[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Polyeithist religions have existed in human civilisation far longer than abrahmic ones.

the fact that we are an abrahmic influenced country now is due to the fact the Normans ultmiatly conquered and wiped out most of the indeigenous pre-abrahmic beleifs and culture and replaced it with that of the holy roman empire.

thats the only reason the belief in Zeus Odin etc may be strange to you.

To an extent, I'd agree (except the Normans had nothing to do with the Romans) , but the Roman empire never really got to areas of Scotland or Ireland - and yet both are, in the majority, Christian countries.
While the various invading empires have established their own beliefs somewhat, that even where their reach was limited the old polytheistic religions started to falter and became somewhat marginalised suggests it comes down to them being less... sturdy, the beliefs less "true".

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
To an extent, I'd agree (except the Normans had nothing to do with the Romans) ".

The normans invaded england, most of europe and turkey, palestine etc largely at the behest of the holy roman empire (which isnt the same as perhaps your understanding of 'romans')

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
The normans invaded england, most of europe and turkey, palestine etc largely at the behest of the holy roman empire (which isnt the same as perhaps your understanding of 'romans')

my understanding of the Normans was that they invaded in the 11th century, lead by William the Conqueror.

Where'd you get the line about the invasion being on behest of the Roman Empire from?

[Arekkusu]

(Original post by snozzle)
The Abrahamic religions seem to make a break with the old by prophecy and revelation. I'm not sure even that they started out as monotheistic as the Jewish God might have been considered a local God for a while, and many Jews still prayed to Pagan gods either all the the time or when abroad.

The Romans are a bit of a puzzle to me as I read they were pragmatic and especially the more wealthy/educated classes didn't really believe in the Gods, just the festivals and feasts etc were a social convention and bound society together. What did they believe in absolutely though? They never seem to become relativists.

I know the Greeks had their rationalism so Aristotle had his transcendent God but it was distant and not a moral force?

I was reading Gods became moral forces actually in antiquity after the Homeric period where Gods were definitely not moral, rather they were more like immortal men with flaws and passions. I'll have to dig that up as I don't fully understand it.

The Romans particularly were an advanced, affluent empire much like the one we live in today, with complex financial systems, government, etc etc. Like us, they had no need for religion.

You could compare the Greek philosophical tradition with the Taoist, Buddhist etc spiritual type religions in the Far East. It is simply another model of "religion"/received wisdom, and our scientific rationalism can be seen as an extension of this.

Judaism, Christianity (and Islam?) all came out of peoples who were being oppressed, so that might be why they have prophetic elements, assuring the subjugated people that they were really the chosen ones and would get their reward later.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
my understanding of the Normans was that they invaded in the 11th century, lead by William the Conqueror.

Where'd you get the line about the invasion being on behest of the Roman Empire from?

I got it from knowing the background of historical events - William was given papal support for the invasion of enlgand, which previously to harold, was largely under danish/norweigan control (primarily non-christian i beleive)
Your reference to ireland etc ignores the fact that pre-christian 'pagan' beleifs, druidism, even the celtic languages were pruged to a larg extent by the english ( decendents of the saxons and normans) - it was nothing to do with beliefs becoming ' easier' This is a pattern mirrored al over the world - do you think the south american mayans felt it was 'easier' to follow a middle eastern messiah they had never heard of before with roman and hebrew traditions or did it have more to do with spanish conquistadors shooting them if they didnt? Same would apply to most of the middle east and parts of asia, in which the muslim competed with the christians conquer and convert campaigns.

The normans conquest was the first attempt for widespread papal christianty to be imposed on england - which was the intention of the holy roman empire

[Greenlaner]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
I got it from knowing the backgrund of historical events - William was given papal support for the invasion of enlgand, which previously to harold, was largely under danish/norweigan control (primarily non-christian i beleive)

The normans conquest was the first attempt for widespread papal christianty to be imposed on england - which was the intention of the holy roman empire

Not true. The British Isles had undergone Christianization almost 400 years before the Norman invasion.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Greenlaner)
Not true. The British Isles had undergone Christianization almost 400 years before the Norman invasion.

which is why i said "i believe" and also said " first papal attempt"

And no the British Isles was not christian, despite Edwards efforts, in fact prior to harold there was no british isles as we know it, wales was an independant kingdom under ap Llywelyn, who also was non-christian

[Libshan]

I go by a great quote someone gave me once of Marcus Aurelius:

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

It's a way of living that makes me happy.

There's a part of me that wants to believe in a God - a divine creator of life. It's a cool idea of pure love. Also, the world, life, the universe, physics, atoms, all of it is so very amazing and wondrous that part of me doesn't want something so beautiful to have happened randomly. Scientifically I know it can have, but emotionally or spiritually perhaps I want to hope there's some design - that there was some consciousness that wanted to create the magnificence that is life.

If one God, or many Gods make you happy and encourage you to live a life that is good and kind to yourself and others, then I say worship whomever or whatever you'd like.

[Alpharius]

Because the Abrahamic faiths pretty much wiped out said Gods in the western world. The burning of the Library of Alexandria (along with any text in the mediterranean deemed heretical) and the violent Christian conversion of the Scandanavian kingdoms are all testament to that.

Its now the age old argument; "2 billion people can't be wrong..."

[snozzle]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Judaism, Christianity (and Islam?) all came out of peoples who were being oppressed, so that might be why they have prophetic elements, assuring the subjugated people that they were really the chosen ones and would get their reward later.

I think Islam is different in that respects. It originated in Mecca which was a prosperous city, nobody was especially oppressed as such, but trade/mercantilism had upset and destabilized the traditional tribal collectivist morality. Having said that Mohammed did attract misfits, poor, people from weaker tribes to his cause in Mecca. Once an established religion it can hardly be called a religion of the oppressed, more like a religion of success as it then went on to conquer a massive empire. I think this is one reason Muslims are so much in crisis now, their religion is a religion of success and it is hard to square that with the dismal state of many Islamic countries.

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by Lord-Voldemort)
I am sure there is evidence that a number of figures in 'primitive' religious beliefs were in fact real people, including leaders who were worshipped as gods and believed to possess divine power. Moreover, there is likely a plethora of sources which claim that such figures carried out miracles or performed supernatural acts. That does not mean that they were either gods, demi-gods or other supernatural beings.



Who says that a powerful but not omnipotent god or gods could not create and sustain the universe?

Also, why are multiple gods contradictory?

Because it implies that Gods can pro-create and there can be as many as possible. Also, it removes completely the aspect of the purpose of life which is to be tested and therefore elminiates the reason for creation and makes the whole concept redundant.

[Lord-Voldemort]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
Because it implies that Gods can pro-create and there can be as many as possible. Also, it removes completely the aspect of the purpose of life which is to be tested and therefore elminiates the reason for creation and makes the whole concept redundant.

Surely if the Abrahamic God is omnipotent, he can pro-create and thus create other gods? He would not be omnipotent otherwise.

Why does the purpose of life have to be a test? Why does it not being a test make the creation concept redundant? Couldn't a god or gods created the universe just to observe human life? Also, many non-Abrahamic religions do involve a test during life and concepts of heaven and hell.

[Rtcw]

(Original post by Politricks)
No, deciding on what is and what isn't a fact isn't like a democracy where the whole population votes on it based on what they personally believe.

Most people back in the days believed the Earth was flat, so the Earth must have been flat because most people believed it was flat?



In that case, Islam must be true because 1.5 billion people believe in it, Christianity must be true because over 2.2 billion people believe in it, Hinduism must be true because over 1 billion people believe in it - despite those religions having completely different fundamental belief systems, they must all be true because so many people believe in them?



Using a quote from well known people doesn't make any mention of the intelligence of that person, I used that quote because it was a very good quote, and true. Indeed, no amount of belief make something a fact, only evidence makes something a fact.

(Original post by Lord-Voldemort)
There are a number of gods and religions which have lasted much longer than the Abrahamic religions in terms of duration if you're trying to say that because an Abrahamic religion has been around for x number of years and has a large amount of followers then it must be real.

I think you both have completely missed the point. I did not say if so many people believe in it, it becomes a fact. However, I did say it will become more credible, quite similar as to how theory works. However it can and still can be disproved/proved.

[Politricks]

(Original post by Rtcw)
I think you both have completely missed the point. I did not say if so many people believe in it, it becomes a fact. However, I did say it will become more credible, quite similar as to how theory works. However it can and still can be disproved/proved.

Except a theory, like gravity, is based on hard scientific facts.

Many people are Christian because they were born into a Christian family, many people are Hindu because they were born into a Hindu family, many people are Muslim because they were born into a Muslim family, and so on; it doesn't make their religions credible, they just have an emotional attachment to their religion.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Politricks)
Except a theory, like gravity, is based on hard scientific facts.

Many people are Christian because they were born into a Christian family, many people are Hindu because they were born into a Hindu family, many people are Muslim because they were born into a Muslim family, and so on; it doesn't make their religions credible, they just have an emotional attachment to their religion.

Not many Epistemologists would agree such things as 'hard facts' actually exist. All observations are theory-laden, and some people even consider that observations are incommensurable between competing theories.

It's funny as you allude to physics but Newtonian and Einstenian concepts of space and time are actually different concepts. Similarly gravity I think. One doesn't just observe gravity as a neutral physical phenomenon, the theory tells you what gravity is and what to observe about it.

[Gofre]

(Original post by snozzle)
Not many Epistemologists would agree such things as 'hard facts' actually exist. All observations are theory-laden, and some people even consider that observations are incommensurable between competing theories.

Neither do scientists, the vast majority of them recognise that 100% certainty exists solely within the realm of mathematics. A scientific fact typically refers to an individual observation that has been verified beyond reasonable doubt. A fact may still be proven incorrect, but there is no rational reason to doubt its validity with current understanding.

[lukas1051]

There is nothing different about them, and in a thousand years we'll probably read about Christians and Muslims and laugh and say "did they really believe that? A miraculous Jewish zombie and people made from ribs and clay? Hahahaha" before praying down to their lizard God.

[Norton1]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
I don't think you quite understand the link between Judaism and Christianity. Not meaning to sound harsh but the entire of the OT points towards the NT. The prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, and as the prophecies have been around for a long time it makes it unlikely that Christ was based on Mithra (also numerous other reasons to do with eyewitness reports etc.)

Oh and of course because two stories share common elements means one has to have leached off the other? Better write to all major publishers and tell them that a group of best friends uniting to fight evil can never happen again

Anyway, I'm off to bed, unwatching this thread and ignoring all replies in the morning. Night night

The OT as a whole does not point to Jesus, small parts of it can be applied to Jesus if you're that way inclined. Incidentally your second point about stories sharing common elements totally misses the point, there's a lot of cross pollination of stories. For example, the Islamic tradition that Mary was succored by a tree is based on Christian stories floating around at the time.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Lord-Voldemort)
I bet if you told an average person on the street or a Christian, Muslim or Jew that you worship Zeus, Amun or Odin as your God - they would probably laugh in your face and ask you if you are serious.

Hello Lord Voldemort,

I wouldn't laugh. I'd be very curious and want to know why. There are Native Americans who believe things much different than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Some believe in the Great Spirit, which fascinates me. One of the saddest things to me is that European colonists came over to the "New World" and treated horribly the Native Americans who believed differently than the European colonists. Long time ago after the Roman empire became Christian, it became not so much allowed to believe in the Roman gods, which i think is tragic too. The reason I think it is tragic is because Jesus didn't teach to enforce his teachings on others. Rather, Jesus said to make disciples. One does not make disciples by threatening to kill them if they do not believe. Christians are to teach about Jesus, but if people don't accept, that is their right. Jesus never commanded his followers to make a Christian monarchy or dictatorship.

But what objective evidence is there to prove that these Gods and indeed the beliefs of their associated religions are anymore false than the Abrahamic God and the beliefs of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc?

That's an interesting question. I don't know an awful lot about Greek/Roman gods, but from my studies concerning the beliefs of the Native Americans, as well as my own Celtic roots before Christianity, I do believe there are reasons why people believed different things. However, I believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the One and Only God. With Roman/Greek/German/Celtic/Native American gods, I believe the stories were based on great men and women and inexplicable happenings that amazed the people. Some scholars also wonder if angelic beings or aliens were the basis for mortals with superhuman strength or other fascinating aspects in the beliefs of different people groups around the world.

It is a very thought-provoking and interesting question. As a person who admires some Native American beliefs, I love their love of nature and animals. I understand why they believe what they did, and I respect their right to believe what they want. There are Native Americans who accept Christian beliefs, but I believe it is so wrong and sad for anybody to be forced to accept. If they decide to become Christians or Atheists or Muslims or any belief, it should not be because of force!

Peace and God bless you

[Lord-Voldemort]

(Original post by Christianlady)
x

You're always so respectful in your replies so I don't know why you have so much neg rep!