I’m not really sure what that has to do with my post, which referenced the survival of Judaism, despite Roman (and various other societies’) efforts. Notably, the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE.
But while we’re at it, the “Holy” Roman empire also attempted to stamp out Judaism, but also failed.
The discussion we (which did not include “you”) were having concerned Pfury’s position that secular society will inevitably do away with religion as unnecessary hogwash. I posit his position being a matter of faith on his part, not backed by history, in that Judaism (just for example) survived not one, but two, efforts by secularists to destroy it (first by the secular Greeks ~2100 years ago) and more recently by the Communists in the Soviet Union (although that only affected a portion of the Jewish world).
You have injected yourself and appear to be saying Judaism is not unique, in that there remains a core of faithful in many religions.
Well, your point may be true.
But it has nothing to do with the discussion, unless you are arguing that Pfury is wrong because many religions are as stiff-necked as Jews, which I would be happy to agree with.
Is that your point? Or are you just babbling and adding nothing like you usually do?
Thinking about this about more. It’s a matter of opinion when you want to say Judaism “started.” It could be ~1500 BCE with Moses. Or, looking back further, Abrahamic monotheism, in general, is probably 3000 BCE (give or take 500 years).
Either way, that’s pretty much the bulk of recorded history to date, I think. Coincides with the first alphabets in the near east, anyway, and the end of the Neolithic Era.
Anything posted here is part of a discussion for everyone who posts here. That’s how these forums work.
If I add anything it won’t be the childish attitude you have no problem expressing. You state that you agree with me twice then come back with an insult. You say I added nothing but at the same time agree. You claim Jews are stiff-necked but you seem rather soft to me and easily triggered. I would even go so far as looking to get triggered.
Reactionaries and fanatics will read things the way they want, it isn’t your fault.
Society and culture will always have an influence on religion (aside from the fanatics but even they bend with the times) as religion is the product of society and culture. When religions fail to accept the changes occurring in the culture they will disappear. Religion, like the Mafia and politicians, adapts in order to survive.
That is what Jewbacca and I have been arguing against. Because is historically not true and hence predictably based on history that it will not be true in the future.
I think you have sufficiently back-tracked on this statement enough that the conversation is over. No use beating a dead horse.
If you want the last word you can have it. But our case has been sufficiently stated.
In this context, religion as a concept ABSOLUTELY bows to society.
My intent at the time of writing was that religion is required to change to stay alive, but I’m more than happy to die on the hill I just planted above as well.
Actually Jewbacca claimed I believe society will eventually do away with religion. He was patently wrong. Are you claiming the same?
The gap being what it is, is just a factor of time I am able to get to this forum and respond to things. So, it being 5 days after if just a matter of the fact that, that was the last time I was on and I am responding just where I last left it. It’s not a deliberate delay. Sometimes I can get on more frequently and sometimes I cannot.
I understand your point about the morphology of religion as society changes, but back when I was more interested in it, there were some very good arguments that we would not have societies (at least as we know them) if we did not have religions of various types.
If you include secular religions then that is not only probably true but inevitable as religion is a product of society that we seem to need, regardless of how it ends up affecting the society that created it.
Agreed 100%, which is why I’ve said many times in this thread alone that Religion as a concept isn’t going anywhere. Not directing this at you skyzyks
I’d say societIES (ie, Asian societies, greek societies, etc) are usually a product of religion, while societY (concept of society) came prior to religion.
It’s obvious that society came first. People would need a common language in order to be able to share whatever belief they end up sharing, for example. Also, early humans would have been too preoccupied with survival to sit around and form a religion. Religion comes in when a society believes it’s lacking something; answers, for one.
That’s been true in the case of Christianity historically. Early Christians were not interested in doing away with local culture, but to use the flavors of those cultures to celebrate the faith.