4 ms·

Wrong. This is essentially the context in which we still live today though we’ve secularized substantially over the past centuries. But Rome was on the path to

by _bin_ 1y ago

Wrong. This is essentially the context in which we still live today though we’ve secularized substantially over the past centuries. But Rome was on the path to Christianity at this time and later converted, so this is a very common way to understand things. Generally a work is one of a few things: Christian, Jewish, maybe Muslim depending on whom you ask, as it’s also an Abrahamic faith, or Pagan. To be honest this feels more like you have an axe to grind with Christianity or its dominance, similar to the people pushing for “BCE/CE” over BC/AD. I don’t know why, but don’t expect the rest of the world to carry that cross for you.

Arainach 1y ago
When a scientist in India publishes a study, we don't call it a "pagan" study. The word "pagan" adds nothing to the original post. "An entire library from the first century" conveys just as much information.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  Indian studies were not part of the world of classical antiquity and you know it. Nobody is calling them pagan. And no, stripping that descriptor removes information from the statement.
  - Arainach 1y ago
    Is there evidence of a single significant Christian library from the first century?
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      Pagan in this case would also exclude Judaism in its many different forms, which certainly had a long written tradition by that point.
  - ab5tract 1y ago
    Greece had multiple colonies in India and there was significant cultural diffusion in BCE times.
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      This isn't especially relevant. It barely covered a few scraps of northwest India. Most "Indo-Greek" civilization and culture was concentrated in Bactria and Sogdiana, not those few scraps of modern-day India, and BC Indo-Greek culture was not what we'd understand to be "Vedic Indian" so much as Persian-esque. It also wasn't exactly part of the classical hellenistic civilization we talk about as the root of the western tradition, something of which I'm sure you're fully aware, making this a moot point.
kiba 1y ago
To be honest, adding the word "pagan" just seem needlessly divisive. When I read about the past, nobody is going out of their way to point out that it's Pagan.
- tourmalinetaco 1y ago
  Do you believe that Goy/Goyim is similarly divisive? Or Kafir? And I’m not sure what books you’re reading, Pagan vs Christian Rome is a common distinction if the context hasn’t already made it obvious (such as here).
  - jsnider3 1y ago
    > Do you believe that Goy/Goyim is similarly divisive? Or Kafir? Yes, which is why I don't use those words unless they are immediately relevant to the subject.
griffzhowl 1y ago
> This is essentially the context in which we still live today Who's "we"? - It doesn't apply to everyone in the world, so you're assuming some limitations in who you're referring to. GP makes a fair point. If you mean by "pagan" simply non-Christian and non-Jewish, then to make it relevant to call it a pagan library you would need to establish that it was curated specifically to exclude Christain or Jewish themes. You might as well call it a "non-Mithraic library", if it happens to exclude mention of Mithras, which was also an up-and-coming cult among the Romans in the first century. Then it would be incorrect or presumptious to call it "non-Mithraic", unless you'd first established that it contained no mention of Mithras. And the only reason you'd do that is if Mithras held a particular parochial relevance to you. You understand that not everyone holds up an image of Mithras as a prism through which to view everything else. OTOH, if you mean by "pagan" just that it's Roman, but from before Rome converted to Christianity, then just say it's a first century Roman library.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  America, which is the center of world power and culture. You may not like that but that doesn't make it untrue. It's also where most users of this site live. GP does not make a fair point. We're specifically talking about classical antiquity which was a fairly bounded world. Warrior god cults, like that of Mithras, didn't have a strong role in the overall state and direction of the empire. They weren't major players and it is actually perfectly fine for terminology and understanding to focus on those. Christianity is the prism through which the Romans later viewed things and through which the heirs of classical antiquity did. This isn't parochial, this reflects your general dislike of Christianity's dominance. But I don't actually have to make a normative argument that it should be, just the positive point that it is. "Pagan" is a widely-accepted way to refer to Rome's old polytheistic religious traditions, which existed, but not unchallenged, around the first century.
  - griffzhowl 1y ago
    > America, which is the center of world power and culture. Yeah, ok. So an explicitly parochial prespective. This isn't compelling from a disinterested, objective perspective. > Warrior god cults, like that of Mithras, didn't have a strong role in the overall state and direction of the empire. They weren't major players and it is actually perfectly fine for terminology and understanding to focus on those. just like Christianity in 79AD Herculaneum
gsich 1y ago
Before Christian Era and Christian Era. My main gripe with it is the low entropy. In BC/AD each letter is unique. Even if you only heared 1 letter you still know what was said.
- ab5tract 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    Firstly, most people either don't know or don't regularly consider what BC and AD mean. No more than they remember i.e. stands for "id est" or know what the Latin means. These are basically opaque wrappers where there's no particular Christian subtext in their use. Or there wasn't until a bunch of people who really just hate Christianity started trying to expurgate every trace of it from our culture. Do you understand why the phrase "Christian BS", aside from not really being much of an argument, ensures probably nine people in ten will immediately close off to what you say and refuse to take you seriously?
    - ab5tract 1y ago
      Do you understand that the majority of the world is not Christian? Why do you think one should get away with trying to rewrite the very acronym that exists to not reference a religion into being a direct reference to a religion?
      - _bin_ 1y ago
        So what? The alternative acronyms are neologisms created specifically out of anti-Christian sentiment. If y'all were operating in good faith, these would catch the same level of attention: - Sabbatical, originating from Sabbath, a Judeo-Christian day of rest, - The use of "karma", "zen", and "avatar" as terms and concepts, which come mostly from eastern religion, - The use of "kosher", "mazel tov", and "golem" outside religious contexts due to their Judaic roots, - and the use of "assassin", from a group of Shiite militants during the Crusades. Of course, none of these catch the sort of attention that BC and AD do, because this is an example of explicitly anti-Christian thought, word, and deed. If you are particularly averse to it as opposed to other religions, that is your personal bigotry to work through, not ours to placate.

by _bin_ 1y ago

Arainach 1y ago

When a scientist in India publishes a study, we don't call it a "pagan" study. The word "pagan" adds nothing to the original post. "An entire library from the first century" conveys just as much information.

_bin_ 1y ago
Indian studies were not part of the world of classical antiquity and you know it. Nobody is calling them pagan. And no, stripping that descriptor removes information from the statement.
- Arainach 1y ago
  Is there evidence of a single significant Christian library from the first century?
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    Pagan in this case would also exclude Judaism in its many different forms, which certainly had a long written tradition by that point.
- ab5tract 1y ago
  Greece had multiple colonies in India and there was significant cultural diffusion in BCE times.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    This isn't especially relevant. It barely covered a few scraps of northwest India. Most "Indo-Greek" civilization and culture was concentrated in Bactria and Sogdiana, not those few scraps of modern-day India, and BC Indo-Greek culture was not what we'd understand to be "Vedic Indian" so much as Persian-esque. It also wasn't exactly part of the classical hellenistic civilization we talk about as the root of the western tradition, something of which I'm sure you're fully aware, making this a moot point.

kiba 1y ago

To be honest, adding the word "pagan" just seem needlessly divisive. When I read about the past, nobody is going out of their way to point out that it's Pagan.

tourmalinetaco 1y ago
Do you believe that Goy/Goyim is similarly divisive? Or Kafir? And I’m not sure what books you’re reading, Pagan vs Christian Rome is a common distinction if the context hasn’t already made it obvious (such as here).
- jsnider3 1y ago
  > Do you believe that Goy/Goyim is similarly divisive? Or Kafir? Yes, which is why I don't use those words unless they are immediately relevant to the subject.

griffzhowl 1y ago

> This is essentially the context in which we still live today Who's "we"? - It doesn't apply to everyone in the world, so you're assuming some limitations in who you're referring to. GP makes a fair point. If you mean by "pagan" simply non-Christian and non-Jewish, then to make it relevant to call it a pagan library you would need to establish that it was curated specifically to exclude Christain or Jewish themes. You might as well call it a "non-Mithraic library", if it happens to exclude mention of Mithras, which was also an up-and-coming cult among the Romans in the first century. Then it would be incorrect or presumptious to call it "non-Mithraic", unless you'd first established that it contained no mention of Mithras. And the only reason you'd do that is if Mithras held a particular parochial relevance to you. You understand that not everyone holds up an image of Mithras as a prism through which to view everything else. OTOH, if you mean by "pagan" just that it's Roman, but from before Rome converted to Christianity, then just say it's a first century Roman library.

_bin_ 1y ago
America, which is the center of world power and culture. You may not like that but that doesn't make it untrue. It's also where most users of this site live. GP does not make a fair point. We're specifically talking about classical antiquity which was a fairly bounded world. Warrior god cults, like that of Mithras, didn't have a strong role in the overall state and direction of the empire. They weren't major players and it is actually perfectly fine for terminology and understanding to focus on those. Christianity is the prism through which the Romans later viewed things and through which the heirs of classical antiquity did. This isn't parochial, this reflects your general dislike of Christianity's dominance. But I don't actually have to make a normative argument that it should be, just the positive point that it is. "Pagan" is a widely-accepted way to refer to Rome's old polytheistic religious traditions, which existed, but not unchallenged, around the first century.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  > America, which is the center of world power and culture. Yeah, ok. So an explicitly parochial prespective. This isn't compelling from a disinterested, objective perspective. > Warrior god cults, like that of Mithras, didn't have a strong role in the overall state and direction of the empire. They weren't major players and it is actually perfectly fine for terminology and understanding to focus on those. just like Christianity in 79AD Herculaneum

gsich 1y ago

Before Christian Era and Christian Era. My main gripe with it is the low entropy. In BC/AD each letter is unique. Even if you only heared 1 letter you still know what was said.

ab5tract 1y ago
[flagged]
- _bin_ 1y ago
  Firstly, most people either don't know or don't regularly consider what BC and AD mean. No more than they remember i.e. stands for "id est" or know what the Latin means. These are basically opaque wrappers where there's no particular Christian subtext in their use. Or there wasn't until a bunch of people who really just hate Christianity started trying to expurgate every trace of it from our culture. Do you understand why the phrase "Christian BS", aside from not really being much of an argument, ensures probably nine people in ten will immediately close off to what you say and refuse to take you seriously?
  - ab5tract 1y ago
    Do you understand that the majority of the world is not Christian? Why do you think one should get away with trying to rewrite the very acronym that exists to not reference a religion into being a direct reference to a religion?
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      So what? The alternative acronyms are neologisms created specifically out of anti-Christian sentiment. If y'all were operating in good faith, these would catch the same level of attention: - Sabbatical, originating from Sabbath, a Judeo-Christian day of rest, - The use of "karma", "zen", and "avatar" as terms and concepts, which come mostly from eastern religion, - The use of "kosher", "mazel tov", and "golem" outside religious contexts due to their Judaic roots, - and the use of "assassin", from a group of Shiite militants during the Crusades. Of course, none of these catch the sort of attention that BC and AD do, because this is an example of explicitly anti-Christian thought, word, and deed. If you are particularly averse to it as opposed to other religions, that is your personal bigotry to work through, not ours to placate.