's people discovered (or re-discovered) ''the Book of the Law''. In fact, the most dicussed canon related text is perhaps 2 Kings 18-25, where it appears that the writer intended to convey that a full body of legislation was discovered, covering such details as Passover observances, destruction of idols and forbidden places of worship.

Interestingly, I found this in an book about Biblical interpretations (A complete foundations for biblical interpretation, edited by Dockery, Mathews, and Sloan). A cuneiform tablet was apparently found at Megiddo dating ca. 1479-1350 BC. It records part of the Gilgamesh epic which refers to the flood story and shows that this story was known in the Holy Land as early as the fourteenth for fifteenth centruy B.C., perhaps around the time of Moses. This suggests that the Israelites knew about the Babylonian account prior to captivity in Babylon.

So - OBVIOUSLY the Hebrews can't have copied it... if it was already available...?

Is that supposed to be LOGIC?

Another artifact from the twelfth centry BC was found at the small village of Izleet Sartah, 3 kilometers east of Aphek (Josh 12:18), I Sam 4:1, 29:1). It contained a complete Hebrew abecedary (alphabet), and it the oldest and most complete one yet discovered. What is so interesting about it seems to be that it was discovered in an Israelite agricultureal settlement in central Palestine, suggesting that the alphabet was alreading in use in a rural village at such a time.

Prove it was an agricultural settlement. Most of the Egyptian scribes were confined to one 'village', with it's own supporting staff.

Also - evidence of an alphabet proves... what?

The real answer is that nobody seems to know how long it takes to make a fossil.

Which is an evasion. You couldn't find any evidence to prove your weak assertion that it took hundreds of years, so you resort to 'well, you can't fly either'.

We know it takes a lot longer than that, because it involves the effective migration of all of the material in the fossil... easily in the scope of millions of years, rather than hundreds.

One obviously needs to keep in mind the limitation of the writer of the Hebrew account. On the other hand, one must be careful not to assume that the writer didn't literally mean the whole earth was covered by the water. We aren't really in a position to say, I suggest.

Since the writer couldn't possibly have SEEN the whole world, erring on the side of caution means 'as far as the eye can see'.

Well that puts you at odds with a great many conservative Bible scholars. Who should I believe? Your conclusions, or theirs?

Why believe either?

Why not research the matter yourself?

There could be all sorts of reasons for this. Perhaps the Hebrews weren't in the habit of chiseling their literature in stones all over the joint, or molding them in clay at virtually every religiously important location. Or it could be that one of the nations that conquered the Hebrews specifically and methodically destroyed every piece of Hebrew literature they could find, whereas the Persians were not that way inclined when they captured Babylon.

You seem to forget that the Jews have thousands of years of preserved history, and that Babylon is in ruins.

Like I pointed out before, Moses may have had access to the Babylonian accounts. But that does not mean that Moses copied the Babylonian accounts.

Not necessarily, no.

But, if I presented to you a complete works of Shakespeare, with MY name on the front... you'd probably be a LITTLE suspicios, no?

We are all rather ignorant about the past. Even the best scholars are left to speculation about much of the ancient world. Perhaps I am a shade more ignorant that you, but I wouldn't crow about that too loudly, if I were you.

You are willing to argue with me over history that I have researched and you haven't.

One of us is arguing 'beyond their means'... but it's not me.

That doesn't resolve the issue, since the Hebrews seemed to be quite successful in Babylonian culture. How could they be so successful if they were constantly mixing up their 'two' and 'ten'?

Einstein lacked basic math education... what's the connection?

Perhpas, those that were not so good at math, did other things?

I also speculate, true, and am not free of bias in my speculations. That's because I am looking at the world through my world view. So are you. And I think your world view plays a very important part in your speculations, as does mine. That's not bullshit, Grave, that's fact.

Rubbish. My 'view' on this is FORMED from what I found out in researching the matter... not the other way round.

Which still does not explain the difference in the accounts of 40 days and 7 days.

I already showed you how easy it is to confuse numbers when you operate in different bases. Especially when you do NOT have a centre of reference.

Bruarong

21-04-2006, 11:16

And I explained that, from the animist point of view, there is no conflict, therefore no need to reject.

And yet you would obviously reject Jesus' claim that he is the only way to the Truth

I still don't see a conflict. Loving Christ does not require you to reject your fellow man, does it? Animists treat spirits exactly the same way as other humans, so why can't they believe in the Christian God and still also interact with spirits?

Not rejection of man, but a rejection other gods. That is important for both Judaism and Christianity.

I still don't see a conflict. How does believing in spirits negate Christ's sacrifice? Why would you have give that up?

Belief in the existence of spirits does not negate Christ's sacrifice, but Christ's sacrifice means that following the spirits is pointless way to find the truth. In fact, following the spirits is seriously in danger of leading one away from Christ. It is Christ that we follow, and our trust is in Him alone, just as he commanded. Putting our trust in another will mean that we have not fully trusted him, which is the condition for salvation.

You seem to be using the word "accept" in the sense of an affirmation of belief, as in "I accept Christ as my personal savior," which means that you are joining a religion.

I am using "accept" in the sense of not disagreeing that a thing is as stated without trying to prove it myself, as in "I accept the assertion that x=y." I imply nothing more than that.

I see. Good that you cleared that one up. Personally, I thin you mean 'acknowledge' or 'acquiesce' rather than accept.

From my point of view, the problem here is that you cannot accept (my usage) that a person can believe that god exists without feeling a need to worship him. Maybe this is because you can't understand how a person can not be awed by god or how a person can be unconcerned about the future of their soul. But while it's nice to understand others' minds, it is not strictly necessary for you to understand how or why I think the way I do. You only need to understand that I do think this way and that it is different from the way you think. Anything else is extra.

My point is that while you acknowledge my beliefs, you do not accept them to be true, since if you believed in the god that I believed in, it would radically change your life.

But no, that's still not the way I see things. I do not think you are wrong about your religion, only about mine.

But there is a contradiction between your religion and mine. Your religion seems to be saying that all ways to god are OK, while my religion is definitely that only Jesus holds the key. Your religion, therefore, embraces many religions, but cannot avoid rejecting any religion that contradicts exactly that point.

I think it is unlikely that monotheism existed before animism. I think it is unlikely that polytheism or any concept of "theos" existed before animism, i.e. the concept of "anima", spirit. If we want to speculate about the original form of religion, I think the proper question is what kind of spirits did humans first start to venerate with rituals/offerings -- nature spirits or human spirits (i.e. ancestor worship/veneration of the dead)? All cultures contain elements of both.

OK, but if you follow the type of Christian teaching that holds that there is some literal truth in the Adam and Eve story, then you have a situation where humans believed in God, without any suggestion of animism.

As for Stephen Hawking, his views are utterly irrelevant to this conversation. This confrontation you claim he has constructed is really constructed by you in your reaction to his words. But why should his words matter at all? Who cares what Stephen Hawking thinks about anything other than the age of the universe? I respect the man, yes -- he's a genius and all that -- but seriously, if I'm not awed by god, do you really think I give a flip about Stephen Hawking? (flippancy, but seriously, enough with Hawking already)

Fair enough, but it was an example of a situation in which someone pronounced an ultimatum, which resulted in rejection/acceptance, an either/or situation. Elements of this sort can be found in religions like Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

Hm. I notice that you presume to guess what animism is about rather than asking the animist you are talking to. I asked you to explain your religion. You did not show the same courtesy to me. I wish you think about that.

Responding to your point: You're wrong about animism. (You would hear that so much less if you would ask, rather than guess.) Animism is about relationships, not control. Animists seek to preserve harmony between humans and spirits in the same way we seek harmony just among humans. Evil spirits are the same as evil people -- they seek to destroy harmony. There are charms and rituals to keep them out of people's lives, just like there are precautions to protect ourselves from human enemies, such as criminals. Good spirits are the same as good people -- they also desire harmony and the freedom to live their lives in peace and happiness. Humans and spirits interact with each other constantly. We can't help it; we share the same world. In the process of living, we bump up against each other all the time, taking from each other and giving to each other. Harmony is maintained by making sure taking never outweighs giving. Whatever we take from the world -- food, resources, etc -- we must be aware that something/someone is giving something up in order for us to have it, and we must not take it for granted. We must be ready to pay it back either now or later, either directly (by ritual or caretaking) or indirectly (by our participation in the life cycle).

Most animists do not think that life is something that needs to be made "better." Life is what it is, depending on circumstances. Happiness and harmony are made by the relationships we maintain with our neighbors, including the invisible ones. The same goes for conflict and unhappiness.

OK. Relationships. But is there not a sense that life is not really the way it should be? Within Christianity, there is the concept that humans have fallen from the place that they should be. We have lost our closeness to our Creator, and Jesus came to restore that closeness, or even to make it better than before. Thus being a Christian means that Christ has come to live within us, making our lives a temple where he is celebrated in sweet communion.

I wish you had explained your beliefs, not just quoted scripture. These have been interpreted by different people in different ways. How do you expect me, as an unbeliever, to interpret them? How do you know I wouldn't reach a conclusion that is different from yours?

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. I shall attempt to explain what they mean to me, but keep in mind that even Christians differ on the meaning.

Luke 9
23Then he said to the crowd, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must put aside your selfish ambition, shoulder your cross daily, and follow me. 24If you try to keep your life for yourself, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for me, you will find true life. 25And how do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose or forfeit your own soul in the process? 26

I always thought this was a warning against materialism.

Here Jesus is saying that the way to God lies in following him (actually that was the context). And then he mentions the cost of following him. It will cost us our lives. The payment is the constant yielding to God, such as he showed by example (Not my will, but yours be done). When we yield to God, we reject selfishness, the tendency to put my own interests before God's and others', and we live as though our lives belonged to God, not that little tyrant that lives within each one of us. And if we do this, he promises that we will discover true life. Thus he is drawing a distinction between the life lived when we are in control of it, and the life lived in close communion with God, with God having the authority. He goes further to say that the price of being the master of your own life is that you will eventually have it taken from you, but if you give your life to God, you will receive the gift of eternal life (i.e. right now, not after physical death) and that gift will never be taken from you. And thus the value of eternal life is infinitely worth more than being the master and owner of the whole world.

It also means that there are basically two types of people. Those following Christ, and those who don't.

62But Jesus told him, "Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God."

I don't understand this one at all. What does it mean?

I think he meant that when someone decides to follow Christ, but then reaches a point where they reject Christ, they have shown by their choice that they were never originally really following Christ with a worthy motive. For example, someone who followed Christ because he thought it would make him rich (or famous or powerful, i.e. motivated in the interests of self), and then found ashes instead of riches, and thus gave up following Christ, would have simply demonstrated that his basis for following Christ was not an honest one, i.e., not fitting. Thus, ones choice to turn back from following Christ is an indication of a motive that was not fitting. That's a rather hefty claim, and would indeed sound rather foolish coming from anyone who was not God.

John 3
5Jesus replied, "The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.[b] 6Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven.

The ritual of baptism?

Every human is born of water (natural birth), but only those who are born of the Spirit (i.e. reborn, spiritual birth) can enter the Kingdom of God. It is because of the Original Sin that all humans are born sinners, and we will die sinners, outside of the Kingdom of Heaven unless we allow God to give us the new life, the eternal life, the one which we can never lose.

Baptism (with water) is a symbol of the second birth.

Matthew 5
So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20"But I warn you--unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!

But this doesn't tell me what rules I'm supposed to follow.

I'm sorry, but these do not tell me what Christianity's goals are for its followers or how it expects its followers to attain those goals.

This statement was made in the context of obeying the Jewish Law. But Jesus points out that even the experts in that area did not obey the law well enough to earn the right to enter the Kingdom of heaven. (Kingdom of Heaven is not a specific location but wherever and whenever the will of God is embraced wholeheartedly, the place where one can celebrate communion with God.) This means that even the best efforts of man are not enough to enter the Kingdom of Heaven--our attempts at righteousness fall far short of the basic requirement. Thus there had to be another way. In another passage, Jesus explains that the other way through which we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven is through being born again, in which his spirit lives within us. Thus we receive his righteous status, and thus gain entry to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thus the law is no longer necessary in order to follow God, because we are close friends with the Judge, and the Law giver. The law itself only points to the fact that we need God to save us, and that we couldn't save ourselves. But when we have God living within, as a type of perpetual guest, we need only follow his guidance and rely on his strength to do his will. Thus the Bible should not be viewed as a bunch of rules, but as a help from which we learn more about God, since it will always point to Him.

The ultimatum, then, is to come to him for help, on his terms, rather than trying to obey the law on our own strength, since our attempts to enter the Kingdom of God without his help will always be inadequate.

Sorry to be so wordy.

Callisdrun

21-04-2006, 11:25

Bruarong

21-04-2006, 13:54

Bruarong

21-04-2006, 14:32

You're annoying me again. Do you have serious reading comprehension problems, or do you just intend to keep misinterpreting and misprepresenting your own source in hopes of trying to make it mean what you wish it meant?

Bottom line: Shamans are not leaders of any religion.

Bottom line: Shamans are not leaders of any religion.

There is nothing equivalent to a bishop in animism because no animist religions are organized the way Christian churches are.

OK, here's the deal. I acknowledge that you do not consider shamans to be any kind of religious leader, at any level, within animism. I, on the other hand, although not being an animist, have read around enough to know that shamans are considered leaders, even by people within animism. Thus, I propose that you and I will have to agree to disagree. That being said, we can now leave it and move on.

Welcome back to Slander 101. I have shown you and explained to you over and over that animism does not teach people to live in fear. This is nothing but your personal prejudice. Be a bigot towards others if you like, but stop making accusations that have already been proven false.

Does that mean that any comment that casts animism in a negative light will be considered slander by you?

Here is another link that does not seem to be Christian. The opening statement is:

''The religion is Animism and consists in fear of the evil spirits of the wood, the sea, disease and ancestors and in avoidance of acts traditionally displeasing to them.''

http://www.webindia123.com/territories/andaman/people/religion.htm

And in Laos, there is a form of animism where ''Animist believers also fear wild spirits of the forests.'' This sounds like 'believing' is quite related to 'fearing'.

http://countrystudies.us/laos/59.htm

And here is yet another interesting source:

''Probably spirits and ghosts were originally of an evil kind. Sir John Lubbock ('The Origin of Civilisation') says: 'The baying of the dog to the moon is as much an act of worship as some ceremonies which have been so described by travellers.' I think he would admit that fear is the origin of the worship. In his essay on 'Superstition,' Hume writes: 'Weakness, fear, melancholy, together with ignorance, are the true sources of superstition.' Also 'in such a state of mind, infinite unknown evils are dreaded from unknown agents.'
Man's impotence to resist the forces of nature, and their terrible ability to injure him, would inspire a sense of terror; which in turn would give rise to the twofold notion of omnipotence and malignity. The savage of the present day lives in perpetual fear of evil spirits; and the superstitious dread, which I and most others have suffered, is inherited from our savage ancestry. How much further back we must seek it may be left to the sage philosophers of the future.''
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/biography/TracksofaRollingStone/chap6.html

It looks as though there were plenty of non-Christian sources that disagree with your idea that 'Animism does not teach people to live in fear'. Maybe you have another way of explaining this, however.

"If astrology is no longer a religion, it probably was once, and who knows, for 'true believers'" Truly, there is no limit to the nonsense you will spout to avoid admitting the most minor of mistakes.

"What is the difference between the 'true believers' in the luck of the Daily Racing Form, and the 'true believers' in any religion?" Even to the point of making horse racing a religion.

If it is a religion to those who believe it 'works', then who are you or I to say that it isn't a valid religion, even if we think it nonesense? Wouldn't that be slander against their beliefs?

Which brings us back to the definition of the word 'religion'.

If astrology is a religion, show me its churches or temples. Show me its holidays, its rituals, its spiritual beliefs.

A religion obviously doesn't need a church or a temple or a holiday. The rituals could be practices that make it 'work', even if that includes getting out of bed in a particular way every morning, and its spiritual beliefs are the principles on which the believer trusts in to make sense of his world.

Animists do believe that evil spirits exist, just like evil people. We do not all live in fear of them, any more than we all live in fear of evil people. Those who do live in fear, tend to live in fear of people just as much as spirits. Take a good look at people, and this will become evident. People bring their fear with them, religion does not teach it to them.

You don't fear evil people? Interesting. Perhaps you would if you were in their control.

I agree that people tend to have a good deal of fear, regardless of their religion. That would be fear that occurs in spite of the religion. But would you claim that animism does not teach people to fear evil spirits? And can you say that you personally have no fear of evil spirits?

And stop claiming that I follow some different version of animism. You do not understand animism. You are not in a position to define it. All you are doing is trying to push me into some out of the way cubbyhole so I'll stop ruining your neat picture of "poor chaps in jungles" suffering fear and oppression.

Rather, I feel like I am poking and probing in order to understand animism, but that you don't like some of my probing. I have been saying all along that I will abandon my negative impression of animism, providing you satisfy me with sensible reasons, although I cannot say what sort of reasons I will find 'satisfying', thus I cannot make any promises about that.

And here we've returned to you "not insulting" Islam -- and repeating your false accusation against my religion, too.

Not false accusations, but an attempt to encourage you to defend animism with reasoned arguments. We both know that terrorism is bad, and thus the version of Islam that supports the use of terror to be bad. But we both probably think that this version of Islam is not a good representation of the best version of Islam. It would be a misuse of true Islam. The question before us now is whether animism in general is bad, or if my negative impression of animism is more because of a misrepresentation of true animism. There is no false accusations in this, but an invitation to for you and I to discuss like sensible adults, and avoiding an emotional cat-fight.

Grave_n_idle

21-04-2006, 14:35

And yet you would obviously reject Jesus' claim that he is the only way to the Truth.

Jesus didn't say that.

Grave_n_idle

21-04-2006, 14:40

I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but does anyone think that it's possible that the Christian religion's generally negative view of sex could have partially come about as reaction to, a way of distancing themselves from the very different views in the pagan religions of the time?

Yes - as part of a two-pronged thought, anyway.

The first part would be a refusal to engage in the kind of 'sexual worship' that might take place in 'pagan' religions. Part of this is Paul's fault, because he seems to have been something of a gynophobe, and part of it is an aspect of the 'killing the sacred feminine' which is SO inherent in Christian theology.

The second part is a continuation of the Hebrew tradition... which makes STRONG emphasis on boosting your numbers... but ONLY the numbers of the FAITHFUL. And - if you want to increase the number of Christians, the best mechanism is to make sex a duty, and to make it yeild ONLY Christians... so no casual sex that might produce babies you lose track of. Also - of course - if you want lots of babies, you have to make sure you frown heavily on all non-baby-producing sex.

Grave_n_idle

21-04-2006, 14:41

What makes you think that Christian's have a negative view of sex. That's a bit morbid, isn't? A Christian is more likely to think of sex as a really terrific thing, too sacred to be shared with just anyone, too special used in any other way than as an expression of love and commitment.

That's a nice rationalisation.

Bruarong

21-04-2006, 14:52

Jesus didn't say that.

If John recorded Jesus' words correctly, he did.

John 14
6Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.''

Bruarong

21-04-2006, 14:53

That's a nice rationalisation.

I reckon it was nicer than yours.

Grave_n_idle

21-04-2006, 15:00

If John recorded Jesus' words correctly, he did.

John 14
6Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.''

That's the English translation.

The Koine suggests much more strongly that this is a reference to vicarious substitution... that none can 'come to the father' except BECAUSE OF me.

Grave_n_idle

21-04-2006, 15:01

I reckon it was nicer than yours.

Mine wasn't a rationalisation. If you have a specific issue against what I said, how about you point it out, and we'll discuss it?

Ashmoria

21-04-2006, 15:08

But, if I presented to you a complete works of Shakespeare, with MY name on the front... you'd probably be a LITTLE suspicios, no?

that depends on how many monkeys you have and how long you have had them.

Grave_n_idle

21-04-2006, 15:13

that depends on how many monkeys you have and how long you have had them.

What if I had a million monkeys, and had had them for a number of years... but NO typewriters...?

Bruarong

21-04-2006, 15:27

Why is that the 'latest possible date'?

I question your methodology.

My methodology (not being terribly informed on ancient history) is to read the literature, like this one.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/exodus.html

I particularly like the quote:
"A faith that can not survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets" - Arthur C. Clarke

This site tends to emphasis ''archaeological confirmation'' to date the return of the Hebrews to Caanan.

Or a site like this one:
http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/archeology.php

So - OBVIOUSLY the Hebrews can't have copied it... if it was already available...?

Is that supposed to be LOGIC?

Moses could have possibly copied the Babylonian account, but the differences between the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts would argue against that. Moses, the one educated by the Egyptians.

Prove it was an agricultural settlement. Most of the Egyptian scribes were confined to one 'village', with it's own supporting staff.

Also - evidence of an alphabet proves... what?

Yes, a good point. I cannot prove that it was an agricultural settlement, but that was the conclusion of the archeologists who would have also uncovered enough agricultural-like objects to support their conclusions.

The presence of the Hebrew alphabet on a tablet, particularly one that looked like it was constructed by a student (e.g. repetitions of each letter) suggests that these people were literate, thus making it likely that the Hebrews were into writing down their traditions rather oral traditions, by that time.

Which is an evasion. You couldn't find any evidence to prove your weak assertion that it took hundreds of years, so you resort to 'well, you can't fly either'.

We know it takes a lot longer than that, because it involves the effective migration of all of the material in the fossil... easily in the scope of millions of years, rather than hundreds.

We don't know that fossilization must take millions of years, particularly when people are claiming fossils of only 200,000 years.

It's not evasion on my part, just an honest admittance that I don't really know how long it takes to make a fossil. And I would put a lot of money on the speculation that you don't know any better than I.

Since the writer couldn't possibly have SEEN the whole world, erring on the side of caution means 'as far as the eye can see'.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. We still don't know how much the writer knew about his world. He may have travelled a good deal further than his immediate horizon. Thus, that would already make a very great flood indeed.

Why believe either?

Why not research the matter yourself?

Good point. Firstly, I don't have the money or the time nor the knowhow to go tinkering around Israel with a pick and shovel. Thus I tend to stay at home and read the accounts that others have written who have traveled there. And if you call that research, well, then that is what I am currently doing.

You seem to forget that the Jews have thousands of years of preserved history, and that Babylon is in ruins.

Babylon being left in ruins could be precisely why we find so much old interesting objects there, in contrast to modern day Jerusalem.

But, if I presented to you a complete works of Shakespeare, with MY name on the front... you'd probably be a LITTLE suspicios, no?

So basically, you are suggesting that the old Hebrew writers constructed the flood account based on the Babylonian stories, and then lied with they attributed the account to Moses. That's what it comes down to. Accusations of lies, with little more than speculation to go by.

You are willing to argue with me over history that I have researched and you haven't.

One of us is arguing 'beyond their means'... but it's not me.

Oh, I am reading the history, don't worry about that.

Rubbish. My 'view' on this is FORMED from what I found out in researching the matter... not the other way round.

And if you or I really believed that, we would be gullible indeed.

I already showed you how easy it is to confuse numbers when you operate in different bases. Especially when you do NOT have a centre of reference.

And I am trying to point out to you that a confusion of numbers might fit if the Hebrews were not familiar with Babylonian language and culture and maths. But we know that they WERE familiar with Babylon, that they lived there for at least 70 years. Heck, I've been living in Germany for less than two years, and even I know how to avoid some of the most basic sources of confusion, which is less than you are giving these old Hebrews credit for in your speculations. You are free to speculate all you like, but when I see something that doesn't hold water, I'll call you for it.

Bruarong

21-04-2006, 15:31

That's the English translation.

The Koine suggests much more strongly that this is a reference to vicarious substitution... that none can 'come to the father' except BECAUSE OF me.

Which wouldn't fit that well in the context of Jesus' surrounding statements, since he was telling Thomas the way to get to the Father. If Jesus meant 'because of' me, rather 'through' me, he would not be referring to Thomas question ''We haven't any idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

Grave_n_idle

21-04-2006, 15:41

Which wouldn't fit that well in the context of Jesus' surrounding statements, since he was telling Thomas the way to get to the Father. If Jesus meant 'because of' me, rather 'through' me, he would not be referring to Thomas question ''We haven't any idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

Because Jesus shows 'the way'... it's all in there.

It frustrates me that you have ONLY read the translations, and so will argue against what the first scriptures said.

You aren't arguing with ME here - you are arguing with the ORIGINAL written word.

In effect, you are saying you value the book compiled for King James, OVER the text you claim was written by someone who met Jesus.

I just don't know how to debate with that.

Ashmoria

21-04-2006, 15:42

What if I had a million monkeys, and had had them for a number of years... but NO typewriters...?
darn you grave_n_idle! i should have known better than to try to debate you! you always have a rebuttal, you fiend!

lol

Ashmoria

21-04-2006, 15:57

I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but does anyone think that it's possible that the Christian religion's generally negative view of sex could have partially come about as reaction to, a way of distancing themselves from the very different views in the pagan religions of the time?
i think you have a point and that it is a different kind of pagan influence than we have been discussing, but is an important one nonetheless

paul does talk alot about chastity and proper sexual relationships. in alot of places that seems to be in reaction to the pagan mysteries that tended to involve sex. paul says that when christians participate in that kind of mystic experience (say when being visited by the holy spirit) it must not end in an orgy. now a days when few people outside of the pentacostals ever enter that mystic state and when we would NEVER associate church and sex, those passages tend to be interpreted as if they are in relation to our normal sex lives.

i have read in other threads on NS that when paul talks against homosexual acts that he is reacting to the practice of picking up male prostitutes. and that male prostitution was somehow (that i dont remember) associated with pagan temples. now that that sort of thing is no longer commonplace we interpret those passages as being against homosexuality in general.

so i think we may generalize pauls negative reaction to certain pagan sex practices as his being negative to all sex.

not that he was big on sex in any case. but perhaps we are going too far in our interpretations.

Willamena

21-04-2006, 16:06

Moses could have possibly copied the Babylonian account, but the differences between the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts would argue against that. Moses, the one educated by the Egyptians.
Myth doesn't happen in the details; myth is in the motifs of meaning. It is the myth that was copied. Whether adopted by animals (Mowgli) or by Egyptians (Moses), the story told is the same. It is one telling of the start of the Hero's Journey. The child of distinguished parents (king, divine, faithful to the one true way, etc.) who is destined to be the hero or the salvation of his people... The parents have difficulties; a prophecy of doom, and danger for the child; his destiny too important to selfishly hang onto him, so the river goddess is entrusted to carry the child to safety in her bosom... Baby is saved, either by animals who nurse it, or by animals and then entrusted to a human nurse, or by a nurse herself who raises him...

The details may vary, but it is the mythic elements that translate the meaning of the story from culture to culture. Mythology suggests that it is a necessary step that circumstances separate the child from his parents, because the metaphor is in the contrast of fate with destiny. Destiny is the path that the hero makes for himself, and in doing so he fulfills a goal we (the audience) knew all along was his.

George Lucas really dropped the ball on episode 3.

http://www.bsu.edu/classes/magrath/305f02/Rank1.html

Grave_n_idle

21-04-2006, 16:09

My methodology (not being terribly informed on ancient history) is to read the literature, like this one.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/exodus.html

I particularly like the quote:
"A faith that can not survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets" - Arthur C. Clarke

This site tends to emphasis ''archaeological confirmation'' to date the return of the Hebrews to Caanan.

Or a site like this one:
http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/archeology.php

Why don't you, instead, BECOME acquainted with ancient history?

You hide behind ignorance, as a shield against harsh realities you MIGHT find...

Moses could have possibly copied the Babylonian account, but the differences between the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts would argue against that. Moses, the one educated by the Egyptians.

If Moses even existed... you've yet to show ANY evidence.

(Incidentally, there IS archeological evidence for a 'Moses' character - but he lived about 500 years before the Bible claims... about 500 years earlier than the alleged 'exodus'.)

Again, though... you should really look into your history. Egyptian 'princes' were not educated to read or write.

They certainly would NOT have been educated in a 'heathen tongue'.

Yes, a good point. I cannot prove that it was an agricultural settlement, but that was the conclusion of the archeologists who would have also uncovered enough agricultural-like objects to support their conclusions.

The presence of the Hebrew alphabet on a tablet, particularly one that looked like it was constructed by a student (e.g. repetitions of each letter) suggests that these people were literate, thus making it likely that the Hebrews were into writing down their traditions rather oral traditions, by that time.

The Talmud is evidence that the Hebrews kept 'oral tradition' even after they had 'written' scripture.

Regarding your 'agricultural' settlement, it could have been an academic outpost, and thus NOT typical (more Egyptian history for you - research "The Place of Truth")... or the alphabet tablet(s) could have been left there by strangers, no?

We don't know that fossilization must take millions of years, particularly when people are claiming fossils of only 200,000 years.

It's not evasion on my part, just an honest admittance that I don't really know how long it takes to make a fossil. And I would put a lot of money on the speculation that you don't know any better than I.

WHO claims fossils that young? Creationists?

You'd be losing money if you made that bet, my friend. If you honestly believe there are fossils 'a few hundred years old', as you claim - then you've already lost your bet.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. We still don't know how much the writer knew about his world. He may have travelled a good deal further than his immediate horizon. Thus, that would already make a very great flood indeed.

Not at all... unless he travelled all that area DURING the flood. (And, how would he KNOW how far he'd moved, if all he'd see is water?)

I have travelled thousands of miles, and lived on two different continents... but, even so, if I describe a flood that stretches "As far as I can see"... how much of the planet are you going to think is under water?

Good point. Firstly, I don't have the money or the time nor the knowhow to go tinkering around Israel with a pick and shovel. Thus I tend to stay at home and read the accounts that others have written who have traveled there. And if you call that research, well, then that is what I am currently doing.

That's not the only way to research.

Why don't you START by learning the languages in which your 'god' is alleged to have written his word?

That's GOT TO BE better than always taking someone else's word for it, surely?

Babylon being left in ruins could be precisely why we find so much old interesting objects there, in contrast to modern day Jerusalem.

I don't follow your point... we have Hebrew scriptures that survived several 'destructions' of Jerusalem. We have EARLIER evidence of Babylonian 'scripture' that survived several destructions...

So basically, you are suggesting that the old Hebrew writers constructed the flood account based on the Babylonian stories, and then lied with they attributed the account to Moses. That's what it comes down to. Accusations of lies, with little more than speculation to go by.

Not accusations of lies. How about 'doubt'? Those who attributed the words to Moses might have BELIEVED 'Moses' wrote them, no?

But, if you are honest about your research, you'll see that scripture is claimed as being written by a LOT of people.... from Enoch to Mary of Magdala... do you accept ALL those scriptures as being written by who they claim?

Oh, I am reading the history, don't worry about that.

I'll have to take your word for it.

And if you or I really believed that, we would be gullible indeed.

You call me a liar?

My 'fall from grace' has been discussed a number of times on this forum... long before I ever encountered your argument. What would I stand to gain from lying about my loss of faith?

And I am trying to point out to you that a confusion of numbers might fit if the Hebrews were not familiar with Babylonian language and culture and maths. But we know that they WERE familiar with Babylon, that they lived there for at least 70 years. Heck, I've been living in Germany for less than two years, and even I know how to avoid some of the most basic sources of confusion, which is less than you are giving these old Hebrews credit for in your speculations. You are free to speculate all you like, but when I see something that doesn't hold water, I'll call you for it.

At the moment, all you call me on, is anything that doesn't quite fit your comfortable world view.

I can understand why - because you'd have to accept scripture as a 'mortal creation'... and then you'd have to be skeptical, at least.

But, it is dishonest to claim my 'skepticism' doesn't 'hold water'... when my conflicts have been introduced by hard evidences, anf your 'assurance' is based on a book you've never even READ in the language it was written in.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Pagan Influences in Christianity - Page 2