I'm amused at how we confidently look back on the religions of past civilizations, even laugh at their zealousy, and then practice Christianity without giving a second thought as to how similiarly ridiculous it is to the countless religions that have lived and died. Yes, it has become the most widespread and the most historically powerful, but when you get down to it, it's just as ridiculous as Zeus and the rest of the Pantheon sitting up in Olympus playing games.

I honestly wonder whether Christianity will be in the same boat as the various ancient religions in another 2000 years.

I think this constantly and you'll notice that most theists can never see it, EVER.

But today we have so many more forms of media to spread the propaganda. Christianity will go on.

What's more amusing is when some christians laugh at the stupid beliefs people had in the past and then take very similar mythical sounding beliefs as truth and history.

Stop laughing at the dudes up in the pantheon. They invented science and music, Jehova invented circumsision.



So tell me why belief in the hellenistic gods is irrational.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Stop laughing at the dudes up in the pantheon. They invented science and music, Jehova invented circumsision.



So tell me why belief in the hellenistic gods is irrational.



Applause... excellent.

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

I'm amused at how we confidently look back on the religions of past civilizations, even laugh at their zealousy, and then practice Christianity without giving a second thought as to how similiarly ridiculous it is to the countless religions that have lived and died. Yes, it has become the most widespread and the most historically powerful, but when you get down to it, it's just as ridiculous as Zeus and the rest of the Pantheon sitting up in Olympus playing games.

I honestly wonder whether Christianity will be in the same boat as the various ancient religions in another 2000 years.

If you can't see the biggest differences between the Greek Gods and modern christianity, then you're stupider than I originally thought you for.

While both essentially do the same thing(explain the unexplainable), they both aren't equal. Christianity has gone through centuries worth of evolution. The Greek Gods stayed the same for centuries. Christianity changed as society and culture changed. It adapted. The ancient religions didn't. Christianity, whether you'll admit it or not, is also a lot better reasoned and way more lgocial than most of the popular ancient religions.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If you can't see the biggest differences between the Greek Gods and modern christianity, then you're stupider than I originally thought you for.

While both essentially do the same thing(explain the unexplainable), they both aren't equal. Christianity has gone through centuries worth of evolution. The Greek Gods stayed the same for centuries. Christianity changed as society and culture changed. It adapted. The ancient religions didn't. Christianity, whether you'll admit it or not, is also a lot better reasoned and way more lgocial than most of the popular ancient religions.



You're retarded, stupid moderator.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

While both essentially do the same thing(explain the unexplainable), they both aren't equal. Christianity has gone through centuries worth of evolution. The Greek Gods stayed the same for centuries. Christianity changed as society and culture changed. It adapted. The ancient religions didn't. Christianity, whether you'll admit it or not, is also a lot better reasoned and way more lgocial than most of the popular ancient religions.

Hard to reply to such a general statement... if you mean Jesus's teachings, they usually concerned man and man's behaviour and that makes them a good basis for a more "logical" faith. A great philosopher can definitely come up with more logical concepts to modern people than the founders of ancient religions who lived probably thousands of years ago. I include old testament Jehova in those religions.

Other than that, christianity hasn't given better explanations, just better promises. The evolution/adaptation part is quite false. The ancient gods were modeled after humans and thus quite capable of adaptation. Polytheism also provides a god for every new concept that could change society.

The changes that christianity went through were not slow as it happens in evolution but rather sudden decisions of ecumenical meetings of mortal priests whose motives were rarely spiritual.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

You're retarded, stupid moderator.

I have posted this before. This is an excerpt of an essay by H. K. Mencken. It's almost the whole thing:

Where is the grave-yard of dead gods? What lingering mourner waters their mounds? There was a day when Jupiter was the king of the gods, and any man who doubted his puissance was ipso facto a barbarian and an ignoramus. But where in all the world is there a man who worships Jupiter today? And what of Huitzilopochtli? In one year – and it is no more than five hundred years ago – 50,000 youths and maidens were slain in sacrifice to him. Today, if he is remembered at all, it is only by some vagrant savage in the depths of the Mexican forest. Huitzilopochtli, like many other gods, had no human father; his mother was a virtuous widow; he was born of an apparently innocent flirtation that she carried on with the sun. When he frowned, his father, the sun, stood still. When he roared wit rage, earthquakes engulfed whole cities. When he thirsted he was watered with 10,000 gallons of human blood. But today [in 1921] Huitzilopochtli is as magnificently forgotten as Allen G. Thurman. Once the peer of Allah, Buddha, and Wotan, he is now the peer of General Coxey, Richmond P. Hobson, Nan Petterson, Alton B. Parker, Adelina Patti, General Weyler, and Tom Sharkey.

Speaking of Huitzilopochtli recalls his brother, Tezcatlipoca. Tezcatlipoca was almost as powerful: He consumed 25,000 virgins a year. Lead me to his tomb: I would weep, and hang a couronne des perles. But who knows where it is? Or where the grave of Quetzalcoatl is? Or Tialoc? Or Chalchihuitlicue? Or Xiehtecutli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazoleotl, the goddess of love? Or Mictlan? Or Ixtililton? Or Omacatl? Or Yacatecutli? Or Mixcoatl? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles? Where are their bones? Where is the willow on which they hung their harps? In what forlorn and unheard of hell do they away the resurrection morn? Who enjoys their residuary estates? Or that of Dis, whom Caesar found to be the chief god of the Celts? Or that of Tarves, the bull? Or that of Moccos, the pig? Or that of Epona, the mare? Or that of Mullo, the celestial jack-ass? There was a time when the Irish revered all these gods as violently as they now hate the English. But today even the drunkest Irishman laughs at them.

[…] You think I may spoof. That I invent names. I do not. Ask the rector to lend you any good treatise on comparative religion: You will find them all listed. They were gods of the highest standing and dignity – gods of civilizes peoples – worshiped and believed in by millions. All were theoretically omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal. And all are dead.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Hard to reply to such a general statement... if you mean Jesus's teachings, they usually concerned man and man's behaviour and that makes them a good basis for a more "logical" faith. A great philosopher can definitely come up with more logical concepts to modern people than the founders of ancient religions who lived probably thousands of years ago. I include old testament Jehova in those religions.

Other than that, christianity hasn't given better explanations, just better promises. The evolution/adaptation part is quite false. The ancient gods were modeled after humans and thus quite capable of adaptation. Polytheism also provides a god for every new concept that could change society.

The changes that christianity went through were not slow as it happens in evolution but rather sudden decisions of ecumenical meetings of mortal priests whose motives were rarely spiritual.

Except those ecumenical councils and what not rarely made huge changes in doctorine. Most of the biggest decisions had nothing to do with doctorine but rather with how they present doctorine, or the councils had to do with church positions on current events.

Name one council in the last 500 years where the christian doctorine was radically changed? You can't because all the change occurred slowly over time.

I'd also like to know how the polytheistic religions could have adapted when they aren't even around anymore. I guess you'll have to explain that to me as well. If they actually did adapt, then they would have survived.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Except those ecumenical councils and what not rarely made huge changes in doctorine. Most of the biggest decisions had nothing to do with doctorine but rather with how they present doctorine, or the councils had to do with church positions on current events.

Name one council in the last 500 years where the christian doctorine was radically changed? You can't because all the change occurred slowly over time.

I'd also like to know how the polytheistic religions could have adapted when they aren't even around anymore. I guess you'll have to explain that to me as well. If they actually did adapt, then they would have survived.



Firstly, adaptation doesn't guarantee survival. The dinosaurs were adapted before struck by the meteor. Some lizards survive today still.

Secondly, I don't see any slow change. I'm sure there have been changes in the french revolution but that wasn't slow. Care to offer an example?

You said they changed quickly. What proof do you have for that?

It's really hard to show slow and gradual change throughout history, but it should be easy for you to show rapid change like you said christianity experienced.

I ask again, name one council in the last 500 years where christianity greatly changed it's doctorine?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You said they changed quickly. What proof do you have for that?

It's really hard to show slow and gradual change throughout history, but it should be easy for you to show rapid change like you said christianity experienced.

I ask again, name one council in the last 500 years where christianity greatly changed it's doctorine?

"History? What history? The victors of war create history." - Napolean Bonaparte

Napoleon, are you seriously claiming that ancient religions came into being fully formed? They had to have developed over centuries or millenia, assuredly more rapidly than Christianity, at least before writing was popular.

Christianity is evolving though. AHigh ranking members of the Vatican are saying that evolution is real. It's the protestants who aren't. And why should they? The Bible is The Truth, and the only truth they'll need.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Napoleon, are you seriously claiming that ancient religions came into being fully formed? They had to have developed over centuries or millenia, assuredly more rapidly than Christianity, at least before writing was popular.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm saying that they couldn't change when change was necessary for their survival. I don't think I need to get into the counter-reformation or Vatican II do I?

They developed over time, but they never changed or adapted to ensure their survival like christianity has. There is a difference between developing over time and adapting over time(if just small a difference).

Most of those old religions died when their cultures disappeared, or were replaced with other religions that persecuted them (like Christianity). And yes, they did adapt over time. Religion adapts when the supporting culture changes.

You could say that the reason why Christianity and Islam are still so influential is because of a case of survival of the fittest. Both Christianity and Islam are aggressive and intolerant religions on average.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Except those ecumenical councils and what not rarely made huge changes in doctorine. Most of the biggest decisions had nothing to do with doctorine but rather with how they present doctorine, or the councils had to do with church positions on current events.

Name one council in the last 500 years where the christian doctorine was radically changed? You can't because all the change occurred slowly over time.

I'd also like to know how the polytheistic religions could have adapted when they aren't even around anymore. I guess you'll have to explain that to me as well. If they actually did adapt, then they would have survived.

I don't know if this meets the 500 year mark or not, but it's within a century. Punctuation.

As to how the polythesiac religions change, there is an interesting thing. Roughly, there are three stages in the Greek Mythology, the first where the Olympions were all knowing, powerful, commanding, the Second where man could get away with lil things, and the third where they became more of a joke and entertainment.

Afterthought: If you didn't understand what I meant by punctuation, research it, but the first books didn't come with it, or with vowels, punctuation itself, gives new interpretations and meanings to verses. They made a very radical change.

I'm talking more about an acknowledged change. Punctuation(taking your word for it because I never knew this was an issue) would have been more like a bump in the road that they had to adapt to. What doctorine(if any) changed as a result of the use of punctuation?

quote:Most of those old religions died when their cultures disappeared, or were replaced with other religions that persecuted them (like Christianity). And yes, they did adapt over time. Religion adapts when the supporting culture changes.

You could say that the reason why Christianity and Islam are still so influential is because of a case of survival of the fittest. Both Christianity and Islam are aggressive and intolerant religions on average.

Examples then? If Greek polytheism adapted as Greek culture became hellenistic then why didn't it survive?

Christianity survived persecution from the nads of Roman polytheism, so why can't the polytheistic religions survive persecution?

quote:As to how the polythesiac religions change, there is an interesting thing. Roughly, there are three stages in the Greek Mythology, the first where the Olympions were all knowing, powerful, commanding, the Second where man could get away with lil things, and the third where they became more of a joke and entertainment.

They did change. I already acknowledged this. However, most of them could not adapt when it was necessary for their survival. Greek polytheism couldn't survive Roman and Ottoman control for whatever reasons. Roman polytheism couldn't survive Rome's christian conversion. These are events that the polytheistic religions couldn't change in reaction to. On the other hand, christianity has reacted to such events. Catholicism reacted to the reformation. I also already mentioned Vatican II which is another huge adaptation by Catholicism.

Napoleon, what you're saying is that as compared to sticking to the core beliefs propulgated by Jesus (and Peter, Paul, John, etc.), Christians reinterpreted their religion, changed their beliefs, and conformed to what they were required to do by non-Christians and corrupt religious authorities.

Isn't truth self-evident and able to stand on its own, or is it that modern Christianity has become a "new" truth, adaptable to the present needs of society?

quote:Examples then? If Greek polytheism adapted as Greek culture became hellenistic then why didn't it survive?

Christianity survived persecution from the nads of Roman polytheism, so why can't the polytheistic religions survive persecution?

Christianity is an aggressive and intolerant belief. There's the whole heaven/hell thing, which gives people an emotional reason to believe in it. Then you have Christian evangelism, which further spreads the beliefs. It is intolerant in that it portrays other religions as worshipping evil incarnate. By being intolerant it makes other religions unacceptable beliefs, thus Christians will try to convert them. Zoroastrianism was aggressive for a while, but because of its religious tolerance it eventually decided that it shouldn't try to convert people to their religion.

Also, even though Christianity was persecuted for a while, don't forget that it was eventually made the state religion of Rome. Christianity had itself a firm political foundation ever since the time of Constantine. That isn't the whole story, but it did have a lot to do with how wide-spread Christianity is today.

Adaptation to Schisms within one's own religions are vastly different than adaptations to the emergence of a new religion.

The reason Greek Polytheism "couldn't survive" Roman Polytheism is that the Romans didn't "kill" Greek gods, they simply renamed them and fit them into their current scheme of gods. There was no "death" simply a "transition" to new names for the same old gods.

The reason Roman Polytheism "couldn't survive" Roman Conversion to Christianity is that it was THE THING to do to emulate the Emperor, and when Constantine assumed the throne (the first Christian Emperor of Rome) all of the nobility, wealthy, socially mobile, etc suddenly "became" Christian to be cool. They didn't even know what it MEANT to be Christian, they just wanted to be like the Emperor. It was during this time that the first of the Ecumentical councils was arranged, to answer the plight of how to deal with this new "problem"...They needed a plan, because now they had their first officially sanctioned Christian empire and the Imperial support and protection, ironically from the very empire that once persecuted and executed them under previous emperors.

From the 2nd to 7th Centuries C.E. is when the Church did the majority of it's development and growth, and not one Ecumenical council was held until Constantine's rule. Prior to that, the Church was very loosely organized and there were myraid viewpoints within the "Christians" of the time about many things within the religion. There were also a multitude of "Holy" scriptures which were highly revered at the time by almost all of the different veiwpoints, but which have not been included in the current Bible for various reasons.

Scripture changed dramatically over the first 500 years of the Church's growth, this is a historical fact. The changes were made for political reasons, for the most part, or to hedge out one viewpoint or another that was deemed dangerous or heretical by the majority of the ATTENDING priests, bishops, arch-bishops, etc...Many of the Ecumenical councils did not even have the current Pope in Attendance, which led to the Sanctioning Emperor having more direction over the church's decisions than the Pope himself, and was kind of the point.

The reason there haven't been any Ecumenical Councils which drastically changed the Church in the past 50 years is that there have been no Emperors with more power than the Pope, the Holy Roman Empire no longer exists. Thus all changes to doctrine have been simply handed down via the Pope and his council, and have been accepted and integrated with no need for Ecumenical Councils.

If you don't think the church's doctrine, views, and tenets have been changing all this time, you are naive. Each pope brings his own interpretations and agenda to the position, and the church is altered by each.

As for Protestantism, that's a new faction/cult child of Catholicism which in it's original birthing was the biggest threat to the Church's power (political and spiritual) since before Constantine came to power. Martin Luther shook the Church up hard with his 95 Theses on the Wittenburg church door. But prior to that he had been shaking up the church and Catholics with his teachings. He actually had the guts to publicly condemn Pope Leo III as a heretic who went against the teachings of Christ, which of course, landed him on public enemy number 1 for the Church. However the church could not quash his message, and was forced to adapt as more and more followers of Lutheran teachings began to crop up.

Since that time, the Church has existed as a much weakened and wounded animal, limping along even more so than it did after the split of the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church. However, 1800 years is a drop in the bucket compared to the time that some spiritual faiths have existed, propigated, and thrived, even if they had to remain hidden from Christianity's vengeful fingers...And besides, if longevity is the measure of the more logical or True religion, then you have to concede to Judaism as the oldest of the Judeo-Christian Monotheistic faiths, and arguably still one of the most powerful in the Western World.

Talk about tenacity, endurance, and adaptation....

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

Napoleon, what you're saying is that as compared to sticking to the core beliefs propulgated by Jesus (and Peter, Paul, John, etc.), Christians reinterpreted their religion, changed their beliefs, and conformed to what they were required to do by non-Christians and corrupt religious authorities.

Well if you're going to put it that way, then no. Christianity never changed at the behest of corrupt officials or non christians. They only reinterpreted their religion when they had to. When new logic or evidence, or new schools of thought presented themselves. I don't even know when was the last time christianity changed their beliefs(doctorine). Christian doctorine didn't change in either Vatican II or the counter-reformation. You'd also have to define how they conformed. If you look around society today, would you say that christianity has conformed to society or that society is conforming to christianity? I'd pick the latter. Now in Vatican II Roman Catholicism conformed a little bit, but I don't think switching to the vernacular counts as a significant change in belief. That had more to do with making Catholicism more accessible.

quote:Isn't truth self-evident and able to stand on its own, or is it that modern Christianity has become a "new" truth, adaptable to the present needs of society?

Religion, like philosophy, adapts and changes in accordance with society. Religion is just a perspective on things, plus a little but more. I'd say that ALL religion adapt to the present needs of society in their own ways, not just christianity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:Christianity is an aggressive and intolerant belief. There's the whole heaven/hell thing, which gives people an emotional reason to believe in it. Then you have Christian evangelism, which further spreads the beliefs. It is intolerant in that it portrays other religions as worshipping evil incarnate. By being intolerant it makes other religions unacceptable beliefs, thus Christians will try to convert them. Zoroastrianism was aggressive for a while, but because of its religious tolerance it eventually decided that it shouldn't try to convert people to their religion.

That is one small sect of christianity. Why do you neglect the largest sect(Roman Catholicism)? All Catholics and most protestants(Lutherans, Anglicans, etc...) readily accept and condone the beliefs of others. You can't label a religion intolerant based off a small regional sect. That is why I still think of Islam as a religion of peace, because GASP! Most muslims are peaceful. Likewise, you should think of christianity as a tolerant religion because most christians are tolerant.

quote:Also, even though Christianity was persecuted for a while, don't forget that it was eventually made the state religion of Rome. Christianity had itself a firm political foundation ever since the time of Constantine. That isn't the whole story, but it did have a lot to do with how wide-spread Christianity is today.

And it adapted and survived those centuries before Constantine. Polytheism was the state religion in Greece and Rome for a long time too, so why didn't they survive?

Christianity survives in China even though it's banned. Why couldn't polytheism survive in a christian state? The point is they couldn't because they didn't make as much sense as christianity and they couldn't adapt like christianity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:Adaptation to Schisms within one's own religions are vastly different than adaptations to the emergence of a new religion.

They're different, but one isn't harder than the other. You can't hold christianity accountable because there wasn't a huge new religion that spread across Europe in the last Millenium.

quote:The reason Greek Polytheism "couldn't survive" Roman Polytheism is that the Romans didn't "kill" Greek gods, they simply renamed them and fit them into their current scheme of gods. There was no "death" simply a "transition" to new names for the same old gods.

Then what happened to Greek polytheism in Greece? I know the Greeks didn't change the names of their Gods to the Roman names, so what happened to them? Oh yeah! They died out.

quote:The reason Roman Polytheism "couldn't survive" Roman Conversion to Christianity is that it was THE THING to do to emulate the Emperor, and when Constantine assumed the throne (the first Christian Emperor of Rome) all of the nobility, wealthy, socially mobile, etc suddenly "became" Christian to be cool. They didn't even know what it MEANT to be Christian, they just wanted to be like the Emperor. It was during this time that the first of the Ecumentical councils was arranged, to answer the plight of how to deal with this new "problem"...They needed a plan, because now they had their first officially sanctioned Christian empire and the Imperial support and protection, ironically from the very empire that once persecuted and executed them under previous emperors.

I already used my China example. Indonesia is another example of christianity surviving in a place where it isn't the state or predominant religion. If other religions can survive not being the state religion then why couldn't polytheism?

quote:From the 2nd to 7th Centuries C.E. is when the Church did the majority of it's development and growth, and not one Ecumenical council was held until Constantine's rule. Prior to that, the Church was very loosely organized and there were myraid viewpoints within the "Christians" of the time about many things within the religion. There were also a multitude of "Holy" scriptures which were highly revered at the time by almost all of the different veiwpoints, but which have not been included in the current Bible for various reasons.

Scripture changed dramatically over the first 500 years of the Church's growth, this is a historical fact. The changes were made for political reasons, for the most part, or to hedge out one viewpoint or another that was deemed dangerous or heretical by the majority of the ATTENDING priests, bishops, arch-bishops, etc...Many of the Ecumenical councils did not even have the current Pope in Attendance, which led to the Sanctioning Emperor having more direction over the church's decisions than the Pope himself, and was kind of the point.

Doctorine didn't change over those first centuries, it solidified. It became organized. They were changing things as they discussed things more in-depth, but they could change doctorine, because before those early councils there was no doctorine. There wasn't a definitive christian doctorine that everyone could follow. Thusly, people believed and practices different things in regards to christianity. This is why the councils were called, to settle these disputes over what is the official doctorine. I'd also like some examples of these political doctorine changes, if you please.

quote:The reason there haven't been any Ecumenical Councils which drastically changed the Church in the past 50 years is that there have been no Emperors with more power than the Pope, the Holy Roman Empire no longer exists. Thus all changes to doctrine have been simply handed down via the Pope and his council, and have been accepted and integrated with no need for Ecumenical Councils.

There have been no doctorine changes period over the last 500 years. It doesn't matter if it's done by council or papal decree. There hasn't been a change in christian or Catholic doctorine over the last 500 years. They've cleaned up their act and discussed interpretation of doctorine in accordance with modern events, but nevertheless, the doctorine has remained the same.

quote:If you don't think the church's doctrine, views, and tenets have been changing all this time, you are naive. Each pope brings his own interpretations and agenda to the position, and the church is altered by each.

I'd like a list of how Pope John Paul II changed the doctorine of the Church.

quote:As for Protestantism, that's a new faction/cult child of Catholicism which in it's original birthing was the biggest threat to the Church's power (political and spiritual) since before Constantine came to power. Martin Luther shook the Church up hard with his 95 Theses on the Wittenburg church door. But prior to that he had been shaking up the church and Catholics with his teachings. He actually had the guts to publicly condemn Pope Leo III as a heretic who went against the teachings of Christ, which of course, landed him on public enemy number 1 for the Church. However the church could not quash his message, and was forced to adapt as more and more followers of Lutheran teachings began to crop up.

They adapted(creation of the jesuits and the council of Trent), but they never changed their doctorine. If you go back and look at the Council of Trent, the Pope and the council of bishops actually reaffirmed the doctorine of the Church(indulgences, the 7 sacraments, transubstantiation, etc...)

quote:Since that time, the Church has existed as a much weakened and wounded animal, limping along even more so than it did after the split of the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church. However, 1800 years is a drop in the bucket compared to the time that some spiritual faiths have existed, propigated, and thrived, even if they had to remain hidden from Christianity's vengeful fingers...And besides, if longevity is the measure of the more logical or True religion, then you have to concede to Judaism as the oldest of the Judeo-Christian Monotheistic faiths, and arguably still one of the most powerful in the Western World.

I never said longevity is the mark of the more truer religion. I said survival between two competing religions shows which of the two make more sense logically.

Also, the Church has definitely been weakened politically, but spiritually I'd argue that it's as strong now as it was in the 1500's.

quote:That is one small sect of christianity. Why do you neglect the largest sect(Roman Catholicism)? All Catholics and most protestants(Lutherans, Anglicans, etc...) readily accept and condone the beliefs of others. You can't label a religion intolerant based off a small regional sect. That is why I still think of Islam as a religion of peace, because GASP! Most muslims are peaceful. Likewise, you should think of christianity as a tolerant religion because most christians are tolerant.

The ones that promoted the spread of Christianity, though, are the aggressive, intolerant ones. Remember, the Roman Catholic Church wasn't always the meek and liberal religious institution it is today.

quote:And it adapted and survived those centuries before Constantine. Polytheism was the state religion in Greece and Rome for a long time too, so why didn't they survive?

Christianity survives in China even though it's banned. Why couldn't polytheism survive in a christian state? The point is they couldn't because they didn't make as much sense as christianity and they couldn't adapt like christianity.

I already answered this.

You actually never answered that question. You called christianity intolerant, but you never stated why Polytheism couldn't survive persecution like christianity has and still does.

I said it was aggressive and intolerant. Meaning that the idea is going to try to spread a lot harder than, say, the Greek theologies. It is aggressive in that it says anyone who doesn't believe in Christianity goes to hell, and by joining in Christianity you get to go to heaven. The old Roman Catholic church was aggressive, forcing ignorant people to convert and then dominating them politically and socially. Modern Christianity is aggressive with evangelism and missionaries. Greek polytheism had none of these things.

but it is still the superior faith.

And greek polytheism doesn't have such things as illogical attributes, or divine black-mail, or persecution of free-thinkers, or witch-hunts, or crusades, or vunerability to many atheistic arguements.



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 11-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

They're different, but one isn't harder than the other. You can't hold christianity accountable because there wasn't a huge new religion that spread across Europe in the last Millenium.

By the same token you can't use that standard as a comparative when there is no balanced comparison. Thus you reaffirm the point you responded to.

quote:Then what happened to Greek polytheism in Greece? I know the Greeks didn't change the names of their Gods to the Roman names, so what happened to them? Oh yeah! They died out.

The were conquered by the Romans, and as stated, the Romans integrated their pantheon and changed the names but left the same roles. The belief did not "die out", it adapted, even if by oppressive decree. When Constantine instituted Christianity as the state religion, Polytheistic beliefs did not "die out" they simply lost the support of the ones who submitted to either the decree or the popularity of Christianity as the "in thing". To this date there are statues/paintings etc from this time period of clearly pagan godforms renamed "Jesus" or other Christian symbology. ie: a carving of "Jesus" riding his sun chariot across the sky (Apollo)...

The "demise" of polytheism came about over a longer period of time, but it was never extinguished, just driven underground, just as Christianity is "underground" in China.

Over time, many things become "occult", without truly dying out...The fact that I personally know people who still use the Greek and Roman pantheon in their Religious practices proves that it's not "dead", just altered, adapted, and occluded from public proclamation. It's never wise to paint a giant neon "heretic" sign on your head and parade around in front of fervent fanatics of historically intolerant religions. (any religion that has been the cause of another human's death due strictly to religious difference can be construed as "historically intolerant" in this instance)

quote:I already used my China example. Indonesia is another example of christianity surviving in a place where it isn't the state or predominant religion. If other religions can survive not being the state religion then why couldn't polytheism? Answered above.

quote:Doctorine didn't change over those first centuries, it solidified. It became organized. They were changing things as they discussed things more in-depth, but they could change doctorine, because before those early councils there was no doctorine. There wasn't a definitive christian doctorine that everyone could follow. Thusly, people believed and practices different things in regards to christianity. This is why the councils were called, to settle these disputes over what is the official doctorine. I'd also like some examples of these political doctorine changes, if you please.



First of all we need to clarify a couple of words here, because you seem to be using them differently than I am.

Doctrine: Written or established codes, beliefs, standards of worship, scripture, sanctioned practices, details of interpretations of any "unclear" portions of above materials

Change: Altered in any way from one point to the next.

By these definitions, the Church's doctrine has indeed changed a multitude of times, starting as far back as the first ecumenical council's codifying what the church was, all the way up through the latest changes in interpretation made by the new pope that differ from those of John Paul II. ANY change or alteration of a stance, interpretation, sanctioned practice, or accepted piece of doctrine qualifies.

To list all the changes, or even a large volume of them would take much more room than I care to take up, but for your sake, I will list a couple for example sake:

1.) In 1965, Vatican II repealed extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and replaced it with a new pronouncement stating that "All must be converted to Christ as He is made known by the Church's preaching." Effectively altering the church's stance of intolerance and non-recognition into one of benevolent recognition of other religions, while still maintaining the solemn "correctness" of their own. This is a huge change that "seems" minor, but it's effects are still being felt.

2.) At Vatican I, in 1869-70, it was declared that the pope possesses "full and supreme jurisdiction of the Church in those matters which concern discipline and direction of the Church dispersed throughout the world." This made the Pope's power supreme and had no precedent in scripture or previous council decisions. The idea of the pope's infallibility was also introduced and canonized during this council, again without precedent.

The examples are numerous, and one simply has to look for them in the facts of history.

quote:There have been no doctorine changes period over the last 500 years. It doesn't matter if it's done by council or papal decree. There hasn't been a change in christian or Catholic doctorine over the last 500 years. They've cleaned up their act and discussed interpretation of doctorine in accordance with modern events, but nevertheless, the doctorine has remained the same. Refuted and disproven above, doctrine has in fact changed dramatically (read as, completely new ideas introduced and canonized as doctrine.)

quote:They adapted(creation of the jesuits and the council of Trent), but they never changed their doctorine. If you go back and look at the Council of Trent, the Pope and the council of bishops actually reaffirmed the doctorine of the Church(indulgences, the 7 sacraments, transubstantiation, etc...)

Indeed, they reaffirmed their doctrines as a solidarity movement to try to show that they were still firm in their identity even through the adaptation to protestantism. Adaptation is precisely what I claimed, and which you seem to agree with. No argument about said Council here, it was a reaffirming, mostly "no change" kind of council.

quote:I never said longevity is the mark of the more truer religion. I said survival between two competing religions shows which of the two make more sense logically. So then survival of said religion has nothing to do with politics, violence, fear, repression, subversion, persecution, or harassment of the followers of the opposing belief system until they are either all dead or too afraid to worship as they choose?

I think you're painting the picture a little too small here.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

but it is still the superior faith.

And greek polytheism doesn't have such things as illogical attributes, or divine black-mail, or persecution of free-thinkers, or witch-hunts, or crusades, or vunerability to many atheistic arguements.



Refresh my memory. What was Socrates killed for? Of yeah! Not believing in the Greek Gods. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:By the same token you can't use that standard as a comparative when there is no balanced comparison. Thus you reaffirm the point you responded to.

There is no balanced comparison, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss this. What point are you talking about? I typed this in response to your post.

quote:The were conquered by the Romans, and as stated, the Romans integrated their pantheon and changed the names but left the same roles. The belief did not "die out", it adapted, even if by oppressive decree. When Constantine instituted Christianity as the state religion, Polytheistic beliefs did not "die out" they simply lost the support of the ones who submitted to either the decree or the popularity of Christianity as the "in thing". To this date there are statues/paintings etc from this time period of clearly pagan godforms renamed "Jesus" or other Christian symbology. ie: a carving of "Jesus" riding his sun chariot across the sky (Apollo)...

Like I already said, the Greeks didn't change the names of their Gods, the Romans did. This begs the question what happened to the Greek polytheism in Greece. There was no uber christianity conversion like there was in Rome, so what happened to their native religion?

quote:The "demise" of polytheism came about over a longer period of time, but it was never extinguished, just driven underground, just as Christianity is "underground" in China.

Over time, many things become "occult", without truly dying out...The fact that I personally know people who still use the Greek and Roman pantheon in their Religious practices proves that it's not "dead", just altered, adapted, and occluded from public proclamation. It's never wise to paint a giant neon "heretic" sign on your head and parade around in front of fervent fanatics of historically intolerant religions. (any religion that has been the cause of another human's death due strictly to religious difference can be construed as "historically intolerant" in this instance)

Any links to back this up? I'm sure there would be an organization of them in America or Europe or somewhere.

quote:First of all we need to clarify a couple of words here, because you seem to be using them differently than I am.

Doctrine: Written or established codes, beliefs, standards of worship, scripture, sanctioned practices, details of interpretations of any "unclear" portions of above materials

Change: Altered in any way from one point to the next.

By these definitions, the Church's doctrine has indeed changed a multitude of times, starting as far back as the first ecumenical council's codifying what the church was, all the way up through the latest changes in interpretation made by the new pope that differ from those of John Paul II. ANY change or alteration of a stance, interpretation, sanctioned practice, or accepted piece of doctrine qualifies.

I describe doctorine as the basic tenets and beliefs of the Church. I don't consider a change of interpretation a change in doctorine, because the basic belief always remains the same. Take indulgences for example. After Luther called the Church out on them, the pope and bishops changed the way indulgences are used and handed out. They changed their interpretation of them. However, they never changed what an indulgence is or what an indulgence does. The basic doctorine of indulgences remained the same.

I'll give you that christian doctorine changed in the first few centuries as the popes and bishops were trying to discover what their doctorine is, but I'd say that since St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church doctorine hasn't changed once.

quote:To list all the changes, or even a large volume of them would take much more room than I care to take up, but for your sake, I will list a couple for example sake:

1.) In 1965, Vatican II repealed extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and replaced it with a new pronouncement stating that "All must be converted to Christ as He is made known by the Church's preaching." Effectively altering the church's stance of intolerance and non-recognition into one of benevolent recognition of other religions, while still maintaining the solemn "correctness" of their own. This is a huge change that "seems" minor, but it's effects are still being felt.

A change in position on one subject. This is no different than when the church came out and said that jews didn't kill Jesus. It's a different position, but it isn't a change in doctorine.

quote:2.) At Vatican I, in 1869-70, it was declared that the pope possesses "full and supreme jurisdiction of the Church in those matters which concern discipline and direction of the Church dispersed throughout the world." This made the Pope's power supreme and had no precedent in scripture or previous council decisions. The idea of the pope's infallibility was also introduced and canonized during this council, again without precedent.

There is actual considerable scriptual and traditional proof for papal infallibility. Vatican 1 essentially put into writing what had been going on for the past few centuries.

John 21:15-17

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep."

As we all know, Peter was the first pope. In this quote Jesus is giving Peter complete supremacy over Jesus' flock(the Church). Infallibility is inferred.

The Catholic enyclopedia can present this case much better than I can. Here is the link. Scroll down until you get to papal infallibility. Suffice to say, there is considerable historical examples of the pope being regarded as infallible.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

quote:Refuted and disproven above, doctrine has in fact changed dramatically (read as, completely new ideas introduced and canonized as doctrine.)

Refuted and disproven above(you may want to find a few more examples http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) ).

quote:Indeed, they reaffirmed their doctrines as a solidarity movement to try to show that they were still firm in their identity even through the adaptation to protestantism. Adaptation is precisely what I claimed, and which you seem to agree with. No argument about said Council here, it was a reaffirming, mostly "no change" kind of council.

What is a change in doctorine type of council then? I already said why Vatican II didn't change the doctorine, and why Vatican I didn't change the doctorine(putting what was basically common law into writing). What council in the last 500 years changed the basic tenets of the Catholic Church? The answer is none.

quote: So then survival of said religion has nothing to do with politics, violence, fear, repression, subversion, persecution, or harassment of the followers of the opposing belief system until they are either all dead or too afraid to worship as they choose?

I think you're painting the picture a little too small here.

Survival? You were talking about the truest religion being the one that is the oldest, which is something that I NEVER said.

Survival certainly has to do with those things, but in the case of Christianity vs. Polytheism, it doesn't(as much). The battle between those two had much more to do with the beliefs of the religions. Christianity was severely persecuted by Rome for centuries, yet it continued to grow because more people believed that christianity made more sense than polytheism. It grew until it was so big that the emperor of Rome made christianity the state religion. This event is something that polytheism in Rome couldn't survive(unless you'll provide me with those links http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) ).

I also think you're painting the world too small. Just because something within the Church is changed, whether it be an interpretation or a change in position on some social subject, that doesn't mean the doctorine changed. For the doctorine to be changed the basic beliefs have to be changed.

quote:Refresh my memory. What was Socrates killed for? Of yeah! Not believing in the Greek Gods. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

More likely than not, the actual reasons he was put on trial were political. And by "political" I don't just mean the typical personal power struggles that one thinks of. Read the following link... you'll certainly find it informative.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socrates.HTM

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Like I already said, the Greeks didn't change the names of their Gods, the Romans did. This begs the question what happened to the Greek polytheism in Greece. There was no uber christianity conversion like there was in Rome, so what happened to their native religion?



Nothing, it was the SAME religion with different names. Why don't you get this? The story was the same, only the names were changed to Latin names rather than Greek names. It only made sense considering the "official" language of the empire was Latin.

quote:Any links to back this up? I'm sure there would be an organization of them in America or Europe or somewhere.



Links to anything "backing this up" would be mostly self-promoting and inconclusive. No "proof" can be given of continuance, but I can provide you with links to proof that polytheism is indeed active and alive today in the Western World at least. Here goes a few:

http://www.hindutempleofatlanta.org/

http://asatru.org/

http://www.polytheism.net/

These should get you started, but any good Google search using the right key words turns up tons. Surely you haven't tried if you have found no sites to back up precisely what I am saying...it's not dead, it's just adapted.

quote:I describe doctorine as the basic tenets and beliefs of the Church. I don't consider a change of interpretation a change in doctorine, because the basic belief always remains the same. Take indulgences for example. After Luther called the Church out on them, the pope and bishops changed the way indulgences are used and handed out. They changed their interpretation of them. However, they never changed what an indulgence is or what an indulgence does. The basic doctorine of indulgences remained the same.

I'll give you that christian doctorine changed in the first few centuries as the popes and bishops were trying to discover what their doctorine is, but I'd say that since St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church doctorine hasn't changed once.

I'm glad we've found one point of agreement. However I am still in disagreement with you on your point of the lack of doctrine change in the past 500 years. As long as we both define "doctrine" differently, this disagreement will not resolve, so we will have to agree to disagree. However, due to the nature of the definitions and the disagreement they create, you cannot make your sweeping assertion as a FACT, but it must remain an opinion, so long as there is a subjective component that can be interpreted in a way which makes your statement false.

Therefore, we will continue to disagree, and as long as we both realize our views are subjective interpretations of the same factual data based on the difference of opinion over the scope of the definition of one simple word....even the "standardized" definition of the word leaves room for both of us to be "right"

doc·trine (dktrn)

n.

1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.

3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.

4. Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.

quote:A change in position on one subject. This is no different than when the church came out and said that jews didn't kill Jesus. It's a different position, but it isn't a change in doctorine.

I will try to abide by my concession above and bite my tongue against this and the reply which is trying so hard to spill itself onto the page...

quote:There is actual considerable scriptual and traditional proof for papal infallibility. Vatican 1 essentially put into writing what had been going on for the past few centuries.

John 21:15-17

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep."

As we all know, Peter was the first pope. In this quote Jesus is giving Peter complete supremacy over Jesus' flock(the Church). Infallibility is inferred.

The Catholic enyclopedia can present this case much better than I can. Here is the link. Scroll down until you get to papal infallibility. Suffice to say, there is considerable historical examples of the pope being regarded as infallible. http:// www.newadv (http: //www.newa dvent.org/ cathen/077 90a.htm#II IB) ent.org/ca then/07790a.htm#IIIB



This information is skewed. Papal authority was limited, prior to Vatican I, even if it was given "lip service" or deference, it was by no doctrine nor scripture supported with precedent. It was a creation of doctrine where before there had only been intangible unwritten "rules" regarding the issue.

The Scripture you try to use as justification speaks neither of popes, nor the infallibility of ANY man.

Infallibility is neither inferred nor implicit in that verse. The only thing it infers is that Jesus entrusted Peter to spreading the word (after all, Christianity was, in it's inception, an apostolic faith...something it is no longer) and to care for the "flock". Jesus did not say "Peter, everything you say or do from here on out shall be irrefutable, infallible, and perfect!"...Even Jesus himself admits to fallibilities and weaknesses in scripture, so why would you feel scripture would state any human who is not the Christ could be infallible?

The only one whom scripture ever claimed was infallible is God, period. I challenge you to locate any implicit scriptural proof of any other human's infallibility, or the authority given by God to any man to "interpret" his teachings FOR others in the New Testament, or even apocryphal gospels. No man is given supreme authority over the Church by scripture because Jesus never formed a church, he formed an apostolic spiritual system of living and dying...men formed the political structure around it (for both benevolent and non-benevolent motives, depending on the time period and the people involved in the decision making process).

The interference of men makes what once was infallible, enlightenend perfection, into a fallible, occluded, and imperfect religion. At it's core, it is still based on something larger than itself, but it stopped being only about that long long ago.

quote:Survival? You were talking about the truest religion being the one that is the oldest, which is something that I NEVER said.

Survival certainly has to do with those things, but in the case of Christianity vs. Polytheism, it doesn't(as much). The battle between those two had much more to do with the beliefs of the religions. Christianity was severely persecuted by Rome for centuries, yet it continued to grow because more people believed that christianity made more sense than polytheism. It grew until it was so big that the emperor of Rome made christianity the state religion. This event is something that polytheism in Rome couldn't survive(unless you'll provide me with those links ).

Hold up a minute...Constantine was ALREADY Christian when he became emperor. The Edict was passed granting tolerance to Christians from the deathbed of the previous Emperor, but was not enacted until Constantine took power from his rival successor after a miraculous battle for which he credited a dream from God, and thus Christianity...He became a Christian because he thought it won him the throne, but throughout his life he did MANY bad and very un-christian things without even batting an eye...to him, Christianity was a tool of power, and his allegiance to it made the empire's allegiance to it inevitable, whether it made sense or not, it was the Emperor's way...what was ironic was that after Christianity became state approved, it began to work to dismantle and subvert polytheist temples, beliefs, etc around it by hiding beind The Edict of Milan. They would claim certain temples offended them and have them torn down (for example temples to Eros and Bacchus, which promoted lust and indulgence), and gradually, they began to tug their leash more and more to see how far it would go...By the time they found their limit, to publicly admit non-christian beliefs was a death sentence, just as much as Christianity was a death sentence prior to The Edict.

Prior to Constantine, Christianity was a SMALL underground movement...It was isolated to a small geographic region and a small strata of the population. Apostolic Tradition and Missionary Journeys spread the word and the faith slowly but surely, Christians who were fleeing persecution in Judea spread to the lands of the Diaspora (Jews living outside of Judea) taking the message with them. By way of this, Antioch, Damascus, and other cities became secondary focal points of Christianity's slowly growing but still small "following". Ironically, Saul (Paul) spread the word even before he was an apostle by being responsible for driving believers out of Judea to flee his persecution. After he became an apostle, his missionary journeys to spread the word to the Gentiles were the first REAL conversion of those outside of Judaism. Even those were to relativly minor cities in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece...Paul's entire stay in Rome was spent imprisoned, not spreading the word to the masses...though he did write letters and speak to those who would come to see him, it was by no means a massive movement.

The Edict of Milan, issued in 311 by Emperor Galerius from his deathbed, and supported and enacted by both new emperors to follow him, (including Constantine) is well over 200 years after the death of the last living apostle, and at the time that this occurred, Christianity was still struggling, underground, and small, by comparison to even the Hellenistic Pantheon true believers who were becoming rarer and rarer as Philosophy became stronger and stronger amongst the thinking populace. The combination of taking away the persecution, and the sudden boon of having the very Emperor of Rome as a professed Christian gave the church a tremendous boom in population of "followers" practically overnight...suddenly Rome was full of Christians, and it was "OK" to be one, not just Legally, but socially...Combine this with the subversion and removal of temples to the old gods that people still enjoyed, and you are left with only ONE contender to Christianity's domination of what was then THE world...Philosophy. And you know what? Philosophy permeated and polluted Christianity as much as Christianity permeated and polluted it to serve it's own needs of survival...Neo-Platonism and Stoicism were rampant in influencing early church doctrines, which is only fair considering it was Platonism and Stoicism that opened wide the doors of Rome to Christianity in the first place...

The official declaration of Christianity as the state religion happened in 390 CE when Theodosius and Gratian accepted it as such. Constantine was just the first domino in a short but powerful chain of dominos leading to the event.

Yes I realize that I erroneously stated earlier that Constantine instituted it as the state religion. It was a slip. What I meant to say was "encouraged Christianity and ensured it's acceptance in the state". Please forgive the error in my previous post.

quote:

I also think you're painting the world too small. Just because something within the Church is changed, whether it be an interpretation or a change in position on some social subject, that doesn't mean the doctorine changed. For the doctorine to be changed the basic beliefs have to be changed.



So clarify what defines a "basic" belief and what defines a "non-basic" belief...because it seems your defining boundaries are blurry.



[This message has been edited by ChaosWyrm (edited 11-28-2005).]

Napoleon Complex...

It was actually for "corrupting the minds of youth" ,you see, they needed a scapegoat after losing a war.

Now adress the issue. Why is christian monotheism more rational then greek polytheism?

other then the fact that it has survived, which can easily be chalked up to the doctorine of heaven and hell and religious intolerance.



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 11-29-2005).]

Christianity allows for science, something greek polytheism didn't do. Christianity makes more sense than Greek polytheism by the fact that Greek polytheism is based around anthropologic(I think that is the right word) gods who interact with humans. I think after the centuries of never seeing these gods, and not seeing them interact with ANYONE, people began to suspect that maybe, just maybe, Greek polytheism is a sham.

Those are my reasons.

Answer me this though. How does Greek/Roman polytheism make as much/more sense than christianity? There are countless volumes of books that logically defend christianity and the Christian god. Can the same be said for Greek polytheism? No.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Christianity allows for science, something greek polytheism didn't do. Christianity makes more sense than Greek polytheism by the fact that Greek polytheism is based around anthropologic(I think that is the right word) gods who interact with humans. I think after the centuries of never seeing these gods, and not seeing them interact with ANYONE, people began to suspect that maybe, just maybe, Greek polytheism is a sham.

Psst, ever here of this guy named "Jesus"? Or like, that other dude named "Moses"?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Christianity allows for science

Oh, so that's why christians are pushing for ID to be taught in schools, and why gallileo was placed under house arrest for saying the earth revolves around the sun, and why the bible says that pi is exactly three, and why the bible says that snails melt, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat and the earth has four corners.

Right, Science.

Under Greek Polytheism, Science was created

Under Christian Monotheism, Science was persecuted.

Which one allows for science?

Project Mayhem

quote:Originally posted by Napoleon_Complex:

Answer me this though. How does Greek/Roman polytheism make as much/more sense than christianity? There are countless volumes of books that logically defend christianity and the Christian god. Can the same be said for Greek polytheism? No.

Greek polytheism was not a faith-based religion. The only reason that they might care whether people believe in their gods or not is if somebody angered the gods out of ignorance. Heck, the polytheists just accepted gods from other religions and renamed them all the time. They didn't give a shit about "faith."

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Oh, so that's why christians are pushing for ID to be taught in schools, and why gallileo was placed under house arrest for saying the earth revolves around the sun, and why the bible says that pi is exactly three, and why the bible says that snails melt, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat and the earth has four corners.

Pat Robertson doesn't represent christianity. I'm talking from a Catholic perspective. Catholicism doesn't advocate the teaching of ID. I also think it's quite idiotic of you to base your entire argument around either one modern sect of christianity or around events that happened 500 years ago.

quote:Right, Science.

Under Greek Polytheism, Science was created

Under Christian Monotheism, Science was persecuted.

Which one allows for science?

So I guess the enlightenment didn't happen christian watch? Damn, I better go talk to my history teachers...

quote:Greek polytheism was not a faith-based religion. The only reason that they might care whether people believe in their gods or not is if somebody angered the gods out of ignorance. Heck, the polytheists just accepted gods from other religions and renamed them all the time. They didn't give a shit about "faith."

And you still don't answer my question.

Un-fucking-believable.

The Catholic church fought tooth and nail against the enlightenment. Its not like they were actively encouragung the movement. The only reason the enlightenment took off was because it occured during a peiod when the power of the church was waning.

Also I was just wondering if the Catholic church supports stem-cell research considering how tolerant of science they are?

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

The Catholic church fought tooth and nail against the enlightenment. Its not like they were actively encouragung the movement. The only reason the enlightenment took off was because it occured during a peiod when the power of the church was waning.

Also I was just wondering if the Catholic church supports stem-cell research considering how tolerant of science they are?

There are a lot of scientists opposed to stem cell research. They aren't opposed to scientific research. However, they are opposed to breeding embryos just to harvest them. How the fuck is that unreasonable(assuming life begins at conception)?

I also never claimed the Church made the enlightenment happen. Likewise though, someone can't claim that Greek polytheism assisted Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid, and Pythagoras in making their scientific/mathematical discoveries.

I'd still like to know(from anyone) why Greek polytheism makes as much sense lagically as christianity.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

And you still don't answer my question.

Un-fucking-believable.

I wasn't answering your question. I was showing that the example that you gave wasn't a reason to say that Christianity is more reasonable. I really don't think Christianity is much more reasonable than Greek polytheism... they're about on the same level to me.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

There are a lot of scientists opposed to stem cell research. They aren't opposed to scientific research. However, they are opposed to breeding embryos just to harvest them. How the fuck is that unreasonable(assuming life begins at conception)?

I also never claimed the Church made the enlightenment happen. Likewise though, someone can't claim that Greek polytheism assisted Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid, and Pythagoras in making their scientific/mathematical discoveries.

I'd still like to know(from anyone) why Greek polytheism makes as much sense lagically as christianity.

There may be scientists opposed to it but they're opposition is based on church influenced social mores so once again the church rears its head to impede science. Also I can't recall any scientists advocating the breeding of embryo's solely for the purpose of research. Last I checked the debate was over the use of cells from embryos already on their way towards disposal as medical waste.

You did claim that the the church allowed the enlightenment to happen (which it didn't) as evidence that the church isnt anti-science though. No one claimed that Greek polytheism is responsible for the creation of science. What was claimed was that the doctrinal environment of Greek polytheism allowed science to thrive unlike the doctrinally restrictive environment of when the church dominated European society.

We would like to know why exactly Christianity is anymore logical then the religion of the ancient Greeks. Please give examples of how the Olympian religion was illogical compared to Christianity. Your the one who suggested that Christianity is more logical so the burden of proof is on you to prove it is.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

There may be scientists opposed to it but they're opposition is based on church influenced social mores so once again the church rears its head to impede science. Also I can't recall any scientists advocating the breeding of embryo's solely for the purpose of research. Last I checked the debate was over the use of cells from embryos already on their way towards disposal as medical waste.

That's part of the debate, but growing embryos for stem cell ersearch is also part of the debate. Do you have ANY proof that backs up your claim that all scientists ethically(not morally) opposed to stem cell research only have those opinions because their religion told that that it's wrong? Otherwise, it seems to me like you're talking out your ass.

quote:You did claim that the the church allowed the enlightenment to happen (which it didn't) as evidence that the church isnt anti-science though. No one claimed that Greek polytheism is responsible for the creation of science. What was claimed was that the doctrinal environment of Greek polytheism allowed science to thrive unlike the doctrinally restrictive environment of when the church dominated European society.

If the Church didn't allow for science to thrive then the enlightenment wouldn't have happened to the extent that it did. I don't know if I can make this that much clearer. If polytheism in Greece allowed science to thrive, then christianity allowed science to thrive. What's so stupid about this point is that neither was responsible in ANY WAY for any of the scientific discoveries being made.

quote:We would like to know why exactly Christianity is anymore logical then the religion of the ancient Greeks. Please give examples of how the Olympian religion was illogical compared to Christianity. Your the one who suggested that Christianity is more logical so the burden of proof is on you to prove it is.

I already gave my examples:

"Christianity allows for science, something greek polytheism didn't do. Christianity makes more sense than Greek polytheism by the fact that Greek polytheism is based around anthropologic(I think that is the right word) gods who interact with humans. I think after the centuries of never seeing these gods, and not seeing them interact with ANYONE, people began to suspect that maybe, just maybe, Greek polytheism is a sham."

Let me expound on my polytheism didn't allow for science bit. What I mean is that the Greek Gods are physical in nature. Actually, if you go by the Greek tradition, they cause/are nature. When the Greek scientists began to discover that the things of nature can be explained without the presence of the Greek Gods, then that is when Greek polytheism doesn't allow for science. I'm not saying that Greeks persecuted science, but rather their beliefs are in direct contradiction with science.

quote:I wasn't answering your question. I was showing that the example that you gave wasn't a reason to say that Christianity is more reasonable. I really don't think Christianity is much more reasonable than Greek polytheism... they're about on the same level to me.

Care to give a few reasons?

quote:That's part of the debate, but growing embryos for stem cell ersearch is also part of the debate. Do you have ANY proof that backs up your claim that all scientists ethically(not morally) opposed to stem cell research only have those opinions because their religion told that that it's wrong? Otherwise, it seems to me like you're talking out your ass.

Yes I suppose I did take things a bit to far by linking the opinions of dissenting scientists to the church. Its pretty safe to say I was talking out of my ass there, my apologies. That doesnt change the fact that the church opposes stem cell research even when its not being done using the ghoulish embryo harvesting scenario you bring up ( which honestly I've never heard of).



quote:If the Church didn't allow for science to thrive then the enlightenment wouldn't have happened to the extent that it did. I don't know if I can make this that much clearer. If polytheism in Greece allowed science to thrive, then christianity allowed science to thrive. What's so stupid about this point is that neither was responsible in ANY WAY for any of the scientific discoveries being made.

The only reason the Church "allowed" the enlightenment is because it didnt have a choice in the matter. Seriously the church of the eighteenth century was a completely different animal from that of the middle ages. Not because it evolved but because it was weakened by the religious wars that wracked Europe throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. Saying that the Church supports science because the Enlightenment happened is like saying the church supports homosexuality because it's "allowing" the gay rights movement to thrive.

quote:"Christianity allows for science, something greek polytheism didn't do. Christianity makes more sense than Greek polytheism by the fact that Greek polytheism is based around anthropologic(I think that is the right word) gods who interact with humans. I think after the centuries of never seeing these gods, and not seeing them interact with ANYONE, people began to suspect that maybe, just maybe, Greek polytheism is a sham."

How is this any different then the God that interacts constantly with humans in the old Testament? No one for centuries has seen Jesus or angels and so as a result of not seeing God interact with anyone people have begun to suspect that Christianity is a sham. So once again I have to ask whats the difference?

You may bring up the various miracles "witnessed" in our times, or the various people who have claimed to speak to God. To which I reply that the ancients claimed to have seen the Greek gods and the proof of their intervention as well. There were kooks back in the ancient Greek days just like there are now.

quote:Let me expound on my polytheism didn't allow for science bit. What I mean is that the Greek Gods are physical in nature. Actually, if you go by the Greek tradition, they cause/are nature. When the Greek scientists began to discover that the things of nature can be explained without the presence of the Greek Gods, then that is when Greek polytheism doesn't allow for science. I'm not saying that Greeks persecuted science, but rather their beliefs are in direct contradiction with science.



Only thing is the Greek Gods were'nt physical in nature at least no more so then the Christian God is. They could appear in any form they desired from an animal to a beam of light to the weather itself. Christians used to believe the natural phenomena we see every day were the direct actions of God as well. They believed (and some still do to this day) that God was the direct cause of every action that happens in our daily lives,and if it wasnt God then the Devil was to blame. So once again whats the difference between the two? The beliefs of the ancient greeks are no more in direct contradiction with science than the beliefs of Christians are. The same way modern Christians have found ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with the insights of science the ancients were able to as well.

[This message has been edited by FunkyZombie (edited 12-04-2005).]

Napoleon, Care to read the following bible verses?

Kings 7:23

Psalms 58:8

Revelation 7:1

The bible does not allow for science.

The reason Christianity is illogical is it assumes that an athropomorphic God talks to people.

Do you think after 2 millenia of no miracles in the "burning bush" category people might begin to think it's a sham?