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

[25]

They both pray/prayed to magic man/men , and they both think/thought those prayers were ansered ... one and the same .

Not really, the Greeks switched horses when their gods failed them. Their devotion lasted as long as their luck.

[fuckin crazy]

I disagree with your first statement. I think that "faith" is a product of organized religion, particularly of monotheism. The importance of devotion and unquestioning belief, at least in Christianity, seems to stem directly from the adoption of that religion as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to that change-over the concept of religious piety was rather different, even the adoption of Christianity by Constantine was motivated by political and social pressures rather than faith, and the public reasoning behind it was about gaining the sponsorship of a powerful deity rather than any spiritual correction of their heretic ways. Faith, belief, devotion, piety - prerequisites for acceptance by monotheistic religious institutions, rather than the breeding ground for the acceptance of those religions by the people. Basically, unless you're being asked to believe in impossible and improbable things and accept them as literal truth, faith has no function.

Dieties played an intimate role in the every day lives of ancient people .

[stolat]

I disagree with your first statement. I think that "faith" is a product of organized religion, particularly of monotheism. The importance of devotion and unquestioning belief, at least in Christianity, seems to stem directly from the adoption of that religion as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to that change-over the concept of religious piety was rather different, even the adoption of Christianity by Constantine was motivated by political and social pressures rather than faith, and the public reasoning behind it was about gaining the sponsorship of a powerful deity rather than any spiritual correction of their heretic ways. Faith, belief, devotion, piety - prerequisites for acceptance by monotheistic religious institutions, rather than the breeding ground for the acceptance of those religions by the people. Basically, unless you're being asked to believe in impossible and improbable things and accept them as literal truth, faith has no function.

Dieties played an intimate role in the every day lives of ancient people .

I can vouch for that! In a previous life I was known as Akasha.

[25]

"intent over content" are two sides of the coin . The former is a manifestation of the latter .

1) If you mean they're two sides of the same coin in that never the twain shall meet, at least when it comes to religious texts, then I agree with you.

2) Oh, I guess you didn't mean that.  If intent is the manifestation of content then how do you explain the divisions and deviations in the beliefs of the many, many factions of Christianity? They're all playing from the same sheets, why the different tunes?

3) If you can't distinguish between text and dogma, content and intent, religious institutions and religion then we obviously can't have a legitimate discussion.

[25]

I disagree with your first statement. I think that "faith" is a product of organized religion, particularly of monotheism. The importance of devotion and unquestioning belief, at least in Christianity, seems to stem directly from the adoption of that religion as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to that change-over the concept of religious piety was rather different, even the adoption of Christianity by Constantine was motivated by political and social pressures rather than faith, and the public reasoning behind it was about gaining the sponsorship of a powerful deity rather than any spiritual correction of their heretic ways. Faith, belief, devotion, piety - prerequisites for acceptance by monotheistic religious institutions, rather than the breeding ground for the acceptance of those religions by the people. Basically, unless you're being asked to believe in impossible and improbable things and accept them as literal truth, faith has no function.

Dieties played an intimate role in the every day lives of ancient people .

In the same way the daytime television plays an intimate role in the daily lives of the housefrau contingent. Also; your post has no relation to the quote.

[fuckin crazy]

If intent is the manifestation of content then how do you explain the divisions and deviations in the beliefs of the many, many factions of Christianity? They're all playing from the same sheets, why the different tunes? 

the differentiations are relatively minor .

[stolat]

I disagree with your first statement. I think that "faith" is a product of organized religion, particularly of monotheism. The importance of devotion and unquestioning belief, at least in Christianity, seems to stem directly from the adoption of that religion as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to that change-over the concept of religious piety was rather different, even the adoption of Christianity by Constantine was motivated by political and social pressures rather than faith, and the public reasoning behind it was about gaining the sponsorship of a powerful deity rather than any spiritual correction of their heretic ways. Faith, belief, devotion, piety - prerequisites for acceptance by monotheistic religious institutions, rather than the breeding ground for the acceptance of those religions by the people. Basically, unless you're being asked to believe in impossible and improbable things and accept them as literal truth, faith has no function.

Dieties played an intimate role in the every day lives of ancient people .

In the same way the daytime television plays an intimate role in the daily lives of the housefrau contingent. Also; your post has no relation to the quote.

Yeh, you were disagreeing with a statement that I made earlier today - how I separate organised religion and faith. Fuckin Crazy was adding to that idea.

As far as the 'ancient people' comment goes read my previous post.

[25]

If intent is the manifestation of content then how do you explain the divisions and deviations in the beliefs of the many, many factions of Christianity? They're all playing from the same sheets, why the different tunes? 

the differentiations are relatively minor .

Oh, well that explains it then. Your point is totally valid.

[fuckin crazy]

I disagree with your first statement. I think that "faith" is a product of organized religion, particularly of monotheism. The importance of devotion and unquestioning belief, at least in Christianity, seems to stem directly from the adoption of that religion as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to that change-over the concept of religious piety was rather different, even the adoption of Christianity by Constantine was motivated by political and social pressures rather than faith, and the public reasoning behind it was about gaining the sponsorship of a powerful deity rather than any spiritual correction of their heretic ways. Faith, belief, devotion, piety - prerequisites for acceptance by monotheistic religious institutions, rather than the breeding ground for the acceptance of those religions by the people. Basically, unless you're being asked to believe in impossible and improbable things and accept them as literal truth, faith has no function.

Dieties played an intimate role in the every day lives of ancient people .

In the same way the daytime television plays an intimate role in the daily lives of the housefrau contingent. Also; your post has no relation to the quote.

Its been a long night ... with little sleep yesterday . give a few moments
I agree , but surely the ancients , as a whole ,.were devoted in their beliefs , why else have them if they meant nothing ?

[25]

Yeh, you were disagreeing with a statement that I made earlier today - how I separate organised religion and faith. Fuckin Crazy was adding to that idea.

As far as the 'ancient people' comment goes read my previous post.

Well, he wasn't adding much. It was a bit of a Penguin Classics moment. Threw me.

Akasha? Sounds like a sneeze.

[stolat]

Yeh, you were disagreeing with a statement that I made earlier today - how I separate organised religion and faith. Fuckin Crazy was adding to that idea.

As far as the 'ancient people' comment goes read my previous post.

Well, he wasn't adding much. It was a bit of a Penguin Classics moment. Threw me.

Akasha? Sounds like a sneeze.

See Ann Rice, Vampire Chronicles, Book 2, Akasha - Queen of the Dammed.
I could have also said, yeh, in a previous life I was Cleopatra........

[25]

I could have also said, yeh, in a previous life I was Cleopatra........

But then I couldn't have said it sounded like a sneeze.

[stolat]

See, you laugh, I laugh, we all laugh......

[25]

Symbiosis.

On a related note; I can't read Ann Rice. Bit too florid for me, like a knitted doily.

[stolat]

That is a bizarre analogy.

The last? book in the series - The Vampire Lestat is all about theology, religion, faith, life after death etc.

[25]

That is a bizarre analogy.

The last? book in the series - The Vampire Lestat is all about theology, religion, faith, life after death etc.

I did read that one. Also about vampire rock. Too much vampire rock.

[fuckin crazy]

enlighten me , what was the logic in the Greeks abandoning their horses when the Gods failed them .

[25]

enlighten me , what was the logic in the Greeks abandoning their horses when the Gods failed them .

Abandoning horses would be silly and cruel. They switched horses. Completely different. Different enough to be an analogy for turning to a different deity when your current "sponsor" isn't cutting the mustard.

Obviously deities weren't expected to sit around actually cutting mustard all day, that would be pointless.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

That is a bizarre analogy.

The last? book in the series - The Vampire Lestat is all about theology, religion, faith, life after death etc.

memnoch the devil?
kinda cheesy. cool story tho.

[25]

I agree , but surely the ancients , as a whole ,.were devoted in their beliefs , why else have them if they meant nothing ?

Their belief structures were fundamentally different to ours. Monotheistic religions demand belief in one "true" god and strict adherence to "his" rules during your life with the promise of reward or punishment in the afterlife. It's a metaphysical concern. Polytheistic religions (pagan, if you prefer) dealt with immediate physical concerns, you need your crops to grow or you need to win a battle with a neighboring community or your child has a dose of the pox and there's a god, or more likely a number of gods, who deal with those concerns. And if the god you picked fails you, you can always turn to a different god. Some worship was context-sensitive; Not every Roman needed to pray to Mars every day but if you were a Centurion marching off to war then you'd probably want to check in with the guy. They had gods and held beliefs in the power of those gods and were devoted to their worship, but there were many gods with overlapping responsibilities and if one god wasn't working out for you there was always another option. Isn't that completely alien to monotheism? The idea that gods are accountable and dispensable?