3 ms·

Personally, I'd find that discussion very interesting. For anyone else who is unfamiliar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation https://e

Personally, I'd find that discussion very interesting. For anyone else who is unfamiliar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation

plinkplonk 14y ago
A dispassionate intellectual discussion relevant to the topic at hand would be one thing. If the poster rambled on about his personal belief of how Shia Islam is the One True Religion and blather about what you need to do to go to heaven, quoting the Quran at random, and proselytizing and so on, that would probably be equally inappropriate (on HN) and flag worthy (on HN).
run4yourlives 14y ago
Me too. I find it fascinating that pretty much every religion has a messiah theme. The big three of course, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and ancient religions like the Mayans and Persians. It's such an out there idea - that of a saviour to return to impart perfection - but so prevalent that I'd love to see a more intellectual exploration of the topic.
- winter_blue 14y ago
  Now that you mention it, I did once read a book that discussed how the idea of a saviour is present in many cultures (many more than you'd think). The author was writing from a Christian perspective - he believed humans (in many disjoint cultures) somehow innately come to know their need for their saviour - and he attributes it to God putting it in their heart. One Polynesian culture that was completely separated from the world for centuries even came up with the idea of the Creator coming to earth in human form and rescuing them. If you're interested and want to read more, the book's called Eternity in Their Hearts: http://www.amazon.com/ETERNITY-THEIR-HEARTS-RICHARDSON-DON/dp/0830738371 http://www.amazon.com/ETERNITY-THEIR-HEARTS-RICHARDSON-DON/d... As I said, it is written from a Christian perspective. I don't know of any books that tackle the same issue from a secular/non-religious viewpoint. Often times it's hard to get purely unbiased opinion, I've skimmed through books by Christopher Hawkins / Richard Dawkins and these simply hate on religion. They actually sound a lot more "religious" (in the sense people use it these days) than you'd think. They're often a tirade of rants against Christianity and religion in general with no call to reason or any honest examination of the deep questions at hand. (meaning of life, problem of evil, ...) I've found C.S. Lewis to be much more intellectually stimulating in this regard. Even though he takes a Christian stance, his reasoning/logic quite dispassionate/unbiased compared to what's out there. (at least in Mere Christianity). I've also found discussion groups useful in this regard. My college and Church had discussion groups led by professors and department chairs (who were Christians) which turned out to be quite helpful/constructive. I know there's organization called Veritas Forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas_Forum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas_Forum) which tries to bring such discussions to colleges.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  I am not familiar with those religions, but aren't they monotheistic? Because I don't recall Old Norse mythology as having any saviors (though the gods were supposed to fight the evils after Ragnarok).
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    Hinduism is not. Ragnarok is eerily close to the Armageddon story however, complete with monsters and beasts, darkness and destruction of the planet by fire from the heavens. It's also very similar to the Mayan and Hindu "rebirth following destruction" theories. I'd posit that the "saviour" component of later religions is perhaps just a development of the darkness in the rebirth narrative.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
winter_blue 14y ago
PG talks about the kind of response plinkplonk came up with in "What You Can't Say": (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention.

Personally, I'd find that discussion very interesting. For anyone else who is unfamiliar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation

plinkplonk 14y ago

A dispassionate intellectual discussion relevant to the topic at hand would be one thing. If the poster rambled on about his personal belief of how Shia Islam is the One True Religion and blather about what you need to do to go to heaven, quoting the Quran at random, and proselytizing and so on, that would probably be equally inappropriate (on HN) and flag worthy (on HN).

run4yourlives 14y ago

Me too. I find it fascinating that pretty much every religion has a messiah theme. The big three of course, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and ancient religions like the Mayans and Persians. It's such an out there idea - that of a saviour to return to impart perfection - but so prevalent that I'd love to see a more intellectual exploration of the topic.

winter_blue 14y ago
Now that you mention it, I did once read a book that discussed how the idea of a saviour is present in many cultures (many more than you'd think). The author was writing from a Christian perspective - he believed humans (in many disjoint cultures) somehow innately come to know their need for their saviour - and he attributes it to God putting it in their heart. One Polynesian culture that was completely separated from the world for centuries even came up with the idea of the Creator coming to earth in human form and rescuing them. If you're interested and want to read more, the book's called Eternity in Their Hearts: http://www.amazon.com/ETERNITY-THEIR-HEARTS-RICHARDSON-DON/dp/0830738371 http://www.amazon.com/ETERNITY-THEIR-HEARTS-RICHARDSON-DON/d... As I said, it is written from a Christian perspective. I don't know of any books that tackle the same issue from a secular/non-religious viewpoint. Often times it's hard to get purely unbiased opinion, I've skimmed through books by Christopher Hawkins / Richard Dawkins and these simply hate on religion. They actually sound a lot more "religious" (in the sense people use it these days) than you'd think. They're often a tirade of rants against Christianity and religion in general with no call to reason or any honest examination of the deep questions at hand. (meaning of life, problem of evil, ...) I've found C.S. Lewis to be much more intellectually stimulating in this regard. Even though he takes a Christian stance, his reasoning/logic quite dispassionate/unbiased compared to what's out there. (at least in Mere Christianity). I've also found discussion groups useful in this regard. My college and Church had discussion groups led by professors and department chairs (who were Christians) which turned out to be quite helpful/constructive. I know there's organization called Veritas Forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas_Forum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas_Forum) which tries to bring such discussions to colleges.
tomjen3 14y ago
I am not familiar with those religions, but aren't they monotheistic? Because I don't recall Old Norse mythology as having any saviors (though the gods were supposed to fight the evils after Ragnarok).
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  Hinduism is not. Ragnarok is eerily close to the Armageddon story however, complete with monsters and beasts, darkness and destruction of the planet by fire from the heavens. It's also very similar to the Mayan and Hindu "rebirth following destruction" theories. I'd posit that the "saviour" component of later religions is perhaps just a development of the darkness in the rebirth narrative.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

winter_blue 14y ago

PG talks about the kind of response plinkplonk came up with in "What You Can't Say": (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention.