from A Charging Elephant:
Islam is not a religion it is a Cult
June 29, 2010 · 24 Comments
H/T 1dragon
From C. Read
Articlebase
For the past year, I’ve been writing about the horrors of this cult, the so-called “religion of piece.” To date I’ve not found an article that makes the case as succinctly, Random thoughts while observing the passing charade, I’m J.C.
Islam is not a religion, Islam is a cult. For anyone to think otherwise, they are not familiar with Islam or cults. There is a big difference between religions and cults. The basic difference is freedom. You are free to practice a religion if you choose. Free to go to church. Free not to go. This is not the case with Islam. This is because those who do not practice Islam in Islamic countries are put to death. There is a great deal of pressure to practice Islam in western countries as well.
A cult isolates you from others. One of the first things a cult leader does is to get the cult members away from those who do not share beliefs of the cult. Cult members are often driven away from family members. The purpose is to make the cult member more dependent on the cult. This is how Islam works. Islam is not a religion, Islam is a cult. Islam teaches that those who do not follow Islam are enemies. Muslims are discouraged from socializing with those of other faiths. The Koran states that those who do not follow Islam are enemies and should be driven off. Violence is even advocated for non believers. This is another example of why Islam is not a religion. Islam is a cult.
Islam is not a religion
Islam is a cult. For anyone to think otherwise, they are not familiar with Islam or cults. There is a big difference between religions and cults. The basic difference is freedom. You are free to practice a religion if you choose. Free to go to church. Free not to go. This is not the case with Islam. This is because those who do not practice Islam in Islamic countries are put to death. There is a great deal of pressure to practice Islam in western countries as well.
A cult isolates you from others. One of the first things a cult leader does is to get the cult members away from those who do not share beliefs of the cult. Cult members are often driven away from family members. The purpose is to make the cult member more dependent on the cult. This is how Islam works. Islam is not a religion, Islam is a cult. Islam teaches that those who do not follow Islam are enemies. Muslims are discouraged from socializing with those of other faiths. The Koran states that those who do not follow Islam are enemies and should be driven off. Violence is even advocated for non believers. This is another example of why Islam is not a religion. Islam is a cult.
Another aspect about cults is that they get followers to do things that disturb others to force their cult on others. Most cult members are brainwashed so that they are totally under control by the cult. This is the reason why so many Muslims are willing to strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up to take out as many non believers as possible. Regular religions do not advocate this type of violence or behavior. While a religion may ask that you give yourself to God, they do not ask that you do so wearing a suicide vest while killing innocent people. Or learn to fly a plane into buildings so that you can take out as many innocent lives as possible. No religion in the world advocates violence in the way that Islam does.
Those who defend Islam and make comparisons to Christianity, namely the Crusades, do not realize that during the Crusades, that happened many centuries ago, it was convert or die. Again, this did not happen a few years ago, but in a time when people also killed the infirm and used leeches as a form of medicine. And people were given a choice to convert. This is not the case with Islam. You do not have a choice. Suicide bombers and terrorists kill all targets without issuing a choice of conversion. Even their own. Islam requires total and unquestioning devotion to the cult, to the point where women and children are encouraged to die as martyrs and kill innocents. Islam is a cult.
It is hard to realize that Islam is not a religion because for years, we were told it was. An offshoot of Judaism and Christianity with all three religions being closely related. But as Islam has grown, its true colors have come out. Islam is not a religion, Islam is a cult.
Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/islam-is-not-a-religion-islam-is-a-cult-877139.html#ixzz0sGgU40jZ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Another aspect about cults is that they get followers to do things that disturb others to force their cult on others. Most cult members are brainwashed so that they are totally under control by the cult. This is the reason why so many Muslims are willing to strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up to take out as many non believers as possible. Regular religions do not advocate this type of violence or behavior. While a religion may ask that you give yourself to God, they do not ask that you do so wearing a suicide vest while killing innocent people. Or learn to fly a plane into buildings so that you can take out as many innocent lives as possible. No religion in the world advocates violence in the way that Islam does.
Those who defend Islam and make comparisons to Christianity, namely the Crusades, do not realize that during the Crusades, that happened many centuries ago, it was convert or die. Again, this did not happen a few years ago, but in a time when people also killed the infirm and used leeches as a form of medicine. And people were given a choice to convert. This is not the case with Islam. You do not have a choice. Suicide bombers and terrorists kill all targets without issuing a choice of conversion. Even their own. Islam requires total and unquestioning devotion to the cult, to the point where women and children are encouraged to die as martyrs and kill innocents. Islam is a cult.
It is hard to realize that Islam is not a religion because for years, we were told it was. An offshoot of Judaism and Christianity with all three religions being closely related. But as Islam has grown, its true colors have come out. Islam is not a religion, Islam is a cult.
Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/islam-is-not-a-religion-islam-is-a-cult-877139.html#ixzz0sGgU40jZ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
33.669465 -117.823111
Categories: Islam is not a religion it is a Cult · Uncategorized
Tagged: a cult, Islam, not a religion
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Legalism, the Mosaic Law, and the New Testament
From American Vision:
Legalism, the Mosaic Law, and the New Testament
By Gary DeMar
Published: January 19, 2010
Share Print XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to our RSS feeds for updates on this topic and others.
American Vision’s offering of E.C. Wines’ Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews brought many interesting responses. Some of them were troubling. One emailer asked, “Do you want legalism? I sure don’t!” Keeping God’s law is not legalism. Another emailer wrote, “Under the New Covenant, love the Lord God with all thy heart, mind, soul and strength. Love thy neighbor as thy self, encompasses all the law. We are not bound by Mosaic law! [Matt. 22:36–40].” I pointed out that in response to the question by the Pharisees about which is the Greatest Commandment, Jesus quoted the Mosaic law, in particular Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5. Jesus went on to say that “on these two commandments depend the whole Law and Prophets” (Matt. 22:40). Jesus did not say that because of these two laws the law passes away.
Of course, we learn later in the NT that laws related to the redemptive work of Jesus are completed. There is no longer any need for animal sacrifices, earthly priesthood, a stone temple, or circumcision. Jesus is our lamb, priest, and temple. Circumcision is no longer needed because the final seed (Jesus) was born. Circumcision is a blood rite, cleansing the seed. All things related to blood are fulfilled in Jesus. But there is no NT indication that the moral application of the OT law has passed away. Paul makes reference to the OT law when he wants to define love. “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Rom. 13:8). How do you know when you love your neighbor? How do you know when you love Jesus? “If you love me,” Jesus said, “you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Paul defines love toward a neighbor in the same way:
For this, “You shall not commit adultery , You shall not murder , You shall not steal , You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:9–10).
Loving your neighbor as yourself is a summary of the law. A summary does not nullify what it summarizes. Love isn’t a substitute for the law; love is defined by the law. Love is not a feeling; it’s an act. Love is what people do.
Jesus had His most vocal disputes with the Pharisees. This has led many Christians to believe that Jesus was opposed to the law, that He had come to nullify the law, because the Pharisees were all about keeping the law. The Pharisees, contrary to popular opinion, did not keep God’s law. They were not “the best people of their day.”[1] The best people were men like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias (Luke 1:6), and Joseph (Matt. 1:19), and women like Anna (Luke 2:36), Mary (Luke 1:46–56), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Elizabeth and Zacharias “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). The commandments of God were neglected by the Pharisees (Mark 7:8). They “nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition” (Mark 7:9). Jesus told the Pharisees that they had the devil as their father (John 8:44), not because they kept God’s law, but because they substituted it for a set of man-made traditions. James B. Jordan sets the record straight about the Pharisees:
We are used to thinking of the scribes and Pharisees as meticulous men who carefully observed the jots and tittles [of God’s law]. This is not the portrait found in the Gospels. The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus encountered were grossly, obviously, and flagrantly breaking the Mosaic law, while keeping all kinds of man-made traditions. Jesus’ condemnation of them in Matthew 23 certainly makes this clear, as does a famous story in John 8. There we read that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken “in the very act” of adultery (John 8:1–11). How did they know where to find her? Where was the man who was caught with her? Apparently he was one of their cronies. Also, when Jesus asked for anyone “without sin” (that is, not guilty of the same crime) to cast the first stone, they all went away, because they were all adulterers.[2]
When the “scribes and the Pharisees . . . seated themselves in the chair of Moses,” that is, when the law was properly taught and applied, the people were to do all that they told them (Matt. 23:2–3a). At the same time, Jesus admonished the people “not to do according to their deeds” (v. 3b) which were contrary to the law (read all of Matt. 23).
Does keeping the law save us? Did it save the Israelites in the OT? James tells us that “for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10). One sin, one transgression of the law, is enough to condemn us to eternal judgment. Only Jesus kept the law perfectly. God “made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus “redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8–10). In this sense, we are not under law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).
But does salvation by grace through faith mean that Christians are free to live any way they please since they are “redeemed from the curse of the law”? Paul asks it this way: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (Rom. 3:21). In another place Paul tells us that “the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8).
No one ever was or ever will be saved by keeping the law. This is the Bible’s point when Romans 6:14 says that the Christian is not under the law. This is far different from saying that the Christian is not obligated to obey the law as a standard of righteousness. In the very next verse, Paul states, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” (6:15).
Sin is defined as “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Obviously some law is still in force or there would be no sin, and if there is no sin then we do not need an Advocate with the Father. In addition, “if we confess our sins [‘lawlessness’]; He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins [lawlessness] and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
While there are many questions about which OT laws still apply under the NT, there is no debate that keeping God’s law is an important part of the Christian life.
Endnotes:
[1] George W. Lasher, “Regeneration—Conversion—Reformation,” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, et al., eds., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1917] 1988), 3:140.
[2] James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 267.
Legalism, the Mosaic Law, and the New Testament
By Gary DeMar
Published: January 19, 2010
Share Print XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to our RSS feeds for updates on this topic and others.
American Vision’s offering of E.C. Wines’ Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews brought many interesting responses. Some of them were troubling. One emailer asked, “Do you want legalism? I sure don’t!” Keeping God’s law is not legalism. Another emailer wrote, “Under the New Covenant, love the Lord God with all thy heart, mind, soul and strength. Love thy neighbor as thy self, encompasses all the law. We are not bound by Mosaic law! [Matt. 22:36–40].” I pointed out that in response to the question by the Pharisees about which is the Greatest Commandment, Jesus quoted the Mosaic law, in particular Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5. Jesus went on to say that “on these two commandments depend the whole Law and Prophets” (Matt. 22:40). Jesus did not say that because of these two laws the law passes away.
Of course, we learn later in the NT that laws related to the redemptive work of Jesus are completed. There is no longer any need for animal sacrifices, earthly priesthood, a stone temple, or circumcision. Jesus is our lamb, priest, and temple. Circumcision is no longer needed because the final seed (Jesus) was born. Circumcision is a blood rite, cleansing the seed. All things related to blood are fulfilled in Jesus. But there is no NT indication that the moral application of the OT law has passed away. Paul makes reference to the OT law when he wants to define love. “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Rom. 13:8). How do you know when you love your neighbor? How do you know when you love Jesus? “If you love me,” Jesus said, “you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Paul defines love toward a neighbor in the same way:
For this, “You shall not commit adultery , You shall not murder , You shall not steal , You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:9–10).
Loving your neighbor as yourself is a summary of the law. A summary does not nullify what it summarizes. Love isn’t a substitute for the law; love is defined by the law. Love is not a feeling; it’s an act. Love is what people do.
Jesus had His most vocal disputes with the Pharisees. This has led many Christians to believe that Jesus was opposed to the law, that He had come to nullify the law, because the Pharisees were all about keeping the law. The Pharisees, contrary to popular opinion, did not keep God’s law. They were not “the best people of their day.”[1] The best people were men like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias (Luke 1:6), and Joseph (Matt. 1:19), and women like Anna (Luke 2:36), Mary (Luke 1:46–56), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Elizabeth and Zacharias “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). The commandments of God were neglected by the Pharisees (Mark 7:8). They “nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition” (Mark 7:9). Jesus told the Pharisees that they had the devil as their father (John 8:44), not because they kept God’s law, but because they substituted it for a set of man-made traditions. James B. Jordan sets the record straight about the Pharisees:
We are used to thinking of the scribes and Pharisees as meticulous men who carefully observed the jots and tittles [of God’s law]. This is not the portrait found in the Gospels. The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus encountered were grossly, obviously, and flagrantly breaking the Mosaic law, while keeping all kinds of man-made traditions. Jesus’ condemnation of them in Matthew 23 certainly makes this clear, as does a famous story in John 8. There we read that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken “in the very act” of adultery (John 8:1–11). How did they know where to find her? Where was the man who was caught with her? Apparently he was one of their cronies. Also, when Jesus asked for anyone “without sin” (that is, not guilty of the same crime) to cast the first stone, they all went away, because they were all adulterers.[2]
When the “scribes and the Pharisees . . . seated themselves in the chair of Moses,” that is, when the law was properly taught and applied, the people were to do all that they told them (Matt. 23:2–3a). At the same time, Jesus admonished the people “not to do according to their deeds” (v. 3b) which were contrary to the law (read all of Matt. 23).
Does keeping the law save us? Did it save the Israelites in the OT? James tells us that “for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10). One sin, one transgression of the law, is enough to condemn us to eternal judgment. Only Jesus kept the law perfectly. God “made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus “redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8–10). In this sense, we are not under law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).
But does salvation by grace through faith mean that Christians are free to live any way they please since they are “redeemed from the curse of the law”? Paul asks it this way: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (Rom. 3:21). In another place Paul tells us that “the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8).
No one ever was or ever will be saved by keeping the law. This is the Bible’s point when Romans 6:14 says that the Christian is not under the law. This is far different from saying that the Christian is not obligated to obey the law as a standard of righteousness. In the very next verse, Paul states, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” (6:15).
Sin is defined as “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Obviously some law is still in force or there would be no sin, and if there is no sin then we do not need an Advocate with the Father. In addition, “if we confess our sins [‘lawlessness’]; He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins [lawlessness] and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
While there are many questions about which OT laws still apply under the NT, there is no debate that keeping God’s law is an important part of the Christian life.
Endnotes:
[1] George W. Lasher, “Regeneration—Conversion—Reformation,” The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, et al., eds., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1917] 1988), 3:140.
[2] James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 267.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Philosophy Word Of The Day: Forgiveness
From Cloud of Witnesses:
Philosophy Word of the Day — Forgiveness
Image via Wikipedia“From the ancient Greeks through the Hebrew and Christian Bibles to the present day, forgiveness has typically been regarded as a personal response to having been injured or wronged, or as a condition one seeks or hopes is bestowed upon one for having wronged someone else. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘forgivable,’ the first entry under the general term ‘forgive,’ as that which ‘may be forgiven, pardonable, excusable,’ referring thereby to the quality of deserving to be forgiven. This sense is illustrated in Jesus’ appeal ‘God forgive them, for they know not what they do’ (Luke 23:34), which suggests that ignorance is sometimes a condition that negates or tempers culpability, rendering wrongdoers forgivable. Notwithstanding the association with excusing conditions, forgiving is not, strictly speaking, equivalent to excusing. For wrongdoing that is excused entirely there is nothing to forgive, since wrongs that are fully excused are not blameworthy or culpable. And although excuses that mitigate, rather than negate, culpability, may serve as a rationale for forgiveness, they are not the same as forgiveness. Moreover, the application of the concept of forgiveness to nonmoral behavior, as in the case of a forgivably poor musical performance by a pianist, shows that forgiveness is not always or necessarily a moral term.
“The term ‘forgive’ derives from ‘give’ or to ‘grant’, as in ‘to give up,’ or ‘cease to harbor (resentment, wrath).’ More specifically, ‘forgive’ refers to the act of giving up a feeling, such as resentment, or a claim to requital or compensation. And the term ‘forgiveness’ is defined as the action of forgiving, pardoning of a fault, remission of a debt, and similar responses to injury, wrongdoing, or obligation. In this sense of the term, forgiveness is a dyadic relation involving a wrongdoer and a wronged party, and is thought to be a way in which victims of wrong alter their and a wrongdoer’s status by, for instance, acknowledging yet moving past a transgression. Though a dyadic relation, this general conception is not an account of forgiveness between two persons only, since it allows for forgiveness between individuals and groups, such as the forgiving of an individual’s debt by a financial institution, or the commutation of a prison sentence by an act of official pardon. And forgiveness may occur between groups of people, as evidenced by intra-national restorative justice efforts and government commissions established to effect truth and reconciliation between perpetrators and victims of historical wrongs.” (continue article)
— Paul M. Hughes, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy Word of the Day — Forgiveness
Image via Wikipedia“From the ancient Greeks through the Hebrew and Christian Bibles to the present day, forgiveness has typically been regarded as a personal response to having been injured or wronged, or as a condition one seeks or hopes is bestowed upon one for having wronged someone else. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘forgivable,’ the first entry under the general term ‘forgive,’ as that which ‘may be forgiven, pardonable, excusable,’ referring thereby to the quality of deserving to be forgiven. This sense is illustrated in Jesus’ appeal ‘God forgive them, for they know not what they do’ (Luke 23:34), which suggests that ignorance is sometimes a condition that negates or tempers culpability, rendering wrongdoers forgivable. Notwithstanding the association with excusing conditions, forgiving is not, strictly speaking, equivalent to excusing. For wrongdoing that is excused entirely there is nothing to forgive, since wrongs that are fully excused are not blameworthy or culpable. And although excuses that mitigate, rather than negate, culpability, may serve as a rationale for forgiveness, they are not the same as forgiveness. Moreover, the application of the concept of forgiveness to nonmoral behavior, as in the case of a forgivably poor musical performance by a pianist, shows that forgiveness is not always or necessarily a moral term.
“The term ‘forgive’ derives from ‘give’ or to ‘grant’, as in ‘to give up,’ or ‘cease to harbor (resentment, wrath).’ More specifically, ‘forgive’ refers to the act of giving up a feeling, such as resentment, or a claim to requital or compensation. And the term ‘forgiveness’ is defined as the action of forgiving, pardoning of a fault, remission of a debt, and similar responses to injury, wrongdoing, or obligation. In this sense of the term, forgiveness is a dyadic relation involving a wrongdoer and a wronged party, and is thought to be a way in which victims of wrong alter their and a wrongdoer’s status by, for instance, acknowledging yet moving past a transgression. Though a dyadic relation, this general conception is not an account of forgiveness between two persons only, since it allows for forgiveness between individuals and groups, such as the forgiving of an individual’s debt by a financial institution, or the commutation of a prison sentence by an act of official pardon. And forgiveness may occur between groups of people, as evidenced by intra-national restorative justice efforts and government commissions established to effect truth and reconciliation between perpetrators and victims of historical wrongs.” (continue article)
— Paul M. Hughes, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Boise, Idaho On Book-Banning Binge
From American Vision:
Boise Book Banning Craze
By Gary DeMar
Published: June 18, 2010
Share Print XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to our RSS feeds for updates on this topic and others.
Officials in Idaho are attempting to ban any book they determine to be religious from being used in schools. If successful, this would exclude quite a lot of historical documents and accounts, from the U.S. Constitution to the works of Shakespeare. As Christians, we have to engage in society and be the salt and light we are called to be.
Boise Book Banning Craze
By Gary DeMar
Published: June 18, 2010
Share Print XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to our RSS feeds for updates on this topic and others.
Officials in Idaho are attempting to ban any book they determine to be religious from being used in schools. If successful, this would exclude quite a lot of historical documents and accounts, from the U.S. Constitution to the works of Shakespeare. As Christians, we have to engage in society and be the salt and light we are called to be.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Zoroastrianism
From The Silk Road Foundation:
Zoroastrianism
By E. J. Keall Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies, University of Toronto, Revised by Irma Marx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoroastrianism, is the religion founded by Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, in Persia toward the end of the seventh century BCE. Today, obscurity still surrounds many details of the personality of Zoroaster, as well as the time and place of his preaching. Scholars have dated his birth in the latter half of the seventh century BCE and his death seventy-seven years later. When he was thirty years old, he began his ministry, but for ten years he had only one disciple, his cousin. His progress began when he converted his doctrine to a local ruler, Vashtaspa. Under the royal auspices, disciples rapidly increased, but holy wars developed between believers and unbelievers. In one of these battles Zoroaster was killed, but his faith lived on. To spread the Zoroastrian faith, missionaries carried its message throughout the land until it became a national religion. Later it spread beyond the border of Persia, and in time it interpenetrated Hebraic and Hellenistic thought, but it is difficult to trace any direct influence upon these later intellectual developments.
The conflict with Rome and the struggle over Armenia had been hightened by the issue of Christianity. The Iranians were Zoroastrians. In fact, by instituting the beliefs of the cult associated with Ahura Mazda as a state religion, the Sasanians had become militant Zoroastrians. As expressed under the regime in the form of orthodox Zoroastrian dualism, the good spirit of light Ohrmizd (Ahura Mazda), was opposed to the demon of evil, Ahriman. Ahriman was associated with subordinate angels, but these enjoyed a position in the official expression of the faith far inferior to that of the holy element of fire. The reverence for fire has given erroneous cause for the belief that the Zoroastrians were fire worshippers. By their insistence upon the orthodox form of dualistic Zoroastrianism and their persecution of heresies and even mildly heterodox cults, the Sasanians were responsible for the increasing formalization of the faith, for which the tending of the holy fires became one of the most highly prescribed rituals.
Many once-domed structures of the Sasanian era that survived have been labeled 'fire-temples' without any justification. Some of the surviving buildings could possibly be associated with secular pavilions or parts of palaces. The fire-temple designation has been applied simply because the tending of the holy fires appears to outsiders as the most exotic aspect of the religion. The Muslim conquerors of the seventh century AD were amazed by the numerous fire-temples, and some of these buildings were converted into mosques, which became the most distinctive architectural aspect of later Iranian architecture.
There were three categories of fires corresponding to the three original castes of society: priests, warrior, and commoners. In addition, there was the king's own royal fire. This was lit at the beginning of his reign and carried around on a portable altar. The fire is illustrated on the reverse of the silver coins. It is also known that there were prescribed rituals for the renewal of the strength of the fire, from parent fire down to that in the private home. Materials used were specially purified for the purpose and, after being brought out into the open for a ceremony, the fire was returned to its sanctuary for further purification. Unfortunately, it is difficult to disentangle the ancient Zoroastrian practices from the way in which customs have developed within the post-Islamic Zoroastrian communities, which are represented in their largest numbers by the Parsees of India. In Sasanian times various popular and philosophic believes including magic and demonology were also held by the people, and these attitudes survived in spite of the increasing formalistic expression of the religion and the growth of a rigid caste system for the priesthood.
The priest Kartir, who became prominent under Shapur I, was probably responsible for the most extreme orthodox practices. His inscriptions on the rock relief of Shapur and Bahram II attest to the fact that he was one of the most important figures in the empire, playing an important political, as well as religious role. The attitudes of Kartir were not original, for Ardashir had destroyed pagan monuments and had established fire-temples in their places before Shapur I. But Kartir was particularly zealous in that endeavor. He attacked Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Manichaeans and Christians alike during the reign of five kings, from Shapur I to Narseh.
It is generally thought that Narseh was reasonably tolerant of the Manichaean faith. Mani had preached a more syncretistic religion, combining both Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs, based on universalism put forward by other gnostic sects. After preaching in India, Mani returned to Iran, where his ideas received considerable acceptance, even amongst members of the royal family. But he encountered the zeal of Kartir, who pronounced him as heretic, and Mani was executed. After his death, Manichaeism spread into Central Asia, even reached China. In spite of his official tolerance, Manichaean beliefs continued to be regarded as heretical by the clergy. The strict attitudes of Kartir were later relaxed, but not overthrown.
Later Islamic scribes wrote of various Zoroastrian sects, though modern commentators argue that it was a question of different schools of philosophical thought rather than different sects as such. The greatest conflict within Zoroastrianism itself involved the interpretation of the meaning of evil. The Mazdakists believed in the strictly separate origin of good and evil (Ohrmizd and Ahnrima respectively; others, called Zurvanites, believed that Ohrmizd and Ahriman had their origins from Zurvan, or 'infinite time'. Zurvangte tendencies were widespread in Sasanian times, and some commentators have argued that it actually became the dominant form of Zoroastrianism towards the end of the empire. It does seem that the largely pessimistic attitudes of the Zurvanites were particularly appropriate in that age of speculative gnosticism. But whether it came to dominate Zoroastrianism or not, it is clear that Zurvanism was eliminated as a philosophy amongst the surviving members of the Zoroastrian community, after the conquest of Islam.
A major heretical faith of the fourth century AD was Christianity. According to the Syrian sources, Christianity had gained a foothold in the Aramaic-speaking territories of the Tigris and Euphrates as early as the Parthian period. It is likely that the settlement of prisoners from Antioch may have helped encourage the spread of Christianity in western Iran. In AD 274, King Tiridates of Armenia adopted Christianity. But so long as Rome remained pagan, the Christians experienced no greater persecution than the followers of any other heterodox faith. However, the conversion of emperor 'Constantine' and the adoption by Rome as the official Christian faith, Christians in Iran were identified with one of the country's major political enemies. Persecution naturally followed. The first great purge occurred in AD 339, under Shapur II, who was vigorous in the pursuit of orthodox Zoroastrianism. He was responsible for ordering the first compilation of the religious writings of the Avesta. Christians feared a little better under his successors. Yazdigird I (AD 339-421) was extremely tolerant of both Jews and Christians; and, because of his inability to make headway against the Romans, Bahram V was forced to conclude a peace in which he granted freedom of worship to the Christians. But the most important change came in AD 483, when the Christian council Iran officially adopted the Nestorian doctrine as its dogma. Henceforth, the Christians of Iran did not always need to be identified completely with the power of Rome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoroastrianism
By E. J. Keall Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies, University of Toronto, Revised by Irma Marx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoroastrianism, is the religion founded by Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, in Persia toward the end of the seventh century BCE. Today, obscurity still surrounds many details of the personality of Zoroaster, as well as the time and place of his preaching. Scholars have dated his birth in the latter half of the seventh century BCE and his death seventy-seven years later. When he was thirty years old, he began his ministry, but for ten years he had only one disciple, his cousin. His progress began when he converted his doctrine to a local ruler, Vashtaspa. Under the royal auspices, disciples rapidly increased, but holy wars developed between believers and unbelievers. In one of these battles Zoroaster was killed, but his faith lived on. To spread the Zoroastrian faith, missionaries carried its message throughout the land until it became a national religion. Later it spread beyond the border of Persia, and in time it interpenetrated Hebraic and Hellenistic thought, but it is difficult to trace any direct influence upon these later intellectual developments.
The conflict with Rome and the struggle over Armenia had been hightened by the issue of Christianity. The Iranians were Zoroastrians. In fact, by instituting the beliefs of the cult associated with Ahura Mazda as a state religion, the Sasanians had become militant Zoroastrians. As expressed under the regime in the form of orthodox Zoroastrian dualism, the good spirit of light Ohrmizd (Ahura Mazda), was opposed to the demon of evil, Ahriman. Ahriman was associated with subordinate angels, but these enjoyed a position in the official expression of the faith far inferior to that of the holy element of fire. The reverence for fire has given erroneous cause for the belief that the Zoroastrians were fire worshippers. By their insistence upon the orthodox form of dualistic Zoroastrianism and their persecution of heresies and even mildly heterodox cults, the Sasanians were responsible for the increasing formalization of the faith, for which the tending of the holy fires became one of the most highly prescribed rituals.
Many once-domed structures of the Sasanian era that survived have been labeled 'fire-temples' without any justification. Some of the surviving buildings could possibly be associated with secular pavilions or parts of palaces. The fire-temple designation has been applied simply because the tending of the holy fires appears to outsiders as the most exotic aspect of the religion. The Muslim conquerors of the seventh century AD were amazed by the numerous fire-temples, and some of these buildings were converted into mosques, which became the most distinctive architectural aspect of later Iranian architecture.
There were three categories of fires corresponding to the three original castes of society: priests, warrior, and commoners. In addition, there was the king's own royal fire. This was lit at the beginning of his reign and carried around on a portable altar. The fire is illustrated on the reverse of the silver coins. It is also known that there were prescribed rituals for the renewal of the strength of the fire, from parent fire down to that in the private home. Materials used were specially purified for the purpose and, after being brought out into the open for a ceremony, the fire was returned to its sanctuary for further purification. Unfortunately, it is difficult to disentangle the ancient Zoroastrian practices from the way in which customs have developed within the post-Islamic Zoroastrian communities, which are represented in their largest numbers by the Parsees of India. In Sasanian times various popular and philosophic believes including magic and demonology were also held by the people, and these attitudes survived in spite of the increasing formalistic expression of the religion and the growth of a rigid caste system for the priesthood.
The priest Kartir, who became prominent under Shapur I, was probably responsible for the most extreme orthodox practices. His inscriptions on the rock relief of Shapur and Bahram II attest to the fact that he was one of the most important figures in the empire, playing an important political, as well as religious role. The attitudes of Kartir were not original, for Ardashir had destroyed pagan monuments and had established fire-temples in their places before Shapur I. But Kartir was particularly zealous in that endeavor. He attacked Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Manichaeans and Christians alike during the reign of five kings, from Shapur I to Narseh.
It is generally thought that Narseh was reasonably tolerant of the Manichaean faith. Mani had preached a more syncretistic religion, combining both Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs, based on universalism put forward by other gnostic sects. After preaching in India, Mani returned to Iran, where his ideas received considerable acceptance, even amongst members of the royal family. But he encountered the zeal of Kartir, who pronounced him as heretic, and Mani was executed. After his death, Manichaeism spread into Central Asia, even reached China. In spite of his official tolerance, Manichaean beliefs continued to be regarded as heretical by the clergy. The strict attitudes of Kartir were later relaxed, but not overthrown.
Later Islamic scribes wrote of various Zoroastrian sects, though modern commentators argue that it was a question of different schools of philosophical thought rather than different sects as such. The greatest conflict within Zoroastrianism itself involved the interpretation of the meaning of evil. The Mazdakists believed in the strictly separate origin of good and evil (Ohrmizd and Ahnrima respectively; others, called Zurvanites, believed that Ohrmizd and Ahriman had their origins from Zurvan, or 'infinite time'. Zurvangte tendencies were widespread in Sasanian times, and some commentators have argued that it actually became the dominant form of Zoroastrianism towards the end of the empire. It does seem that the largely pessimistic attitudes of the Zurvanites were particularly appropriate in that age of speculative gnosticism. But whether it came to dominate Zoroastrianism or not, it is clear that Zurvanism was eliminated as a philosophy amongst the surviving members of the Zoroastrian community, after the conquest of Islam.
A major heretical faith of the fourth century AD was Christianity. According to the Syrian sources, Christianity had gained a foothold in the Aramaic-speaking territories of the Tigris and Euphrates as early as the Parthian period. It is likely that the settlement of prisoners from Antioch may have helped encourage the spread of Christianity in western Iran. In AD 274, King Tiridates of Armenia adopted Christianity. But so long as Rome remained pagan, the Christians experienced no greater persecution than the followers of any other heterodox faith. However, the conversion of emperor 'Constantine' and the adoption by Rome as the official Christian faith, Christians in Iran were identified with one of the country's major political enemies. Persecution naturally followed. The first great purge occurred in AD 339, under Shapur II, who was vigorous in the pursuit of orthodox Zoroastrianism. He was responsible for ordering the first compilation of the religious writings of the Avesta. Christians feared a little better under his successors. Yazdigird I (AD 339-421) was extremely tolerant of both Jews and Christians; and, because of his inability to make headway against the Romans, Bahram V was forced to conclude a peace in which he granted freedom of worship to the Christians. But the most important change came in AD 483, when the Christian council Iran officially adopted the Nestorian doctrine as its dogma. Henceforth, the Christians of Iran did not always need to be identified completely with the power of Rome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoroastrianism
From The Silk Road Foundation:
Zoroastrianism
By E. J. Keall Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies, University of Toronto, Revised by Irma Marx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoroastrianism, is the religion founded by Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, in Persia toward the end of the seventh century BCE. Today, obscurity still surrounds many details of the personality of Zoroaster, as well as the time and place of his preaching. Scholars have dated his birth in the latter half of the seventh century BCE and his death seventy-seven years later. When he was thirty years old, he began his ministry, but for ten years he had only one disciple, his cousin. His progress began when he converted his doctrine to a local ruler, Vashtaspa. Under the royal auspices, disciples rapidly increased, but holy wars developed between believers and unbelievers. In one of these battles Zoroaster was killed, but his faith lived on. To spread the Zoroastrian faith, missionaries carried its message throughout the land until it became a national religion. Later it spread beyond the border of Persia, and in time it interpenetrated Hebraic and Hellenistic thought, but it is difficult to trace any direct influence upon these later intellectual developments.
The conflict with Rome and the struggle over Armenia had been hightened by the issue of Christianity. The Iranians were Zoroastrians. In fact, by instituting the beliefs of the cult associated with Ahura Mazda as a state religion, the Sasanians had become militant Zoroastrians. As expressed under the regime in the form of orthodox Zoroastrian dualism, the good spirit of light Ohrmizd (Ahura Mazda), was opposed to the demon of evil, Ahriman. Ahriman was associated with subordinate angels, but these enjoyed a position in the official expression of the faith far inferior to that of the holy element of fire. The reverence for fire has given erroneous cause for the belief that the Zoroastrians were fire worshippers. By their insistence upon the orthodox form of dualistic Zoroastrianism and their persecution of heresies and even mildly heterodox cults, the Sasanians were responsible for the increasing formalization of the faith, for which the tending of the holy fires became one of the most highly prescribed rituals.
Many once-domed structures of the Sasanian era that survived have been labeled 'fire-temples' without any justification. Some of the surviving buildings could possibly be associated with secular pavilions or parts of palaces. The fire-temple designation has been applied simply because the tending of the holy fires appears to outsiders as the most exotic aspect of the religion. The Muslim conquerors of the seventh century AD were amazed by the numerous fire-temples, and some of these buildings were converted into mosques, which became the most distinctive architectural aspect of later Iranian architecture.
There were three categories of fires corresponding to the three original castes of society: priests, warrior, and commoners. In addition, there was the king's own royal fire. This was lit at the beginning of his reign and carried around on a portable altar. The fire is illustrated on the reverse of the silver coins. It is also known that there were prescribed rituals for the renewal of the strength of the fire, from parent fire down to that in the private home. Materials used were specially purified for the purpose and, after being brought out into the open for a ceremony, the fire was returned to its sanctuary for further purification. Unfortunately, it is difficult to disentangle the ancient Zoroastrian practices from the way in which customs have developed within the post-Islamic Zoroastrian communities, which are represented in their largest numbers by the Parsees of India. In Sasanian times various popular and philosophic believes including magic and demonology were also held by the people, and these attitudes survived in spite of the increasing formalistic expression of the religion and the growth of a rigid caste system for the priesthood.
The priest Kartir, who became prominent under Shapur I, was probably responsible for the most extreme orthodox practices. His inscriptions on the rock relief of Shapur and Bahram II attest to the fact that he was one of the most important figures in the empire, playing an important political, as well as religious role. The attitudes of Kartir were not original, for Ardashir had destroyed pagan monuments and had established fire-temples in their places before Shapur I. But Kartir was particularly zealous in that endeavor. He attacked Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Manichaeans and Christians alike during the reign of five kings, from Shapur I to Narseh.
It is generally thought that Narseh was reasonably tolerant of the Manichaean faith. Mani had preached a more syncretistic religion, combining both Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs, based on universalism put forward by other gnostic sects. After preaching in India, Mani returned to Iran, where his ideas received considerable acceptance, even amongst members of the royal family. But he encountered the zeal of Kartir, who pronounced him as heretic, and Mani was executed. After his death, Manichaeism spread into Central Asia, even reached China. In spite of his official tolerance, Manichaean beliefs continued to be regarded as heretical by the clergy. The strict attitudes of Kartir were later relaxed, but not overthrown.
Later Islamic scribes wrote of various Zoroastrian sects, though modern commentators argue that it was a question of different schools of philosophical thought rather than different sects as such. The greatest conflict within Zoroastrianism itself involved the interpretation of the meaning of evil. The Mazdakists believed in the strictly separate origin of good and evil (Ohrmizd and Ahnrima respectively; others, called Zurvanites, believed that Ohrmizd and Ahriman had their origins from Zurvan, or 'infinite time'. Zurvangte tendencies were widespread in Sasanian times, and some commentators have argued that it actually became the dominant form of Zoroastrianism towards the end of the empire. It does seem that the largely pessimistic attitudes of the Zurvanites were particularly appropriate in that age of speculative gnosticism. But whether it came to dominate Zoroastrianism or not, it is clear that Zurvanism was eliminated as a philosophy amongst the surviving members of the Zoroastrian community, after the conquest of Islam.
A major heretical faith of the fourth century AD was Christianity. According to the Syrian sources, Christianity had gained a foothold in the Aramaic-speaking territories of the Tigris and Euphrates as early as the Parthian period. It is likely that the settlement of prisoners from Antioch may have helped encourage the spread of Christianity in western Iran. In AD 274, King Tiridates of Armenia adopted Christianity. But so long as Rome remained pagan, the Christians experienced no greater persecution than the followers of any other heterodox faith. However, the conversion of emperor 'Constantine' and the adoption by Rome as the official Christian faith, Christians in Iran were identified with one of the country's major political enemies. Persecution naturally followed. The first great purge occurred in AD 339, under Shapur II, who was vigorous in the pursuit of orthodox Zoroastrianism. He was responsible for ordering the first compilation of the religious writings of the Avesta. Christians feared a little better under his successors. Yazdigird I (AD 339-421) was extremely tolerant of both Jews and Christians; and, because of his inability to make headway against the Romans, Bahram V was forced to conclude a peace in which he granted freedom of worship to the Christians. But the most important change came in AD 483, when the Christian council Iran officially adopted the Nestorian doctrine as its dogma. Henceforth, the Christians of Iran did not always need to be identified completely with the power of Rome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoroastrianism
By E. J. Keall Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies, University of Toronto, Revised by Irma Marx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoroastrianism, is the religion founded by Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, in Persia toward the end of the seventh century BCE. Today, obscurity still surrounds many details of the personality of Zoroaster, as well as the time and place of his preaching. Scholars have dated his birth in the latter half of the seventh century BCE and his death seventy-seven years later. When he was thirty years old, he began his ministry, but for ten years he had only one disciple, his cousin. His progress began when he converted his doctrine to a local ruler, Vashtaspa. Under the royal auspices, disciples rapidly increased, but holy wars developed between believers and unbelievers. In one of these battles Zoroaster was killed, but his faith lived on. To spread the Zoroastrian faith, missionaries carried its message throughout the land until it became a national religion. Later it spread beyond the border of Persia, and in time it interpenetrated Hebraic and Hellenistic thought, but it is difficult to trace any direct influence upon these later intellectual developments.
The conflict with Rome and the struggle over Armenia had been hightened by the issue of Christianity. The Iranians were Zoroastrians. In fact, by instituting the beliefs of the cult associated with Ahura Mazda as a state religion, the Sasanians had become militant Zoroastrians. As expressed under the regime in the form of orthodox Zoroastrian dualism, the good spirit of light Ohrmizd (Ahura Mazda), was opposed to the demon of evil, Ahriman. Ahriman was associated with subordinate angels, but these enjoyed a position in the official expression of the faith far inferior to that of the holy element of fire. The reverence for fire has given erroneous cause for the belief that the Zoroastrians were fire worshippers. By their insistence upon the orthodox form of dualistic Zoroastrianism and their persecution of heresies and even mildly heterodox cults, the Sasanians were responsible for the increasing formalization of the faith, for which the tending of the holy fires became one of the most highly prescribed rituals.
Many once-domed structures of the Sasanian era that survived have been labeled 'fire-temples' without any justification. Some of the surviving buildings could possibly be associated with secular pavilions or parts of palaces. The fire-temple designation has been applied simply because the tending of the holy fires appears to outsiders as the most exotic aspect of the religion. The Muslim conquerors of the seventh century AD were amazed by the numerous fire-temples, and some of these buildings were converted into mosques, which became the most distinctive architectural aspect of later Iranian architecture.
There were three categories of fires corresponding to the three original castes of society: priests, warrior, and commoners. In addition, there was the king's own royal fire. This was lit at the beginning of his reign and carried around on a portable altar. The fire is illustrated on the reverse of the silver coins. It is also known that there were prescribed rituals for the renewal of the strength of the fire, from parent fire down to that in the private home. Materials used were specially purified for the purpose and, after being brought out into the open for a ceremony, the fire was returned to its sanctuary for further purification. Unfortunately, it is difficult to disentangle the ancient Zoroastrian practices from the way in which customs have developed within the post-Islamic Zoroastrian communities, which are represented in their largest numbers by the Parsees of India. In Sasanian times various popular and philosophic believes including magic and demonology were also held by the people, and these attitudes survived in spite of the increasing formalistic expression of the religion and the growth of a rigid caste system for the priesthood.
The priest Kartir, who became prominent under Shapur I, was probably responsible for the most extreme orthodox practices. His inscriptions on the rock relief of Shapur and Bahram II attest to the fact that he was one of the most important figures in the empire, playing an important political, as well as religious role. The attitudes of Kartir were not original, for Ardashir had destroyed pagan monuments and had established fire-temples in their places before Shapur I. But Kartir was particularly zealous in that endeavor. He attacked Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Manichaeans and Christians alike during the reign of five kings, from Shapur I to Narseh.
It is generally thought that Narseh was reasonably tolerant of the Manichaean faith. Mani had preached a more syncretistic religion, combining both Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs, based on universalism put forward by other gnostic sects. After preaching in India, Mani returned to Iran, where his ideas received considerable acceptance, even amongst members of the royal family. But he encountered the zeal of Kartir, who pronounced him as heretic, and Mani was executed. After his death, Manichaeism spread into Central Asia, even reached China. In spite of his official tolerance, Manichaean beliefs continued to be regarded as heretical by the clergy. The strict attitudes of Kartir were later relaxed, but not overthrown.
Later Islamic scribes wrote of various Zoroastrian sects, though modern commentators argue that it was a question of different schools of philosophical thought rather than different sects as such. The greatest conflict within Zoroastrianism itself involved the interpretation of the meaning of evil. The Mazdakists believed in the strictly separate origin of good and evil (Ohrmizd and Ahnrima respectively; others, called Zurvanites, believed that Ohrmizd and Ahriman had their origins from Zurvan, or 'infinite time'. Zurvangte tendencies were widespread in Sasanian times, and some commentators have argued that it actually became the dominant form of Zoroastrianism towards the end of the empire. It does seem that the largely pessimistic attitudes of the Zurvanites were particularly appropriate in that age of speculative gnosticism. But whether it came to dominate Zoroastrianism or not, it is clear that Zurvanism was eliminated as a philosophy amongst the surviving members of the Zoroastrian community, after the conquest of Islam.
A major heretical faith of the fourth century AD was Christianity. According to the Syrian sources, Christianity had gained a foothold in the Aramaic-speaking territories of the Tigris and Euphrates as early as the Parthian period. It is likely that the settlement of prisoners from Antioch may have helped encourage the spread of Christianity in western Iran. In AD 274, King Tiridates of Armenia adopted Christianity. But so long as Rome remained pagan, the Christians experienced no greater persecution than the followers of any other heterodox faith. However, the conversion of emperor 'Constantine' and the adoption by Rome as the official Christian faith, Christians in Iran were identified with one of the country's major political enemies. Persecution naturally followed. The first great purge occurred in AD 339, under Shapur II, who was vigorous in the pursuit of orthodox Zoroastrianism. He was responsible for ordering the first compilation of the religious writings of the Avesta. Christians feared a little better under his successors. Yazdigird I (AD 339-421) was extremely tolerant of both Jews and Christians; and, because of his inability to make headway against the Romans, Bahram V was forced to conclude a peace in which he granted freedom of worship to the Christians. But the most important change came in AD 483, when the Christian council Iran officially adopted the Nestorian doctrine as its dogma. Henceforth, the Christians of Iran did not always need to be identified completely with the power of Rome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American Spirituality
A Summary of Native American Religions
by David Ruvolo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The history of American religions is dominated by the presence of Christianity brought to the New World by European settlers. Columbus's discovery in 1492 marked the beginning of a massive "white" invasion that would consume the entire continent of North America over the next four centuries. Although Christianity manifested itself in countless denominations, it was, nevertheless, the umbrella under which most Europeans in America gathered. It served as common ground on which white settlers could stand together in the struggle for survival in the wilderness of the New World. Whatever differences there were between denominations were insignificant when compared to the differences between the white European Christianity and their counterparts on the continent, the resident Native Americans. This fact, along with the desire and need for land, turned Native Americans into a convenient enemy for most groups of European settlers.
In essence, time had run out for the indigenous race that populated the continent of North America. Like the Israelites of the sixth century B.C.E., Native Americans were faced with an enemy that was more advanced. Ironically, the invading whites are the religious descendants of those same Israelites who were conquered by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E.. Armed with technologically advanced weapons, diseases which were foreign to the continent, and a concept known as Manifest Destiny, European settlers began an assault on the North American Continent the result of which was nothing short of genocide. Within four hundred years of their first contact, the white man had succeeded in stripping Native American civilizations of virtually all of their land and had nearly wiped their cultures from the face of the earth.
Popular American history has traditionally viewed the past through white eyes. Much of the history and culture of many Native American civilizations were lost during the European invasion of the continent. The absence of a written language among most tribes force them to depend on aril traditions that were difficult to maintain as their civilizations were being killed off and separated by the dominant white culture. For this reason, it is often difficult to locate information concerning the religious beliefs and rituals of the large variety of Native American civilizations that flourished in North America before the time of the European invasion. This project will provide some of this information by taking a cross-section of certain Native American tribes from separate and distinct geographic regions and comparing certain aspects of each of their religious beliefs and rituals. I plan to show how each tribe's religion was impacted by the environmental conditions that surrounded it, and in what ways these religions were affected by the invasion of Christianity. The Iroquois Nation of the eastern woodlands, the Dakota tribes of the central plains, and the Apache tribes of the southwestern desert shall serve as the subjects of this project.
The Iroquois Nation of the eastern woodlands was one of the most highly organized civilizations that developed among Native American tribes in North America. This particular "league", as it is sometimes referred , is surpassed in greatness only by the advanced civilizations of the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas in the pre-discovered Western world. "They achieved for themselves a more remarkable civil organization, and acquired a higher degree of influence, than any other race of Indian lineage,...{in North America}." (Morgan 1954,3). The league occupied most of the area that makes up the present day state of New York, however, it's influence and territory extended into parts of Canada. Their society was centered around the wilderness that surrounded them. The Iroquois relied on agriculture, as well as hunting and gathering. Their environment provided them with fertile soil, plentiful game, and streams that were full of fish. The rich natural resources that surrounded the Iroquois were undoubtedly their greatest strength and directly responsible for the success of the nation.
The relative ease at which the Iroquois Nation was able to provide for the needs of it's people allowed for the development of a systematic belief system that was more developed than most other systems found among Native American civilizations. According to Lewis H. Morgan, their religion is characterized by a monotheistic belief in an all-powerful creator known as the "Great Spirit", or "Ha-wen-ne-yu." "The Iroquois believed in the constant superintending care of the Great Spirit. He ruled and administered the world, and the affairs of the red race." (1954,146). The Iroquois failed to see the need in developing a detailed conception of their creator. This knowledge was thought to be above and beyond their capabilities to understand. His power was administered to the material world through "a class of inferior spiritual existences, by whom he was surrounded." (1954,147). While divine attributes concerning the Great Spirit remained undeveloped, the Iroquois gave detailed descriptions of this lower class of spirits that interacted with the material world. The were known as "Invisible Agents" or "Ho-no-che-no-keh." (Morgan 1954). The power possessed by these spirits was given to them by the Great Spirit and were the manifestations of his unlimited power. Some of these spirits were given names, however, they were often identified with the object or force that they presided over. For example, He-no, one of the more important spirits, was given the thunderbolt and controlled the weather. According to Morgan, he had the form of man and wore the costume of a warrior (1954,147).
While the Iroquois belief system centered around the idea of a benevolent Great Spirit, it did not ignore the existence of evil in the world. Evil is represented by the brother of the Great Spirit, "Ha-ne-go-ate-geh", or "the Evil-minded" (1954,147). This evil spirit exists independently and controls it's own inferior spiritual beings. These agents of evil also exist in the material world and are place there in an attempt to bring about evil. According to Morgan, the Great Spirit does not have any type of positive authority over the Evil-minded, except for the power to overcome him when necessary (1954,148). The red race is left to choose either obedience to the Great Spirit or submission to the Evil-minded. It is important to note that the Iroquois developed the idea of an immortal soul. This soul was judged by the Great Spirit upon the death of the body. The threat of punishment in the afterlife increased morality concerns, which aided in the success of the Iroquois Nation.
The ritual ceremonies practiced by the Iroquois tribes were systematic worship services that occurred in accordance to certain seasonal periods throughout the year. The rituals were handed down through the generation and remained unchanged for centuries. Festival most commonly occurred during important agricultural periods. Worship and thanks were given to the Great Spirit for protection and survival. One of the "Invisible Agents" were usually honored depending on what time of year the ceremony was taking place. The ceremonies were led by "Keepers of the Faith", or "Ho-nun-den-ont" (Morgan 1953,177). They were not an organized priesthood like one would imagine, but rather a loosely organized council of qualified individuals who were assigned the task of maintaining the ritual practices of the Iroquois people.
The Iroquois were first encountered by the white man around 1609 during the height of Dutch exploration. The league spent the majority of the seventeenth century at war with neighboring tribes as well as French invaders. Their influence spread through the northeast and reached a culminating point around the turn of the century. Within fifty years of this time, the power and population of the once proud Iroquois Nation was cut in half. White settlers had moved into their territory and forced the Iroquois to give up their homeland.
The belief system of the Iroquois was the closest a Native American civilization had come to the complex theology of Christianity. One major difference between the two religions is evident when looking at how each faith explains mankind's participation in the workings of the universe. While most Christian denominations sought to participate actively in the evolution of their world, the Iroquois say mankind as too insignificant to take part in the grand scheme of the Great Spirit. For example, many Christian denomination, like the Puritans of New England, believed that they were the chosen people of God and were working toward the creation of a true "Kingdom of God" located in America. The Iroquois, on the other hand, believed that the world was as it should be, and there was nothing that could be done by mankind to change this fact. This idea would eventually change somewhat as the Iroquois were influenced more and more by European Christianity. Furthermore, their ideas concerning punishment in the afterlife were also influenced by Christian concepts. According to Morgan, the Christian concept of purgatory seems to have seeped into the Iroquois belief system sometime during the white man's invasion (1954,163).
While the Iroquois Nation was the strongest Native American civilization east of the Mississippi river, their integration into the dominant white culture went relatively smooth compared to most other instances of integration among the native tribes of North America. I think this was due to the similarities between their belief systems which made it easier for the two races to find common ground. The religion practiced by Iroquois descendants is remarkably similar to the one practiced by their ancestors. The similarities between the two distinct religions seem to have saved the weaker Native American system from extinction.
The Dakota, or Sioux as the are commonly called, inhabited the great plains and prairies surrounding the modern states of North and South Dakota, as well as Minnesota. This was their home until white mining interests forced them out of their homeland during the mid-1800's. The Dakotas were less organized and more spread out than their cousins in the east, the Iroquois. Their society was based almost entirely on the hunting of buffalo, which provided them with virtually all of their survival needs. Their territory consisted of seasonal hunting grounds that forced the tribal units to live a nomadic lifestyle on the plains. There was no need for permanent settlements due to the fact buffalo herds would rarely stay in one place for a long period of time. The Dakota's existence centered around the movements of the herds.
According to Raymond J. DeMallie, the Dakota world was "characterized by its oneness, its unity." (1987,27). There was no separation of the natural world from the world of the supernatural. This unity in nature was thought to be beyond the comprehension of mankind and could only be shared in through the practice of rituals. The "animating force" that acted as the common denominator of the universe was known as "Wakan Tanka." (1987). "Wakan Tanka was an amorphous category most precisely defined by incomprehensibility." (Densmore 1918,85). The physical world was composed of the manifestations of this animating force. In essence, they believed that every object was spirit, or "wakan." For this reason, the Dakota held a docetic view of the universe in which nothing was real. Everything in the material world had only the appearance of being real. Like the inferior spirits in the Iroquois belief system, Wakan Tanka employed the use of "Wakan people" (DeMallie 1987) to interact with the material world and control the lives of men. These characters were often the objects of worship and praise.
According to DeMallie, Wakan Tanka was explained in relation to the Dakota by "wicasa wakan", or holy men. (DeMallie 1987). These men attempted to create some type of order and understanding of this "Great Incomprehensibility." (DeMallie 1987). The did not concentrate of strict religious doctrine or structure due to the ambiguous nature of Wakan Tanka. Instead, they served as guides to assist Dakota people in coming to their own personal understanding of their place in the universe. It was believed that mankind is required to serve the Waken people who administered and controlled the forces that surrounded them. White Buffalo Woman was one of the most important Wakan people to the Dakota. Their myth states that she gave the Dakota people the "Calf Pipe" (DeMallie 1987) through which they could communicate with the invisible spirit world.
It is impossible to separate the Dakota people from the buffalo. A bond existed between the two that was steeped in religious tradition and survival. For this reason, the buffalo played an equally significant role in the Dakota's religious belief system. A co-existence was achieved between these two life forms within an interconnected universe governed by the collective forces of Wakan Tanka. Most of the Dakota's rituals were centered around this relationship. According to DeMallie, Dakota rituals were based on mystical experiences instead of systematic worship. The most important aspect of ritual was the individual personal experience. The experience was usually related in the form of an interpretive dance inspired by a personal vision (DeMallie 1987). The Dakota were encouraged to contribute to the understanding of Wakan Tanka through their own individual relationship with the spirit world.
The religious beliefs and rituals of the Dakota people were not as compatible with Christianity as the Iroquois' were. Their religious ties to their land place them at great odds with the invading white settlers. The unity and balance demonstrated in the Dakota's world contrasted sharply with the one-sided , monotheistic characteristics of Christianity. The Dakota people attempted to retain their own religion in the face of cultural extinction, however, few aspects of their culture were left unaffected by their interactions with whites. One significant influence that Christianity had on the Dakota belief system involved the personification of Wakan Tanka. (DeMallie 1987,28). Before contact with European settlers, Wakan Tanka was without distinction. The Dakota seem to have give anthropomorphic attributes to their creator fashioned after the God of Christianity.
The Apache tribes of the southwestern desert region of the United States remain as one of the more elusive civilizations in American history. Little is known about this nomadic group of Native Americans that lived a somewhat isolated existence in the harsh environment of the arid southwest. Their territory encompassed the modern states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and extended into parts of Mexico. they were generally nomadic gatherers who relied on scarce resources found in their desert environment for survival. Survival under these conditions was difficult and there was little time for speculating in detail on matters of religion. For this reason, the belief system of the Apache tribes is less developed than the other two tribes mentioned earlier. Apache religion did not recognize a "large pantheon of gods and goddesses." (Opler 1969,21). Instead, their belief system concentrated on supernatural cultural figures that are responsible for the Apache way of life. These "supernaturals" (Opler 1969) interfered little in the daily activities of the people unless called upon to help an individual.
The Apache lifestyle left little room for religious ritual. This non-agricultural society had no reason to celebrate seasonal periods and rarely celebrated any type of annual gathering. All time and energy was spent on survival. Two illustrations of this point lie in the fact that the Apache lacked formal ceremonies for both marriage and death; two events that traditionally involve elaborate ceremonies in most civilizations. According to Opler, marriage among the Apache "was less the founding of a new social unit that it was the absorption of the couple into an on-going extended family." (1965,25). Death was considered to be "the ultimate foe and its triumph was not to be celebrated." (1969,25). Sickness and death were formidable problems for a society that needed every individuals efforts for survival. More importantly, however, was the fact that the Apache lacked an organized belief in an afterlife. This focused all attention towards survival in this world. For this reason, curing rites were the most common form of ceremony demonstrated by the Apache people.
The individual power quest was the foundation of Apache religion. The group, as a whole, was too involved with issues of survival to spend time with religious issues. Therefore, the Apache were encouraged to establish their own relationship with the supernatural forces that surrounded them. According to Opler, the Apache believed that the world was "suffused with supernatural powers, eager to be associated with human affairs." (1969,24). Mankind could manipulate these powers to serve him for both good and evil reasons. Life for the Apache was a struggle for survival governed by one's interactions with these supernatural forces.
The Apache religion was loosely organized and headed by leaders known as "shaman." Their power rested in their ability to heal. This power, if used well, could make the shaman an influential figure among Apache tribes. Opler describes the Apache religion as a form of "devotional shamanism." "It conceives of a universe permeated with supernatural power which must realize itself through man or not at all." (1969,29). The shaman was the link that connected the Apache people to the healing powers of the supernatural world.
The Apache tribes were invaded by white culture around 1850. The people and their culture were quickly removed from the land to make way for the expanding American population. There was little time for the Apache to be influenced by Christianity due to the fact that the United States sent military forces to the region before the Christian churches sent missionaries. In any case, I have a difficult time thinking that the Apache would have had any need for the religion of the white man.
The connection between environmental factors and the development of religious systems among Native America cultures should be clear. In general terms, a tribes ability to develop extensive religious belief systems was directly proportional to it's ability to provide for the survival of it's people. A large supply of natural resources, as in the case of the Iroquois, provided more time to develop religious ideas. The Apache, on the other hand, had little time to spend on religious thought. They were unable to develop an extensive religious theology due to the amount of time and energy they were forced to put towards survival. Furthermore, the connection between the Dakota's belief system and their environment is glaring. Their dependency on the buffalo gave rise to a religious system of co-dependant survival within a world characterized by oneness and unity.
While each tribes unique environment impacted their belief systems in a different way, all three demonstrate similarities in the way in which they view their interaction with the natural world. There is little evidence of a separation between the natural and the supernatural in any of the religions discussed. It can be said that Native American cultures were characterized by an intimate relationship with nature. This relationship was explained in terms of the supernatural and was experienced at the subjective level. Deep religious sentiment permeated most aspects of Native American life in the pre-discovered North American continent even when systematic rituals were absent. Kahlil Gibran once asked, "Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupation?" (1994,77). It seems that Native Americans could not make this distinction either.
by David Ruvolo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The history of American religions is dominated by the presence of Christianity brought to the New World by European settlers. Columbus's discovery in 1492 marked the beginning of a massive "white" invasion that would consume the entire continent of North America over the next four centuries. Although Christianity manifested itself in countless denominations, it was, nevertheless, the umbrella under which most Europeans in America gathered. It served as common ground on which white settlers could stand together in the struggle for survival in the wilderness of the New World. Whatever differences there were between denominations were insignificant when compared to the differences between the white European Christianity and their counterparts on the continent, the resident Native Americans. This fact, along with the desire and need for land, turned Native Americans into a convenient enemy for most groups of European settlers.
In essence, time had run out for the indigenous race that populated the continent of North America. Like the Israelites of the sixth century B.C.E., Native Americans were faced with an enemy that was more advanced. Ironically, the invading whites are the religious descendants of those same Israelites who were conquered by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E.. Armed with technologically advanced weapons, diseases which were foreign to the continent, and a concept known as Manifest Destiny, European settlers began an assault on the North American Continent the result of which was nothing short of genocide. Within four hundred years of their first contact, the white man had succeeded in stripping Native American civilizations of virtually all of their land and had nearly wiped their cultures from the face of the earth.
Popular American history has traditionally viewed the past through white eyes. Much of the history and culture of many Native American civilizations were lost during the European invasion of the continent. The absence of a written language among most tribes force them to depend on aril traditions that were difficult to maintain as their civilizations were being killed off and separated by the dominant white culture. For this reason, it is often difficult to locate information concerning the religious beliefs and rituals of the large variety of Native American civilizations that flourished in North America before the time of the European invasion. This project will provide some of this information by taking a cross-section of certain Native American tribes from separate and distinct geographic regions and comparing certain aspects of each of their religious beliefs and rituals. I plan to show how each tribe's religion was impacted by the environmental conditions that surrounded it, and in what ways these religions were affected by the invasion of Christianity. The Iroquois Nation of the eastern woodlands, the Dakota tribes of the central plains, and the Apache tribes of the southwestern desert shall serve as the subjects of this project.
The Iroquois Nation of the eastern woodlands was one of the most highly organized civilizations that developed among Native American tribes in North America. This particular "league", as it is sometimes referred , is surpassed in greatness only by the advanced civilizations of the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas in the pre-discovered Western world. "They achieved for themselves a more remarkable civil organization, and acquired a higher degree of influence, than any other race of Indian lineage,...{in North America}." (Morgan 1954,3). The league occupied most of the area that makes up the present day state of New York, however, it's influence and territory extended into parts of Canada. Their society was centered around the wilderness that surrounded them. The Iroquois relied on agriculture, as well as hunting and gathering. Their environment provided them with fertile soil, plentiful game, and streams that were full of fish. The rich natural resources that surrounded the Iroquois were undoubtedly their greatest strength and directly responsible for the success of the nation.
The relative ease at which the Iroquois Nation was able to provide for the needs of it's people allowed for the development of a systematic belief system that was more developed than most other systems found among Native American civilizations. According to Lewis H. Morgan, their religion is characterized by a monotheistic belief in an all-powerful creator known as the "Great Spirit", or "Ha-wen-ne-yu." "The Iroquois believed in the constant superintending care of the Great Spirit. He ruled and administered the world, and the affairs of the red race." (1954,146). The Iroquois failed to see the need in developing a detailed conception of their creator. This knowledge was thought to be above and beyond their capabilities to understand. His power was administered to the material world through "a class of inferior spiritual existences, by whom he was surrounded." (1954,147). While divine attributes concerning the Great Spirit remained undeveloped, the Iroquois gave detailed descriptions of this lower class of spirits that interacted with the material world. The were known as "Invisible Agents" or "Ho-no-che-no-keh." (Morgan 1954). The power possessed by these spirits was given to them by the Great Spirit and were the manifestations of his unlimited power. Some of these spirits were given names, however, they were often identified with the object or force that they presided over. For example, He-no, one of the more important spirits, was given the thunderbolt and controlled the weather. According to Morgan, he had the form of man and wore the costume of a warrior (1954,147).
While the Iroquois belief system centered around the idea of a benevolent Great Spirit, it did not ignore the existence of evil in the world. Evil is represented by the brother of the Great Spirit, "Ha-ne-go-ate-geh", or "the Evil-minded" (1954,147). This evil spirit exists independently and controls it's own inferior spiritual beings. These agents of evil also exist in the material world and are place there in an attempt to bring about evil. According to Morgan, the Great Spirit does not have any type of positive authority over the Evil-minded, except for the power to overcome him when necessary (1954,148). The red race is left to choose either obedience to the Great Spirit or submission to the Evil-minded. It is important to note that the Iroquois developed the idea of an immortal soul. This soul was judged by the Great Spirit upon the death of the body. The threat of punishment in the afterlife increased morality concerns, which aided in the success of the Iroquois Nation.
The ritual ceremonies practiced by the Iroquois tribes were systematic worship services that occurred in accordance to certain seasonal periods throughout the year. The rituals were handed down through the generation and remained unchanged for centuries. Festival most commonly occurred during important agricultural periods. Worship and thanks were given to the Great Spirit for protection and survival. One of the "Invisible Agents" were usually honored depending on what time of year the ceremony was taking place. The ceremonies were led by "Keepers of the Faith", or "Ho-nun-den-ont" (Morgan 1953,177). They were not an organized priesthood like one would imagine, but rather a loosely organized council of qualified individuals who were assigned the task of maintaining the ritual practices of the Iroquois people.
The Iroquois were first encountered by the white man around 1609 during the height of Dutch exploration. The league spent the majority of the seventeenth century at war with neighboring tribes as well as French invaders. Their influence spread through the northeast and reached a culminating point around the turn of the century. Within fifty years of this time, the power and population of the once proud Iroquois Nation was cut in half. White settlers had moved into their territory and forced the Iroquois to give up their homeland.
The belief system of the Iroquois was the closest a Native American civilization had come to the complex theology of Christianity. One major difference between the two religions is evident when looking at how each faith explains mankind's participation in the workings of the universe. While most Christian denominations sought to participate actively in the evolution of their world, the Iroquois say mankind as too insignificant to take part in the grand scheme of the Great Spirit. For example, many Christian denomination, like the Puritans of New England, believed that they were the chosen people of God and were working toward the creation of a true "Kingdom of God" located in America. The Iroquois, on the other hand, believed that the world was as it should be, and there was nothing that could be done by mankind to change this fact. This idea would eventually change somewhat as the Iroquois were influenced more and more by European Christianity. Furthermore, their ideas concerning punishment in the afterlife were also influenced by Christian concepts. According to Morgan, the Christian concept of purgatory seems to have seeped into the Iroquois belief system sometime during the white man's invasion (1954,163).
While the Iroquois Nation was the strongest Native American civilization east of the Mississippi river, their integration into the dominant white culture went relatively smooth compared to most other instances of integration among the native tribes of North America. I think this was due to the similarities between their belief systems which made it easier for the two races to find common ground. The religion practiced by Iroquois descendants is remarkably similar to the one practiced by their ancestors. The similarities between the two distinct religions seem to have saved the weaker Native American system from extinction.
The Dakota, or Sioux as the are commonly called, inhabited the great plains and prairies surrounding the modern states of North and South Dakota, as well as Minnesota. This was their home until white mining interests forced them out of their homeland during the mid-1800's. The Dakotas were less organized and more spread out than their cousins in the east, the Iroquois. Their society was based almost entirely on the hunting of buffalo, which provided them with virtually all of their survival needs. Their territory consisted of seasonal hunting grounds that forced the tribal units to live a nomadic lifestyle on the plains. There was no need for permanent settlements due to the fact buffalo herds would rarely stay in one place for a long period of time. The Dakota's existence centered around the movements of the herds.
According to Raymond J. DeMallie, the Dakota world was "characterized by its oneness, its unity." (1987,27). There was no separation of the natural world from the world of the supernatural. This unity in nature was thought to be beyond the comprehension of mankind and could only be shared in through the practice of rituals. The "animating force" that acted as the common denominator of the universe was known as "Wakan Tanka." (1987). "Wakan Tanka was an amorphous category most precisely defined by incomprehensibility." (Densmore 1918,85). The physical world was composed of the manifestations of this animating force. In essence, they believed that every object was spirit, or "wakan." For this reason, the Dakota held a docetic view of the universe in which nothing was real. Everything in the material world had only the appearance of being real. Like the inferior spirits in the Iroquois belief system, Wakan Tanka employed the use of "Wakan people" (DeMallie 1987) to interact with the material world and control the lives of men. These characters were often the objects of worship and praise.
According to DeMallie, Wakan Tanka was explained in relation to the Dakota by "wicasa wakan", or holy men. (DeMallie 1987). These men attempted to create some type of order and understanding of this "Great Incomprehensibility." (DeMallie 1987). The did not concentrate of strict religious doctrine or structure due to the ambiguous nature of Wakan Tanka. Instead, they served as guides to assist Dakota people in coming to their own personal understanding of their place in the universe. It was believed that mankind is required to serve the Waken people who administered and controlled the forces that surrounded them. White Buffalo Woman was one of the most important Wakan people to the Dakota. Their myth states that she gave the Dakota people the "Calf Pipe" (DeMallie 1987) through which they could communicate with the invisible spirit world.
It is impossible to separate the Dakota people from the buffalo. A bond existed between the two that was steeped in religious tradition and survival. For this reason, the buffalo played an equally significant role in the Dakota's religious belief system. A co-existence was achieved between these two life forms within an interconnected universe governed by the collective forces of Wakan Tanka. Most of the Dakota's rituals were centered around this relationship. According to DeMallie, Dakota rituals were based on mystical experiences instead of systematic worship. The most important aspect of ritual was the individual personal experience. The experience was usually related in the form of an interpretive dance inspired by a personal vision (DeMallie 1987). The Dakota were encouraged to contribute to the understanding of Wakan Tanka through their own individual relationship with the spirit world.
The religious beliefs and rituals of the Dakota people were not as compatible with Christianity as the Iroquois' were. Their religious ties to their land place them at great odds with the invading white settlers. The unity and balance demonstrated in the Dakota's world contrasted sharply with the one-sided , monotheistic characteristics of Christianity. The Dakota people attempted to retain their own religion in the face of cultural extinction, however, few aspects of their culture were left unaffected by their interactions with whites. One significant influence that Christianity had on the Dakota belief system involved the personification of Wakan Tanka. (DeMallie 1987,28). Before contact with European settlers, Wakan Tanka was without distinction. The Dakota seem to have give anthropomorphic attributes to their creator fashioned after the God of Christianity.
The Apache tribes of the southwestern desert region of the United States remain as one of the more elusive civilizations in American history. Little is known about this nomadic group of Native Americans that lived a somewhat isolated existence in the harsh environment of the arid southwest. Their territory encompassed the modern states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and extended into parts of Mexico. they were generally nomadic gatherers who relied on scarce resources found in their desert environment for survival. Survival under these conditions was difficult and there was little time for speculating in detail on matters of religion. For this reason, the belief system of the Apache tribes is less developed than the other two tribes mentioned earlier. Apache religion did not recognize a "large pantheon of gods and goddesses." (Opler 1969,21). Instead, their belief system concentrated on supernatural cultural figures that are responsible for the Apache way of life. These "supernaturals" (Opler 1969) interfered little in the daily activities of the people unless called upon to help an individual.
The Apache lifestyle left little room for religious ritual. This non-agricultural society had no reason to celebrate seasonal periods and rarely celebrated any type of annual gathering. All time and energy was spent on survival. Two illustrations of this point lie in the fact that the Apache lacked formal ceremonies for both marriage and death; two events that traditionally involve elaborate ceremonies in most civilizations. According to Opler, marriage among the Apache "was less the founding of a new social unit that it was the absorption of the couple into an on-going extended family." (1965,25). Death was considered to be "the ultimate foe and its triumph was not to be celebrated." (1969,25). Sickness and death were formidable problems for a society that needed every individuals efforts for survival. More importantly, however, was the fact that the Apache lacked an organized belief in an afterlife. This focused all attention towards survival in this world. For this reason, curing rites were the most common form of ceremony demonstrated by the Apache people.
The individual power quest was the foundation of Apache religion. The group, as a whole, was too involved with issues of survival to spend time with religious issues. Therefore, the Apache were encouraged to establish their own relationship with the supernatural forces that surrounded them. According to Opler, the Apache believed that the world was "suffused with supernatural powers, eager to be associated with human affairs." (1969,24). Mankind could manipulate these powers to serve him for both good and evil reasons. Life for the Apache was a struggle for survival governed by one's interactions with these supernatural forces.
The Apache religion was loosely organized and headed by leaders known as "shaman." Their power rested in their ability to heal. This power, if used well, could make the shaman an influential figure among Apache tribes. Opler describes the Apache religion as a form of "devotional shamanism." "It conceives of a universe permeated with supernatural power which must realize itself through man or not at all." (1969,29). The shaman was the link that connected the Apache people to the healing powers of the supernatural world.
The Apache tribes were invaded by white culture around 1850. The people and their culture were quickly removed from the land to make way for the expanding American population. There was little time for the Apache to be influenced by Christianity due to the fact that the United States sent military forces to the region before the Christian churches sent missionaries. In any case, I have a difficult time thinking that the Apache would have had any need for the religion of the white man.
The connection between environmental factors and the development of religious systems among Native America cultures should be clear. In general terms, a tribes ability to develop extensive religious belief systems was directly proportional to it's ability to provide for the survival of it's people. A large supply of natural resources, as in the case of the Iroquois, provided more time to develop religious ideas. The Apache, on the other hand, had little time to spend on religious thought. They were unable to develop an extensive religious theology due to the amount of time and energy they were forced to put towards survival. Furthermore, the connection between the Dakota's belief system and their environment is glaring. Their dependency on the buffalo gave rise to a religious system of co-dependant survival within a world characterized by oneness and unity.
While each tribes unique environment impacted their belief systems in a different way, all three demonstrate similarities in the way in which they view their interaction with the natural world. There is little evidence of a separation between the natural and the supernatural in any of the religions discussed. It can be said that Native American cultures were characterized by an intimate relationship with nature. This relationship was explained in terms of the supernatural and was experienced at the subjective level. Deep religious sentiment permeated most aspects of Native American life in the pre-discovered North American continent even when systematic rituals were absent. Kahlil Gibran once asked, "Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupation?" (1994,77). It seems that Native Americans could not make this distinction either.
Celtic Paganism
Celtic Paganism
The Celtic religion is closely tied to the natural world, and places great emphasis on individual honor and achievement, as well as the welfare of clan, tribe and kingdom. Overall, the lore of the religion emphasizes a balance between law and chaos, and the need to contain evil, but it has gods, and followers, of all alignments.
Celtic Paganism, once followed openly across Europa, is now practiced mainly in Britannia, in western Gaulia, and in the northwestern tip of Iberia. However adepts and druids across Europa, whether knowingly or not, keep alive many traditions of this ancient religion. Outside of the wilder parts of Hybernia and Caledonia (both in Britannia) this religion is largely practiced in secret.
Before the Roman conquest, there where many Celtic tribes who between them worshiped hundreds of deities. Most of these where local spirits, and in Celtic mythology there was sometimes confusion between gods on the one hand, and powerful elves, fey, and giants on the other, (which individuals in the later three may have encouraged). However, a small subset of gods was worshiped by most tribes, albeit with different names, and these true gods are listed below.
Symbols: Cauldron, oak tree, mistletoe sprig, and torc.
Organisation: The Druids where the priests of the Celts, as well as their judges and scholars, keepers of the lore of what was largely a pre-literate society. Today the male Druids and the female Priestesses of Avalon are the “high priests” of this religion, and while not all are Chosen, all have the talent for casting divine or arcane spells. These true Druids are small in number, and most followers worship together under the guidance of an adept, cleric of a Celtic god, or druid (the base class, not the prestige class). Bards, as keepers of lore, and Nature Touched rangers also play a role in this loosely organized religion.
Celtic Gods
Lugh (CN) Lugh can best be described as the god of excellence, reputed to be not only the inventor and patron of the arts, but also an expert in such diverse fields as sorcery, history, craftsmanship of all sorts, storytelling and heroism. Lugh, whose name means “The Shining One”, is the most widely worshiped of the Celtic gods, with numerous monuments throughout Celtic regions where followers pray to him for guidance in any of his many areas of expertise. His symbol is an 8-point star.
Oghma (NG) Oghma, whose epithet, Grianainech, means “of the sun-like countenance”, is the god of eloquence and language. His speeches and words carry great weight with his listeners, and he is often depicted as having gold chains between his tongue and the ears of his listeners. It is said that Oghma created the druidic language of Ogam. Oghma’s symbol is a chalice.
Goibhniu (NG) Smiths hold a special place in Celtic society and it is said that they receive magical powers to heal and charm from Goibhniu. It is reputed that weapons forged by Goibhniu will never miss their mark, and those struck by them will certainly be slain. His symbol is an anvil.
Daghdha (CG) Daghdha is the custodian of the gods and all Celtic people, using his charms and powers to protect and aid them whenever he can. His powers vary widely but he has been credited with control over the weather and crops. His symbol is a Celtic shield.
Manannan mac Lir (LN) The Celtic god of the sea, Manannan mac Lir rides over the waves on his chariot, pulled by various creatures of the sea, admiring its beauty and governing its bountiful operation. His symbol is a fish.
Arawn (NE) The god of death and the underworld, Arawn lives on an island so far out to sea that even Manannan mac Lir is unable to find it. In fact no one living can, for only the dead may travel there. Arawn is absolute ruler over his domain and will occasionally extend his grasp to return those who’ve been resurrected that he would rather keep. While many Celtic gods will endorse resurrection, none can guarantee that Arawn will leave the matter at that. His symbol is a warrior’s skull.
Morrigan (CE) Morrigan is the Celtic goddess of war. She expects all Celts and especially her followers to fight constantly, encouraging petty wars where there would otherwise be none. Her symbol is a sword or spear.
Diancecht (LG) Diancecht is the god of healing and encourages his followers to care and heal for the sick regardless of whom they worship. It is a common belief of his followers that any wound is the responsibility of the inflictor to heal, or at least payment for healing. His symbol a leaf.
Math Mathonwy (NE) Math Mathonwy is the god of sorcery. He strongly encourages the study of magic and the pursuit of knowledge but also expects such knowledge to be guarded closely. His symbol is a staff.
Belenus (NG)Belenus is a god of the sun and of fire and a patron of the Druids. In May, when the Celts drive their cattle through the special Beltane fires it is said that Belenus watches with favor and raises the quality of the livestock. It is his followers that have constructed the standing stones and planted the sacred groves where the Druids meet and worship him. His symbol is a solar disc inlaid with a standing stone.
Brigantia (NG) Brigantia is the goddess of rivers and rural life and she is worshiped mostly in pastoral villages and towns. She is the protector of flocks of geese and herds of cattle, seeing that they flourish to help feed her hungry worshipers. Her dominion over rivers make some belief that their waters have healing properties. Her symbol is a footbridge.
The Celtic religion is closely tied to the natural world, and places great emphasis on individual honor and achievement, as well as the welfare of clan, tribe and kingdom. Overall, the lore of the religion emphasizes a balance between law and chaos, and the need to contain evil, but it has gods, and followers, of all alignments.
Celtic Paganism, once followed openly across Europa, is now practiced mainly in Britannia, in western Gaulia, and in the northwestern tip of Iberia. However adepts and druids across Europa, whether knowingly or not, keep alive many traditions of this ancient religion. Outside of the wilder parts of Hybernia and Caledonia (both in Britannia) this religion is largely practiced in secret.
Before the Roman conquest, there where many Celtic tribes who between them worshiped hundreds of deities. Most of these where local spirits, and in Celtic mythology there was sometimes confusion between gods on the one hand, and powerful elves, fey, and giants on the other, (which individuals in the later three may have encouraged). However, a small subset of gods was worshiped by most tribes, albeit with different names, and these true gods are listed below.
Symbols: Cauldron, oak tree, mistletoe sprig, and torc.
Organisation: The Druids where the priests of the Celts, as well as their judges and scholars, keepers of the lore of what was largely a pre-literate society. Today the male Druids and the female Priestesses of Avalon are the “high priests” of this religion, and while not all are Chosen, all have the talent for casting divine or arcane spells. These true Druids are small in number, and most followers worship together under the guidance of an adept, cleric of a Celtic god, or druid (the base class, not the prestige class). Bards, as keepers of lore, and Nature Touched rangers also play a role in this loosely organized religion.
Celtic Gods
Lugh (CN) Lugh can best be described as the god of excellence, reputed to be not only the inventor and patron of the arts, but also an expert in such diverse fields as sorcery, history, craftsmanship of all sorts, storytelling and heroism. Lugh, whose name means “The Shining One”, is the most widely worshiped of the Celtic gods, with numerous monuments throughout Celtic regions where followers pray to him for guidance in any of his many areas of expertise. His symbol is an 8-point star.
Oghma (NG) Oghma, whose epithet, Grianainech, means “of the sun-like countenance”, is the god of eloquence and language. His speeches and words carry great weight with his listeners, and he is often depicted as having gold chains between his tongue and the ears of his listeners. It is said that Oghma created the druidic language of Ogam. Oghma’s symbol is a chalice.
Goibhniu (NG) Smiths hold a special place in Celtic society and it is said that they receive magical powers to heal and charm from Goibhniu. It is reputed that weapons forged by Goibhniu will never miss their mark, and those struck by them will certainly be slain. His symbol is an anvil.
Daghdha (CG) Daghdha is the custodian of the gods and all Celtic people, using his charms and powers to protect and aid them whenever he can. His powers vary widely but he has been credited with control over the weather and crops. His symbol is a Celtic shield.
Manannan mac Lir (LN) The Celtic god of the sea, Manannan mac Lir rides over the waves on his chariot, pulled by various creatures of the sea, admiring its beauty and governing its bountiful operation. His symbol is a fish.
Arawn (NE) The god of death and the underworld, Arawn lives on an island so far out to sea that even Manannan mac Lir is unable to find it. In fact no one living can, for only the dead may travel there. Arawn is absolute ruler over his domain and will occasionally extend his grasp to return those who’ve been resurrected that he would rather keep. While many Celtic gods will endorse resurrection, none can guarantee that Arawn will leave the matter at that. His symbol is a warrior’s skull.
Morrigan (CE) Morrigan is the Celtic goddess of war. She expects all Celts and especially her followers to fight constantly, encouraging petty wars where there would otherwise be none. Her symbol is a sword or spear.
Diancecht (LG) Diancecht is the god of healing and encourages his followers to care and heal for the sick regardless of whom they worship. It is a common belief of his followers that any wound is the responsibility of the inflictor to heal, or at least payment for healing. His symbol a leaf.
Math Mathonwy (NE) Math Mathonwy is the god of sorcery. He strongly encourages the study of magic and the pursuit of knowledge but also expects such knowledge to be guarded closely. His symbol is a staff.
Belenus (NG)Belenus is a god of the sun and of fire and a patron of the Druids. In May, when the Celts drive their cattle through the special Beltane fires it is said that Belenus watches with favor and raises the quality of the livestock. It is his followers that have constructed the standing stones and planted the sacred groves where the Druids meet and worship him. His symbol is a solar disc inlaid with a standing stone.
Brigantia (NG) Brigantia is the goddess of rivers and rural life and she is worshiped mostly in pastoral villages and towns. She is the protector of flocks of geese and herds of cattle, seeing that they flourish to help feed her hungry worshipers. Her dominion over rivers make some belief that their waters have healing properties. Her symbol is a footbridge.
When Atheists Had Guts
From American Vision:
When Atheists had guts…
By Joel McDurmon
Published: June 11, 2010
Share Print I long since stopped blogging on atheism, deeming it often a waste of time and occasionally counterproductive. Sometimes, however, the issue merits revisiting. After rereading some old classics, I find the following quotation worth sharing:
When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God has truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.
In this quotation, many of my readers will immediately detect the echo of Van Til, or Bahnsen, or some other related apologist infused with “worldview,” or presuppositional thinking. Such a guess comes close in content, but misses widely. The surprise: this quotation flows candidly—and insightfully!—from arch-atheist Friedrich Nietzsche.[1] This is not, of course, to say that Van Til derived his ideas from reading Nietzsche—highly unlikely. The point—completely lost on modern atheists—is that when you strike down Christianity, Christian morality necessarily goes with it. Nietzsche candidly professed this, as did his earlier French counterpart Marquis de Sade: no God, no moral imperatives; no “thou shalt,” and no “thou shalt not.” Only, “I will.”
But modern atheists have not only ignored this logical conclusion, they have actually attempted to attack Christianity in the name of Christian morality, calling the Christian God cruel, bloodthirsty, racist, sadomasochistic, etc.[2] Richard Dawkins’ now famous book begins an early chapter with such accusations and much more. Whence the moral outrage?
Nietzsche’s honesty above grows all the more relevant (and this is what sparked me to write this article) when we read his context: he wrote the above as a commentary on the English writer George Eliot, decrying her clinging to morality despite her rejection of God. In fact, according to some accounts, and just as Dawkins, she attacked Christianity in the name of morality, calling the faith “immoral.” Nietzsche spies the “English” inconsistency and condemns her (and thus Dawkins) as a weak, effeminate, and illogical atheist. He writes:
G. Elliot: They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. This is an English inconsistency: we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England [then and now, apparently] one must rehabilitate oneself after ever little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.
We others hold otherwise.… [then follows the earlier quotation][3]
Upon reading this again, I could not help but think of today’s little rosy-cheeked moralist, Dawkins, preaching against the cosmic bully of the Old Testament, and denouncing the extremes of religion—all the while unaware that he must have the morality of Christendom under his feet (and his audience’s feet) in order to denounce those extremes. Still English, yes, and still inconsistent.
Nietzsche blows up the charade:
When the English actually believe that they know “intuitively” what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.[4]
For this reason—for his fearless and relentless consistency—I love reading Nietzsche. The arch-atheist—the honest, consistent atheist—foils all the prominent modern atheists. He knows and admits that Dawkins’ moral indignation arises from the very God he denounces. Nietzsche knows that such moral fire only expresses the prior power and dominion of Christianity. Nietzsche knows that moral indignation itself is borrowed capital from Christendom.
Unlike Dawkins, however, Nietzsche refused to keep pretending. Nietzsche had the intellect to see the connection, and the guts to admit the outcome of his worldview. Modern atheism, apparently, has neither. For them, Christian society provides them enough comfort to enjoy the peace and tolerance of Christian rules while denying the existence of the Rule-giver. For them, morality is not yet a problem—simply because they refuse to admit it. Well, despite the “flatheads,” “this point has to be exhibited again and again,” and I don’t mind letting Nietzsche do so for us.
Endnotes:
1.Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–6. [↩]
2.See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31. [↩]
3.Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 515. [↩]
4.Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 516. [↩]
When Atheists had guts…
By Joel McDurmon
Published: June 11, 2010
Share Print I long since stopped blogging on atheism, deeming it often a waste of time and occasionally counterproductive. Sometimes, however, the issue merits revisiting. After rereading some old classics, I find the following quotation worth sharing:
When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God has truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.
In this quotation, many of my readers will immediately detect the echo of Van Til, or Bahnsen, or some other related apologist infused with “worldview,” or presuppositional thinking. Such a guess comes close in content, but misses widely. The surprise: this quotation flows candidly—and insightfully!—from arch-atheist Friedrich Nietzsche.[1] This is not, of course, to say that Van Til derived his ideas from reading Nietzsche—highly unlikely. The point—completely lost on modern atheists—is that when you strike down Christianity, Christian morality necessarily goes with it. Nietzsche candidly professed this, as did his earlier French counterpart Marquis de Sade: no God, no moral imperatives; no “thou shalt,” and no “thou shalt not.” Only, “I will.”
But modern atheists have not only ignored this logical conclusion, they have actually attempted to attack Christianity in the name of Christian morality, calling the Christian God cruel, bloodthirsty, racist, sadomasochistic, etc.[2] Richard Dawkins’ now famous book begins an early chapter with such accusations and much more. Whence the moral outrage?
Nietzsche’s honesty above grows all the more relevant (and this is what sparked me to write this article) when we read his context: he wrote the above as a commentary on the English writer George Eliot, decrying her clinging to morality despite her rejection of God. In fact, according to some accounts, and just as Dawkins, she attacked Christianity in the name of morality, calling the faith “immoral.” Nietzsche spies the “English” inconsistency and condemns her (and thus Dawkins) as a weak, effeminate, and illogical atheist. He writes:
G. Elliot: They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. This is an English inconsistency: we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England [then and now, apparently] one must rehabilitate oneself after ever little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.
We others hold otherwise.… [then follows the earlier quotation][3]
Upon reading this again, I could not help but think of today’s little rosy-cheeked moralist, Dawkins, preaching against the cosmic bully of the Old Testament, and denouncing the extremes of religion—all the while unaware that he must have the morality of Christendom under his feet (and his audience’s feet) in order to denounce those extremes. Still English, yes, and still inconsistent.
Nietzsche blows up the charade:
When the English actually believe that they know “intuitively” what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.[4]
For this reason—for his fearless and relentless consistency—I love reading Nietzsche. The arch-atheist—the honest, consistent atheist—foils all the prominent modern atheists. He knows and admits that Dawkins’ moral indignation arises from the very God he denounces. Nietzsche knows that such moral fire only expresses the prior power and dominion of Christianity. Nietzsche knows that moral indignation itself is borrowed capital from Christendom.
Unlike Dawkins, however, Nietzsche refused to keep pretending. Nietzsche had the intellect to see the connection, and the guts to admit the outcome of his worldview. Modern atheism, apparently, has neither. For them, Christian society provides them enough comfort to enjoy the peace and tolerance of Christian rules while denying the existence of the Rule-giver. For them, morality is not yet a problem—simply because they refuse to admit it. Well, despite the “flatheads,” “this point has to be exhibited again and again,” and I don’t mind letting Nietzsche do so for us.
Endnotes:
1.Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–6. [↩]
2.See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31. [↩]
3.Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 515. [↩]
4.Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 516. [↩]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)