Were other European religions better than Christianity?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Duels to the death persisted for a very long time after the spread of christianity. Gladiatorial fights were entertainment first, whatever else a distant second. Christianity burned people at the stake, or dumped them in rivers, or put them on the needle. Suicide was most definitely not seen as a "shortcut to valhalla", it was seen as a last ditch effort if one failed to die in battle. Specifically, they would jump off of a cliff, or fall on their own sword. No poisoning, no slitting of the wrists....only those who die violent deaths need apply. Christianity has similar provisions (though christians probably don't like the comparison) in martyrdom.

Which also disproves the main point of this thread.
But I'm fairly certain that I've read the hanging thing somewhere. I'll check it up for you.

Many of the worlds current religions are pagan religions. It's only a blanket term for non-abrahamic religions.

Well, I'm not really sure. I think today it's generally used for non-world religions.
For example, hinduism and buddhism are not pagan, due to their "world religion" status.

Essentially it's a derogatory "redneck" jab (pagan meaning: country dweller), which is ironic, given the backwater origins of abrahamic religions. As soon as abrahamic religions made it out of the woods, they looked down upon those in the woods with disdain...so apparently they've always been a bunch of hypocritical, sanctimonious assholes.

Abrahamic religions came from the orient, yes, however "Pagan" was essentially a term used by the Romans, not by the early christians, nor by any of the christianity types that flourished in the east.

I can't say that I respect ancient faiths any more than current ones. It's all the same to me. Whether positive or negative benefits of any faith accrued has little do to with a faith, and everything to do with the people of that faith.

Not always. People do change their entire lifestyles around their faith sometimes, although not always without changing the faith according to themselves either.

I'd like to see you make the case that vicarious redemption is anything more than juvenile wishful thinking. There are angsty christian teens (and many many more of them). Wicca is just a modern alternative to abrahamic religions that found a convenient backdrop in paganism. An attempt was made to draw authority from age, and this same attempt is made in service of christianity. The urges, motivations, and claims are identical (gods, magic, morality, reward) the descriptions are different.

Well, they do not draw inspiration on any known books of ancient origin by default. They add them as they see fit.

I think you're trying to manufacture a point of contention where none exists. So? Religions do move into areas peacefully, but it is a rare thing for them to do so unless the area they move into is uninhabited, or very sparsely inhabited. Your mention of Ireland as an area of peaceful conversion is garbage. That's a story peddled by christian monks about their mythical demigod "Patrick". In any case, "peaceful christian conversion" and "ireland" do not belong together at all. Al Qaeda are amateur bomb-makers compared to the IRA. While the case could be made that these conflicts are political (or secular) in nature, one cannot ignore the element of religion...which is often found in service of these sorts of conflicts. That doesn't detract from the notion that religion is not a force for good, it re-enforces it.

And why do you mention the IRA in this case?
How are they supposedly involved in this? And yes, one cannot ignore the element of religion in that it is generally tied to political conflicts. With the protestants choosing to stay with England, as they did througout the English rule of Ireland, and the catholics with Ireland, as they did so during the English rule of Ireland.
In short, it's all politics...That too, was the case for most of the wars of religion that occured in Europe...

Boy you sure do know a lot about Aztec civilization.........

I can't say I'm an expert on it. But I've read that they were a morally strong and strict society.

I don't see any increase in peace in Central and South America as a result of colonization.

Well, that is of course, another topic, but I'd rather attribute this to a new type of colonisation from the North of the American continent.
Not to the previous colonisations.

I don't know why you seem to think there has been.

Well, they certainly had some benefits, and of course, losses.
Losses were in terms of losing their identities, cultures, languages, and etc.
Gains were mostly in terms of how well they incorporated themselves into the foreign culture.

Didn't you just make a remark about conflicts being secular in nature? So quick to defend religion against secularism, and then so quick to blame religion for something the aztecs did as being caused by religion.

I do not defend religion against secularism.
I'm merely stating the facts. This not to say anything against secularism.
But in fact, it is actually you, who is trying to blame everything on religion.
There were things that were caused by religious motives, and there were things caused by secular motives.
But in all, secular motives like monetary gain, colonisation, and gold are of first and foremost priorities.

A near perfect moral society? Except all of those ritual sacrifices right...lol? Did you just make the claim that there were no Aztec criminals?

That's what I read.

What about that seems to be a rejection of "materialistic lifestyles"? Perhaps you should stick to something you have actual knowledge of, like ethnocentrism and bigotry, and leave anthropology to those of us who are capable of discerning reality from fiction?

If you know better than I do, you're certainly free to provide any kinds of reading materials.
And besides, I tell of no fiction. The spaniards themselves noted these when they walked the streets of the aztec capital.
You certainly know better than they do?
Yeah, I'll leave anthropology to some farmer alright.

To recap, you've manufactured a litany of fantasies here so that you could take some jab at materialism. You could have saved yourself embarrassment and simply posted a one-liner against materialism and secular societies. How hard would that have been?

You think I'm attacking secularism? There is a thread for that already, I could have gone there if I wanted to do that.
But it's certainly you who thinks that he can tie humanity's failings to religion, and disregard the things that had a much more major contribution to it, like for example, materialism.

How is it misinformation?
The crusades, the ethnic cleansing of the Indians and the Inquisition were a direct extension of Christian theology, and in no way a perversion of it as modern Christians would like to believe.

We could discuss these in a different thread if you want to.

The Bible says that people who don't worship the Judeo Christian should be put to death. Theres nothing in the theology of Norse Paganism or Hellenism which encourages religious wars. The idea that everyone else should follow your religion and you need to convert everyone else to it came from Judaism and Christianity.

Where?

Classical Rome and Greece had a relatively high level of religious freedom and were not opposed to learning and science like Christianity was.

And you think that Christianity certainly is?
Byzantium was still a place of learning even after it's conversion to Christianity.
The only reason why whatever else ceased to be in "Classical Rome" as in Western Rome, was because it was overrun and overtaken by barbarians.

Christianity put Europe into the Dark Ages and fought to keep us there as long as possible.

And how? Explain.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do me a favor Mehmet, define "materialism"? Doesn't have to be a dictionary definition, short and sweet, what is it you think you're making comments about when you say "yadda yadda yadda...materialism"?

[Epimethean]

From Leviticus 26:

You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

[Minimalist]

From Leviticus 26:

Pretty ballsy bragging from a nation which routinely got the shit kicked out of it, no?

[The Grand Nudger]

"Some farmer" shouldn't have to correct you when you make claims of a mythical society near devoid of criminals and criminality. The very notion should elicit hysterical giggling.

[kılıç_mehmet]

"Some farmer" shouldn't have to correct you when you make claims of a mythical society near devoid of criminals and criminality. The very notion should elicit hysterical giggling.

I did not made those claims. The people who had seen the capital city of the aztecs claimed it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you bought it, and repeated it here, hundreds of years later, as if there were an y truth to it whatsoever, in service of some point or criticism you failed to make stick regardless.

[Xavier]

The Bible says that people who don't worship the Judeo Christian should be put to death. Theres nothing in the theology of Norse Paganism or Hellenism which encourages religious wars. The idea that everyone else should follow your religion and you need to convert everyone else to it came from Judaism and Christianity.

Where?


Deuteronomy 13:13-15
'If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it.'
'If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword.'
You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it.'

Deuteronomy 13:1
'If a prophet arises among you offering some sign or wonder
and if he then tells you to follow other gods and worship them
'Do not listen to that prophet's words. Yahweh your God is testing you to find out if you love him with all your heart and soul.'
That prophet must be put to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'

There are numerous passages along the Bible along these lines.

From wiki-

The Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years his reign in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on Pagan sacrifice, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce anti-Pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed Pagan temples.

Examples of the destruction of pagan temples in the late fourth century, as recorded in surviving texts, are:

Martin of Tours' attacks on holy sites in Gaul
the destruction of temples in Syria by Marcellus
the destruction of temples and images in, and surrounding Carthage
the Patriarch Theophilus who seized and destroyed pagan temples in Alexandria
the levelling of all the temples in Gaza
the wider destruction of holy sites that spread rapidly throughout Egypt.

These events I think had far more to do with the western Empire collapsing in on itself than the barbarians, as the Christian emperors effectively started a religious war against their own people.