(no subject)
*Makes popcorn*
ETA: Just in case 'Athana' (aka, Jeri Studbaker) deletes one of Phillip's comments-
My apologies for my last message. I do have the unfortunate habit of forgetting that I am not always supposed to be writing in an academic fashion. Plus I do also tend to write somewhat late into the night, further muting the simplicity of my prose.
With regard to your following statement: "You’re mixing apples and oranges. I’m talking about a belief that it’s the natural order that some are poor, and you start talking about who’s helping the poor. I’m not talking about who’s helping the poor. I’m talking about belief systems." I made no explicit reference to 'helping the poor' as such. I made reference to both the ideas and actions of social reformers and revolutionary activists. In Europe we have a more robust radical tradition with an older pedigree than that of the US, so you may not be aware of the debt we owe to these great thinkers.
Yes, I am also aware that you were talking about 'belief systems' and so am I as far as I find fault with your argument. My criticism is as follows - your construction of alleged 'war god' belief systems and also of atheistic beliefs is both grossly inaccurate and a terrible generalisation without factual reference. I find it impossible to conceive that an academic writer could fashion such a vacuous and unsupported generality.
Your generalisation is vacuous because, as I stated, the historical record shows quite clearly that the great social reformers and revolutionaries of the past (the socialists and anti-capitalists) were by far, exponents of materialistic belief systems (in this regard i cited Marx, Kropotkin, Bukharin but one should also add Gramsci and Luxemburg). I also noted that those exposing early 'neopagan' belief systems, such as Gardner were, while religiously heterodox, politically conservative and reactionary - and certainly saw no contradiction between an earth-centred religion (in his case of both God and Goddess) and conservative politics. Indeed, as your dear opponent R. R. Ruether might point out, people like Gardneer exposed very a narrow/patriarchal conception of sexuality (Gardner thought homosexuality was unnatural and an affront to the natural order of the living world).
I find your following statement interesting: "Furthermore I don’t do much with the historical goddesses on this blog, or with pagans who worship pantheons with war gods in them".
Your somewhat selective reference to the pagan goddesses of the past is deeply problematic. You seem to quite arbitrarily ignore the pagan religious experience of a great chunk of human history, solely because you believe them compromised by the illusion of 'warrior god cults'. But of course, you have to take this line since otherwise you would have to admit that the legitimate spiritual experience of the human species (both male and female) includes war and conflict - in contradiction to your belief that such things have no part in any divine reality - being simply a foreign fraud introduced by evil men who wished to dominate and oppress. The nonesensical moral absolutism (i.e. 'male gods are dangerous') of your world view is quite 'Christian'.
Hence of course, you don't deal with historical goddesses, since the evidence is overwhelming that authentic female deities could have the same delight in warfare as their male counterparts. Your approach thus places much of its weight upon the dark waters of prehistory - a dangerous tack to take given the dire scarcity of accurate information concerning this period. Yet you seem confident in making the most bold and far reaching generalisations about the beliefs of countless separate peoples we know very little about. To say that prehistoric peoples were also democratic and peaceful is also to brutally twist the historical evidence. For one thing warfare, while certainly not being endemic, seems to have been common in many places (certainly the per capita rate of homicide in traditional societies is far greater than that of contemporary Manhattan). As regards democratic - there is scant evidence to make any sound conclusions. Plus, how can we apply a modern political concept like democracy to neolithic societies? Both are separated by thousands of years of cultural evolution and possess unique cultural formations. What form of democracy did you imagine that they had?! Parlimentary monarchy, federal republic, voting by lots or constituency representives perchance?
My reason for the statement: “Is there any reason why we should think your religion would be any less violent” is simple. Like these faiths you practice the same tawdry dualism of good (you) Vs evil (the Abrahamic/war gods) that the great monotheisms preach. You preach absolutes that exist without exception. Now i'm a star wars fan and as such i'll quote you a little wisdom from that epic tale: "only the sith deal in absolutes."
Finally you have stated: “Six thousand years ago, everyone worshiped Goddesses and things were good. Then gods came. Things got bad. They have stayed bad for 6000 years." Which planet are referring to? I assume its not this one? At least not with a straight face? If you want to argue semantics over the word 'war' then no, there certainly was nothing like modern war in prehistory, since modern war is impossible without modern society, technology, population and political organisation. However, do you mean there was no organised violent conflict at all? No murder or homicide? What evidence do you have for this?
And you do realise that in the above statement you have your own little myth of the fall! Things start good, then things go baaaad. Oh no... was it war-god apples and war-god serpents tricking peace loving egaliterians into a quick bout of homicide.
Sorry to be sarcastic, but in the words of Ron Weasley, that's just mental. How exactly did these gods 'come'? If they were so bad, why believe in them? I can probably guess how you will reply, but i'll wait 'till I hear the real thing.
Apologies if I inflict any grammatical errors upon readers via this message. Also being English I spell words in the old style.
ETA: Just in case 'Athana' (aka, Jeri Studbaker) deletes one of Phillip's comments-
My apologies for my last message. I do have the unfortunate habit of forgetting that I am not always supposed to be writing in an academic fashion. Plus I do also tend to write somewhat late into the night, further muting the simplicity of my prose.
With regard to your following statement: "You’re mixing apples and oranges. I’m talking about a belief that it’s the natural order that some are poor, and you start talking about who’s helping the poor. I’m not talking about who’s helping the poor. I’m talking about belief systems." I made no explicit reference to 'helping the poor' as such. I made reference to both the ideas and actions of social reformers and revolutionary activists. In Europe we have a more robust radical tradition with an older pedigree than that of the US, so you may not be aware of the debt we owe to these great thinkers.
Yes, I am also aware that you were talking about 'belief systems' and so am I as far as I find fault with your argument. My criticism is as follows - your construction of alleged 'war god' belief systems and also of atheistic beliefs is both grossly inaccurate and a terrible generalisation without factual reference. I find it impossible to conceive that an academic writer could fashion such a vacuous and unsupported generality.
Your generalisation is vacuous because, as I stated, the historical record shows quite clearly that the great social reformers and revolutionaries of the past (the socialists and anti-capitalists) were by far, exponents of materialistic belief systems (in this regard i cited Marx, Kropotkin, Bukharin but one should also add Gramsci and Luxemburg). I also noted that those exposing early 'neopagan' belief systems, such as Gardner were, while religiously heterodox, politically conservative and reactionary - and certainly saw no contradiction between an earth-centred religion (in his case of both God and Goddess) and conservative politics. Indeed, as your dear opponent R. R. Ruether might point out, people like Gardneer exposed very a narrow/patriarchal conception of sexuality (Gardner thought homosexuality was unnatural and an affront to the natural order of the living world).
I find your following statement interesting: "Furthermore I don’t do much with the historical goddesses on this blog, or with pagans who worship pantheons with war gods in them".
Your somewhat selective reference to the pagan goddesses of the past is deeply problematic. You seem to quite arbitrarily ignore the pagan religious experience of a great chunk of human history, solely because you believe them compromised by the illusion of 'warrior god cults'. But of course, you have to take this line since otherwise you would have to admit that the legitimate spiritual experience of the human species (both male and female) includes war and conflict - in contradiction to your belief that such things have no part in any divine reality - being simply a foreign fraud introduced by evil men who wished to dominate and oppress. The nonesensical moral absolutism (i.e. 'male gods are dangerous') of your world view is quite 'Christian'.
Hence of course, you don't deal with historical goddesses, since the evidence is overwhelming that authentic female deities could have the same delight in warfare as their male counterparts. Your approach thus places much of its weight upon the dark waters of prehistory - a dangerous tack to take given the dire scarcity of accurate information concerning this period. Yet you seem confident in making the most bold and far reaching generalisations about the beliefs of countless separate peoples we know very little about. To say that prehistoric peoples were also democratic and peaceful is also to brutally twist the historical evidence. For one thing warfare, while certainly not being endemic, seems to have been common in many places (certainly the per capita rate of homicide in traditional societies is far greater than that of contemporary Manhattan). As regards democratic - there is scant evidence to make any sound conclusions. Plus, how can we apply a modern political concept like democracy to neolithic societies? Both are separated by thousands of years of cultural evolution and possess unique cultural formations. What form of democracy did you imagine that they had?! Parlimentary monarchy, federal republic, voting by lots or constituency representives perchance?
My reason for the statement: “Is there any reason why we should think your religion would be any less violent” is simple. Like these faiths you practice the same tawdry dualism of good (you) Vs evil (the Abrahamic/war gods) that the great monotheisms preach. You preach absolutes that exist without exception. Now i'm a star wars fan and as such i'll quote you a little wisdom from that epic tale: "only the sith deal in absolutes."
Finally you have stated: “Six thousand years ago, everyone worshiped Goddesses and things were good. Then gods came. Things got bad. They have stayed bad for 6000 years." Which planet are referring to? I assume its not this one? At least not with a straight face? If you want to argue semantics over the word 'war' then no, there certainly was nothing like modern war in prehistory, since modern war is impossible without modern society, technology, population and political organisation. However, do you mean there was no organised violent conflict at all? No murder or homicide? What evidence do you have for this?
And you do realise that in the above statement you have your own little myth of the fall! Things start good, then things go baaaad. Oh no... was it war-god apples and war-god serpents tricking peace loving egaliterians into a quick bout of homicide.
Sorry to be sarcastic, but in the words of Ron Weasley, that's just mental. How exactly did these gods 'come'? If they were so bad, why believe in them? I can probably guess how you will reply, but i'll wait 'till I hear the real thing.
Apologies if I inflict any grammatical errors upon readers via this message. Also being English I spell words in the old style.