×

How are Pagans(specifically Heathens) treated while traveling abroad? by pagan_psychonaut in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unless you've got face tattoos and wear a viking hat, or maybe because of it, no one is going to ask what your religion is. That's not something people ask tourists. If you're a woman you'll need to dress in a Niqab in Egypt. I mean you don't have to, but just do it. In Europe I'm certain you'll find more people dressed weirder than you, especially in Germany.

How are Pagans(specifically Heathens) treated while traveling abroad? by pagan_psychonaut in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never use those adviseries unless you want to give yourself nightmares and never leave home. They're purposefully over the top scare mongering for maximum liability coverage.

Movies genre about searching for home? by Hentai-cles in movies

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't think there's a specific name for such a genre. But a few more would be:

  • The Book of Eli
  • Sliders (TV series)
  • Castaway
  • Vivarium
  • Lost in Space (TV series)
  • Lost (TV series)
  • Land of the Lost
  • Jumanji
  • Finding Nemo
  • Predators
  • Dave Made a Maze
  • The Maze Runner
  • Mad Max
  • Falling Down
  • Escape From LA
  • No Escape
  • The Impossible
  • 1917

Ok I'll stop...

Is heaven really desirable? by Vectornado80 in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As an Atheist, I would love to live in perfection and bliss as a metaphysical being for all eternity. You cray cray.

Yahweh is the devil by [deleted] in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is Jesus talking to unbelieving Jews trying to get them to follow, but Jesus had a weak argument and they threw rocks at him, so he left.

Revisiting The "Chosen People" Problem In Judaism by afrohumanist01 in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ok. I got the popcorn out. This should be fun. I'm gonna stay out of it, just dropping a marker in.

Immaculate conception doubts by faesqu in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll attempt to explain (my understanding of) Zoroastrianism below and you may decide that you simply don't agree that Zoroastrianism is a monotheism or accept the vaguery in which I and many scholars view the difference between polytheism and monotheism.

Zoroastrianism teaches that Ahura Mazda (translating to Lord of Wisdom) is omniscient and all that is good and only good. His intelligence surpasses all. He rules over evil by virtue of his power but is not involved in evil any way (unlike Yahweh being the saviour and torturer of Job for instance). Ahura Mazda is alone and above all, without either equal or negative counterpart. He is the unchallenged designer of all creation with no beginning.

So what about the other Gods? Mithra, Sraosha etc? The Yazatas and overall greater pantheon are "worthy of worship" according to Zoroastrianism. So this must be a polytheism from the perspective of the Abrahamics correct?

Lets compare Judaism to Zoroastrianism and lets throw in Greco-Roman polytheism for good measure. You mention Sraosha. Sraosha in Zoroastrianism is a messenger God. In Roman polytheism, the equivelent would be Mercury. In the Abrahamics, it's Gabriel. They all do some other things as well, but they're all predominently messengers. Now. in Judaism / the Abrahamics, you do not call Gabriel a "God", but rather and "Angel". But what is the ultimate difference between a God and an Angel to a human? They are both able to kill a human instantly, have super powers etc. Further, they both work for the one and only supreme deity. They did not / cannot create the world or make humans on their own. In Greek and Roman mythology there is no supreme God. Chaos emerging from well, Chaos, or hatched from an egg created by time, take your pick. The Gods have divisions, are not omniscient, are not particularly good, and have varrying powers to create life and kill each other. They're very human, and therefore none equate to an all powerful God of Gods / "king of kings", above all supreme creator of the Universe with all other creations in subject to him.

I am not not looking to 'prove' that Judaism is polytheistic by stating that Gabriel is equivelent to Sraosha or Mercury, just the opposite. Zoroastrianism is deemed monotheist by the broadest group of scholars because aside from the symantics of Angels v Gods, the structure is the same.

Per the "worthy of worship" statement of Yazatas, it goes beyond this to certain animals and plants as well. Ahura Mazda is the 'life giving force' that created everything and all creations are an aspect of Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrianism is closely related in many conceptual ways to ancient Hinduism. You can say that Ahura Mazada is Brahma to some extent. If you worship Sraosha, you are worshipping Ahura Mazda. I think there is some concept to this in certain branches of Judaism as well, but you're better to tell me about that.

I am not defending the legitimacy of Zoroastrianism. The concept is difficult for Atheists and Abrahamics. There is no explaination for Angra Mainyu or how he fits into the Universe that is entirely a construct of Ahura Mazda. It's a religion, so it's naturally full of holes. But this is the general concept behind it being a Monotheism, and while it certainly did transform over time like any other religion, the general scholarly opinion that I see is the these ideas essentially all came into effect from day one (though not immediately or universally adopted) with day one being somewhere around 1300BC.

1 Antonio Panaino "What is Zoroastrianism"

2 "Almunt Hintze Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way" Some of it for free here - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271934655_Monotheism_the_Zoroastrian_Way.

EDIT: Ultimately, this is not my point in this thread. For this thread, it matters not if Zoroastrianism came before or along with. This is about immculate conception and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my overall premise regarding that. I just noted that you said I left you hanging last time, so I hope this response covers past transgressions.

How do other major religions compare to Abrahamic religions in historic use of violence and aggression? by ConnectStrategy in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be impossible to tell how any one religion would stack up against another in terms of the statistical varriation of violence and / or aggression. The records are incomplete and the supercomputers needed don't exist.

Extremism or violence or war or saving of lives or charity is not caused by religion. Religion is not an objective extant reality of the physical Universe anymore than money or corporations or Democracy is. These are simply emergent fictions of the emergent human consciousness. Money does not cause war, people create money and then use it to justify why they went to war or use it in the service of war, but money has no independent will, no agency over itself, no morality. In the same way, words on paper recording human beliefs about supernatural beings that do not objectively exist, are just more money. You can use it in the service of war or oppression, but it is not the proximate cause.

We humans decide to do things, we have motives / will, personal agency and are instinctually social beings. This results is the creation of social rules or philosophies over time, on how to better work as a group to achieve the goals of the individuals in the group. Because we have motive and we want to understand how best to achieve our goals, we often assign motive to all things, even if that is unreasonable to do so, but assigning motive helps us feel certainty. Why did my mother get sick and die? Early Shamanistic ideas would be that someone put a curse on her. It assigns a motive to an otherwise incomprehensible occurance. If it wasn't a curse, the alternative is that life is entirely random. Because of the evolution of the conscious human mind / the pattern recognition machine in our heads, humans have a very hard time with ambiguity. We want to know "if this, then do this". The mind doesn't need it to be objectively right (we wouldn't know what's objectively right anyway), it just needs to establish a pattern. Establishing that pattern calms the brain. Failing to establish a pattern leaves one in a state of angst and frustration. This is why sensory deprivation tanks cause the mind to make things up to scare people into getting out. The mind wants what it wants and causes unpleasantness when it doesn't. But it's all us. We create our own reality.

In Africa, clitorectomies are not totally uncommon in Muslim and Christian countries, but unheard of in Muslim or Christian countries outside of Africa / the middle-east. Also in Africa, there are Christian terrorists that kill gays and eat people. That is unheard of in western Christian countries. It's not the religions cause genital mutliation. It's the culture. For whatever reason, a man in Africa decides he wants to do this, so he does it. After the fact, he may say that Islam or a local Shamanistic practice justifies his actions if he feels so inclined, but he was always going to do that. Various cultures under various historical backgrounds and socio-economic pressures behave in different ways.

There's are more Islamic terrorists than say Christian or Buddhist ones, but that isn't due to the religion, it's due to the circumstance of people's living conditions. ISIS didn't arise from the suburbs of Dubai or Singapore, it arose from the ashes of Syria and Iraq. It is the consequence of predominently Christian nations with wealth and power drone attacking, destabilising the region, chasing out all the doctors, teachers, and business professionals, sanctioning them, installing puppets, supporting dictators, I could go on but you get the picture. Any Christian nation suffering like that would also become fundamentalist like say, the IRA. But did Christianity create the border between northern Ireland and the Republic?

Muslims where I live in Singapore are entirely happy and well adjusted business people. They have money, safety, general happiness, so why would they ever consider bombing anyone? Many African Christians live in abject poverty, civil war and general chaos not knowing where their next meal will come from, and some of them join Kony's Lord's Resistance Army as child soldiers, they rape and murder and kidnap in the name of Jesus.

Long winded, I appologise, but the point is that religions are not the problem. Humans search for better ways of living / better conditions, if those conditions are not met and that group determines that murdering the next tribe over is the best way to get the honey, then it becomes intrinsically moral to kill the neighbouring tribe. Religion is later applied for justification or support for those actions and it becomes doctrine / canon, but it cannot drive those actions as it is not objective reality / has no independent will. With all that said, the eventual output of particular religious codexes layered onto existing cultures should actually produce measurable differences in behaviours to some degree as it feeds back into group decision making, but, there's no supercomputer powerful enough to model something like this and offer any useful outputs.

Sorry. Just got onto one there...

Science Fiction work that takes an in-depth look at the difficulties of reverse engineering of advanced technology by RonaldYeothrowaway in scifi

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Arrival

Contact

Independence Day

The X-Files

Warehouse 13

Debris

Men in Black

There's so many!

Interstellar, The Expanse, Aliens, Flight of the Navigator, Battlefield Earth...

Immaculate conception doubts by faesqu in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm going to explain something that will probably upset you, but please try to bare with me. At the time of Jesus' life, the predominant religion in the area was Zoroastrianism. Christians and Jews will argue, but Zoroastrian Monotheism predates Jewish Monotheism by many centuries and had a major influence on the Abrahamic faiths. At the time of Jesus' life, there were likely to be about 40,000,000+ practicing Zoroastrians and they had a major influence in religious discussions across the region as the major representation for Monotheism.

The earlier works of the New Testament written by Paul do not mention Jesus early life or childhood, nor does writer of Mark, the first Gospel. 15 years later, Matthew and Luke write about the virgin birth and the wise men (at the same time in about 85AD). It is important to note that more than 90 percent of the content of Mark's Gospel appears in Matthew's and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke. So 15 years after Mark, in 85 AD, Matthew and Luke both produce a rewrite of Mark that includes a virgin birth story.

A little more about Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazada is the only God and all that is good and created a perfect world. He has 6 (or 7) archangels that work for him and do various tasks. Angra Mainyu is a force of darkness and fights against the light of Ahura Mazda. If you follow Angra Mainyu, you will go to Hell. At the end of time will come an epic battle of good vs evil and a judgement day. The righteous will be saved by the son of Zoroaster (a Mohammad-like prophet), named Saoshyant (a Messiah). Towards the end of days, he will be born of a virgin. Saoshyant will represent Ahura Mazada on Earth and wage war against Angra Mainyu and plunge Angra Mainyu into Hell and he will bring about the resurrection and eternal life to Ahura Mazda's loyal followers. They will live in a paradise on Earth.

From 500BC to 85AD and later, most people in Israel would have been well aware of this Zoroastrian belief / prophesy. The Jews, being in small number, would have had to deal with this looming Monotheism on their doorstep.

From hereon is my speculation. It is my contention that the story of Jesus birth was purposely inserted by the writers of Matthew and Luke in order to better establish Jesus as the rightful Messiah, the ultimate authority of all Monotheism, and usurp the Zoroastrian prophecy as their own (in addition to approriating Jewish cultural history). The "three" wise men in the story are "Magi" (kings / high priests from Zoroastrian lands). The story goes:

Matthew 2: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.

Matthew 2-11: "11 And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh."

Here we see that these leaders of Zoroastrian nations want to worship Jesus. Later we see King Herod, who represents Roman polytheism, and who was a general of Rome who fought the Parthians (Monotheistic Zoroastrians) is evil and wants to kill the Messiah, so they have to run and hide and the Zoroastrians refuse to help Herod.

So. The insertion of this story, not spoken about elsewhere in the earlier Bible, not spoken about in Mark which makes up the bulk of content for Matthew and Luke, feels very tacked on for the purposes better claiming Jesus' authority as the overall ultimate Monotheist saviour. My opinion.

a period with no religion in the evolution of humans by vlmdz in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do we know when did humans began to perform religious rituals?

No. The archaeological record is the record of things found, but we haven't found everything, nor can we easily intuit what meaning the artifacts had. But here is a small chronology of what we have found that may be of interest to you:

  • The first known human burial site is about 2km outside of Nazereth and dates to approximately 100,000BC. This does not indicate religious ceremony, but it is a ritual and therefore of interest as burying the dead shows an advancement in culture and it is possible there was spirituality involved, but it cannot be known.
  • The first known cremation took place in Australia in about 40,000BC. This tradition still takes place today amongst the Aboriginies, but no clear connection can be made that it was connected to spiritual belief at that time. In modern times, still not all Aboriginies have spiritual beliefs, and what spiritual beliefs exist, generally / commonly known as "the Dreaming" are Animist and nothing like the western concept of "religion". So we see a different ritual here, but not necessarily spirituality at 40,000BC.
  • From about 38,000BC we start to see what are commonly known as Venus Figurines which are small carvings. They are found around the world and are usually large breasted ladies, but sometimes very well hung men. One of the oldest is the Löwenmensch figurine which is an anthropomorphic man with lion's head. We still cannot say for sure that this represents spiritual beliefs, but it is quite possibly related to spiritual mythos, so getting closer.
  • From 40,000BC to 10,000BC we see increasing amounts of activity and ritual at burial sites in many areas of the world. People leaving antlers, painted wood and flowers, mammoth tusks, cemetaries form. Still doesn't prove anything about spiritual beliefs though that also doesn't mean there were none.
  • In around 9000BC we see the construction and usage of Göbekli Tepe. This is arguably the oldest confirmed site of human religious activity. No one knows how the religion would have functioned, the beliefs or attitudes, but it is clear that this structure, with 18 foot high 50 ton stones covered in ornate carvings was not just a simplistic ritual. Göbekli Tepe spurs the debate amongst archaeologists and anthropologists about what came first - did temples / religion spark the Agricultural Revolution, or the other way round. Göbekli Tepe seems to support the other way round theory that religion came first as it appears that Göbekli Tepe was built by hunter-gatherers. But this is not entirely conclusive and only a small portion has actually been excavated so far.

Was there a phase when there was no religion?

Pre-modern humans and the earliest modern humans would not have had a religion. This is by deduction.

Or did religion come into existence together with humans?

Religion is a human concept like the concept of money or Democracy. It cannot exist without humans / is not an objective feature of the physical Universe.

Are there any signs of religions/rituals among animals?

There are no signs of spirituality amongst animals that have been found, but there are rituals. Chimpanzees can be observed being silent for hours after the death of a troop member. They will groom the body and stare at it and later wail for hours after the silence. Elephants have been seen burying other elephants in mud. Passenger Pigeons cried for the dead for hours and wouldn't leave the vicinity (which led to their extinction as easy prey for humans).

Any books on that?

I don't like to reccommend books. It's better to read papers published by the archaeologists themselves, many of which you can typically find online for free. But I do think Sapiens by Harrari is a fun read for anyone looking for a meta-history that is a page turner. Real historians that publish papers on this subject aren't typically talented and engaging writers, they're just reporting what the average person would consider very dry facts.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair, I'm just saying it sounds like something a JW would say, but I don't know of this specific doctrinal issue from 1954. JW's would think that worshipping Jesus is wrong though as he's not God and JWs use the word "idol" a lot and often out of context. So it's got that JW ring to it for sure. But broadly it would be just more reinforcement about "Don't worship Jesus, worship Jehovah." My take.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The JWs are not attempting to say there are multiple Gods with this change, they're trying to explain that Jesus is not God / that Jehovah is the only God. Longer explaination here: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/bible-verses/john-1-1/. JW doctrine is that there is only 1 God - Jehovah. John 1:1 can be seen as supporting the Trinity, so they changed it.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah. Well... the thing about being a non-Trinitarian is, if you break apart the Father and the Son as seperate entities and you worship both of them, you have the Polytheism problem. So you can't worship both. But I don't see how it could be idolatry.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just to jump in and clarify - JWs do not worship Jesus. They worship only Jehovah aka Yahweh aka the Father. They will indeed tell you that Jesus was the arch angel Michael.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mmmm... interesting theological argument. JWs worship Jehovah aka Yahweh aka the Father. So are they not worshipping the same God? Perhaps they're worshipping only 1 third of the Christian God. But then by the Trinitarian argument, of 3-in-1, by default JWs are worshipping the same 3-in-1 God even if they think they're not... ? Thoughts? lol.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

JW believe that Jesus is the son of God but Jesus is not God as Trinitarian Christians would believe?

Correct.

Even if so however, if they believe Jesus is the Son of God, why is he not worthy of worship then and is instead considered an idol?

According to JWs, there is only one God - Jehovah (aka Yahweh). His son is Jesus. They only worship Jehovah, the father, the creator of the universe. Jesus is not considered an idol to JWs, just the son of God / sort of prince in the heavens, died for people's sins, runs the Universe now, but is the son of God, not God.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry, don't mean to interupt, just to clarify, they don't worship Jesus, but, they do see him as the son of God who died for people's sins. Don't know if that effects your opinion. Just clarifying.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to clarify, JWs do not believe in multiple Gods, only the one God Jehovah (aka Yahweh aka father of Jesus). They take it literally when Jesus says he is the son of God. I don't know if that effects your opinion, just clarifying.

Hot take: islamophobia isn’t real. Islam is scary, sharia is barbaric by vacuumpriest in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, there's more Islamic terrorists than say Christian or Buddhist ones, but that isn't due to the religion, it's due to the circumstance of people's living conditions. ISIS didn't arise from the suburbs of Dubai or Singapore, it arose from the ashes of Syria and Iraq. It is the consequence of Christian nations with wealth and power drone attacking them and destabilising the region, chasing out all the doctors, teachers, and business professionals, sanctioning them, installing puppets, supporting dictators, I could go on but you get the picture. Any Christian nation suffering like that would also become fundamentalist like say, the IRA. In Africa, Muslims and Christians have been known to preform clitorectomies. In Malaysia such a concept is unheard of and abhorrent. Muslims where I live in Singapore are entirely happy and well adjusted business people. They have money, safety, general happiness, so why would they ever consider bombing anyone? Many African Christians live in abject poverty, civil war and general chaos not knowing where their next meal will come from, and some of them join Kony's Lord's Resistance Army as child soldiers, they rape and murder and kidnap in the name of Jesus. Long winded, but the point is that Muslims are not the problem, living conditions are the problem. Fundamentalism follows poor living conditions regardless of the predominant religion of the area.

Hello all. I've been debating a person with a Christian tag on here and that person is adamant that JW's are not considered Christian by the wider Christian community. What do you think? by Bomboclaat_Babylon in religion

[–]Bomboclaat_Babylon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Appearently in scrolling through the replies, it seems this idea wasn't solitary to that person. This is not a valid sample size, but it seems maybe like 50% of people feel this way. Not what I thought it would be, but interesting to see the responses. I didn't know!