Christians attack a Neopagan temple in Ukraine

[Zostrianos]

Christian fanatics doing what they do best:

http://www.patheos.com/community/religioromana/2011/10/01/assault-on-the-temple-of-jupiter/

"...the Temple of Jupiter Perennus that is being built for our community in Poltava, Ukraine, was attacked last Monday night by a group of Orthodox Christians. Our chief priest of Jupiter, the Flamen Dialis Marcus Corvus was injured while defending the altar of Jupiter and has been hospitalized. This comes after news that another Christian band attacked a Romuva sanctuary in Lithuania. Even here in Ohio, some years ago, Christians attacked a sanctuary that was erected by a CUUPS group on the grounds of a Unitarian church in Fairlawn, a suburb of Akron. While sad to hear such events continue today, it is no shock to learn of them. Not when ministers like John Hagey preach that “Tolerance is a sin,” when Pat Robertson, among others, blamed the 9/11 attacks on pagans, or when Rev. Billingsly, the former minister of the Akron Baptist Temple, once preached from the pulpit to his congregation that they ought to burn pagans at the stake. Such is the face of the “New Christianity” that we are met with each day, and now it has touched my friend Corvus and his family."

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Religious infighting, what's new? :rolleyes:

[Arlekino]

Lithuanian Christians democrats corrupt system in government. well church representatives going to schools blessing and charging money. Can you image for working class pay for heating and other utilities builds and there is another charge for church as well in hospitals sort of kind of blessings and charging of course and vulnerable pay and priest driving limuzins.

[ComradeMan]

I condemn all acts of religious intolerance and violence like this. However, don't try to make this out as inherent in Christianity, it just seems to be inherent in the shitty world full of intolerant people in which we live. It's not as if churches have not been attacked and vandalised by so-called "pagans" either. :crying:

[DarkPast]

This stuff happens when a religion that has intolerance written into its scripture gets used by political elites for their own purposes.

[Nox]

I condemn all acts of religious intolerance and violence like this. However, don't try to make this out as inherent in Christianity, it just seems to be inherent in the shitty world full of intolerant people in which we live. It's not as if churches have not been attacked and vandalised by so-called "pagans" either. :crying:

Christianity is inherently intolerant though.

[ВАЛТЕР]

1) let all of the religions hate each other
2)let them destroy each others objects.
3)?????
4) Socialism!

[a rebel]

This stuff happens when a religion that has intolerance written into its scripture gets used by political elites for their own purposes.

Or even worse, when political elites think they're doing god's work.

[Iron Felix]

As I always say, nothing wrong with destroying Temples, Churches, Mosques, Synagogues...as long as you destroy all of them.

[ComradeMan]

Christianity is inherently intolerant though.

I don't think it is. I think people are inherently intolerant and do what they want with whatever creed they have. Pagans, neo-pagans, reconstructionalists etc can be just as bigotted, dishonest and intolerent.

1 Corinthians 10:31-32 "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, orwhatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:" :crying:


As I always say, nothing wrong with destroying Temples, Churches, Mosques, Synagogues...as long as you destroy all of them.

Stop being a dick. You realise the stupidity of your comment within the context, don't you?- running along the lines of saying "all extremists should be shot".

[Tifosi]

1 Corinthians 10:31-32 "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, orwhatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:"

This quote means fuck all because it comes from the most contradictory book every wrote.

I'm sure you could find plenty more quotes from the Bible to the same effect as the one above. Yet at the same time I could drag out hundreds of quotes about how you can own slaves, murder and rape people.

God is satisfied with his works - Gen 1:31

God is dissatisfied with his works - Gen 6:6

oh :confused:

A man may marry his brother's widow -Deut 25:5

A man may not marry his brother's widow- Lev 20:21

oh :confused:

[DarkPast]

I don't think it is. I think people are inherently intolerant and do what they want with whatever creed they have. Pagans, neo-pagans, reconstructionalists etc can be just as bigotted, dishonest and intolerent.

1 Corinthians 10:31-32 "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, orwhatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:" :crying:

While I would say that monotheistic scripture tends to be somewhat more intolerant of other religions, I don't think it's the key factor here. The Bible, to use an example, tends to be contradictory and open to many interpretations, so it's as easy to find quotes that support tolerance (as the one you mentioned above) as those who encourage intolerance and repression (e.g. Thou shalt not suffer a witch/sorceress to live). Neither would I say that people are inherently intolerant (I'd say they're taught to be intolerant).

Rather, intolerance is far more likely when a dominant religion ties itself with political elites. Then the priesthood of said religion starts to directly wield political power - or influence those who do so - and thus oppress people of other religions or people with other "undesirable" traits.

A religion that is not tied in with political elites, however, has every reason to support tolerance (it's in its self-interest to do so, if nothing else).

Just my two cents.

[Nox]

I don't think it is. I think people are inherently intolerant and do what they want with whatever creed they have. Pagans, neo-pagans, reconstructionalists etc can be just as bigotted, dishonest and intolerent.

1 Corinthians 10:31-32 "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, orwhatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:" :crying:





The bible, at some point is:

- Homophobic
- Sexist
- Discriminatory
- Hateful towards other religions
- Hateful towards non-believers
- Encourages rape
- Encourages murder of non-believers

[Who?]

I don't really care. I mean, it's wrong, but it isn't a tragedy.

Religion is a cancer in all its forms.
Paganism is just as silly as Christianity.

[ComradeMan]

This quote means fuck all because it comes from the most contradictory book every wrote....


The bible, at some point is...

Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.:rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.:rolleyes:

Which tells you all you need to know about Scripture, really.

[Zostrianos]

I condemn all acts of religious intolerance and violence like this. However, don't try to make this out as inherent in Christianity, it just seems to be inherent in the shitty world full of intolerant people in which we live. It's not as if churches have not been attacked and vandalised by so-called "pagans" either. :crying:

Actually most attacks on places of worship have come from monotheists (Christians and Muslims). There have been a few church burnings in India, but these were in retaliation for Christian provocations against Hindus.
The best example I can give is South Korea, where as soon as Christianity surpassed Buddhism as the main religion some 20-30 years ago, Christians started attacking and burning Buddhist temples and waging a vicious and relentless religious war against buddhists, and this continues today:

http://wihara.com/forum/seputar-buddhisme/10510-buddhism-under-siege-1982-1996-a.html

Just a few examples. There are dozens more in the link:

1982 May.A man by the name of Myông Chinhong organizes religious gatherings in Seoul to publicly denounce Buddhism. He erects a banner "Jesus Heaven, Buddhism Hell!" He claims to have once been a Buddhist monk who has "repented," though no records can be found to support the claim of his ordination. Using this claim, he puts up posters claiming: "A Dharma Hall is a hall of demons."

1984 February. Red crucifixes are painted on priceless temple wall paintings at Muryangsa Temple and Ilsônsa on Samgaksan Mountain outside Seoul. Dirt is smeared on the paintings and on a statue of the Buddha located outside one of the temples. A large ancient carving of the Buddha chiselled into stone is damaged with axe-like instruments.

May. Ignoring the pleas of Buddhist leaders, the Roman Catholic Church invites Pope John Paul II to visit South Korea to celebrate the bicentennial of the church in Korea. This event happens to fall during the annual national Buddha's Birthday holiday celebrations. Because it is the first ever visit of a Roman pontiff to South Korea, and because the Vatican announces that 93 Koreans and 10 French missionary martyrs will be beatified as saints during the visit, the visit becomes a major national event. It is the first time that a canonization ceremony is held outside of Rome and the largest number ever canonized at one time. This ceremony gives Korea the fourth largest number of Catholic saints in the world. When the Pope tours the country, in the days immediately preceding and during Buddha's Birthday, there are immense traffic jams which diminish attendance at Buddhist events in several key cities. Buddhist leaders protest the timing of the event as "disrespectful" and "in bad taste" because the Korean and Roman Catholic Churches schedule the mass beatification ceremonies to take place during Buddha's Birthday celebrations, a day sacred to Buddhists and a national holiday.

1987 December. A fundamentalist Christian by the name of Yang Shinha from the Tamna Church on Chejudo Island is apprehended after setting fire to two temples - Kwanûmjôngsa and Taegaksa - completely burning them to the ground.
(2 buildings)

1988 September 25. In the early morning hours, a fire is set at Pômôsa Temple in Pusan, a major monastic training center of the Chogye Order and regional headquarters. The fire completely destroys the Myôngbujôn (Chijang Bodhisattva Hall- a funeral hall), taking with it 16 priceless altar paintings of the Buddha. The paintings were considered treasures and the hall a registered Cultural Asset. The cause of the fire is unknown but deemed "highly suspicious" by Pusan city authorities.
(1 building)

December 8. Several days before the annual Buddha's Enlightenment celebrations, the Chônggagwôn, the main Dharma Hall on the Kyôngju campus of Dongguk University is completely burned to the ground. Arson is suspected but no one is apprehended.
(1 building)

1989 January. A stone lantern and pagoda is destroyed and statements attacking Buddhism are painted on the temple's gates Okch'ôn Am Hermitage located in the Sôdaemun (Hongûndong), Seoul.

March. Several individuals enter Kupok Am Hermitageon Samgaksan Mountain on the outskirts of Seoul and destroy a stone lantern and stone pagoda, seriously damage a Ch'ilsônggak (Big Dipper Hall), and paint red crucifixes on a large gilded Buddha statue.

April. Five to six individuals destroy a Buddha statue and paint red crucifixes on a large outdoor Ma-ae Buddha figure carved into the rock on Samgaksan Mountain on the outskirts of Seoul. In all, some 10 temples are severely damaged or desecrated in the days immediately before and after the national Buddha's Birthday holidays.

April. The Hyangmok Committee of the Seoul City Government gathers military reserve forces under its control for a (taesônghoe) church service. Some of the members are compelled to attend even though they are not Christian.

July 29. The huge main Dharma Hall and a temple dormitory at Potasa Temple, Oksudong, Sôngdonggu, Seoul are completely burned to the ground. A 23-year old follower of the Taesônjillihoe (Great Conversion Truth Church) is arrested at the scene. Damage is estimated at $1.1 million according to the Chogye Order report.
(2 buildings)

1990 May 2. Two men break into the Buddhist Broadcasting System (BBS, the first Buddhist radio station in Korea) in Seoul, two days before it is due to begin broadcasting a combination of popular music and Buddhist teaching and cultural programs. They tie up two guards, and proceed to destroy all of the radio station's recording and transmission equipment. They smash expensive electronic gear and tear up several state-of-the-art recording booths. At one point, they use a statue of the Buddha as a battering ram to break through several plate-glass recording booth windows and use the Buddha's head to damage computer equipment, sound boards, reel-to-reel decks, and screens. Damage is estimated in the millions of dollars, and delays the opening of the station by several months. No arrests are ever made.

1993 February. Colonel (battalion commander) Cho Pyôngshik of the 17th Tank Battalion, claiming a lack of warehouse space, has the Dharma Hall on his base dismantled. The gilded statue of the Buddha is taken from the Hall, burned, and openly discarded behind the mountain. Taejon. The event makes national news.
(1 building)

The Yôngdo Church in Pusan organizes to prevent a temple from being built beside them, claiming that they "cannot accept the construction of a place of idol worship" near them.

May. At Hyundai High School, all students are required to attend church services, and their attendance at these services is reflected in their school records.

Lee Yun-sun, a teacher at the Paegun Primary School in Uidong, Seoul, teaches the Christian Bible in his class and declares that any Buddhist children in the class are "followers of the Satan," and excludes them from certain class activities.

Professor Im In-hûi rejects the admission application of a Buddhist student. He claims he was only following the orders of the board chairman of Taejôn Junior College Lee Pyông-ik.

1995 September. A fundamentalist Christian by the name of Pak Oh-Sun is apprehended after entering and causing serious damage to five temples on Chejudo. He burns Buddha statues at the temples, in addition to other damage.

A Protestant minister is apprehended after painting a large red cross onto the altar painting behind the Buddha at Mu-ûi sa Temple in Kangjin, Chollanamdo. He is released without charges. Later an unknown person carves a crucifix below the same Buddha image.

1995-96. Students belonging to a fundamentalist Christian group begin an aggressive campaign of proselytizing on the campus of Dongguk University (Seoul), Korea's main Buddhist university. The students proselytize directly in front of a large statue of the Buddha - the campus symbol and central meeting-point - making anti-Buddhist statements and handing out Christian literature to ordained sangha members.

1996. President Kim Young Sam attends services at a Protestant church located on the nation's central military base at Kyeryôngsan Mountain. In an event which sends shock waves throughout Buddhist and Catholic circles in Korea, many troops based there are compelled to attend the service in order to create the appearance of a larger number of Protestant troops. (Many of the troops are not Protestant Christians, and many are not even Christian.) Moreover, people attending services at a nearby temple and Catholic church are placed under virtual "house arrest," their religious sanctuaries being encircled with troops while the President makes what is deemed a "preferential" visit to the Protestant chapel. Those inside the Buddhist temple and Catholic church were made to remain inside for several hours while President Kim completed his visit. Buddhist and Catholic leaders lodge strong protests. Some Buddhist leaders perceive the President's actions as a license, a virtual "green light" for abusive actions to be taken against them, citing the centuries-old tradition in Korea of leaders signalling, through thinly-veiled actions, the unstated "allowances" that the government will make for actions which coincide with "non-legislateable" policies.

1998. The government revokes its intention to engrave a dragon image on the handle of National Seal due to a strong protest by Korean Christians. Christians assert the animal symbolizes Satan and should not be used in an image representing our nation.

So Christianity is indeed the prime culprit.
In fact, I can almost guarantee you that if you go to the US somewhere in the Bible belt, and build a non Christian place of worship, it will be firebombed or burned to the ground within a week.

[Who?]

Who cares? Religion in general will be rendered superfluous once we achieve our goals, we shouldn't worry about something as insignificant as the vandalization of a pagan temple. As a matter of fact I would rather the church and the temple both be burned to the ground.

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

As I always say, nothing wrong with destroying Temples, Churches, Mosques, Synagogues...as long as you destroy all of them.


Red Salute!!

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

The bible, at some point is:

- Homophobic
- Sexist
- Discriminatory
- Hateful towards other religions
- Hateful towards non-believers
- Encourages rape
- Encourages murder of non-believers


Yup.

[Tifosi]

The bible, at some point is:

- Homophobic
- Sexist
- Discriminatory
- Hateful towards other religions
- Hateful towards non-believers
- Encourages rape
- Encourages murder of non-believers

But again, you could drag up a whole host of quotes which say otherwise if you really wanted to. Which is weird, seeing that the bible is divinely inspired, yet at the same time full of endless contradictions.

Not very good of that all knowing, all seeing master of everything. But normal if you stick a book together over a few hundredd odd years.

Pulling up quotes from the Bible saying you can own a slave if such and such happens is good for something, like trollin but that's about it.

[Devrim]

I don't think it is. I think people are inherently intolerant and do what they want with whatever creed they have. Pagans, neo-pagans, reconstructionalists etc can be just as bigotted, dishonest and intolerent.

Actually, I think that Christianity, and monotheism in general are inherently intolerant. The Romans considered the Christians to be atheists because they didn't believe in the gods.

The idea that there is one true universal God, also says implicitly that other people's gods weren't gods, and usually in practice that they were demons.

Compared to Christianity paganism was much more tolerant.

Devrim

[Red Future]

Neopagans in Ukraine? ..is there any more reactionary shit seeping into society after the end of the USSR

[tir1944]

I bet shit like that don't happen in the other Korea...;)

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

But again, you could drag up a whole host of quotes which say otherwise if you really wanted to. Which is weird, seeing that the bible is divinely inspired, yet at the same time full of endless contradictions.

Not very good of that all knowing, all seeing master of everything. But normal if you stick a book together over a few hundredd odd years.

Pulling up quotes from the Bible saying you can own a slave if such and such happens is good for something, like trollin but that's about it.


Yeah, for an example. Don't you think the Creator of the universe would have let people know that the world was round? That the Earth in fact revolved around the Sun?

If the God of the Bible does exist he chose not to provide us with any valuable information and is by all eyewitness accounts a sadistic, genocidal asshole.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Who cares? Religion in general will be rendered superfluous once we achieve our goals, we shouldn't worry about something as insignificant as the vandalization of a pagan temple. As a matter of fact I would rather the church and the temple both be burned to the ground.

Religion will never be rendered superfluous despite the misunderstandings of it by militant Atheists. This is wrong in so much as I believe people are free to worship whatever it is they wish to worship even though they do not worship whom I worship (yes, I'm paraphrasing surah 109). Saying you would want all religious places burned to the ground is no less ignorant than me saying I would want every religious house of worship that isn't a masjid or the places in which Atheists congregate for their little intellectual circle-jerks burned to the ground. Both the reasoning of these orthodox Christians and of the militant Atheistic posturing of posters here are equally moronic.


If the God of the Bible does exist he chose not to provide us with any valuable information and is by all eyewitness accounts a sadistic, genocidal asshole.

:rolleyes:

When Atheists stop quoting Dawkin's horseshit then perhaps I might take what they say a little more seriously.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'm more surprised to hear that neopaganism is even a thing.

[Zostrianos]

I bet shit like that don't happen in the other Korea...;)

Oh, it will. Just wait, when the Kim regime falls eventually, South Korean missionaries will be the first to take advantage of the situation to christianize the North

[Zav]

Religion will never be rendered superfluous despite the misunderstandings of it by militant Atheists. This is wrong in so much as I believe people are free to worship whatever it is they wish to worship even though they do not worship whom I worship (yes, I'm paraphrasing surah 109). Saying you would want all religious places burned to the ground is no less ignorant than me saying I would want every religious house of worship that isn't a masjid or the places in which Atheists congregate for their little intellectual circle-jerks burned to the ground. Both the reasoning of these orthodox Christians and of the militant Atheistic posturing of posters here are equally moronic.



:rolleyes:

When Atheists stop quoting Dawkin's horseshit then perhaps I might take what they say a little more seriously.
Dumbassery. Irrationality (religion) is not equal to rationality (atheism).

[Zostrianos]

Actually, I think that Christianity, and monotheism in general are inherently intolerant. The Romans considered the Christians to be atheists because they didn't believe in the gods.
The idea that there is one true universal God, also says implicitly that other people's gods weren't gods, and usually in practice that they were demons.
Compared to Christianity paganism was much more tolerant.
Devrim

Christianity has the worst track record of intolerance of all religions. Many people bring up Islam as well, but in fact during the middle ages Muslim rulers were generally tolerant of Jews and Christians (whom they considered "people of the book"). During the Muslim occupation of southern Europe, in Portugal and Spain (from about 700 AD to the 1200's) Jews and Muslims were allowed to practice their religions freely. There was a brief period of persecution, but otherwise there was freedom of religion. At the same time in Catholic areas Jews were being forcibly converted to catholicism.

As for Judaism, which is also an intolerant religion, it never had a policy of imposing itself on others, and outside of Israel Jews have generally lived peacefully side by side with others. Judaism may be intolerant, but it's respectful of others. Christianity is not.
Even under a tolerant climate, Christian fanatics stop at nothing to provoke hatred and insult others. I had mentioned some historical episodes previously, but here's another this time from Muslim Spain:

"a highly illustrative parallel can be found in ninth-century Muslim Spain. A group of Christians in Cordoba publicly and repeatedly insulted the Prophet
Muhammad,knowing full well that the Muslims would treat this as a capital offense. After the Christians had turned down numerous chances to recant
or apologize, the Islamic authorities reluctantly granted them the martyrdom they had so zealously sought. In scenes deliberately reminiscent of classical martyrology, Muslim jurists are shown to be every bit as befuddled by the martyrs’ apparent death wish as had been the Roman magistrates of earlier centuries" (There is no Crime for those who have Christ, 200)

As always, they like to provoke conflict and stir up trouble, so that they can then claim to be persecuted. In India they do that a lot, by publicly insulting hindu deities and burning religious images to add fuel to the fire.

Fundamentalist Christianity is extremely dangerous. And plus nowadays it's strongly associated with US imperialism and capitalism, which gives them political power and unlimited monetary resources. They use their false charity, and an air of innocence to fool the poor so they can destroy their cultures and impose their own rules. They're a cancer that will continue to ravage the world. They won't stop until they eradicate the world's cultures. What they've been doing in South Korea, they will do in other countries as well.

[bcbm]

i don't understand why people refer to extremely large and diverse groupings of ideas and people across ages and ages in monolithic terms


The bible, at some point is:

- Homophobic
- Sexist
- Discriminatory
- Hateful towards other religions
- Hateful towards non-believers
- Encourages rape
- Encourages murder of non-believers

and not a bit of good in it?


As a matter of fact I would rather the church and the temple both be burned to the ground.

seems pointless.

[Apoi_Viitor]

All I could think of after reading that...

http://shop-hellsheadbangers.com/images/catalogimages/TScomingsoontoachruch.jpg

[Devrim]

Christianity has the worst track record of intolerance of all religions. Many people bring up Islam as well, but in fact during the middle ages Muslim rulers were generally tolerant of Jews and Christians (whom they considered "people of the book").

This in some ways is avery western view. Of course it is true that Islam did recognise the three 'peoples of the book', and did show tolerance towards them, but essentially these are people who shared their belief in the same God.

The attitude of Islam towards Zoroastrians and Hindus was much less tolerant. I don't think that the treatment of people who shared the same God contradicts the essential intolerant nature of monotheism.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

Actually, I think that Christianity, and monotheism in general are inherently intolerant. The Romans considered the Christians to be atheists because they didn't believe in the gods.

It wasn't really that- it was because Jews and the Christians would not really accept the Divine Emperor as a god and this seen was seen as disloyal to the state- the rest then followed.


Compared to Christianity paganism was much more tolerant.

Paganism was not a religion and you can't throw it all into one block. Different forms of paganism were not always tolerant of "each other" in addition to new religions.

If we take the Roman example, Suetonius Paulinus destroyed the Druidic religion of the British Celts and ransacked its major culture centre in North Wales. Druidism was banned by Roman law under both Tiberius and the Claudius.

[Zostrianos]

This in some ways is avery western view. Of course it is true that Islam did recognise the three 'peoples of the book', and did show tolerance towards them, but essentially these are people who shared their belief in the same God.
The attitude of Islam towards Zoroastrians and Hindus was much less tolerant. I don't think that the treatment of people who shared the same God contradicts the essential intolerant nature of monotheism.
Devrim

Not at all, but it shows that Islam was more tolerant than Christianity. Christians didn't recognize their co-monotheists as "peoples of the book". If you were a Jew or Muslim in Christian lands, you had to convert or face execution. Of course this depended on the period (there were some medieval popes who actually tolerated Jews during their reigns), but most of the time Christian powers had no tolerance whatsoever.
I had read somewhere that Islam's bloodiest conquests were in India, and apparently resulted in millions of deaths, but I'm not too familiar with the history of that part of the world so I can't really comment.

However, for an even more striking example, there was a place where Islam tolerated Pagans for nearly 4 centuries straight: in Harran (Mesopotamia). After Justinian closed down the Platonic academy in Athens in 536 and made Pagan worship punishable by death, the philosophers migrated eastward to Mesopotamia outside the borders of the Byzantine empire and settled in Harran, where one of them, Simplicius, established a Platonic school. It is this very school that is credited with preserving Pagan philosophy and bequeathing it to the Arabs. There were several Pagan temples in the city, and in the 10th century the academy and one of the temples were still active, after nearly 400 years of Islamic rule. There was one vicious persecution in Harran during this period, but it was launched by the Byzantine emperor Mauricius (582-602) who wanted the city converted to Christianity, and so he had the local bishop gather a military garrison to take care of the job: "some of them he managed to convert to Christianity, while many who resisted he carved up, suspending their limbs in the main street of the town" (Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth centuries, 28). In spite of this persecution, the Pagans resisted and when the Muslims came they were able to negotiate their freedom of religion.
So I would definitely say that Islam is (or at least was) more tolerant than Christianity.



Paganism was not a religion...


I disagree completely, but let's discuss this in another thread

[Rooster]

Yeah, for an example. Don't you think the Creator of the universe would have let people know that the world was round? That the Earth in fact revolved around the Sun?

Direct me to where in the bible it mentions that the world is flat and that the sun orbits around it.

[Devrim]

So I would definitely say that Islam is (or at least was) more tolerant than Christianity.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that there is something intrinsically intolerant within monotheism.


there was a place where Islam tolerated Pagans for nearly 4 centuries straight: in Harran (Mesopotamia)

I would like to see a source on this as I know the history of Haran reasonably well, and have even been there a couple of times. It was the seat of the Caliphate for a while and the home of the first Islamic university. As I understand it, the pagans were forced to convert by the last Umayyad Caliph in the 8th Century.

Devrim

[Zostrianos]

I would like to see a source on this as I know the history of Haran reasonably well, and have even been there a couple of times. It was the seat of the Caliphate for a while and the home of the first Islamic university. As I understand it, the pagans were forced to convert by the last Umayyad Caliph in the 8th Century.
Devrim

In Macmullen's book Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth centuries, 28, 29: "In due course the city was chosen as an Umayad caliph's capital (ca 745)....the residents were still permitted to carry on with their rites quite openly....Not long afterwards, a second time pagans negotiated with an Arab commander (a 830) on this occasion facing the loss of their freedom of religion; yet once more they were successful...the pagan community continued to repeat its annual New Year's prayer 'for the revival of the religion of Uzuz....."

[Zostrianos]

Also, in P. Chuvin's "Chronicle of the last Pagans" p 141 he also talks about Harran extensively, and states that there was still 1 temple functioning in the 10th century.

[ComradeMan]

Christianity has the worst track record of intolerance of all religions. Many people bring up Islam as well, but in fact during the middle ages Muslim rulers were generally tolerant of Jews and Christians (whom they considered "people of the book"). During the Muslim occupation of southern Europe, in Portugal and Spain (from about 700 AD to the 1200's) Jews and Muslims were allowed to practice their religions freely. There was a brief period of persecution, but otherwise there was freedom of religion. At the same time in Catholic areas Jews were being forcibly converted to catholicism.

The wearing of a yellow star as compulsory for Jews dates back to the Abassid caliph in Baghdad Al-Mutawakkil (821-861). On 30 December 1066 there was a "pogrom" in Grenada, Spain that left approximately 5000 dead an saw the crucifiction of Joseph Ben Samuel Ha-Nagid, the Jewish vizier. The medieval-early modern period is filled with examples of pogroms, massacres and general intolerance to Jews in Islamic countries. Futhermore, the protection under the dhimmi system basically meant that the dhimmi were second-class citizens. This tolerance that is so often spoken about was pretty grim in reality.


As for Judaism, which is also an intolerant religion, it never had a policy of imposing itself on others,

Unless you were a Canaanite :rolleyes: Even in the "historical" period we have the example of the forced conversions under the Hasmonean (Maccabees) c110 BCE under Yohanan Girhan (John Hyrcanus).


Judaism may be intolerant, but it's respectful of others. Christianity is not.Even under a tolerant climate, Christian fanatics stop at nothing to provoke hatred and insult others.

You make the instant jump from Christianity to Christian fanatics. Well, fanatics tend to be a pretty hateful bunch in general. But are they by any means representative of the majority? Just like some of the xenophobic and bigotted Israeli settlers in the West Bank cannot be said to represent all Jews?

""[I]a highly illustrative parallel can be found in ninth-century Muslim Spain. A group of Christians in Cordoba publicly and repeatedly insulted the Prophet
Muhammad...."

Of course this ignores the fact that Spain had been ruthlessly invaded and conquered by the Moors and Islam forced upon the people in the first place. The so-called Spanish Golden Age was relatively short and was largely brought down by Muslim invaders and in-fighting that allowed the Reconquista from the North.


Fundamentalist Christianity is extremely dangerous....

Fundamentalist *anything is extremely dangerous. Try it, put the word fundamentalist in front of most substantives and they usually become scary--- well, most of them at least (Fundamentalist Hippies doesn't work for example :D).

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Dumbassery. Irrationality (religion) is not equal to rationality (atheism).

The whole religion is inherently irrational and all the religious are fools is a fat load of horseshit and is a cop out for Atheists who can't properly argue their points philosophically. Try again, dumbassery indeed but I bet if I was just as militant in my belief in islam everyone would be up in arms but if it's Atheism, it's totally acceptable.

[Devrim]

In Macmullen's book Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth centuries, 28, 29: "In due course the city was chosen as an Umayad caliph's capital (ca 745)....the residents were still permitted to carry on with their rites quite openly....Not long afterwards, a second time pagans negotiated with an Arab commander (a 830) on this occasion facing the loss of their freedom of religion; yet once more they were successful...the pagan community continued to repeat its annual New Year's prayer 'for the revival of the religion of Uzuz....."


Also, in P. Chuvin's "Chronicle of the last Pagans" p 141 he also talks about Harran extensively, and states that there was still 1 temple functioning in the 10th century.

Azaran, I checked a few sources last night, and of course not finding anything about it doesn't prove anything, and I did only check a few anyway, but Islamic sources are quite clear that the pagans converted to Sabianism in the time of the Umayyads.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It wasn't really that- it was because Jews and the Christians would not really accept the Divine Emperor as a god and this seen was seen as disloyal to the state- the rest then followed.

I think that it is more than that though. I think that the idea of Jews as atheists existed before the imperial cult of the divine emperor.


Paganism was not a religion and you can't throw it all into one block. Different forms of paganism were not always tolerant of "each other" in addition to new religions.

If we take the Roman example, Suetonius Paulinus destroyed the Druidic religion of the British Celts and ransacked its major culture centre in North Wales. Druidism was banned by Roman law under both Tiberius and the Claudius.

Of course paganism was not a religion, and people from different pagan religions fought against each other. I would imagine that the Roman attacks on druidism were more politically motivated than religiously.

Don't you think that there is something intrinsically intolerant in Monotheism in that it states that our God is the one true God, and therefore your God is, generally, some sort of evil demon?

Devrim

[Spets]

If the devil punishes all the bad people, then doesn't that make him a good guy?

[DarkPast]

The wearing of a yellow star as compulsory for Jews dates back to the Abassid caliph in Baghdad Al-Mutawakkil (821-861). On 30 December 1066 there was a "pogrom" in Grenada, Spain that left approximately 5000 dead an saw the crucifiction of Joseph Ben Samuel Ha-Nagid, the Jewish vizier. The medieval-early modern period is filled with examples of pogroms, massacres and general intolerance to Jews in Islamic countries. Futhermore, the protection under the dhimmi system basically meant that the dhimmi were second-class citizens. This tolerance that is so often spoken about was pretty grim in reality.

This is very much true, and the situation with Balkan Christians under Ottoman rule was similar (except that instead of pogroms there were reprisal killings and the destruction of churches when the Christians rose up, refused to pay their taxes or similar).

The main reason Muslim conquerors had to afford their Jewish and Christian subjects some sort of protection is because Islam directly builds on those two religions (so as you doubtless know they consider Jesus a prophet). But, as you say, it did not stop them from treating Jews and Christians as second-class citizens and (for example) forcing them to pay additional taxes, forbidding them to build new places of worship etc.

Notice that people of other religions (e.g. pagans) were afforded no such protection under Islamic law.


Fundamentalist *anything is extremely dangerous. Try it, put the word fundamentalist in front of most substantives and they usually become scary--- well, most of them at least (Fundamentalist Hippies doesn't work for example :D)

Or fundamentalist Jainism. :cool:

[Zostrianos]

Azaran, I checked a few sources last night, and of course not finding anything about it doesn't prove anything, and I did only check a few anyway, but Islamic sources are quite clear that the pagans converted to Sabianism in the time of the Umayyads.
Devrim

Devrim, I checked the endnotes and bibliography from Macmullen's book and he got that info from the following sources:
-S. Brock: "A syriac collection of prophecies of the pagan philosophers" 1983
-J.B. Segal: "Edessa and Harran. An inaugural lecture. 1963
-D. Gutas: "Plato's symposium in the Arabic tradition" (which gives a different date for the negotiation, 842-843 instead of 830)

Chuvin's book references these works:
- D. Chwolsohn: "Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus" 1856
- Michel Tardieu: "Sabiens" and "Calendriers"

What I think explains the confusion is that Sabianism was probably a form of Paganism. Chuvin claims the Sabians were the successors of the Pagan Neoplatonists and viewed themselves as Pagans

[Devrim]

What I think explains the confusion is that Sabianism was probably a form of Paganism. Chuvin claims the Sabians were the successors of the Pagan Neoplatonists and viewed themselves as Pagans

According to the Koran, the Sabians are a 'people of the book':


Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve. (http://quran.com/5/69)

It seems quite clear from this, and other references, that the Sabians were an Abrahamic based religion. I don't think this is very surprising as there are other Abrahamic religions that have survived until today, the Mandaeans who until Americas wars number a community of tens of thousands in Iraq, and the Samaritans of whom there are just over a thousand left in Israel and the West Bank.

The Mandaeans have sometimes been identified with the Sabians, and even if they weren't the same group, it would be hardly surprising if at the time of Mohammed there were not other remnants of Abrahamic religions still in existence.

I think I am going to have to go with the Koran on this one.

Devrim

[Zostrianos]

Maybe the Muslims considered them as people of the book in spite of the cult of Aziz, and let them continue their practices. In Macmullen's book p 19 there's a passage from the Harranian scholar Abu Hasan Tabith (died 901) where he praises the cult of Aziz and the values of Paganism that had survived in the region and resisted violent conversion attempts by Christians.

[ComradeMan]

Paganism is not a religion- it was only a term applied retrospectively. If you had asked a Roman pagan what their religion was they would have probably said something like the "religion of Rome of my ancestors" and probably the same throughout the ancient world. The origin of the term "paganus", i.e. a countryside person, is also debated and there is an argument that it may have actually been a term applied by "pagan" Roman soldiers to early Christians!!! This was then adopted by the Christians of Rome. A "paganus" could be basically a contemptuous term for a civlian from a soldier's point of view and since the early Christians were seldom soldiers in the Roman military it evolved from there- when the Christians became the "Soldiers of Christ" the tables were turned so to speak.

As for the Sabians, not to be confused with the Sabaeans, as far as I knew it meant proselytes and no one is really clear on what exactly they did or worshipped other than that they were monotheists rooted in the same Semitic culture(s) of the Levant. This would have been seen by the first Muslims as good enough qualification to be deemed "People of the Book".

[Property Is Robbery]

The bible, at some point is:

- Homophobic
- Sexist
- Discriminatory
- Hateful towards other religions
- Hateful towards non-believers
- Encourages rape
- Encourages murder of non-believers
It's not homophobic.

[Zostrianos]

Paganism is not a religion- it was only a term applied retrospectively. If you had asked a Roman pagan what their religion was they would have probably said something like the "religion of Rome of my ancestors" and probably the same throughout the ancient world. The origin of the term "paganus", i.e. a countryside person, is also debated and there is an argument that it may have actually been a term applied by "pagan" Roman soldiers to early Christians!!! This was then adopted by the Christians of Rome. A "paganus" could be basically a contemptuous term for a civlian from a soldier's point of view and since the early Christians were seldom soldiers in the Roman military it evolved from there- when the Christians became the "Soldiers of Christ" the tables were turned so to speak.

As for the Sabians, not to be confused with the Sabaeans, as far as I knew it meant proselytes and no one is really clear on what exactly they did or worshipped other than that they were monotheists rooted in the same Semitic culture(s) of the Levant. This would have been seen by the first Muslims as good enough qualification to be deemed "People of the Book".

The word "Pagan" itself was indeed only used - in a religious sense- by Christians with reference to polytheists. However, the term that was typically used for Greco-Roman religion by its adherents was "Hellenes". Now, I do regard it as a religion because it was not just a haphazard pantheon of deities to be worshipped, but there was a philosophical tradition that developed in tandem and eventually formed a basis to the religious cults. This basis was not there initially, but developed gradually with the spread of Greek philosophy throughout the Mediterranean. I'm speaking of Neoplatonism, which provided a richer basis for the various cults during the empire's religious golden age (100-400 AD). Just like Christianity and Judaism had the Bible and its underlying tenets, so Greco-Roman paganism had various philosophical texts which supported it. Like Sallustius' On the Gods and the World (http://hermetic.com/texts/on_the_gods-1.html). Greco Roman religion may have begun as primarily cultic in character, but progressively evolved a more enlightened basis. And even from the earliest times many Greco-Roman deities had mysteries associated to them, an esoteric side wherein the faithful were initiated into a more profound aspect of the religion; while these mysteries and their rituals have not survived, secondary sources indicate that those mysteries were more than mere cultic acts, but involved a profound symbolism that is inherent in what is usually considered as "religion"

As for the Sabians, I don't know much about them, but I can only go by what I've read that they worshipped a God called 'Aziz or 'Uzuz and their religion had strong astrological elements.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It's not homophobic.

Expand on that please.

[ComradeMan]

The word "Pagan" itself was indeed only used - in a religious sense- by Christians with reference to polytheists. However, the term that was typically used for Greco-Roman religion by its adherents was "Hellenes".

I thought that term was initially used by early Christians too, along with "gentile" (from Latin > Hebrew).

Do we have any evidence of what a Roman or Greek or a Babylonian etc would have called themselves in terms of religion?


Now, I do regard it as a religion because it was not just a haphazard pantheon of deities to be worshipped, but there was a philosophical tradition that developed in tandem and eventually formed a basis to the religious cults. This basis was not there initially, but developed gradually with the spread of Greek philosophy throughout the Mediterranean.....

You've picked one example and argued the case for all from that. The fact is that when people today are talking about paganism they are not concentrating on Neoplatonism/Hellenistic belief systems from the later period. We also don't really know what the ordinary people would have believed and the evidence suggests that the "high religion" of the philosophers and the heterogenous mystery schools did not have so much in common with the "household" religion of most people. I still don't think you can apply the term "paganism" as a blanket term to insinuate that the non-Abrahamic groups had some kind of common basic religion and futhermore in the modern world I don't think it's appropriate at all.


As for the Sabians, I don't know much about them, but I can only go by what I've read that they worshipped a God called 'Aziz or 'Uzuz and their religion had strong astrological elements.

"Al-Aziz" is one of the names of All-h in the Qu'ran and means "powerful, strong, or mighty". It's of Chaldean origin and if the Sabians were worshipping "Aziz" all it was, was probably and epithet along the lines of the "Mighty One"- i.e. the "Almighty". The name Aziz is quite common as a personal name in the Islamic world today too. I can't find a reference for this Aziz/Uzuz though. From what I can gather it seems that the Sabian religion is/was a Semitic monotheistic religion sharing a lot of common cultural heritage with Judaism, Christianity and embryonic Islam yet it differed in its view of G-d and focused/es of the idea of G-d dwelling in the stars. In whatever case I don't think we can call them "pagans" in any sense of the word.

Just as an addition. I think historians and anthropologists have been too quick to jump to conclusions in the past and "deifying" epithets without actually looking deeply into what those epithets referred to. Funnily enough, if you do that it begins to show that a lot of the epithets across languages were referring to similar things. In strict monotheism an interpretation of "idolatry" is worshipping an epithet, i.e. a metaphor, and not the entirety.

[Zostrianos]

I thought that term was initially used by early Christians too, along with "gentile" (from Latin > Hebrew).
Do we have any evidence of what a Roman or Greek or a Babylonian etc would have called themselves in terms of religion?


I was speaking specifically of the term paganus that was applied by Christians to polytheists. Many Greeks and Romans, at least from the 2nd century onward, used the term Hellene to refer to their religious affiliation. The basis for this was in reference to Hellenistic civilization. As for Babylonians I don't know, but even if there was no name for their religion, I think the rich mythological and ritual literature that they produced justifies the usage of the term "religion" to refer to Babylonian cults. Many of these religions were tied to ethnicity, and not all of them have a separate term for the ethnic group and its spiritual traditions.




You've picked one example and argued the case for all from that. The fact is that when people today are talking about paganism they are not concentrating on Neoplatonism/Hellenistic belief systems from the later period. We also don't really know what the ordinary people would have believed and the evidence suggests that the "high religion" of the philosophers and the heterogenous mystery schools did not have so much in common with the "household" religion of most people. I still don't think you can apply the term "paganism" as a blanket term to insinuate that the non-Abrahamic groups had some kind of common basic religion and futhermore in the modern world I don't think it's appropriate at all.


There was also a similar distinction in Medieval Christianity, between the religion of the monks and clergy who could read and studied the Bible, and that of the common people who were usually illiterate, had little knowledge of the philosophy of Christianity beyond what they learned in Church, and had statues of saints, crucifixes, or similar cultic objects in their homes to which they prayed and made offerings.
The blanket term as applied to late antique Paganism does work well, because of the syncretistic nature of the religions at the time: Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian, and other traditions were often melded together as part of a cohesive whole. And you are right that the usage of a general term is inappropriate for these various traditions, but since they were often mixed it's understandable. And many modern Polytheists don't refer to themselves as "Pagans"; many Egyptian Pagans use the term "Kemetic" (which is a modern termm but still), Greeks use the classical "Hellene", etc.



"Al-Aziz" is one of the names of All-h in the Qu'ran and means "powerful, strong, or mighty". It's of Chaldean origin and if the Sabians were worshipping "Aziz" all it was, was probably and epithet along the lines of the "Mighty One"- i.e. the "Almighty". The name Aziz is quite common as a personal name in the Islamic world today too. I can't find a reference for this Aziz/Uzuz though. From what I can gather it seems that the Sabian religion is/was a Semitic monotheistic religion sharing a lot of common cultural heritage with Judaism, Christianity and embryonic Islam yet it differed in it's view of G-d and focused/es of the idea of G-d dwelling in the stars. In whatever case I don't think we can call them "pagans" in any sense of the word.


That makes sense, can't argue with that.



Just as an addition. I think historians and anthropologists have been too quick to jump to conclusions in the past and "deifying" epithets without actually looking deeply into what those epithets referred to. Funnily enough, if you do that it begins to show that a lot of the epithets across languages were referring to similar things. In strict monotheism an interpretation of "idolatry" is worshipping an epithet, i.e. a metaphor, and not the entirety.

If the epithet is considered part of the whole (Monism), then it makes sense to worship an aspect of a larger whole. In Neoplatonism (which recognized a supreme being that encompasses all) the Gods and Goddesses from the various pantheons act as mediators between the highest inexpressible aspect of God and humanity. The same way many saints do in popular Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity.

[ComradeMan]

I was speaking specifically of the term paganus that was applied by Christians to polytheists. Many Greeks and Romans, at least from the 2nd century onward, used the term Hellene to refer to their religious affiliation. The basis for this was in reference to Hellenistic civilization.

Have you got a source for that? I haven't come across it. All I have found are the Judaeo-Christian references, not references by the people who were being described themselves. :confused:


As for Babylonians I don't know, but even if there was no name for their religion, I think the rich mythological and ritual literature that they produced justifies the usage of the term "religion" to refer to Babylonian cults. Many of these religions were tied to ethnicity, and not all of them have a separate term for the ethnic group and its spiritual traditions.

Most religions/belief systems were originally tied to a tribal or ethnic allegiance. Even "mystery" religions such as Mithraism were tied to a cultural group (as opposed to an ethnic one), i.e. the soldier.


And you are right that the usage of a general term is inappropriate for these various traditions, but since they were often mixed it's understandable. And many modern Polytheists don't refer to themselves as "Pagans"; many Egyptian Pagans use the term "Kemetic" (which is a modern termm but still), Greeks use the classical "Hellene", etc.

The issue I have is that many modern reconstructionalists or anti-Abrahamics do seem to have a tendency to speak of paganism as if it were, or at least it is implied it were, a single homogenous religion. Furthermore we don't really know what ancient people's really believed and considering we only have about 2% of the documents from the ancient world that were ever written I think we should exercise caution with interpretation.


If the epithet is considered part of the whole (Monism), then it makes sense to worship an aspect of a larger whole. In Neoplatonism (which recognized a supreme being that encompasses all) the Gods and Goddesses from the various pantheons act as mediators between the highest inexpressible aspect of God and humanity. The same way many saints do in popular Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity.

Again, I'm presenting the argument from a strict monotheistic point of view and don't want to get into debates about who is right or wrong. Having said that, your example itself shows how this leads to idolatry- because people tend to focus on the bit they like and want and forget about the rest.

It's also problematic because in strict monotheism G-d cannot be really known therefore the names ascribed to G-d are decided by humans and by worshipping the epithets you are in fact worshipping that which is man made. We need a reference point but we must not forget that it's only that and nothing more.

The issue of idolatry in Catholic/Orthodox Christianity- given their Abrahamic basis, is a complex one, but I believe it has led to accusations of shituf and also idolatry from Protestant groups- but this is a complex issue for another thread. Christianity as a whole has known periods of iconoclasm and aniconism.

[Zostrianos]

The term Hellene was used by educated Pagans to refer to themselves, notably the emperor Julian, and also by many Christians to refer to Pagans before the term paganus became commonplace.
See here:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Iskwzsz51KMC&pg=PA197&dq=hellenes+pagans+julian&hl=en&ei=O8yOTqTKC6nh0QG3iKkr&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=hellenes%20pagans%20&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=NHgvpINWV_QC&pg=PA17&dq=hellenes+pagans+julian&hl=en&ei=O8yOTqTKC6nh0QG3iKkr&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=hellene&f=false

[ComradeMan]

The term Hellene was used by educated Pagans to refer to themselves, notably the emperor Julian, and also by many Christians to refer to Pagans before the term paganus became commonplace.
See here:

Hmmm.... that's one reference quoted by Gregory (christian) in which Julian the Apostate seems to be counter-acting against Christian arguments. I still don't see that as evidence that (pl.) pagans in general referred to themselves as Hellenes? Why would they need to? It seems to me that Julian is using the name that was given to his "camp" by others in a defensive sort of way.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm

[freepalestine]

Unless you were a Canaanite :rollyes: Even in the "historical" period we have the example of the forced conversions under the Hasmonean (Maccabees) c110 BCE under Yohanan Girhan (John Hyrcanus).



.have you proof of this ,forced conversions to judaism in canaan(levant) ?? ,according to historical sources there was conversion to judaism in europe and n.w africa during the time of roman rule,which was true.and also the arabian peninsula,prior to islam.

[ComradeMan]

have you proof of this ,forced conversions to judaism in canaan(levant) ?? ,according to historical sources there was conversion to judaism in europe and n.w africa during the time of roman rule,which was true.and also the arabian peninsula,prior to islam.

The reference to forced conversions was under the Maccabees, the forced conversion of the Idumeans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

...in strict monotheism G-d cannot be really known...

Maybe in Abrahamic monotheism that is the case, but I fail to see how monotheism per se indicates that God is unknowable.

[Zostrianos]

It's also problematic because in strict monotheism G-d cannot be really known .... Christianity as a whole has known periods of iconoclasm and aniconism.

Many people believe that Judeo-Christian-Islamic aniconism was unique, but in fact it was typical of many tribes in pre-Islamic Arabia and among the Nabateans:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=coso-V3gCEAC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=aniconism+%22pre+islamic%22&source=bl&ots=NLNdqxqhAu&sig=A1niNQO8s1Dm3bVklImHGs8Ij64&hl=en&ei=F6-PToODNKjg0QHZwp0t&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=aniconism%20%22pre%20islamic%22&f=false

[ComradeMan]

Many people believe that Judeo-Christian-Islamic aniconism was unique, but in fact it was typical of many tribes in pre-Islamic Arabia and among the Nabateans:

I can't speak for many people.... but aniconism is found way back in the Amarna "revolution" under the so-called heretic pharaoh Akhenaten. Strains of aniconism are also found in Vedic relgiion and in Sikhism.

The Nabataeans are a mysterious group. We don't know much about them, they seem to be semitic polytheists and as you say did have a level of prohibitive aniconism although in practice it seems that they were far more relaxed about it than their Abrahamic "cousins".

[freepalestine]

The reference to forced conversions was under the Maccabees, the forced conversion of the Idumeans.where is this info from the bible or orientalists?
it seems nothing i hear from european sources on the middle east ,especialy canaan/aramaic speaking peoples is based in historical or scientific fact.
also werent the socalled nabaeteans not the socalled 'idumeans'?
also all triBes of canaan were possibly polytheist at one time.
you should get books by local writers on the subject.. the book by basem l.raad for instance,and many others ,will post links to others.

[ComradeMan]

where is this info from the bible or orientalists?
"Hyrcanus...subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, (25) and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmoneans
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-13.htm

it seems nothing i hear from european sources on the middle east ,especialy canaan/aramaic speaking peoples is based in historical or scientific fact..
Like what exactly....? Could you elaborate on this assertion?

you should get books by local writers on the subject..
I have... for one the Tanakh. ;)

[freepalestine]

"Hyrcanus...subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, (25) and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmoneans
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-13.htm

Like what exactly....? Could you elaborate on this assertion?

I have... for one the Tanakh. ;)well using links from edited wikipedia posts is hardly based in facts; or words of some old canaanites

no i meant actual real history.
the actual history of our ancestry and region.
orientalist views of the levant are either eurocentric,racist and mainly based around biblical myths
;

there are many books in arabic,some converted in to english etc.
this is a good beginners book http://www.arabworldbooks.com/authors/bassem_raad.htm

[ComradeMan]

well using links from edited wikipedia posts is hardly based in facts; or words of some old canaanites

FP- it's a well documented reference to historical kings that are backed up by archaeological evidence and cited by a Jew, Josephus. Inasmuch as we can be sure of ancient records it stands. By the way, it's a bit of a stretch equating the Idumeans, i.e. Edomites, of the 2nd century BCE, with the Exodus "Canaanites"- by any measure.



orientalist views of the levant are either eurocentric,racist and mainly based around biblical myths

Well- say who and what with some references.

[Zostrianos]

You'll notice that the documented forced conversion episodes in Judaism were confined to the levantine area; Judaism had no interest in forcing itself on others beyond its original regional borders, unlike Christianity and Islam which stopped at nothing to invade every region they could.

[ComradeMan]

You'll notice that the documented forced conversion episodes in Judaism were confined to the levantine area; Judaism had no interest in forcing itself on others beyond its original regional borders, unlike Christianity and Islam which stopped at nothing to invade every region they could.

I'm not saying otherwise, the point was just to highlight that even Judaism, as such, also has some marks in its recorded (extra-Biblical) history from this point of view. Judaism did not "force" itself on to other people as far as I know, outside the Levantine area and of course we are also dealing with ancient Biblical material too so we ought to exercise caution with the interpretation. I would be interested to investigate the "Jewish" Khaganate of the Khazars however- unfortunately this subject is just so full of anti-semitism and wild conspiracy theories etc that it is difficult to research adequately at times.

Of course this also calls into question whether we can think of these religions as static. The Judaism of the 2nd century BCE was not what we recognise today as Judaism that developed out of the diaspora Rabbinical Judaism of at least 3-4 centuries later. Likewise, the Islam of the first conquests is not comparable to the Islam(s) of today and Christianity with its plethora of denominations and groups today probably bears little similarity to the "original" Judaeo-Christianity of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Perhaps it's a curse of having a "long history", but the people of then, the world of then etc, are not those of today either.

[freepalestine]

You'll notice that the documented forced conversion episodes in Judaism were confined to the levantine area; Judaism had no interest in forcing itself on others beyond its original regional borders, unlike Christianity and Islam which stopped at nothing to invade every region they could.what sources are there to prove that.i'm not saying one or the other if it did or didnt happen.but religious sources or religious inspired ones ,are never reliable at best.
also one religion that gets overlooked which is basicaly judaism is samaritanism,which was throughout the entire aramaic region/levant.

------

also to conrademan.the khazars is you worth investigating and also the berber and arabian judaism believers.at that time at least.
there are plenty of reliable sources on that ,see schlomo sands book ,for book references as an example.



,

[ComradeMan]

i cant give sources to the amount of western authors etc,but it goes back centuries,until the present day and is now used along with the zionist narrative by some ,one example benny morris.
see edward saids book orientalism as one example on the defination of 'orientalists' and orientalism ,,

Sorry, but you need to back your assertion up a bit better than that....

[Devrim]

"Al-Aziz" is one of the names of All-h in the Qu'ran and means "powerful, strong, or mighty". It's of Chaldean origin and if the Sabians were worshipping "Aziz" all it was, was probably and epithet along the lines of the "Mighty One"- i.e. the "Almighty". The name Aziz is quite common as a personal name in the Islamic world today too. I can't find a reference for this Aziz/Uzuz though. From what I can gather it seems that the Sabian religion is/was a Semitic monotheistic religion sharing a lot of common cultural heritage with Judaism, Christianity and embryonic Islam yet it differed in its view of G-d and focused/es of the idea of G-d dwelling in the stars. In whatever case I don't think we can call them "pagans" in any sense of the word.

What is your problem with the 'o' in God?

Devrim

[Devrim]

no i meant actual real history.
the actual history of our ancestry and region.
orientalist views of the levant are either eurocentric,racist and mainly based around biblical myths
;

there are many books in arabic,some converted in to english etc.


As is much Arab writing.

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

What is your problem with the 'o' in G-d?

Devrim

It's a resolution of mine of late, but basically if I refer directly to the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph I prefer to omit the "o" to avoid frivolous use of the Sacred Name in a medium which may be deleted. I do the same for All-h, even though I don't think it's a requirement of Islam itself.

[Devrim]

It's a resolution of mine of late, but basically if I refer directly to the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph I prefer to omit the "o" to avoid frivolous use of the Sacred Name in a medium which may be deleted. I do the same for All-h, even though I don't think it's a requirement of Islam itself.

Oh, you are a religious loon. That's cool. I just didn't realise before. ;)

Devrim

[ComradeMan]

Oh, you are a religious loon. That's cool. I just didn't realise before. ;) Devrim

Don't offend people's cultures, especially when they don't offend yours or seek to.

[tir1944]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Bezhnoznik_u_stanka_22-1929.jpeg/419px-Bezhnoznik_u_stanka_22-1929.jpeg

[Devrim]

Don't offend people's cultures, especially when they don't offend yours or seek to.

I don't go out deliberately to offend people's cultures nor do I particularly feel attached enough to any culture to be 'offended'.

I do live in a society, which is is quite religiously intolerant, a society where Christians (I come from a Christian background) occasionally get murdered or tortured to death solely because of their religion, a society where young women get attacked on the street for dressing 'indecently' and women get murdered on a regular basis for offending family 'honour', and where people are occasionally beaten for not observing the Ramadan fast.

If I can't make a cheap jibe at somebody's religion on a site like this where can I make one?

Devrim

[tir1944]

^^Holy shit and i thought Turkey was a secular country...:(

[ComradeMan]

If I can't make a cheap jibe at somebody's religion on a site like this where can I make one?
Devrim

Okay, okay, salaam.... Barış! Kardeş! I'll take it in the spirit of a joke, just sometimes us "religious" primtives get a bit sensitive here...:crying:. Anyway.... sorry I was pissy... but generally cheap jokes on people's religion are not always the best ways to break the ice.... ;)

I thought Turkey was more open and relaxed than you are describing.... Most of the Turkish I know are really chilled- or is it because they can be outside of that atmosphere?

[Devrim]

^^Holy shit and i thought Turkey was a secular country...:(

Yes, it is. There are two points to this though. First Turkish secularism has always been different from European secularism in that as much as being a separation of church from state, it is a dominance of church over state. Second, secularism has been undermined over the last eight years of AKP government, or perhaps we could say over the last thirty years.


I thought Turkey was more open and relaxed than you are describing....

Like I said killings of Christians are 'occasional'. Three famous examples over the last few years can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_publishing_firm_murders_in_Malatya,_Turkey), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Padovese), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Santoro). I didn't include Armenians as perhaps that is on more of a nationalist than religious basis.

On 'honour' killings Wiki says:


A June 2008 report by the Turkish Prime Ministry's Human Rights Directorate said that in Istanbul alone there was one honor killing every week, and reported over 1,000 during the previous five years. It added that metropolitan cities were the location of many of these, due to growing Kurdish immigration to these cities from the East.[32] In 2009 a Turkish news agency reported that a 2-day-old boy who was born out of wedlock had been killed for honor. The maternal grandmother of the infant, along with six other persons, including a doctor who had reportedly accepted a bribe to not report the birth, were arrested. The grandmother is suspected of fatally suffocating the infant. The child's mother, 25, was also arrested; she stated that her family had made the decision to kill the child.[33]
A girl in Turkey was killed after her family heard a song and thought she had a boyfriend.[34] In 2010 a 16-year-old girl was buried alive by relatives for befriending boys in Southeast Turkey; her corpse was found 40 days after she went missing.[35] Ahmet Yildiz, 26, a Turkish physics student who represented his country at an international gay conference in the United States in 2008, was shot leaving a cafe in Istanbul. It is believed Yildiz was the victim of the country's first gay honor killing.[36]


Most of the Turkish I know are really chilled- or is it because they can be outside of that atmosphere?

Turkish communities in Europe are very different. Many people fled Turkey after the 1980 coup, and there are many Kurdish refugees. This gives, in my opinion, a different feeling to the Turkish community in London than to that in some German cities where people went as guest workers from small villages in the 1960s. Of course it is a gross generalisation, but I feel there is something to it.

Also within Turkey itself different cities are different. Where I live is one of the most secular cities, and you can eat during Ramadan generally without any problem.

Devrim

[freepalestine]

As is much Arab writing.

Devrimi agree.... they are just as bad






at cnrademan-'orientalists'
;[7] he used the term to describe a pervasive Western tradition, both academic and artistic, of prejudiced outsider interpretations of the East, shaped by the attitudes of European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Said was critical of both this scholarly tradition and of some modern scholars....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)

[Zostrianos]

What is your problem with the 'o' in God?
Devrim

That particular practice is most common among pious Jews who omit the "o" to symbolize the ineffable nature of God. This began after the destruction of the second temple, when the pronunciation of YHWH was lost, and Jews from then on began using the substitute Adonay ("Lord") when they read the Torah and come across YHWH. If I'm not mistaken, as far back as the end of the Babylonian exile YHWH was only uttered once a year by the High Priest on the day of atonement, and Adonay effectively replaced it in speech.

[Zostrianos]

An update on the original story (http://cultusdeorumromanorum.blogspot.com/2011/10/interview-with-corvus-about-attack-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CultusDeorumRomanorum+%28Cult us+Deorum+Romanorum%29&utm_content=FeedBurner). The attackers apparently belong to an organization called "Orthodox Gonfalon-Bearers". They're mainly active in Russia, and represent the fundamentalist wing of the Orthodox church. They want to establish a religious theocracy, and in the past have staged book burnings of literature they view as anti Christian, like Harry Potter.
Here's a news article on one of these incidents:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3766

Moscow, October 10, Interfax - A group of activists representing the Union of Orthodox Gonfalon-Bearers burned a copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by Joanne Rowling at Beresnevskay Naberezhnaya St. shortly before the book is awaited at Moscow sales.

'We oppose propaganda of occult or magical ideas under the disguise of children-books. We never allow our children to be involved into Satanism or witchcraft,' said the Union's head Leonid Simonovich-Nikshich, Kommersant daily reports on Wednesday.

A group of the Union members proceeded to the Patriarshiy Br. chanting a prayer, and after that they tore the book to pieces and burned it.

'It burns well,' Simonovich-Nikshich said and promised to go on his struggle against what he believed to be 'heretical literature.'

'We are a holy inquisition. We have always struggled against heresy, and will never stop!' he said.

Last year, the Union members protested against Madonna's concert in Moscow. During their meeting at Novopushkinskiy Sq. they burned a poster with her image. During their another meeting, the Gonfalon-Bearers pierced Madonna's image with a stake.

The final, seventh, book about Harry Potter will arrive in Russia's shops on Saturday.