Religion has caused more

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

I agree. It's the natural evolution.

yes natural evolution is whats puting paid to christianity in europe.

IndianSummer

baraka wrote:

My thoughts exactly. It seems to me that man has endured many hardships throughout history when it comes to following their particular religion, whether its Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or whatever. I believe as long as people continue to see the 'Truth' in their religion, the religion will survive.

you knwo jews were still seeing a lot of truth in their religion back in 1940. and yet by some expert "natural evolution" carried out by the waffen ss, they came very close to the "good riddance" fate.

NMyTree

know1 wrote:

Secondly, here's a unique concept for you - EVERYONE DIES. Religion did not cause them to die. They were going to die anyway.

Hahahahaha! That's hilarious. What a spin job!!!

Going by your way of thinking, you shouldn't mind at all if some lunatic invades your home, today, and slaugthers you and your family, right? I mean, hell, you were all going to die, anyway:rolleyes:

LikeAnOcean

Religion for the most part is about peace, love, life after death and a higher being.. its the underlaying brainwashing, nationalism, misunderstanding that makes it back fire.

baraka

IndianSummer wrote:

you knwo jews were still seeing a lot of truth in their religion back in 1940. and yet by some expert "natural evolution" carried out by the waffen ss, they came very close to the "good riddance" fate.

uh, I believe you just proved my point.

baraka

IndianSummer wrote:

if a belief system cant attract - they dont believe in "attracting" or converting. you are born a zorastrian with the blod of cyrus flowing in your veins or not. "attracting" is limited to christianity, buddhism and islam.

While I'll agree that some get a bit zealous with converting others, I believe the true foundation of the 'attracting' religions you mentioned is the fact they are inclusive, ie, you don't have to be of a particular blood-line to be accepted in the faith.

hippiemom

IndianSummer wrote:

haha, i am assuming you know little about zorastrianism or its unfortunate history. i have broken your posts into many lines. the paraghaphs in the rest of my answer adresses e seperate line in your post.

if there is truth - monotheism came from zorastrianism. also its the first "delivered" religion.

Thanks ... thanks a lot Zorathustra. If this religion disappears, will the other monotheist religions follow? One can only hope.

IndianSummer wrote:

by choice - yes there were loads of followers, and by choice too. what if the choice is denied?? what if you are located next to the epicentre of islam - ie iran is next to arabia, with only iraq in between and what if you are overrun by blod thirsty cut-throats trying to kill all those who dont chuck zorastrianism and take to islam?? why do you think they fled to india??

As I said, you can't force adults to believe anything. You may be able to force them to put on a show for a while, observing Islamic customs and whatnot, but if they truly BELIEVE in their religion, they will continue to believe it until such time as they are free to practice it. Christians suffered horrific persecution, and yet the religion survived.

IndianSummer wrote:

if there isnt.... no hard = agreed. but you assume that there isnt any truth. btw, please by no means assume that zorastrianism hasnbt had an influence on world religions - no one religion has influenced other religions more.

I don't assume that there isn't any truth to it. I don't know enough about it to make any assumptions. Their influence on other religions is beside the point. Many things contribute to the formation of other things, then vanish themselves.

IndianSummer wrote:

if a belief system cant attract - they dont believe in "attracting" or converting. you are born a zorastrian with the blod of cyrus flowing in your veins or not. "attracting" is limited to christianity, buddhism and islam.

They don't accept converts? Jews and pagans don't proselytize either, but they do accept those who seek them out and adopt their beliefs.

I will admit that I'm predisposed to dislike any religion that bases itself predominantly on bloodlines. I'm not a fan of any system that discourages people from thinking for themselves. Regardless of where we were born, we all have the ability to decide for ourselves what we believe and how we wish to live our lives.

IndianSummer wrote:

keep followers on their own merit - so if tommorow turks and chinese (for example) forced all christians to convert to some of their religions, would u be right in assuming that christianity cant keep followers in its own merit?? truth be told, they dont seem to be able to keep many on their own merit (in europe at least) in any case, without any turkic or chinese attacks.

Again ... you could force many Christians to BEHAVE like Muslims, but there's really no way to know how many of them would actually BECOME Muslims, is there? I may be on my knees facing east, but it's between me and god what's running through my head while I'm down there.

IndianSummer wrote:

good riddance - a fine way to achieve "good riddance" isnt it?? converting iran to islam by the sword.

Believe me, I am no fan of the Muslim faith either, at least not in it's fundamentalist form. Any religion that has to be forced on people at point of gun can't really have much going for it in the first place, or people would be flocking to sign up all on their own.

IndianSummer wrote:

just like asatru and wicca were given the "good riddance" treatment by the many inquisitions etc

And yet they still have believers today, don't they?

IndianSummer wrote:

anyway now i suddenly see why most of you have no problems condonign religions persecution, and proselytysing be it by the sword or by carrot. you just assume things have come to the shape they have "naturally" and not thanks to a tragic history.

No one is condoning religious persecution. You started discussing native Americans, who have certainly been persecuted in the past, but no one is stopping those of native descent from choosing their own faith RIGHT NOW. They are free to follow to the beliefs of their ancestors, and many have done so. Others have, of their own free choice, chosen a different path. You seem to feel that only one of those choices is legitimate, whereas I think that any freely chosen path is legitimate.

IndianSummer

baraka wrote:

While I'll agree that some get a bit zealous with converting others, I believe the true foundation of the 'attracting' religions you mentioned is the fact they are inclusive, ie, you don't have to be of a particular blood-line to be accepted in the faith.

er,,, "bolld of cyrus" dont refer to a particular blood line, but to an ethnicity. ie the iranian ethnicity.

btw just how did i prove ur point?? waffen ss killing jews and almost exterminating them = natural evolution??

NMyTree

Fictional writings of imaginary friends in the sky who will reward you for your loyalty, after your physical death. That's quite a prose.

Thousand's of years old fictional books and scrolls written by twisted men, become non-fiction through intimidation, fear tactics, discrimination, bullying and flat out murder.

Spreading the word of fictional characters is wonderful if the message is of love and peace.

But imaginary friends in the sky are never there to correct the situation, when the imaginary friend's words are used for invasion, stealing, torture and murder.

Old Testament....New Testament.........Not into sequels.

Will there be a another updated Testament? Will they call it..... " The Newer Than The New Testament " ? Or maybe ....."The New Testament Part III : God's Weekend With Bernie" ?

Will god do a book signing tour? Will there be a movie version? Mel Gibson? Oliver Stone? George Lucas?

If I peer into a dog's ass will I see man's fictional god staring back at me?

Or will I only see shit?

Shall we argue, fight and kill over what Spiderman and Batman said? Which one was right? Which one is worth dying for?

Oh religion, it's such a confusing concept. As are most bullshit creations by man.

IndianSummer

hippiemom wrote:

Thanks ... thanks a lot Zorathustra. If this religion disappears, will the other monotheist religions follow? One can only hope.


As I said, you can't force adults to believe anything.



They don't accept converts?


I will admit that I'm predisposed to dislike any religion that bases itself predominantly on bloodlines.



Any religion that has to be forced on people at point of gun can't really have much going for it in the first place, or people would be flocking to sign up all on their own.


And yet they still have believers today, don't they?


You seem to feel that only one of those choices is legitimate, whereas I think that any freely chosen path is legitimate.

again each para is for a seperate line in ur post.


interestingly the first 2 of the monotheistic religions (this one and judaism) have alomost invariably on the receiving end of stick and sword, while its the latter two that have been behind jihads, crusades, inquisitions and beheading.



you CAN force anyone to do anything BY THE SWORD. if you were zorastrian, living in iran in year 750 ad and had a sword to your throat held by one of Ibn Batua's men, then zorastrianism would go out the window. same reason in latin america, the people who came up with the brilliant inca, maya and aztec civilizations are today christians.



they do accept converts in fact. they dont proselytise is wjhat i meant. sorry if it came across as otherwise. but in all the cases you mentioned (judaism, paganism and also hinduism) conversion is somewhat meaningless. thats because these religions are also a people. i mean jews are both a religion and a people. i could convert to judaism, but it wouldnt make me a descandant of the hebrew tribe. i could convert to asatru but it wouldnt make me germanic by blood. the religions which dont proselytise are almost always ethnicity based religions. you could become zorastrianism, but your ethnicity wouldnt become iranian (if you are interested - iran's name comes from "aryan", a sort of "f" word in these days. but iran's real name was persia - cos they are the descendants of "parasu". thats how they are persians). the best thing that could happen to zorastrianism today is if all the muslims in iran went back to zorastrianism, but fat chance.



like i said, its not bloodline. its ethnicity.



yes. the incas didnt flock to sighn up for christianity either, nor did the zorastrians sign up for islam.



yes they do. the main reason why asatru is making a comeback, is that people in germanic countries like scandinavia and iceland are going back to to their germanic roots. but the zorastrians have no such luck and the shias of iran wont convert back anytime soon.



i too believe any freely chosen path is legitimate. tell me, how many cases of natives freely choosing chriatianity do you know of in places where missionaries have not proselytised.??

hippiemom

IndianSummer wrote:

again each para is for a seperate line in ur post.


interestingly the first 2 of the monotheistic religions (this one and judaism) have alomost invariably on the receiving end of stick and sword, while its the latter two that have been behind jihads, crusades, inquisitions and beheading.



you CAN force anyone to do anything BY THE SWORD. if you were zorastrian, living in iran in year 750 ad and had a sword to your throat held by one of Ibn Batua's men, then zorastrianism would go out the window. same reason in latin america, the people who came up with the brilliant inca, maya and aztec civilizations are today christians.



they do accept converts in fact. they dont proselytise is wjhat i meant. sorry if it came across as otherwise. but in all the cases you mentioned (judaism, paganism and also hinduism) conversion is somewhat meaningless. thats because these religions are also a people. i mean jews are both a religion and a people. i could convert to judaism, but it wouldnt make me a descandant of the hebrew tribe. i could convert to asatru but it wouldnt make me germanic by blood. the religions which dont proselytise are almost always ethnicity based religions. you could become zorastrianism, but your ethnicity wouldnt become iranian (if you are interested - iran's name comes from "aryan", a sort of "f" word in these days. but iran's real name was persia - cos they are the descendants of "parasu". thats how they are persians). the best thing that could happen to zorastrianism today is if all the muslims in iran went back to zorastrianism, but fat chance.



like i said, its not bloodline. its ethnicity.



yes. the incas didnt flock to sighn up for christianity either, nor did the zorastrians sign up for islam.



yes they do. the main reason why asatru is making a comeback, is that people in germanic countries like scandinavia and iceland are going back to to their germanic roots. but the zorastrians have no such luck and the shias of iran wont convert back anytime soon.



i too believe any freely chosen path is legitimate. tell me, how many cases of natives freely choosing chriatianity do you know of in places where missionaries have not proselytised.??

Missionaries have proselytized pretty much everywhere. All I am saying is that the natives of TODAY can freely choose to observe the religion of their ancestors, as you say the Germanic people are doing. The descendants of African slaves are free to practice African customs, and a small number of them do just that. The overwhelming majority, however, have CHOSEN to remain either Christian, Muslim, or no particular religion at all.

The history of Iran is a tragic one, of course, but if I understand you correctly the Zorastrians are not being persecuted in India, so if people born into it in India choose to leave it of their own accord, I don't see anything wrong with that. They obviously feel a need for something that Zorastrianism can't provide.

I completely reject the idea that your race, ethnicity or nationality should determine your religious faith. Any idea that is swallowed hook, line and sinker, whether it comes from a missionary or your parents, is nothing more than brainwashing as far as I'm concerned. You said "i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their own - they are induced/hogwashed to do so." Several of us are merely pointing out that for the natives of today, it most certainly is a choice, and what they've chosen IS now "their own."

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

haha, i am assuming you know little about zorastrianism or its unfortunate history. i have broken your posts into many lines. the paraghaphs in the rest of my answer adresses e seperate line in your post.


if there is truth - monotheism came from zorastrianism. also its the first "delivered" religion.

The first monotheistic religion that we know of was the religion of the Aten - or sun god - proposed by the ancient ancient Egyptian Pharoah Akenaten in 2600 bc. Many have identified Akenaten as being the historical figure of Moses. Anyway, sorry for interrupting! Carry on!

IndianSummer

hippiemom wrote:

The history of Iran is a tragic one, of course, but if I understand you correctly the Zorastrians are not being persecuted in India, so if people born into it in India choose to leave it of their own accord, I don't see anything wrong with that.

nor do i. however thats hardly happening, and the remaining few are holding on to it zealously. their faith is dying down, because of lack of offsprings etc.

hippiemom wrote:

I completely reject the idea that your race, ethnicity or nationality should determine your religious faith.

in essence you are rejecting paganism. all paganism is a reflection of the religious beliefs of a particular ethnicity (each race has many ethnicities and nationality is all too artificial). every pagan religion is of the people, by the people and for the peopel of that ethnicity. the present (or in the case of dead pagan systems, like the paganism of the inca, the last) state of every pagan belief system is what the collective religious beliefs and customs of the people of that ethnicity evolved into.

hippiemom wrote:

Any idea that is swallowed hook, line and sinker, whether it comes from a missionary or your parents, is nothing more than brainwashing as far as I'm concerned.

pagan beliefs are ever evolving.

hippiemom wrote:

You said "i maintain they dont choose christianity or any other religion over their own - they are induced/hogwashed to do so." Several of us are merely pointing out that for the natives of today, it most certainly is a choice, and what they've chosen IS now "their own."

well if there are natives or non natives even, who chose to change from X religion to Y without missionaries proselytising, then i have no problems with it. the problem i have is not with whather a person converts or not (that depends on many factors. the state of his belly may be one), but whether he was proselytised by/upon or not. a change of religion WITHOUT missionaries being involved is natural evolution. i have no problems with that. i may not like/enjoy it if all zorastrians convert to X or Y religion tommorow, leaving their own to die, but i certainly cant object if thats what they choose to do.

IndianSummer

Byrnzie wrote:

The first monotheistic religion that we know of was the religion of the Aten - or sun god - proposed by the ancient ancient Egyptian Pharoah Akenaten in 2600 bc. Many have identified Akenaten as being the historical figure of Moses. Anyway, sorry for interrupting! Carry on!

well not according to the national geographic channel anyway.

they traced the monotheism in the 3 judaic religions to iran and zorastrianism.

hippiemom

IndianSummer wrote:

nor do i. however thats hardly happening, and the remaining few are holding on to it zealously. their faith is dying down, because of lack of offsprings etc.

That is a problem they can solve on their own then, if they wish.

IndianSummer wrote:

in essence you are rejecting paganism. all paganism is a reflection of the religious beliefs of a particular ethnicity (each race has many ethnicities and nationality is all too artificial). every pagan religion is of the people, by the people and for the peopel of that ethnicity. the present (or in the case of dead pagan systems, like the paganism of the ince, the last) state of every pagan belief system is what the collective religious beliefs and customs of the people of that ethnicity evolved into.

If people are born into a pagan family and choose to remain pagans all their lives, that's great, but it's their CHOICE that keeps them there, not their ethnicity, nationality, DNA, or anything else. All I'm rejecting is the idea that you inherently "are" one religion or another based on an accident of birth.

IndianSummer wrote:

well if there are natives or non natives even, who chose to change from X religion to Y without missionaries proselytising, then i have no problems with it. the problem i have is not with whather a person converts or not (that depends on many factors. the state of his belly may be one), but whether he was proselytised by/upon or not. a change of religion WITHOUT missionaries being involved is natural evolution. i have no problems with that. i may not like/enjoy it if all zorastrians convert to X or Y religion tommorow, leaving their own to die, but i certainly cant object if thats what they choose to do.

It's unquestionably true that there have been horrible abuses by missionaries all over the world. It's also unquestionably true that there have been incredible heroics by missionaries in many places. They've wreaked havoc on some societies, and helped to save others from destruction. Some have tried to beat their religion into people, which is unforgiveable. Others have chosen to proselytize by example, which is admirable. I don't paint all missionaries with the same brush as you seem to be doing.

I can't think of anything more annoying than someone trying to convert me to their religion, and doing so by force, or threat of force, is of course much more than annoying, and shouldn't be tolerated by people anywhere. On the other hand, people sharing information about their regligion can be fascinating. If missionaries are simply spreading the word about Christianity or whatever other faith they might practice, without any bullying, as some of them do, I have no problem with that.

eddies grrl

PJfanFORlife wrote:

death than any other concept in human history. Thoughts on this?

that pretty much sums it up, imo.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

whereas it would be wrong to state that the hopi indian isn't free to start believing in any religion he pleases, its fair and correct to say that if he takes to any other belief system other than the one that sprang from the hopi indian way of life (ie. te one to which he is organically connected), then he is a girraf trying to be an elephant.

Right, so as I thought,you are saying they are not being true to themselves.

Because we all know that if they were true to themselves, they would follow along with your ideas of what their "organic" history "should" mean to them. Isn't the truth, rather, that they ARE true to themselves by making their decisions as per their inner voice, they are just not following your belief system?

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

i hope you realise the hopi indians dont become germanic even though they may take to the germanic dawn godess called Eoster and start celebrating the feast of the invincible sun, in the garb/guise of "christmas", on the day when the roman god Mitras was supposed to have been born.

ie.try as a girraf might, he dont become an elephant. he is free to try though, or in the case of proselytised conversion, free to fall for the carrots the missionaries dangle.

It sounds like you are not accepting that within nature and natural law, people have different ways to live their lives. People strive to live to their own standards. I applaud that each one of us decides our own values system for ourselves. Who we are is not defined by our religion, or by our ethnicity, or our family--who we are is defined by our each choice in each moment in each day. It's called free will, my friend. Our family, our past, our ethnicity, our religion, they all dramatically influence us. In the end, they are not us and they do not decide for us. We are who we are as nature intended. You cannot take that away from any Hopi Indian, try as you might.

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

well not according to the national geographic channel anyway.

they traced the monotheism in the 3 judaic religions to iran and zorastrianism.

That's odd, because zorastrianism emerged in Iran in around 550 BCE. The religion of the Aten emerged about 2000 years previous.

IndianSummer

Byrnzie wrote:

That's odd, because zorastrianism emerged in Iran in around 550 BCE. The religion of the Aten emerged about 2000 years previous.

i dunno when Aten emerged, but zorastrianism emerged a lot before the date you came up with.