Cults, sects and metal

WOW thank you that has helped me to understand some of the complexities of history, and how they dealt with change, it has also helped me remembering stuff as I am a little rusty these days from what I learnt at college and university.

double post

The most interesting facet of Hinduism, in my opinion, is its ability to adapt and change quite peacefully with each invasion into India proper, remain the predominant faith, and absorb invading peoples into the caste system. Nearly every culture that invaded India in the past eventually settled there to some extent.

They settled because of the ganja, perhaps? Why else deal with monsoons every year?

As to Hinduism's flexibility with other religions -- I agree, it is interesting how sponge-like it is. Another interesting point is that Hinduism and its offshoots have never organized armies for the sole purpose of converting others to its beliefs. In general, I think the most appealing aspect of Hinduism is that it is not primarily concerned with judgments and condemnation.

In a love song by Daler Mehndi, he sums up the attitude perfectly: "The world is a colorful place / it's not good nor bad." It is very tolerant of variation and diversity. The roots of this outlook on the world can be seen in the early Hindu texts, in which the "objective" of sorts could be generally summarized as coming to peace with the world as it exists, as opposed to waging war on it through moral judgments. This, I think, helps to explain the sponge-like nature of Hinduism, and also how it has persisted so well throughout the centuries (despite not spreading much).

With this in mind it will only take a moment to realize why militant and self-enforcing religions are the most widespread, and how this came to be so. Let us segue toward the teachings of an ancient Hebrew cult leader. Let us compare the "colorful world" interpretation of people having different ideas, beliefs, and practices to these statements from the Anointed One:
"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters."(Luke 11:23)
This is a quick way to make enemies with everybody. You may recall former President Bush making similar claims, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:14)
This sums up very neatly the sentiment expressed in the Old Testament, which is basically that the Israelites are the only righteous people and the rest of the world is wicked. The main difference between Judaism and Christianity, in this regard at least, is that Christianity seeks to change the world to become like itself, while Judaism is content to keep the "chosen ones" few in number.

This whole notion of "the way is narrow" is, in my opinion, entirely absurd. If you seek a particular, specific goal -- if you are training for something, for example, or hunting a certain prey, or something very specific like that -- then yes, you may have to adhere to a specific regimen. But if you look at the world, it is obvious that there is a great deal of variation in successful lifestyles within the human species (not to mention the countless other species which inhabit the earth).

But of course, Christ did not mean "life" as we know it -- which is to say, "life" which actually exists. He meant something that is actually the antithesis of life, which naturally "exists" only beyond death. Of course! Eh, all right ... rant over.

WOW thank you that has helped me to understand some of the complexities of history, and how they dealt with change, it has also helped me remembering stuff as I am a little rusty these days from what I learnt at college and university.

I am certainly no Professor, but your welcome. Glad I could help.

Been thinking about Phemonology it is a process of walking through an area with ancient monuments, say for instance were there is a lot of Neolithic sites. Then trying to understand that landscape through a Neolithic perspective, this is kind of wayout, but I do believe something can be gained from this within the context of understanding religions. And the reason why humanity has had some sort of religious order.

It has been suggested by archaeologists that during this period these groups of people were trying to recreate the landscape around them through these monuments, so this would take on religious sites like Henges and burial mounds.
I think this would work well as it is also believed that these religions had some basis in nature, so this may bring about our understanding of the idea of ancient religions and the people who practiced them.

The attitudes of people we dont now what actually went on here but this may begin to give us a glimpse of how, and to see how religious attitudes have changed down the centuries and why they have changed?

It takes a very open mind to walk through ancient ruins and feel some type of connection. Of course, you could always go to the Amazon and drink some root-type hallucinogen to connect with your ancestors/spirit animal. I might have to do it myself one day.

@Fenrir sounds like good advice I wasnt quite sure where I was going with this but thought it might be of interest
I have a book that I got whilst at university by a chap called Christopher Tilley, Phemonology in The Landscape, Berg Publishers

My brain isn't quite functional after yesterday's absinthe drinking games, so you have to excuse me if someone already said this and I just missed it when reading through the last posts in the thread.

From what I remember from University the main thing that the Romans had against the Celtic (and possibly German) religions was the human sacrifices and the political power the leaders had, and the later thing was the reason for the Llyn Cerrig Bach-massacre and similar things.

The beliefsystem itself wasn't much of a concern to the romans, as Fenrir pointed out, normally they saw it as the same gods but with different names. There are lots of Roman historians writing about various ways that the barbarians are worshipping Mercury and Mars etc.

Ive found this in one my books not sure if this is what you mean? "Tacitus chooses to make a point of the ritual of human sacrifice in the groves destroyed on Anglesey, and implies-without saying so-that it was a regular practice. This is clearly meant to shock the Roman reader"

It goes on to say "official Roman religion was the sacrificing of animals at the altar of the gods. The future was predicted-especially in great matters of state"

It mentions that both Greek & Roman thought that human sacrifice was barbaric, hope this makes sense and that I havent been to waffley

Ive found this in one my books not sure if this is what you mean? "Tacitus chooses to make a point of the ritual of human sacrifice in the groves destroyed on Anglesey, and implies-without saying so-that it was a regular practice. This is clearly meant to shock the Roman reader"

It goes on to say "official Roman religion was the sacrificing of animals at the altar of the gods. The future was predicted-especially in great matters of state"

It mentions that both Greek & Roman thought that human sacrifice was barbaric, hope this makes sense and that I havent been to waffley

Ah, yes, that goes with pretty much I've heard.

The human sacrifices seem to have been quite frequent (even if that's hard to tell from archaeological evidence), for example I remember (from one of Miranda Greens books) that there seem to have been some belief that it was good to bury someone alive under a house when building it, as a sacrifice to the nether Gods. It's been almost 10 years since I studied this though, so my memory is a little vague and I cant remember exactly what she based this on.

The human sacrifices were abolished along with the Roman conquest, but seems, according to archaeological evidence, to have continued for a few more centuries.