Deranged zealot loses in court-Gawd shunned from public school system.

[stolat]

So today's religions can be considered more organised - in that there are churches set up where people are required to congregate and worship.

I do not think that the ancient Egyptians or Romans went to organised masses. They looked for signs around them to reinforce their beliefs and trust in certain deities.

Every religion has its own name for 'god'. Yaweh, Buddah, Krishna.......but I think they are all talking about the same thing. Ultimately......

Personally, I think that 'god' becomes visible in acts of humanity that every human being is capable of - Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King.....

[25]

So today's religions can be considered more organised - in that there are churches set up where people are required to congregate and worship.

I do not think that the ancient Egyptians or Romans went to organised masses. They looked for signs around them to reinforce their beliefs and trust in certain deities.

Every religion has its own name for 'god'. Yaweh, Buddah, Krishna.......but I think they are all talking about the same thing.

Personally, I think that 'god' becomes visible in acts of humanity that every human being is capable of - Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King.....

I don't know about the Egyptians, but the Greeks and likely the Romans would have small shrines in their own homes for their personal or family patrons. Something as simple as a mural depicting the god in question. Of course, the Romans ended up attending christian masses but that came later. Who has time for church when there's naval battle re-enactments and the rending of flesh on display at the local amphitheater?

I really prefer to avoid the "all religions are talking about the same god, the little drop of goodness inside all of our hearts" bit. I prefer humans to take responsibility for human behavior, good and bad, and leave the middle-men out of it. Besides, the idea of monotheistic humanism  is mind-boggling - I can't even fit it into my head. Existentialism and religion should never meet head on.

[stolat]

And that takes us back to our philosophical discussion that we had earlier today - materialists vs dualists and never the twain shall meet.

I think the "I exist therefore I am" argument is rather lacking.......
What is one person's reality compared to another's.......
How do you know that you really exist?
Say if everyone around you is just a figment of your imagination? (Try fitting that concept into your head!!!!)

Big Questions of Existence 101.....

[25]

And that takes us back to our philosophical discussion that we had earlier today - materialists vs dualists and never the twain shall meet.

I think the "I exist therefore I am" argument is rather lacking.......
What is one person's reality compared to another's.......
How do you know that you really exist?
Say if everyone around you is just a figment of your imagination? (Try fitting that concept into your head!!!!)

Big Questions of Existence 101.....

"I think, therefore I am. I think."

I shot through most of those dead-enders in my early teens. And like everyone else I failed to answer any of them satisfactorily but I did learn one thing; Failure is always an option. Now I use them as lullabies and substitutes for counting sheep. Regardless of whether or not there is a true objective reality we're all still stuck with our perceptions. And we can question them and examine them and alter them but they're still our perceptions. And if that's true, then the question of objective reality in philosophical terms is largely irrelevant because none of us live in an objective reality, everything is filtered and distorted by perception.

All I know for sure is this; If everyone around me is a figment of my imagination then I'm either a sado-masochist or a glutton for punishment.

[stolat]

The idea of philosphy is to keep raising questions........that may lead us closer to truth....
In ancient Greece people used to spend hours.....contemplating such things.......

[25]

The idea of philosphy is to keep raising questions........that may lead us closer to truth....
In ancient Greece people used to spend hours.....contemplating such things.......

Philosophy always succeeds in raising questions. Unfortunately, no undisputed answers. But some good books.

And the Greeks had to spend hours contemplating these things, these things take hours to contemplate! And if we had a stable of slaves to do our bidding we'd all have more time to ponder unanswerable questions. And television would probably improve too.

[stolat]

The idea of philosphy is to keep raising questions........that may lead us closer to truth....
In ancient Greece people used to spend hours.....contemplating such things.......

Philosophy always succeeds in raising questions. Unfortunately, no undisputed answers. But some good books.

And the Greeks had to spend hours contemplating these things, these things take hours to contemplate! And if we had a stable of slaves to do our bidding we'd all have more time to ponder unanswerable questions. And television would probably improve too.

Well, 300 Spartans is on TV right now!! Classic film!

[25]

Well, 300 Spartans is on TV right now!! Classic film!

I've never seen it actually. Is everyone running around with pseudo-roman bowl shaped haircuts and speaking in american wild-west dialects? 

[stolat]

Well, 300 Spartans is on TV right now!! Classic film!

I've never seen it actually. Is everyone running around with pseudo-roman bowl shaped haircuts and speaking in american wild-west dialects??

Sorry dude, I'm focussing on the bare chested men in loin cloths and skirts to notice much else!

[25]

Sorry dude, I'm focussing on the bare chested men in loin cloths and skirts to notice much else!

Ah, it's the trans-gender porno version of ancient Greece. Nice.

[Ellroy]

I mean, the Greek myths we study today were once taught and believed by some amount of the people. Looking back on them now we see them as myths. I'm sure in a few hundred years people will look back on the story of Jesus rising from the dead in much the same way that we look back on the story of Horace rising from the dead, or Heracles traveling to the underworld for some task, or any other myth we study. What are today's religions but the myths of tomorrow?

I think "a few hundred years" might be on the optimistic side. Sadly, the diminishment of one "faith" is usually due to the increased popularity of another. It would be nice to see the end of the old religions but if the price of that is the rise of scientology or the moonies or something then it's not really an improvement.

As for the Greek myths, I think it's a stretch to try to equate them with the contemporary belief systems. Even if you confine the comparison to deity myths you'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument for any sort of analogous relationship between the Greeks' obscure heirarchy of household gods and the monotheistic institutionalized? religions which followed. I think that the relationship of the people or their society to their gods is so utterly different as to be irreconcilable, which makes comparing the level of blind faith both difficult and pointless.? ? ?

Perhaps a few hundred years is too short a time, though a worldwide tragedy that wiped out a great deal of people would speed up the process a tad. Maybe a thousand years or so is a little more realistic? And I was not suggesting that the religions which will one day take the place of the ones we have now would be an improvement. Rather, I was suggesting that this is a probable outcome. I wasn't making a judement call as to whether or not these religions would be improvements. Though they certainly could be, we are too far deep into the theoretical at this point to make any sort of judgement about much of anything.
          I will disagree (as I'm sure many who study myth would) with you on your point about Greek myths being incomparable to modern monotheistic religions. The myths themselves do not have to correspond to each other in some way (and I apologize if this is not what you were arguing). The point I was trying to make was that people once believed in the Greek system of gods. We now view them as cool, interesting stories that are fun (to some) to study. We determine what it was about society that caused certain attributes of the gods, why some gods were more important than others, etc. Religions that are no longer practiced are seen as myths to us, worthy of study but not true. And I'm sure that one day (unless man wipes himself out) the religions of today will be studied as cool, interesting stories, with experts trying to determine why the religions developed the way they did and what societal factors caused or allowed such religions to pop up. Do you disgaree that we can talk about Christianity and the Greek god system as being similar in that both mean (or meant) very much to a great number of people, both are (were) a way of life for many, people base life decisions on whether or not it goes against what God/Zeus has decreed?
         In fact we can even compare the religions on a more specific level, though this really wasn't my point. As I don't have any resources in front of me at the moment I can't go deeply into anything, but even a cursory glance at the various flood stories of various civilizations and religions will show a great deal of similarity. The same goes to myths regarding deities or persons who are killed and rise again. But such is not the point I was making. My point is that there is indeed a relationship between the myths we study and the contemporary myths that many believe. The myths need not correspond exactly to each other in every respect for a relationship to exist. They both attempt to explain the world, set down rules to live by, create some sort of afterlife, etc. Am I making sense? Perhaps I've not understood your complaint with my statement. If this is the case please do be patient in explaining what you meant.

[TAP]

So, do y'all think Harry will die in the last book? 

[25]

          I will disagree (as I'm sure many who study myth would) with you on your point about Greek myths being incomparable to modern monotheistic religions. The myths themselves do not have to correspond to each other in some way (and I apologize if this is not what you were arguing). The point I was trying to make was that people once believed in the Greek system of gods. We now view them as cool, interesting stories that are fun (to some) to study. We determine what it was about society that caused certain attributes of the gods, why some gods were more important than others, etc. Religions that are no longer practiced are seen as myths to us, worthy of study but not true. And I'm sure that one day (unless man wipes himself out) the religions of today will be studied as cool, interesting stories, with experts trying to determine why the religions developed the way they did and what societal factors caused or allowed such religions to pop up. Do you disgaree that we can talk about Christianity and the Greek god system as being similar in that both mean (or meant) very much to a great number of people, both are (were) a way of life for many, people base life decisions on whether or not it goes against what God/Zeus has decreed?
         In fact we can even compare the religions on a more specific level, though this really wasn't my point. As I don't have any resources in front of me at the moment I can't go deeply into anything, but even a cursory glance at the various flood stories of various civilizations and religions will show a great deal of similarity. The same goes to myths regarding deities or persons who are killed and rise again. But such is not the point I was making. My point is that there is indeed a relationship between the myths we study and the contemporary myths that many believe. The myths need not correspond exactly to each other in every respect for a relationship to exist. They both attempt to explain the world, set down rules to live by, create some sort of afterlife, etc. Am I making sense? Perhaps I've not understood your complaint with my statement. If this is the case please do be patient in explaining what you meant.

I think we're talking about different things there. We an certainly compare myth to myth and find a large number of similar stories across all religions, that's absolutely true. I think what I was saying earlier was that it's not possible to compare something like the Catholic Church to an analogous body or doctrine in ancient Greek or early Roman culture, and that the dogmatic and authoritarian relationship that monotheistic religious institutions have with their followers seems rather different than the more decentralized and personal pagan approach to religion. In short, I don't think you could compare Greek polytheism to modern Christianity or Islam as belief systems but myth to myth, story to story, they all do cover a lot of the same ground and borrow from each other liberally. 

[freedom78]

So, do y'all think Harry will die in the last book? 

No.  He'll die in Book 7 and be raised from the dead in book 8, thus sending poor Ms. Laura Mallory into a frenzy. 

[Ellroy]

? ? ? ? ? I will disagree (as I'm sure many who study myth would) with you on your point about Greek myths being incomparable to modern monotheistic religions. The myths themselves do not have to correspond to each other in some way (and I apologize if this is not what you were arguing). The point I was trying to make was that people once believed in the Greek system of gods. We now view them as cool, interesting stories that are fun (to some) to study. We determine what it was about society that caused certain attributes of the gods, why some gods were more important than others, etc. Religions that are no longer practiced are seen as myths to us, worthy of study but not true. And I'm sure that one day (unless man wipes himself out) the religions of today will be studied as cool, interesting stories, with experts trying to determine why the religions developed the way they did and what societal factors caused or allowed such religions to pop up. Do you disgaree that we can talk about Christianity and the Greek god system as being similar in that both mean (or meant) very much to a great number of people, both are (were) a way of life for many, people base life decisions on whether or not it goes against what God/Zeus has decreed?
? ? ? ? ?In fact we can even compare the religions on a more specific level, though this really wasn't my point. As I don't have any resources in front of me at the moment I can't go deeply into anything, but even a cursory glance at the various flood stories of various civilizations and religions will show a great deal of similarity. The same goes to myths regarding deities or persons who are killed and rise again. But such is not the point I was making. My point is that there is indeed a relationship between the myths we study and the contemporary myths that many believe. The myths need not correspond exactly to each other in every respect for a relationship to exist. They both attempt to explain the world, set down rules to live by, create some sort of afterlife, etc. Am I making sense? Perhaps I've not understood your complaint with my statement. If this is the case please do be patient in explaining what you meant.

I think we're talking about different things there. We an certainly compare myth to myth and find a large number of similar stories across all religions, that's absolutely true. I think what I was saying earlier was that it's not possible to compare something like the Catholic Church to an analogous body or doctrine in ancient Greek or early Roman culture, and that the dogmatic and authoritarian relationship that monotheistic religious institutions have with their followers seems rather different than the more decentralized and personal pagan approach to religion. In short, I don't think you could compare Greek polytheism to modern Christianity or Islam as belief systems but myth to myth, story to story, they all do cover a lot of the same ground and borrow from each other liberally.?

I completely agree, nor was I ever suggesting otherwise. Seems there was some misunderstanding in our initial posts. Thanks for clearing that up!