Topic: Religion and Spirituality

[Irandrura]

Hate to rain on your parade, but: the Romans or Greeks did not subscribe to human sacrifices. The Carthaginians sacrificed children to Ba'al Hammon and Tanit, and the pre-Columbain Aztecs considered human sacrifices as necessary to keep the sun alive.

Who says I was talking about the Romans and Greeks? By and large they considered human sacrifice barbaric (and there probably is a connection between Roman and Christian values considering the Christianisation of Rome and its use of the Roman Empire as a vehicle to spread the faith). However, there were plenty of groups in pre-Christian Europe that did practice human sacrifice. Pagan religious practices in Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia should turn up ample examples.

So what we have here is the knowledge that some religious belief systems have advocated human sacrifice, while others have been staunchly against it. I would contend that religion, as a concept, is morally neutral, and what we should really be concerned with is specific religious teachings. Creating the artificial category of 'religion' and proceeding to either castigate or exalt it is foolish. Return to my government metaphor, and that's much how I would see religion. Some are good, some are bad, most contain elements of both, but you can't do without them.

[Unscientific Postscript]

A couple of points.

Firslt, almost the entirety of our knowledge about pagan customs comes either from Christians themselves, or from Roman sources later ranscribed and reinterpreted by Christians. While there is compelling evidence that some pagan tribes practiced human sacrifice, there is no way of knowing how widespread this was, nor how many regular the practice was, nor who exactly was sacrificed by each tribe - virgins, slaves, the Erl-king etc.

Secondly- Dr. Ravingburger. We have no way of knowing how peasants felt about their masters during the Crusades; none, at least, aside from records depicting them as loyal and pious, written by knights and priests. We certainly should never use words like "flocked to join them".

[Rasmus]

A couple of points.

Firslt, almost the entirety of our knowledge about pagan customs comes either from Christians themselves, or from Roman sources later ranscribed and reinterpreted by Christians. While there is compelling evidence that some pagan tribes practiced human sacrifice, there is no way of knowing how widespread this was, nor how many regular the practice was, nor who exactly was sacrificed by each tribe - virgins, slaves, the Erl-king etc.

  In the case of the Norse or Teutonics they did practice human sacrifice, and they wrote about it themselves. The records are fairly complete in some cases, and some the traditions live on even now, albait in a moderated form. You know the sparkly red bits you hang from your christmas-tree? Those are bodies laies and gentlemen; at midwinter festivals would be helf and sacrifices made, strung from trees, mostly humans and horses, but sometimes dogs. This changed and it became pieces of pork hanging from the christmastree. When the tree moved indoors this became impractical, and small coloured strips or glass balls became the substitute for a slave or horse. We still hang them in the tree though, every year.

[Unscientific Postscript]

*Who* wrote about it themselves? I may very well be wrong, but I hadn't thought that pre-Christian norsemen were a very literate culture. Certainly the majority (entirety?) of our written knowledge of the Icelandic norsemen comes from records written 200-300 years after the fact, by Christianized scholars. 

Are there written records?

[Rasmus]

*Who* wrote about it themselves? I may very well be wrong, but I hadn't thought that pre-Christian norsemen were a very literate culture. Certainly the majority (entirety?) of our written knowledge of the Icelandic norsemen comes from records written 200-300 years after the fact, by Christianized scholars. 

Are there written records?

 Of course they were a literary culture. They wrote grand works of poetry, lawbooks and sagas. Just because they haven't been made into movies does not mean they do not exist.
The Eddas have pieces dating back ot the 9th century, and there are lawbooks dating from the same book, along with the chrnicles of the then-swedish king Olof the tributary king.
There are, also, of course, contastant reminders of their literary prowess in numerous runestones, detailing anything from bad marriages, to the birth and death of sons, daughters, dynasties and cities.
No, they wrote things down alright.

[Unscientific Postscript]

Well, then I stand corrected.

[Banned Solorg]

They always say that the war's winners write the history and the losers write the songs...

[Kekron]

i believe the proverb you are looking for is 'to the victors goes the job of writing history'. if you go down south you might hear people saying that the south really did win the american civil war.

[Rummy]

Which is a religion all to itself basically. 

[Kasaron Tyler Gigliello]

I personally think that the <i>concept</i> behind religion are intriguing, and the lessons they attempt to teach are (mostly) not without reason, but ins <i>practice</i> Religion has a tendancy to have a "Only those who follow my rules are the right people."

This sort of exclusive opinion is the possible root between violence between religions; when you see the other's whom do not follow your religion as less than you, then it's not a far leap that the darker parts of the human personality begin to manifest in predation against the "opposing" religion.

Another major...problem I have with religions is the polarization and definition of good and evil, something which, I myself struggle with on a daily basis.

How can someone call anything evil, and anything good, those two words themselves are so mutable that I dislike even using them. Hence where the polarization of evil and good starts to cause conflict, as suddenly activities can be evil, or be good, and therefor give another reason for conflict.

[Kekron]

the worst part of it all is that a person's view of good and evil is subjective and this subjectivity can be changed. so that 'predation' that kasa is talking about could be viewed as a 'good' thing by those that are doing it because to them, the big man upstairs says its good.

[Sir Sam Vimes]

So, after reading some of the discussions about religion on this board, a thought popped up in my head.

There is little evidence that God actually exists, and as much that he doesn't. But what if he actually does exist, and he's just taken a break from humanity? For him a coffee-break probably wouldn't be as short as ours, perhaps it takes several hundred years for him? In His absence many generations would have passed, and because He isn't active (as he is in the Bible) there wouldn't be any evidence that He actually exists. And so atheism would be born. And so the frightening question arrived: Would He become angry when he saw that we can't behave? Would He smite us in his divine wrath? Would he reprise the episode with Noah's ark?

What's your take on this? Could this be propable, or is it just a crazy thing my mind has given birth to?

[Rasmus]

If God was to return she would (as he is omniscient) allready be aware of what her "break" would result it. Free will and some other things added, and she cannot really be angry. People will wander from the faith - again, free will, and burn for it. Suit ourselves, and such.

Besides, the bible states that the world cannot work without the Hand of the Lord (I guess, opening flowers and raising hte sun and such) so clearly She is still around.

[Wuxiong]

Religion was supposed to be a tool of spreading some greater good among the people, not to be a destructive tool to impose fear into others. But unfortunately, a lot of countries did use it for that. Did you know that Nazi Germany was linked to the Catholic Church? Did you know that Nazi Germany fought and made HUGE genocides against the Jews due to fanatical beliefs of Christianity?

Even Imperial Japan hanged on to religion, but their ruler was not a religious dictator, not even a mandate of god, BUT A DEITY! Japanese worshipped this living being as a Living God and fought aggressively and effectively in WW2 making genocides and enforcing the worship of Shintoism in its occupied territories such as Manchukuo.

In my opinion, it is safe to say that WW2 was a Holy War by Right-Wing powers that were fanatically religious. Religion was a tool for spreading peace, but sadly became a weapon of destruction by the ones in absolute control.

[Sir Sam Vimes]

Religion was supposed to be a tool of spreading some greater good among the people, not to be a destructive tool to impose fear into others. But unfortunately, a lot of countries did use it for that. Did you know that Nazi Germany was linked to the Catholic Church?

Yeah, but did you also know that catholic priests (foreign) were put in concentration camps alongside jews, political prisoners, homosexuals, disabled people, foreigners etc. etc? Did you also know that in the upper echelons of the Third Reich there was a something of a cult that "worshipped" the old scandinavian gods?

Nazi Germany was in no way a regim based on religion. Germany isn't even united when it comes to religion. The north of the country is lutheran and the southern catholic, so it would make it quite difficult for someone to force half of the population into a religion they don't follow.

The only link between Third Reich and the Vatican I can see is Italy. Moussolinni's fascist Italy were for a long time Germany's ally. As I see it, the Vatican was forced into cooperation with the Axis of Evil because it's situated in the middle of "enemy" territory. And that makes it kinda hard to resist

[Irandrura]

In my opinion, it is safe to say that WW2 was a Holy War by Right-Wing powers that were fanatically religious. Religion was a tool for spreading peace, but sadly became a weapon of destruction by the ones in absolute control.

Extreme nationalism, you mean. Nazi Germany had no state religion, and as CyberGrace pointed out butted heads with Catholicism a few times. The Holocaust can be linked back to earlier anti-Semitic behaviour in Europe, which cannot be said to be wholly religious. In wartime Japan, conversely, if you look at it behind the scenes the emperor wasn't one of the actual decision makers. He doesn't seem to have had much opposition to war, but the actual decisions come down to the militarist government.

One is also tempted to point out that Japan still has an emperor, who is still technically descended from the gods. No emperor of Japan has actually formally denied being arahitogami.

[Mr.Peanut]

Hitler worship during the war is a good example of how the definition of religion gets blurry.  He did not claim to be a god, but so many people had faith in him that he was a sort of demigod.  They had belief without reason that he had all the answers, was perfect, was a savior, et cetera.  It was faith that made him qualify as Aryan, despite clearly visible evidence to the contrary. 

Though Hitler was not supernatural, the many fanatical followers he had differed little from the fanatical core adherents of many religions, and their faith in him was vital to his plans.  His cohorts and he even concocted a creation myth, that of the ancient Aryans, so on and so forth, a cult of Germania. 

There are good and bad things that comes from religion, neither is dependent on religion nor is religion necessary to get them.  People can be fanatical about almost anything, just as people can be exceptionally moral without religion.  In some cases, the ends justify the means, some people are just incapable of functioning without the supernatural hocus pocus to guide and/or restrain them. 

Regardless, the faith aspect- belief without reason- is never necessary.

[Exalted One]

Some people just cannot go on thinking that this is all there is. Religion is a big comforter. Have you noticed how you know very little old people who are atheists/agnostics? It's because they are beginning to realize that they are about to die, and that idea about a life after death, or at least something after death starts to sound quite good. They sure don't have anything to lose.

Regardless, the faith aspect- belief without reason- is never necessary.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The very point of faith is to believe in something without proof. IF you had proof, it wouldn't be a faith issue, you would know, and that's easy. On personal level religions are a good thing IMHO, but on a large picture there is always someone, who sees religion just/also as means to acquire power and/or wealth.

Humans cannot survive without religions. They could survive, but they don't. Think about how many atheists/agnostics there are compared to those who are part of some religion. You could also think what would happen, if the odds were reversed. Think what the world would be like, if no religions were to scare people about punishment for a life of sin? When you look at our world doesn't it feel like we're on our way there already...? 


I once went to bed thinking I wanna talk with the strongest god there is. Funnily, I had a dream I was talking to the god of money. Right now it was the strongest, with most worshippers.  God of money wasn't really a big thinker, or concerned about the state of the world, it just wanted money to pass hands. Silly huh? 

Fixed broken quote tag.  -Mr.Peanut

[Rummy]

Humans cannot survive without religions. They could survive, but they don't. Think about how many atheists/agnostics there are compared to those who are part of some religion.

That's an appeal to common practice. That a lot of people do X does not mean X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable.

You could also think what would happen, if the odds were reversed. Think what the world would be like, if no religions were to scare people about punishment for a life of sin?

Which is an appeal to consequences of a belief. Morality is separate from religious practice. The world shouldn't suddenly self destruct if religions were unavailable.

[Exalted One]

That's an appeal to common practice. That a lot of people do X does not mean X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable.

True, but that is not what I ment. I ment that most of the people are always going to be in need of a religion. A loud voice of atheists just makes them stronger in their faith.

Morality is separate from religious practice.

Is it really?

The world shouldn't suddenly self destruct if religions were unavailable.

Of course not. But it could be a helluva lot more brutal place to be if more people were raised to believe that the one with most money/stuff/lovers/friends when dies, wins. Okay, the friends thing might even work....