Religion & Theology (& should we respect beliefs)

[pool]

My point exactly, I'm still in the process of doing the research which is more than a quick wikipedia...

 

You can assume to know all you like about me, but the fact that you even need to send insults about spelling says a lot more I think.

 

No. English Higher is not required.

 

I absolutely do believe in the real Adam and Eve. What made you think I wouldn't?

 

If you are unwilling or unable (first google search simply wont do) to show some evidence then this will lead nowhere.

 

EM. I said I wasn't talking about them, I said nothing about where they are going e.t.c. this is all assumption on your part.

Also I would happily debate the validity of the vast majority of the nonsensical timeline but that wouldn't be about religion.

[pool]

"junglemen"?

 

 

As for your plea for previous religions, let's try the Sumerians, who pre-date the Babylonians. The Babylonians adopted the existing religion established by their forebears, and enslaved the Hebrews, a nomadic desert tribe, making them subject to the laws of this religion. This religion has a story of a devout man named Zi us udra (or thereabouts), who was chosen by the God of the waters, Enki, that the gods were dissatisfied with mankind and were to flood the earth. He alone was given detailed instructions on how to build an ark, that would save he and his family, and the beasts of the earth, from the waters that were to come. After seven terrible days and nights, he sacrificed animals to the gods (oxen and sheep) and was rewarded with dry land (and immortality, to dwell with the gods in their home for eternity).

 

Or the Akkadians' version of the same story? Different name, same events.

 

Or there's the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the oldest writings in the world. It has Utnapishtim, who also - funnily enough - survived a cataclysmic flood, in an ark built on instructions from his gods.

 

Or there's the Greeks. They have Xisuthros (see the link with the Sumerians?) and Deucalion.

 

There's the original Hindu Brahman king, Manu, who saved humankind from the Flood, and who is near-immortal.

 

So, if the Flood is a direct lift - or steal, to be honest - from the Babylonians, taken from them by the Hebrews, when they fled, and perpetuated in their oral tradition until they encountered the exiled and bitter Moses, who took with him HIS knowledge of Egyptian religious laws (check them against the Ten Commandments some time...) and practices. Where do you think the bishops mitre and crozier come from? open your eyes and your mind.

 

As Chris Carter would say, "The truth is out there", but unfortunately, it's not in the Bible. Old or New Testament. Yahweh is literally a god of the storm. His was the roar of the desert winds heard by the Hebrews. He was a god of wrath and fire and sacrifice and fear. He was not a loving god. Nor is the Yahweh of the Old Testament. No one has addressed the destruction of cities and annihilation of races on the way to the Promised Land. God of love? Love of what? Blood? Slaughter of innocents?

 

So, forgive me for rambling but there's some examples of belief systems that pre-date the OT quite considerably and which clearly demonstrate plagiarism and "theft" of pre-existing mythology.

 

Again this comes down to dating methods and could very easily be argued to show that many of these different myths all evolve from the same one. Yet how is it possible for so many civilizations who had little or no contact with each other all come up with a myth so similar and for it to be so prominent within their culture.

 

The only thing worth debating here is the idea of God encouraging his followers to slaughter their way to the promise land. And its a very good point! One worth an explanation an I will get back to you when its not so late in the day.

[scoots]

Pool, if it doesn't fit your beliefs, or is too difficult, you'll just take your ball away and not play, is that what you're saying?

 

As for the timelines, the mythology of Sumeria has been established categorically dating back past 2000 years before the alleged date of birth of Jesus. No nonsense. Sumerian cuneiform is present in the writings found. It pre-dates all other forms of writing from that region, and certainly the Old Testament "characters".

 

The Flood is stolen or borrowed. As is Genesis and Creation. Both from the Sumerians.

 

You can say it's not true, but unfortunately, the hard categorical evidence exists, unless it was planted by evil civilisations, to discredit your belief system in their future?

 

What about the annihilation of the races spoken of in the OT? Care to inform us where this fits in to Christianity?

 

And do you REALLY believe woman was made from man's rib bone?

[scoots]

Sorry pool, I wrote my last while you were writing yours.

 

Little or no contact? Are you serious? They traded with a huge area if nations and formative civilisations, passing on writing and the basis for many comparative mythologies. The Sumerians were a far-ranging trading race, and emissaries came to them also. They were, quite literally, the cradle of modern day civilisation.

 

Who the heck says they never had contact?? I'm gobsmacked by that statement as an attempt to justify the "truth" of your god's message!!!

[shetlandpeat]

Is there not evidence there was a flood, I thought it was when the Mediterranean flooded.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

If your going be the catcher in the rye, then please explain to us lost children why god gave us the of power reason then left his mark on such an unreasonable tale and threatens us to accept it, despite it going against so much we ourselves have learnt about the way the world and nature operates, in our experience of reality.

 

This is the beauty and the difference that seperates Christianity as a way and meaning of life from any other Religion or belief system.

 

It must be enchanting but why is it beautiful that such an unlikely vetting system was put in place testing the future generations, by asking them to believe in these magic events retold in what is after all just an old book

 

Every Religion with some kind of afterlife is built on mans ability to follow the laws of a God and do good works (Religion). Which seems understandable.

 

It does not seem understandable at all, as to why gods would leave their laws on random old scripture and expect everyone to accept it, when there is very little on offer in the way of sources of the info.

If god could write in text for thousands of years, then it's about time he learned how to email.

 

It is not doing good works or deeds, following laws and being a 'good person' no matter how well it is done, that saves you in Christianity. It is ones trust in Jesus

 

I did hear that Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

 

If you ask a Christian how they will get to heaven, the answer wont be, "because I have been good enuogh". Rather it is is because Jesus paid the price for thier sins and only then can they be pure in the eyes of God

 

Better to teach the kids some personal responsibility for their own actions than just rely on the cleaning power of Ptolemy XV; clothed in the characteristics of Joseph, son of Jacob from the Old Testament; dead and buried under an old sun god tale for a couple thousand year.

 

But that's just me. I don't mind zombies running through my kids video games but the idea of cosmic zombies with magic powers running through their world view is something they don't need and quite frankly, now that we're in the 21st century, it all just sounds a bit silly.

[EM]

While having a look over the timeline I noticed an archaeological site I hadn't heard of before, Göbekli Tepe. It is in Turkey (Kurdistan) and listed as "the oldest human-made place of worship yet discovered." I had a look at the article expecting it to describe some rocks, pots and primitive fetish objects. Not so, the site is incredible. Twenty big buildings with huge sophisticated carved stones. As the article states:

 

Thus, the structures not only predate pottery, metallurgy, and the invention of writing or the wheel; they were built before the so-called Neolithic Revolution, i.e., the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry around 9000 BC.

 

It is well worth a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

 

 

EM. I said I wasn't talking about them, I said nothing about where they are going e.t.c. this is all assumption on your part.

You are presenting Christian belief. I therefore assume you subscribe to some flavour of Christianity. Unless you inform us that you belomg to a sect which does not hold with the general Christian line on humans who are unable to deny due to ignorance, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that your belief is orthodox. If you do not agree with core Christian tenets, just state your dissent and it will be clear.

 

Also I would happily debate the validity of the vast majority of the nonsensical timeline but that wouldn't be about religion.

Speechless.

[pool]

Sorry pool, I wrote my last while you were writing yours.

 

Little or no contact? Are you serious? They traded with a huge area if nations and formative civilisations, passing on writing and the basis for many comparative mythologies. The Sumerians were a far-ranging trading race, and emissaries came to them also. They were, quite literally, the cradle of modern day civilisation.

 

Who the heck says they never had contact?? I'm gobsmacked by that statement as an attempt to justify the "truth" of your god's message!!!

 

You're right, it was a poor statement. One I should have looked into more before repeating what I heard once. Although it wasn't an attempt to fully justify the argument I will delay a response to it in order to give proper reply to the Old Testament actions of God for which there is no one line answer. But one will be provided.

 

Apologies if it takes a day or two, busy week ahead.

regards.

[Ghostrider]

^^ While you're researching, perhaps you'd care to elaborate on what exactly it is that having a "belief" or "faith" in the whole christian set up (or most other similar belief systems for that matter) is "saving" one from exactly.

 

To be "saved" from something, it surely follows that the "unsaved" are at some level of risk of being in some peril or danger of some sort, does it not? This has always bothered me where religions and their ilk were concerned, I could never identify what or where this peril or danger they by default alleged I was in existed, therefor it followed I have never been able to identify within myself a "need" to be "saved", making the whole religion concept a superfluous and redundant one.

[scoots]

Re the Christian camps run every year and advertised in our schools...

 

Hey, if we are going to teach kids about the Bible, let's not pick and choose. In addition to the dangers of calling holy men "baldy", let's tell the kids this doozy at next years camp...

 

 

Numbers 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

 

Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

 

Numbers 31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

 

Numbers 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

 

Numbers 31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

 

Numbers 31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and

of beasts.

 

Numbers 31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

 

Numbers 31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

 

Numbers 31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

 

Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the

counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

 

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

 

Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

So, God is ordering Moses to order the Israelites to murder every boy child, regardless of age (babies as well then), and to murder all non-virgin women. And THEN, after all thee monstrous acts, these "chosen people" were, with the Lord's blessing, to take all -ALL - the female virgin CHILD captives and rape them (32,000 virgin girls, according to Numbers).

 

But there's more. The remaining Moabites were taken into bondage and slavery themselves (the Israelites had very short menories, it seems), with the exception of an unfortunate 32 of them, all female children, obviously. What happened to this 32? They suffered the same fate as the rest of the

Lord's portion of the animals seized as booty...

 

 

Numbers 31:36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

 

Numbers 31:37 And the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

 

Numbers 31:38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve.

 

Numbers 31:39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one.

 

Numbers 31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.

 

So they were ritually sacrificed. Murdered on a stone altar in the name of the father of Jesus, the Christ, the Lamb, the saviour and Light of the World. Every other child captive was taken into slavery by the soldiers who had captured them.

 

THAT is the reality of the Old Testament, and - with the exception of Abraham - the single most important person in the whole book.

 

What do you say? Put it on the schedule for next year? I'd deliver the input myself, but I would rate it as borderline abusive to the formative psyche of

developing children.

[scoots]

Is there not evidence there was a flood, I thought it was when the Mediterranean flooded.

 

Peat, I never said there wasn't a Flood. There's been lots! But when it cones to the root of Flood Mythology, scholars and historians tend to support the theory that it originates with a severe and fairly cataclysmic river flood in Sumeria, around 2900 B.C., which wiped out a good part of at least three important and large settlements, and reshaped the Sumerian map. Given the critical importance of this civilisation, and the "borrowing" from them in other areas, it seems highly likely that the wise king that saved many of his people, and Utnapishtim, Zi us udra, Noah, Deucalion and all the rest are one and the same.

[unlinkedstudent]

Right, I've managed to wiggle like a snake outta the House of Bondage and I guess here is my submission.

 

There are so many religions/beliefs in the world that have a God and Goddess (or several, dependent upon the seasons.

 

Now my gripe with christianity and islam (didn't Allah 'bump' his Mrs off?) is how women's sexuality (and man's, for that matter) is to be denied and how something as fundamentally basic as a natural act is regarded as a sin.

 

Re the snake - the snake is symbolic and in some religions, represents wisdom.

 

To me, they are all the same God/Goddess and the reason why we have different deities is because throughout the world there are different cultures, thereby it makes sense that they are worshipped/believed in through different myths/stories/legends, etc.

 

It is early in the morning so per usual I may not be making perfect sense - hell and damnation - can any religion make perfect sense?

[scoots]

No, you're not wrong. The Druidic belief was that there was an earth serpent who could be channeled, both personally and through sites of worship. When Patrick "drive the snakes out of Ireland", it wasn't little wriggly things that hiss, it was the worship of the earth serpent and all that went with it. How'd he do it? With fire and sword, siccing the Romans on any sites of worship, looting, murdering, burning. The usual practices of the day.

 

To many faiths, other than Christianity, the serpent is wise and powerful. The Far Eastern dragons, for instance, are elevated to a celestial state from serpents. They included those of Air and Earth. The Arabic countries had the same sorts of beliefs, prior to Islam. The Southern American races had their Feathered Serpent and others. Any one that's ever been to Chichen Itza and been lucky enough to see sunset at a particular time of year (each of the Equinoxes, in fact) at the North Staircase of the Great Platform (El Castillo) there will know that these people, too, believed they were bringing down the Feathered Serpent from the Sun, into the land through this structure and others like it.

 

 

The serpent, or dragon, was the one who guarded and instilled wisdom (the "treasure" of the stories that followed). In particular, from a Christian point of view, the serpent represented the Arian heresy of the Ostrogoth kings. This

Holy Royal line threatened the future of the early Roman Church, and turning

the Empire against these kings was a massive coup for the Paulines. The Arian Heresy was that Christ was not the Son of God, but a man. The Ostrogoths had, as their political centre of power, Ravenna. When the Church

commenced to wipe out the Ostrogoths' Arian Heresy, an instruction was issued with regards to Christ and how he should be portrayed from that point onwards. Part of this was that he should be depicted with a foot on a serpent, to represent the Heresy, the other part was that he should be portrayed as in the Christ Militant mosaic, found in... Ravenna, which then became the centre of power for the early Church, before they moved to Rome.

 

There's your serpent. Old wisdom, old worship, and an original, pre-Nicean form of Christianity, all of which had to be wiped out and discredited by the Christian church. Then, to make certain, they made the serpent evil, vile, the embodiment of Satan or Lucifer, or whichever devil they fancied. The wisdom was forgotten, the public relations and indoctrination/brainwashing was a success.

 

The image of the Devil with horns and cloven hooves comes from a similar situation. The Goddess' consort is the Horned God. He represents virility, the very obvious male to her lush and fertile female. Without one, there can not be the other, although she held all the true power and knowledge. He was represented as half man, half animal, God of the trees, the beasts and the fields. In religious festivals, he was represented by a priest of the most virile male wearing animal skins and a horned head-dress. To "feel horny" comes from the depiction of him as fertilising the Earth Mother in religious festivals (quite literally... the persons playing the roles were expected to copulate in public, and were often - though not always - partners in life, as well as "art").

 

So when it came to Christianity sweeping in, re-writing and subsuming as they did, she became St Brigid (no such saint exists or was ever canonised by the Church)with every site sacred to Her becoming sacred, instead, to the Christian God, although they kept it nice by making her a saint!! But what to do with a horned, half-animal God consort? Hmmm a problem, this one. They couldn't exactly have St Carnun the horny, could they? So he was rebranded and became the boogeyman. The devil himself. Ugly, animalistic and all about carnal pleasures and the sins of the flesh.

 

Another propaganda success for the Christian Church. Hooray!!

[scoots]

The Christ Militant mosaic is in the chapel of Saint Andrew, in palace of San Pietro Crisologoa, in Ravenna. This was written of the reasoning behind it, and political forces and struggles present, at the time it was commissioned by Bishop Pietro II (around 495 A.D.).

 

"The doctrinal programme is as follows: portray Christ as eternally young, meaning against the Arian creed, because He is not dependent on time but stands outside time; He was not created in time, as the Arians maintained; his is the eternity of God. The image then, as regards the face, is identical with that of Christ the Soldier which Bishop Pietro II, who commissioned the Archiepiscopal Chapel, placed on the atrium door: Christ stamping out the wild beasts of the Arian heresy. This persistent doctrine must be viewed in relation to the Arian Ostrogoths' domination of Ravenna. For the same religious motives Maximianus was to avail himself of this explicit image of Christ and have it placed at the centre of the apse in S. Vitalee

 

Plus, it didn't hurt to have the Son of God look like a conquering Roman Emperor. After all, several of those self-same "holy" Roman emperors believed themselves to BE the Son of God (so there was no real change in the status quo, from their previous beliefs!). Plus, an emperor needs an army, first and foremost, to keep his power in place. A soldier in this "machine" would have zero interest in a bearded Semitic man, cuddling a lamb and giving everything to the meek, now, would he? Throw in a touch of Mars, or Mithras (both pre-existing warrior God cults in the Roman armies) trampling on his enemies, wearing a soldier's armour and give him the Roman emperors' purple to wear, and you just might be on to a winner!

 

Then there's the biblical quote, "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder:

the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet".

 

The adder AND the dragon, both attributed to the same thing. The dragon

was a figure of wisdom and courage, the lion of royalty. Both here, together, represented the once very, very powerful Ostrogoth kings, and the only true contender to Nicene Christianity that they, and all other Germanic chiefs and kings of their day, followed, namely Arianism or nontrinitarian Christianity. If the bedrock of Pauline or Nicene Christianity was that Jesus was God incarnate, the concept of his being lesser than God, and created in time - as

all men are - and therefore not equal to God, was the biggest single threat to the ever- expanding, ambitious and, in fact, power-hungry Church. Arian Christianity had spread into and converted huge sections of Western Europe that comprised the Goth lands of the time. Nicene Christianity had to scramble to catch up, and had the wealth and manpower, as well as political clout, to do so. They started in the ground, with missionaries spreading their

Christianity to the Arian common folk. This led to most of the uneducated populations in the Goth lands being Nicene Christians, while the educated

rulers and "upper classes" followed the teachings of Arius. This could not be

allowed to go on forever, and, following the death of Theodoric the Great, the Church was successful in steadily expunging the Arian "Heresy" from the Holy Roman Empire. The only true contender against their march to total power

was now gone.

 

Interestingly, the Carolingians, who came afterwards, depicted this Christ as carrying a cross that ended in a spearhead, which was driven down into the mouth of the beast at the feet of Christ. This was replicated in subsequent depictions of the Archangel Michael, defeating Satan or Lucifer, portrayed as a dragon or serpent. Couldn't have the by-now "nice" Christ doing this sort of violendothan they swapped him for a warrior Archangel. The message was the same though. "We are good, you are bad. We won, you lost.". The whole Dragon and St George bit comes from EXACTLY the same thing. The missionary helping to expunge the pre-existing "heresy". It's symbolism at it's finest. Market the opposition to the masses as evil, and us as led by a handsome strong young God, who slays and smites all opponents, then throw in eternal hellfire and damnation for good measure!!

 

That's how the Christian faith established itself, and how it came to dominate an entire empire, and take hold in all of the countries therein, only really relinquishing its power gradually, with the advent of mainstream secular

education for all.

[unlinkedstudent]

^ Cheers Scoots. Me reckons I could already relate to a lot within your 1st post but wasn't aware of the contents of your 2nd post.

 

< Wanders off to find a dragon but will have to make do with the only fire around here at the moment, a ciggie.