AmberLF

I guess that would honestly depend on if you stop at the lie or decide to take the information and go find out for yourself.

I think this is all a matter of opinion. If it becomes a flash point for violence then the reasons why are just as important to study. It becomes less about the religion and more about "I'm right, you are wrong". Once you get just so far away from when and where a particular religion is born is becomes vital to study it. Knowing what life was like when it was developed and why is part of understanding it. Without that, what they are living might be a faulty understanding of that religion. What they believe and how they act may be based on a complete misunderstanding of what it is they think they know about it. Unfortunately lower level clergy of most religions often have a shaky grasp of the meaning of many things, particularly if they are clueless about what went on in the area where it was first devised. That leads us right back around to it being necessary to study and analyze, not just from the holy book in question itself but history, culture, sociology of the time period and beyond as it changed throughout history, the hows and whys of it. After all, if you are not living what was intended then what are you really living?

True, and without it being written people wouldn't have really been able to go over it with a fine tooth comb, compare it to other sources and determine that very easily. Come to think of it... there is a fair chance that Christianity at least could have been forgotten entirely by now. Most unwritten traditions do end up forgotten. The ones that survive end up on such heavy debate of origin and authenticity that it pretty much falls to belief and benefit of the doubt without much to go on for support.

Oh no, it's pretty clear the author was not God. It's pretty well worked out it was written by many people throughout a fair span of time and edited by more people, probably a fair number more than that what wrote it.

Absolutely, but going with oral traditions alone the honest students, the ones who wish to get into the studies properly, have nothing but someone's word, who may or may not leave clues enough to determine where's or the why's of things. At least with something written it can be compared through other sources to verify and validate.

Actually the followers from earlier times often didn't read the text, usually through being eliterate, in lieu of following what the priests said. Those in power that did know what is written often tried to utilize it for controlling the masses and edited a lot, instructing the priests on which way they needed to start leaning in their sermons if they wished to keep their post. You would be amazed how often this happened in history. The other thing you might find interesting is there are a fair number of people who start traditions for the same power rather than honest connection to spirit or deity. Now I'm not saying there is no good reason not to have oral traditions along side of honest book research. There is a fair amount of community connection that is built around it as well as stronger mentor/teacher bond in the teaching of them. I just feel without well researched and written things to fall back on in times of confusion is just wise. I'm just saying perhaps equal parts might be a better, more honest and equal path to learning them.

Or perhaps it is good that it is allowed to evolve..... von Perhaps, but it also leaves a lot of room for misunderstandings, lies and assumptions to be added... infiltration from those purposefully trying to make a tradition seem less or worse than it was. And then you have those who can't seem to grasp things in the truer, deeper meaning for one reason or another and completely misconstrues things, or leaves important things out. Without something written to refer back to, well... you can easily lose the origins that way. At least early records can make it possible for someone to compare modern to past and figure out if those original ideas still really do fit today's contest.

I don't know about this part.... As an American I see guilt complexes pretty strong in some people but the vast majority these days don't seem to have that anymore. Some silly sense of entitlement seems to have washed it out for a fair number of us over here. People tend to just do or take or be without worry or care of consequences to those around them these days. I do know for the longest time there was a fairly wide spread idea that as citizens, guilt or shame for not fitting in seemed to be a big deal. You had to do, say, think, be just so in order to be included in anything and if you fall short just a little... how dare you be even a little different. Shame... shame. That part at least seems to have changed for the most part until very recently. Political unrest on the rise and unusually high levels of anger and depression seem to be mixing the pot again.

Yes, it can be taken so. She was said to be very wise. Wise enough to have great power but know having it doesn't mean throwing it about. Most stories have her supporting rather than ruling with it though she easily could have.

The one thing about all this is there is no quick fix or fast start. Take your time, enjoy the things you are learning. There are studies and research books on her that lay out the line of where she came from and comparing her to others along the way... how she was worshipped in different eras, etc. Go to Amazon and put her name in the search. Click on a book, scroll all the way down to the reviews and read both good and bad reviews. The longer the better so you can get a good idea of what it's about. I do this often with books and then call the local stores to see if they can order them for me. Most stores are happy to. I get my book and the store is supported so it can stay in business.

Actually a little earlier than that but yes, true. The thing with Hekate is that perceptions of her have changed depending on what era you are looking at. The vengeance part was also added later. However the funny thing about many gods is that no matter which one people choose and tends the altars of, occasionally vengeance comes up. It doesn't necessarily make it a main trait, just that with many people part of the reason to worship would be for protection whichever deity they follow could provide them for their loyalty and worship... weather that's in the nature of the deity of choice or not...

That is why I keep saying it isn't a problem word. The problem comes with people claiming it when they are not skeptics at all but flat out non-believers. Don't blame the word when it is people who misunderstand or misuse it. I do think it may get used that way because most people like to think they are reasonable in their beliefs and thinking. To call themselves a skeptic can give them a little bit of satisfaction in that way, even if a hard wall is well placed against even acknowledging possibilities.

That's only part of what he's saying. If you each explain your definition so you each know where the other is coming from, you might actually realize you both agree with the idea in question but are getting too caught up in the words used to realize it. Been there, done that, usually just takes a little more discussion and a willingness to understand in order to clear it up.

Skeptic denotes doubt. That isn't the problem. The problem is in realizing if the person in question is a hard skeptic or a soft one. A hard skeptic won't try to understand and generally doesn't care what anyone else thinks or how they come to a conclusion. They just consider the other person wrong and won't budge. A soft skeptic will at least try to understand. Some actually do become believers with the right information and a bit of research.

Absolutely we won't come to any overall conclusions. I'm pretty sure it isn't going to be possible as long as fundamentalist ideas of any religious belief system exists. It doesn't hurt (well, not usually anyway) for more reasonable people to discuss those beliefs and differences, even if we don't follow them or believe them ourselves.