At 3/29/08 03:54 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 3/28/08 08:55 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 3/28/08 08:02 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

Thanks for replying in a mature fashion 8)

I wish so very much the same could be said to you for basically every thread you post in.

Which it obviously cannot.

At 3/29/08 04:15 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 3/29/08 03:54 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:
Thanks for replying in a mature fashion 8)

God damnit get off my thread!

That's mean, why are you people so mean?

Also, you might wanna be careful about saying Goddamnit when you're on a topic about religion. Just, ya know, an FYI, BTW type thing. :P

At 4/4/08 08:41 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:
That's mean, why are you people so mean?

You're obviously new here.

At 4/5/08 12:22 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/4/08 08:41 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:
That's mean, why are you people so mean?

You're obviously new here.

Ahem... *points to post count*... what was your first clue?

At 4/5/08 09:17 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:
Ahem... *points to post count*... what was your first clue?

The fact you aren't familiar with Shaggytheclown's shenanigans.

Yeah, a low post count means little. I'm often lurking, reading posts of Imperator, SadisticMonkey, Der-Low, Sol (sorry, I don't feel like attempting to spell your name from memory, many apologies), Drakim, and many others, but I rarely post unless I feel I'm qualified to make a statement that I can back up.

At 4/5/08 11:44 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Yeah, a low post count means little.

I think you missed the point of his post there buddy.

At 4/6/08 12:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/5/08 11:44 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Yeah, a low post count means little.

I think you missed the point of his post there buddy.

I meant it along the lines of low posts mean nothing in relation to how long a person has been about. I probably should have written my statement a bit clearer though.... Anyway sorry for the confusion of my statment, and if I have missed the mark yet again, I apologize in advance. The university is running me ragged recently.

At 4/4/08 08:41 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:

At 3/29/08 04:15 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 3/29/08 03:54 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:
Thanks for replying in a mature fashion 8)

God damnit get off my thread!

That's mean, why are you people so mean?

Lurk Moar. You'll begin to understand once you see more of teh Shag.

Also, you might wanna be careful about saying Goddamnit when you're on a topic about religion. Just, ya know, an FYI, BTW type thing. :P

Umm... I would invite you to read this topic before making suggestions about what we should/n't say. This ain't your mother's flamewar religious topic (barring the page or two of banter we've had near the end, here). You're welcome to comment on any of the many topics we've discussed... as long as you bring some intelligence and an open mind to the table, we welcome heartily any new viewpoint.

At 4/5/08 10:10 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/5/08 09:17 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:
Ahem... *points to post count*... what was your first clue?

The fact you aren't familiar with Shaggytheclown's shenanigans.

Oh no I'm totally familiar with Shaggy the Clowns shenanigans.

At 4/6/08 05:34 AM, Ravariel wrote: This ain't your mother's flamewar religious topic (barring the page or two of banter we've had near the end, here).

generally we discuss the deliciousness of deities and other perfect beings.

At 4/6/08 08:39 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:

At 4/5/08 10:10 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/5/08 09:17 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:
Ahem... *points to post count*... what was your first clue?

The fact you aren't familiar with Shaggytheclown's shenanigans.

Oh no I'm totally familiar with Shaggytheclown's shenanigans.

Granted the above is one of the more extreme of our encounters, but I assure you, I can assert with full confidence, I know what you're talking about.

(FYI, if you are having trouble reading the text in the picture, click the "page" button in your browser, and a list will pull down. Click "Zoom")

K, ANYWAY, I didn't mean to get us off track there, can we get back to the topic?

I've sort of been looking at a theory on the evolution (pun intended) of religion.

Mainly how gods are represented, and what sort of motifs carry through over the span of human existence.

What I've looked at is first the different "types" of gods, ie, agriculture god, war god, wine god, etc and then seen if our modern monotheistic gods either exhibit these "traits" or carry on the motifs in other ways.

I actually think they do. I mean, I've had to do some reading on the "dying god" in mythology lately, and one text I didn't really think of was Jesus.

Traditionally (and I mean dating back to mesopotamian, greek, and Roman texts) the dying god isn't really a "god" perse, but the lover of a goddess who gets killed, and subsequently mourned by her. In greek myth it's Adonis, mourned by Aphrodite/Venus. Each myth differs, but there's generally motifs that carry through. The lack of divinity of the dying god is one, another is rebirth in some form.

In some myths Adonis simply spends part of the year in Hades w/ Persephone, and other parts with Venus. In Ovid he turns into a flower, and "lives" through ritual mourning.

Jesus carries on the ancient motif. He's human, dies, is reborn, and has an annual mourning ritual (Easter). In this myth he's not really mourned by a great goddess (unless Mary Magedeline fills this role), and this might make him less of a "typical" dying god, but he's mourned yearly nonetheless.

In terms of the evolution of religion, I'm thinking that we've gone from polytheism to monotheism, where the different gods and epithets in polytheism become ascribed as miracles or character traits for monotheism.

What is interesting is where Christianity plays into this, due to its wide diffusion of types. Perhaps Christianity represents what may be called the modern look at polytheism, where instead of multiple gods we simply have a wide range of interpretations on the doctrine, ergo creating new Jesus epithets.

Would it be safe to say that with the exception of Hinduism (due to the more obvious polytheistic themes) modern religions have simply encompassed the same themes and motifs seen in more ancient religions, with minor alterations caused by cultural and temporal changes throughout history?

Dare I say Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and Moses are simply modern "stock characters" or "archetypes" in the larger historical body of religious Mythology?

At 4/6/08 05:34 AM, Ravariel wrote:

You're welcome to comment on any of the many topics we've discussed... as long as you bring some intelligence and an open mind to the table, we welcome heartily any new viewpoint.

Hmm, well, I don't know who what this might bring to the topic, hell, given the obscure religious facts I've seen brought into play here (*starts going blue in the face*) it might have already been mentioned, BUT... *takes breath of air*.

I have a little fun fact I learned recently that I thought was kind of interesting. And, better yet, I have a citation (ROTFLWTFZOMGXDXDXD!!!!!!!):

Apparently, one of the holiest of Christian holidays, Easter, has pagan origins (all gasp). Yes, apparently the name Easter stems from the pagan goddess Eostre, who governed the vernal equinox.

Actually, along these lines, many of the most cherished Christian traditions have pagan origins. To cite on example, mistletoe. Now used to cop a cheap kiss or two, mistletoe was considered holy by the Druids, and it was thought that the hanging of mistletoe above a doorway would bring good luck to those who resided within.

All these fact and more from The Browser's Book of Beginnings: Origins of Everything Under (and Including) the Sun, by Christopher Paolini.

And continuing on this subject of denouncement of Christian traditions, I have another for you, although I have no clue where I picked this up. Anyway, today's theoligists believe that the date of Christmas is innaccurate. They think Jesus was most likely born in the springtime, due to specific references mentioned in the Nativity. First of all, the story of Christmas has it that an angel appeared to the sheperds. Sheperds would not be out herding their flocks out in the middle of winter. Hell, a good sheperd (no pun intended) would not even permit their flock to be outside the barn at that time, due to the likelyhood of them freezing to death. The wool harvest season is in spring, therefore that is the most likely time for this to occur. This fact though, is probably better known. Also, they think that the star that shone so brightly on the night of His birth was probably a planet, specifically, Venus.

Please note that I am not attempting to make a case that the Christian religion is bogus, nor am I trying to start a flamewar of any kind. I thought maybe these facts would be of interest to some people, maybe spark a bit fo controversy (please note, people, controversy =/= flamewar, in any way.)

At 4/6/08 10:01 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote: Apparently, one of the holiest of Christian holidays, Easter, has pagan origins (all gasp). Yes, apparently the name Easter stems from the pagan goddess Eostre, who governed the vernal equinox.

Christmas celebrated on Dec 25th is also rooted in paganism. Mithraism in particular, and a particular Sun festival that occurred on that day. In particular, it was placed on that day to counter the pagan ritual, given that the Roman Empire by this time is Christian

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/holid aysfestivals/a/solsticeceleb_4.htm

We're not all that excited by the obscure facts, what we're debating about here is what you can get OUT of said obscurities. For instance, the fact that Easter has pagan origins. Kay, so? Bring it home with a theorem.

Winter solstice celebration and birth of Jesus. Spring celebration with death and re-birth of Jesus.

Connection to the seasons, springing from older solstice celebrations as a means of ancient agricultural celebrations?

Are solstice celebrations particular to Chrsitianity, or are they apparent in other religions?

That's the type of posting that goes on here. We dig deeper than usual. We're not General, and we're not typical Politics. We're Heathenry.

And continuing on this subject of denouncement of Christian traditions

You need to re-read the thread if you think the topic is on the denouncement of Christian traditions. No one's denounced anything here to date, the only thing that has happened is a discussion of peculiarities on religion and the religious.

Please note that I am not attempting to make a case that the Christian religion is bogus, nor am I trying to start a flamewar of any kind. I thought maybe these facts would be of interest to some people, maybe spark a bit fo controversy (please note, people, controversy =/= flamewar, in any way.)

1.) Why would it be controversy for Christian traditions, or Christianity itself to have pagan roots, or pagan similarities? Do these facts somehow negate Christianity?

You really need to re-read the thread. This is the anti-flame war religion thread. We're all older and more mature here, and damn well less inclined to go off the handle on some religious schpeal.

Otherwise, keep thinking harder, and welcome aboard.

At 4/6/08 10:18 PM, Imperator wrote: Christmas celebrated on Dec 25th is also rooted in paganism. Mithraism in particular, and a particular Sun festival that occurred on that day. In particular, it was placed on that day to counter the pagan ritual, given that the Roman Empire by this time is Christian

bwahahahaha!

i think a lot of it may have to do with the fact that its much simpler to alter what people are already used to then impose something completley new. i think thats one of the main reasons Christianity became so popular. you like eating pork? no problem. rather not get circumcised? we can probably find a way around that. etc...

but then when searching for the actual origins of certain beliefs you stumble on even more interesting things such as the many pagan origins of Biblical events.

Yeah so has anyone read any Dan Brown novels

At 4/6/08 10:18 PM, Imperator wrote:

You need to re-read the thread if you think the topic is on the denouncement of Christian traditions. No one's denounced anything here to date, the only thing that has happened is a discussion of peculiarities on religion and the religious.

*sigh* I was wondering if that would come back to bite me in the ass. That was just sort of meant as a bad joke. I didn't think the entire TOPIC was about that.

At 4/6/08 10:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
i think a lot of it may have to do with the fact that its much simpler to alter what people are already used to then impose something completley new. i think thats one of the main reasons Christianity became so popular. you like eating pork? no problem. rather not get circumcised? we can probably find a way around that. etc...

Absolutely. When studying the Eastern Cults that entered this period (Isis, Osiris, Mithras, and Jesus) there's sort of an odd peculiarity though. The other eastern cults were quite popular and spread very fast, partly because they fit rather easily into the current Roman religion, yet they died out. However, Christianity spread very slowly, particularly because it didn't fit well with the Roman religion, but it stuck around and still exists.

I guess it's just one of the odd little ironies in history......

but then when searching for the actual origins of certain beliefs you stumble on even more interesting things such as the many pagan origins of Biblical events.

You also find cross-over in cultures that don't have a lot of contact, leading to perhaps a weird sort of religion "template" innate to our nature.......dun dun dun! Or perhaps it's just common sense, hence all the different Sun gods (great minds think alike).

At 4/7/08 02:26 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Yeah so has anyone read any Dan Brown novels

No.

At 4/7/08 10:23 AM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:
*sigh* I was wondering if that would come back to bite me in the ass. That was just sort of meant as a bad joke. I didn't think the entire TOPIC was about that.

Relax, I'm just picking on the new guy. You'll do fine here, comment on whatever at your leisure.
PS:

LOVE the sig. "You must be this mature to enter". Now why didn't I think of that...... ;)

So, a question. If the Bible is all symbolical, then why don't we edit out the nasty parts?

I mean, I could understand people not wanting to edit the Bible if it was the perfect word of God, but if it was written and edited by men in the past, why shouldn't we do so again to make it more relevant to our age?

What possible value could there be in keeping the verses which urges you to kill for various reasons? What sort of historical context does the worldwide flood which we know never happened bring us? Can anybody imagine a situation where somebody reading about how you are to burn witches would be better than reading the new testament? Because, even though it might sound silly, having a thicker Bible makes it easier to miss what is important (which could be demonstrated by filling the Bible with several thousand fairy tales, and seeing if newcomers to the Bible would think Jesus was as important as normal Christians).

question, what was the name of Abraham's son?

At 4/8/08 03:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote: question, what was the name of Abraham's son?

Wut?

You mean Isaac?

At 4/8/08 06:31 AM, Drakim wrote: So, a question. If the Bible is all symbolical, then why don't we edit out the nasty parts?

I mean, I could understand people not wanting to edit the Bible if it was the perfect word of God, but if it was written and edited by men in the past, why shouldn't we do so again to make it more relevant to our age?

Because God, being all knowing, and therefore not lacking in the power of foresight would have the Bible written for the ages? :P

What possible value could there be in keeping the verses which urges you to kill for various reasons? What sort of historical context does the worldwide flood which we know never happened bring us?

Well, for the flood, true, its most likely the flood never happened, but the Bible is not only the lessons that God teaches us, it is the story of Earth from the Christian viewpoint. In an instructive context, yes, there is no real point in keeping the story of the flood in the Bible, but from an autobiographical standpoint, to edit it out would be to edit out one of the most important parts of Earth's supposed history. Let's assume for a moment you are one of the people editing the Bible, and according to what you've been taught (I'm trying my best not to advocate any particular religion here :P), mankind was almost entirely wiped out at one point. Would you just shrug it off and say, "meh, that's not important"?

Can anybody imagine a situation where somebody reading about how you are to burn witches

would be better than reading the new testament?

Where in the Bible does it tell you to burn witches?

Because, even though it might sound silly, having a thicker Bible makes it easier to miss what is important (which could be demonstrated by filling the Bible with several thousand fairy tales, and seeing if newcomers to the Bible would think Jesus was as important as normal Christians).

I agree with your point, but, on a grammatical note, I'm worried there may be a misplaced modifier (or some such term) in that last part ("... and seeing if newcomers to the Bible would think Jesus was as important as normal Christians.") Do you mean newcomers to the Bible would think Jesus was as important as normal Christians do, or do you mean newcomers to the Bible would think Jesus was as important as normal Christians? Because the two convey entirely different meanings.

At 4/8/08 07:29 PM, InsaniMaster471 wrote: Where in the Bible does it tell you to burn witches?

Ah, sorry, the burning is only a cultural thing, but, the Bible does tell you to kill witches, which burning definitly qualifies as under.'

Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Do you mean newcomers to the Bible would think Jesus was as important as normal Christians do, or do you mean newcomers to the Bible would think Jesus was as important as normal Christians? Because the two convey entirely different meanings.

Sorry. What I meant was, newcomers might miss Jesus importance because they are reading a bunch of irrelevant stories which fills up the Bible, such as Noah's flood.

At 4/9/08 07:48 AM, Drakim wrote:
Ah, sorry, the burning is only a cultural thing, but, the Bible does tell you to kill witches, which burning definitly qualifies as under.'

Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Ah... I see now. Ok. Eat, drink, kill witches, be merry.

Sorry. What I meant was, newcomers might miss Jesus importance because they are reading a bunch of irrelevant stories which fills up the Bible, such as Noah's flood.

Lol It's ok. I forgive you :P.

At 4/7/08 10:53 AM, lapis wrote:
Hey, do you know anything about the mythical/religious usage of bulls in classical Greece and Rome? We were recently talking about the similarites between the Semitic languages in class and one of the examples was the word for bull. The following words were given among others which were similar:

A little bit, but not a ton. Bulls (and cows in general) certainly appear in Greco-Roman myth on a number of occasions. There's Europa, the Minotaur, references in Epic, and so on.

Shit, even Mithras, the guy who shares Jesus' "birthday" has teh Tauroctony.

You'd probably have noticed the similarity with Latin taurus and Greek tauros. The German and Dutch word stier, the Danish word tyr and the Swedish word "tjur " also has the pivotal t and r, the English word bull is a weird exception. My professor explained that it has been postulated that there might have been a common forefather for the Indo-European, Caucasian and Afro-Asiatic (which includes the Semitic language group) languages, but that this relationship is only found in several words, the one for wine/alcoholic beverage being another possible one (compare the Latin vinum with German wein and Hebrew yayn).

Definitely a theory.

A lot of gods seem to cross cultures, as it were. I mean, besides the general Greek/Roman equivalencies there's a lot of cross-over to all the Eastern cults as well.

What's sort of interesting to me is that monotheistic figures seem to assimilate all these different gods into one. Jesus is compared to a whole myriad of figures, that overlap with other polytheistic religions.

There's this whole idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-
rebirth_deity

And what's sort of interesting is that modern religions sort of take the ancient "stock gods" and encapsulate all of them in some form.....

Could it be considered an "evolution" of religion?

I was wondering if someone knew other instances of bull worship carrying on in various cultures.

I'm not so sure about worship, but myth references for sure. Try Chinese traditions or something, you might get lucky there, what with the whole calender figure and all....

Otherwise the only other culture that would have anything similar would be the Nuer, who like India make cattle a BIG part of their culture. Fair warning though: EE Pritchard's book on them is atrociously boring.

At 4/8/08 06:31 AM, Drakim wrote: So, a question. If the Bible is all symbolical, then why don't we edit out the nasty parts?

From a historian's perspective, it's an atrocious appalling idea, and constant editing is why we have the bible in the condition it's in today.

From a practical perspective, I believe there are copies like that. If there aren't I'd be surprised. A lot of times translators will not use the literal translation of things because they make no sense in English, or are too vague.

I did that on my last Latin test actually. Translated "doors to infernal beings" as "Gates of Hell".

What possible value could there be in keeping the verses which urges you to kill for various reasons?

Historical value for one. Understanding why those references are there or what they mean helps us better understand their culture, which in turn reciprocates in helping understand their obscure references.

Reading Virgil's Aeneid after a little Roman history and reading Homer infinitely helps make sense of the book.

For the layman I realize this doesn't help, but then again I've always hated the King James Bible for this reason anyways.....

Look at it from a future perspective. Will anyone 2000 years from now understand "Uncle Sam" or "Apple Pie" references as symbols of American culture? Or will they think this Sam is some sort of shadow dictator, demanding money and military service?

The fact is it's a corrupt text to begin with. Corrupting it more doesn't really help though......

if Abraham's son was named Joshua i would have had a seizure from thematic repetition.

At 4/9/08 07:20 PM, Imperator wrote: From a historian's perspective, it's an atrocious appalling idea, and constant editing is why we have the bible in the condition it's in today.

Eh, if you don't mind me butting into this little conversation why is it an appalling idea? The bible is a book of fiction, it's not like by editing it you're trying to hide what actually happened, it just would just be the equivalent of cutting a few chapters out of a children's short story collection because it was deemed the subject matter wasn't relevant for them or the morals in them were not deemed suitable.

You are right, the bible is in the condition it is today due to being edited, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's that editing that has kept christianity from stagnating and destroying itself as things have progressed. Hell, the reason we have such trouble with religion in this day and age, in my personal opinion, is that the damned thing hasn't been edited since the middle ages when the status quo was vastly different to what is no acceptable.

Historical value for one. Understanding why those references are there or what they mean helps us better understand their culture, which in turn reciprocates in helping understand their obscure references.

But we have, for the most part, the old versions of the bible in some format where we can study them and the like, so it wouldn't be lost to us, and for the most part, your average Joe isn't interested in the culture of the time in which the bible was written, so it won't hurt them if the thing is edited in some form to make it easier for them to understand and to make it relevant to the modern age.

The fact is it's a corrupt text to begin with. Corrupting it more doesn't really help though......

If it is already corrupt and by editing it we can remove some of the less friendly aspects of it, and therefore stop the practicing of certain outdated beliefs, would this not be beneficial?