Post 104:
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Apr 3 2007, 08:44 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Apr 3 2007, 08:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->It may an attempt to bring a radicalized racial pagan consciousness to Muslims, who have been relatively immune to witzelian type appropriation tactics. We are getting increasingly mainstream narratives about a benign zoroastrian to jewish/christian/islamic timeline. Their rank failure to contrive even a western version of the Bhagavad Gita (you know, something really substantial) out of the standard pedestrian greecian fare may have prompted them to seek mideastern sources.[right][snapback]66469[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Dhu, I don't understand. Can you explain this in some more detail.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We are getting increasingly mainstream narratives about a benign zoroastrian to jewish/christian/islamic timeline.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->How has '300' in any way presented the Zoroastrians respectfully, let alone accurately? I've only read reviews so far - I refuse to watch or fork out money for a film that lies in order to insult the Persians, else I'd have jumped at the opportunity to watch something about Ancient Greece.
But it seems that in the movie the Persians/Zoroastrians are just randomly referred to as 'Persians' (coupled with their horrible characterisation, that effectively turns the word into an insult); they are at best accorded vague, 'exotic'-looking religious iconography that has more to do with something christoislamists might understand and less to do with Zoroastrianism, and are characterised as literal monsters or general villains.
I suspect such a film would get the islamic world to feel 'I told you so about the kafirs', sooner than it might get them to go 'wow, the Zoroastrians/Persians were admirable; way better than anything islam ever accomplished'.
It's witzellian alright. But about Zoroastrianism, not about islam.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Their rank failure to contrive even a western version of the Bhagavad Gita (you know, something really substantial) out of the standard pedestrian greecian fare<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't know how to compare with the Gita - it has particular significance to us (and to some European philosophers of the 19th century). We don't know whether the Ancient Greeks had religious literature that was as meaningful and profound to them as the Gita is to us.
Much of Greek literature, particularly the religious literature, went into the fire thanks to the piety of early christians. The world is lucky to have what has survived.
What undiscerning students of Greek and Latin still learn about the Ancient Religion is all about the 'pettyness' of the Greek Gods. As if. That's only the christian spin. Only the Ancient Greeks knew what the accurate versions of all the narratives were, and even then, what the meaning and deeper significance of each was. The Hellenes of today might also know.
But in any case, one must sift the christian dawaganda (and any insertions) out of the Greek religious narratives that still remain today. And that can't possibly be done by Mythologists who are neither sympathetic to Greek Religion nor take it seriously. It's all but 'interesting nonsense' or 'curious fantasy' to them. Imagine if the same had happened to all Hindu literature, including the Gita. Oooh. Hard to bear thinking about.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Apr 3 2007, 08:44 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Apr 3 2007, 08:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->It may an attempt to bring a radicalized racial pagan consciousness to Muslims, who have been relatively immune to witzelian type appropriation tactics. We are getting increasingly mainstream narratives about a benign zoroastrian to jewish/christian/islamic timeline. Their rank failure to contrive even a western version of the Bhagavad Gita (you know, something really substantial) out of the standard pedestrian greecian fare may have prompted them to seek mideastern sources.[right][snapback]66469[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Dhu, I don't understand. Can you explain this in some more detail.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We are getting increasingly mainstream narratives about a benign zoroastrian to jewish/christian/islamic timeline.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->How has '300' in any way presented the Zoroastrians respectfully, let alone accurately? I've only read reviews so far - I refuse to watch or fork out money for a film that lies in order to insult the Persians, else I'd have jumped at the opportunity to watch something about Ancient Greece.
But it seems that in the movie the Persians/Zoroastrians are just randomly referred to as 'Persians' (coupled with their horrible characterisation, that effectively turns the word into an insult); they are at best accorded vague, 'exotic'-looking religious iconography that has more to do with something christoislamists might understand and less to do with Zoroastrianism, and are characterised as literal monsters or general villains.
I suspect such a film would get the islamic world to feel 'I told you so about the kafirs', sooner than it might get them to go 'wow, the Zoroastrians/Persians were admirable; way better than anything islam ever accomplished'.
It's witzellian alright. But about Zoroastrianism, not about islam.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Their rank failure to contrive even a western version of the Bhagavad Gita (you know, something really substantial) out of the standard pedestrian greecian fare<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Don't know how to compare with the Gita - it has particular significance to us (and to some European philosophers of the 19th century). We don't know whether the Ancient Greeks had religious literature that was as meaningful and profound to them as the Gita is to us.
Much of Greek literature, particularly the religious literature, went into the fire thanks to the piety of early christians. The world is lucky to have what has survived.
What undiscerning students of Greek and Latin still learn about the Ancient Religion is all about the 'pettyness' of the Greek Gods. As if. That's only the christian spin. Only the Ancient Greeks knew what the accurate versions of all the narratives were, and even then, what the meaning and deeper significance of each was. The Hellenes of today might also know.
But in any case, one must sift the christian dawaganda (and any insertions) out of the Greek religious narratives that still remain today. And that can't possibly be done by Mythologists who are neither sympathetic to Greek Religion nor take it seriously. It's all but 'interesting nonsense' or 'curious fantasy' to them. Imagine if the same had happened to all Hindu literature, including the Gita. Oooh. Hard to bear thinking about.