|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2002 : 08:57:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
the only thing that's going to eliminate a religion is a newer religion.
Er, call me a stickler for detail, but how does a newer religion eliminate religion?
If religion will always be around, why don't we try and push the inclusive religions to the forefront? Even as a group, the basic tenets of Humanists and UU's respect the indivdual freedoms of everyone.
Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.
-- Jerry Falwell, on CNN's Crossfire, May 17, 1997
|
 |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 14:34:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
the only thing that's going to eliminate a religion is a newer religion.
Er, call me a stickler for detail, but how does a newer religion eliminate religion?
Er, call me an even bigger stickler for detail, but you ignored the word 'a' in my sentence. A religion can be eliminated by a new religion, as Christianity eliminated the Roman pantheon.
I never claimed that this eliminated all religions.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 06:20:02 [Permalink]
|
Donnie..Let me apologize for my mistake, and for any misunderstanding that may have followed. By my question, I intended no mallice. However, I certainly did not know, nor do I think that I 'ignored' your 'a'. I think 'ignored' is a bit of a presumption, but I am sure that you must be correct in your appraisal of my motives, under the circumstances. Often I get in a hurry, and do not read through even my own ramblings.
I am, honestly, curious about your feelings on this subject, though. So, in an effort to clarify the issue, if possible, let me rephrase my question--How does a newer religion eliminate 'a' religion? Again, I am sorry, but I do not give any religion such power. I tend to assign such power to Society, and to evolving cultures. By these standards, a religion is not required to help bring about the decline of another. Many other factors, religion not withstanding, can be instrumental.
As far as Christianity and the Roman Pantheon is concerned, I must again apologize for my ignorance. I did not know that Christianity 'eliminated' the Roman Pantheon. I was under the impression that Emperor Constantine decreed Christianity one of the official religions of the Roman Empire, and neglect and new Roman law led to the decline of the various Pagan beliefs comprising the Pantheon.
I do agree that newer or newly evolved religions can, in time, displace another religion, but I am afraid that we can never completely rid ourselves of even the first attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe through supernatural means. Our religions become part of our culture, and seem to live on in even the most absurd tales. Take the Epic of Gilgamesh...We are still having to put up with that damnable flood!
"There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher would not express it." Anonymous
|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2002 : 08:54:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Donnie..Let me apologize for my mistake, and for any misunderstanding that may have followed. By my question, I intended no mallice. However, I certainly did not know, nor do I think that I 'ignored' your 'a'. I think 'ignored' is a bit of a presumption, but I am sure that you must be correct in your appraisal of my motives, under the circumstances. Often I get in a hurry, and do not read through even my own ramblings.
Perhaps 'ignored' was a poor word selection. 'overlooked', maybe?
quote:
I am, honestly, curious about your feelings on this subject, though. So, in an effort to clarify the issue, if possible, let me rephrase my question--How does a newer religion eliminate 'a' religion? Again, I am sorry, but I do not give any religion such power. I tend to assign such power to Society, and to evolving cultures. By these standards, a religion is not required to help bring about the decline of another. Many other factors, religion not withstanding, can be instrumental.
As far as Christianity and the Roman Pantheon is concerned, I must again apologize for my ignorance. I did not know that Christianity 'eliminated' the Roman Pantheon. I was under the impression that Emperor Constantine decreed Christianity one of the official religions of the Roman Empire, and neglect and new Roman law led to the decline of the various Pagan beliefs comprising the Pantheon.
I do agree that newer or newly evolved religions can, in time, displace another religion, but I am afraid that we can never completely rid ourselves of even the first attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe through supernatural means. Our religions become part of our culture, and seem to live on in even the most absurd tales. Take the Epic of Gilgamesh...We are still having to put up with that damnable flood!
Well, my original comment was a semi-flip response to another member, who expressed the hope that religion would be eliminated by education. My response was mainly intended to express my pessimism about that worthy (IMHO) goal. My pessimism is based on the very tenacity of beliefs that you mention in re Gilgamesh.
As a supporting example, let me point to the Shakers. This sect originated in the early 1800's, and promoted an unusual blend of Christianity and agrarian communism (small-c). It flourished for awhile, fed by refugees from the advancing industrial revolution. Yet it espoused one philosophy that would seem to prevent it from lasting more than a generation or two: its members were celibate. No one was born a Shaker! It continued by recruitment, and by taking in orphans and foundlings (some of whom remained in the sect after growing up).
Yet, there are still a few Shakers today, nearly two centuries on. Now, it seems to me that this example says a lot about the staying power of religions. Here's a group who turned aside from the very basic human imperative to reproduce, and yet survived for generations.
Another example of the tenacity of religious beliefs is the various doomsday cults in Christianity, which sometimes survive several failed predictions of the end of the world. I believe the 7th-Day Adventists are such a group.
As to your question about the mechanism of one religion replacing another, I didn't mean to imply that such things happen overnight. It took centuries before Christianity reached a critical mass in Rome, and probably centuries more before the older gods were truly forgotten and/or irrelevant. Still, I think it's fair to characterize this as a case of one religion supplanting another, even though some elements of the older belief system are incorporated in the newer.
There are lots of other examples; think of Catholicism in Latin America, or Islam in the middle east and Africa.
So I imagined which movements today might work up enough momentum to supplant Christianity (or Islam if you prefer), and mentioned the Moonies and Scientologists. I'm not making any predictions, though.
Did this answer your question?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2002 : 15:00:56 [Permalink]
|
Thanks...
Plus, I was not aware of the celibacy practice of Shakers. That is very interesting. Maybe, the fundamentalists could incorporate that practice, but I guess that would fly in the face of thier supposed plan to conquer the world through sheer numbers.
I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell
|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2002 : 19:39:26 [Permalink]
|
Tim,
Yes, the Shakers were celibate. I did a bit of research to check my facts; I had things pretty close to correct, although the movement started and declined earlier than I stated.
The first Shaker community was established in 1787. By 1826 there were 18 communities in 8 states. At its peak, there were about 6000 members, so it was never a mass movement (even by 19th-century standards). They were down to 1000 followers in 1905, and a handful survive today.
On reconsideration, though, perhaps the Shakers aren't the best example I could have used, since the movement had many aspects beyond the strictly religious one (though it was faith-based at its core).
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2002 : 09:31:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
On reconsideration, though, perhaps the Shakers aren't the best example I could have used, since the movement had many aspects beyond the strictly religious one (though it was faith-based at its core).[Donnie B.]
Try the Amish as another example, Donnie. Based on the Christian faith, but abhorrant of modern day society. Rather than rail against the secular West, they simply ignore us. Opposite from the Shakers, they don't actively recruit, almost all are born into the sect. Rules are arbitrarily made up by the parish bishops, but stricly enforced.
They are no better or worse than many other religious sects, but appear to the outside world as "quaint". Their devotion to family and non-violent ways is an inspiration, provided to don't scratch too far below the surface.
quote:
So I imagined which movements today might work up enough momentum to supplant Christianity (or Islam if you prefer), and mentioned the Moonies and Scientologists. I'm not making any predictions, though.
[Donnie B.]
Nix Scientologists, Donnie. They are anything but benign in their enforcment of their beliefs. They are outlawed in Germany and some of their legal tactics invite legal, civil and criminal retribution from many quarters.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2002 : 12:10:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
So I imagined which movements today might work up enough momentum to supplant Christianity (or Islam if you prefer), and mentioned the Moonies and Scientologists. I'm not making any predictions, though.
[Donnie B.]
Nix Scientologists, Donnie. They are anything but benign in their enforcment of their beliefs. They are outlawed in Germany and some of their legal tactics invite legal, civil and criminal retribution from many quarters.
These are exactly the characteristics that lead me to think they might have the staying power to become influential in the future. They are fanatical and aggressive.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2002 : 12:49:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
These are exactly the characteristics that lead me to think they might have the staying power to become influential in the future. They are fanatical and aggressive. [Donnie B.]
Hmmmmmmm. Good point, Donnie. Fanaticism may insure their survival, but not necessarily their prosperity. The vast majority of people don't want to get outside their comfort zones, and fanaticism takes a lot of work. Pushed too far, the peasants will grab their torches and pitchforks and storm the Bastille so they can go back to being left alone.
The other things that works against fanaticism are time and materialism. The young hot bloods become middle-aged family men with mortgages and other responsibilities. Creeping materialism has a way of infiltrating the ranks and mellowing out the herd. Materialism also has a way of introducing hypocrasy. The high mucky-mucks can't avoid the lavish life-style and it doesn't go unnoticed among the rank and file. Success can be just as deadly as failure.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2002 : 01:36:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The other things that works against fanaticism are time and materialism. The young hot bloods become middle-aged family men with mortgages and other responsibilities
Don't remind me, please.....
I think this may be one of the reasons that the fundamentalist Christians and Moslims push Gen. 1:28 so fervently. It would seem that indoctrination is a major step toward successful fanaticism. I have read some quotes of a few of the off the deep end, right side of the far right Christians speak about how much more space the planet has for baby Christians, and god's will to populate every square acre with a few dozen more baby fundies. I guess, sheer numbers will equal world domination.
And, Yes! I do believe that the usually unspoken goal of fundamentalism is to force the rest of the world to think exactly as they do. I've been told as much, and their actions of wanting to spread 'God's Word' thoughout the world, with little thought of solving the problems of the world speak volumes. We have all heard that the 'lack of true faith' is the real problem facing the world today. Plus, missionaries make no secret of their true intent. It is to spread the Word, and to bring the heathens to God. A few morsels of food for the poor is merely a bribe. Afterall, if the heathens convert, they will live forever, and have no more physical needs. God will provide.
Sorry...I get a little excited every now and then. I just can't stand the indifference, and the callousness shown by those that constantly give lip service to 'Christian Values'. Been there, and got sick...
I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2002 : 12:33:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think this may be one of the reasons that the fundamentalist Christians and Moslims push Gen. 1:28 so fervently. It would seem that indoctrination is a major step toward successful fanaticism. [Tim]
I think my recently retired parish minister said it best when talking about spreading the Gospel...
"There's no one more obnoxious than a recent convert."
-- Rev. Jack Huntley, Episcopal parish priest |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2002 : 19:06:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I did not know that Christianity 'eliminated' the Roman Pantheon. I was under the impression that Emperor Constantine decreed Christianity one of the official religions of the Roman Empire, and neglect and new Roman law led to the decline of the various Pagan beliefs comprising the Pantheon.
It was about half a century after Constantine that Theodosius the Great (r. 379-395) declared Christianity to be the ONLY religion allowed-ON PAIN OF DEATH- and with that the period was inagurated by imperial decree that has since been known as the Dark Ages.
The idea that the people of Europe dropped their religions in favor of Christianity solely because of the merits of Christianity is erroneous.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Kaneda Kuonji
Skeptic Friend
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2002 : 08:03:56 [Permalink]
|
My take on the subject is this: There is a greater being, but it is a thinking greater being, and that it is worshipped in a variety of ways and beliefs. Religion is not necessary in the equation, but should not be suppressed. In fact, certain religions, (like the fundies) can be endless sources of amusement with their idiocy.
Research other religions, and learn from them. Learn from their triumphs and their mistakes, and repeat them not. Fall not to ignorance and stupidity, as some have.
Take on the folly of hatred.
Rodney Dean, CI Order of the Knights of Jubal
Ivbalis.org
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2002 : 08:53:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My take on the subject is this: There is a greater being, but it is a thinking greater being, and that it is worshipped in a variety of ways and beliefs. Religion is not necessary in the equation, but should not be suppressed. In fact, certain religions, (like the fundies) can be endless sources of amusement with their idiocy.
May I ask a few questions, purely to satisfy my own curiosity?
What does this being think about? Are there subjects independent from this being that require its thought? Do you think this being can be logically reconciled? Does this being need to be worshipped?
Answer any, all, or none at your leisure.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Kaneda Kuonji
Skeptic Friend
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2002 : 18:23:07 [Permalink]
|
[/quote]
May I ask a few questions, purely to satisfy my own curiosity?
What does this being think about? Are there subjects independent from this being that require its thought? Do you think this being can be logically reconciled? Does this being need to be worshipped?
Answer any, all, or none at your leisure.
[/quote]
1) It understands that good and evil aren't black and white, but shades of grey.
2) Most likely.
As for the last two, no and no. I take a more "Conan the Barbarian" approach. It gives you life, but what you do with it is up to you entirely. Just be ready to take the consequences of those actions.
Rodney Dean, CI Order of the Knights of Jubal
Ivbalis.org
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
