Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha were all ‘gods’ who weren’t about ‘smiting’, had teachings similar to those you describe, and pre-dated Christ. It was only revolutionary for Jesus if you discount all those who previously said similar things.

Seems unfair to condemn the entire religion because some people are abusing it.

Agreed. And it’s equally wrong to praise a religion just because some people in that religion do good.

I think the word’s ‘mythical’ rather than ‘fictional’, with some probable factual roots, albeit no contemporary sources. So I’d probably not had allowed this in the OP’s game had I been umpiring. And like most people on here I have a PhD in something both useless and irrelevant which I don’t like to mention. Hth.

the Christians did much the same thing in turn (and on a vastly more destructive scale)

It really does depend on what you mean, and what period you are talking. The Inquisition, for example, is a hideous mark on the history of Christianity, but it was quite culturally and regionally-specific. In this respect, I would always warn against historical caricature.

Latin is not relevant today and the word science has a different meaning to the latin word that it is derived from.

@poah, I can’t tell if you’re just being oppositional or not, but to say that Latin is not relevant today is just bizarre. Classicists, historians, linguists, theologians, philosophers… all would be incredulous at such a suggestion. Or are you one of those people who think that the only things worth studying are the sciences?

And as for science carrying a different meaning today than the word from which it is derived: what are talking about? Traditionally there is are two types of study: liberal arts and servile arts. the liberal arts involved free enquiry while the servile arts were directed at specific ends.

So, for example, grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy (all of which should be understood in their most inclusive possible sense) were liberal, or free. Medicine, architecture, engineering: these were servile. They were derived from the free, but limited by their application. The “sciences”, as we now call them, were originally just the different avenues of “natural philosophy”. They came into their own right post-Enlightenment, and took on the name “sciences” simply to distinguish them from the other free arts. In classical terms, they are still “arts”.

Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha were all ‘gods’ who weren’t about ‘smiting’, had teachings similar to those you describe, and pre-dated Christ. I

Buddha Does Not smite. Not even his “enemy(s)” Go read up on Pali scripts (Theravada (Pali) Not Mahayana (Sankscript which is the latter school) and find me teaching of Buddha that smites. Buddha has never taught anything about smiting but rather explained the karmic consequences to those that inflict on others. The harshest reprimand Buddha handed was once calling a person “silly” after the person steadfastly refused to accept logic without knowing his own karmic infliction.

As for the other ‘gods’ they might smite but you need to understand why they smite and for what reasons. I doubt they smite for no reason.

— (@easily … apology for the above as I misread above in response …) —

— (response below for everyone … )—

The earliest form of “religion” or belief are those of Animism which involved the “worshipping” of the nature (Five elements) and to some extend the spirits of the ancestors (as a sign of remembrance and respect). Animism can be found all over the world and predated all religions or teachings. Are they wrong? Of course not because that is their belief.

If you take the pluralistic views then they all right in their own ways. But when you start to dismiss those that are not aligned with your views then you are essentially endorsing the “living god” views like those of the ruling elites of the Egyptians or Romans or etc. The equivalent in the modern society can be those in power that insist on their way and their only logic.

When the well known phrase like “Everyone is a Buddha” is mentioned, this does not mean that everyone is a Buddha or “living god” but rather the person has the ability to do good and progress in the right path by doing no/lesser evil.

In addition to knowing oneself (religion/belief etc) it might also be helpful if a person can truly understand others (religion/belief etc) to complete his/her view (religion/belief etc).

Aren’t most of the parables in the Bible lifted directly from Buddhism?

It is universal so rather than saying “lifted directly” there are matters that are universal to all. Buddha merely emphasised them in more details to “awake” the people via his own experience. The rest is up to them.

Buddha Does Not smite.

Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha were all ‘gods’ who weren’t about ‘smiting’,

Isn’t that exactly what @easily said ?

Isn’t that exactly what @easily said ?

@easily and All.

Opps my apology … somehow when I was reading I missed the “‘t” (weren’t). Aaargghhh … me bad.

It was only revolutionary for Jesus if you discount all those who previously said similar things.

It was revolutionary and more importantly seditious in the Greco-Roman world.

And it’s equally wrong to praise a religion just because some people in that religion do good.

I’m not praising it. All I ever want is a fair treatment of the subject.

“Look at the bad stuff these Christians did” isn’t a fair reason to condemn the entire faith, purely from a logical standpoint.

For those who are new to STW religion threads I should make it clear that I’m an atheist.

Thanks @leffeboy, you are right, I meant they didn’t smite. I didn’t construct my sentences very well: “had teachings similar to those you describe” can be read in various ways. I was referring to the ‘christian’ teaching that molgrips mentioned

@anagallis_arvensis

Just read your post saxonrider, so do you “”believe” in jesus christ as well as the existence of jesus? If so how do you put one view aside to asses the evidence, not trying to have a dig just think its an interesting conundrum. I really couldnt care less if he did or didnt have have no strong opinions eithercway.

You’re right to ask.

Yes I do and yes I do is the answer. The thing is, from the time I began studying theology academically, I was never scandalised by the possibility of challenge, errors, developments, etc.

I suppose I don’t have a crystal clear answer as to why, but whereas some of my classmates were so shocked by what they were encountering they either lost their faith or became entrenched and somewhat fundamentalist, I, together with a good many others, were more like our completely secular colleagues who were only studying the subject out of pure interest: we weren’t bothered in the least, and loved the challenge of wrestling with all the questions theology raised and that were raised against theology.

In this respect, I suppose it was all just good academic training. You simply learn to test your theories and beliefs, and those that pass, you re-appropriate for yourself. My own faith was never of a fundamentalist sort, and I was always taught – both at home and in formal study – to take questions seriously and follow where they went.

I suppose the only thing that ever bothers me about these sorts of threads are the assumptions made by some that their objections are new, and that no person of faith has ever considered them before. Even Prof Dawkins acknowledges in private that he sits among equals when he is with people like Rowan Williams. Meaning that he knows faith is never a black and white question.

Ultimately, because faith is not the same as knowledge, it is not necessarily beset by challenges to the knowledge bank that informs it. But to be clear, and as many philosophers contend, although faith is not a knowledge category, that does not make it de facto anti-intellectual.

Does that answer your question?

It is universal so rather than saying “lifted directly” there are matters that are universal to all.

Well said, @chewkw.

At the behest if those in power who want to adapt it to their whims. Would we be Protestants if Fat Harry hasn’t wanted to divorce Catherine?

Fat Harry remained a Catholic to the end.

The central thought behind Luther was to push back against the obvious corruption of the Catholic Church

molgrips

It was revolutionary and more importantly seditious in the Greco-Roman world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism#Beginnings_of_Roman_Mithraism
Mithras was known to the Romans, and some Romans worshipped him, either before or contemporaneously with the beginnings of Christianity. Mithraism has similar teachings.

I’m not trying to deny the importance of Christian teaching here, but it wasn’t unique or especially original – it just happens to be the religion that took hold in Rome and so the Roman Empire. Because it survived in Europe we know more about Christianity than other religions of the same time. If Mithraism had been the one that became ingrained you might be here arguing that it was revolutionary and seditious.

@chewkw
No problem, I’m enjoying the discussion and knew where you were coming from.

Does that answer your question?

Kind of, I may have to read it a few times though!!

Does the theological literature become polarised between believers and no believers at all?
I was an ecologist and used to get right pissed of with environmentalists using the science all wrong for example.

Animism slowly disappeared when religions were introduced or come into being.

Remember people once called those who practised Animism as barbarians?

There are several arguments to this.
1. The practice of animal or human sacrifice become too painful for the society because the ruling class forced it upon them. Some ruling class considered themselves as the “elements”.
2. Society rejected them because family were forced to give up their love ones for sacrifice or even livestock (costly) and people slowly rebelled against the idea.
3. Their teachings were inconsistent i.e. different places worship the elements differently.
3. The “gods” of animism themselves were incomplete and some considered them as lower “gods”.

Nothing to do with conquest then?

Nothing to do with conquest then?

That too but that is minor because their belief were Not dislodged externally but coming from within. i.e. their own people. Remember, if it was Not sacrifice it would be force labour in the name of the “living gods”.

SaxonRider

I don’t think poah is being deliberately confrontational. It seems to me that poah is referring to the modern ‘scientific method’ rather than any traditional Latin meaning. (Poah forgive me if I get this wrong) poah is saying that the Latin meaning of ‘science’ is not relevant in this discussion, rather than saying Latin is itself irrelevant; and that the scientific method is what is important in deciding what is true, rather than any methods referred to as science in ancient times.

Does the theological literature become polarised between believers and no believers at all?

All theological literature will presuppose the existence of God, but you might imagine the scope of the literature to be similar to the Political Compass. In other words, you might divide it into quadrants on a scale of Catholic -> Protestant and Liberal -> Conservative. But this doesn’t account for the Eastern (Greek and Syriac) theological world, which is quite different.

What’s tough is explaining to the non-theological world how questions about God’s existence are not theological. At best, they are philosophical – and even that only when they are properly cast.

I suppose the biggest problem faced by theologians, though, is just bad, or strongly denominational, theology.

@SaxonRider

Also when religious leaders (some) talk loudly about ” … speaks the truth …” (took me a while to understand this … a bit slow me), what they might have missed or perhaps misunderstood is the meaning of “truth” themselves which relates to universal logic. (my understanding based on comparing various religious views … )

The problem with these religious leaders (some) is that they don’t know how to explain the meaning behind the term “truth” and practically stopped at the text.

A good religious leaders (someone to be considered very knowledgable in the past) should be able to explain and articulate the points clearly.

That too but that is minor because their belief were Not dislodged externally but coming from within. i.e. their own people. Remember, if it was Not sacrifice it would be force labour in the name of the “living gods”.

????

The Romans essentially cleansed the druidic tradition in the occupied parts of Britain. They even documented it fairly well.

The same happened elsewhere, in fact the Romans were infamous for coopting local religions into their culture effectively homogenising them.

The main religions are differentiated by their desire to convert. Lots of religions don’t encourage conversion as they are more closely associated with the genetic identity of the followers.

The Romans essentially cleansed the druidic tradition in the occupied parts of Britain. They even documented it fairly well.

I suspect it was the people (own) that gave up on their own tradition as the alternative provided by the Romans were either too attractive or the people gave it up themselves due to “modernisation” (force upon or genuine improvement in lifestyle). Remember it was a belief. You can’t exactly force people to change what they belief in other than offering them alternatives to help them forget/give up their own belief. Therefore, my view is that the damage was done more internally.

The same happened elsewhere, in fact the Romans were infamous for coopting local religions into their culture effectively homogenising them.

How do you explain those Romans in Asia minor who became Buddhist? They did not manage to convert the locals but instead they went native. The Roman loved Buddhism so much they even created the “first Roman” Buddha image.

The main religions are differentiated by their desire to convert. Lots of religions don’t encourage conversion as they are more closely associated with the genetic identity of the followers.

The desire to convert can be due to several reasons: politically motivated, self-interest or to educate the “barbarians” (human or animal cost). The latter is with the help from the people themselves who discard old ruling belief.

Re Druids, this:

The desire to convert can be due to several reasons: politically motivated, self-interest or to educate the “barbarians” (human or animal cost).

AIUI Druids were the ruling class which is why they had to go. Romans didn’t need all their subjects to believe in their religion, AFAIK.

The main religions are differentiated by their desire to convert.

Christianity and Islam have form on this but I’m not sure about Judaism, Hinduism or the others.

You can’t exactly force people to change what they belief in other than offering them alternatives to help them forget/give up their own belief.

You can however convince them that they aren’t wrong and you just see their gods in a different way and it’s the same thing really. Hence Christmas being Saturnalia/winter solstice – as SaxonRider explained to me.

Christianity and Islam have form on this but I’m not sure about Judaism, Hinduism or the others.

I suspect the starting point of spreading the teachings was all with good intention. i.e. like educating the masses (region specific) in hygiene both in thinking and way of life. BBQ-ing human for food is no good and sacrificing another being only bring more hatred and sorrow etc. But as time passed the spreading of teaching become a competition in the amount of “members” you have in the flock, because the larger the flock the more elevated the person becomes. Power and greed slowly Crept in. Then the competition becomes nasty and certain practices cross boundary. For example, the funeral practice where in hot climate human body decades rather quickly (those with kidney problems or internal organ problems decade even faster) so the burial needs to take place rather quickly to avoid spreading of disease but in colder climate the burial does not take place immediately … This is not a very good example but something that is regional specific but as the teachings spread they become common practice whether the people like it or not.

Got to say, now the knee jerk objectors have left it alone, I’m loving this thread. Always been interested in early Christian history and theology, and some great questions and answers in this discussion.

All theological literature will presuppose the existence of God

Oh right, so that brings us back to evidence for Jesus being presupposed to exist doesnt it? Interesting subject, I doubt we would agree on much but a talk over a few pints would be fun I’m sure, its hard to do over the interwebs without offending though.

@saxonrider – When studying Christian religious texts do you cross reference against other older texts from different religions? Look for similar themes and stories etc in order to ascertain which elements predate Christianity? Genuinely interested to find out if this is so something that is undertaken.

Skipping back to smiting

God’s were all about being powerful and smiting enemies if you flattered them enough. But Jesus’s message was
entirely different.

Wasn’t Jesus doing his dads bidding, spreading peace and love? They same God that flooded the world cos he was narked and wrought plague and pestilence on Egypt? Not consistent is he?

When studying Christian religious texts do you cross reference against other older texts from different religions? Look for similar themes and stories etc in order to ascertain which elements predate Christianity?

Not wishing to speak for SaxonRider but this is certainly carried out. Which is why you know about it I expect 🙂 I think it’s what comparative religious studies is.

@saxonrider – When studying Christian religious texts do you cross reference against other older texts from different religions? Look for similar themes and stories etc in order to ascertain which elements predate Christianity? Genuinely interested to find out if this is so something that is undertaken.

Absolutely. In terms of ancient Judaism, for example, the Gilgamesh Epic is hugely influential, as are elements of Zoroastrianism. And of course Christian theology itself draws heavily from Stoicism and Neoplatonism.

Ultimately, because faith is not the same as knowledge, it is not necessarily beset by challenges to the knowledge bank that informs it. But to be clear, and as many philosophers contend, although faith is not a knowledge category, that does not make it de facto anti-intellectual.

I do object to religious faith (and the study thereof) being afforded a different status to other forms of belief.

It really does depend on what you mean, and what period you are talking

From post Nicene period mostly, although I will of course bow to your greater knowledge, my understanding is that although it’s part of the founding myth of modern Christianity, the persecution under the Romans was (by comparison) much less dramatic, than the various inter orthodox struggles. Many sects including ebionites, gnostism, montanism, etc were variously either rejected or destroyed and by 5th century with have the beginning of the orthodoxy that would become the Church. Coupled with an utter rejection of “classical gods” and many works and art that formed part of that world, the early Christians put to death those that would not come to the faith and destroyed libraries, schools, temples statues and so on.

Thanks to early Christians we now have fewer ancient manuscripts works of art and so on that we would otherwise still have. This isn’t the fault of modern Christian worshippers of course, but knowledge of this part of the church’s early existence shouldn’t be hidden either.

Latin is not relevant today and the word science has a different meaning to the latin word that it is derived from.

Or are you one of those people who think that the only things worth studying are the sciences?

The sciences are one area in particular where Latin is used extensively! Animal and plant taxonomy is always shown in Latin, using a system developed by Charles Linnaeus, because common names can vary widely for the same animal with a wide distribution, one example is the Mountain Lion, or Cougar, Puma, etc.

The word ‘cougar’ is borrowed from the Portuguese çuçuarana, via French; it was originally derived from the Tupi language. A current form in Brazil is suçuarana.[11] In the 17th century, Georg Marcgrave named it cuguacu ara. Marcgrave’s rendering was reproduced in 1648 by his associate Willem Piso. Cuguacu ara was then adopted by John Ray in 1693.[12] In 1774, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon converted cuguacu ara to cuguar, which was later modified to “cougar” in English.[13][14][15]

Puma is the common name used in Latin America and most parts of Europe. The term puma is also used in the United States.[16][17][18][19] The first use of ‘puma’ in English dates to 1777, introduced from Spanish, and prior from the Peruvian Quechua language in the 16th century, where it means “powerful”.[20]

In the United States and Canada, it also called mountain lion, a name first used in writing in 1858.[21] Other names include panther, painter and catamount. Early Spanish explorers of the Americas called it ‘gato monte’ meaning cat of the mountain, and ‘leon’ meaning lion.[4]

The cougar holds the Guinness record for the animal with the greatest number of names, with over 40 in English alone.[22]

Regarding Animism, the Japanese have a form of Animist worship, in fact they happily use two forms of belief, three if you include Christians.
The main two are Shintō and Buddhist – it’s often said that in Japan one is born Shintō and dies Buddhist, both are well integrated into Japanese culture.

Thanks to early Christians we now have fewer ancient manuscripts works of art and so on that we would otherwise still have.

But surely this is just ‘people’ rather than being specifically early Christians? Unless you are sure that they were MORE warlike and destructive than other religious/ethnic groups?

Nah ‘grips, specifically Christians, hence my picture on the previous page, the gouging of crosses and the breaking off of noses on religious statues was entirely a Christian endeavour, and repeated over and over throughout the classical world. The persecution of early Christians was repaid in full and with interest.

Wasn’t Jesus doing his dads bidding, spreading peace and love? They same God that flooded the world cos he was narked and wrought plague and pestilence on Egypt? Not consistent is he?

This is something that interests me because it appears something of a paradox. However from what I’ve read I think the issue is that the Bible itself is simply a collection of books with different human authors, which were not originally written to be part of a holy canon. So each book represents the author’s understanding of God and reflects the issues facing the author at the time.

The Jewish tradition is one of study and reflection, so the books are compiled for that purpose not as a single coherent instruction manual.

the gouging of crosses and the breaking off of noses on religious statues was entirely a Christian endeavour

Alright but you’re saying no other cultural group vandalised the icons and art of any other throughout world history except for Christians?

I think the problem here is that once Christianity became widely established as a state religion then by default it includes nearly everyone, so any atrocities or abuses that the power of the day wished to commit can be labelled as ‘Christian’ if you want to. People are always going to fight about something. Islam has had the same sectarian in-fighting.

A quick scan of this wiki page regarding Hinduism suggests it’s fairly universal. Some shocking stuff on there.

but you’re saying no other cultural group vandalised the icons

No, I’m not, and haven’t said that. I’m being very specific about the early Christian sects and their treatment of those they deemed heretical. Other religions have obviously done these sorts of things as well.

It looks like you’re singling out early Christianity as being particularly violent and intolerant as a group – but to me it just looks like the same old shit from humanity in general.

But you are right to point out that Christians have not historically been above this kind of thing just like everyone else. This is something that I think some Christians don’t acknowledge, because it’s their team – just like some Americans don’t acknowledge their country’s genocide or some British don’t acknowledge the horrors perpetrated by the empire.