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."
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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!
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.
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.
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."
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.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
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.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
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.
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.
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.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
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?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
no wrong. grosly wrong. please get rid of your preassumed ideas about me.
if they were true to themselves, they would follow along with your ideas of what their "organic" history "should" mean to them.
^^^ thats just innane.
a person cant be organically related to any culture apart from the one h is indeed organically related to (ie. the one he was born with the one that flows in his veins etc).
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?
no the truth is that most of my posts were misunderstood, at least by you.
they are indeed being true to themselvs if they choose to swithc to X or Y religion, ON THEIR OWN.
i dont want them to follow my belief system - i am not a missionary.
final word - i am not opposed to peopel converting or changing their religion. i am opposed to peopel TRYING TO CONVERT others into their own religion. like hippiemom said, if the poselytiser's religion was that good, it would ned no hard selling and people would queu up to change into that religion on their own.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
no wrong. grosly wrong. please get rid of your preassumed ideas about me.
I assume my ideas based on what you are telling me. When you indicate respect for all peoples, their freedom of will, choice of worship and the validity of that, I will so acknowledge that you are not expecting others to live according to your values.
if they were true to themselves, they would follow along with your ideas of what their "organic" history "should" mean to them.
^^^ thats just innane.
a person cant be organically related to any culture apart from the one h is indeed organically related to (ie. the one he was born with the one that flows in his veins etc).
A person's spirit is beyond their organism. We are talking about spiritual beliefs, here. As I say, we are dramatically influenced by our ancestry, culture, etc, in what path we choose to accept as our spiritual path. We are the ones who choose, Native, or not, whether influenced by parents, religion or missionaries.
A person defines who they are with each choice in each moment, based on their humanity and their spirit.
no the truth is that most of my posts were misunderstood, at least by you.
I have read the derogatory nature of your remarks, assuming people have been brainwashed and that they are not acting based on choice when face with missionaries. Please let me know how I am misunderstanding you.
they are indeed being true to themselvs if they choose to swithc to X or Y religion, ON THEIR OWN.
The individual chooses from among their own choices. You might not like the influences under which they choose sometimes, much like someone like hippiemom might not like "inherited", unquestioned religion. You're entitled to your value system, like hippiemom.
i dont want them to follow my belief system - i am not a missionary.
It is quite clear that you do not want anyone to choose a missionary-introduced view--therefore you do have expectations that such valid choice, given the circumstances, is incorrect. That is your value system.
final word - i am not opposed to peopel converting or changing their religion. i am opposed to peopel TRYING TO CONVERT others into their own religion. like hippiemom said, if the poselytiser's religion was that good, it would ned no hard selling and people would queu up to change into that religion on their own.
I know--You accept the free choice that is aligned with your values about religion-inheritance, you do not accept free choice that is not aligned with your values re: inheriting religion.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I know--You accept the free choice that is aligned with your values about religion-inheritance, you do not accept free choice that is not aligned with your values re: inheriting religion.
i do.
what i dont agree with is the PEOPLE WHO TRY TO CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE to their religion.
ie. i am not opposed to conversion. i am opposed to proselytising.
i couldnt have made it any clearer.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
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??
You proved my point by giving an example of a faith system that was horribly persecuted yet is still going strong today. The same case can be made about Christians & Muslims & possibly others. The point is, if you look at history, you will find that people of different faiths have faced many hardships when it comes to their particular faith, yet said faiths have survived, no different than your example of those that practice Zoroastrianism that had to relocate to India to preserve their faith. No one is condoning persecution in this thread, we are simply disagreeing with your premise that one must blindly follow the religion that happens to be tied into their ethnicity. One must follow their heart. For some, that might mean not following any faith at all, for others it might mean converting to a faith different than the one their parents practiced.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
what i dont agree with is the PEOPLE WHO TRY TO CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE to their religion.
ie. i am not opposed to conversion. i am opposed to proselytising.
i couldnt have made it any clearer.
Then what was all the elephant and giraffe business about? It certainly sounded as though you were saying that what you are born as is what you ARE, and any attempt to change that is being untrue to yourself. After all, if an elephant starts acting like a giraffe, it doesn't make much difference if he's doing so because someone talked him into it, or if he just saw a giraffe somewhere and wanted to be like it. Either way, an elephant behaving like a giraffe is ridiculous. When you use that analogy, it certainly sounds as though you think an African choosing Christianity, or an Eskimo choosing Islam, is being ridiculous.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
religion is only a small cause of death and destruction. greed, power and addiction are bigger causes for that type of nonsense. let us not forget that religious freedom is what brought about America. Which is, regardless of the problems that exist here, the best place to live in this world..
Then what was all the elephant and giraffe business about? It certainly sounded as though you were saying that what you are born as is what you ARE, and any attempt to change that is being untrue to yourself.
yes. it goes against what was refferd to in this thread as "narural evolution".
the change that missionaries, proselytisers, inquisitioners, jehadis etc try to bring about is an ARTIFICIALLY induced not-natural change.
where as if the person himself decides to change his faith, then thats natural enough. and i have no problems. though i maintain that the new faith/way of life wont come as naturally to him/her as the one of his/her ethnicity.
(here i have to clarify that, for example, a christian in iceland doesnt have christianity for his/her ethnicity, but has a germanic ethnicity. the way of life that comes most naturally to him is the germanic way of life - the one which he inherited, which is in his blood, not the "christian" way of life)
After all, if an elephant starts acting like a giraffe, it doesn't make much difference if he's doing so because someone talked him into it, or if he just saw a giraffe somewhere and wanted to be like it. Either way, an elephant behaving like a giraffe is ridiculous.
precisely. thats is why its ridiculous when hopi indians, whether by their own accord or whether induced by missionaries, suddenly start worshipping the germanic dawn godess Oestera on the day of spring equinox.
the reason solstice was turned by the romans into christmas and fertility festival of Oestra into celebration of christ's ressurection is precisely that - to ensure that the pagans got converted to "christianity", without actually forcing them to act like anything different from what they were used to.
When you use that analogy, it certainly sounds as though you think an African choosing Christianity, or an Eskimo choosing Islam, is being ridiculous.
yes. the increase of the duration of the daytime (celebrated in cold north europe as the "feast of the invincible sun") is not something that africans have any logical/natural reason to celebrate.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
religion is only a small cause of death and destruction. greed, power and addiction are bigger causes for that type of nonsense.
if you ignore the 20th century, then religion was the biggest killer in all the years before that.
the biggest killers in the 20th century were communism and nazism - 2 ways to exert political control (ie. control over people's political beliefs) over people.
the biggest killers in the past were islam and christianity - two ways to exert religious control (control over people's religious beliefs) over people.
It sounds like you disagree with the post you quoted. Could you please elaborate?
The speaker used a tone that insinuated both that people don't attack nationalism and they religion is unfairly attacked. Both insinuations are grossly wrong.
Religion and nationalism are intertwined, in many cases one lends support to the other so to see them as two seperate issues is shortsighted in my opinion.
Also the arguement of religion never ordering one to kill is wrong, plain and simple, it is simply incorrect.
PEACE
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such.
yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.
well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in fact i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.
btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.
think that illustrates my opinion on it. if something is being called the main cause, to me that implies they think it corners the market. still means there are other players in the game, but that one thing trumps them all. that was all.
think that illustrates my opinion on it. if something is being called the main cause, to me that implies they think it corners the market. still means there are other players in the game, but that one thing trumps them all. that was all.
<sigh> that's not all i got out of your post, just all i took issue with...hence the reason i only discussed that small part of it. the post of yours you copied and pasted wasn't even the one i replied to...i replied to this
Originally Posted by decides2dream
well, 'killing in the name of...'...and actually that being the true issue, not the same thing. didn't reagan's attempted assasssin do so to somehow impress jodie foster or some twisted shite like that? seriously, one can go out on a limb and choose just about anything they want to grasp at as a 'reason' for killing..and i hardly think religion corners the market is all.
which was on the 3rd page...the one you quoted above was on the 9th page ...which was actually your reply to my reply to you (from the 3rd page)
so...i am supposed to take things out of a futuristic post of yours?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
<sigh> that's not all i got out of your post, just all i took issue with...hence the reason i only discussed that small part of it. the post of yours you copied and pasted wasn't even the one i replied to...i replied to this
Originally Posted by decides2dream
well, 'killing in the name of...'...and actually that being the true issue, not the same thing. didn't reagan's attempted assasssin do so to somehow impress jodie foster or some twisted shite like that? seriously, one can go out on a limb and choose just about anything they want to grasp at as a 'reason' for killing..and i hardly think religion corners the market is all.
which was on the 3rd page...the one you quoted above was on the 9th page ...which was actually your reply to my reply to you (from the 3rd page)
so...i am supposed to take things out of a futuristic post of yours?
yes, true. my apologies then. since you actually addressed my first post and i had already responded - with the above quoted post - and then you addressed the first post, again...i thought actually you had seen/read my response to your response...so just surprising that 2x you addressed the exact same post...and completely ignored it's further answer to your query, that was all. so not the 'future' at all.......you simply responded to the same post on page 1 (for me as i have my settings at 40 posts/page- twice, which i thought rather odd....i mean, you DID actually quote my Q to you - in regards to why you brought up the 'true believer's when you quoted me...which means you DID see my response, thus i was kinda curious why you brought up the same thing twice is all. oh well.
Originally Posted by decides2dream
well, 'killing in the name of...'...and actually that being the true issue, not the same thing. didn't reagan's attempted assasssin do so to somehow impress jodie foster or some twisted shite like that? seriously, one can go out on a limb and choose just about anything they want to grasp at as a 'reason' for killing..and i hardly think religion corners the market is all.
well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in faqct i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.
btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.
Originally Posted by decides2dream
btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such.
yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.
yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.
well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in fact i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.
btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.
think that illustrates my opinion on it. if something is being called the main cause, to me that implies they think it corners the market. still means there are other players in the game, but that one thing trumps them all. that was all.
so while yes, i see you were referencing, again, my first post....and then actually saw/read my response to you...thought it perhaps odd? that you chose to ignore? my explanation for my line of thinking, why i thought thew thread starter was indeed implying such since you obviously quoted part of my response to you. thus i knew you saw it...and i just didn't get why address the same point, 2x, when i already explained why i would 'get' such an implication. i don't really 'get' why you take issue with my use of the term cornering the market. disagree sure....but otherwise, it definitely was implied imho. so yea, no 'future' post..you actually read and quoted part of the second post...and then chose to readdress the first one. that was all. id' think there are far more interesting things here in this thread to debate than just my use/opinion of corbering the market.
yes, true. my apologies then. since you actually addressed my first post and i had already responded - with the above quoted post - and then you addressed the first post, again...i thought actually you had seen/read my response to your response...so just surprising that 2x you addressed the exact same post...and completely ignored it's further answer to your query, that was all. so not the 'future' at all.......you simply responded to the same post on page 1 (for me as i have my settings at 40 posts/page- twice, which i thought rather odd....i mean, you DID actually quote my Q to you - in regards to why you brought up the 'true believer's when you quoted me...which means you DID see my response, thus i was kinda curious why you brought up the same thing twice is all. oh well.
my post - page 1:
your response - page 1:
my response - page 4:
then your response - page 6:
and then finally me again - page 6:
so while yes, i see you were referencing, again, my first post....and then actually saw/read my response to you...thought it perhaps odd? that you chose to ignore? my explanation for my line of thinking, why i thought thew thread starter was indeed implying such since you obviously quoted part of my response to you. thus i knew you saw it...and i just didn't get why address the same point, 2x, when i already explained why i would 'get' such an implication. i don't really 'get' why you take issue with my use of the term cornering the market. disagree sure....but otherwise, it definitely was implied imho. so yea, no 'future' post..you actually read and quoted part of the second post...and then chose to readdress the first one. that was all. id' think there are far more interesting things here in this thread to debate than just my use/opinion of corbering the market.
i didn't choose to ignore it perse...my last reply was on the 4th page...then i came back and it was at around 10 pages and i didn't feel like going thru 6 whole pages...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
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."
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!
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.
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.
pagan beliefs are ever evolving.
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.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
they traced the monotheism in the 3 judaic religions to iran and zorastrianism.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
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.
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.
that pretty much sums it up, imo.
Of which we're caught in the middle.
A couple of lucky ones
Tangled up in too much love
~cowboy junkies
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?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's odd, because zorastrianism emerged in Iran in around 550 BCE. The religion of the Aten emerged about 2000 years previous.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
I find it archaic.
if they were true to themselves, they would follow along with your ideas of what their "organic" history "should" mean to them.
^^^ thats just innane.
a person cant be organically related to any culture apart from the one h is indeed organically related to (ie. the one he was born with the one that flows in his veins etc).
no the truth is that most of my posts were misunderstood, at least by you.
they are indeed being true to themselvs if they choose to swithc to X or Y religion, ON THEIR OWN.
i dont want them to follow my belief system - i am not a missionary.
final word - i am not opposed to peopel converting or changing their religion. i am opposed to peopel TRYING TO CONVERT others into their own religion. like hippiemom said, if the poselytiser's religion was that good, it would ned no hard selling and people would queu up to change into that religion on their own.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
A person's spirit is beyond their organism. We are talking about spiritual beliefs, here. As I say, we are dramatically influenced by our ancestry, culture, etc, in what path we choose to accept as our spiritual path. We are the ones who choose, Native, or not, whether influenced by parents, religion or missionaries.
A person defines who they are with each choice in each moment, based on their humanity and their spirit.
I have read the derogatory nature of your remarks, assuming people have been brainwashed and that they are not acting based on choice when face with missionaries. Please let me know how I am misunderstanding you.
The individual chooses from among their own choices. You might not like the influences under which they choose sometimes, much like someone like hippiemom might not like "inherited", unquestioned religion. You're entitled to your value system, like hippiemom.
It is quite clear that you do not want anyone to choose a missionary-introduced view--therefore you do have expectations that such valid choice, given the circumstances, is incorrect. That is your value system.
I know--You accept the free choice that is aligned with your values about religion-inheritance, you do not accept free choice that is not aligned with your values re: inheriting religion.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
what i dont agree with is the PEOPLE WHO TRY TO CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE to their religion.
ie. i am not opposed to conversion. i am opposed to proselytising.
i couldnt have made it any clearer.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
You proved my point by giving an example of a faith system that was horribly persecuted yet is still going strong today. The same case can be made about Christians & Muslims & possibly others. The point is, if you look at history, you will find that people of different faiths have faced many hardships when it comes to their particular faith, yet said faiths have survived, no different than your example of those that practice Zoroastrianism that had to relocate to India to preserve their faith. No one is condoning persecution in this thread, we are simply disagreeing with your premise that one must blindly follow the religion that happens to be tied into their ethnicity. One must follow their heart. For some, that might mean not following any faith at all, for others it might mean converting to a faith different than the one their parents practiced.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
the change that missionaries, proselytisers, inquisitioners, jehadis etc try to bring about is an ARTIFICIALLY induced not-natural change.
where as if the person himself decides to change his faith, then thats natural enough. and i have no problems. though i maintain that the new faith/way of life wont come as naturally to him/her as the one of his/her ethnicity.
(here i have to clarify that, for example, a christian in iceland doesnt have christianity for his/her ethnicity, but has a germanic ethnicity. the way of life that comes most naturally to him is the germanic way of life - the one which he inherited, which is in his blood, not the "christian" way of life)
precisely. thats is why its ridiculous when hopi indians, whether by their own accord or whether induced by missionaries, suddenly start worshipping the germanic dawn godess Oestera on the day of spring equinox.
the reason solstice was turned by the romans into christmas and fertility festival of Oestra into celebration of christ's ressurection is precisely that - to ensure that the pagans got converted to "christianity", without actually forcing them to act like anything different from what they were used to.
yes. the increase of the duration of the daytime (celebrated in cold north europe as the "feast of the invincible sun") is not something that africans have any logical/natural reason to celebrate.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
the biggest killers in the 20th century were communism and nazism - 2 ways to exert political control (ie. control over people's political beliefs) over people.
the biggest killers in the past were islam and christianity - two ways to exert religious control (control over people's religious beliefs) over people. how so??
by some yardsticks, that may be true indeed.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The speaker used a tone that insinuated both that people don't attack nationalism and they religion is unfairly attacked. Both insinuations are grossly wrong.
Religion and nationalism are intertwined, in many cases one lends support to the other so to see them as two seperate issues is shortsighted in my opinion.
Also the arguement of religion never ordering one to kill is wrong, plain and simple, it is simply incorrect.
PEACE
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
yes, you said "i hardly think religion corners the market is all." which is the part that was directed towards you...i didn't see anyone claim or imply this was the case.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
funny that's all you got out of this post:
think that illustrates my opinion on it. if something is being called the main cause, to me that implies they think it corners the market. still means there are other players in the game, but that one thing trumps them all. that was all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You're going to have to give me an example. ONE example of ONE core teaching of ANY religion. Please. SOMEBODY. Or let this thread die a quiet death.
I would seriously hope you're kidding. Capitalism is not a religion. You are kidding, right?
What so 550bc came before 2,600bc did it? Weird! :eek:
<sigh> that's not all i got out of your post, just all i took issue with...hence the reason i only discussed that small part of it. the post of yours you copied and pasted wasn't even the one i replied to...i replied to this
Originally Posted by decides2dream
well, 'killing in the name of...'...and actually that being the true issue, not the same thing. didn't reagan's attempted assasssin do so to somehow impress jodie foster or some twisted shite like that? seriously, one can go out on a limb and choose just about anything they want to grasp at as a 'reason' for killing..and i hardly think religion corners the market is all.
which was on the 3rd page...the one you quoted above was on the 9th page ...which was actually your reply to my reply to you (from the 3rd page)
so...i am supposed to take things out of a futuristic post of yours?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yes, true. my apologies then. since you actually addressed my first post and i had already responded - with the above quoted post - and then you addressed the first post, again...i thought actually you had seen/read my response to your response...so just surprising that 2x you addressed the exact same post...and completely ignored it's further answer to your query, that was all. so not the 'future' at all.......you simply responded to the same post on page 1 (for me as i have my settings at 40 posts/page- twice, which i thought rather odd....i mean, you DID actually quote my Q to you - in regards to why you brought up the 'true believer's when you quoted me...which means you DID see my response, thus i was kinda curious why you brought up the same thing twice is all. oh well.
my post - page 1:
your response - page 1:
my response - page 4:
then your response - page 6:
and then finally me again - page 6:
so while yes, i see you were referencing, again, my first post....and then actually saw/read my response to you...thought it perhaps odd? that you chose to ignore? my explanation for my line of thinking, why i thought thew thread starter was indeed implying such since you obviously quoted part of my response to you. thus i knew you saw it...and i just didn't get why address the same point, 2x, when i already explained why i would 'get' such an implication. i don't really 'get' why you take issue with my use of the term cornering the market. disagree sure....but otherwise, it definitely was implied imho. so yea, no 'future' post..you actually read and quoted part of the second post...and then chose to readdress the first one. that was all. id' think there are far more interesting things here in this thread to debate than just my use/opinion of corbering the market.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i didn't choose to ignore it perse...my last reply was on the 4th page...then i came back and it was at around 10 pages and i didn't feel like going thru 6 whole pages...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way