PETA demands Bible change

[Grumpy Cat]

PETA: Don't call animals 'it' in the Bible

PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is calling for a more animal-friendly update to the Bible.

The group is asking translators of the New International Version (NIV) to remove what it calls "speciesist" language and refer to animals as "he" or "she" instead of "it."

The NIV is a popular translation of the Christian Bible. An updated translation was released this month. The translators said 95% of the 1984 translation remains the same. But the committee of scholars made a move to be more gender-inclusive in their translation into English from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. According to the Committee on Bible Translation's website:

In general, much more often than not ... "People” and "humans” (and "human beings”) were widely used for Greek and Hebrew masculine forms referring to both men and women. ... "Ancestors” was regularly preferred to "forefathers” unless a specific, limited reference to the patriarchs or to another all-male group is intended.

PETA is hoping the move toward greater gender inclusiveness will continue toward animals as well.

“When the Bible moves toward inclusively in one area ... it wasn’t much of a stretch to suggest they move toward inclusively in this area," Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vice president for policy, told CNN.

Friedrich, a practicing Roman Catholic, said, "Language matters. Calling an animal 'it' denies them something. They are beloved by God. They glorify God."

“God’s covenant is with humans and animals. God cares about animals," Friedrich said. "I would think that’s a rather unanimous opinion among biblical scholars today, where that might not have been the case 200 years ago.”

Friedrich, who is also a vegan and suggests the Bible promotes vegetarianism, puts a religious face on PETA's ethical arguments.

“What happens in slaughterhouses mocks God,” he said. People know intuitively that "animals are 'who' not 'what.' ... Acknowledging it would better align our practices with our beliefs.”

David Berger, the dean of Yeshiva University’s Bernard Revel graduate school of Jewish studies, said making the shift in English PETA is requesting would be difficult given the nature of ancient Hebrew.

“In Hebrew all nouns are gender-specific. So the noun for chair is masculine and the noun for earth is feminine. There’s simply no such thing as a neutral noun," Berger told CNN. “It’s unusual to have a noun that would indicate the sex of the animal.”

“In Proverbs it says, 'Look at the ant oh lazy person. See its ways,' " Berger said, quoting the English transition from the book of Proverbs. "In Hebrew it’s 'see her ways.' That's because the word for ant in Hebrew happens to be female. It’s not intended to exclude male ants as far as I know. It’s just an accident the Hebrew word happens to be feminine.”

He said that verse and many others are not intended to single out one sex or the other of the animals.

"It’s a little bit misleading given the fact in English the gender of the pronoun means something. It refers to the masculinity of the person or the animal that’s being referred to. In Hebrew in most cases its just sort of an accident of the masculine or feminine of the pronoun to which it referred," Berger said.

David Lyle Jeffrey, a distinguished professor of literature and the humanities at Baylor University, teaches about ancient texts and the Bible's relationship to literature and the arts.

“I agree with their contention that God cares for all of creation," Jeffrey said. "It is true that we have a responsibility to reflect that affection.

"In gender-inclusive Bible translation the generic terms for humankind, let's say, are then replaced with an emphasis on he or she. Instead of the generic he, you say he and she. I don’t quite see how that would work with animals," Jeffery said.

"Do we need to know the gender of the lion Samson slew? What would it give us there?" he said. "You could try to specify that, but you would be doing so entirely inventively if you did. It's not in the original language. ... Nothing is made of it in the story."

Jeffery said he sympathizes and agrees with PETA's position that God calls for humans to care for animals, but he said, "When you get to the point when you say, 'Don’t say it, say he or she' when the text doesn’t, you’re both screwing up the text and missing the main point you addressed."

PETA's Friedrich said his group's position has been bolstered by the creation care movement, in which many evangelicals are becoming more conscience about the environment.

"The creation care movement is certainly helpful,” he said.

Whether their arguments will be enough to sway the translators is yet to be seen. Friedrich said he has yet to hear back from the Committee on Bible Translation.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/23/peta-dont-call-animals-it-in-the-bible/

--------------------------------

WTF? O_o

[The Lawspeaker]

LOL PETA...

[Murphy]

I love animals, but a dog is a dog. Society forgets that far too often these days. Instead of caring about terms used for animals I think we should get the message intended for humans right first.

[Wyn]

Friedrich, a practicing Roman Catholic, said, "Language matters. Calling an animal 'it' denies them something. They are beloved by God. They glorify God."

Why is a practising Roman Catholic using a Protestant bible like the NIV anyway? ;)

[Grumpy Cat]

LOL PETA...

Yeah. The seal hunt starts here on Sunday, and my work is right next to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which means PETA will be there. Even though it's not warm enough for it yet, I'm going to wear my leather jacket, and maybe get a bucket of KFC for lunch and eat it outside. :D

[Murphy]

Fight the power sister!

[Loki]

What nonsense. The god of the Bible is a cruel, vengeful person full of jealousy. He doesn't care about animal feelings. That much is clear to anyone who has read the Bible. Sacrifice anyone? According to the Bible, animal blood pleases God and takes away some of his fuming wrath and anger.

[Aemma]

PETA: Don't call animals 'it' in the Bible

PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is calling for a more animal-friendly update to the Bible.


"Do we need to know the gender of the lion Samson slew? What would it give us there?" he said. "You could try to specify that, but you would be doing so entirely inventively if you did. It's not in the original language. ... Nothing is made of it in the story."

Jeffery said he sympathizes and agrees with PETA's position that God calls for humans to care for animals, but he said, "When you get to the point when you say, 'Don’t say it, say he or she' when the text doesn’t, you’re both screwing up the text and missing the main point you addressed."
PETA's Friedrich said his group's position has been bolstered by the creation care movement, in which many evangelicals are becoming more conscience about the environment.

"The creation care movement is certainly helpful,” he said.

Whether their arguments will be enough to sway the translators is yet to be seen. Friedrich said he has yet to hear back from the Committee on Bible Translation.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/23/peta-dont-call-animals-it-in-the-bible/

--------------------------------

WTF? O_o

I think this best sums it up for me. There's nothing wrong with raising consciousness regarding the importance of the lives of animals--all animals--as well as all living beings on this planet imo. But this is really way off the mark in terms of appropriateness. The Bible is a sacred text for humans with animals having a very secondary role in any of its teachings or stories. This Friedrich guy is a certifiable nut for saying that animals glorify God. WTF?!

[Psychonaut]

This Friedrich guy is a certifiable nut for saying that animals glorify God.

Is he? Some Jungians speculate that some animal species' aside from us also have collective unconsciouses populated by archetypal Gods summated from their own collective instincts. Having no way of directly prehending the internality of animals, we certainly can't say for sure, but if you accept the continuity aspect of the panpsychist argument, it's not too wild of a speculation.

[Adalwolf]

According to the Bible, animal blood pleases God and takes away some of his fuming wrath and anger.

Any scripture to back this up?

[Psychonaut]

Any scripture to back this up?

And I quote (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html), "Get some animals, kill them, chop up their bodies, wave body parts in the air, burn the carcasses, and sprinkle the blood all around -- in precisely the way God tells you. It may well make you sick, but it makes God feel good. (Exodus 29:11-37 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/29.html#11))"

[Aemma]

Is he? Some Jungians speculate that some animal species' aside from us also have collective unconsciouses populated by archetypal Gods summated from their own collective instincts. Having to way of directly prehending the internality of animals, we certainly can't say for sure, but if you accept the continuity aspect of the panpsychist argument, it's not too wild of a speculation.

No not too wild of a speculation but I wouldn't go so far as to say that a dog's God(s) is the same as my God(s) and not because of any false sense of humancentric supremacy (I think you know me well enough to know I don't think that way). I don't doubt for a minute that ALL animate (and even what most humans would consider inanimate) entities have something akin to a sense of larger meaning as their own ways of cognition would provide them. What I do most vociferously object to is any sense as this Friedrich character seems to imply that a human sacred text has any real bearing on another animal's *spirituality*, if one may be permitted to state it that way. I think to render a human sacred text as one equally valid for a non-human entity is insulting to that non-human entity and not respecting that non-human entity's own manners of cognition and language.

Again glib statements such as Friedrich's bother me; human beings DO NOT know everything and this humancentric presumption that a human being can actually speak for other entities that share this planet causes me some concern. I'd rather that the animals speak to us themselves in their own ways of communicating than a human think he knows what an animal thinks.

I'm too much of a fan of David Abram's, Psy, for you to think I would believe for a minute that animals do not have their own inherent importance, as important as our own.

[Loddfafner]

What we need now is a People for the Ethical Treatment of Assholes in order to rescue the members of the original PETA.

[Psychonaut]

No not too wild of a speculation but I wouldn't go so far as to say that a dog's God(s) is the same as my God(s)

Oh yeah, of course not. If we're talking about archetypal theology, then the Gods are functions of the collective unconsciousness of a particular group. Following MacLennan's (http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/other-res.html) blending of Jung's theories with evolutionary psych, then there would be a plurality of collective unconsciouses that correspond to different genomes.


What I do most vociferously object to is any sense as this Friedrich character seems to imply that a human sacred text has any real bearing on another animal's *spirituality*, if one may be permitted to state it that way.

Wyrd up. That is surely retarded. :D


I'd rather that the animals speak to us themselves in their own ways of communicating than a human think he knows what an animal thinks.

Now I can't stop thinking about what insectoid Gods might be like! Surely animals like ants and bees might have an even stronger collective unconscious than we. What kinds of strange, many-limbed Gods dwell in those depths?

[Loddfafner]

Now I can't stop thinking about what insectoid Gods might be like! Surely animals like ants and bees might have an even stronger collective unconscious than we. What kinds of strange, many-limbed Gods dwell in those depths?

That would be the perfect assignment for an art class.

[CelticTemplar]

Why is a practising Roman Catholic using a Protestant bible like the NIV anyway? ;)

I'm Catholic and I use NIV.

Anyways,

Just another attempt by filthy liberals trying to ruin the Christian faith one brick at a time.

[Adalwolf]

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. - Hebrews 9:22

[Loki]

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. - Hebrews 9:22

Who is the author of the law? Must've been someone bloodthirsty.

[shortskirtlongjacket]

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. - Hebrews 9:22

Does not specify animal blood (although that was the most commonly used), and in fact is used as justification/explanation for the crucifixion of Christ for the atonement of sins. Note: that Christians believe that since Christ satisfied that blood atonement, none else is required. No small point.

And -there are OT instances of mercy for animals. I recall, for instance, one in Jonah (mentions cattle, anyway), and the story that David was told about the lamb, and a few other instances. If the God of the Hebrews and by extension the Christians was so anti-animal, these stories would surely have been deleted/hidden/expurgated. IMHO.

But - PETA are generally idiotic and simplistic. To hold animal life as sacred as human life is really absurd. Yes, they deserve our welfare. No, they don't have intrinsic "rights". They should not be held before any human life, and I feel disgust for anyone who thinks they should. And this comes from one who would rather have pets than children, mind you.

[Murphy]

Animal blood does not appease God Loki. That's sort of why He had to become Incarnated in the womb of the Blessed Virgin and suffer and die for us in the perfect sacrifice, that of the Holy Cross on Calvary.

Animal sacrifice was simply a shadow of the great sacrifice God would offer for us.

[Treffie]

As a member of IFAW (http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_kingdom/), I'm disturbed by PETA and their modus operandi. They employ top models to further their cause, yet these models wear fur when the cameras aren't watching.


Acadian Driftwood

The seal hunt starts here on Sunday, and my work is right next to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans

This is one of the reasons why I joined IFAW. Canadian seal hunters are known to be barbaric. Bunch of cuntfucks.

[Beorn]

Canadian seal hunters are known to be barbaric. Bunch of cuntfucks.

They get good money for it. One season is enough to feed and keep a roof over the head of at least one human family...comfortably. :thumb001:

[Grumpy Cat]

They get good money for it. One season is enough to feed and keep a roof over the head of at least one human family...comfortably. :thumb001:

Yeah they'd be hungry otherwise.

And the seal hunters aren't near as barbaric as the propaganda makes it out to be. It's illegal in Canada to kill baby seals with white coats, they're only allowed to kill adults. Also, I live on the Gulf of St. Lawrence; if the harp seal population isn't kept in check, they become overpopulated and that causes problems as well.

Plus, clubbing is not as painful for the seal as shooting it, but because the bleeding hearts get offended by clubbing, the sealers had to start shooting them, essentially making the seals suffer more.

Hate to play the race card, but if European settlers didn't take up sealing, and it was still just the Natives doing it like they had for thousands of years, there wouldn't be near as much controversy over the seal hunt. Because when non-whites hunt they're "living their traditional ways" and it's "honourable", but when whites do it, it's "barbaric". Same double-standard with whaling on the Faroe Islands.

[Treffie]

They get good money for it. One season is enough to feed and keep a roof over the head of at least one human family...comfortably. :thumb001:

Yes, it's so easy on the eyes to watch seals getting battered with a hakapik. A single bullet to the head would be much more humane.

[Grumpy Cat]

Yes, it's so easy on the eyes to watch seals getting battered with a hakapik. A single bullet to the head would be much more humane.

More humane for the human observers, not for the seals.

[Beorn]

Yes, it's so easy on the eyes to watch seals getting battered with a hakapik. A single bullet to the head would be much more humane.

I suppose it is, but money and feeding the family is key.

A good hunter will always hit the biggest area of the mass to ensure the greatest amount of financial reward.

Sounds harsh, but then tigers will always kill with a bite to the jugular.

[Grumpy Cat]

I don't want to get into debates about the seal hunt. I have unpopular opinions, but I live here, so I know what the truth is. What you see in ads is not the truth.

I agree, it isn't pretty, and I don't like like seeing seals being clubbed with hakapiks, either. But it has to be done. There are no polar bears in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, so humans are the harp seal's only predator (yes, humans are predators, I know some people don't like to admit it), and has been since humans walked the earth.

I just don't bother talking about it because people are so stubborn they're not willing to even listen to a point of view contrary to popular opinion.

A mass e-mail was sent at my work, telling smokers at the office to go around the other side of the building while the hunt is on, because the smoking area is near the DFO and they're afraid they might get assaulted by protesters. Plus, I had a cousin who died when his boat was rammed by anti-sealing activists. Yes, they killed a human being! Now they are cuntfucks.

[Austin]

If you have a cat and someone comes and starts beating you with a baseball bat to death the cat will hop out of your arms and watch your demise.



Animals are not people and have no resemblance to us in any way.

[The Lawspeaker]

If you have a cat and someone comes and starts beating you with a baseball bat to death the cat will hop out of your arms and watch your demise.



Animals are not people and have no resemblance to us in any way.Heh. Tell that to the cat that I had when I was a kid. Whoever came into my room and approached my bed while I was in it was prone to be attacked after a brief warning. That included my own father.

Dogs: same. I once walked the neighbour's dog and some of those youths (I was a teenager myself) approached me and asked me for the time. So when I gave him the time one of them spat in my face. If I would have led the dog go that person would have been on the intensive care because the dog went wild. And I am talking about a Belgian Malinois here.

[Grumpy Cat]

It's illegal in Canada to kill baby seals with white coats, they're only allowed to kill adults.

I should have added: I've heard of sealers getting up to 5 years for killing whitecoats (baby seals), but if you decide to drive a car while drunk and kill someone, you can get 2 years if it's your first drunk driving offense, and you might get out on parole before that if you're good.

Whitecoats do get killed, and sealers do break the law, but you can blame the protesters for that. Seriously. The Coast Guard is so busy protecting the sealing vessels from protesters that they cannot concentrate on whether the hunters are being ethical or not.

[Cato]

One might as well demand a politically correct version of Mein Kampf.

[Grumpy Cat]

One might as well demand a politically correct version of Mein Kampf.

:lol: There might be two pages left.

[The Lawspeaker]

Found this on the net (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/522825):

DOG'S DIARY

8:00 am Dog food! My favorite thing!
9:30 am A car ride! My favorite thing!
9:40 am A walk in the park! My favorite thing!
10:30 am Got rubbed and petted! My favorite thing!
12:00 pm Milk Bones! My favorite thing!
1:00 pm Played in the yard! My favorite thing!
3:00 pm Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!
5:00 pm Dinner! My favorite thing!
7:00 pm Got to play ball! My favorite thing!
8:00 pm Watched tv! My favorite thing!
11:00 pm Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!

CAT'S DIARY

Day 983 of My Captivity

My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects.

They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed hash or some sort of dry nuggets.

Although I make my contempt for the rations perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my strength.
The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape.

In an attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the carpet.

Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their feet. I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts since it clearly demonstrates my capabilities. However, they merely made condescending comments about what a "good little hunter" I am. Dummies!

There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices tonight. I was placed in solitary confinement for the duration of the event. However, I could hear the noises and smell the food. I overheard that my confinement was due to the power of "allergies." I must learn what this means, and how to use it to my advantage.

Today I was almost successful in an attempt to assassinate one of my tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking. I must try this again tomorrow, but at the top of the stairs.

I am convinced that the other prisoners are flunkies and snitches. The dog receives special privileges. He is regularly released and seems to be more than willing to return. He is obviously retarded.

The bird must be an informant. I observe him communicating with the guards regularly. I am certain that he reports my every move. My captors have arranged protective custody for him in an elevated cell, so he is safe for now.

[poiuytrewq0987]

First there's going to be an animal-friendly bible then later they're gonna ask for a gay-friendly bible and so on...

[Loddfafner]

First there's going to be an animal-friendly bible then later they're gonna ask for a gay-friendly bible and so on...

The old bible is gay-friendly enough: read Samuel I especially the part about David and Jonathan.

[Beorn]

The old bible is gay-friendly enough: read Samuel I especially the part about David and Jonathan.

It seems every relationship between a man that goes beyond a grunt and "yeah, you scored a good goal there, mate" *slap on the back* is full on ball banging, arse quivering queers.

I always enjoyed the hypocrisy of the bible, but the parts which said...

"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality"

Corinthians 6:9

...filled me with a distrust for anyone who really wishes to conform the bible to their own nefarious ends.

I particularly laugh at those who commit adultery. Those cunts are gonna burn!!! :evil

[Austin]

I'm pretty sure Christianity and 99.9% of European/world history has been anti-homosexuality. I don't think that was due to a misreading of the bible or any other holy book by all those before us. Sorry to disappoint this PC moment.

[Groenewolf]

Does PETA have nothing better to do then to demand that a book gets rewritten so that it conforms with their standard. I myself would prefer an as accurate as possible translation if I would buy one, not something that was rewritten to please one or more action groups.

[Cato]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-mur.jpg

[Pallantides]

PETA are the sort of Urbanites who are totally detached from reality.

[Lithium]

In the bible there is no place for respect to the nature nor its creatures. Stupid semitic sh!ts....

[Grumpy Cat]

PETA are the sort of Urbanites who are totally detached from reality.

Yes. And they like to tell people who disagree with them that they know nothing about nature.

[Solomon Kane]

In the bible there is no place for respect to the nature nor its creatures. Stupid semitic sh!ts....

The Bible isn't a book for misguided nature-worshipping hippies.

[The Lawspeaker]

The Bible isn't a book for misguided nature-worshipping hippies.
Rather that then a misguided idiot that is wasting his life believing in ideas written by some unknown kyke writer. Nature is something you can touch and see. Does that also count for your god ?

[Wyn]

In the bible there is no place for respect to the nature nor its creatures. Stupid semitic sh!ts....

No (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/22012.htm), the righteous man cares for his animals (Prov. 12:10).

It's a shame you'd forgotten about that passage. You had surely read it, after all.

[The Ripper]

I constantly meet and come across people (=young women) who tell me they care more about cute furry animals than human beings (by this I think they mean people like them, starving Africans are different, I gather), and they seem quite proud of it, as if its proof of their more developed sense of morality.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I constantly meet and come across people (=young women) who tell me they care more about cute furry animals than human beings (by this I think they mean people like them, starving Africans are different, I gather), and they seem quite proud of it, as if its proof of their more developed sense of morality.

Exactly, so many of them are complete hypocrites.

I've been a vegan for the past year and a half but then one day I was thinking to myself- "If I don't eat meat, then that means that the animals would never have been born. So is it better to have an animal exist and then be slaughtered or to have never been born in the first place?"- such a deep question. Needless to say I'm planning a big blowout meat feast with sausage, pork, chicken etc. to celebrate me no longer being Vegan soon. But I'm still never buying caged eggs, or young animal meat. lol

[la bombe]

PETA is such a joke :rolleyes:


"If I don't eat meat, then that means that the animals would never have been born. So is it better to have an animal exist and then be slaughtered or to have never been born in the first place?"

The life of a factory farm animal isn't one worth living.

[Raskolnikov]

I constantly meet and come across people (=young women) who tell me they care more about cute furry animals than human beings (by this I think they mean people like them, starving Africans are different, I gather), and they seem quite proud of it, as if its proof of their more developed sense of morality.
Seriously though I think this has to do with media based on animals characters, on animals toys from childhood along with the lack of babies around already. Many women grow up removed from pregnancy and babies due to very small California-style suburbs households culture where even if they had a sibling they didn't know him when he/she was young.

Nevermind that African babies are also common media image, and are quite "cute" for precisely the Negrid/Negroeuropid features that don't look that great in adulthood:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4241/4858751adorableafricanb.jpg

Sometimes North Europid children don't look that great - (maybe) - I am removed from babies myself - I wouldn't know and have something of an aesthetic bias for baby mammals than I do humans.

Not to mention the endless media terrorism against the "pain of childbirth" and the Manthusianism directed against or only understandable to intelligent Occidental people.

That said, the further I excommunicate women who I have simply compromised myself to tolerate due to an exaggeration in my head as to how normal and unavoidable it is to have only feminists women around, the less such problems do I encounter.

[Cato]

The Bible is fine as it is, and the best of the all is the old King James edition. One of the finest pieces of literature in the English language it is..

[Solomon Kane]

Rather that then a misguided idiot that is wasting his life believing in ideas written by some unknown kyke writer. Nature is something you can touch and see. Does that also count for your god ?


Oh man lol. You sound like you need to be over at Stormfront and not here. :wink

[Lithium]

The Bible isn't a book for misguided nature-worshipping hippies.

National Socialist-hippie, very interesting...

[Solomon Kane]

National Socialist-hippie, very interesting...

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/thumbnail.php?file=cat_117/1377.jpg&size=article_medium

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/files.php?file=hitler_vwcamper450.jpg

[Lithium]

Go celebrate the birth of a JEW and lick his hairy ass...

[Monolith]

Go celebrate the birth of a JEW and lick his hairy ass...
You sound like Borat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS3IYeH5aJs). :D

Seriously now, didn't your mommy teach you manners?

[Raskolnikov]

Go celebrate the birth of a JEW and lick his hairy ass...

Jesus was Roman anyway and innovative antisemite. Proof:

fdjxVGkcUaY

[The Lawspeaker]

Oh man lol. You sound like you need to be over at Stormfront and not here. :wink
Not really. These are even bigger idiots then Americann neoconservatives.

[Adalwolf]

Go celebrate the birth of a JEW and lick his hairy ass...

Go celebrate the birth of a tree and lick it's sap.

[The Lawspeaker]

Go celebrate the birth of a tree and lick it's sap.
At least the tree is there. Jesus is not.

[Monolith]

At least the tree is there. Jesus is not.
O ye of little faith.

[alexandra]

this is infuriating, and i'm extremely anti-religious. i can't decide which is worse anymore, holy rollers or peta members? they're always trying to find some way to make me feel guilty about eating delicious animals or wearing my nice leather jacket. here, watch this video of a pig being sawed in half with a chainsaw. here, listen to this story about burning in hell if you have premarital sex. what's the fucking difference?

meat eaters are the majority, and it will always be that way. always. it is natural.

[The Lawspeaker]

O ye not of blind faith.
Fixed.

[Wyn]

Go celebrate the birth of a JEW and lick his hairy ass...

Being Wiccan is a hundred bazillion gillion times more worser than celebrating the birth of a Jew. Still, I suppose it gives you an excuse to draw pentagrams on your bags and stuff.

[The Lawspeaker]

Being Wiccan is a hundred bazillion gillion times more worser than celebrating the birth of a Jew. Still, I suppose it gives you an excuse to draw pentagrams on your bags and stuff.
At least you're not involved in a non-European religion then. I have a lot more respect for pagans (including something as new as wicca) as it at least came forth from a European mind.

[Murphy]

[FONT="Georgia"]At least you're not involved in a non-European religion then.

Pagans aren't European.. the only religion of Europe is Christianity.

[The Lawspeaker]

Pagans aren't European.. the only religion of Europe is Christianity.

No it isn't. Christianity is a semitic invader. One that is better integrated then Islam or Judaism but a semitic invader nonetheless.

[Lithium]

I am not wiccan. I'm an eclectical pagan.

[Wyn]

At least you're not involved in a non-European religion then.

I suppose Wicca could technically/literally be classified as 'European' in that its founders were from a country situated in Europe. Neopaganism in general has an air of North Americanism to it to me, though, which is probably why something like Wicca is much more popular in the US than anywhere else.

I've met a few - as in three or four - British Wiccans online but they were really just role-players (something highly prevalent among neopagans overall, but Wiccans seem to suffer from this even more than Asatruars or whatever, from what I gather).


I am not wiccan. I'm an eclectical pagan.

Aye, you 'like' Wicca or something similar.

[The Lawspeaker]

I suppose Wicca could technically/literally be classified as 'European' in that its founders were from a country situated in Europe. Neopaganism in general has an air of North Americanism to it to me, though, which is probably why something like Wicca is much more popular in the US than anywhere else.

I've met a few - as in three or four - British Wiccans online but they were really just role-players (something highly prevalent among neopagans overall, but Wiccans seem to suffer from this even more than Asatruars or whatever, from what I gather).


But at least it's not a semitic religion like Christianity. It may be modern mumbo-jumbo to me but Christianity is old-fashioned mumbo-jumbo so in essense is Wicca still better... by being European.

Personally I like Asatru better and local lore.

[Wyn]

But at least it's not a semitic religion like Christianity. It may be modern mumbo-jumbo to me but Christianity is old-fashioned mumbo-jumbo so in essense is Wicca still better... by being European.

Something isn't really better because it's modern. Or because it is (technically) 'European.' Lots of things and people are European that aren't anything admirable, or more admirable than things/people that are old or non-European. That's extremely flawed logic. If it can even be called logic.


Personally I like Asatru better and local lore.

What is found in thirteenth century Icelandic texts is of only marginal interest to me as I have no such heritage, but folklore is of course something I find very interesting. No need to make a kooky new age/neopagan pseudo-religion out of it, though.

[Psychonaut]

Neopaganism in general has an air of North Americanism to it to me, though, which is probably why something like Wicca is much more popular in the US than anywhere else.

That's funny since the Druidic revivals have been going on in Britain since the 1700s. The history of the pagan revival is much more entwined with European Romanticism than any American cultural phenomenon. Numerically it's definitely more popular here, but all of the ideological roots—both in terms of the Folkish and Reconstructionist pagan variants being the lineal descendants of the Romantics and the Universalist and New Age types being the spawn of the Theosophists and Anthroposophists—are distinctly European. :shrug:

[Adalwolf]

With Christianity in our peoples minds, Europe prospered. Do you think you can say the same for this new age Paganism? Try and look at the bigger picture for once Civis. What would benefit our people more - Christian virtues or Pagan ones?

[Wyn]

That's funny since the Druidic revivals have been going on in Britain since the 1700s. The history of the pagan revival is much more entwined with European Romanticism than any American cultural phenomenon. Numerically it's definitely more popular here, but all of the ideological roots—both in terms of the Folkish and Reconstructionist pagan variants being the lineal descendants of the Romantics and the Universalist and New Age types being the spawn of the Theosophists and Anthroposophists—are distinctly European. :shrug:

I know where neopaganism itself started, as I know where Wicca specifically started. As I said, it has an air of North Americanism to it. It - obviously - uses European texts, as it would be nothing without them and is in effect an attempt to revive the religion of those who wrote them. But the nature of it, the attempts to revive something dead using source material to which you have no direct/literal connexion - every thing about it is almost tailor-made for a people insecure about their roots, which is why you get people dressing up like Vikings and calling themselves Ragnar Odinssen or such things. Once you've seen one Irish-American calling himself an Odinist you've seen them all, I'm afraid.

[Psychonaut]

With Christianity in our peoples minds, Europe prospered. Do you think you can say the same for this new age Paganism? Try and look at the bigger picture for once Civis. What would benefit our people more - Christian virtues or Pagan ones?

Do you think that the truth of a proposition (whether the proposition is Christianity, Paganism, etc.) is wholly contingent upon its utility? I'm not saying that this kind of pragmatic alethiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) is necessary false, but it has far reaching consequences. So, you may want to think that position through before committing to it simply because it works for you in this specific instance. It's incompatible with most Christian theologies, but your mileage may vary.

[Psychonaut]

But the nature of it, the attempts to revive something dead using source material to which you have no direct/literal connexion - every thing about it is almost tailor-made for a people insecure about their roots...

Yeah, but that was the impetus behind the whole Romantic Nationalism thing to begin with. Back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries you saw this kind of cultural, linguistic, and pagan religious revivalism spreading all through Europe. You guys were really the first, with the Germans jumping in soon after. Neopaganism was a strictly European phenomenon for nearly 200 years until Wicca took root here in the US back in the '50s.

[Grumpy Cat]

Once you've seen one Irish-American calling himself an Odinist you've seen them all, I'm afraid.

That is so true.

[Adalwolf]

Do you think that the truth of a proposition (whether the proposition is Christianity, Paganism, etc.) is wholly contingent upon its utility?

Of course. I should have stated my stance clearly as traditional Christianity. Something that the Catholics and Orthodox have adhered to quite stringently. It's just that most of the Pagans I know are complete leftist hippies basically and I cannot say the same about majority of Christian acquaintanceship. The Calvinists are an example of a sect that has gone way off the traditional course. Or any which will marry gays and elect women as priests IMO.

[Wyn]

Yeah, but that was the impetus behind the whole Romantic Nationalism thing to begin with. Back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries you saw this kind of cultural, linguistic, and pagan religious revivalism spreading all through Europe.

As I say, I am - broadly - aware of its origins. But I nonetheless spoke of the North American air to it. It began in Europe, but its nature, being what it is, is reminiscent of the North American sense of rootlessness, which itself is something well known.

Not that I would say pagan revivalism has ever 'spread' anywhere. Even today, when pagans claim to be the fastest growing this and that, I'd be surprised if they were even 2% of the UK population.


You guys were really the first, with the Germans jumping in soon after.

I don't know about us guys.


Neopaganism was a strictly European phenomenon for nearly 200 years until Wicca took root here in the US back in the '50s.

I refer back to previous posts.

By the way, I don't single out North Americans here. My words broadly apply to neopagans in Britain, France, Italy, wherever. I also don't think that anything is better or worse for simply being North American or European (you'll notice I criticised Civis for applying this kind of false reasoning). Neopaganism is itself flawed whether the person practising it is German, Canadian, or Australian.

[Psychonaut]

Of course. I should have stated my stance clearly as traditional Christianity.

I thought so, which is why I'm wondering why you're making an argument against Paganism rooted in a pragmatist epistemology. Christian epistemologies and alethiologies are overwhelmingly objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28philosophy%29) in their belief in God's truth (e.g. Christianity is true because God exists, etc.). This is vastly different from arguing that a religion is better because it is more utile towards advancing some goal (e.g. Christianity is true because it furthers preservationism, etc.).


But I nonetheless spoke of the North American air to it.

I get what you're saying, it just seems silly to me since Neopaganism is so new to North America.


Not that I would say pagan revivalism has ever 'spread' anywhere. Even today, when pagans claim to be the fastest growing this and that, I'd be surprised if they were even 2% of the UK population.

If Hutton is right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Demographics) in his demographic study, then it's about 0.4% of the UK population.


I don't know about us guys.

You guys, Britfags ;), have been reviving Druidism for a long damn time (http://www.aoda.org/articles/history.htm).

[Wyn]

If Hutton is right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Demographics) in his demographic study, then it's about 0.4% of the UK population.

That seems rather low (I presumed 1% or thereabouts). As a matter of fact, we just completed a census, we might have real figures soon enough. ;)


You guys, Britfags ;), have been reviving Druidism for a long damn time (http://www.aoda.org/articles/history.htm).

I'm afraid us guys have not. Neopaganism has always been - as it is now - a religion with few adherents. If neopaganism has but 0.4% of the country's population to its name today when it is (apparently) a growing religion then in the eighteenth century it was probably unknown - in the most literal sense - to all but a handful of individuals.

[Solomon Kane]

I'm sorry.. I can't understand how Europeans who want European preservation and unity can dump on the one thing that ever made Europe what it was prior to its collapse into dismal nihilism:

http://indesertum.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/christ-cross.jpg

All of the -isms (Nazism, Marxism, etc.) and all of the pagan bullshit in the world won't make Europe what it once was under the Cross. :)

Modern Europe is a house divided against itself and as the master said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

[The Lawspeaker]

Here we have another nice example of an American not knowing what he is talking about.

[Solomon Kane]

Here we have another nice example of an American not knowing what he is talking about.

And here's another example of a condescending and pompous European with a very common disease:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CaY379fXGa8/TSIcxbt1zII/AAAAAAAAACw/ZFzS5C47EK8/s1600/head_up_your_ass2jpg.jpeg

I bet you're the kind of guy that goes off on rants about Americans, blacks, Jews, etc. Am I right? :confused: Dude, I saw more than a few Europeans like you on Stormfront and frankly I just find you all to be boring as hell.

[The Lawspeaker]

And here's another example of a condescending and pompous European with a very common disease:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CaY379fXGa8/TSIcxbt1zII/AAAAAAAAACw/ZFzS5C47EK8/s1600/head_up_your_ass2jpg.jpeg

I bet you're the kind of guy that goes off on rants about Americans, blacks, Jews, etc. Am I right? :confused: Dude, I saw more than a few Europeans like you on Stormfront and frankly I just find you all to be boring as hell.
Nah. I respect blacks more then your country. Particularly after your countries' constant meddling even if in our own affairs and no African leader has ever threatened (not even fucking Mugabe) to invade our country in the case of one of their war criminals being arrested by the International Court.

If you don't know how Europe works: you might just as well piss off and keep your opinions to yourself.

[Solomon Kane]

Nah. I respect blacks more then your country. Particularly after your countries' constant meddling even if in our own affairs and no African leader has ever threatened (not even fucking Mugabe) to invade our country in the case of one of their war criminals being arrested by the International Court.

If you don't know how Europe works: you might just as well piss off and keep your opinions to yourself.

Blah blah blah yackity smackity.

You should get a radio talk show then, I bet you'd be able to outdo even a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh. You seem to be the kind of guy who must have internet tantrums when someone disagrees with him.

Who elected you Pope of Europe, some guy from the Netherlands? :lol: Since when does some forum troll speak for all of Europe? With 12,000 posts you've got to be a mega-troll.

[The Lawspeaker]

Well.. at least I know how it works here because I live here. So.. where does the super religious United States do things better then Europe ?

Teenage pregnancies ? Nope. Social security ? Which one. Crime ? Well no. Even that is worse in America. Much much worse.

[Solomon Kane]

Well.. at least I know how it works here because I live here. So.. where does the super religious United States do things better then Europe ?

Teenage pregnancies ? Nope. Social security ? Which one. Crime ? Well no. Even that is worse in America. Much much worse.

You live in the Netherlands. :lol: What business do you have to speak for some guy in Valencia or some guy in Krakow? :confused:

:rofl: Your comments are so hackneyed lol. Do you get these anti-American comments from some playbook? :lol:

[The Lawspeaker]

You started with lumping Europe together. Let me assure you that religion is still alive and well in Valencia or Krakow. Luckily it's not the same kind of Christianity that they have in America (the one that they have in Poland and Spain is bad enough as it is).

Even in the Netherlands a large percentage of the people are still religious although not members of a church community. Why ? Why should they ? When I just get on the train and skip one station.. I am right in the heart of the Dutch Bible Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt_(Netherlands)).

[Psychonaut]

Yarg!

You two are both fucking retarded. Correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_causation), period. That a heavily Christian nation, Civis, has crappy stuff going on does not in itself say anything about Christianity being the cause of this crappy stuff. That Europe rocked a few centuries ago when Christianity flourished more, Solomon, doesn't say anything about that being the cause.

[Adalwolf]

Psychonaut -- It has only been within the last 100 years or so that some forms of Christianity have taken a rather liberal twist. And in many cases, they're still the fringe minority trying to integrate their own hedonistic behavior to fit scripture.

Let me ask you a question though.. Has there ever been a significant amount of moral-conservative Heathens? And let's not revert to pre-Christian Europe please. :)

[The Lawspeaker]

I think that the thing just is with Europe is even if we would deport all the immigrants tomorrow we would still see some decline in our control of the world. Why ? Because there are new players on the board.

It won't be the death of us as we have relatively stable societies. Some over 3000 years old and developed ever since. It's the Americans that don't have the baggage but still think they are high and mighty who have to be concerned because they are falling too. And much faster at it.

For the Europeans - we will see a wave of an ageing population in some countries and then we will have a relatively stable population again after they have died off. We are just getting into our "Indian Summer" for some time.

In order to assure that we will just have to loose our immigrant population and set our house in order. Not not by coming up with all sorts of insane Americans ideas (religion, neoconservatism, "free market") but by remaining who we are and using common sense.

[Adalwolf]

Here we have another nice example of an American not knowing what he is talking about.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Yfn64ncD7YQ/SvRDX3qqWzI/AAAAAAAAADQ/R81zkrrZtfM/s400/broken_record.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Yfn64ncD7YQ/SvRDX3qqWzI/AAAAAAAAADQ/R81zkrrZtfM/s400/broken_record.jpg
Because it is the truth ? What the fuck do you people know about Europe ? You have never set foot on European soil and your ancestors left it ages ago.

[Psychonaut]

Psychonaut -- It has only been within the last 100 years or so that some forms of Christianity have taken a rather liberal twist.

LOL, not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment).


Has there ever been a significant amount of moral-conservative Heathens?

That depends on your definition of moral conservatism. That's not a term with a precise philosophical meaning, so I'd have to know what you mean by conservative before I could say yea or nay. Conservative and liberal kind of have to be defined in concert with some reference point; they don't really mean anything on their own, which is why they're not good terms for discussing ethics or morality. What is conservative today may've been liberal yesterday, but what is deontological or consequentialist is always so. Concrete terms are much better. :thumb001:

[Cato]

Because it is the truth ? What the fuck do you people know about Europe ? You have never set foot on European soil and your ancestors left it ages ago.


Stop being a damn windbag about your prejudices and preconceptions man. All you're doing is making yourself look like the same sort of person you seem to think Americans are (narrow-minded simpletons). I've put up with your anti-American B.S. quite amiably, but JFC: enough's enough already. I mean for real: stop being a keyboard samurai and come over here and pick fights for real with Americans if it'll make you feel better. Or, do you want to pick a fight with me? Trust me mate, you won't win it. ;)

[The Lawspeaker]

Cold hard truth in'nit ? Always thinking that you know what's best for other people's countries and if one Euro says that he is fed up with it he is a damn windbag. Says all the more about you damn yanks: poking your goddamn noses where it is not wanted.

[Cato]

Cold hard truth in'nit ? Always thinking that you know what's best for other people's countries and if one Euro says that he is fed up with it he is a damn windbag. Says all the more about you damn yanks: poking your goddamn noses where it is not wanted.

No you're acting like an immature idiot. I've put up with you insulting my country and my people for what, months? :confused: Dude, how old are you? Stop whining. Grow up. Stop acting like some kid who hads his toys taken away from him.

[The Lawspeaker]

No you're acting like an immature idiot. I've put up with you insulting my country and my people for what, months? :confused: Dude, how old are you? Stop whining. Grow up. Stop acting like some kid who hads his toys taken away from him.
Just go and look on the other side of the ocean what American influence is doing there and then we'll talk.

[Cato]

Just go and look on the other side of the ocean what American influence is doing there and then we'll talk.


Well if I had your preconceptions about the Netherlands, the sort of preconceptions that you've got about Americans, I'd swear... All that the men there can do is whine like tea kettles. Stop bitching; it makes you look like a damn fool.

[Cato]

Civis,

And no offense you man, but you just need someone like me to come along and tell you to SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

[The Lawspeaker]

Hey. At least European countries did not threaten to invade America if one of our folks got arrested for war crimes. It's not Europeans that drag Americans half-way across the world and get them killed to protect European investments and their access to oil. It's not European culture that is evasive in America. It's not European pressure that tears down America's safety nets and labour regulations and even changes their laws in our favour.

No, it's completely the other way around.

[Grey]

I'm sorry.. I can't understand how Europeans who want European preservation and unity can dump on the one thing that ever made Europe what it was prior to its collapse into dismal nihilism:

http://indesertum.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/christ-cross.jpg

All of the -isms (Nazism, Marxism, etc.) and all of the pagan bullshit in the world won't make Europe what it once was under the Cross. :)

Modern Europe is a house divided against itself and as the master said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Europeans did flourish, but not because of Christianity. Christians in Europe have constantly reinterpreted the Bible however they could to match their own thoughts and still call themselves Christians, and the mental acrobatics behind this Christian progress are simply astounding. European Christians have been at war with themselves for centuries, trying to reconcile outdated Christian dogma with modern beliefs and observations, evolution being a potent example from our own times. Certainly, Christianity has had some spectacular moments, but to pretend that it has been synonymous with progress is idiocy.

[Cato]

Civis,

Man I don't give a rat's ass. It's called netiquette, or simple, simple courtesy. You do know what courtesy is don't you? The Americans here aren't representative of the American government. You do know that don't you? I don't give a good god damn about what you think about America, but when I see you going on and on and on and on and on like you've got some kind of psychosis..... Like I said, enough's enough. Okay? I'm not a mod, but it's annoying when all you can seem to do is go on about Americans, or Jews, or whatever. Dude, like SK said-- you sound like you belong on Stormfart. I used to go there and I saw people aplenty that all they could do was go on about a favorite topic of theirs. AND plenty of Europeans got tossed because all they did was join Stormfart and rant about Americans. So Don Black and his mod posse tossed them off. :lol:

Really man get with it. :)

[Adalwolf]

That depends on your definition of moral conservatism. That's not a term with a precise philosophical meaning, so I'd have to know what you mean by conservative before I could say yea or nay.

I mean in terms of the best ingrained moral values we can promote for preservation of our race. I am not too familiar with Heathenry, but I know that a lot of it is interpreted on an individual basis, and does not have the collective influence that I believe traditional Christianity once had.

What percentage of Pagans do you believe are actually are in it for intellectual/spiritual pursuits, rather than the typical skinhead-esque cult party scene? I am just curious, not trying to bash your beliefs.

[Peasant]

AND plenty of Europeans got tossed because all they did was join Stormfart and rant about Americans. So Don Black and his mod posse tossed them off. :lol:

:icon_lol:

[Psychonaut]

I mean in terms of the best ingrained moral values we can promote for preservation of our race.

That's quite the loaded phrase. What behaviors are best suited for the preservation of anything is hardly objective. There are, however, certainly some Heathens who are strict racial preservationists, but most of us fall somewhere in between that extreme position and the polar extremity of universalism (e.g. the position that X religion is universally true for all peoples in all places and all times).


I am not too familiar with Heathenry, but I know that a lot of it is interpreted on an individual basis, and does not have the collective influence that I believe traditional Christianity once had.

Yes, there are strong streaks of intellectual libertarianism in modern Heathen thought. Some disagree with this and would prefer a more dogmatic approach to doxology, but individualized (if widely primitivist) theologies are currently the norm.


What percentage of Pagans do you believe are actually are in it for intellectual/spiritual pursuits, rather than the typical skinhead-esque cult party scene? I am just curious, not trying to bash your beliefs.

I have, in real life, only met one skinhead Heathen, and something tells me he is somewhat atypical of skinheads, so I would certainly not say that "typical" skinheads are in any way representative of Heathenry. It has been my experience that most Heathens in the US fall into one or more of the following categories: military/ex-military (as opposed to the con/ex-con scene that prevails in the UK), outdoorsmen, herbalists, history/genealogy buffs, linguistic buffs, etc. On the whole, since we are largely a religion of converts at the present time (second generation Heathens are becoming more common over here, as are third generation Heathens in Germany and Iceland), I think you'll find that there is much less apathy and apostasy among us than you'd find among more established religious communities. For, we are mostly people who intentionally converted to Heathenry, which means that we have a driving interest in it that is largely religious/spiritual/philosophical/whatever in nature.

[Murphy]

Civis man, I love you, you know I do, but Kane owned you :P.



Europeans did flourish, but not because of Christianity.

Sorry. The Church saved Europe. That's a historical reality.


Christians in Europe have constantly reinterpreted the Bible however they could to match their own thoughts and still call themselves Christians, and the mental acrobatics behind this Christian progress are simply astounding.

And the central authority of the Church condemned every single one of them. The were actually great periods of doctrinal security after the initial heresies in the Early Church.

So no, Christians in Europe haven't constantly reinterpreted the Bible to suit our own needs, we have had the same constant Teaching since day 1. That's what it meant when Christ promised the Holy Ghost to be always with us.


European Christians have been at war with themselves for centuries, trying to reconcile outdated Christian dogma with modern beliefs and observations, evolution being a potent example from our own times.

Don't be so vulgar as to confuse political scheming with religious wars.


Certainly, Christianity has had some spectacular moments, but to pretend that it has been synonymous with progress is idiocy.

We just have different ideas of what progress constitutes.

[Psychonaut]

So no, Christians in Europe haven't constantly reinterpreted the Bible to suit our own needs, we have had the same constant Teaching since day 1.

*cough* BULLSHIT! *cough*

Catholic theology in particular developed my means of infusions from a variety of extre-Christian theologies, mostly notably Hellenistic Orphism and Neoplatonism. If you guys had had not reinterpreted your doctrines in light of these Pagan philosophies, then current Church theology would look a Hell of a lot more like Philo than Pseudo-Dionysius. But, you and I both know that it's the other way around, because you guys did change and grow your theology as new metaphysical systems were absorbed into the Catholic fold. Emanation theology, for one, did not exist in pre-4th century Christian thought. The Pagans had to first invent the concept of the hypostasis before you guys could co-opt it. ;)

[Murphy]

*cough* BULLSHIT! *cough*

Catholic theology in particular developed my means of infusions from a variety of extre-Christian theologies, mostly notably Hellenistic Orphism and Neoplatonism. If you guys had had not reinterpreted your doctrines in light of these Pagan philosophies, then current Church theology would look a Hell of a lot more like Philo than Pseudo-Dionysius. But, you and I both know that it's the other way around, because you guys did change and grow your theology as new metaphysical systems were absorbed into the Catholic fold. Emanation theology, for one, did not exist in pre-4th century Christian thought. The Pagans had to first invent the concept of the hypostasis before you guys could co-opt it. ;)

You misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Teachings of the Church. The Church has always believed in Transubstantiation and the two natures in the Person of Jesus Christ.. what has changed is how we come to express this belief and gain a deeper understanding of it.

Yes we Christianised pagan philosophy and language where appropriate. I wouldn't deny that! After all man can, to a limited extent, broach of Divine subjects with some measure of accuracy without the necessity of God's grace. For example we can naturally come to the conclusion in a Creator, or First Cause, though Faith and Grace is necessary to go further.

The Truth has always been the same. At one time it was expressed in Greek and another time in French.

[Monolith]

Fixed.

So, all Christians are blind believers then? I see your reasoning is flawless, as always.

I constantly meet and come across people (=young women) who tell me they care more about cute furry animals than human beings (by this I think they mean people like them, starving Africans are different, I gather), and they seem quite proud of it, as if its proof of their more developed sense of morality.
ur an evil discriminator! I've always liked dogs more than people. I'm not a young woman though (at least I wasn't one last time I checked).

dog power!

[Psychonaut]

You misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Teachings of the Church. The Church has always believed in Transubstantiation and the two natures in the Person of Jesus Christ.. what has changed is how we come to express this belief and gain a deeper understanding of it.

This may be true of specifically Pauline Christianity from the 2nd century on, but not at all true of Christianity from "day one." It took time for the Catholic doctrines to take shape and distinguish themselves from the various heresies. And, like it or not, a large part of this distinction was the adoption of one brand of Pagan emanation theology (Neoplatonism) over its equally Pagan competitor (Gnosticism). You guys ended up opting for a benign hierarchy of archons rather than the malignant hypostsis of the Gnostics. You can say all you want that the former is the truth, but you can't honestly say that such truth was known prior to 4th century. You can argue that this truth was uncovered and lied dormant in the scriptures before that point, but to pretend that it was official Christian doxa from the get go is just disingenuous. You guys did have a 1st-3rd century interpretation that was then reinterpreted once the Pseudo-Dionysius and John Scotus Eriugena saw how nifty Plotinus' henological ladder was.

[Murphy]

The Truth was widely known in the Church until it was challenged which is when certain matters had to be dogmatically defined and pagan language was used to define it. Just because a concept originated in the pagan world means nothing, the Truth is the Truth regardless and comes from God because God is Truth.

I can with full confidence say that the Truth was known to the Church from day one (marking this from Pentecost). We knew that Christ was both fully man and fully God. We simply Christianised pagan philosophical language to explain it.

You've already had this argument with Lutiferre before I believe :P.

[Psychonaut]

I can with full confidence say that the Truth was known to the Church from day one (marking this from Pentecost). We knew that Christ was both fully man and fully God. We simply Christianised pagan philosophical language to explain it.

It's a little more complex than that though. The bit about Jesus' plurality of hypostasis and singular homoousios can be argued to have been original 1st century dogma, but the expanded hypostatic series of declensions that you see in De Coelesti Hierarchia and the Summa Theologica are decidedly late theological modifications that have no real 1st century cognate.


You've already had this argument with Lutiferre before I believe :P.

Did I? :P

What ever happened to him?

[Murphy]

Did I? :P

Yes, it's in one of the old threads. He coined the "Christianised the language" thing :P.


What ever happened to him?

He became a nihilist as you may remember, then became a father. Not spoken to him in months. I miss him :(.

[Solomon Kane]

Most rational Bible-believers accept the Bible as filled with allegories and metaphors. It was written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but they were writing in different historical epochs and colored what they were writing about with different historical perspectives and cultural biases.

[CyrustheVirus]

What's wrong with PETA? They seem like very sensible individuals to me.

http://whitemaleoppressor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/petacomics.jpg

I remember PETA complained about the Calgary stampede. :rolleyes:

[Amapola]

pff, long live to bullfigting, pork and the Bible.

Stupid pacifist, green ecologist marxists....

[Cato]

pff, long live to bullfigting, pork and the Bible.

Stupid pacifist, green ecologist marxists....

They want to turn the Bible into a politically-correct manual for Marxist teaching and to create a god in their own image.

[Odoacer]

And, like it or not, a large part of this distinction was the adoption of one brand of Pagan emanation theology (Neoplatonism) over its equally Pagan competitor (Gnosticism). You guys ended up opting for a benign hierarchy of archons rather than the malignant hypostsis of the Gnostics.

The Trinity is "a benign hierarchy of archons"? Can you elaborate? I suppose that may go off-topic, but all of this is off-topic, isn't it.

[Psychonaut]

The Trinity is "a benign hierarchy of archons"? Can you elaborate? I suppose that may go off-topic, but all of this is off-topic, isn't it.

It's not only the trinity that is part of the hypostatic sequence of layered emanations. The Neoplatonists, from whom Medieval Christian theologians borrowed their metaphysics originally conceived of reality as consisting of four tiers, with each lower tier emanating from the one above:
The One (τό ἕν)
The Mind (νοῦς)
The Soul (ψυχή)
The Physical (φύσις)
Under later, still Pagan, Neoplatonists like Proclus, further intermediary layers were added. So by the time this scheme was Christianized by the Pseudo-Dionysius, there was a continuous chain of emanative descent that led from God, to the nine hierarchies of angels, down to mankind. I used the word benign to contrast it with the similar series of hypostasis theorized by the Gnostics. The biggest point of differentiation between the two is in the moral orientation of the Demiurge (δημιουργός), who shapes the world. For the Neoplatonists, and thus Christians, the Demiurge is good, and thus is the process of emanation from the One to the Many also good. For the Gnostics, however, the Demiurge is evil, and creates the multiplicity of hypostatic facades to imprison the souls of humanity in the world of flesh—binding us to this lowest plane of existence and keeping us from the divine perfection of the One.

[Odoacer]

I think you are stretching some. Yes, neo-Platonism had significant influence on early & medieval Christian philosophy, but to characterize it as an adoption of one brand of pagan emanationism over another is grossly inaccurate. Certainly the doctrine of creation ex nihilo by a transcendant being via divine fiat in some sense at least formally rules out emanationism. Then further, the doctrine of the Trinity is not neo-Platonic emanationism in the least; granted it does borrow from Platonic terminology to clarify the doctrine. But the impetus behind the Nicene definition was not a desire to adapt Jewish monotheism to Greek paganism; the impetus was instead a desire to maintain, in the face of the Arians who basically promoted Christ as a demigod, that the Father and the Son are each fully in themselves eternally God, and that there is but one God, teachings derived directly from Scripture. In Trinitarian thought, the Son is not an "emanation" from the Father, nor even is the Holy Spirit, but all three are God in themselves & together, with peculiar interrelationships distinguishing them (the Father's begetting the Son & sending forth the Spirit, the Son being begotten, & the Spirit proceding). You will also please note that the much more obviously neo-Platonic teachings of Origen were ultimately condemned by the orthodox. Now, you may attempt to argue in turn that the Gospel of John, or Paul's Epistles, are themselves simply picking up on Platonism, but it would be a dubious argument at best, since both have broad precedent in earlier Hebrew Scripture. Finally, although of course you were originally replying to a Roman Catholic, the relevance of neo-Platonic thought to Protestant Christianity is rather more tenuous.

[Psychonaut]

I think you are stretching some. Yes, neo-Platonism had significant influence on early & medieval Christian philosophy, but to characterize it as an adoption of one brand of pagan emanationism over another is grossly inaccurate. Certainly the doctrine of creation ex nihilo by a transcendant being via divine fiat in some sense at least formally rules out emanationism. Then further, the doctrine of the Trinity is not neo-Platonic emanationism in the least; granted it does borrow from Platonic terminology to clarify the doctrine. But the impetus behind the Nicene definition was not a desire to adapt Jewish monotheism to Greek paganism; the impetus was instead a desire to maintain, in the face of the Arians who basically promoted Christ as a demigod, that the Father and the Son are each fully in themselves eternally God, and that there is but one God, teachings derived directly from Scripture. In Trinitarian thought, the Son is not an "emanation" from the Father, nor even is the Holy Spirit, but all three are God in themselves & together, with peculiar interrelationships distinguishing them (the Father's begetting the Son & sending forth the Spirit, the Son being begotten, & the Spirit proceding). You will also please note that the much more obviously neo-Platonic teachings of Origen were ultimately condemned by the orthodox. Now, you may attempt to argue in turn that the Gospel of John, or Paul's Epistles, are themselves simple picking up on Platonism, but it would be a dubious argument at best, since both have broad precedent in earlier Hebrew Scripture. Finally, although of course you were originally replying to a Roman Catholic, the relevance of neo-Platonic thought to Protestant Christianity is rather more tenuous.

Well, all of the above relates to specifically Catholic theology—something I should've perhaps clarified. Augustinian and Thomist theology is more Neoplatonic than anything else. Indeed, the similarities between the hierarchies listed in Iamblichus' De Mysteriis Aegyptiorum and Thomas' Summa Theologica cement this fact. I know there's a lot more to extra-Catholic Christian theology than that, but I've never taken the time to study Orthodox or Protestant thought.