• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Militant Agnosticism

It is a gross over simplification to say that christmas just replaced the pagan winter festivals. You are talking about hundreds of years of moving history and cross-cultural intergration. It wasn't as if the christians suddenly appeared and imposed themselves on the pagans, many of those christians WERE the pagans, converted not through force but through religious conversion.

The pagans of today bear as much resemblance to the ancient pagans as modern christians to the gnostics. As much as the pagans claim to follow ancient rites and practices most of them were georgian/victorian fabirications based on a simplistic and naieve appreciation of history. It amuses me greatly to see modern pagans get into a fuss about; christians stealing this-and-that. It wasn't stolen, it simply changed.

As for the symbol and image controversy. A symbol is not the same as an image. A symbol is a sign that has many other facets rather than the obvious. Symbols in Catholicism can be seen as 'the cross', 'water', 'candles', 'white garments' among others. They are different as they are not objects of worship but tools by which a christian can worship and understand facets of their faith.

As for the veneration of icons and statues, it is not the statue or the icon that is venerated, the statue or icon is merely another tool, an object of focus during meditiation.

As with regard to taking the bible literally. Again I feel many people make the simple mistake, they do not understand that Christanity is a religion that focuses on a person rather than a book. It is not Biblicalism (as Judaism can be seen) but Christianity. Focus on the Christ, the salvation brought to us from God Incarnate, focus on the meta-narritive of the stories of Jesus rather than the historical literalism. This has long been the position of the Catholic church. Although they say the bible is authoritivie it is not meant to be taken literally as it is, like many others a product of its own culture and time.
 
QuaziWashboard said:
No they're not because I never even mentioned the date '25th Dec.' being stolen from them, I said that their 'winter festivities' were taken from them and 'replaced' by Christmas, which as we all know is on the 25th Dec.
Again, I never mentioned any dates, or Winter Solstace itself, just that Pagan winter festivities (which go on longer than just one day) was taken from them and replaced by Christmas.
Again, your getting me wrong, I never said that 'Christmas was stolen from Pagans at the time when pagans were persecuting Christians'. I said that pagans that came later were persicuted by Christians. It also doesn't matter how many Pagans were persicuted by the Inquisition, just that some were and that the Inquisition was carried out by Christians, which by your words of ' Absolutely, it went against all the teachings of Christ' you obviously agree with.

I'm struggling to work out what exactly your point is with all this and exactly what your problem is. You appear to be saying that people who came later than people before had something stolen from them that was the other peoples first, can you see my confusion?

Ahh but the commandments makes it quite clear that the images He is talking about are ones that are used in worship. Namely, (in my opinion) the cross, the fish and the image of Christ.
And taken in the context of the 10 commandments, the first ones being "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods before me" it is clear (in my opinion) that God is talking about actually worshipping other gods rather than him. Praying in front of a statue or cross not the same as praying TO a statue! Christians are still worshipping God.

Anyway, what sort of religion is it that doesn't take the words of the book that it's entire 'faith' is based on 'literally'?

rjmrjmrjm has put it better than I could..
 
rjmrjmrjm said:
It is a gross over simplification to say that christmas just replaced the pagan winter festivals. You are talking about hundreds of years of moving history and cross-cultural intergration. It wasn't as if the christians suddenly appeared and imposed themselves on the pagans, many of those christians WERE the pagans, converted not through force but through religious conversion.
No one's saying it just 'happened' overnight, just that it happened and that some were forced.
rjmrjmrjm said:
The pagans of today bear as much resemblance to the ancient pagans as modern christians to the gnostics .
Which just goes to how effective the replacement of Paganism by Christianity was. ;)
rjmrjmrjm said:
As much as the pagans claim to follow ancient rites and practices most of them were georgian/victorian fabirications based on a simplistic and naieve appreciation of history. It amuses me greatly to see modern pagans get into a fuss about; christians stealing this-and-that. It wasn't stolen, it simply changed.
Yes, over many, many years. But some of that change was forced.

rjmrjmrjm said:
As for the symbol and image controversy. A symbol is not the same as an image. A symbol is a sign that has many other facets rather than the obvious. Symbols in Catholicism can be seen as 'the cross', 'water', 'candles', 'white garments' among others. They are different as they are not objects of worship but tools by which a christian can worship and understand facets of their faith.

As for the veneration of icons and statues, it is not the statue or the icon that is venerated, the statue or icon is merely another tool, an object of focus during meditiation.

IMHO. The commandments are hinting that images/symbols, whatever you want to call them, shouldn't be used in the worship of God, just that we should believe in Him and worship him without images/symbols. You may see it differently but I'm just reading what's written without adding or taking anything away.

rjmrjmrjm said:
As with regard to taking the bible literally. Again I feel many people make the simple mistake, they do not understand that Christanity is a religion that focuses on a person rather than a book. It is not Biblicalism (as Judaism can be seen) but Christianity. Focus on the Christ, the salvation brought to us from God Incarnate, focus on the meta-narritive of the stories of Jesus rather than the historical literalism. This has long been the position of the Catholic church. Although they say the bible is authoritivie it is not meant to be taken literally as it is, like many others a product of its own culture and time.
So Christianity is a religion that is only losely based on the Bible? As times change, will the meanings of Christ's teachings (regardless of the Bible) change too because the way we see it today is just a product of 'our' times?
 
min_bannister said:
I'm struggling to work out what exactly your point is with all this and exactly what your problem is. You appear to be saying that people who came later than people before had something stolen from them that was the other peoples first, can you see my confusion?

Not really, but let me simplify it for you. I'm saying that in cirtain points in history, practicing Pagans were forced to give up their religion in favour of Christianity. Fact. And as part of that happening they had to give up whatever they did in late December and celebrate Christmas instead.

Now let me have a look at that sentence :shock:
'people who came later than people before'
Well..everybody came later than people before.
'had something stolen from them that was the other peoples first'
If the 'something' you mention is the right to celebrate your chosen religion the way you want to, then...yes! ;)



min_bannister said:
And taken in the context of the 10 commandments, the first ones being "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods before me" it is clear (in my opinion) that God is talking about actually worshipping other gods rather than him. Praying in front of a statue or cross not the same as praying TO a statue! Christians are still worshipping God.

As I said to rjmrjmrjm;
'IMHO. The commandments are hinting that images/symbols, whatever you want to call them, shouldn't be used in the worship of God, just that we should believe in Him and worship him without images/symbols. You may see it differently but I'm just reading what's written without adding or taking anything away.'
We seem to simply have a difference of opinion here so let's just agree to disagree.
 
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
some were forced.
Including Christians.
Agreed, but I'm just talking about Pagans being forced to renounce their religion and all it's celebrations in favour of a different one.
 
QuaziWashboard said:
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
some were forced.
Including Christians.
Agreed, but I'm just talking about Pagans being forced to renounce their religion and all it's celebrations in favour of a different one.
After the Roman's converted they continued to persecute Christians, viewing them as allies of the Pagans. You see, the people you advocate issue with in your doorstep challenge (since you're not a Pagan) aren't the right people to be taking issue with. Christians simply aren't to blame. By the time Christianity fully accepted this change, and we are talking hundreds of years later, Mithras was gone. Blame the Romans for deciding to change their religion if you must blame anyone.
 
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
some were forced.
Including Christians.
Agreed, but I'm just talking about Pagans being forced to renounce their religion and all it's celebrations in favour of a different one.
After the Roman's converted they continued to persecute Christians, viewing them as allies of the Pagans. You see, the people you advocate issue with in your doorstep challenge (since you're not a Pagan) aren't the right people to be taking issue with. Christians simply aren't to blame. By the time Christianity fully accepted this change, and we are talking hundreds of years later, Mithras was gone. Blame the Romans for deciding to change their religion if you must blame anyone.
So your saying that at no point in history, someone calling themselves a Christian ever forced someone calling themselves a Pagan to renounce their religion?

Y'know, it's not just religious people who knock on my door that I like to wind up...I pick on salesmen, politicians and even small children at halloween too! ;)
 
QuaziWashboard said:
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
some were forced.
Including Christians.
Agreed, but I'm just talking about Pagans being forced to renounce their religion and all it's celebrations in favour of a different one.
After the Roman's converted they continued to persecute Christians, viewing them as allies of the Pagans. You see, the people you advocate issue with in your doorstep challenge (since you're not a Pagan) aren't the right people to be taking issue with. Christians simply aren't to blame. By the time Christianity fully accepted this change, and we are talking hundreds of years later, Mithras was gone. Blame the Romans for deciding to change their religion if you must blame anyone.
So your saying that at no point in history, someone calling themselves a Christian ever forced someone calling themselves a Pagan to renounce their religion?
Tell me, how did you interpret any of what I said that way? I never said that.
 
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
some were forced.
Including Christians.
Agreed, but I'm just talking about Pagans being forced to renounce their religion and all it's celebrations in favour of a different one.
After the Roman's converted they continued to persecute Christians, viewing them as allies of the Pagans. You see, the people you advocate issue with in your doorstep challenge (since you're not a Pagan) aren't the right people to be taking issue with. Christians simply aren't to blame. By the time Christianity fully accepted this change, and we are talking hundreds of years later, Mithras was gone. Blame the Romans for deciding to change their religion if you must blame anyone.
So your saying that at no point in history, someone calling themselves a Christian ever forced someone calling themselves a Pagan to renounce their religion?
Tell me, how did you interpret any of what I said that way? I never said that.
No, but that is simply the point that I'm making. See?
 
QuaziWashboard said:
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
So your saying that at no point in history, someone calling themselves a Christian ever forced someone calling themselves a Pagan to renounce their religion?
Tell me, how did you interpret any of what I said that way? I never said that.
No, but that is simply the point that I'm making. See?
Not really. Er... you asked if what I was saying was that at no point in history someone calling themselves a Christian ever forced someone calling themselves a Pagan to renounce their religion, and then tell me that's not what I'm saying? I don't follow.
 
QuaziWashboard said:
Not really, but let me simplify it for you. I'm saying that in cirtain points in history, practicing Pagans were forced to give up their religion in favour of Christianity. Fact. And as part of that happening they had to give up whatever they did in late December and celebrate Christmas instead.

Now let me have a look at that sentence :shock:
'people who came later than people before'
Well..everybody came later than people before.
'had something stolen from them that was the other peoples first'
If the 'something' you mention is the right to celebrate your chosen religion the way you want to, then...yes! ;)
You were specifically talking about Christmas and the date it is set. This is what you were talking about being stolen. If forced conversions were what you were arguing about to begin with then surely you would have seen that whatever date Christmas was set on, these converts would have had to celebrate it (or be seen to). I deliberately set out that question in a confused way as you seem to be making a rather confused argument.

As I said to rjmrjmrjm;
'IMHO. The commandments are hinting that images/symbols, whatever you want to call them, shouldn't be used in the worship of God, just that we should believe in Him and worship him without images/symbols. You may see it differently but I'm just reading what's written without adding or taking anything away.'
We seem to simply have a difference of opinion here so let's just agree to disagree.
Fair enough. It is simply a question of interpretation which is probably why there are different branches of Christianity which believe slightly different things.
 
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
ghostdog19 said:
QuaziWashboard said:
So your saying that at no point in history, someone calling themselves a Christian ever forced someone calling themselves a Pagan to renounce their religion?
Tell me, how did you interpret any of what I said that way? I never said that.
No, but that is simply the point that I'm making. See?
Not really. Er... you asked if what I was saying was that at no point in history someone calling themselves a Christian ever forced someone calling themselves a Pagan to renounce their religion, and then tell me that's not what I'm saying? I don't follow.
Look, it's not rocket science. My original line, waaaay back around page 3 of this thread was 'Why can't you bloody Christians leave our Pagan festival alone?' (See min_bannister? no mention of 'specifically talking about Christmas and the date it is set,' whatsoever.... just the term 'Pagan Festival' If I were to say that 'Christmas' was stolen from the Pagans, then that really wouldn't make sense as Christmas is a Christian celebration not a Pagan one.) This was a jokey nod towards the fact that Pagans HAVE at some point been persicuted by Christians and forced to give up their normal winter celebrations in favour of the Christian celebration called Christmas. You can tell it was a 'jokey' remark, purely designed for taking the mickey, by my next line of 'And I'm not even a Pagan!'
By now it should be quite obvious that I'm talking about ages after the Romans.
For all the grief I've recieved since writing these lines, not one of you has actualy said that Pagans have NEVER been forced to renounce by Christians in favour of Christianity, so I'm assuming you must agree with this simple fact. So for you to then say 'Christians simply aren't to blame' just doesn't make sense to me, hence my reply of 'So you're saying that at NO point in history, someone calling themselves a Christian ever forced someone calling themselves a Pagan to renounce their religion?' because if they did, then some Christians 'were' to blame after all.
Does this clear the whole thing up for everyone? Because 4 pages of grief without anyone actualy disagreeing with me is even sillier than my original statement. ;)
 
My, how this place has changed. :roll:

I think you're a little slow at catching on. Back on page 4.
ghostdog19 said:
Bistoinferno said:
Why is it silly?
Hopefully, QuaziWashboard has answered that question for you now, since we're not at any disagreement here. It is silly.
 
rynner said:
a smack-botty and early to bed with no supper for the lot of 'em! 8)
He's not the son of God, he's a very naughty boy. ;)
 
Bump, because: (a) someone asked if there were a thread on agnosticism, and (b) this thread had wandered before falling idle ...

... Come to that, is agnosticism really the Fort default (I think it is, but that doesn't mean I'm right.) Discuss.

I'd have to say that a general form of 'agnosticism' has to be attributed to a Fortean orientation. I'd call it a 'general form' because the term 'agnostic' was coined to denote a position on the knowability of a particular concept - i.e., God.

IMHO Fort's writings can be readily construed as shifting the focus of agnostic uncertainty from theology alone to the entirety of prevailing socio-cultural presumptions - most particularly the sciences.

There are certain passages or sections in which one might accuse Fort of spinning things toward a particular position. Nonetheless, I feel his overall intention was to highlight and defend the middle ground position of 'who knows?; maybe there's more; maybe we've been looking at it all wrong'.
 
I think I was the one who asked about an agnostic thread but I wasn't expecting to find one called 'militant agnosticism'......can there even be such a thing?
Without reading the whole thread was there a consensus on this?
;)
 
I think I was the one who asked about an agnostic thread but I wasn't expecting to find one called 'militant agnosticism'......can there even be such a thing?

That was one of Stu's points in starting this thread ...


Without reading the whole thread was there a consensus on this?
;)

No.
 
I was an atheist but became an agnostic as atheism is a bit unFortean - you can't dismiss wholesale what you can't absolutely disprove, but you can deem it unlikely.

An atheist only has to disprove the claim that there is a god. I think the contradictions in the Bible, Torah, and Koran adequately manage that. Unless Bigfoot is actually YHVH there shouldn't be a problem.

Buddhism could be described as Agnostic, particularly the more extreeme elements

Buddhism's take s quite different to agnosticism. Buddhism accepts the existence of many gods, who in Hinduism are referred to as Devas (yes, etymologically linked to Diva which means "goddess" in Latin through Sanskrit). On the other hand Buddhism regards Devas as flighty, flakey creatures utterly devoted to their own pleasure and almost incapable of noticing lesser beings to help them. Thus Buddhism says that Devas are the moral inferiors of humanity at its best, and generally not worth worshipping. There is an interesting caveat however. Some Devas, thanks to the Buddha's Sermon at Vulture's Peak, have converted to Buddhism. These entities are known as Dharma Protectors. Quite a philosophy when you can convert the gods themselves, no?

So what do you call a religion that accepts the existence of many gods but thinks worshipping any of them is dumb? I'm thinking "Theodubious", or "Lapsed Pantheist", or perhaps "Pantheoskeptical"?
 
"What do we want?"
"It's not possible to know."
"When do we want it?"
"Now."


(sorry, couldn't resist)


"What do we want?"
"It's not possible to know."
"When do we want it?"
"At a time yet to be determined."
 
An atheist only has to disprove the claim that there is a god. I think the contradictions in the Bible, Torah, and Koran adequately manage that.

Again, to play devil's advocate, all that proves is that the Bible, Torah, and Koran are wrong/mistaken/bollocks.
 
An atheist only has to disprove the claim that there is a god. I think the contradictions in the Bible, Torah, and Koran adequately manage that. ...

The contradictions in the Book (as in 'People of the Book') undermine only the version of a God concept reflected in the various versions of the Book, as opposed to the God concept overall / generally. Refuting deity / deities as described by any given tradition refutes the tradition rather than the concept per se. Refuting the descriptions of deities across all deistic traditions doesn't conclusively refute the notion of deities in general - it merely implies everybody's got it wrong.

Anyway ...

It's the first sentence (quoted above) that is most pertinent to the problems facing agnosticism. Atheists and deists represent polar positions indicative of conclusions reached or professed. Both argue on the basis of a firm conclusion having been obtained on the matter.

Agnostics, in contrast, are essentially claiming the debate over the bases for those respective conclusions (not the conclusions themselves) is ongoing / open. This claim is drowned out by the crossfire between the two conclusive positions, neither of which seem to be able to tolerate the notion of uncertainty, even though neither can demonstrate any bases for certainty underlying their respective conclusions.

Herein lies the context for the agnostics' dilemma, and such a dilemma can motivate militancy.
 
I'd go further than "ongoing/open", I'd say the debate is pointless.

Agreed ... The most extreme form of agnosticism claims the scope of the issue is in all likelihood beyond the scope of human understanding.

This illustrates another facet of the distinction between agnosticism and the two conclusive positions. The latter are arguing over what (a thing; a tenet; a state) their adherents 'know', whereas agnostics are questioning the viability of 'knowing' (about this matter ... ) in the first place.

Furthermore, the greater the degree of pointlessness an agnostic ascribes to the argument, the greater the degree of potential irritation and perceived threat - i.e., the greater the potential for deciding militancy is warranted.
 
Back
Top