Religion...Bitch slapped...
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:57
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:*lurkin' on the fence with MBIL*
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where ? Where's the fight ? How do I join ?
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Dude! Great work! You have started another classic intellectual food fight.
***************************************************************
Space cowboy or space cadet ? Too hard to tell at this time, sir.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Dude! Great work! You have started another classic intellectual food fight. I bet your just sitting back and watching the fur fly huh. I'm not touching this one, I'm on the fence and people on fences get rocks thrown at them from both sides.
If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.
Just posted a link to a documentary I enjoyed is all. That the retards bash each other is not MY fault....Well, I do giggle a bit....Well, it's true.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don’t think it is possible to say that Monotheism developed with centralized governments. Monotheistic religions have been around for a very long time. Most of them have roots in the Bronze Age. Abrahamic monotheism developed largely among quasi-nomadic Semitic peoples during the late Bronze Age. All the major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) laid their philosophical roots in the first millennia BC, at a time when political entities were largely loosely aligned city-states. I think it is true that monotheism developed from a greater awareness and contemplation of the human condition. Religious leaders begin to develop a much more human-centric approach to philosophy then was true of earlier polytheistic beliefs. I’m not sure why exactly the one-god philosophy is more conducive to this kind of thinking then polytheism, but polytheistic religions tend to be very chaotic and independent of the human condition.
Also I’m not sure why Catholicism would be thought of as “so well melded with [[]feudalism[]],” as opposed to Protestantism. The political framework of Catholicism was, and remains to this day, nearly identical to that laid down by the Roman government, which was not feudal. And to the extent that feudalism is a very decentralized form of government, Protestantism certainly suits that much better then Catholicism. A better argument might bet that centuries of feudalism had eroded the authority of Catholicism. I’m not sure if that is true, but it certainly makes more sense.
And whether religion exists outside of “society,” depends a lot on what is meant by “society.” If society is a reference to the “power elite,” then I would definitely say that religion is much larger. People hold religious beliefs regardless of whether the elite does or not. Saying that religion doesn’t exist outside of society is like saying language doesn’t exist outside of society.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:While I will concede that of late it seems there's been a fair bit of willful misinterpretation of Anti's words; I would like to point out that I found this exchange very frustrating:
Originally posted by Causal:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No Finn. I know plenty of religous people. The problem I have with Anti is that his/her head is a snakes nest of contradictions.
Also, I'd be curious to know what constitutes a contradiction of this type, if you don't mind sharing.
Quote:
originally posted by anti.
Quote:
originally posted by FREDGIBLET
First, not nearly as many or as mixed up as would have resulted from a flood of minor proportions much less the catastrophic forces present in a flood of Noahchian magnitude.
Second, I'd love for you to actually demonstrate the ability of a flood of the violence necessitated by the Noahchian Deluge to make the ordered strata that we see.
can i use this as an example of the hypocracy of darwinian evolutionists? so a global flood, a 'seemingly' random event, cant create ordered sedimentary levels.. but complete disorder, chaos, and randomness created all the intricate design of the universe(and its infinite complexities)?
Which I replied with..."Actually, there's several methods where we see 'nature' impose order on chaos. If you'd like to see an example, take some sugar and mix it in water do so until there's persistently some sugar on the bottom; add another... 5 tablespoons of sugar. Heat the water in a microwave; stir in as much sugar as you can while it is still near a boil; decant off about half the liquid, and try to avoid getting any sugar crystals in the new glass (which should be -very- clean, ideally, clean it with distilled water). Let it cool to room temperature... then drop in a single grain of sugar. Check back in a bit, and you should have some nice, organized crystalline structures.
You forget that there's an 'ordering' process to offset the randomizing/chaos factor; in the case of evolution, it is natural selection."
Which anti 'happens' to not respond. I'm sorry, but claiming 'hypocrisy' for the science side, then failing to provide any scientific rational for the stratification is extremely irksome. I'd even have accepted 'God did it to confuse the scientists', I could even provide some come back. So, I'm still waiting for the explanation of what mechanism is proposed that would cause the stratification of the sediments after the Noah's Ark's flood. Until something rational is provided I'm rather in concurrence that Anti's logic is reasonably classifiable as 'snake's nest'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't know about religion 101; but I know this was covered in my Catholic High School religion classes. What Causal says.
Originally posted by Causal:
I'd just like to point out two factual inaccuracies in the video:
1) Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. As a matter of fact, Christian religious texts don't say when he was born. The nascent Catholic church began celebrating his birth on December 25th in an effort to co-opt the Saturnalia festival (which, among other things, was observed by the giving of gifts and decorating the home with greenery). But Christian sacred text don't say when Jesus was born.
2) Christian sacred texts don't say how many magi visited Jesus. Church tradition has it that there were three (and it's always portrayed as three) but not because the Christian sacred texts say so.
I say this only to point out that if the maker of the video had taken an intro to world religions course he would have known that, because that's where I got my data. So might I suggest taking the video with a grain of salt.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The evolution of religions is fairly well documented, though uneven. The Egyptians exprimented with monotheism after a history of singular rule. The Greeks, orignally a cluster of small independent city-states developed Zeus into the 'king' god over the other gods (all gods are equal but some are more equal than others !) as major centers developed. The Romans followed with Jove/ Jupiter as their 'king' god, and also extended central rule.
Catholicism taught that as there was order (hierarchy) in heaven so on earth. And everyone was to do their part in their alloted role. The church preached against individual and especially monetary benefit and so didn't provide a meaningful role for new merchants and incipient capitalists.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Historically, monotheism emerged gradually out of henotheistic and panentheistic notions from the Late Bronze Age, notably with pharaoh Akhenaten's Atenism.
Most mainstream Old Testament scholars believe that the religion of the early Israelites was neither monotheistic nor polytheistic but “monolatrous.” While the existence of other gods was not denied, Israel was to worship no god but Yahweh. In virtue of the Mosaic covenant, Yahweh became the “confederate god” of Israel, and they become his people (Meek: 215). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/
Some scholars have suggested that Zoroastrianism was where the first prophet of a monotheistic faith arose[1], claiming Zoroastrianism as being "the oldest of the revealed credal religions, which has probably had more influence on mankind directly or indirectly, more than any other faith".[2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Leadb- I tried pretty hard to get Anti to walk towards that conundrum but... no go.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The idea of one god being more equal then others goes back far further then the Greeks. In fact it goes back to at least the Bronze Age. Once again the Hebrews in the Bronze Age did not have a centralized authority, but still held a monotheistic type of belief, particularly one in which a ‘king’ god was supreme to all others, in such a way that all other gods were viewed as undeserving of worship or nonexistent. An extent of monotheism far greater then the Roman Capitaline or Greek polytheism, but held much earlier by a quasi-nomadic people. Most cultures throughout history have probably had some degree of monotheistic tendency. Even many of the very primitive animist beliefs probably held one or a few aspect(s) of nature supreme to all others. The Native American cultures represent a snapshot of some of the most primitive religious beliefs, and even they held the notion of a supreme creator. So the idea of a “king” god is not really something the Greeks came up with.
But the formation of the monotheistic religions began in the first Millennia BC. In the first Millennia city-states were common, but central-authorities were weak. Dictatorial leadership was exchanged for councils, leading to new forms of government like the Roman Republic or the Greek Democracies or the Punic Judges. This lead to a high degree of intellectual liberty where ideas could be easily exchanged between networks of city-states, but could not be easily suppressed by weak imperial rule. It is from this period that almost all of the world’s major religions developed. It was not central-authority that created monotheistic religions, but a growing grasp of humanism and reasoning.
And Protestants also believed in order to heaven and earth, and the dangers of greed or wealth and charity for the poor and sick or sacrifice to the church are central philosophies in almost all Christian beliefs including Protestantism. Many Protestant Churches were outright communist, living on agrarian communes and completely abstaining monetary gain. And Catholics were not all monks and priests. Northern Italy has always been Catholic, but the renaissance began there with cities like Pisa, Genoa and Venice developing large mercantile class to become Capitalist centers.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME