exactly .christianity is a slave religion adapted and propagated by the romans as a way to preserve their dying slave empire.

Christianity was made into a slave religion. It wasnt a slave religion to begin with as I pointed out earlier on its basic teachings.

I strongly doubt that the varied Christian saints were alien. Enlightened humans, yes, aliens no. Give our species some credit. Were Leonardo, Franklin and Archimedes also aliens? How about Aquinas, Pascal, Descartes, Hume, Voltaire, Siddhartha Buddha, Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Confucious etc?

Based on research I've done, the only "aliens" (or "light beings" or "ascended beings", etc.) are Jesus Christ and the "angels" that appeared in the bible. Like St. Michael, St. Gabriel, etc.

Yes I also do believe that the human race at one time had a higher level of technology than what we have today. Our civilization today probably is a joke compared to ancient Atlantis, Lemuria, Egypt, Mayan, etc.

Those pyramids arent built by aliens. Because why will an aliens come to earth just to build a pyramid? That doesnt make sense.

Humans did it but not through thousands of slaves pulling up rocks on ramps.

Either they had advanced tools to do that, or as one theory I've seen puts it: They were built using manipulation of reality by the Egyptian priests.

lothar

Vision
sheep are very stupid, mindless, are led by the shepherd who has absolute control over them only to be slaughtered and stripped naked and sold etc.. haha

exactly .christianity is a slave religion adapted and propagated by the romans as a way to preserve their dying slave empire.

Lothar read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Christianity killed the Roman empire as no one wanted to serve the empire anymore, they all wanted to wait for the End of Times and serve God. (horrid oversimplification to keep the post short) So Rome relaced the legions with hired barbarians to fight other barbarians. Eventually the barbarians saw the Christian Romans as weak and ran roughshod over them. After all once the barbarians came through that heralded the Second Coming... (Various accounts on Doomsdays and Apocalypses, if you knew how many times the Book of Revelation has been used; Caligula! Vandals! no, Goths! no, Huns!)

Christianity in the Roman Empire effectively ended slavery which died a slow lingering death as it evolved into serfdom during the Early Middle Ages. It was the whole "Christians don't make slaves of other Christians" idea, though you can make other Christians an exploited underclass.

At least the barbarians brought us pants and we're writing in the decendent of a barbarian language.

(Horrid over simplification to make a point :) , but basically historically valid)

And please kyupol don't forget the ascended masters who lived centuries before Jesus, Buddha? ;)

Wanna read about alien contact in the ancient world? The Maharabata? Hinduism and Buddhism? Then there's the first ascended master alien contact story The Book of Enoch? (early versions of the story have parallels in Sumerian myth)

You're not going back far enough. Christianity's versions of the legends of angels are at best garbled shadows of much earlier texts. Each of the "angels" is an adaptation of earlier Sumerian deities The Annunaki who were depicted as incredibly wise winged masters. That one line in Genesis about "There were giants in those days." ? (Nefilim=Annunaki "Those who came down") Nefilim is often translated as "angel"

According to one lingust the names of the angels are translations from the names of various Sumerian/Babylonian/Akkadian etc. deities.

lothar
exactly .christianity is a slave religion adapted and propagated by the romans as a way to preserve their dying slave empire.

Cause everyone knows the Romans loved Christians before the byzantine empire.

Bravo,

I hate to bring this up but why do you keep ignoring Christianity's roots in the Hebrew/Jewish faith, which includes their texts on angels (and which are quite extensive) and pre-date Christianity by thousands of years?

I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck but that's pretty glaring, considering how detailed you're being in other historical contexts.

As I'm sure you know, Jesus was a Jew and quoted Jewish scripture and observed the Jewish traditions. He did introduce the New Testament and changed the way Christians considered the Jewish law, but he also honored and did not exclude the rich history of the Jewish people from Christianity, nor did his disciples and followers.

I'll also emphasize once again that it is clearly stated in the New Testament that Christians are considered "spiritual jews." And the Bible which Christians use includes the Old Testament which contains much Jewish scripture.

bravo1102

lothar

Vision
sheep are very stupid, mindless, are led by the shepherd who has absolute control over them only to be slaughtered and stripped naked and sold etc.. haha

exactly .christianity is a slave religion adapted and propagated by the romans as a way to preserve their dying slave empire.

Lothar read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Christianity killed the Roman empire as no one wanted to serve the empire anymore, they all wanted to wait for the End of Times and serve God. (horrid oversimplification to keep the post short) So Rome relaced the legions with hired barbarians to fight other barbarians. Eventually the barbarians saw the Christian Romans as weak and ran roughshod over them. After all once the barbarians came through that heralded the Second Coming... (Various accounts on Doomsdays and Apocalypses, if you knew how many times the Book of Revelation has been used; Caligula! Vandals! no, Goths! no, Huns!)

Christianity in the Roman Empire effectively ended slavery which died a slow lingering death as it evolved into serfdom during the Early Middle Ages. It was the whole "Christians don't make slaves of other Christians" idea, though you can make other Christians an exploited underclass.

At least the barbarians brought us pants and we're writing in the decendent of a barbarian language.

(Horrid over simplification to make a point :) , but basically historically valid)

And please kyupol don't forget the ascended masters who lived centuries before Jesus, Buddha? ;)

Wanna read about alien contact in the ancient world? The Maharabata? Hinduism and Buddhism? Then there's the first ascended master alien contact story The Book of Enoch? (early versions of the story have parallels in Sumerian myth)

You're not going back far enough. Christianity's versions of the legends of angels are at best garbled shadows of much earlier texts. Each of the "angels" is an adaptation of earlier Sumerian deities The Annunaki who were depicted as incredibly wise winged masters. That one line in Genesis about "There were giants in those days." ? (Nefilim=Annunaki "Those who came down") Nefilim is often translated as "angel"

According to one lingust the names of the angels are translations from the names of various Sumerian/Babylonian/Akkadian etc. deities.

I'm not ignoring Judaism dueeast. I skip over it to get to the roots of Judaism.

Abraham, the first Jewish patriarch was from Ur. Ur was in Sumeria. Judean culture has all of its basis in Sumerian culture. Hebrew is a Semetic language. The root language of all Semetic tongues is Sumerian.

The tower of Babel was in Sumeria and it was called a ziggurat. The Flood is based on a much earlier tale in Sumerian myth.

I appreciate you clarifying your position, bravo.

However, Abraham left Ur specifically to break from what he had known because he believed that's what God told him (Genesis 12:1 - "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee" ), so we'll probably have to have a difference of opinion there. Sumeria may have had an influence, perhaps, being in the same region but basis for it's culture? I disagree pretty strongly.

Also, to discount ("skip over" ) thousands of years of relevant culture because you believe it has its basis in another culture is diminishing of that culture (in this case, all of Judaism) and borders disrespect, in my opinion.

Language is language, so I certainly won't debate liguistics. I took linguistics in college and understand your basis for comparison there.

And we'll have to respectfully disagree about the flood being based on a myth. B)

bravo1102
I'm not ignoring Judaism dueeast. I skip over it to get to the roots of Judaism.

Abraham, the first Jewish patriarch was from Ur. Ur was in Sumeria. Judean culture has all of its basis in Sumerian culture. Hebrew is a Semetic language. The root language of all Semetic tongues is Sumerian.

The tower of Babel was in Sumeria and it was called a ziggurat. The Flood is based on a much earlier tale in Sumerian myth.

the catholic church is just an extension of the roman empire , the protestant church came from the catholic. and there were plenty of (protestant)christians enslaving other christians in america for hundreds of years . or you can look at what the spanish and potuguese did in the americas and asia with the popes blessing. the doctrins of modern christianity are very freindly to slavery they teach obedience to the slave master and tell people to wait till they die and get their reward in another life. can anyone argue that christianity is not a religion well suited for slaves ?

Lothar, what is the deal with the slavery tie-in with you? Slavery has been a blight on history, no matter which people or tribe or culture was enslaved. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for 400 years but they were Hebrews first. It wasn't a slave religion or a religion well-suited to slaves only or mainly.

Judaism led to the offshooting of Christianity at/after the time of Jesus. The Catholic Church formed and Protestants branched off from the Catholic Church. But slavery is still around today in various parts of the world. What's your point? Even the Europeans and other cultures had endentured servants. People have used the enslavement of others for their own profit in probably every nation on the Earth, and its all equally terrible.

One could perhaps argue that faith in general could sustain one through slavery and help one cope and endure, but that's true of suffering in general and faith. I assure you just about every religion in its history had one (if not many) of its followers enslaved by someone else on some continent in some way. To say that a particular religion has ties to slavery is like saying only one people have ties to slavery. It's nonsense.

So I don't think that's something you can tack so easily on Christianity...

lothar
the catholic church is just an extension of the roman empire , the protestant church came from the catholic. and there were plenty of (protestant)christians enslaving other christians in america for hundreds of years . or you can look at what the spanish and potuguese did in the americas and asia with the popes blessing. the doctrins of modern christianity are very freindly to slavery they teach obedience to the slave master and tell people to wait till they die and get their reward in another life. can anyone argue that christianity is not a religion well suited for slaves ?

kyupol
Those pyramids arent built by aliens. Because why will an aliens come to earth just to build a pyramid? That doesnt make sense.

Humans did it but not through thousands of slaves pulling up rocks on ramps.

Either they had advanced tools to do that, or as one theory I've seen puts it: They were built using manipulation of reality by the Egyptian priests.

Recent theories have put forth the very simple explanation that the huge bricks were just milled up there.

Seems reasonable, drag up the materials which are much lighter seperately and then fashioned the blocks up there.

Kind of like the stonehenge guy who tilted a stonehenge size slab of cement by himself using only a basic fulcrum.

Sometimes the easiest explanation is the best.

I find this talk of ancient human advanced technology always amusing. At some point in the evolution of this advanced ancient culture they must have had some kind of relatively dirty nuclear power. There would have to have been some kind of residual fingerprint of their existence, right?

dueeast
Lothar, what is the deal with the slavery tie-in with you? Slavery has been a blight on history, no matter which people or tribe or culture was enslaved. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for 400 years but they were Hebrews first. It wasn't a slave religion or a religion well-suited to slaves only or mainly.

Judaism led to the offshooting of Christianity at/after the time of Jesus. The Catholic Church formed and Protestants branched off from the Catholic Church. But slavery is still around today in various parts of the world. What's your point? Even the Europeans and other cultures had endentured servants. People have used the enslavement of others for their own profit in probably every nation on the Earth, and its all equally terrible.

One could perhaps argue that faith in general could sustain one through slavery and help one cope and endure, but that's true of suffering in general and faith. I assure you just about every religion in its history had one (if not many) of its followers enslaved by someone else on some continent in some way. To say that a particular religion has ties to slavery is like saying only one people have ties to slavery. It's nonsense.

So I don't think that's something you can tack so easily on Christianity...

good point

i was framing it in an american perspective , wich is what i kniow mostly about .many religions Do seem to excuse (if not justify) human suffering in general - with the kind of thinking that regards the Earth as some sort of hellish trial or punishment. i think that christianity in particular , with it's emphasis on salvation and eternal life, is especially usefull to those in power to keep their people from attempting to better their situation in This life . there is a line between slavery and keeping people as underclass members of a society, but it is a fine line. and i know all cultures around the world have been guilty of this at some time. i just think that christianity has been used far too many times for such ends .

bush is just building an army for the great holy war.

I'm hoping that was a joke, sub. ;)

If it wasn't, how can Bush do anything like that when the evangelicals (like myself) have abandoned him (after he made it clear he didn't support us)?

subcultured
bush is just building an army for the great holy war.

i'm serious: bush wants a holy war or a crusade.

That's an old quote and he's going out of office soon. He's lost most of the support he may have had back then. I don't think you have too much to be concerned about with a Bush Crusade/Holy War.

And don't worry, "100 Year (War) McCain" doesn't have my vote. (Nobody does, at this point!)

subcultured
i'm serious: bush wants a holy war or a crusade.

Point#1

There is one HUGEproblem with a war that lasts generations, say 100 years.

It gives the enemy too much time and opportunity to figure out how to defeat you. Sure they might get disspirited but all they have to do is outlast you, wait until something distracts you and roll you up.

Civil Wars in one of the groups waging this incredibly long war are also usually inevitable as is the rise of a charismatic and gifted leader. Girls who see saints are good for that especially when they convienently fall into enemy hands and get themselves martyred. (great conspiracy theory: Joan of Arc was betrayed to purposely make her a martyr, but was saved and a fake substituted. There are documents possibly proving she lived to collect a pension from the French Government)

Point #2

Sumerian culture survived and then was revived and intruded itself into Hebrew history again and again. The Babylonians and Akkadians copied Sumerian culture. The Babylonian captivity had a huge impact on ancient Judaism. The Hebrew prophets were constantly railing against the Hebrews adopting Sumerian gods (Astarte is the Sumerian Inanna and all evidence indicates she was originally worshiped as the consort of Yahweh) The Phoenicians were influenced by Sumer and followed Sumerian models and they were Israel's next door neighbors and major trade partners. The calendar, the hours of the day and minutes in an hour are all from Sumer.

Abraham was Sumerian, arguably Sumerian nobility who migrated west because of Yahweh may not have been accepted in the Sumerian pantheon, but probably did originate in it. There are some language roots that indicate that Yahweh could be another name for a certain as yet unidentified Sumerian deity. After so many years and so many re-writes for political and religious reasons, the truth could get distorted. (like the fact that early Judaism was polytheistic and Astarte was the consort of Yahweh) But most of Genesis is an echo of Sumerian writings.

Humans have a tendency to distort the "word of god" over time for their own means. This is the reason often given why god has to come around from time to time and punish the unfaithful.

If the religious beliefs change over the centuries they adapt the past to support the present and adapt the present to be the fulfillment of prophecy. Maybe that's why god has stopped intruding himself directly into history; sheer frustration. But no matter how badly we humans stray he still loves us and at times that can be very comforting... even for an atheist. ;)

Correction: The adjective is Sumerian, the accepted name of the civilization is Sumer not Sumeria. My mistake.

Bravo,

In a way, you're making my point for me, by confirming the Bible. Many Jews were constantly turning to/worshipping the regional (ie Sumerian) gods throughout the Old Testament, thus the interspersing of the culture over and over again. The Sumerian people may have wanted to write myths linking their gods to Yahweh but the God of Hebrews (who referred to himself as Yahweh) insisted on no other gods beside himself, only God as part of the Trinity. The Babylonian captivity was a result of the previous following of yet other gods, not the other way around. But that would get into further discussion of specific Biblical texts and reasoning, in regards to what was referred to in the Old Testament repeatedly by its prophets as backsliding (going back to worshiping other gods instead of the God of Israel).

This "backsliding" is what led to the New Testament in the first place, in the view of Christians, because the Old Testament between the God of the Hebrews and his people wasn't being kept. This is one of many significant reasons a Messiah was needed and prophesized in Old Testament texts. Where Jews and Christians differ in belief is that the Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah and Christians (obviously) do.

So this does not support your hypothesis that Abraham's departure from his homeland to follow Yahweh was "probably originated in Sumerian pantheon" or anything of the like. That is pure hypothesis not supported by the facts. Abraham's existence, his journeys and his life, is well-documented. He is considered the father of both the Jewish/Israeli people and all Arab peoples, a belief fervently supported by both peoples to this day. This is also supported Biblically and historically as well.

An intriguing conversation. Thank you. B)

bravo1102
Point #2

Sumerian culture survived and then was revived and intruded itself into Hebrew history again and again. The Babylonians and Akkadians copied Sumerian culture. The Babylonian captivity had a huge impact on ancient Judaism. The Hebrew prophets were constantly railing against the Hebrews adopting Sumerian gods (Astarte is the Sumerian Inanna and all evidence indicates she was originally worshiped as the consort of Yahweh) The Phoenicians were influenced by Sumer and followed Sumerian models and they were Israel's next door neighbors and major trade partners. The calendar, the hours of the day and minutes in an hour are all from Sumer.

Abraham was Sumerian, arguably Sumerian nobility who migrated west because of Yahweh may not have been accepted in the Sumerian pantheon, but probably did originate in it. There are some language roots that indicate that Yahweh could be another name for a certain as yet unidentified Sumerian deity. After so many years and so many re-writes for political and religious reasons, the truth could get distorted. (like the fact that early Judaism was polytheistic and Astarte was the consort of Yahweh) But most of Genesis is an echo of Sumerian writings.

Humans have a tendency to distort the "word of god" over time for their own means. This is the reason often given why god has to come around from time to time and punish the unfaithful.

If the religious beliefs change over the centuries they adapt the past to support the present and adapt the present to be the fulfillment of prophecy. Maybe that's why god has stopped intruding himself directly into history; sheer frustration. But no matter how badly we humans stray he still loves us and at times that can be very comforting... even for an atheist. ;)

Correction: The adjective is Sumerian, the accepted name of the civilization is Sumer not Sumeria. My mistake.

kyupol
Those pyramids arent built by aliens. Because why will an aliens come to earth just to build a pyramid?

Honestly! Don't you people watch Stargate?!
;-)

Sumer and the rest of Mesapotamia created all of Semetic culture including the Hebrews. The Sumerians came first and had been around for several millenia before Abraham decided to leave Ur. (Did you know that he appears in Sumerian stories? Just like Noah and Enoch) Sumer had already created time and the calendar, the pyramids were built and already old and all the Egyptian and Sumerian Mythology was firmly in place. Then came Abraham. Genesis is a digest of Sumerian myth that was re-written later on to cut out the rest of the pantheon. There are even some who believe that the Hebrews whole heartedly adopted Babylonian mythology (Sumerian with language changes)and discarded any earlier beliefs. There is evidence that Solomon's Temple was built for the worship of more than one deity. Judasim grew out of Sumerian and other Semetic culture.

Each city in Sumer had the one god before all others, just like the Ten Commandments command. Read in Hebrew, the Ten Commandments allow for other gods and the others are secondary. It was not until much later that Judasim became monotheistic. The Bible has been re-written alot, but enough remains to give clues as to what the earlier beliefs were. Those beliefs had other gods, Yahweh had a consort, Egyptian, Philistine but primarily Sumerian influences ruled the people that became the Hebrews. But they were Sumerian first and Yahweh was one of many gods. After all why would he say he is a jealous god when there is no one else to be jealous of?

As I said before the Old Testament was rewritten numerous times to make the past agree with the present but sometimes they didn't quite get all the polythesistic references out and they didn't mind plagarizing Sumerian myth.

Though the Bible has been proven right again and again with the kings and cities it mentions, there is a lot of the story that the Bible doesn't tell. After all it was written from the POV of the Hebrews and then re-written to make the beliefs appear unchanging. Just like archeology proved the Trojan war, but the Illiad and Odyssey didn't tell the whole story or even half of it.

Sorry for not responding sooner, Bravo. I saw this late last night, shook my head and went to bed.

This reminds me once again that people are going to believe what they're going to believe. You expend a great deal of energy, effort/research and faith (yes, faith) in not believing/trusting the Bible and having what appears to be a secular philosophy and approach to life. And, of course, you have every right to do that. B)

On the other hand, I spend a great deal of energy, effort/research and faith in believing the Bible and using it as a guide/philosophy/approach for my life. And I have every right to do that, too. :)

No one here seems to be saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong, which is as it should be. But it is also getting extremely pointless for both sides of this discussion to spew mountains of facts when clearly, we are not going to convince one another of much of anything. And it's just going to get more ridiculous to continue a debate where convincing is not achievable or even the goal, wouldn't you agree?

We have gotten WAY far away from Skullbie's original post. We've made this a fundamental debate over Biblical substance and historic accuracies and even delved into ancient civilization/mythos vs. religious text theories. And while potentially intellectually satisfying for a bit, it really is time to end this, in my opinion.

I even kind of think this thread might be a good candidate for being locked, but that's a moderator/admin decision.

bravo1102
Sumer and the rest of Mesapotamia created all of Semetic culture including the Hebrews. The Sumerians came first and had been around for several millenia before Abraham decided to leave Ur. (Did you know that he appears in Sumerian stories? Just like Noah and Enoch) Sumer had already created time and the calendar, the pyramids were built and already old and all the Egyptian and Sumerian Mythology was firmly in place. Then came Abraham. Genesis is a digest of Sumerian myth that was re-written later on to cut out the rest of the pantheon. There are even some who believe that the Hebrews whole heartedly adopted Babylonian mythology (Sumerian with language changes)and discarded any earlier beliefs. There is evidence that Solomon's Temple was built for the worship of more than one deity. Judasim grew out of Sumerian and other Semetic culture.

Each city in Sumer had the one god before all others, just like the Ten Commandments command. Read in Hebrew, the Ten Commandments allow for other gods and the others are secondary. It was not until much later that Judasim became monotheistic. The Bible has been re-written alot, but enough remains to give clues as to what the earlier beliefs were. Those beliefs had other gods, Yahweh had a consort, Egyptian, Philistine but primarily Sumerian influences ruled the people that became the Hebrews. But they were Sumerian first and Yahweh was one of many gods. After all why would he say he is a jealous god when there is no one else to be jealous of?

As I said before the Old Testament was rewritten numerous times to make the past agree with the present but sometimes they didn't quite get all the polythesistic references out and they didn't mind plagarizing Sumerian myth.

Though the Bible has been proven right again and again with the kings and cities it mentions, there is a lot of the story that the Bible doesn't tell. After all it was written from the POV of the Hebrews and then re-written to make the beliefs appear unchanging. Just like archeology proved the Trojan war, but the Illiad and Odyssey didn't tell the whole story or even half of it.

Then what about Zoroastrianism?

dueeast
Sorry for not responding sooner, Bravo. I saw this late last night, shook my head and went to bed.

This reminds me once again that people are going to believe what they're going to believe. You expend a great deal of energy, effort/research and faith (yes, faith) in not believing/trusting the Bible and having what appears to be a secular philosophy and approach to life. And, of course, you have every right to do that. B)

On the other hand, I spend a great deal of energy, effort/research and faith in believing the Bible and using it as a guide/philosophy/approach for my life. And I have every right to do that, too. :)

No one here seems to be saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong, which is as it should be. But it is also getting extremely pointless for both sides of this discussion to spew mountains of facts when clearly, we are not going to convince one another of much of anything. And it's just going to get more ridiculous to continue a debate where convincing is not achievable or even the goal, wouldn't you agree?

We have gotten WAY far away from Skullbie's original post. We've made this a fundamental debate over Biblical substance and historic accuracies and even delved into ancient civilization/mythos vs. religious text theories. And while potentially intellectually satisfying for a bit, it really is time to end this, in my opinion.

I even kind of think this thread might be a good candidate for being locked, but that's a moderator/admin decision.

After I posted I realized the same thing. :) I see the Bible as history and believe in it as historical source material. It comes back to my realizing that ideas evolve and whether one sees this as the influence of a deity or of just humans is the primary difference in our opinions.

Of course the burden of evidence in archeology and the historical paradigm is shifting in the direction of seeing the Truth of Faith as different from the cold hard facts of history. That is about our interpretation of what god has revealed to we poor misunderstanding humans. If god exists as God then I don't think humans have come up with the right interpretation of Her yet. (IMHO that's another human misinterpretation, if God has a gender it should be female, but please let's not go down that road)

As for Zoroaster: dualism was his major contribution. Before him Good versus Evil was not so black and white. In fact there were stories in Sumerian myth written from the POV of the "evil" antagonist. Set/Seth was not always a true villain and had a sphere where he was worshipped and reverred. Moral relativism may be far older than we think. :) He is also a relative late-comer only dating from about the same time as Buddha and the Sumerians are 3000 years older than that with the Hebrews appearing as a seperate people maybe 1000 years after that?

I still think inviting Paul Kurtz of Christopher Hitchens to speak in a High School after the evangelist would be fair, even if it would get whoever suggested it pilloried and burned at the stake. (unfaithful heathen! Immoral monster! Where's the devil's mark! Devil's spawn! Antichrist! Atheists/secular humanists: according to polls the most hated minority in the USA :)

bravo1102
Atheists/secular humanists: according to polls the most hated minority in the USA :)

And there's damn good reason for that. ;)
It's part of that dualistic way of thinking the religion adopted way back then. And as you'd be perfectly aware, Christianity is a major basis for Western Culture.

-Atheists become the devil. It's their role. And the sad thing is many relish it. Instead of being something else, they become something in relation to. Then we come to humanism, which is just an extension of Christianity (the way of thinking comes from that influence on Western culture), but without the theology and equally flawed.

You'd be better of getting a social anthropologist to unpack the ideas presented, not someone who's presentation amounts to a rival cultural ideology.

dueeast
We have gotten WAY far away from Skullbie's original post.

Yah

ozoneocean

bravo1102
Atheists/secular humanists: according to polls the most hated minority in the USA :)

And there's damn good reason for that. ;)
It's part of that dualistic way of thinking the religion adopted way back then. And as you'd be perfectly aware, Christianity is a major basis for Western Culture.

-Atheists become the devil. It's their role. And the sad thing is many relish it. Instead of being something else, they become something in relation to. Then we come to humanism, which is just an extension of Christianity (the way of thinking comes from that influence on Western culture), but without the theology and equally flawed.

You'd be better of getting a social anthropologist to unpack the ideas presented, not someone who's presentation amounts to a rival cultural ideology.

How can Humanism come from Christianity when it predates it by several centuries? And how can Humanism be Christian when the guys in the Renaissance who first expounded it in it's modern form were anti-clerical and sought the seperation of religion and morality as it was in the pre-Christian Classical World? :)

I only used those two names because they're familar and widely viewed as the secular equivelent of an evangelical Christian. Besides, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Steve Allen, Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke aren't giving presentations any more. (Or other great secular moralists like Lao Tzu and Confucious?)

(And I am trying to bring it back to the original topic with the "equal time" argument)

Oh really Bravo... Linear relationships? Come on man.
No. As I said, Christianity is very much at the core of Western Culture. Whether some idea of humanisim came from the Greeks or whatever is nice and quaint, but you should know that what was the main driving force for the spread of knowledge, art, and all the rest of it in that region for mliienia was Christianity. I'll concede that many things were absorbed into Christianity to make it what it was but once they were in it, they were in it.
And the people who later adopted certain notions got in FROM there, even if they went back to the earlier sources later. This isn't special knowledge. Even your "anticlerics" came from the same tradition... ;)

Claiming some sort of seperate, inviolate herritage is as bad as what some Wiccans do. o_O

--------------
"Equal" arguments of the kind you mention just fall into the expected Christian patern, so they're easy for them to demonise. Besides, after being pummled by one ideology, it's hardly fair to subject them to another.

Wait, does that mean you can't talk to them about any world view? Ideologies are belief systems and are part of the human psyche and provide us with the means to define our world. Shouldn't the young minds full of mush be presented with them so they make their own choices as opposed to wandering around and waking up in middle age and having a nervous breakdown because of a lack of identity and a well-developed world view?

So without one you're lost and more subject to all sorts of wonderful mental illnesses (depression and anxiety especially, not that I'm trying to diagnose anyone.)

As for the Christian influence of Western world view you're exaggerating it especially following the Renaissance and the rise of secularism after the Enlightenment. Though I do agree it is all-persuasive like Confuscianism in China. The people who followed it believed it was a linear relationship and they were following directly in the footsteps of those ancient models. Don't try to obfuscate their thought processes and beliefs as expressed in their writing with post-modern interpretations based on what has happened since.

There is a lot more evidence for attempted seperation of world view from the trammels of Christianity following ancient models than there is for modern neo-Paganism. After all you can't compare the influence of Erasmus, Descartes, Hume et al. following ancient models than Madame Blavatsky and Crowley. Modern neo-paganism can be traced to them and then the trail sort of vanishes except for some confessions of witches and mythology (Hammer of the Witches etc.)

The point to me, of Skulbie's contention is the situation of this involuntary group being subjected to an ideology that has nothing to do with the education they're meant to be there to experience. More of the same sort of thing, even of a different flavour would, be worse in my opinion. :)
---------------------------------

I don't think I'm exaggerating the Christian Influence. I'm not talking ideology and belief here strictly, I'm talking the entire cultural bureaucratic machinery of the thing. It is only due to this that those Greek writings even survived into Renaissance, let alone the way people were conditioned to think about them- Christian teaching is already humanist. Indeed, I think you're underestimating the influence of Christianity on the West :)

I don't attempt to obfuscate anybody's thought process, I don't need to. We simply know very well the cultural framework that existed at the time, long before, and since. It's simply bizarre to imagine that there could have been separate, parallel civilisations of thought existing along side each other, never interacting- lol!

The Wiccan comparison was valid-> making connection and tracing linage while at the same time ignoring the medium through which this linage has been allowed, been suffered to exist. And did of course transform it and dictate in what form the ideas survived. That's simply how culture evolves and ideas are transferred.
Not in Archaeological, Stasis or mathematically precise fingerprints that retain their purity through time. ^_^

That's quite an old fashioned Modernist view. I much Prefer the generous accommodation of Post Modernism, than kyou very much! :)

iv had many experiences like that in my school. surprisingly, even though most of my school is made up of muslims and agnostics, its always a christian nutcase XD .

one followed me off the b us and onto the campus, giving me a " ten commandmants coin" and asked if i was a christian. at the time i was a closet athiest so i said yes. he asked me all these idiotic questions about sin that if jesus where there he would even rolll his eyes. finally he got to the lie part>:
him: " have you ever lied?"
me: " uh yeah. "
him: " you know that lying is a sin right?"
me: " yeah."
him: " do u wanna go to hell? "
me: " im not going to hell. im sure god understands that u have to lie sometimes."
him: " well then since every sin is equal then i can rape you and tell god that he should understand and forgive me."
me : O.O
finally having enough with this nut case ( and christianity ) i told him that ill e happy in hell, and he walked away. now every time someone comes up to me i just tell them that i worship satan ( which i dont, but satan is smarter and more kind than god in the bible, therefor cooler in my book.)
that usually keeps them away.

jissai
.... satan is smarter and more kind than god in the bible, therefor cooler in my book.)

yea , god acts like a tottal dick !!!
i think satan is just trying to help humans and god is jealous and freaks out on him and calls him a terrorist and stuff ! it's realy not fair becuase satan didn't get any say about what went into the bible , so of course it's all skewed against him .

lothar

jissai
.... satan is smarter and more kind than god in the bible, therefor cooler in my book.)

yea , god acts like a tottal dick !!!
i think satan is just trying to help humans and god is jealous and freaks out on him and calls him a terrorist and stuff ! it's realy not fair becuase satan didn't get any say about what went into the bible , so of course it's all skewed against him .

Yeah, that's why I like the Book of Job. Satan is Yahweh's right hand guy while they play with some poor schlub's life like I'd play a video game.

Oh and Ozoneocean now you've clarified your points, I agree. After all a lot of Classical Knowledge is lost and the Renaissance was based on interpretations of interpretations. Some great Classical thinkers were no more than names in a digest.

But you are in error about the influences on modern neo-paganism. Most of the historical assumptions in its creation have since been refuted and reinterpreted based on subsequent research. Madame Blavatsky practically invented modern neo-pagan/theosophical thought even strongly influencing Scientology.

It's a lot of fun explaining all this to a practicing Wicca. Though skyclad dancing can be fun. :)