Lifesaver said:
Of course culture has an influence on everything. That doesn't mean we can't separate one from the other, and realize that, despite having different cultures, Norway and Japan have a lot in common.
Please tell me all the things Norway and Japan have in common.
As for your objection to classifying things together, if we were to follow it to the letter, it would be impossible to have a meaningful talk about anything. As much as there are differences between countries, religious beliefs, animals, etc, grouping individuals with selected similarities together is the only way we can learn about general tendencies and characteristics.
Even the discovery that "we all tend to classify the birds in our environment in pretty much the same way" could only be reached because the scientist grouped together different individuals based on a set of similiarities, and took conclusions which, to some degree, hold true for all of us.
Yes and no. Secondary anthropologists came to that conclusion after years of looking through the data of primary anthropologists, and I'm sure that are some who still would disagree. What is left when all differences are removed is pretty much physiological in nature.
>We all pass on everything which is meaningful to us by transmitting it culturally.
>We all firmly believe our culture to be superior to all others.
>We are all subject to cultural evolution.
>We are all subject to acculturation, and the winning culture is almost always the one with either vastly greater numbers, or superior weapons.
So, if someone worships many gods they are Pagan.
According to my dictionary,
Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, the primary meaning of pagan, is 1. a person who is not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew; heathen: formerly, sometimes applied specif. to a non-Christian by Christians. 2. a person who has no religion.
Below, under Syn., it notes that pagan and heathen are synonyms, and both are applied to polytheistic peoples, but that pagan often refers specifically to ancient peoples, esp. the Greeks and Romans, and heathen is applied to any of the the peoples regarded as primitive idolators, and that gentile [the root of the term gentile is quite fascinating because it originally slammed Jews] is applied to one who is not a Jew, and among Mormons, one who is not a Mormon.
As we see this is all about how we regard other people, and has nothing to do with what they believe, but everything to do with what they
don't believe. lol
You're a pagan if you're a polytheist, a pagan if you're a monotheist, and a pagan if you're an atheist.
True, there are Celtic, Greek, Brazilian and North American Pagan religions, all with differences; but the similiarities among them are striking as well, and grouping them together gives us a greater understanding of tribal religions worldwide.
I'm afraid I don't see those striking similarites, but even if I did, they would only hold us back when speaking to a few individuals on a thread.
The folks to whom this thread belongs would see such striking similarities in what you and I believe that they would wonder why either of us bothered to belong to different denominations.
The fathers of psychoanalysis did the same thing to people to reach their conclusions, by the way.
There is one father of psychoanalysis: Freud, and he based his theories almost entirely on the ancient Greek myths.
Tell me: what do you think God thinks of human bleeding rituals?
Ex.12:13: As for you, the blood will be a sign on the houses in which you are: when I see the blood I shall pass over you...
Ex.12:21-22: Moses...said, 'Go at once, procure the lambs for your families, and slaughter the Passover. Then take a bunch of marjoram, dip it in the blood in the basin, and smear some blood from the basin on the lintel and the two doorposts.
Ex. 24: Moses then took the [bull's] blood and flung it over the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you on the terms of this book.'
Heb. 9:12-14: the blood of his [Christ's] sacrifice is his own blood, not the blood of goats and calves...If sprinkling the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer consecrates those who have been defiled and restores their ritual purity, how much greater is the power of the blood of Christ; throught the eternal Spirit he offered himself without blemish to God. His blood will cleanse our conscience from the deadness of our former ways to serve the living God.
Heb. 9:22: Indeed, under the law, it might almost be said that everything is cleansed by blood, and without the sheeding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Now, since we're speaking of blood rituals, Lifesaver, please explain transubstantiation to us. I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that, through a divine miracle, you drink Christ's literal blood and eat his literal body every time you take communion. True?
I am not thinking of doing that. But hasn't it been completely discredited by modern science?
No, it hasn't; not at all, and you will find Jungian psychiatrists with hospital practices to this day.
Psychoanalysis is alive and well, too. Anthropologists have done their best to test Freud's theories in the field, but the results have been inconclusive; so far, they have neither been able to falsify nor verify any of Freud's theories.
Skinnerian conditioning works beautifully, but does this validate his theories? Not necessarily.
I like taking care of good people.
