Ot that the milk the cow can produce from inedible grass will ease the shortage of food. So you just tell them Vashistha the cow god does not want them to eat meat.
Holy Cow
45. PelleNilsson - 6/3/2002 2:08:53 PM
Ms. No
I suspect you are right. My own theory, which I cannot support by empirical data, is that because all known societies have some form of religion, it must have some kind of evolutionary advantage, most likely to legitimize the prevailing moral codes and social order.
46. ivan osokin - 6/3/2002 2:40:30 PM
PelleNilsson:
I agree with you there. but i ask: to what end? moral codes and social orders themselves provide evolutionary advantages, wouldn't you say?
a GREAT study of this is Walter Burkert's "Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions" (harvard press). in it, he examines such concepts as sacrifice and moral codes in relation to biological strategies.
47. zojak quafeth - 6/3/2002 2:49:39 PM
ivan -
but i also think that chruches (oops...typo...looks like "crutches" har har) are filled with people who are only there for social reasons. in fact, being as skeptical as i am on institutionalized religions, i generally think that much of it is socially-motivated rather than theological.
I grew up in the Bible belt. I now live on the east coast. I'm a Southern Baptist. I found that although church attendance "back home" was higher in general and there were many more "mega" churches, that there was a much higher percentage of "social" church attendance in the belt than there exists on the east coast. It's expected there. I think church attendance socially and for business purposes is much more necessary down there than it is here. In fact, on the east coast, it's much more likely that someone will look at you askance if you talk about church. As a general rule, speaking only from my own experience, the people I've met in church here tend to be stronger, more mature Christians than those back home. They also tend to be more tolerant. I remember that the first sunday school class my wife and I attended here used to meet for happy hour on Fridays. My mother-in-law was shocked. You'd never see that back home. Instead people would drive to out of the way places to have a drink and try to hide it ifthey saw a fellow church member(who was probably there forthesame reason anyway). In some ways it was a lot easier to grow up Greek Orthodox where we had taps right in our Fellowship Hall for our Greek Festivals... and for after church.
48. CalGal - 6/3/2002 2:53:05 PM
Oh, I bet there are all sorts of lawyers and doctors who go to church because it's good for business.
One reason why computer professionals are notoriously low performing on charitable acts and church attendance, I thinnk, is because there is no advantage to it.
49. ivan osokin - 6/3/2002 2:56:11 PM
cal:
that's a great point. it's the same reason why, among freemasons, lodges often wind up being organized around professional association. in philly, for instance, there are lodges that consist primarily of police officers, some of detectives, some of lawyers, etc.. however, there aren't a lot of techies there either.
i wonder what techies do for such advantages ;)
50. CalGal - 6/3/2002 3:02:30 PM
We don't need them. Doctors and lawyers and other professionals are more closely tied to the community. Even those with corporate clients have an advantage in sponsoring local charities and community activities, because it keeps their name out there.
Computer people don't require the community's interest or goodwill, which makes them quite different from other professionals.
51. Ms. No - 6/3/2002 3:02:48 PM
role playing games
52. justears - 6/3/2002 3:03:45 PM
I am a regular church-goer and have a pretty good hypocrisy/crap detector and I don't see people going to church for "social" reasons. Some go to get their kid into our prize-winning, parish day school. Most attend our church because it sustains them and answers a need which is almost too deep for words. To attend church for "social" reasons is too much of a pain in the ass. To get much out of it, one must attend regularly and to attend regularly is not what people with social interests are capable of.
53. PelleNilsson - 6/3/2002 3:10:10 PM
ivan
to what end? moral codes and social orders themselves provide evolutionary advantages, wouldn't you say?
Yes, but they need to be ligitimized and what is better than divine legitimization? Take away the three first of the ten commandments and you are left with a set of rules that is necessary for the survival of any society.
That's not all there is to it, of course. Religion also answers the eternal questions of whence we came and where we go.
54. CalGal - 6/3/2002 3:10:17 PM
I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that church is only for socializing. But there is a significant social aspect to it, and it shouldn't be confused with strength of religious beliefs. This is due to many people confusing the statistic about successful/educated people and church attendance. That correlation is tied more to social networking than it is to religious beliefs.
55. ivan osokin - 6/3/2002 3:10:33 PM
just...
despite the fact that i still think most are in it for social reasons, i don't doubt that you are also correct :) i'm sure there are some who go for purely spiritual reasons.
but organized, public religion is almost never divorced from social motivation...whether now or in the past.
maybe we aren't agreeing on what "social" reasons are. i see social reasons as not just being ones that will advance you in any career or social status, but also those that provide a built-in, pre-fab sense of community (without the effort of building it yourself) and will simultaneously maintain your accepted status as one of "us".
as i've said before, it's really hard to be outside the "us".
56. CalGal - 6/3/2002 3:12:21 PM
I think religion has historically filled three purposes:
1. Context for existence
2. Social control
3. Social network
As a society develops, the weight placed on 2 and 3 changes.
57. wonkers2 - 6/3/2002 3:14:01 PM
Well, one of the needs that churches answer is a social need. And there is no reason to be defensive about this. Our society is mobile, and churches provide a sense of continuity and help people make friends and integrate themselves into the new community. Moreover, churches sponsor a variety of activities such as choirs and other musical groups, community service functions, square dances, Scout troops, young people's groups, athletic teams, etc, all of which serve social needs which have great practical value but little or nothing to do with answering deep, mystical needs (which I am not denying are important to many people also.)
58. PelleNilsson - 6/3/2002 3:19:33 PM
godlessclif
That's a very poor example. A farmer's grazing land can sustain X cows. Each cow gives birth to a calf every year. Younger cows give more milk than older ones. The normal, rational practice is to rotate stock and slaughter the older cows for milk, not to keep them around consuming fodder without giving anything in return.
59. Ms. No - 6/3/2002 3:19:43 PM
ivan,
It takes effort to build any community whether religious or secular. Some churches have a strong sense community and others don't. Just as some artistic communities are more vital than others. The outlets chosen by people to socializing are hardly worth arguing about since their only debatable merit is in the eyes of the beholder.
60. Ms. No - 6/3/2002 3:23:16 PM
Wonkers,
Excellent point. Membership in a religious community doesn't mean an either/or existence---either you're there to socialize or you're there to worship. I believe the whole is considered "fellowship".
61. ivan osokin - 6/3/2002 3:26:30 PM
PelleNilsson:
i'm not sure if i see it as 'legitimizing' because they are often brought in by force, which is not the same (though maybe semantically they are). also, you can get people to accept anything you want...but unless it confers some advantage to them in something ELSE they've legitimized, it won't take hold.
what i mean is: the religion is not as important as what it can do for the individual. if the codes brought in with the religion can create conditions whereby individuals will find most benefit, that will be the legitimization. but then you get the sticky problem of what the individual feels is their legitimate society? is it themselves, their family, their tribe, their nation, etc..? that's where the divisiveness comes in handy...your society is clear: it's the society of those who also accept this religion. by defining WHAT it is needs to be maintained ("your society") and then supplying some way to benefit "your society", then we get successful religions.
i think the assumption among most is that religion has evolved the way it was supposed to...that it's the right thing for us. whereas i think it's probably a fundamental mistake that we have been fighting with since we went from the reliance on ourselves to reliance on institutions.
sorry to babble...i'm probably not making much sense because i'm trying to cut things short and get ready for work.
62. KuligintheHooligan - 6/3/2002 3:29:22 PM
A number of "zingers" in there by marjori, that I which I had time to respond to. Particularly the one about religions "of the book" being primitive.
In any event, I see a big difference between "contextualization" and "syncretism." The former makes a genuine effort to make the religion meaningful for the particular community in which it is infiltrating (I couldn't think of a better word). Syncretism, however, waters down the new religion. I think there is a difference. I am all for the first, against the second.
For example, it is one thing for the Herero or Himba people of Namibia to still have a place for their ancestors. However, when that place takes away from the mediatorial work of Jesus, I find that bad. You can still "memorialize" the ancestors without venerating them or even worshiping them as some do.
63. ivan osokin - 6/3/2002 3:32:39 PM
let me correct something i just wrote:
i don't mean to say that experiencing the divine, meditation, etc.., are mistakes...just that the enforcement of dogma the thrusting of externally derived religious codes from a centralized institutional form is probably antithetical to human beings. that's why institutionalized religions MUST provide social benefit as well.
64. Ms. No - 6/3/2002 3:44:12 PM
Ivan,
Religious beliefs are organic in origin. Human beings want to take over other human beings and spread their own values whether those be religious, economic or fashion-related. It is human nature to fear that which is unlike and treat it as a threat. It is similarly in our nature to either make that "other" conform to our views or to destroy it.
We don't need religion for that. Religion isn't usually a cause for anything. It provides a rationale for behavior that we'd exhibit anyway and that is true whether it is an organized, dogmatic religion or a free-form, do-your-own-thing church.
65. betty - 6/3/2002 3:57:34 PM
Ms. No,
I don't accept anything you have said in the first paragraph as true. None of it...it counters my personal experience of the world. Ivan has an interesting theory about about there being two types of religion, and i would wager, two types of people...someday perhaps he would like to discuss it...ANYWAY
I don't think all people inherently feel the need to to make "other" conform or destroy. obviously they don't because I don't feel that way...I only develop a "conform or be destroyed" attitude when I am threatened by such because that attitude is threatening to my existence.
66. Ms. No - 6/3/2002 4:56:56 PM
Betty,
I don't accept anything you have said in the first paragraph as true. None of it...it counters my personal experience of the world.
But your personal experience of the world or my personal experience of the world or Stephen Hawkins' personal experience of the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Whether or not I have ever personally experienced racism does not have any affect at all on whether racism exists.
As for the points I made I'm not sure what you find objectionable about the idea that religious belief is organic. Where else would it come from except the minds of men?
My second statement about humans wanting to spread their own culture is arguable since there are plenty of people who never left their place of origin nor had any desire to do so, but it is a strong enough drive in enough people that we've populated an entire planet rather than all still living in the caves at Cro Magnon.
The third point I made, you disagreed with and then seemingly reversed yourself in your second paragraph. I think perhaps we're not talking about the same thing.
I don't think all people inherently feel the need to to make "other" conform or destroy.
Not every individual does, but there's a big difference between a man and Mankind. Just because I don't personally want to bear children does not negate the biological imperative of the species to reproduce itself.
I only develop a "conform or be destroyed" attitude when I am threatened by such because that attitude is threatening to my existence.
This is in no way contrary to what I stated.
67. justears - 6/3/2002 5:16:44 PM
I don't object to the idea that religion serves a social need. I just don't like reductionistic explanations for everything, whether they be sociological, psychological, physicalist or naturalist. Religion serves 123 needs etc. I hold the strange notion that the universe is radically open/opening so as to be 'greater than our philosophies.'
68. ivan osokin - 6/3/2002 7:57:58 PM
ms. no et al:
(oh my gosh...i just realized that the above is a pun...but really, it's not a jab at you ms. no...i've been reading finnegans wake again and it does that to ya!)
i don't really disagree with what you said all that much.
i tend to think that what we're talking about is, to use a metaphor, viral...seeking to find new hosts to spread itself and replicate (yes...it is the concept of memes and memetics). i don't think it's the "regular" thing, i think it's an aberration that we have formed our institutions around.
to use another metaphor: we went down a wrong path and, rather than try to figure out what went wrong, we're gonna follow it through to the end and rationalize about it. what's more important, we're going to have to make ourselves think it's actually a beneficial path otherwise we will find great despair.
besides...if we were to examine all religions everywhere, we would find plenty of religions that don't seek to "take over other human beings and spread their own values". hell, i would say that the majority of non-judeo-islamic-christian religions are not proselytic in nature, nor do they necessarily care what your values are. because of this, i can't accept that all religions have this same principle...i think certain ones do, however.
69. godlessclif - 6/3/2002 10:09:22 PM
But your personal experience of the world or my personal experience of the world or Stephen Hawkins' personal experience of the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Whether or not I have ever personally experienced racism does not have any affect at all on whether racism exists.
If a tree falls on a black man in the middle of the forest do we hear it?
Bishop Berkeley says no.
Berkeley made the radical claim that there is no "out there," or, more precisely, there is no matter!!
Berkeley's position, which is called "idealism," can be summed up in his famous phrase "esse is percipi": to be is to be perceived. What we call "bodies," or physical objects, are simply stable collections of perceptions to which we give names such as "apples," "trees," etc..
These collections of perceptions have no existence apart from a perceiving mind. The answer to the famous conundrum "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" is that if no one is perceiving it, not only does it not make a sound, the tree does not even exist.
And the black man lynched does not exist either to the Religious. I am with John Locke.
Hill of beans, that cliche is painful.
70. concerned - 6/4/2002 12:20:22 AM
New Book Says Christians Suffered Most
Interesting viewpoint, whether one agrees or not.
71. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 1:56:28 AM
Concerned that assertion that there were 45 million Christian martyrs in the 20th century is ridiculous.
The Soviet Union did not kill millions of Christians, though it did make them abandon their faith by force.
Hitler concentrated on non Christians.
The civilian in the death camps were Jews , atheistic communists, and Romany Gypsies
Other in Hitler's death camps may have been christians like gays, Christian Scientists and Jehova Witnesses, but they were not killed because they were christians, but because they were not main stream Christians like protestants and Catholics.
Also your author, Mr. Socci counts French and English soldiers who were Christian killed by Germans, and German Nazi Christian soldiers killed by Russians in both world wars as Christian martys. That is hardly fair.
The whole book seems like a way to minimize the holocost.
The claim Chinese killed Christians is the silliest of all because there have been almost no Christians in China in the 20th century.
During the Boxer Rebellon there were no Christians in China of any statistical significance.
The idea that all of Chang Chai Czech's soldiers lost to the Japanese and Mao's forces are Christian martyrs is ludicrous.
This author is a nutcase.
72. zojak quafeth - 6/4/2002 6:57:08 AM
cliff -
If you're going to dispute something, you should use facts.
The civilian in the death camps were Jews , atheistic communists, and Romany Gypsies
No. the civilians in the death camps were anyone who didn't fit Hitler's view of an Aryan. He obviously hated jews the most, but he also wanted to eliminate 30,000,0000 slavs from Poland to provide more room for Germans. He didn't reach that number thank God, but among those killed were 5,000,000 non-jewish Poles, 3,000,000 of whom were catholic and other Christian denominations, a fact you ignore. Visit the Holocaust museum in DC some time. What Hitler did was horrible. Yes he focused on jews, but he exterminated others in his path as well. For you to ignore those facts is to minimize the holocaust.
The Soviet Union did not kill millions of Christians, though it did make them abandon their faith by force.... The claim Chinese killed Christians is the silliest of all because there have been almost no Christians in China in the 20th century.
A.M. Rosenthal wrote in The New York Times: "Eleven countries where Christians are currently enduring great religious persecution are China, Sudan, Pakistan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Egypt, Nigeria, Cuba, Laos, and Uzbekistan. They evidence a worldwide trend of anti-Christian persecution based on two political ideologies -- Communism and militant Islam." Persecuting the Christians, New York Times, Editorial Page, February 14, 1997.
To say that there have been almost no Christians in China in the 20th Century is just plain wrong. Take 60 seconds to do a simple search on the web. Do you have any support for your positions?
73. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 7:51:33 AM
interesting. i'd like to see the book. i don't doubt that there is and was persecution specifically based on people being christians, i wonder if the his use of statistics is proving anything to the extreme that the author is proposing, or is it misleading and revisionist. there were clearly times in history that certain cultures were very hostile and violent towards christians.
on the ohter hand: if i were to shoot the first 1000 people that walked by my house, 95% of them would probably be christians. if you looked at that statistically, say, 400 years later, you might be inclined to say:
"Ivan Osokin went on a rampage and shot 950 christians because he was anti-christian."
rosenthal's comment is also interesting. i wasn't aware of persecution in some of those countries. i wonder to what extent the persecution exists and in what numbers. is it the case in some of those countries that a very small minority are christian (say 2-5%), living in a non-christian theocracy, and bearing the stress of being surrounded by people who are either ignorant of, or antagonistic to, their religion? are there outward, blatant acts of violence and assault happening?
i'm looking forward to checking out the book.
74. zojak quafeth - 6/4/2002 7:58:03 AM
Here's what I turned up in a relatively quick search on Lexis-Nexis. Over 1800 stories on the persecution of christians worldwide. The stories include the May 4-5 McLaughlin Group transcript, ackowledging persecution of Christians buy the Chinese, a Boston Herald story on genocide o christians in the Sudan.
I also just finished a book recently about the persecution of Armenian Christians in 1918 by the Turks. Thousands were killed. The Armenians fled to the mountains and were eventually rescued by the Brits.
The list goes on. So Clif, while you may thinkthe numbers sound way off base, a simple look around may tell you that while Socci obviously puts his own spin on the facts to support a premise the bare facts do show an astonishing number of Christians persecuted and killed in the20th Century.
75. zojak quafeth - 6/4/2002 8:01:50 AM
ivan -
i wonder if the his use of statistics is proving anything to the extreme that the author is proposing, or is it misleading and revisionist.
Based on my quick look, he does exaggerate. For example, he focuses on the murder of slavs by Hitler as an attack on Christians. I don't think it was. It was an attack on slavs, who happened to be jews and christians and other faiths. He then mixes it in with real stats on persecution of Christians.
76. zojak quafeth - 6/4/2002 8:04:38 AM
are there outward, blatant acts of violence and assault happening?
I remember that astudy from some well-respected agency came out in 1997 or 1998. It describedall sorts of violence/torture/murder, some state sanctioned or tolerated, some not (more akin to hate crmes). I don't remember the numbers. I'll take a look this weekend see if I can find it lying around somewhere.
77. Ms. No - 6/4/2002 11:30:15 AM
Godlessclif,
Hill of beans, that cliche is painful
Yes, and I knew it when I wrote it. I sat here beating my head on the desk because I cannot remember what it is called (besides anecdotal) when one tries to prove or disprove some large point of fact simply by saying "My personal expericence doesn't support your argument."
I had no intention of arguing that personal experience doesn't matter in general only that one person's experience does not prove or disprove anything about the experience of mankind in general.
78. Ms. No - 6/4/2002 11:52:06 AM
Ivan,
I think we're gradually beginning to talk about two different things here. I didn't state that all religions are proselytic in nature. That is patently false, as you pointed out. My point is that "Religion" often becomes the scapegoat for human behavior that is simply that: human behavior. Man has a proselytic bone that he likes to pick whether it pertains to his spiritual beliefs or the best way to hunt elk or decide tribal law. It's a human trait before it's a religious tendency.
Far more interesting to me than looking at which religion tells its followers to do what to whom is the question of when and why man developed the need to rationalize his actions.
btw I haven't noticed that Judaism is particularly proselytic. To the best of my knowledge you are either Jewish or desire to convert or you are goyim. Within the Jewish faith there are factions that war for dominance----Orthodox v Reform etc., but as far as actively looking for recruits I've never heard of such a thing.
79. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 12:25:41 PM
Ms. No...
quite right. and i realized later that i shouldn't have included judaism, but i should have included buddhism (which is highly proselytic).
your question:
when and why man developed the need to rationalize his actions.
i think this is a fantastic question, and one which i am always trying to figure out! it's hard to get up any real ideas on it because it presupposes that man has to rationalize his actions (i think he does) in the first place.
in a way, i think it questions many things: the very homocentric idea that we are the pinnacle of creation, the peak of perfection, etc., and even though many will say "of course we're not perfect", they will refuse to think that we actually screwed up and ARE rationalizing our actions.
80. PelleNilsson - 6/4/2002 12:48:30 PM
But in evolutionary terms we have not "screwed up". We emerged from Africa a rather short while ago and now we dominate the earth and control its resources. There are more of us than at any time before and the population continues to grow. We are a success.
81. Ms. No - 6/4/2002 12:49:28 PM
Ivan,
I don't think it was a conscious choice. I think it's evolutionary. Bears don't sit around the cave wondering if they're "worthy". Only man worries about "deserve". The concepts of right and wrong, of reward and punishment and entitlement. That's as close to the "root" as I feel I can go.
At some point we developed a way to undermine the triumph of the mightiest. Initially if you could take it by force it was yours. Anyone else had a "right" to attempt to take it from you, but if you could hold onto it then it didn't matter how you did it. Eventually we develped some sense of "fairness"-----you weren't entitled to hold something if your actions were disapproved of by the prevaling morality. Said morality presumably developed as a means of living more harmoniously and productively with others.
But the ability to deny ourselves---not for our offspring but for the good of the tribe or for the love of an idea. That's what makes us truly weird. I think the ability to feel unworthy---to even conceive of such a thing---is what really sets us apart from the rest of the animal world.
(and yes, I realize that I'm rambling. I don't have a formal theory to set forth. I'm just thinking with my fingers following wherever the thoughts seem to lead.)
82. PelleNilsson - 6/4/2002 12:50:11 PM
My God, ivan! That's an impressive list of links you have put together.
83. PelleNilsson - 6/4/2002 12:55:59 PM
My God, ivan! That's an impressive list of links you have put together.
84. judithathome - 6/4/2002 1:00:27 PM
Evidently it is! It made Pelle lose control of his keyboard!
85. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 1:44:32 PM
PelNil:
thanks. i will put them in some order when i figure out what schema to use. i also want to check some of them more thoroughly.
now...onto our minor disagreement :)
are we really an evolutionary success? i mean, what counts for success...just numbers? we are the only species where a few members can destroy the entire species everywhere, and other species as well. we have mass starvation, disease, and many incredibly unhappy/unsatisfied people. we aren't doing anything to provide for the safety and success of succeeding generations as we destroy the planet and don't do much to stop it...
Hey, we fucked up so let's not do anything about it
and it goes on.
all i'm saying is you can't just take the fact that we are everywhere to call us successful. anatomically modern humans have been around for up to 200,000 years and only in the last few thousand have developed the means to destroy our planet...creating the potential for our species to become extinct. talk about short-term thinking! i'm not sure how that confers any biological advantage.
mind you, just because i acknowledge such things does not make me a pessimist...i still enjoy being human and would rather be human than, say, a lemming or gnu.
86. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 1:47:59 PM
From the movie "The Big Chill"
Michael: rationalizations are more important than sex
Nick: I don't think that's true
Michael: Oh yeah, ever try to go a week without a rationalization?
87. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 1:54:06 PM
btw:
all this is really diverging away from religion and turning into the anthropological speculation of amateurs (like me)...
;)
88. PelleNilsson - 6/4/2002 2:26:34 PM
ivan
Evolution is blind. It doesn't have any purpose apart from the propagation of the species. So far we have been successful. If we manage to kill off ourselves we'll have to reevaluate.
But to return to our original discussion. I started by saying that religion, because it is ubiquitous, presumably had some evolutionary advantage. I have rethought that. The advantage is rather in altruistic behaviour. Imagine the young, strong hunter coming back after an unsuccessful hunt. He is hungry. He sees an old man with a bowl of porridge in front of him. "I could kick him in the head and take his porridge", thinks the hunter. Yet he doesn't do that. Because man is capable of introspection, he then thinks "why don't I do it?" and the idea of a norm system laid down by an external power is born.
Evolution must have selected for altruism because hunter-gatherer bands lacking it must have gone under without issue. Besides, it is known to exist in other animals too.
89. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 2:48:34 PM
PelleNilsson:
aside from our minor quibble on species, i'm mostly in agreement with you.
however, the hunter wasn't raised in a vacuum (presumably) and would have already learned altruism, else his family and tribe might have perished. and i don't think that among social, altruistic creatures, there is any need to explicitly create laws and codes.
now, that being the case, why did those laws and codes (a.k.a., rules of religions) become accepted for societies? my guess: they started out small, local, and organic. as society grew from small bands to larger tribes to sedentary villages, the religions grew in accordance...enveloping and assimilating other villages and such (because, i think, it's easier to do business with people who you trust).
it leads to something betty said earlier. (non-empirically-tested theory coming your way)...i do think that "religion" evolved in its own way, and that the end of the paleolithic may have been about when this happens. i think it split between religions that assimilate the natural world into their scheme of things, and those that integrate themselves into the natural world. it's a subtle, but revealing difference.
for instance, the assimilator builds irrigation, the integrator lives next to the river and hunts/gathers. the assimilator develops farming, the integrator follows the herd. the assimilator shapes a calendar based on an agreed upon (and man-made) unit of measurement, the integrator learns the seasons and the stars. the assimilator cannot live with the integrator, the integrator cannot live with the assimilator...both cause problems for the other.
unfortunately, the assimilators have had thousands of years to practice their ability to dominate that which surrounds them...so they are much more prepared to assimilate the integrators, who often wind up getting swallowed up into the assimilator culture.
end of amateur hour :)
90. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 2:56:22 PM
one last thing:
i don't subscribe to the idea that the above distinctions are gender-based...that there was some matriarchal age and some patriarchal age...i think that simplifies things and is based on assumptions no more scientific than my own above :)
91. PelleNilsson - 6/4/2002 3:08:05 PM
We substantially agree on the main point.
I think the pattern of thought that our current woes started with the agricultural revolution which saw the start not only of man's exploitation of nature but also of man's exploitation of man because the production surplus could sustain rulers, harems, eunucks, court officials, tax collectors, priests and other parasitic classes who lived off the toil of the farmer is rather well established in the romantic Green movements.
But we are digressing.
92. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 3:37:28 PM
maybe i should just get the name of this thread changed to "Anthropology"?
btw PelleN:
when are we going to schedule our head to head in the ultimate test of google skill and modem speed?
93. sakonige - 6/4/2002 3:39:51 PM
ivan osokin -
I have had the opportunity to look at the evolution of religion in microcosm in the history of the Cherokee Indians of the US Southeast. They have dwelt on the borders between larger societies for thousands of years, where they were able to maintain fragments of their traditional beliefs under the influence of the predominate religions of their neighbors. The Cherokees happened to be one of the few indigenous tribes from the eastern region of the US who survived intact enough to retain some oral history of their religious traditions that was extensively studied and recorded by 19th century American ethnograper James Mooney in his Myths and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokee.
Traditional Cherokee Religion
It seems the driving force in the extremely primal and superstitious traditional Cherokee system of beliefs was the quest for a pseudo-scientific explanation of the workings of the universe. Religion fulfilled the role of science. The social benefits of religion were analogous to the benefits of technological advancements made possible by scientific discovery.
94. judithathome - 6/4/2002 3:40:44 PM
Why don't you two agree not to google...I think the fun comes from seeing what you actually know without the aid of help; after all, people on Jeopardy don't have google.
95. judithathome - 6/4/2002 3:42:34 PM
Hi, Sakonige! Welcome back....
96. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 3:43:57 PM
oh sure judith...make it even tougher for me.
97. judithathome - 6/4/2002 3:44:58 PM
Oh I sorta doubt it would be tougher for either one of you. ;-)
98. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 3:54:19 PM
Sakonige:
Thank you for the post and link. I've placed the link on the butter bar. i'm looking forward to reading through it.
it's interesting that you mentioned the quest for a pseudo-scientific view of the universe. in a hindu philosophy class i took recently, some science majors argued with the professor about religion as opposed to science. he essentially argued that the method of science was as valid and "provable" as that of religion. i tend to agree. science is NOT the "same" thing as religion, but how they come to their own conclusions is the same (and the same types of bias color the world of science as well as those of religion).
the study of cognitive science, for instance, goes to great length to elaborate and analyze the way we come to understand what we understand. when one reads some religious texts, for example the Hindu Vedanta sutras, one sees that they are doing the same thing: attempting to understand the cognition of experience.
that religious experience is considered subjective and science is considered objective is a somewhat ridiculous distinction.
99. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 3:56:59 PM
j@home:
you don't understand...i'm always one step ahead or behind the answer. i tend to "just miss" things and will be wrong, but very close. it's a curse :(
100. sakonige - 6/4/2002 3:57:26 PM
Hi, judith. I just wanted to offer an observation that religion was at first primarily motivated by the desire to comprehend natural events and processes, more than by ethical or spiritual considerations.
101. judithathome - 6/4/2002 4:00:59 PM
I agree...I'm sure the first thoughts about fire were where did it come from, not necessarily who sent it here.
102. sakonige - 6/4/2002 4:03:27 PM
ivan osokin -
that religious experience is considered subjective and science is considered objective is a somewhat ridiculous distinction.
It does seem arbitrary at least. Scientific inquiry is not the same thing as the pursuit of religious enlightment, but it is in a sense a subset of the latter. And I do think that human religions originated from attempts at rational explanation for natural phenomena.
103. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 4:03:58 PM
sak and jud:
yeah...doesn't that seem to be the case? why wouldn't we want to understand the world that provides us with food and shelter before we understand anything "more" about it? figuring out how to survive would seem to precede thoughts of "why am i here?"
104. PelleNilsson - 6/4/2002 4:06:37 PM
ivan
I'm available up to July 10. As to timing, it's close to 10 pm here now, I guess that is 4 pm game time. Shall we say 2 pm game time?
I'm OK with no googling because I don't think I have much of a chance anyhow. There is an American slant to the questions. I don't blame Daniel at all. It's inevitable and the questions are good.
We saw in the betty-Bubba encounter that modem speed can be critical. I regret to anounce that I have DSL. On the other hand, the trans-Atlantic links are sometimes overloaded.
105. judithathome - 6/4/2002 4:08:42 PM
Pelle, I was just joking about the "no googling".
106. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 4:12:47 PM
PN:
first, i also have DSL...though it has a tendency to be "out of service" some times.
second, with no googling, i'll look like an idiot :)
third: 2pm game time is tough for me during the weekdays as i am home alone with our 3-year old daughter and it would be tough to play. however, on saturdays it's fine or any weekdays before 12:30pm here would be fine also.
107. KuligintheHooligan - 6/4/2002 4:19:09 PM
marjoribanks,
I’ve given some thought to your question earlier. I don’t know that my answer is “earth shattering” or anything, but some things I do respect about animism and animistic beliefs are:
1) Their respect for nature. However, the reason why they respect nature is because they fear the spirits who inhabit the rocks, rivers, trees, etc. In fact, I would say the overall concerns for the animists are almost always motivated by fear. However, not concentrating on the “means” right now their “ends” are positive.
2) Here in Namibia, I’d say the view of family is high. However, that may be more an “African” thing and not specifically animistic. One could argue that their fear of ancestral spirits motivates them to take a more family-oriented view, as opposed to the more individualistic view of the West. But again, whatever the reasons, they seem more concerned for family and more interested in helping. This I think is positive.
3) The overall view of community. This reaches beyond the family. There truly are no individuals, but all work together and care together for the common good. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally speaking, this is my impression of animism here in Africa. You are part of a community. What you do influences the community and as such, everyone is interested in looking out for others.
I must admit, marjoribanks, that my overall impression of animism is very, very negative. However, I have attempted to answer your question as honestly as possible, without allowing that negativity to taint everything.
108. sakonige - 6/4/2002 4:24:20 PM
figuring out how to survive would seem to precede thoughts of "why am i here?"
In traditional religious sytems in the Americas, the question was "How do I stay here?" New World aboriginals tended to see themselves as determinants of natural events. The predominant theme in Native American religions is a belief in a balance of events in nature that are favorable or unfavorable to humans. Religious pursuit was an attempt to understand and control the balance. I don't know how that compares to the way spirituality developed elsewhere in the world.
109. PelleNilsson - 6/4/2002 4:33:54 PM
ivan
Where is "here"? What the time there now?
110. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 4:57:10 PM
PN:
i'm in upstate new york and it's closing in on 5pm here. gotta run.
111. concerned - 6/4/2002 6:41:41 PM
Will the Real Islam Please Stand Up?
excerpt:
Whenever someone starts talking about "eliminating" the universal tragedies, ills, and evils in our human condition, and begins to imply that the "solutions" to them lie in state governments or religious theocracies, I get shivers of dread up my spine. Because that’s when I know that pure and unadulterated evil is itching to take on living form.
The author has an excellent take on the problems of socialism and Islam here.
112. concerned - 6/4/2002 6:58:04 PM
Re. 29 -
Marjoribanks has it almost exactly backwards, which is no surprise to me.
Monotheism actually exemplies one of the most evolved states of religion, since, among other things, it implies that a certain amount of consistent thought about the origin of the observable world has been integrated into the religious construct and also requires a deity which conceptually transcends the limited realms of the minor deities of pantheism, or the primal animism which imbues potentially every distinct external object with a spirit which can hopefully be coerced or mollified.
The above has nothing to do with whether one prefers monotheism, personally, of course.
113. concerned - 6/4/2002 7:01:52 PM
Now, before any moron lights up his flame thrower, let me remind the Mote that I'm agnostic.
114. pseudoerasmus - 6/4/2002 7:03:28 PM
Concerned's babbling is just that, babbling.
It is the prejudice of the monotheist to suppose that monotheism is a more evolved state or intellectually superior position. It is not.
Monotheism does not intrinsically generate "more consistent" thoughts about anything than polytheism.
Besides, most of East Asia has done just without the benefit of monotheism.
115. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 7:08:25 PM
Concerned link: Why Islam Can?t Join the Modern World
One may well as ask why Christianity can't join the modern world.
I hope we as humans can solve the worlds problems. To say you are a heretic if you say human problems can be solved by science and technology is a doomsday belief.
Get on the corner with a sign that says "repent, doomsday is near"
Or better yet get an exact date for the end of the world out of your scripture.
116. pseudoerasmus - 6/4/2002 7:10:39 PM
"...[monotheism] implies that a certain amount of consistent thought about the origin of the observable world has been integrated into the religious construct...."
Please. Judaism, Christianity and Islam were bumpkin mystery cults until they confronted, and assimilated, Greek (i.e., pagan) philosophy.
117. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 10:09:09 PM
to address some of the Concern's:
Monotheism actually exemplies one of the most evolved states of religion, since, among other things, it implies that a certain amount of consistent thought about the origin of the observable world has been integrated into the religious construct
is it consistent thought or is it occam's razor? is it actual understanding or easy labeling? the observable world is chaotic and fluctuating and subject to observational conundrums, and simplifying things to a common denominator (while providing accessible answers) certainly discourages "out of the (monotheism) box thinking". also, i think that while the chaos has patterns on a broad scale (attractors), if there is any truth to the idea of a singular deity, only they could see them and it would be presumptuous for us to pretend to "see them" as well.
also, monotheistic religions have always had to justify their conceptions of the observable universe by fitting the observations into the box called the "presupposition of monotheism". it leads to theories that are just patently absurd, but simplify things because they can be reconciled with and through scripture.
118. ivan osokin - 6/4/2002 10:12:45 PM
and also requires a deity which conceptually transcends the limited realms of the minor deities of pantheism
the "minor deities", in some cases, are more accessible aspects of the Divine...they are not necessarily "lesser". this trivializes them, because in some religions, the minor deities are the gateway to experiencing the ultimate.
pseudoerasmus is right...they got along and do get along fine with such "pantheistic" religious systems as they have in parts of asia.
or the primal animism which imbues potentially every distinct external object with a spirit which can hopefully be coerced or mollified.
as opposed to the present, where we assume that completely artificial and unnatural things are imbued with some type of natural quality? look at the various simulacra, virtual worlds, and efforts at artifical intelligence.
hmmmm...those animists have been animists a lot longer than there have been monotheists and they got on just fine...the world was just as understandable and firmly constructed to them (even with their numerous spirits of nature) as the cleaner-burning, fuel-efficient simplicity of monotheism.
119. sakonige - 6/4/2002 10:28:41 PM
It could be argued that a lapsed monotheist is evolving to the state where primal religion began, where an individual strives to comprehend their relationship to the natural world.
Affinity for Nature May Be Hard-wired
Credit for the idea properly goes to eminent sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, who popularized the term in his 1984 book "Biophilia: The Human Bond With Other Species" (Harvard University Press), defining it as "the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life."
"Our existence depends on this propensity," he wrote. "Our spirit is woven from it, hopes rise on its currents." Biophilia, Wilson says, may explain why millions of us have pets, fill our homes with plants and flock to zoos and national parks when we're away from work.
120. concerned - 6/5/2002 2:41:37 AM
PE -
If you are attempting to deny the continuity of evolution of theological conceptualism from animism to monotheism, you haven't brought anything to the table whatsoever so far. Given that, spare us your animadversions.
Please. Judaism, Christianity and Islam were bumpkin mystery cults until they confronted, and assimilated, Greek (i.e., pagan) philosophy.
To the very limited extent that your statement re. 'pagan' philosophy can have possibly impacted the writing, if at all, of any part of the Bible, it does not affect what I've posted, since I'm referring to the more recent realizations of these monotheistic religions, IAC. Can you even back your assertion up? Also, you falsely lump Judaism, Christianity & Mohammadism together here, apparently to create a specious appearance of plausibility.
121. concerned - 6/5/2002 2:44:48 AM
Re. 115 -
godless -
Care to guess how long you would last with your hide intact in the Middle East with the moniker of 'godless'?
Oh, I forgot. You would call yourself something like 'chosen of Allah' there.
122. concerned - 6/5/2002 2:56:08 AM
re. 118 -
How have I in any way even implied that animists or pantheists are somehow inherently incapable of 'getting along' in modern society? Let's try to avoid introducing a straw man here.
In fact, it's a monotheistic religion, Islam, in which an originally pantheistic god, Allah, has been manipulated to serve as a figurehead for an expansionist totalitarian theological regime.
Given that, it's quite fortunate that, in the case of Christianity, Jesus is consistently on record as advocating such things as forgiveness, rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's (hey, the germ of separation of church and state here), following the golden rule, loving one's enemy, etc.
123. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:01:06 AM
Message # 120
"If you are attempting to deny the continuity of evolution of theological conceptualism from animism to monotheism..."
What the hell are you talking about ? Many billions of people remain polytheists today, without ever having made any "evolutionary" transition to monotheism. By the way, your use of "evolutionary" is teleological and scientistic.0
"To the very limited extent that your statement re. 'pagan' philosophy can have possibly impacted the writing, if at all, of any part of the Bible...."
Shithole, the New Testament was written in Greek.
As for the Old Testament, of course it was not written under Hellenistic influence. But it cannot be denied, and it is wholly uncontroversial to say, that Jewish philosophy & theology, as well as Christian & Islamic philosophy & theology, were profoundly altered by the legacy of the superior pagan Greek & Roman civilisations.
Apparently you are completely unaware that Aquinas's "natural theology" -- the argument that God must exist in order to account for the existence of natural effects -- is wholly borrowed from Aristotle.
"Also, you falsely lump Judaism, Christianity & Mohammadism [sic] together here, apparently to create a specious appearance of plausibility."
I don't know what you mean. I "lumped" the three because all three are monotheistic (*) and all three absorbed Hellenistic influences.
(*) Of course Christianity's monotheism rests on a kind of trickery -- unless you're a Monophysite Christian like the Copts of Egypt who deny the Trinity.
124. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:08:36 AM
PE tries to introduce a red herring by conflating philosophy with religion in a discussion where keeping the social impact of faith distinct from the more much more limited effects of reason (to this day in most parts of the world, unfortunately), is of critical importance. IAC, as I've pointed out, a certain amount of primitive philosophy is present in Judasim/Christianity, since, among other things, these religions have evolved past the point where it is felt necessary to personalize or represent 'God' as being some particular individual with specific physical characteristics.
125. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:11:18 AM
Message # 122
"In fact, it's a monotheistic religion, Islam, in which an originally pantheistic god, Allah..."
God in Islamic theology is the God of Adam, Eve, Abraham, etc. What was "originally" pantheistic about it?
By the way, Allah just means "The God" (al = the, lah = god), so your implication that "Allah" is some name given to a deity is just another instance of your abysmal ignorance.
"Given that, it's quite fortunate that, in the case of Christianity, Jesus is consistently on record as advocating such things as .... rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's (hey, the germ of separation of church and state here)....."
Well, in practise, in most of Christian history, church and state have been as unseparated as it has been in most of Islamic history.
By the way, Iran since 1979 is the first time mullahs have ever ruled a country.
126. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:16:09 AM
What the hell are you talking about ? Many billions of people remain polytheists today, without ever having made any "evolutionary" transition to monotheism.
Absolutely irrelevant to my point, PE. You're making a ridiculous hypothesis which is analogous to asserting that, in biology, all vertebrates necessarily must have developed mammalian characteristics, since some did so during the last half billion years.
...Aquinas's "natural theology" -- the argument that God must exist in order to account for the existence of natural effects -- is wholly borrowed from Aristotle.
The equivalent assumption existed in the book of Genesis, idiot.
127. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:16:48 AM
Message # 124
"PE tries to introduce a red herring by conflating philosophy with religion in a discussion where keeping the social impact of faith distinct from the more much more limited effects of reason...is of critical importance."
What babbling. I was responding to your original formulation: "Monotheism...implies that a certain amount of consistent thought about the origin of the observable world has been integrated into the religious construct..."
It is therefore entirely apropos to discuss philosophy, since Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophy all stole from the pagan Greeks. When the Pope says the Big Bang is consistent with divine creation, that's because there is a 1000-year-old Catholic philosophical tradition which is based on Aristotle's argument from the Metaphysics.
128. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:21:48 AM
Message # 126
"You're making a ridiculous hypothesis which is analogous to asserting that, in biology, all vertebrates necessarily must have developed mammalian characteristics, since some did so during the last half billion years."
I simply don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you should do something about your atrocious prose and try to explain what you mean the "deny the continuity of evolution of theological conceptualism from animism to monotheism..."
"The equivalent assumption existed in the book of Genesis, idiot."
Nonsense. There is no such assumption. There is absolutely no reasoning of any kind in Genesis about why God must exist. Not at all.
By the way, Genesis is a creation story -- something which is possessed by every culture; and which, in many scholars' view, was originally a pagan creation story.
129. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:29:24 AM
PE -
So far, you've been unable to do anything but make nonspecific, unproven assertions that Greek philosophy affected Old or New Testament writings. I don't give a shit about the Quran, since it's a largely a prescriptive militaristic screed IAC. While I have already admitted the possibility of peripheral influence in some cases, I think you have obligated yourself to provide some very significant chapter and verse evidence backing up you claim or else moderate your position.
130. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:37:08 AM
I have not made claims that Greek philosophy affected the writing of the Bible. My point from the beginning has been that (1) monotheism per se does not represent any kind of superior or evolved state of religiosity; and that (2) what gave birth to the rational and civilised traditions within the Abrahamic religions was the legacy of PAGAN Greek culture & philosophy.
131. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:38:39 AM
I have serious doubts that Concerned has ever read anything but a few lines of the Bible or the Qur'an.
132. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:41:17 AM
"You're making a ridiculous hypothesis which is analogous to asserting that, in biology, all vertebrates necessarily must have developed mammalian characteristics, since some did so during the last half billion years."
I simply don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you should do something about your atrocious prose ...
I noticed that I wasn't very clear there. I meant to draw an biological analogy which would serve to illustrate that there was no necessity for evolutionary traits or theological concepts to evolve concurrently or even at all among disparate groups.
There is absolutely no reasoning of any kind in Genesis about why God must exist. Not at all.
So what? The only relevant point is that a Creator is assumed responsible for all phenomena, natural or otherwise in Genesis.
133. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:42:31 AM
I have not made claims that Greek philosophy affected the writing of the Bible.
Then, you're attempting to shift the subject of discussion.
Loser.
134. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:42:55 AM
The Old Testament is also full of militarism and presciptiveness. Hey, Leviticus tells you you can't eat shellfish.
135. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:44:16 AM
I have serious doubts that Concerned has ever read anything but a few lines of the Bible or the Qur'an.
I've read enough Surahs to make me fucking sick, what with all the incitement to bloodshed contained therein.
136. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:45:33 AM
I'm not attempting to shift the discussion. Just look at my first two posts on this subject. I never mentioned the Bible. Concerned brought up the Bible.
I repeat: the monotheistic religions, but particularly Christianity was just a primitive, savage, uncouth bumpkin cult -- the Moonies of Antiquity --until it was refined and civilised by pagan antiquity.
137. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:47:39 AM
(1) monotheism per se does not represent any kind of superior or evolved state of religiosity; and that (2) what gave birth to the rational and civilised traditions within the Abrahamic religions was the legacy of PAGAN Greek culture & philosophy.
Fine. But, if one referenced only the scriptures, how much of this philosophical influence would come across?
138. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:49:01 AM
If the answer to 137 is 'not very much', then my point is tacitly admitted.
139. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:50:17 AM
"So what? The only relevant point is that a Creator is assumed responsible for all phenomena, natural or otherwise in Genesis."
There is a world of difference in the evolution of rationality between supposing that a supreme creator exists and supposing that the creator must exist for certain reasons. The former is blind belief. The latter involves reason and even scepticism.
140. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:53:40 AM
Message # 137: "But, if one referenced only the scriptures, how much of this philosophical influence would come across?"
If one only referenced the scriptures, the monotheistic religions would look pretty fucking bad, and your point that somehow monotheism per se was a boon to humanity, is gravely weakened.
141. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:55:27 AM
Message # 121
Concerned asks Godless: "Care to guess how long you would last with your hide intact in the Middle East with the moniker of 'godless'?"
I think that proves Godlesscliff's point and also mine. The fact that you have the freedom of belief, conscience, speech and expression in the West is not due to religion, but in spite of it.
142. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:57:12 AM
By the way, Allah just means "The God" (al = the, lah = god), so your implication that "Allah" is some name given to a deity is just another instance of your abysmal ignorance.
What of the pagan pre-Islamic statuette of Allah complete with Islamic moon symbol which I've seen a photograph of? That's syncretism with a vengeance.
143. concerned - 6/5/2002 3:58:57 AM
...and your point that somehow monotheism per se was a boon to humanity....
You're way, waaay off base here.
144. concerned - 6/5/2002 4:00:55 AM
I don't claim that monotheism has any attribute which automatically elevates it above all other systems of religious belief. Not in the least.
145. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 4:10:30 AM
The chief god of the pre-Islamic Meccan pantheon was nameless (unlike the others) and simply referred to as "the god" (allah).
I still don't know what that has to do with the Islamic conception of God.
146. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 4:12:20 AM
"I don't claim that monotheism has any attribute which automatically elevates it above all other systems of religious belief. Not in the least."
Then what have you been meaning by the "evolved" ? Presumably something positive. No one wants to be "less evolved".
147. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 4:13:10 AM
....by the TERM "evolved"....
148. ivan osokin - 6/5/2002 7:37:37 AM
i have a question:
does the word "evolved" automatically mean "improved"? i can see how that may apply locally, but universally?
149. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 9:07:23 AM
"Christianity was just a primitive, savage, uncouth bumpkin cult -- the Moonies of Antiquity -- until it was refined and civilised by pagan antiquity."
PE, is this really you? Fairly nonsensical what you've just said here, given the first 300 years of the history of Christendom. Ever here of guys like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus and the like?
Yep, just a bunch of bumpkins!
150. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 9:10:43 AM
Let me make the obvious point. Of course monotheism isn't some "evolved" state of religion. Man BEGAN a monotheist.
151. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 9:16:09 AM
"what gave birth to the rational and civilised traditions within the Abrahamic religions was the legacy of PAGAN Greek culture & philosophy."
Of interest is that the second-century Apologist Justin Martyr - a convert from Greek philosophy - argued that the best ideas of the Greeks were stolen from Moses and the Prophets.
152. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 10:00:55 AM
Tertullian was an upper class Roman Carthaginian who received a thoroughly classical (i.e., Greek) education long before he became a Christian. So that's a pretty crap example, Kuligin.
The discussion was about the rational tradition in Christianity -- something for which most of your early Christ-cult followers were not particularly noted.
"Apologist Justin Martyr - a convert from Greek philosophy - argued that the best ideas of the Greeks were stolen from Moses and the Prophets."
Well, then the "Black Athena" nonsense has a 2000 year old pedigree.
153. sakonige - 6/5/2002 11:23:49 AM
It is ironic that as monotheistic religions 'evolve' to become more rational and humanistic, they continue to become more like the primal nature worshipping spirituality of the ancients. The Gaia concept of life as a geological force is an example.
154. sakonige - 6/5/2002 11:38:18 AM
It's an example of the trend, anyway. The Gaia theory isn't a direct outgrowth of monotheism, but it is an idea arising from Western philosophical traditions that mirrors ancient spiritual concepts.
155. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 12:20:18 PM
Here's what I said PE:
"Ever here of guys like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus and the like?"
You picked ONE guy, told me he had a classical education, and so, that must make my point moot. But it doesn't. There are numerous guys from early Christendom - long before it was thoroughly "Helenized" by the likes of Augustine, et al - who were civilized, educated, literary people of note.
Also, your characterization of early Christendom as a "bumpkin cult" fails to recognize how quickly organized the religion became, and not that too long after Christ. Should we discuss Paul at all, or are you going to wave him away with a quick hand and tell me he was thoroughly "classical" too?? How about Clement or Ignatius of Antioch?
In short, your characterization of early Christendom lacks any real substance. It is, in a word, shoddy. Another possible word for it is "uninformed."
156. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 12:45:38 PM
Augustine was another classically educated Roman, heavily influenced by Plato.
I don't know anything about the other Nazarene Cultists whom Kuligin has mentioned.
"There are numerous guys from early Christendom - long before it was thoroughly "Helenized" by the likes of Augustine, et al - who were civilized, educated, literary people of note. Also, your characterization of early Christendom as a "bumpkin cult" fails to recognize how quickly organized the religion became, and not that too long after Christ."
You are missing the point. I claimed that it was Hellenism which introduced into the Abrahamic religions that modicum of rationality and philosophical reasonableness which Concerned (falsely) identified as belonging to monotheistic faiths.
Christianity before its Hellenisation --whatever the level of education of its earliest, "pre-Hellenised" adherents --was just another shithole cult out of the Middle East started by a cabal of provincial bumpkins, lunatic savages and wide-eyed fanatics. It's irrelevant how organised the early church was or how educated some of its earliest adherents were. The Moonies are bloody well oragnised too and the Aum Shin Rikio are full of doctors and lawyers. What these Middle Eastern mystery cults all had in common was hogwash. At least Christianity was made a little more civilised intellectually by contact with the infinitely more sophisticated Hellenistic civilisations.
157. RickNelson - 6/5/2002 1:00:40 PM
hmmm, well then...
What of the emergence of christians with belief in Jesus, who believe in that salvation, and that God exists. That these same believe most of what the Bible text conveys. However, that they believe only most of what is written splits these christians from the literal interpreters.
I am one of these "most of" christians. I've assimilated scientific investigation and it's hypotheses into my beliefs. That carbon dating actually tells us what millions of years in age are then leads to questions for christians regarding the truth of evolution and the sanctitiy of belief in creation. I am firm in my belief that these are coexistent.
158. ivan osokin - 6/5/2002 1:42:22 PM
monotheism seems to keep god separate from his creation, and hence remains dualist...and so there is little hope for a philosophy of transcendence between the dualist possiblity and monist possibility(as there is with Tantric philosophy). if you follow scripture, there is no room for uncertainty. and seeing that our experiences are uncertain, it takes a fair amount of rationalization to reconcile things to scripture. as an assimilative tradition, christianity has a few choices: 1) ignore science altogether (it had for a while), 2) overpower science for a while (ask giordano bruno about that), or 3) recontextualizing scientific theories as being caused by the creator god...and thus it engulfs through reduction.
merely assimilating scientific theory to sound like a more rationalist christian is like a corporation sugarcoating its mergers and acquisitions as "coexistence". while it leads to more tolerance, it still lives in a box...but for the assimilative traditions, that box can become pretty big at times.
it's funny, too, that we look at islam as having a lot of "backward" tendencies...but i think its resistance to science is a backlash against the incongruity of the aforementioned reduction. instead of allowing its scientific developments become assimilated into the religion, Islam chose to go with #1 and #2, ignorance and strongarming. maybe that seems backwards, but at least it's not hypocritical.
159. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 2:24:27 PM
PE
And thus my point. If you are seriously equating the early Church with the Moonies, then I feel sorry for you. I really don't know what else to say. If I am missing your point, well, when you basically make a point that makes no sense, I suppose it would be easy to miss.
"I claimed that it was Hellenism which introduced into the Abrahamic religions that modicum of rationality and philosophical reasonableness"
You don't mean into the written text, do you? I'll just assume you don't at this point. When did this "modicum" begin in your humble estimation?
160. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 2:28:43 PM
"infinitely more sophisticated Hellenistic civilisations"
PE, could you give me some examples of how they were more sophisticated than, say, the Christianity introduced in the New Testament texts?
"monotheism seems to keep god separate from his creation, and hence remains dualist"
Only if you pre-define "dualism" as keeping God and creation separate. But that isn't how I have understood dualism. Dualism as I have understood it involves two equal and opposite forces at play. The biblical depiction of monotheism doesn't come close to such a dualism.
161. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 2:41:55 PM
Well, it's probably futile to talk to a superstitious savage like Kuligin; that's why I was talking to Concerned, who I believe is an agnostic or atheist.
Message # 159: "And thus my point. If you are seriously equating the early Church with the Moonies, then I feel sorry for you."
Well, my point was that early Christianity was a cult, and like all cults, it was (and still is) full of nonsense, hogwash and superstititious mysteries which appealed to the desperate and/or the idiotic. This is not casting aspersion against Christianity, as I would gladly apply it all religions, including the ones (like Buddhism) which leftists like to defend.
"When did this "modicum" begin in your humble estimation?"
Well, Augustine's is as good a time as any, but I don't think Christianity really has a strong rational intellectual component until Aquinas.
Message # 160
"PE, could you give me some examples of how [Hellenistic civilisation] were more sophisticated than, say, the Christianity introduced in the New Testament texts?"
Well, the New Testament has no natural philosophy, and it has no rational metaphysics or epistemology -- things invented by the Greeks and imparted to the Christians. It's just a bunch of stories, some of them with ethical content which could be easily divorced from the occult stuff.
162. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 2:53:56 PM
Me: "When did this "modicum" begin in your humble estimation?"
PE: "Well, Augustine's is as good a time as any . . ."
Actually, I was thinking about Judaism at the time that I posted this.
"which appealed to the desperate and/or the idiotic"
... and the most intelligent men and women of practically any generation in practically any age.
"the New Testament has no natural philosophy, and it has no rational metaphysics or epistemology"
Would you consider the notion of 'revelation' a form of epistolomology?
And I do appreciate the savage comment.
163. ivan osokin - 6/5/2002 2:55:00 PM
i use the term dualism as keeping god separate from his creations...which is an essential paradigm in hindu philosophy. the advaitists (non=a, dvaita=dual) are nondualists and see that there is a god which is either in all things and thus, easily approachable (this is more of the qualified non-dualist, bhakti idea) or a god that is a higher being that can only be approached through a type of "gnosis" or "transcendence" (classical/samkhya yoga's position) but which ultimately shows all things to be "one" when that state is achieved.
there are few true "dualists" in hindu philosophy.
on the other hand, the tantrics take the advaita supposition a step further. in fact, to tantrics, there is no ultimacy...it's only the play of consciousness...it's an acceptance of particle and of wave simultaneously. as such, that which is god is also that which is me, and therefore i am equally god.
in a sense, if monotheism is opposed to your definition of dualism, ktheh, aren't we all equally god? if so, you're canceling yourself out because you surely don't assume you are god and you surely don't assume that god is equal to you.
164. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 2:59:08 PM
"Christianity before its Hellenisation -- whatever the level of education of its earliest, "pre-Hellenised" adherents -- was just another shithole cult out of the Middle East started by a cabal of provincial bumpkins, lunatic savages and wide-eyed fanatics."
If your time is that of Aquinas before Xianity became somewhat more 'reasonable' to you, it seems to me that to make such a sweeping judgment of all the Christians in the first 12 centuries of the faith is a bit much of a sweeping generalization to make.
But beside that, you presuppose that people who believe the "superstitious" material of Christianity (and I suppose of any religion) are de facto unintelligent. And thus my pointing to early Christian scholars who were anything but unintelligent. Your presupposition basically ends the discussion, though.
Let me ask you this. Do you conclude that all people who genuinely believe Jesus rose from the dead are unintelligent?
165. ivan osokin - 6/5/2002 3:00:18 PM
... and the most intelligent men and women of practically any generation in practically any age.
while this may be statistically true in some parts of the world (i.e., europe) due to the sheer numbers of christians, there were just as many intelligent men and women in the larger world and in other cultures for the past 2000 years as well. perhaps if we only consider europe as being the locus for anything intelligent, you may be right. but if i recall correctly, much of what we consider advances in civilization and technology over the last 2000 years were either imported from (i.e., absconded from) other cultures, created by christians who were chastized and ostracized by the church for their ideas, or developed separately elsewhere and earlier.
166. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 3:04:26 PM
"if monotheism is opposed to your definition of dualism, ktheh, aren't we all equally god?"
Ivan, what you seem to be calling "non-dualistic" systems are in essence pantheistic, at least what I see in your posts. And everything else that isn't pantheistic you are, by definition, labelling dualism. But I don't think dualism means that in its classic sense.
To answer your question above, let me clarify what I attempted to say ealier, perhaps not clearly. Biblical monotheism makes a clear distinction between God and his creation. But as one is all-powerful and the other only finds its existence derivatively from the all-powerful Creator, this isn't a dualistic system. Not at least as I have come to understand the term.
167. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:08:43 PM
Message # 162
"Actually, I was thinking about Judaism at the time that I posted this."
A lot of people talk about the ancient Hebrew contribution to world civilisation, but I just don't see it. What was this extraordinary contribution ?
Believe me, I say the same thing about Islam and its purported contributions to science, etc. Muslim scientists took the work of Greek (and Indian) mathematicians, etc. and built upon them, for sure, but I don't see why Islam was required for their fruition.
"Would you consider the notion of 'revelation' a form of epistolomology?"
Obviously no. Revelation is a cheater's epistemology.
"But beside that, you presuppose that people who believe the "superstitious" material of Christianity (and I suppose of any religion) are de facto unintelligent....Let me ask you this. Do you conclude that all people who genuinely believe Jesus rose from the dead are unintelligent?"
No! I said desperate or idiotic. I suppose desperate could also mean deluded in this case.
"Your presupposition basically ends the discussion, though."
You addressed me first. As I said before, the very point of the argument was whether there is any element of the rational in Christianity (or in any other monotheistic religion). Obviously if you're going to believe that some conman rose from the dead then it's hard to discuss rationality with you.
168. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 3:09:21 PM
"there were just as many intelligent men and women in the larger world and in other cultures for the past 2000 years as well"
ivan, I don't think my statement need be limited to Christianity and Europe. PE made the same sweeping condemnation of all religions in a recent post. And at this point I'll assume that the vast majority of the intelligent folks in these other cultures also were religious. If someone would care to disagree with this assumption, I'm all ears.
"much of what we consider advances in civilization and technology over the last 2000 years were either [1]imported from (i.e., absconded from) other cultures, [2]created by christians who were chastized and ostracized by the church for their ideas, or [3]developed separately elsewhere and earlier."
I have added the numbers for clarity's sake. This would be interesting to investigate. I wonder, though, about point 2. Outside of Galileo and a few others, how many more can you name that were genuinely ostracized for their technological ideas/inventions? I can begin to name many, many who were not. I think far too much is actually made of the relatively few cases where the Church ostracized genuine technological gurus.
169. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 3:14:39 PM
"Obviously if you're going to believe that some conman rose from the dead then it's hard to discuss rationality with you."
But there you go again! You say you do not believe all people who believe in the resurrection to be unintelligent, but your statement above seemingly contradicts that notion. You seem to make a false dichotomy between "intelligence and rationality" and "belief in the resurrection." However, again, many, many of the great inventors and scientific innovators of the last 3 centuries in Western civilization were "fundamentalist" Christians who believed in the resurrection.
"Revelation is a cheater's epistemology."
Perhaps, but as it is one way investigated for how people come to knowledge, it must be afforded epistemological characterization. And as such, the Bible does indeed have an epistemology.
170. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 3:19:54 PM
"A lot of people talk about the ancient Hebrew contribution to world civilisation, but I just don't see it. What was this extraordinary contribution?"
Perhaps a certain ethic? Certain social awareness like treatment of foreigners and slaves and the poor? Just guessing here. [in fact, if I recall correctly, this was one of the things Justin claimed the Greeks philosophers stole from the OT, their ethics (to some degree I suppose)]
"No! I said desperate or idiotic."
I see little difference between 'idiotic' and 'unintelligent.' However, I am just a superstitious savage.
"the very point of the argument was whether there is any element of the rational in Christianity (or in any other monotheistic religion)."
But you presuppose that if one believes in miracles and the like, one cannot be rational. Therefore, you ask a question for which you have already excluded, by definition, the answers.
171. KuligintheHooligan - 6/5/2002 3:21:29 PM
And with that, it is good evening from me.
And way to go USA in beating Portugal!! What a great upset! All these Angolans blokes living here in Namibia were stunned.
172. ivan osokin - 6/5/2002 3:24:30 PM
And at this point I'll assume that the vast majority of the intelligent folks in these other cultures also were religious
of course. but which society doesn't have religion? in some cultures, philosophy, science, and religion are one package...so of course their creative or scientific outcomes can be said to come from "religious" people.
as for being "ostracized", it's not only the technological ideas that i refer to...i'd include heretical ideas such as gnosticism or its related philosophies. i'd include the knights templar, who were ostensibly christian, being ostracized (oh, i mean tortured, killed, or imprisoned) for being heretics.
but for strictly technological ideas or inventions, not nearly as many...see my point 3. it's much easier to fit science into a religion than the reverse.
as for your definition of dualism/monotheism...i still think the idea of the creator as god who is seperate from his creation is implicit, because one can only worship god and not "be" god. however, it's a minor point because monotheism's conception of relationship to god is a uniquely monotheistic one and thus, works for monotheists.
as for pantheism...i know it's probably tough to swallow, but the hindu deities are conduits for your personal experience of the Divine (Brahma...the ineffable "one god" of all things)...they are like your own personal priest. they are not presuming to be THE god, and so maybe the idea that they are "pantheists" is missing the point.
if i were to ask 150 monotheists to draw a picture of god, each would look different. would they then be pantheists?
173. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 3:28:24 PM
But there you go again! You say you do not believe all people who believe in the resurrection to be unintelligent, but your statement above seemingly contradicts that notion.
Why ? Clearly, a multitude of very intelligent people did, and do, believe in the Nazarene commie-hippie's con-job. Intelligent people are not beyond believing in stupid things. That's why I said EITHER desperate OR idiotic.
You seem to make a false dichotomy between "intelligence and rationality" and "belief in the resurrection."
No I don't.
However, again, many, many of the great inventors and scientific innovators of the last 3 centuries in Western civilization were "fundamentalist" Christians who believed in the resurrection."
The very best of us suffer from the follies, limitations, prejudices, and superstititions of our times.
"And as such, the Bible does indeed have an epistemology."
Not a rational one.
174. PelleNilsson - 6/5/2002 3:53:00 PM
A lot of very intelligent people were communists. Another lot were nazis. Kuligin's argument is invalid.
175. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2002 6:09:56 PM
"However, again, many, many of the great inventors and scientific innovators of the last 3 centuries in Western civilization were "fundamentalist" Christians who believed in the resurrection."
That's just self-serving fundie myth. In the last three centuries, most scientists who believed in God were also deists. Deism is as far as from fundamentalism as it is possible to get; and it is in fact the only way to be "religious" while also being rational.
"Perhaps a certain ethic?"
Could you please cite what was ethically innovative about the Abrahamic religions ? Thou shallst not murder, steal or commit adultery ? Such ethical precepts are found amongst New Guinean forest-dwelling savages.
"But you presuppose that if one believes in miracles and the like, one cannot be rational. Therefore, you ask a question for which you have already excluded, by definition, the answers."
Even in Christian theology miracles are things beyond reason. Therefore, I am not doing anything particularly queer in supposing that those who believe in the miraculous are not particularly rational.
176. RickNelson - 6/5/2002 9:08:38 PM
"3) recontextualizing scientific theories as being caused by the creator god...and thus it engulfs through reduction. "
I will presume "reduction" to be my truth. I lack evidence that might be available to me, which could offer further justification of creation or evolution when my beliefs are paramount. However, that saying my beliefs are paramount, I also believe scientific theory. "Sugar coating" or not, "box" or not it doesn't really matter does it.
When taken seperately, I will have to decide that either is the one and only truth. Taken together I can assimilate the truths I have discovered, add others if they become available and lead a liberal christian life.
Well, I am at a disadvantage to discuss much of my own beliefs. I've not the time nor resources to achieve any comprehensive detail.
177. RickNelson - 6/5/2002 9:24:41 PM
Being rational isn't always about science is it?
Why must someone say that one is rational only when they adhere to non miraculous naturalism?
If I say that Jesus was resurrected I can understand someone else, being a naturalist saying that I am irrational. That does not however make me an irrational being. The person saying thus assumes they are correctly defining the evidence science and their education has extended to them. That is to say that faith is irrational.
178. ronski - 6/5/2002 11:23:03 PM
Faith is not rational. It has nothing to do with rationality.
PE, with whom I have often disagreed, is mopping the floor with you guys, even if he is ignorant about the work of Iranaeus.
No matter, though. Kuligan is wrong to suggest Iranaeus was not influenced by classicism. Iranaeus was born in Greece if I remember correctly, and certainly educated in a Hellenistic-friendly society.
Moreover, Judaism was also heavily influenced by the rationality of Hellenism, especially around the time of Christ. This does not in fact sit well today with extreme Orthodox Jews, for whom, to this day, a major insult is to call more modern religious Jews "Hellenists."
Moreover, early Christianity has been linked with the Essenes, who are thought to have been mystics and political activists revolting against the influence of the Greeks (as well as against Roman rule). Bumpkinism may not be the best word, but it captures part of it.
But this does not negate the fact that Christianity was influenced by Greek thought eventually, and, in fact, might possibly be said to have flourished in proportion to the degree with which it accepted it.
179. Jenerator - 6/5/2002 11:56:42 PM
I've really enjoyed this thread Ivan. You have managed to bring out the best debators in this website!
Where would you like to teach Religion, ideally? Betty has mentioned you studying at NYU. Where are you going later?
180. Jenerator - 6/5/2002 11:59:51 PM
Oh, and one last question, do you consider Hinduism to be polytheistic? If so, why, if not, why.
181. ronski - 6/6/2002 12:06:41 AM
I'll bite, though not asked. Hinduism is both polytheistic and not. Devotional Hinduism is more or less polytheistic, but modern intellectual Hinduism (Vedanta) is not.
182. ivan osokin - 6/6/2002 12:17:23 AM
jen...
actually, it's the University of Rochester, which has a much better reputation in religious studies...especially hindu tantra. where will i teach? who knows...i got a few years yet.
183. Khabees Khargosh - 6/6/2002 12:21:09 AM
"Faith is not rational. It has nothing to do with rationality."
I agree. Maybe It's a way to get away from rationality and ligic which often doesn't explain the events of an average man's daily life.
"Being rational isn't always about science is it?"
Definitely not.
184. ivan osokin - 6/6/2002 12:27:07 AM
ronski is quite right. by modern intellectual Hinduism i'm assuming you mean the vivekananda version of vedanta, not that which arises from the vedanta sutra commentaries of ramanuja (vasista advaita) or sankara (advaita) directly or from other pre-vivekananda vedanta philosophers.
it might be said that devotional hinduism uses the polytheistic metaphor to achieve a monotheistic end.
hindu shaiva temple structure, especially in south india, reflects this well. outwardly, it would appear to be polytheistic, but at it's core is the "One" that is experienced as an inner precinct reached through the outer precinct.
ronski, i'm interested in the modern vedanta that you refer to...you seem to have a grasp of it and i'd like to discuss, provided we are clear on what we are talking about :)
185. ronski - 6/6/2002 12:29:54 AM
KK,
I agree with your agreeing. And faith does not generally become a problem unless the faithful seek to impose their beliefs upon others.
186. Khabees Khargosh - 6/6/2002 12:36:30 AM
Ronski,
Exactly. And I believe preaching and imposing are two different things. Generally speaking I can't think of any religion which tells it's followers to impose itself onto others.
187. ivan osokin - 6/6/2002 12:41:07 AM
KK:
it's a very fine line between preaching and imposing...it's hard to figure out which is which and the imposers always think they are just "preaching".
i think any unwanted preaching which continues despite my objection is definitely an imposition.
188. ronski - 6/6/2002 12:42:58 AM
Ivan, Tovarich,
I agree. I am a kind of monotheist-pantheist myself, but I value, from a religious, not just cultural, perspective the Ganesha I keep at my portal, and the Shinto praying monkey that also graces my foyer. One can read the Hindu scriptures and find a growing acceptance of one god underlying all. You know, dualism to qualified dualism to monism.
189. Khabees Khargosh - 6/6/2002 12:51:57 AM
"i think any unwanted preaching which continues despite my objection is definitely an imposition."
Maybe That's the line.
190. ronski - 6/6/2002 12:53:05 AM
It's so late, good night, all. We'll take it up tomorrow. Dobrou noc.
191. marjoribanks - 6/6/2002 12:10:59 PM
Hmm. I've read back in this thread and have some general comments.
1) It has, indeed, been a good read. Kudos to the host who seems to have hit on a timely issue to discuss. I have no idea which way the thread is going exactly, but it has been fun and thoughtful so far.
2) Hooligan, thank you for your measured responses to my initial question. You are aware by now that I treat all missionaries with grave suspicion, and that I consider your brand of religion no better or worse than most other totemic cults, but I do always like and appreciate hearing/reading the explications (apologia?) which fuel your life's activity.
3) I share Pseuder's attitude towards Christianity and its rise to significance. Though this is one more area of relative ignorance for me, I'd like to see others who know more discuss the Roman Empire and its role in making Christianity more than just another revivalist sect. To my understanding, the fate of Christianity improved markedly under the emperor (forget his name) who decided to codify and institutionalize his entire realm and found Christianity a useful tool.
4) For all intents and purposes other than propagandistic slander, hinduism is not pantheistic. It is not so in practice, it is not so in common understanding of most Hindus.
5) Cliff had a good point about syncretism, related to Manson et al.
192. marjoribanks - 6/6/2002 12:18:15 PM
I will grant full disclosure.
Though I can best be described as a agnostic, I'm also prone to some little superstitions which coincide with religious practices. I prize the little Ganesha I have guarding my door, and also consider the syncretic modern Indian paintings in my collection to be a bit more than art.
I pray, my little family prays together, and my wife and I have a great interest in inculcating an appreciation of the divine in my still-small child. However, I (we) strenuously resist the dogma of the major religions, since it is very clear and obvious that they not only have no monopoly on the truth but have (being institutionalized) compounded error upon falsity to the point of ridiculousness.
Yes, I reserve ultimate scorn for religions which outrageously purport to be of
"the book" and totemically venerate the simple language of ancient texts.
193. judithathome - 6/6/2002 12:19:26 PM
the fate of Christianity improved markedly under the emperor (forget his name) who decided to codify and institutionalize his entire realm and found Christianity a useful tool.
I don't know if you mean Constantine but he did a lot to spread it to other lands, also, by building impressive churches wherever he went.
194. pelty - 6/6/2002 1:15:24 PM
Marj:
"I'd like to see others who know more discuss the Roman Empire and its role in making Christianity more than just another revivalist sect. To my understanding, the fate of Christianity improved markedly under the emperor (forget his name) who decided to codify and institutionalize his entire realm and found Christianity a useful tool."
If I may inject a comment here, Constantine's decision to legalize Christianity likely was based on two factors. The first is his mother's strong adherence to the religion. He sought to legalize his mom's extant practices. The second is that it is quite possible that Constantine was reacting to the massive growth of the religion in the 50 years preceding his reign. Christianity was not a backwater sect at this point, it was a large and important movement in the Empire, one that was growing exponentially and could not be ignored. If Constantine seized upon it as a "tool" he likely did so because it was an *obvious* demographic with which to align.
195. judithathome - 6/6/2002 1:40:09 PM
Pelty, if you're new here, welcome and if you've been here before, welcome back!
196. PelleNilsson - 6/6/2002 3:06:46 PM
I think pelty has been around.
"Roman empire" has to be qualified. Constantine, sitting in Constantinople, ruled over East Rome, the territory eventually to be transformed into the Byzantine Empire.
197. Raskolnikov - 6/7/2002 12:09:53 PM
1) Constantine ruled over both portions of the empire.
2) His mother was Christian? What is your source for this? I had heard that it was possible some of his family members were Christian, but I hadn't heard it was proved definitively.
3) The massive growth of Christianity in the years prior to Constantine's reign? There was an expansion of Christianity in the late 3rd century, but this was followed by what is usually considered to be the largest repression of Christianity in the history of the empire, by Diocletian, just prior to Constantine's rise to power.
4) Christianity was not the only religious cult in the Roman empire during the time of Constantine. Manicheanism was on the rise, and the cults of Mithras, Attis, and Isis had been popular for quite awhile. Given this, and given Diocletian's repression, I think it is simplistic to imply that Constantine was just reacting to its growth.
Constantine's conversion is always one of those great historical mysteries. But since Constantine had other cults to choose from if he just wanted to use religion as a unifier, I think cynical explanations are incomplete. Minimally, Constantine must have felt a particular affinity with Christianity, for whatever reasons.
198. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 12:15:28 PM
The other religions were not promissing heaven, christianity is the kind of religion for which people will die.
199. Raskolnikov - 6/7/2002 12:21:46 PM
I am no expert on it, but it is my understanding that the Manicheans believed in salvation/paradise/heaven.
I suppose, however, it is possible that Constantine saw the number of Christians willing to die for their beliefs, and saw potential strength in this.
200. ivan osokin - 6/7/2002 12:23:21 PM
add to god
i think that religions that were more egalitarian or "mystery"-ous were not as easy to manage. religions that were "occult", meaning, obscured from statecraft, were probably less viable for politicians to accept.
it's not just that christianity grew, it was manageable and more easily assimilated into the somewhat emaciated structure of the roman empire. 201. PelleNilsson - 6/7/2002 12:36:43 PM
"Christianity was manageable". Absolutely - remember "give to the Emperor".
202. ivan osokin - 6/7/2002 12:44:28 PM
oh...i meant to begin my previous statement with "add to godless cliff's idea:"
i don't know what happened.
203. PelleNilsson - 6/7/2002 12:59:27 PM
Rask
Constantine did indeed rule over the two halves from his defeat of Licianius in 324 to his death in 337 upon which the empire was again divided among his three sons.
I think it's generally accepted that his mother Helena was a christian. She initiated the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem. Led by divine inspiration she also found the remains of the Holy Cross. She was eventually canonized.
204. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 7:33:32 PM
Must be divine intervention :)
205. Khabees Khargosh - 6/8/2002 12:12:36 AM
Re # 17791 (NT&FS)
Marj,
It isn't a particularly interesting topic but I must correct you. Shaving pubic and axillary hair is "wajib" (next to a must) for ALL muslims, regardless of Shiite or Sunni. It is not in Quraan as you said, but Hadith has it and there are no two words on it. Keeping a beard is a "sunnah" so there is a bit of a difference between the two.
206. Khabees Khargosh - 6/8/2002 12:39:19 AM
All muslims agree on the "issue" regardless of thier location or sect.
Sunnah is something that the Prophet did and it's good if a muslim follows. Keeping shoulder length hair along with a beard is also a Sunnah for example, but not a must. A beard has more importance since it's a Sunnah of all the prophets.
207. godlessclif - 6/8/2002 2:05:49 AM
I was taught the Manichean Heresy consisted of the belief that the Devil could work miracles. Orthodox Christian belief maintains Satan has no power over "true christians". Manicheans feel Satan is dangerous and powerful and rules the earth.
They love to point out Jesus's statement "My Kingdom is not of this Earth"
A manichean will say, "Well whose Kindom is the Earth if it is not Jesus's Kingdom, why the prince of the powers of the air, Satan!!
At least that is what I was taught about them by some Jesuits I met. I have never met a real live Manichean.
208. Jenerator - 6/10/2002 12:08:10 PM
Ivan,
I don't understand your point, unless you are claiming that within Hiduism, the belief is that all beliefs/paths lead to one. That might be what the desired outcome is (Ie that all prayer and veneration will be honored by Shiva) but in daily practicality, aren't there many gods? Granted, they might be lesser gods, or gods perrceived as smaller partof the giant one, but they are still distinct and still worshipped. Right?
Marjoribanks,
When you speak in generalities such as "most hindus" or "practically all..." I am immdeiately suspicious. You seem woefully ignornant that "generally speaking" the "typical Hindu" in India, is a dirt-poor beggar living in sqalor adhering to the older tradition of beliefs.
Your average Indian didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth like you did; let alone even owning a spoon.
So, while you might know what is "generally practiced" in the upper eschalons of the miniscule wealthy minority in India, I don't think that you can fairly report on what is practiced or believed in the majority. You have even admitted to adhering to the caste system which limits you from mixing....
209. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 12:11:39 PM
Jen:
your comments to marj are so far off the mark and ignorant, i wonder what you consider YOUR qualifications to make such bold and unfounded accusations? YOU are the moderator of the Religions thread and this is what you think of a 4,000 year old religion?
210. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 12:12:25 PM
That is true, Most Hindu's you meet in the USA are in the Patel Class, like Apu Nahamasapetilon from the Simpsons, or higher [Raj class, Brahmin Class] and do not reflect the values of the common people there.
211. Jenerator - 6/10/2002 12:16:01 PM
Ivan,
What excatly did I say that was so terrible?
[[Btw, you must know that Marj and I have a history. He immediately assmues that any questions I ask are asked with some secret agenda in mind (because I am a Christian). I always assume that anything he says is done so out of an insecure need self-advertise.]]
212. Jenerator - 6/10/2002 12:17:02 PM
Btw, Ivan. Unless something happens in Kashmir, I will be going to India later this summer.
214. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 12:35:30 PM
Every knee shall bow, The Christianist Agenda.
215. concerned - 6/10/2002 2:00:48 PM
I hope the humor in this new thread's title is intentional, but have fears that it is not. It's laughable how the Left fulminates against the religion which has not been responsible for anything much more heinous than proselytization over the last several centuries.
216. judithathome - 6/10/2002 2:02:43 PM
Concerned, I hope your post was intended to be humorous, also, because it was.
217. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 2:06:56 PM
cancerned:
are you sure you're not just being sarcastic? i mean, i'm sure that murderer christian Kopp will use that in his defense..."it wasn't murdering a doctor, i proselytized him with a bullet and he just happened to die from it."
218. concerned - 6/10/2002 2:10:46 PM
Murder as proselytization. Now I know that Ivan is having us on.
219. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 2:16:38 PM
jen:
what i objected to was " the "typical Hindu" in India, is a dirt-poor beggar living in sqalor adhering to the older tradition of beliefs.
i mean, come on. all hindus adhere to an 'older tradition of beliefs'. are you implying that they are more superstitious, ignorant, or that they are yokels? it's been said that tantric practice and philosophy (shaiva tradition mostly) is the domain of the poor, because it ignores caste and as such, is more desirable to the poor. so there are numerous "poor" people in India who adhere to a very sophisticated religious philosophy and practice.
and second, i don't even know that there is a numerical majority that are "dirt poor beggars" (whatever that is). poor...sure...few countries can say that have a poor "minority". but beggars? that may be a true minority...and much would be temporary. after all, would the starving somalians be considered beggars? hardships happen everywhere.
hinduism may be guilty of being amenable to greed and capitalist materialism, but you're recontextualizing their situation based on how you think it would be seen here. one could argue that in a caste system that did not get interfered with by westernization, most people would be employed...even the lowest castes (someone needs to work in the cremation grounds or remove the garbage).
i don't think your generalization is any more valid than what you consider marj's generalization...and, the wealthy are usually the minority...even here in the states.
220. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 2:40:50 PM
Message # 215
I hope the humor in this new thread's title is intentional, but have fears that it is not. It's laughable how the Left fulminates against the religion which has not been responsible for anything much more heinous than proselytization over the last several centuries.
Nonsense.
Before the Holocaust, Jews spoke of Tsarist Russia -- an officially Christian state -- in the same terms as they speak of the Nazis today. Of couse the Russians hadn't killed millions of Jews, just tens of thousands.
But that's just one example.
Christians committed countless genocides against non-Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries.
221. concerned - 6/10/2002 7:00:38 PM
Christians committed countless genocides against non-Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Care to back up this scurrilous assertion, leaving out any 'genocides' which were, in reality, economically, politically or ideologically driven? I don't expect anything more than some very thin gruel, of course.
Face it, Christianity is tolerance itself when compared to the pseudo-religion oppressing those most backward people who populate the Middle East.
222. concerned - 6/10/2002 7:05:24 PM
Ivan -
I owe you a small apology. I see that you weren't trying to perpetrate a prank, but instead retitled your thread in reaction to the renaming of the former 'War Against Terrorism' thread.
223. concerned - 6/10/2002 7:05:36 PM
Ivan -
I owe you a small apology. I see that you weren't trying to perpetrate a prank, but instead retitled your thread in reaction to the renaming of the former 'War Against Terrorism' thread.
224. concerned - 6/10/2002 8:51:38 PM
Double post - due to slow link.
225. concerned - 6/10/2002 8:53:20 PM
But the new title still sounds silly. How about proposing some sort of argument showing how 'Christianism' 'threatens' the world, funny guy?
226. concerned - 6/10/2002 9:21:40 PM
Pakistani Christians Accused of Blasphemy Await Appeal Hearing
Can't let the eee-vil minions of Christianism gain a foothold in a Muslim country, now can they?
227. concerned - 6/10/2002 9:23:35 PM
That good old timey stone age religious 'law' can be sooooo useful when it is desired to do away with Kufr filth.
228. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 9:29:50 PM
concerned:
thanks for the apology.
but you missed the boat...christianism already threatened and it's already landed everywhere...storming the beach-heads of all those godless cultures of heathens, pagans, primitive polytheists, and any other "non-scheduled theologies" (as lenny bruce put it).
Christianism Inc. has become the most successful multinational righteousness conglomerate around today, with corporate offices everywhere...one is most assuredly near you. it doesn't threaten, it wins through lobbying.
on a completely unrelated subject: the atlantic monthly (magazine, not chat forum) called it the next problem religion a few months back.
229. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 9:38:16 PM
concerned:
thanks, also, for providing a press release from the desks of the papacy as a way to show how oppressed the poor christianists are. i'm sure they have nothing to gain by touting this terrible abuse, especially in a country that's been christian for its entire existence.
please. i'm sure the CIA provides similar memos showing how maligned they are by americans...memos which are read by overseas operatives teaching local third-world warlords how to inflict torture on captured enemies.
230. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 9:43:19 PM
Message # 221
I said: "Christians committed countless genocides against non-Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries."
Concerned responded:
"Care to back up this scurrilous assertion...."
Some genocides, or at least mass murders that I can think of, which have been committed by Christians in the 19th & 20th centuries:
- Native Americans in the 19th century (perpetrators: Europeans settlers in North America)
- Circassians in the Caucasus in the mid-19th century (perpetrators: imperial Russians)
- Kazaks in the mid-19th century and during WWI (perpetrators: imperial Russians)
- Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s (perpetrators: Serbs)
- natives of Congo throughout the 19th century (perpetrators: the Belgians)
- Algerians in the 1950s and 1960s (perpetrators: the French)
There are many other examples; and I don't see why we can't count the Nazis.
"....leaving out any 'genocides' which were, in reality, economically, politically or ideologically driven?"
I don't know what this means.exactly, but why should "economically, politically or ideologically driven" genocides be left out ?
"Face it, Christianity is tolerance itself when compared to the pseudo-religion oppressing those most backward people who populate the Middle East...."
Not at all. I would say that before the 18th century, Islam was much more tolerant than Christianity. But since the 18th century, Christianity began exceeding Islam in tolerance. By the 20th century, there's no question: Christian countries are much more tolerant than Muslim countries. 231. concerned - 6/10/2002 9:43:23 PM
ivan -
Thought you might be interested in a snapshot of just how, er,......effective......Sharia can be.
232. ronski - 6/10/2002 9:49:04 PM
This thread has gotten hopeless, suddenly.
Ivan, your criticism of Christian excesses is valid, but you cannot equate how Sharia (or Communist Chinese) are persecuting Christians with how Christian fundamentalist nutcases and the Vatican are treating non-Christians, or can you?
And certainly you know that I have serious qualms with Christian fundies and the Vatican, if only for their hideous treatment of gays.
But Christians are not sentencing non-Christians to 35 years in prison, or to death, for not following Christian "law."
233. concerned - 6/10/2002 9:53:33 PM
Native Americans in the 19th century (perpetrators: Europeans settlers in North America)
This doesn't hold. The only specific evidence I have garnered for such were the massacres of several dozen California Indians in the nineteenth Century. Contrary to loopy Leftist folklore, most settlers had to work hard to provide for their own survival when striking out into the wilderness. They simply did not have the need, inclination, time or ability to commit 'genocide' against Indians when clearing land and constructing dwellings to provide food and shelter for their wives and children.
This is not to say that the Indians did not engage in skirmishes and wars with and against other Indians and whites up until near the end of the nineteenth century. Most fatalities on both sides occurred during such actions.
234. ronski - 6/10/2002 9:54:57 PM
PE is correct about the tolerance issue. But Islam in centuries past was certainly at war with the West at times, and by extension, Christianity. The Arabs in Spain and the Turks in SE Europe certainly put some Christians to the sword and sought to Islamicize the Western world.
235. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 9:58:43 PM
concerned:
for crying out loud...what about the many indigenous american tribes and empires who were massacred or otherwise tortured by just about any christian explorer in the 16th and 17th centuries, as well as the clear mistreatment indicated in the columbus diaries?
236. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 10:05:50 PM
Message # 234: "But Islam in centuries past was certainly at war with the West at times, and by extension, Christianity. The Arabs in Spain and the Turks in SE Europe certainly put some Christians to the sword and sought to Islamicize the Western world."
What is the big deal anyway ? Before modern times, nations (or civilisations) conquered and tried to assimilate other nations (or civilisations). So what ?
237. concerned - 6/10/2002 10:06:47 PM
Well, I thought that we were confining ourselves to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I'm not saying that, generally speaking, white people didn't often impose on and cheat Indians from one to two hundred years ago. But, I just haven't seen evidence for any systematic religious, federal, state or county sponsored program of mass Indian extermination.
238. bubbaette - 6/10/2002 10:12:14 PM
How bout the trail of tears?
239. ronski - 6/10/2002 10:12:27 PM
PE,
You are right. There is no big deal. To dwell on centuries-old injustices is to act like a Bunch of Benighted Balkans.
240. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 10:13:03 PM
But Christians are not sentencing non-Christians to 35 years in prison, or to death, for not following Christian "law."
ronski...you're correct. but i want to propse a counterpoint.
a death sentence is not disguising itself as tolerance. punishment for blasphemy is not disguising itself as tolerance. but being pious christians and yet hating those evil sodomites for their sexual deviance, or those infidels, or those satanists, is hypocritical and dangerous. it's harsh punishment for blasphemy, but it's not all that much different than being arrested for public demonstrations against government policy...being beaten by police for criticizing economic institutions...being bombed or tortured for radical dissent. i mean...we're looking at one charge, "blasphemy", to show how "backwards" they are...yet, it's their law. if i break the law here, the theory is that i will be arrested and punished...so what if the law here was made by legislators, as opposed to "clergy"? in islamic nations, legislation and theology are not so separate. i would be willing to bet that most, if not all, of our laws here were made by christian lawmakers, judges, politicians, etc., who make us swear on the bible, so help me god, etc..
and make no mistake...if we had an american christian theocracy, i'm sure our prisons (including a swollen death row) would be loaded with gays, blasphemers, etc..
241. ronski - 6/10/2002 10:13:37 PM
bub,
Thanks. I was about to post that. I think Connie needs to do a bit more reading (but which of us doesn't?).
242. concerned - 6/10/2002 10:17:24 PM
Re. 238 -
That's the closest I know of, but there 'Indian Fighter' Andrew Jackson's primary objective was to relocate the Cherokee nation from the South to west of the Mississippi. In the process, he ignored the USSC's ruling granting the Cherokees sovereignty.
243. concerned - 6/10/2002 10:18:22 PM
ronski -
Check my last post. Thanks.
244. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 10:26:46 PM
No one said that European settlers put pacifist Native Americans in gas chambers. But the fact is that Europeans encroached on Indian land, tried to remove them from that land, and killed a whole lot of them when they naturally resisted.
245. sakonige - 6/10/2002 10:29:54 PM
The Americans also stripped them of their languages, customs, and community, and left them unable to obtain a livelihood.
246. sakonige - 6/10/2002 10:33:19 PM
'obtain' isn't the correct term in that usage, is it?
247. ronski - 6/10/2002 10:43:38 PM
ivan,
There is an enormous difference between an Islamic theocracy and the U.S. and other western republics and constitutional monarchies.
There is an enormous difference between sentencing gays to prison in Egypt (a ruling wisely overturned by Mubarak thanks largely to European pressure -- a small example of how Europe is not useless) or executing gays in Saudi Arabia (though granted the case may have involved actual pedophile scum), AND having a few idiotic sodomy laws in a a bunch of U.S. states that are rarely enforced (but when are is outrageous, granted). And certainly there is a difference between executing non-Muslims and beating the heads of a few violent leftists.
In a few words, to answer your post, it is "all that different." It is enormously different. The "hypocrisy" you posit is far preferable to the blood lust of Islamofascist theocrats, imo.
248. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 10:45:11 PM
but ronski...as i said, if we had become a theocracy run by christians, would it be any different?
249. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 10:55:38 PM
"in islamic nations, legislation and theology are not so separate."
To the contrary, in the overwhelming majority of Muslim-majority countries, Shariah (religious law) is not operative at all.
250. ronski - 6/10/2002 11:02:24 PM
ivan,
If we had, perhaps not. But the reality is we haven't, and, given the classical liberal, largely Deist, even Masonic tendencies of the Founders and Framers, it was not likely we would have.
251. ronski - 6/10/2002 11:05:27 PM
And PE is correct that Sharia is relatively rare among Muslim countries. We should work to keep that the case. It does not help to ignorantly condemn all Muslims. That does not make us any friends, or advance classical liberalism and tolerance.
252. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 11:37:26 PM
244. pseudoerasmus - 6/11/02 3:26:46 AM
No one said that European settlers put pacifist Native Americans in gas chambers. But the fact is that Europeans encroached on Indian land, tried to remove them from that land, and killed a whole lot of them when they naturally resisted
Only because they did not haver gas chambers. They did trade them smallpox infected blankets because they knew the natives had no immunity.
253. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 11:40:22 PM
And certainly there is a difference between executing non-Muslims and beating the heads of a few violent leftists.
I am one of those violent leftists who's head you want beaten in so I take that very personally.
When did you revke my american citizenship Mr Libertarians.
If you have no government who weild the New York Sticks in your riot control forces. I guess they must be all private detectives hired to make sure there is no free speech in your libertarian utopia.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top
Overview of World Religions