quote:

I had never heard of O'Brien but anyone who can say Ruth was a symbol of Satan is a complete wackjob or he never read the books he is trashing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Sheesh. Ok. Flying Dragons. No problem... Dragons fly. They also breath fire... Ok... Fair enough...

And they're psychic...

O---kay.....

And they teleport!

C'mon? really?

And they teleport THROUGH TIME.

Now you're just fucking with me...

Aerial psychic group sex between dragons and riders....

Fuck you, asshole. Fuck you...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I think the pros are relatively easy to list: greater tolerence of diversity, avoidance of oppressive morality which can harm certain groups in a given society depending on the religious creed, the lessening of the broad influence of religious codes over morality which could result in better law making etc.

Is there evidence that (so-called) "pagan" cultures were more tolerant of diversity, lacked a morality that disadvantaged non-believers, or that was largely based on religious belief?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Pagans wouldn't be any exception to religious bigotry but it seems that since paganism is usually polytheistic, it doesn't see divergence of belief as threatening to such an extent compared to monotheism which places an emphasis on The One. The singularity of monotheism, where there is one exclusive path, may lead to greater intolerence. Ancient Rome might be a good indicator of this issue. There was a massive empire with many faiths of which relative tolerence was shown. There was religious persecution of course but it tended to be politically motivated rather than over issues of faith. When Christianity became predominant, significantly less tolerence shown toward other faiths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat
Paganization? ...

Not that the various pagan beliefs have much more to do with reality than other religions, eh? ... And the point Anax cited about societies having some common morals etc is often one that various dogmatic faiths argue as problems with the others.

On the plus side, the diversity of delusions in some ways impedes one overall majority delusion from seizing overall control.
On the minus side, splintering into many isolated strong delusions can allow a large but less than majority delusions to maintain significant influence.

Sort of a mixed bag, perhaps the athiests would be best off aiming to keep several large but minority factions opposing each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Yes, for the most part I would agree with this. Let me use Hinduism as an example. India, where the majority of the population is Hindu, has been home to many different religions (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and is even home to the Dalai Lama and his followers who are in exile from Tibet) at different times of history. And historically, many groups have been able to live and thrive there with no prejudice. There is, of course, a long history of Muslim-Hindu violence in India, but my reading of history seems to point more to the intolerance of the Muslim religion in creating that situation. Hinduism does not believe there is only one path to enlightenment. Therefore, the traditional Hindu approach has always been many paths, and they tend to treat other religions as simply other paths. Hindus don't see themselves in spiritual competition with other religions in any way. With that said, the Muslim-Hindu tensions in India have brought about a group of what I call "fundamentalist Hindus" who are exactly what one would expect once you put the word fundamentalist in there - religious extremists who are trying to use religion to politically divide the populace. They are fringe, and do not represent either mainstream Hinduism, or even the fundamentals of Hindu theology.

Monotheistic religions are by their very nature intolerant of others. Add to that faiths that believe in conversion (such as Islam and Christianity) and you have a highly intolerant combination. Not only do they believe they are right, they believe others are wrong, and must be brought over to the right side. Judaism, while monotheistic, does not adhere to the concept of proselytizing in the same way, and so it seems to me that in Judaism, they really just want to be left alone to practice their religion freely, but are not in the business of trying to convert everyone to their one right way. Buddhism, as an offshoot of Hinduism (Buddha was born a Hindu), shares more in common with Hinduism philosophically than it does with the monotheistic religions. It is more about private journey, and again, not about proselytizing.

Of course, Hindus and Buddhists have been in conflict in Sri Lanka - but I would say this is more of a political war than a religious war. At the end of the day, even the most tolerant religions still seem to have difficulty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Interesting points about Hinduism and Buddhism. The fundamentalist element will always appear in the face of conflict. There are of course reasons to be concerned. Conditions seem to be pretty bad for Hindus (and Christians) in Pakistan. I recall the story last year of a mass riot in one area there when a Hindu boy drank from a water tap near a Mosque. It seems a lot of Hindu girls are being forced to convert in Pakistan as well. It may get worse with the country getting more extreme. India did seem to be a pretty tolerent place traditionally as I think India took in the last vestiges of the Zoroastrians as well after they were given a bit of a mauling in Persia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

You forgot to tie it all in with the serpent and the apple.

quote:

When Christianity became predominant, significantly less tolerence shown toward other faiths.

quote:

Is the same guy who wrote against The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings two very beloved pieces of English literature?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Yes, the Zoroastrians went to India and became a thriving community in India known as the Parsis. Freddie Mercury of Queen was actually Parsi, and grew up part of his life in India.

Muslims in India suffer no prejudice. They are not required to convert. They are free to practice their religion, own property, get an education, run businesses, etc. They are protected in a democracy that also constitutionally protects freedom of religion. But Hindus in Pakistan? Hindus in Pakistan, and any other part of the Muslim world (most of which are monarchies or theocracies), are persecuted in any number of ways. When the Taliban first rose to power in Afghanistan, they started making Hindus wear yellow badges and Hindu women to wear Burkas. The Taliban were also responsible for destroying all Buddha statues in Afghanistan including the ancient Bamiyan Buddhas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

When Christianity became predominant, significantly less tolerence shown toward other faiths.

Your point is well-taken but it is understated, to wit:

The first episodes started late in the reign of Constantine the Great, when he ordered the pillaging and the torning down of some pagan temples.[17][25][26] The first anti-Pagan laws by the Christian state started with Constantine's son Constantius II,[27][28] which was an unwavering opponent of paganism; he ordered the closing of all pagan temples, forbade Pagan sacrifices under pain of death,[17] and removed the traditional Altar of Victory from the Senate.[29] Under his reign ordinary Christians started vandalizing many of the ancient Pagan temples, tombs and monuments.[30][31][32][33]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Is the same guy who wrote against The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings two very beloved pieces of English literature?

No. O'Brien likes Lewis and Tolkein.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

You can get a synopsis of O'Brien's thinking here:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0088.html

ETA: I'm not being snarky by just offering the link. I just figured it was best to let O'Brien speak for himself.