What religion are you?

[gmd]

Re: What religion are you?

Why did our former saviors become mythologies and folklore? What's keeping that from happening to the current gods and saviors?

Time or brains? Maybe we need more of both.

[Crimson Glow]

Re: What religion are you?

(1) Do not get offensive in your discussion over this. There is no need to sound insulting, or belittling others or using invectives.

There was insulting and belittling long before my post in this thread. Saying someone is not Armenian because they're not Christian, or that being atheist is "a shame" is rather insulting. Why did you not call out anyone else on this?

You are asking for physical evidence of God. You are doing the exact same thing I was pointing out, asking for evidence of an immaterial being by criteria used in the material world. The proposition, "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God" stands. Logic, science, and deduction are human traits, and a reflection of our subjective consciousness. They do not exist beyond the human faculty. They are relegated to this material world, and complimentary to our 5 senses which are our guide in this physical world. Anything beyond is conjecture as there is no way of knowing.

But that again leaves my question unanswered. If it's all unprovable, and left to faith in the incomprehensible, then how are we to determine which incomprehensible entity to have faith IN? There has to be SOMEthing to pick and choose what you're going to base your faith on. By the way, how did we come to know this entity even existed if it is beyond our comprehension? Through words written by man in a book. So what we REALLY have is faith in these words written by man. We are taking their word that these things happened, and therefore, led us to discover that a god exists.

Let's look at this another way. The only reason we entertain the possibility of the existence of this divine entity that is beyond human faculty is because our ancestors from thousands of years ago felt it was the only way to explain the unexplainable. We presumed there must be something beyond our human faculty for those things our human faculty couldn't explain *at that time*. As time has progressed, and technology and understanding has advanced, we have found explanations for many of the things that were previously unexplainable. However, in spite of this, our previous explanation has left us in a bit of a dilemma. Even though we have shattered much of the fallacies of just about every religion throughout history, the very definition of divine entities makes them exempt from the very logic and intelligence used to shatter those fallacies. We created the possibility of a divine entity to explain that which is beyond human faculty, and now people refuse to delete the possibility of a divine entity because it is beyond human faculty. In other words, we used logic to create a god, yet we can't uncreate him because he is beyond our logic.

Yet another thing to ponder on. We get so caught up in these debates on focusing on current deities. More over, when we say "god", we automatically assume that "god" refers to the specific deity that the culture we were raised in accepts as the "real" one. But what ever happened to the previous gods and messiahs? Why did people stop believing in Zues, or Osiris, or Mithras? Why have human beings moved on from one god/gods, to the next throughout history? By its very nature, NO god can be proven OR disproven, so how can faith possibly come to an end in one god(s) or savior, and begin in another? Why did our former saviors become mythologies and folklore? What's keeping that from happening to the current gods and saviors? Can we not apply the same reasons that took down Osiris and Mithras to Jesus, or Mohamed? To God, or Allah? If not, why?



"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance... logic can be happily tossed out the window." -- Stephen King

[seruven]

Re: What religion are you?

So if you do not believe in a defined god, but believe there is a possibility of a higher being out there (don't claim to know there is no god), you'd be an agnostic atheist.

According to this classification, I am an agnostic atheist.
If the mentioned criteria are valid, the choices should be adjusted accordingly.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

I spelled it out in very simple terms, and yet, you still posted your ignorance to understanding these terms. The definitions of the words are not open to your opinions or interpretations. They have pre-established definitions already as I outlined. As Mouse pointed out, atheist does NOT mean one claims to know for a fact there is no god, or denies the possibility of one. The word theist means to have a belief in at least one deity. The prefix "a" means "without". Therefore, a-theist simply means WITHOUT BELIEF in a deity, and nothing more. It does not define that person any further than this. In fact, there ARE atheist that believe in supernatural phenomenon, or things beyond our senses, etc.





Had it not been for religions, we would not have had to fight to sustain our existence in the first place.





....that's not support for your claim. That IS your claim. Now you have to prove it.





This, on the other hand, is support.....AGAINST your claim. If even with Christianity, assimilation is happening anyway, this DISproves your claim that Christianity is what's bonding us. You just shot yourself in the foot.





The fallacy here is that a belief in a deity is necessary to fill that vacuum. Philosophy, beliefs and perspectives on existent need not rely on a higher power. If they did, there would not be philosophers with hundreds of different perspectives in thousands of different versions, and my philosophy classes wouldn't have existed.





According to whom? What makes your opinion that it is not to be taken literally any more valid than any other person who believes it IS to be taken literally?




Ahhh, yes. Pascal's Wager (the philosophy that it's better to believe and be wrong vs. NOT believe and be wrong). Here's the problem with that. You ignorantly, yet arrogantly assume that you believe in the right god, and will therefore avoid punishment for believing in the wrong god. That's the glaring flaw with the absurdity of Pascal's Wager. In reality, we're BOTH playing Russian roulette. After all, we're all atheists when it comes to basically every god that man has ever worshiped, past and present. I just take it one god further, that's all. So you only have one chance more than I do at being right.





He's not trying to disprove god. It's not the job of the nonbeliever to defend his or herself against someone else's positive claim (see below for more on this). He's merely pointing out the flaws that religion and society has brainwashed us into believing, and scared us into not questioning.





That would be like saying "not playing baseball is a sport". How can the absence of a belief BE a belief? This is an attempt to try and put nonbelievers in the same "faith" boat that the believers are in.You can't disprove that Zeus, Osiris, Mithras, Asdvadzos, unicorns or the Planters Peanut aren't real. Do you have faith in them as well? If not, why? Do you BELIEVE they don't exist? Is it impossible to know they don't? Can you disprove I'm god? If not, do you BELIEVE I'm not god?

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the positive claim, not the other way around, as you cannot prove a negative. Since the believer makes the assertion that a god exists, and what's more, claims to know which god is the right one, it is up to the believer to prove all this.

Oh, but I forgot. God defies human reasoning, logic and understanding, therefore, is unprovable. We just have to go on faith. OK, fine. Let's play that game. Of COURSE it's faith. I think everyone understands this part. But what I DON'T understand (and what I NEVER get an answer to from believers) is what do you base your faith ON? Every god man has ever worshiped, past or present, revolves around this whole concept of "there is no proof, just have faith". Well if this is the case, then what is the criteria for selecting the "right" god, or the one you decide to believe in? How do you go about choosing what to place your faith in? This is pretty critical. After all, the consequences for not choosing wisely can be quite dire (Russian roulette, as you put it). Yet, the answer to this question (allow me, since believers won't answer it, even though the answer is quite obvious) is "I believe in the dominant faith of the culture I was born into".

.....this doesn't strike anyone else as utterly stupid? If there is only one true god, and believing in any of the other false gods leads to severe, usually eternal consequences, doesn't this method of ASSUMING you had the great fortune of being born into a culture that believes in the "correct" god seem just a tad ridiculous?





And there in lies the problem. I saved this for last because this is what it all boils down to. Since the beginning of human history, we have been plagued with consciousness/self-awareness, which is both a blessing, and the ultimate curse. The ability to be aware of your own existence and place in this world is astounding, and has afforded humans the ability of much more complex thinking, progression and advancement than any other creature on this planet. However, that ability to question and analyze has also damned us with the need for purpose. "Why are we here? How did we get here? Where did we come from?" And worst of all, "....what happens to us when we die?" It is very difficult for the human mind to wrap itself around the thought of the very real possibility that this is it. When we die, ALL that personality, and ALL that character, and ALL those memories and knowledge, those thoughts, ideas, experiences, and feelings could very well go to the grave with you, and no where else. You will be no more. Just *poof*......gone. Talk about a mind f*ck. What a damning thought to be stuck with for the duration of your life.

Understanding this, it becomes easy to see why it's only natural to want to have something to cling to, something higher than you and what you as a human are capable of, not just for death, but for any of those moments of despair where you feel small and helpless. THIS is why we defy all logic and believe against all odds that there is a governing higher power who has another existence all set up and ready to go for us. It was created to comfort our minds from such terrorizing thoughts. "Don't worry, all your glorious being WILL go on when you die". We know damn well in the back of our minds that it is beyond improbable, but we suppress that thought because the alternative is absolutely terrifying. However, this fear and need does not make god any more real.

It is rather ironic that the need for such answers usually subconsciously forces most to god, because it is exactly these questions that led me to break away from these convenient, widely accepted answers.

(1) Do not get offensive in your discussion over this. There is no need to sound insulting, or belittling others or using invectives.

(2) You are asking for physical evidence of God. You are doing the exact same thing I was pointing out, asking for evidence of an immaterial being by criteria used in the material world. The proposition, "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God" stands. Logic, science, and deduction are human traits, and a reflection of our subjective consciousness. They do not exist beyond the human faculty. They are relegated to this material world, and complimentary to our 5 senses which are our guide in this physical world. Anything beyond is conjecture as there is no way of knowing.

[xcelr8Armo]

Re: What religion are you?

Christian... pfft Athiests

[Fedayeen]

Re: What religion are you?

I have no problem with belief...but I do have problem with money hungry church and people who run the church.

[jgk3]

Re: What religion are you?

during these debates, it's not about how well you can disprove your opponent, because they will never agree, only feel threatened or angry and retort.

All you're doing with your rebuttal is stating a set of beliefs you have about human nature, history, etc... You're describing an algorithm for another belief system instead of seeking the commonalities between yours and your opponent's.

If I were to step in, I would inspect the very notion of what God is to human beings itself, instead of debating about whether it exists or not and its likelihood of being either possibility. For example, although it's not how I would do it, the second Zeitgeist movie calls "God" everything that we traditionally didn't understand the workings of. For example, human anatomy and illnesses. We would call the workings of such things acts of God, because we could not account for the process in any empirical terms ourselves during those times/in those regions of the world. Although this might provide us with an answer about the source of human illness, we would still be in fear of it because we, as humans, would not possess the knowledge of how to work with it. Thus the status quo would always be one of fear and ignorance concerning issues of illness because they will always be perceived in a negative, perhaps terminal light, and this reality would be then associated with God, leading people to pass another judgment about "Him", one of retribution for sins perpetrated on Earth perhaps? And this would lead to confusion about why some people, good people, get punished on Earth whilst many bad people do not. This is where an idea like one of Hell comes in handy... You see, how one thing leads to the other? This phenomenon is quite popular as an occurrence in religion, don't you think?

This is interesting because it leads us to an idea on how populations might view God. An entity that is made understandable by folk people because "He" engages in acts based on judgment, a quality that the population seems to share with God and thus allows for the two to be put together mentally whenever an instance of judgment (usually having to do with morality) is ever initiated on the earthly realm.

Obviously, this is not the only way to think about God, there are other approaches and I could explain my own if I wanted to which is rather free of the aforementioned view (a focus on divine judgment). But inspecting how and why people think about God to me is a hell of a lot more insightful than declaring to another the reasons why the whole prospect is absurd, or why it's wrong to not believe in God, etc...

After all, if another basis for believing in God is to see him as all love, something that is present in all of life, something we are capable in culturing by abiding by basic tenets of forgiveness (for oneself being a most important step) and sacrificing some of our own interests for the well being of others, then suddenly, our analysis of why we'd believe in God along these lines shifts in reasoning. Thus, it's absurd to attack God as some universal idea or approach because people are able to approach God in many different ways, much like atheists and agnostics are able in approaching their own worldviews in their own ways.

I think it's our duty, regardless of our denomination (or lack thereof), to be able to describe our approach to whatever it is we believe in whenever we want to discuss it with someone abiding to another camp, and to look for the underlying similarities wherever possible, being able to translate names like "God" into something that your counterpart might be able to understand along their own terms. Only then, perhaps, can you share whatever beauties or great feelings you feel in your worldview with others. Involves some empathy.

[Ari]

Re: What religion are you?

Armenian Orthodox Apostolic

[Crimson Glow]

Re: What religion are you?

agnostic-atheist, agnostic leaning towards atheist, wtf? I think this is needless over complication of things. Agnostic means that you don't know, Atheist means that you know that there is no God. The problem with Atheism is that it not only denounces the traditional (old white guy long beard) definition of God, but that it also denounces any definition of god.

I spelled it out in very simple terms, and yet, you still posted your ignorance to understanding these terms. The definitions of the words are not open to your opinions or interpretations. They have pre-established definitions already as I outlined. As Mouse pointed out, atheist does NOT mean one claims to know for a fact there is no god, or denies the possibility of one. The word theist means to have a belief in at least one deity. The prefix "a" means "without". Therefore, a-theist simply means WITHOUT BELIEF in a deity, and nothing more. It does not define that person any further than this. In fact, there ARE atheist that believe in supernatural phenomenon, or things beyond our senses, etc.

It has been Christianity that has sustained us as a coherent group for 1700 years. Do you think if Armenians didn't have a uniting religion that we would have survived under foreign rule for so long?

Had it not been for religions, we would not have had to fight to sustain our existence in the first place.

I've already supported my claims; Christianity has kept us together as a group and has to a very large extent staved off assimilation.

....that's not support for your claim. That IS your claim. Now you have to prove it.

Don't you realize that even with Christianity assimilation has begun to start in America? Can you imagine if we didn't have a national church to bond us?

This, on the other hand, is support.....AGAINST your claim. If even with Christianity, assimilation is happening anyway, this DISproves your claim that Christianity is what's bonding us. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Without a set of beliefs there is a philosophical vacuum within the person. I'm not talking about standards, laws, etc.

The fallacy here is that a belief in a deity is necessary to fill that vacuum. Philosophy, beliefs and perspectives on existent need not rely on a higher power. If they did, there would not be philosophers with hundreds of different perspectives in thousands of different versions, and my philosophy classes wouldn't have existed.

Understand that I am a gnostic Christian and I realize the True underpinnings of Christianity, which has little to do with the modern bs term, judeo-christianity. Those so called fairy tales shouldn't be taken as history but rather a way to live ones life, guidelines if you will.

According to whom? What makes your opinion that it is not to be taken literally any more valid than any other person who believes it IS to be taken literally?

However, at the end of it all, you are playing Russian roulette with yourself. See if there is a Creator or God, and you have belief/faith and are a good person, according to the teachings of Christianity you have eternal life. But on the other hand if you are a good person and an atheist, theoretically it's bye bye. I don't care too much about details like this, but I do KNOW there is a GOD. So when judgement day comes for you, I hope you have some answers ready.

Ahhh, yes. Pascal's Wager (the philosophy that it's better to believe and be wrong vs. NOT believe and be wrong). Here's the problem with that. You ignorantly, yet arrogantly assume that you believe in the right god, and will therefore avoid punishment for believing in the wrong god. That's the glaring flaw with the absurdity of Pascal's Wager. In reality, we're BOTH playing Russian roulette. After all, we're all atheists when it comes to basically every god that man has ever worshiped, past and present. I just take it one god further, that's all. So you only have one chance more than I do at being right.

My problem with dawkins is that he is a pompous prick (personality wise) and tries to disprove the existence of something which can't be proven/disproven by science.

He's not trying to disprove god. It's not the job of the nonbeliever to defend his or herself against someone else's positive claim (see below for more on this). He's merely pointing out the flaws that religion and society has brainwashed us into believing, and scared us into not questioning.

So in effect, no one really knows whether God exists or not, because our senses are limited since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of an immaterial being by using the criteria (science) of the material world. As such, all such statements and musings in this topic are a matter of belief, whether atheists like to admit it or not. There is no point at which we do not believe something. To not believe in God is still a belief.

That would be like saying "not playing baseball is a sport". How can the absence of a belief BE a belief? This is an attempt to try and put nonbelievers in the same "faith" boat that the believers are in.You can't disprove that Zeus, Osiris, Mithras, Asdvadzos, unicorns or the Planters Peanut aren't real. Do you have faith in them as well? If not, why? Do you BELIEVE they don't exist? Is it impossible to know they don't? Can you disprove I'm god? If not, do you BELIEVE I'm not god?

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the positive claim, not the other way around, as you cannot prove a negative. Since the believer makes the assertion that a god exists, and what's more, claims to know which god is the right one, it is up to the believer to prove all this.

Oh, but I forgot. God defies human reasoning, logic and understanding, therefore, is unprovable. We just have to go on faith. OK, fine. Let's play that game. Of COURSE it's faith. I think everyone understands this part. But what I DON'T understand (and what I NEVER get an answer to from believers) is what do you base your faith ON? Every god man has ever worshiped, past or present, revolves around this whole concept of "there is no proof, just have faith". Well if this is the case, then what is the criteria for selecting the "right" god, or the one you decide to believe in? How do you go about choosing what to place your faith in? This is pretty critical. After all, the consequences for not choosing wisely can be quite dire (Russian roulette, as you put it). Yet, the answer to this question (allow me, since believers won't answer it, even though the answer is quite obvious) is "I believe in the dominant faith of the culture I was born into".

.....this doesn't strike anyone else as utterly stupid? If there is only one true god, and believing in any of the other false gods leads to severe, usually eternal consequences, doesn't this method of ASSUMING you had the great fortune of being born into a culture that believes in the "correct" god seem just a tad ridiculous?

I'm talking about "why are we here?' type of questions - the fundamental purpose of life. Without a reason as to why we're here, it is very easy for a person to slip into depression and other mental ailments.

And there in lies the problem. I saved this for last because this is what it all boils down to. Since the beginning of human history, we have been plagued with consciousness/self-awareness, which is both a blessing, and the ultimate curse. The ability to be aware of your own existence and place in this world is astounding, and has afforded humans the ability of much more complex thinking, progression and advancement than any other creature on this planet. However, that ability to question and analyze has also damned us with the need for purpose. "Why are we here? How did we get here? Where did we come from?" And worst of all, "....what happens to us when we die?" It is very difficult for the human mind to wrap itself around the thought of the very real possibility that this is it. When we die, ALL that personality, and ALL that character, and ALL those memories and knowledge, those thoughts, ideas, experiences, and feelings could very well go to the grave with you, and no where else. You will be no more. Just *poof*......gone. Talk about a mind f*ck. What a damning thought to be stuck with for the duration of your life.

Understanding this, it becomes easy to see why it's only natural to want to have something to cling to, something higher than you and what you as a human are capable of, not just for death, but for any of those moments of despair where you feel small and helpless. THIS is why we defy all logic and believe against all odds that there is a governing higher power who has another existence all set up and ready to go for us. It was created to comfort our minds from such terrorizing thoughts. "Don't worry, all your glorious being WILL go on when you die". We know damn well in the back of our minds that it is beyond improbable, but we suppress that thought because the alternative is absolutely terrifying. However, this fear and need does not make god any more real.

It is rather ironic that the need for such answers usually subconsciously forces most to god, because it is exactly these questions that led me to break away from these convenient, widely accepted answers.

[Hye_Psycho]

Re: What religion are you?

A non-Christian "Armenian" is a contradiction-in-terms.

This is just pure ignorance.
Please read the following..

Armenian News Network / Groong
May 1, 2001

By Eddie Arnavoudian


Agatangeghos' "History" is always cited as the first among that
cluster of Armenian language classical histories that were written
immediately following the development of the national alphabet in
413. It is, according to Khazar Barpetzi, himself a 5th century
historian, "the first definite account" of the "conversion of the land
of Armenia from pagan ignorance to genuine knowledge of godliness".
Covering a period of some 154 years stretching from the ascension of
the first hereditary Arshagouni king in 186 to the death of Drtad III,
the first Armenian Christian King in 330, Agatangeghos' volume acquired
an impressive international reputation. Right into the 12th and 13th
centuries it was being read not only in an Armenian version but in
numerous Latin, Assyrian and Arabic translations too.

The reasons why Agatangeghos' tale so captivated the pious Christian
reader and listener are not hard to discover. What we are offered is
not a secular account of the conversion as an expression of a
strategic Armenian alliance with Rome to halt a steady Persian
encroachment on Armenia. We have instead a stirring hagiographic
account of the first saints and martyrs of the Armenian Church.
Gregory the Illuminator's stubborn endurance of appalling torture,
Hripsime's amazing beauty, her bravery and martyrdom as well as the
fantastic drama of King Drtad's conversion are described with verve
and passion. For the devout the book reads like an adventure story
with Christian heroes, their struggles, sacrifices and eventual
triumphs.

Despite its rather heavy burden of theological disquisition this
volume retains its importance for students of Armenian history in
particular and of Christianity in general. Within its essentially
devotional narrative one can glean the brutal military-political form
that marked Armenia's transition to Christianity; a form that reveals
the entirely secondary role of Christian preaching and sermonizing.
The advent of Christianity clearly heralded the emergence of a new
political order in Armenia with the new religion representing a new
form of state and politics.


THE TYRANNY OF THE CONVERSION

Even from Agatangeghos' account it is clear that the triumph of this
new force was assured only after a decisive period during which
Gregory the Illuminator "relied on the King's terror and instruction
to secure obedience from all" (p443). Preaching meekness and mildness
to his flock Gregory the Illuminator and his allies did not consider
such virtues appropriate to their own proselytising work. In the
Christian conversion force and war clearly played a role immensely
more important than the preaching of the priests! The Church evidently
cared less about the salvation of souls and more about attaining power
and wealth for itself.

While Gregory the Illuminator is naturally depicted as playing the
decisive role, the success of the enterprise was crucially dependent
on the Christian alliance with King Drtad and the subsequent
deployment of the royal army in the service of the new religion. It
was only after cementing this pact that Gregory "received sanction
from the King, his princes and lords" to "commence the task" of
"demolishing, destroying, annihilating and removing from the face of
the earth the scandal" of paganism. (p437). With "peremptory
instruction from the King" the "entire royal army" proceeded to wage
veritable war to "annihilate even the memory of these false deities
that dared assume the name of god". (p437) The vast scale of this
campaign is not only described in detail, but told with a measure of
satisfaction too.

The Christian war opened with the now Christian army marching on the
town of Ardashad "there to destroy the temple of the goddess Anahid"
(p437). On its way, in a strategically and ideologically significant
move, the army "first set about destroying, wrecking and burning" the
renowned pagan "centre of learning and godly wisdom" said to have been
established by Ormist (p437). Thereafter the tide of devastation and
looting raged across the entire land as every possible pagan temple
and statue was levelled and its land and wealth appropriated by the
victorious Christian Church.

The Christian Church then set about consolidating its newly
established supremacy. It first sought to secure a degree of popular
acquiescence and support through the distribution of some pagan wealth
including much "gold and silver" to "the poor, the suffering and the
propertyless" (p439, p441). The Church however made sure to retain
for itself monopoly control of the source of wealth. It seized all
pagan "land and buildings along with the resident serfs and (including
even) pagan priests", now no doubt transformed into servants of the
new religion (p441). Thus it ensured the population's permanent
subordination to itself as it emerged as a dominant political and
economic power in the land.

Agatangeghos records much of the nitty-gritty of the Christian
consolidation and organisation, describing its spreading institutions
and structures, the building of churches and the putting in place of
new Church personnel. Gregory the Illuminator begins by establishing
the "laws and the commands" (p449) for the new order and travelling
"the length of the land to build Churches in all its domains,
provinces, districts, towns, and villages" (p467). On his return from
Cesaria where he was confirmed as leader of the Armenian Church, he
stops off in Sepastia to successfully persuade a large numbers of
clergymen "to return with to serve in the new priestly order." (p453)
To organise and direct the Church's work he also anoints "over 400
bishops for the various provinces" of the land. (p477)

Underpinning the expanding structure of the Church was Gregory's
large-scale project of education and indoctrination. As if conscious
of the fragility of the new order he paid particular attention to
fortifying the army, the proven guarantor of the conversion. With
Drtad's agreement he laboured hard to indoctrinate the armed forces by
"devoting one month to fasting and prayer" (p463) and Christening
"over 4,000 men, women and children" belonging to the King's military
entourage.

Whilst bolstering the loyalty of the army Gregory the Illuminator also
attended to the business of creating a dedicated and educated cadre to
administer its new estate and supervise its captured flock. He
"persuaded the King to gather together and educate children from many
provinces" including "in particular the children of the incestuous
pagan priesthood". (p467). The Church even incorporated the educated
remnants of old priestly caste, assigning them the task of "studying
either Assyrian or Hellenic Christian texts". So as to make its
authority more palatable to a population for whom this new religion
was both alien and incomprehensible, it also made significant
ideological concessions. Among other things many pagan holidays and
celebrations were incorporated into the Christian calendar as
commemorations for their own martyrs.

With such an organisation, the Church's wealth, status and political
power grew rapidly during the course of the 4th and 5th centuries. So
much so that within 50-70 years it had become the main and most
powerful challenge to the secular monarchy dwarfing by far the
pretensions of the remaining feudal nobility.


THE PAGAN HERITAGE

Agatangeghos' "History" has other merits besides unwittingly revealing
the real process and content of the Christian conversion. In describing
the destructive Christian onslaught he preserves in some detail
significant aspects of the pagan order's culture and religion. Besides
naming a number of gods - Anahid, Asdghig, Vahakn, and Aramazt - he
describes some of their functions and the rituals associated with
their worship. He also notes places and sites of many monuments,
temples and centres of learning, at the same time indicating their
relative order of importance, noting those that served as burial sites
for Kings and princes and sometimes cataloguing their wealth too.

Even from Agatangeghos' hostile account one can understand the charm
that the pagan gods had for the intellectuals of the 19th and 20th
century Armenian national revival. Through the pages of the book one
cannot fail to note the sharp contrast between the asceticism and
misanthropy of Christianity and the philantrophy of the pagan
religions. For the latter, gods were strong, energetic and willing
assistants in people's striving to enjoy life here on earth. Their
worship was senseless unless they served to ensure a bountiful life,
unless, that is, they served the welfare of humanity. As part of his
effort to stem the tide of Christianity, one of Drtad's edicts refers
to the "peace", "plenty", "enjoyment" and "goodness" on earth that
flows from loyalty to pre-Christian gods. Seeking to persuade Gregory
to revere the traditional Gods Drtad refers to the "Great Lady
Anahid", as "the glory of our nation and its main provider". She is
"worshiped by all Kings" because she "is the mother of all our
feelings and emotions" and "the benefactor of all human nature".

The pagan religion that is depicted in Agatangeghos had nothing in
common with the life-denying mysticism that is the essential content
of speeches attributed to Gregory the Illuminator, Hripsime and
others. It may, incidentally, be of note that while these lack any
reference to Christianity's secular benefits, Agatangeghos' own
narrative alludes to some, albeit vaguely. Nevertheless the fundamental
asceticism of the volume remains undented though it is clear that the
privileged Church hierarchy made an exception for itself. Even in
histories penned by devoutly Christian priests we see them enjoying
the fullness of life here on earth whilst preaching abstinence of all
sorts to their flock. This double standard seemed not to diminish the
religious elite's prospects for eternal bliss.


PROGRESS OR REACTION?

Agatangeghos' account makes for riveting reading. Yet it is littered
with important but unanswered questions. It does contribute to filling
out a few voids in other accounts of the 3rd and 4th century clash
between the Armenian Arshagounis and Persian Sasanids and throws some
light on the relations between Drtad III and the Roman Empire. It
also stimulates consideration of the nature of early Christian history
and theology and about its long-term effect on Armenian history. But
it provides no reliable chronological, historical or social
information to deduce any of the causes behind King Drtad III's
conversion and the formation of the Christian-Royal alliance. Neither
does it contain material which may help explain the ease with which
the old pagan order was vanquished.

It seems that the Anahids, Vahakns and other pagan gods who so
inspired our 19th and early 20th century poets lacked the power to
withstand the violence of the Christian onslaught. True the pagan
order was not defeated overnight, many of its rituals were incorporated
into the new religion, it survived for some time, albeit tenuously, in
remoter regions of the country and endured even longer in folk memory.
But it ceased to be a significant political, social or cultural force.

>From the swiftness and thoroughness with which Christianity triumphed
it is possible to tentatively conclude that in the Christian political
movement paganism confronted a far more energetic and determined force
than itself. The consequences of this radical transformation for the
future course of Armenian history continue to be the subject of
intense debate. A convincing argument can be made however that it had
both progressive and regressive significance, both in political and in
cultural life. However only the most careful, meticulous and
historically defined examination, one that does not tar all centuries
with the same brush, can succeed in approximating the complexity of
historical reality.

In this context one thing is beyond argument. The pious and
sanctimonious speeches and declarations that accompanied most of the
1700th anniversary celebrations of the victory of the Armenian Church,
by failing to differentiate between its qualitatively differing roles
over the centuries, obscures the indubitably positive role it played
for example during the late 4th and 5th centuries and simultaneously
conceals its appallingly treacherous role during many other centuries.


--
Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from
Manchester, England, and is Groong's commentator-in-residence on
Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues
have also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open
Letter in Los Angeles.

http://www.groong.org/tcc/tcc-20010501.html