The Greco-Roman Religion is the Only True Religion.

[Amedeo]

Since I am an atheist, I am very impartial in judging religions; I have no partisan interests.

I open this thread for all interested people to take their time and collect all arguments in defense of the Graeco-Roman religion, which means, to begin with, to collect the religious docrines themselves, without which all talking and all arguments are empty and vain. And, insofar as some arguments aim at demonstrating that the G-R religion - a manifold one at that -- is the only true religion, it becomes necessary to demonstrate that the other religions are false religions.

Contrarily to what other religionists do, we do not take it on faith that the G-R religion is the only true one. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to set the criteria wherefore we shall make our claims. [We are starting the research; we are not beginning with articles of faith as to what a true religion is. Therefore, we shall not dirty our hands and mouths at the provocations that false religionists are going to make. You shall know them by the fruits they bear; their vicious insinuations will be the first sign of their coming from some false religion. Truth is humble and does not vomit on those who are innocently in error. But many cannot bear the light of truth about themselves and will lurk in the nights with knives to stab you in the back. They are the children of wickedness, darkness, and faith -- before the age of the Logos, of reason.]

The only preliminary question that i myself ask is this, "How can the Graeco-Roman religion be the only true religion when it does not even exist?"

Who says that it does not exist? Who says that the Greeks no longer exist (because most ancient temples are no longer in use)? Who says that the Roman Italians [traditionally called "Romans" because of their political beginning] do not exist? Who says that the ancient Mediterranids of France, German, or England became extinct? Most importantly, WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR A RELIGION TO EXIST?

Obviously the difference between a true and a false religion is not the difference between an existing and a non-existing religion. The mystery thickens: WHAT IS A TRUE RELIGION?

But, as I have said, before we can argue about the G-R religion being the true one, we must present expositions [doctrines, descriptions] of this manifold religion. One might start by saying something like, "The Greek religion is the belief that Zeus and other gods exist." Well, to me the BELIEF in supernatural entities is a superstition, not a religion. (Religion is not a belief. And a moment ago, I pointed out that we do not take it ON FAITH that the G-R religion is the only true one. Faith in some god is what characterizes the other religionists; theirs are faith-religions, the religions of the imagination, the false religions.)

Let's contribute carefully, slowly, thoughtfully, and little (if necessary), for we are undertaking a task which was never undertaken before, except is a small degree by a few men, when the Costantinian Roman empire became deluged by Christianity and the rabid ones overtuned the sacred altars and burnt or suppressed the cultural achievements of the Greeks and the Italians of a thousand years. They and the barbarians produced a thousand years of darkness.

We are still in the new Humanist Age -- in the West--, which new barbarians are threatening from within. The agents of false religions and the new predators are preparing another Dark Age. Will it be in full force by 2300? No prediction intended; I am only watching the progress of the kingdom of evil, which pretends to be the kingdom of God and the defender of Civilization. The Deceiver (in Washington and other world posts) is already the prince of the world.

[Amedeo]

Myth-making

The human mind, even in Age of Men, is prone to making myths. (One distinctive characteristic of the mind is to be memorative -- not only of the things it experiences, but also of its anatomical constitution. So, on the one hand, the memorative mind makes for those accumulations which are the basis for a progressive/historical culture; on the other, it preserves the potentials which gave rise to the Age of Gods and to the Age of Heroes, according to Vico's threefold or three-cyclic evolutionary history.)

In fact, I concluded my first message by referring to the Deceiver, the prince of the earth that has alredy arrived. I spoke as if the Deceiver were ONE person; actually I personified MANY human forces which have an overwhelming effect on the Caucasian civilization. So, the Deceiver is a myth. But he who looks behind the myth will find the realities upon which he was conceived. He who looks behind the myths of the gods, personal gods, in the Heroic Age finds the realities which gave rise to them. The true religion is enacted in all the historical Ages. Thus, our project is to do an archeology of the divine -- to dig into history so as to uncover "the divine" which the Caucasoid peoples have always lived [in all 3 historical stages, that is] and out of which they have also occasionally created myths, namely in the first Heroic/Ecclesiatical Age and in the second Heroic/Ecclesiastical Age (from about 312 to 1313).

To start our researches, we could begin considering some mythological facts of the ancient Graeco-Roman world. (Once again, this mean the Graeco-Italic world, since the Roman and most of the other Italic peoples are of the Proto-Greek extraction, long befors half of Italy was colonized by the Greeks of after the 8th century B.C. I am referring to a Mediterranid population west of the Euphrates that slowly spread westward, and grew, as far as Spain, France, and England.)

We must start with the Greek (or Stoic, in particular) notion that the UNIVERSE is that in which we move, live, and have our being. This was a notion that eventually Paul of Tarsus appropriated, and he defined GOD as that in which we move, live, and have our being. (He did not universalize his own God; he failed to recognize the autonomy of the Universe, which the Greeks always upheld.)

This universe, as the Greeks saw it with their own minds, was an autonomous universe and all that existed. Mindful of the over-human powers around us -- of which I have spoken at some length in some posts -- and prone to think of causes and effects (as it became natural in the Heroic Age), they conceived the whole sky (Ouranos) and the whole flatland earth (Gea) as the mightiest and primordial generative power that constitute our universe. They are the primordial gods (who got to be personified) that generate lesser gods, such as the planets, as well as mortal beings -- all the things that the philosophers will call the Physical World or, in Latin, Nature.

In that mythology, there are no gods besides the ones that constitute the Universe. The universe is not something with gods; it is divine, though harboring the mortal ones. In the Etruscan-Roman mythology, the universe is numinous, the numina being the divine (strong, operative, immortal) powers that are present in or animate all the things of the universe.

The first things that the human mind, the intelligence of primitive man, understood were the overpowering things or events that affected him: the storms, the fires, the floods, the winds, and all other forces, some even invisible and intangible but presumed from their effects on humans. But then places and seasonal times became the stages where the gods appear and act. So, there arose SACRED places and sacred times -- a field of feelings that abounded in Heroic times, side by side with ecclesiatical religion. In the Age of Men, we have the rapture of what we call esthetic experiences... and the music that the Caucasoids have been creating have yielded the esthetics of nature as well as "the sacred" of earlier men. {Eliade and others have written on The Sacred or The Holy.}

Our religion is of the numinous, the sacred, and the esthetic. It is thus that we are BOUND to the universe, in addition to the physico-mechanical, chemical, electric, and electromagnetic interactions. True, authentic, religion is the man-universe FELT interactions. False religion, or superstition, is a BELIEF in GODS outside or prior to the universe, products of human aberrations (which obviously the Greeks and the Romans had, too, but got over them), and it will be worth our time to do archeological work in the religion of Jupiter Legislator and in the complex Greek/Catholic religion.
---
Do also an archeology of the words in the above discourse. The words are articulation of concepts... The above numenclature is all Graeco-Roman, and so are the concepts.

Needless to say, we can also look at the eastern hemisphere of the world and, for example, explore Taoism before it became an ecclesiatical religion, or Tibetanism before the growth of professional monks. (Any ecclesiastical institution bespeaks of a perverted religion.)

[Ojuice5001]

But, as I have said, before we can argue about the G-R religion being the true one, we must present expositions [doctrines, descriptions] of this manifold religion. One might start by saying something like, "The Greek religion is the belief that Zeus and other gods exist."

I agree that that's inadequate as a definition of Greek religion; too simplified. But it would be utterly unhistorical to define the concept of "Greco-Roman religion" as something that has nothing at all to do with the gods. The historical Greeks and Romans took their rationalistic philosophies seriously, but they were also serious about worshipping the gods and believing that they ruled over this world. Greco-Roman thought had many compromises and cooperations between reason and religion; in this respect as in many others, it has many similarities to modern thought.

Faith in some god is what characterizes the other religionists;

Couldn't faith in the Greco-Roman gods be one of the things that characterize the Greco-Roman religion? ;)

I make this point because I do believe in the Greco-Roman gods (I believe other gods exist, but Jupiter and the other Roman gods are the ones I worship). However, I do not claim that the Greco-Roman religion is the only true religion.

And don't get me wrong; I recognize that rationalism and humanism were also very important parts of classical culture. And that some writers criticized the gods in the name of rationalism and humanism--however, most of their philosophical systems allotted some kind of a role for the gods. It may be that these philosophies are more distinctive than the fact that, like virtually all other cultures, the Greeks and Romans believed in gods. Even so, however, don't overlook the distinctively Greek sense of thoughtfulness and proportion that permeates classical mythology. Gods like Athena, Apollo, and Hermes have an orderly quality to them is often lacking in other mythologies.

[Amedeo]

I have the impression that by "religions" you means the traditional religions [Greek, Roman, Islamic, Christian, Judaic, etc.] All of these are FAITH-RELIGIONS (as there is no evidence that the gods of those religions exist): people believe in certain gods and performs certain ceremonies in order to connect with them. They also believe that these gods -- personal and invisible -- intervene in the world. So, you believe in certain gods but, by admitting that there are other gods as well, you conclude that all religions are true religions. On the contrary I speak of man-universe relations or connection that are definable as religion. A varied of religious experiences gave rise to the CONCEPTION of personal, invisible, lordly gods [during a period of human history]. I do not believe that such gods are real and I have many arguments against the existence of gods in general, and particular historical gods. To me, ecclesiastical religion, which has special human intermediateries between people and the invisible gods, is a susperstions. [I am an atheist and athelogian.) I go back to the religion or forms of religion that precedes the making of the gods [the invisible persons of the many ecclesiastical religions].

Refer to #2:
Our religion is of the numinous, the sacred, and the esthetic. It is thus that we are BOUND to the universe, in addition to the physico-mechanical, chemical, electric, and electromagnetic interactions. True, authentic, religion is the man-universe FELT interactions.
False religion, or superstition, is a BELIEF in GODS outside or prior to the universe, products of human aberrations (which obviously the Greeks and the Romans had, too, but got over them), and it will be worth our time to do archeological work in the religion of Jupiter Legislator and in the complex Greek/Catholic religion.

My final hint about two fields of "research" should make it clear that there much, much, more to say about the RADICAL RELIGION I have been speaking of. (For instance, by tracing Jupiter to his roots -- as I have done in some of my etymological work -- we basicallt arrive at the exprience of the universe as order, "law", justice, LOGOS (which, from Heraclitus and the Stoics) reappears in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Now that I am on the subject, I should state that Plato defines substantial Being as DYNAMIS (power). (And that's what God the Father is.) Heraclitus intuited the LOGOS (Reason, Right, etc.) of the eternal flux of Being. (And that's what God the Son is, that at some point became incarnated in a human person, according to the Greek Christians.) Finally Francis of Assisi defined God as Love. And as Dante put it, love moves the sun and the other stars. It is the Empedoclean love that unites things, builds, integrates. It is the Bonaventurian love toward which all things move... and, therefore it is beauty. (And that's the third aspect of the Trinity.) The "trinity" is an advancement over the Parmenidean ontology. The greatest ontologists: Parmenides of Elea, John of Ephesus (plus others), and Bruno of Nola (who resolve the issue of the finite and the infinte, and the material and the immaterial). (Bruno, a former monk, was burnt at the stake for being an atheist.)

What I have been calling radical religion has been called mysticism, but there is the inevitable theoretical perversion, "religious mysticism," namely a "mysticism" that supposedly connects humans with invisible supernatural gods, wherefore Juan de la Cruz speaks of the dark night of the soul or nirvana, or Bonaventura speaks of the mind's ascent into God [which, I found out, was really an ontological contemplation].

It is the Graeco-Roman RADICAL religion that I am in the process of dealing with.

[figuer]

Greco-Roman is inappropiate terminology.

Greco-Latin is the correct term.

Rome was the metropolis of the Latins, but the Latin speaking people exist before and after "Rome". To say Greco-Roman is like saying "Atheno-Latin".

The problem with "Greco-Latin" religion is that it lacks a holy book like the Christian Bible.

Such a book would be easy to construct. First the greek myths, then the historical records, then the plays and the philosophers. That would be the "old or Greek testament". Then the "new or Latin testament", First the Latin myths, then the history of the Roman republic/empire, the philosophers etc.

[premjan]

Didn't the Latins borrow their religion from Greece? And whereas Greece was more of a culture, Rome was more of a civilization, a political unit.

[figuer]

Didn't the Latins borrow their religion from Greece?No. They were related peoples who had a common cultural background. Their pagan religions were very similar. The Latins borrowed some myths from the Greeks, but not the religion in itself.

And whereas Greece was more of a culture, Rome was more of a civilization, a political unit.I think such distinctions between "culture" and "civilization" are pointless.

[Amedeo]

Greco-Roman is inappropiate terminology.

Greco-Latin is the correct term.

Rome was the metropolis of the Latins, but the Latin speaking people exist before and after "Rome". To say Greco-Roman is like saying "Atheno-Latin".

The problem with "Greco-Latin" religion is that it lacks a holy book like the Christian Bible.

Such a book would be easy to construct. First the greek myths, then the historical records, then the plays and the philosophers. That would be the "old or Greek testament". Then the "new or Latin testament", First the Latin myths, then the history of the Roman republic/empire, the philosophers etc.

The problem with Jewish, Christian, and some other religions is that they have BOOKS and PRIESTS. Those are professional, prophetical, ecclesiastical religions. I was speaking of a PERSONAL, RADICAL religion, which predates the religions of the supernatural. Please read my early posts again.

I think I am going to drop the word "religion" and coin a new word....

[aupmanyav]

Amedeo, your search is over (before it really started). Kindly read about 'Advaita' of hinduism and the idea of 'Brahman', the universal substrate which we erroronously percieve as energy/substance/space/time (I emphasize, it is not a 'God'). Advaita does not believe in anything 'supernatural'. I have been explaining that in my posts in this forum.

'Advaita' was developed from the ideas given in the Vedas and the later literature, the Upanishads, in India. Perhaps you would agree that the Aryans that came to India, Iran, and Mesopotamia (the Mittani), Kazakhistan (Andronovo culture) were of the same stock as those who laid the foundation of the Greek and Roman beliefs.

It seems that these people migrated from far north (I do not know whether it was Scandinavia or Siberia) because of last glaciation (that happened some 18,000 years ago) and during their way south sent off branches to many countries. When the glaciers abated, some turned north again to leave their mark in Germany, Scandinavia, England and Ireland.

That is why the languages of all these countries are known as Indo-European, they have the same origins as Indian Sanskrit. A lot many words are derived from the same roots. The names of their Gods are the same (Dyavapitar in the Vedas and Dyaus Pitar in Greek, Varun in the Vedas and Oarnos in Greek). There beliefs were similar. If Vedas mention priests who completed their sacrificial year in ten months (Dashagwahs), the old Roman calender consisted of 304 days. Two months were added in the beginning in a later change. That is why the last month of the year is still named as December (the tenth). Few people realize that it is because these people lived in Arctic regions where there was a long night of two or three months, which was not counted in their year, and as mentioned in the Vedas, the dawn lasted for 30 days.

Their mythologies also are strikingly similar. If Indians believe that Indra rescued the cows (sun and its rays) from a dark cave covered by a stone where they were imprisoned by the demons of darkness (Vritra, literally 'which covers everything') with the help of a bitch (Sarama, really referring to the Dog Star, because the year in those days, 4000 BC, began with the sun rising with Dog Star); the Greeks believed that the cows were rescued by Herakles for a dark cave covered by a stone where they were imprisoned by the Titans with the help of a dog, Cerebrus.

I hope you see the closeness beyond coincidence. I would like to know your views on this.

[premjan]

No. They were related peoples who had a common cultural background. Their pagan religions were very similar. The Latins borrowed some myths from the Greeks, but not the religion in itself.

I think such distinctions between "culture" and "civilization" are pointless.
Ancient Roman Religion
I think you may be underestimating the influence of the Greeks on the Romans (which I don't think is quite the same as the Latins). BTW, the Latins are Romans in a sense, because the name "Latin" comes from Latinus, the father-in-law of Aeneas, who was, according to Virgil, one of the ex-Trojans responsible for founding Rome. The fact that the Romans derive their city-state tradition from that of Troy indicates that the Greek and Roman national myths are therefore quite closely related.
As contact with the Greeks increased, the influence of Greek religion was increasingly felt.[1] The old Roman gods became associated and sometimes syncretized with Greek gods. Therefore Jupiter was perceived to be the same deity as Zeus. Mars was associated with Ares and Neptune with Poseidon. The actual fact is of course that Jupiter had a distinctive Italic flavour that Zeus did not, and Juno retained as much of her Etruscan forebear as she borrowed from the Greek Hera. It is easy to assume that the Roman gods simply absorbed the attributes and histories of these Greek gods, though they did come to be associated with them.
And Latin and Greek languages have very minor influence from each other.
The Italic languages are first attested in writing from Umbrian and Faliscan inscriptions dating to the 7th century BC. The alphabets used are based on the Old Italic alphabet, which is itself based on the Greek alphabet. The Italic languages themselves show minor influence from the Etruscan and somewhat more from the Ancient Greek languages.
Italic languages as Greek is a language isolate and the two languages do not even fall in the same group of Indo-European.

[Amedeo]

Amedeo, your search is over (before it really started). Kindly read about 'Advaita' of hinduism and the idea of 'Brahman', the universal substrate which we erroronously percieve as energy/substance/space/time (I emphasize, it is not a 'God'). Advaita does not believe in anything 'supernatural'. I have been explaining that in my posts in this forum.

'Advaita' was developed from the ideas given in the Vedas and the later literature, the Upanishads, in India. Perhaps you would agree that the Aryans that came to India, Iran, and Mesopotamia (the Mittani), Kazakhistan (Andronovo culture) were of the same stock as those who laid the foundation of the Greek and Roman beliefs.

It seems that these people migrated from far north (I do not know whether it was Scandinavia or Siberia) because of last glaciation (that happened some 18,000 years ago) and during their way south sent off branches to many countries. When the glaciers abated, some turned north again to leave their mark in Germany, Scandinavia, England and Ireland.

That is why the languages of all these countries are known as Indo-European, they have the same origins as Indian Sanskrit. A lot many words are derived from the same roots. The names of their Gods are the same (Dyavapitar in the Vedas and Dyaus Pitar in Greek, Varun in the Vedas and Oarnos in Greek). There beliefs were similar. If Vedas mention priests who completed their sacrificial year in ten months (Dashagwahs), the old Roman calender consisted of 304 days. Two months were added in the beginning in a later change. That is why the last month of the year is still named as December (the tenth). Few people realize that it is because these people lived in Arctic regions where there was a long night of two or three months, which was not counted in their year, and as mentioned in the Vedas, the dawn lasted for 30 days.

Their mythologies also are strikingly similar. If Indians believe that Indra rescued the cows (sun and its rays) from a dark cave covered by a stone where they were imprisoned by the demons of darkness (Vritra, literally 'which covers everything') with the help of a bitch (Sarama, really referring to the Dog Star, because the year in those days, 4000 BC, began with the sun rising with Dog Star); the Greeks believed that the cows were rescued by Herakles for a dark cave covered by a stone where they were imprisoned by the Titans with the help of a dog, Cerebrus.

I hope you see the closeness beyond coincidence. I would like to know your views on this.

By your mentioning "ADVAITA," I was not too sure what you were referring to, but upon reading just these few lines, I put it in perspective:

Advaita Vedanta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Advaita Vedanta (IAST Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit अद्वैत वेदान्त; IPA /əd̪vait̪ə veːd̪ɑːnt̪ə/) is the dominant sub-school of the Vedānta (literally, end or the goal of the Vedas, Sanskrit) school of Hindu philosophy. The other major sub-schools of Vedānta are Dvaita and Viśish�*ādvaita. Advaita (literally, non-duality) is often called a monistic system of thought. The word "Advaita" essentially refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman)[1]. The key source texts for all schools of Vedānta are the Prasthanatrayi – the canonical texts consisting of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. The first person to explicitly consolidate the principles of Advaita Vedanta was Adi Shankara.

Actually many years ago I read parts of the Upanishads, etc., and I found a kinship with its basic thoughts, concerning the Atman, etc. It seems that I have to go back to those writing for a better understanding. (At one point, above, I indicated that I was talking about the "radical religion" in the West, as I was not about to delve into world-wide radical thoughts, as also in Taoism, etc.)

There is at least one thematic connection between the Indian and European "radical" "philosophy"/"religion" which is evident in the Delphic injunction, "Know thy-SELF." I have dealt with the significance of this in other posts in other forums. Briefly, the injunction is related to the oracular sibyls and the chthonic Apollo who is the "inspirer." The point is that whereas ecclesiastical religions have prophets who PROVIDE knowledge for the faithful, The Ionians and Greeks in general were bidden to SEEK knowledge. So, I have seen Greek philosophy as the outcome of paying heed to the Delphic injunction. In particular, when Socrates went to consult sibyl Diotima, he learned -- as we read in Plato -- of the minor and the major "mysteries", or the unveilings which occur to the the ascending mind. Here we are in what is generally called mysticism (or the ascent of the mind into Being, which is what the major philosophers practiced). So, renewed studies should be made of Pythagoras, Parmenides, Plato, and others, while the "physicists" went on to search into the realm of Becoming.

Aside from the Greek mythological/celestial religion, and prior to Greek philosophy proper, there was the "religion" or connectedness with the "earth" or the chthonic powers. There isn't a single word to embrace "chthonism and mysticism," but there were practices or rites connected with it: the oracles, the Eleusinian rites of Demeter/Kore, the Dionysian rites, etc. -- which, at their stages known to us, involve personifications of the numina or cosmic powers (which are the first to be felt by the emerging Man). In the Indic writings and in the the writings of the ontological philosophers, we have, rather than personifications, "abstractions" which the mind makes of the Universe/Being.... As you see, there is an immense work of study to be done of all the writings we have been mentioning; I feel I have only been fishing in an immense ocean. (What I endeavor to do is to go to the fount or the roots all the cultural accretions that have been made in the East and the West, for the LIMITATIONS of the accretions imply also a falsification of what is most fundamental.)

As for the "Aryans" and the Indo-European language, I have made many studies which have led me away from certain theories, such as you mention. There is no way I could make a brief synthesis here and now. I will only point to the basics of what I have been finding (and am in the process of investigating):

There is a land which is approximately called The Middle East. Now, I go to a time before 3,000 B.C. and the trapezoidal territory whose limits are the Indus River at the East and the Hellespont/Suez line at the West. This time-space entity, I call "Parvasia" [The Small Asia -- not to be confused with "Asia Minor" in Anatolia]. Parvasia is the Indus-Mediterranean strip approximately BEFORE 3,000 B.C. Parvasia is the land of the Caucasoid peoples, who had a common language (already reduced to a small portion of indigenously grown languages by 3,000 B.C.) The Indo-European language, of which we speak today on the basis of the ancient written languages, etc. of that area, is a core-language in Proto-Greek, Sumerian, Pharsi, and Indic/Sanskrit. These language are more different than they are similar. The dissimilarities grew slowly probably from 20,000 B.C. or before // The Caucasoids in question are indigenous to Parvasia, whether they evolved from African races or from anything else. (Other populations had moved eastward of what is today Pakistan.) It is from Parvasia that populations migrated, at various times, into Europe and into the Slavic countries.
Some time before 3,000 B.C., there were no Arab or Araboid people in Parvasia; they were in Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Then some invasions produced biological and cultural hybrids, such as the Phoenicians, the Canaanites (the Hebrews included), and (in historical time), the Akkadians and the Babylonians. The Persians were not commigled and preserved their own gods and their own core Indo-European language; neither were the Indus. Languages such as Eblaite, Akkadian, and Hebrew largely consist of Proto-Greek or Sujmerian, and Proto-Arabic: this is the hot topic that started when a Jewish scholar, Yehuda, discovered hundreds of Iliadic Greek etyms in Biblical Hebrew, and when I found, to begin with, that "yahweh" is a Parvasian [Indo-European] word. (An Italian linguist, Semerano, found many cognates in Greek and in Akkadian/Canaanite languages, but he was under the mistaken impression that those "semitic" languages were the basis of the ancient Indo-European languages. Many people still believe -- as they believe in the Bible as history -- that "Semitic", the language of Shem, consists basically of Hebrew, and that this is the first and oldest language of mankind.)

The research is going on and on....
__________________________________________--
I said I feel I have only been fishing in an immense ocean.
Then I realized that I have been trying to catch THE immense ocean.

[premjan]

yah=this
vah=that (note not vaah)
yahvaah is a name for Agni (fire) used 21 times in the rigveda.
http://subhash-kak.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/12/how-old-is-indian-writing.htm

[figuer]

I think you may be underestimating the influence of the Greeks on the Romans (which I don't think is quite the same as the Latins). BTW, the Latins are Romans in a sense, because the name "Latin" comes from Latinus, the father-in-law of Aeneas, who was, according to Virgil, one of the ex-Trojans responsible for founding Rome. The fact that the Romans derive their city-state tradition from that of Troy indicates that the Greek and Roman national myths are therefore quite closely related.

Trying to teach a Latin about the Latins? The Latins are not Romans, the Romans are Latins (like Parisians are French, but not all French are Parisian). Rome was the main city of Latium. As you point out the name is derived from Latinus Silvanus, king of the Aborigenes. Virgil invented much of the myths in the Aenid in order to connect Latin mithology with Greek mithology. It was a fabrication. Romans did not derive their city state tradition from Troy, it was a local devolpment. The Trojan connection was propagandistic fable. You are confusing myth with both history and religion. The original religion of the Latins was a local branch of paganism, related in many ways with that of the Celts or Greeks. The Latins adopted many Greek myths, and philosophical ideas, which would have influenced their religion. But Greece wasn't the source of their original religion or national identity.

[adren@line]

any serious study of comparitive Greek and Indian philosophy will show that they were strikingly similiar....almost the same in many regards.

Neo-Platonism might as well have been derived from the Upanishads.

[aupmanyav]

A quote from Bal Gangadhar Tilak's book "The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas" (page 220-21):

"The oldest period in the Aryan civilization may therefore be called the Aditi (beta Geminorium) or the pre-Orion period, and we may roughly assign 6,000 - 4,000 BC, as its limit. It was a period when the finished hymns do not seem to have been known and half-prose and half-poetical 'Nivids' or sacrificial formulae 'giving the principal names, epithets, and feats of the deity invoked' were probably in use. The greeks and the Parsis have retained no traditions of this period, for the simple reason that they carried with them only the calender which was in force when they left the common home, while the Indian Aryans have preserved all the traditions with a super religious fidelity and scrupulousness. It is thus that I explain why the oldest Greek and Parsi traditions do not go beyond Orion.

We next come to the Orion period which roughly speaking extended from 4,000 - 2,500 BC, from the time when the vernal equinox was in the asterism of 'Ardra' to the time when it receded to the asterism of Krittikas (Pleidas). This is the most important period in the history of the Aryan civilization. A good many 'suktas' (verses) in the RigVeda (e.g., that of Vrishakapi, which contains a record of the beginning of the year where the legend was first concieved) were sung at this time, and several legends were either formed anew or developed from the older ones. The Greeks and the Parsis appear to have left the common home during the latter part of this period as they have retained most of these legends and even attributes of the contellation of Mrigashiras (head of the stag), otherwise called Agrayani, Orion or the Pauryeni. We can now easily understand why no confirmatory evidence about the Krittika period (Pleidas) is found either in the RigVeda or in the Greek and Parsi legends and traditions. This was pre-eminently the period of the hymns."

[Philippe*]

I don't think that the "only true religion" idea was in the mindset of the Latins, it's quite strange to the Indo-european paganisms in general, I think on the whole that they didn't care to prove that their religion was the only true one. When the Romans discovered other cults, they used to analyse them and they made comparisons, to see what is acceptable or even what could be integrated. Julius Ceasar compares in Bello gallica some gods of the Gauls with some Roman gods. The Latin religion was a set of philosophies, beliefs and cults of various sorts too, civic attitudes and traditions. Cicero said "each town has its gods, we have ours". It was quite tolerant on the whole. Proving that the "graeco-roman religion" (?) was the only true one, why not ? There hadn't been any unified graeco-roman religion, it looks like a curious sophistic exercise IMHO.

Philippe

[adren@line]

I don't think that the "only true religion" idea was in the mindset of the Latins, it's quite strange to the Indo-european paganisms in general, I think on the whole that they didn't care to prove that their religion was the only true one. When the Romans discovered other cults, they used to analyse them and they made comparisons, to see what is acceptable or even what could be integrated. Julius Ceasar compares in Bello gallica some gods of the Gauls with some Roman gods. The Latin religion was a set of philosophies, beliefs and cults of various sorts too, civic attitudes and traditions. Cicero said "each town has its gods, we have ours". It was quite tolerant on the whole. Proving that the "graeco-roman religion" (?) was the only true one, why not ? There hadn't been any unified graeco-roman religion, it looks like a curious sophistic exercise IMHO.

Philippe

this is true.

the whole "one true religion" thing was largely a Semitic trait and not present throughout Indo-European cultures.

[figuer]

the whole "one true religion" thing was largely a Semitic trait and not present throughout Indo-European cultures.That is incorrect. Not all Semites were exclusivistic in their religious views, just the Hebrews. The Assyrians and Babilonians seem to have been conventional pagans and the Arabs became exclusivistic after Europeans. Persians are Indo-European and they practised Zoroastrianism which was exclusivistic, although they tolerated other religions in their empire.

Paganism perhaps was inclusivistic not because it lacked the concept of "one true religion", but because it conceived all religions as just local variations of the same universal religion. Just like modern Christians do not consider "God" and "Dios" different gods, just local term variation, the pagans did not give importance to variations in the details of names, myths and descriptions of gods that in a different culture represented the same aspect of nature.

[aupmanyav]

IMHO, that is correct. The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are exclusivist.

[figuer]

IMHO, that is correct. The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are exclusivist.Not all semitic religions were Abrahamic. Just the ones that have survived to the present day. Semitic does not mean Jewish, or Hebrew, there were and are other semitic peoples, and originaly all were inclusivistic pagans.

[adren@line]

That is incorrect. Not all Semites were exclusivistic in their religious views, just the Hebrews. The Assyrians and Babilonians seem to have been conventional pagans and the Arabs became exclusivistic after Europeans. Persians are Indo-European and they practised Zoroastrianism which was exclusivistic, although they tolerated other religions in their empire.

Paganism perhaps was inclusivistic not because it lacked the concept of "one true religion", but because it conceived all religions as just local variations of the same universal religion. Just like modern Christians do not consider "God" and "Dios" different gods, just local term variation, the pagans did not give importance to variations in the details of names, myths and descriptions of gods that in a different culture represented the same aspect of nature.

I didnt say that all Semitic groups were exclusivist, but all three Semitic religions have a fairly large degree of dogmatism and exclusivity, especially Christianity and Islam.

Zoroarastrianism made no such claims of being the "one true religion".

[aupmanyav]

.. there were and are other semitic peoples, and originaly all were inclusivistic pagans.You mean the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the beliefs of the Arabian peninsula before Mohammad came up with his version of Judaism and Christianity? Please enlighten.

[premjan]

Zoroastrians nowadays tend to endogamy and they were tolerant of other people's religious beliefs.

[Clivedurdle]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0040.php

In about 380 CE the Xian Bishop Ambrose refused to allow Victory to be rebuilt in the Roman Senate. That was the beginning of the dark ages from which we have only begun to struggle with the enlightenment.

Much restoration was done by Jung and more recently humanistic psychotherapists, but the foundations are not yet strong, the wisdom of the ages is still not clear.

We are slowly beginning to make new myths about ourselves - we can fly like Icarus, heal - we are as gods but have not yet worked out how why and where to use our powers - we are clumsy, still learning to walk - but we have seen the promised land.

http://seto.org/king3.html