Actually from Spiders perspective, he sees very clearly. He is first
and formost a Monothiest and a Christian. His, statement is based and
founded through his religion.

He even told you all as much, when he told you that at the time of the
creation (which is the beginning of human on earth) God was known to
them. Therefor, in this sense, God, the God of the Christians and the
Jews, was the first religion.

Spider, I do have a question for you though, If all poeple stemmed from
the first two - how did all these mythologican religions take root?
From One God to many? From one family with two figure heads and one
belief, suddenly there was a world of Many gods and goddesses and
beliefs?

I think your answer, will be based, as all your answers are, within the
context of your religion. Perhaps this keeps you closer to the 'truth'
as you would see it. But sir, it is limiting your potential. If you
can not look beyond the boundaries of a single line of thought, how can
you ever imagine that you can know all glory and wonder that this world
holds. How does keeping to that limitation, help you glorify your God?

sororitygurl4life,

Someone asked a question and I didn't know the answer, so I copied and
pasted. OH NO! SpiderCMB doesn't know everything, so he's an idiot!

Guess what? When I googled "goddess of willendorf", not a single
scholarly website came up. What I saw was websites for goddess
societies.

If you would actually READ my posts and THINK about them before trying
to refute, you would have discovered a couple things...

1) I didn't say the goddess statues were only 100 years old, I said
that the societies are less than 100 years old.
2) We don't know what the original purpose of the "goddess figures"
was. They could have been simply statues. They could have been early
erotica. What is happening is that the ancient statue is found and an
assumption is made that it was a goddess.
3) These "goddess societies" are religions based on the discovery of
tiny statues. The practitioners don't have any idea if the statues were
originally objects of worship. Even if they were objects of worship in
the past, the current practitioners don't know how that worship was
perfomred or included.

What I have found is that many articles claim that the "goddess of
willendorf" and other such figures WERE in fact ancient erotica. Did
those ancient people also worship figurines of penises? The ENTIRE
claim to religion that is made by these goddess worship religions is
based on assumption. There is documented history. All they have are
little stone figures. "Religious studies" has no requirement for
accuracy or fact. When you were taught about the "goddess of
willendorf", did it occur to you to ask "How do we know it was meant to
be a goddess?" The answer would have been "well, it's a little
statue.", which just wouldn't be good enough for me.

http://trushare.com/71APR01/AP01GODD.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720068.ece
http://www.apollonius.net/ancientart.html

Spider>

the entire basis of any religion that you have not seen develope within
the circle of your life is based on assumptions.

There is not a single person in this time that was there in the time of
the writing speakin and founding of any of the religions alive today.
They are all based on assumptions, translations, interpretations and
leaps of faith.

Therefor you can not assume that the knowledge of learning applied to
the field of archeology in the instance of a single statue or even in
the instance of a civilization is an assumption.

Once you 'force' anothers knowledge into the area of 'assumed' you have
entered that area also. Now if you have some concrete evidence that
directly contridicts that of archeology please present it.

AdventureBegins,

We have documents that describe the Christianity. The Dead Sea scrolls
showed that the Torah hasn't changed in thousands of years. You can
make any claim you want about Christianity, but we have copies of all of
the books of the New Testament that were written before the council of
Nicene. My point, which seems to be too erudite for some people here,
is that you can't recreate a dead religion from a tiny statue,
especially when we don't know that the tiny statue was ever worshipped.
If there was some sort of written history, then it might be possible,
but as it stands, we cannot make anything but assumptions.

Please understand that there is NO archeological evidence that the
statues were worshipped. From what I have seen, it's a given that the
little "goddess" statues were just what men have always done,
objectifying women. They were pornography, not goddesses, according to
historians. I gave three links that support what I have said, I know
that links / quoting is considered shameful to you guys, but do you have
anything to offer? Do you have any proof that they WERE goddesses? I
already know the answer, it's a rhetorical question.

Redykeulous,

If you read my posts, you will find that there is no support for the
belief that the statues were worshipped. My statements have nothing to
do with Christianity, it is simply based on the facts and intellectual
honesty. It should be that the goddess figures WERE worshipped, but we
have no evidence of that. There is no written history. History is
based on gathering facts and making the most logical conclusion. From
what we currently know, those figures were used as erotica.

Spider, yes, I know, I looked too. But there have been many other
religions that archeology has uncovered. There has been enough
information uncovered, that when aligned with other historical documents
that it is irrefutible that religions existed prior to the God of your
religion. What's more, history and archeology far outdates what many
"used" to believe, and some still do, that the time of creation was
between (generously speaking) 5 and 10 thousand years.

My question to you, stated a little differently, is this:

If creation is true, as you believe, how did all these other religions
show up? This is no simple question, given the fact that you also
believe that a life time back then could have been hundreds of years.
But hundreds of years is a long long time to hear about God, to hear
first hand accounts of the Garden and the fall from grace and such. And
since God was the only deity with such close ties why would thier faith
faulter? Even upon spanning out over and into other lands, no longer
being 'in touch' with the mother/father - grand/mothers-fathers, why
would they deviate from their one and only God concept? Again consider
the thousands of years in which these religions came and went. Where
was God, that it got so out of hand?

Redykeulous,

Noah's flood was, in part, because people had rejected God. Why would
someone reject God? For many reasons.

1) God is invisible
2) God judges
3) God has laws
4) God expects more from you

The Israelite men started worshipping the Ammonite gods, becasue the
Ammonite women "put out".

Some of the gods described in the Bible:

Moloch / Baal = Required the sacrifice of babys to grant wealth.
Allowed for prostitution and sexual immorality.

Ashtoreth = goddess who required women to sacrifice either thier hair or
their chastity.

Both Ba'al and Ashtoreth not only allowed sexual immorality, they
required it. Ba'al worship required sacrifices of babies to grant
wealth, the babys could be bought from shrine prostitutes.

Why do people choose other gods? Becuase they don't judge or expect
much of their worshippers. They allow for things that God calls sins.
They are easier to worship and they don't judge.

God only shows himself to those who already worship him. God requires
faith and obeidience. You are granted faith as a gift of the Holy
Spirit, which is granted to those who want to know God. If you allow
your pride to get in your way, today, tomorrow or five thousand years
ago, you will choose no god or a strange god in place of the "cruel",
"demanding" and "unfair" God of the Bible.

Spider>

Please describe for me how the venus of wellindorf could possibly be
considered a erotic depiction of a woman.

I am curious as to what you read.

I do know that the statue called by archeologist the venus of willindorf
is a carved representation of the ancient accepted version of the earth
mother. Not a sexual object but an object of ripeness and plenty.

For those of you that would like an educational link try this one.

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfdiscovery.html

Spider>

If Noahs flood wiped out the entire human race how did ancient beliefs
survive.

such as the earth mother.

Explain the creation myths of the austrailian natives. They also were
not wiped out. But their ancient revered sites are older than Noah.

AdventureBegins,

From your own link...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Her great age and pronounced female forms quickly established the Venus
of Willendorf as an icon of prehistoric art. She was soon included in
introductory art history textbooks where she quickly displaced other
previously used examples of Paleolithic art. Being both female and nude,
she fitted perfectly into the patriarchal construction of the history of
art. As the earliest known representation, she became the "first woman,"
acquiring a sort of Ur-Eve identity that focused suitably, from a
patriarchal point of view, on the fascinating reality of the female
body.
-------------------------------------------------------------

1) She is considered "art"
2) She is not called a goddess in your link
3) She was created by a patriarchal society
4) The statue depicts the "fascinating reality of the female body" ie
Erotica

Jeez man did you look at the statue...?

Or just read the drivel.

Redykeulous,

Please note that AdventureBegins insists that the "goddess" is a
"goddess" because it is a statue of a fat woman. I think that perfectly
answers your question about other gods and goddesses.

AdventureBegins,

"For those of you that would like an educational link try this one."

Then you criticize me for actually READING the article! LOL Thanks for
the chuckles.

spider in my opinion i am going to just put you on a block user you
continuously paste from websites catal huyuk, i gave that as a society
that worshipped goddess and im sure no scholar will dispute that
goddess worshipping socieities were the first around.. i think you are
lame you are not a christian your beliefs do not coinside with any order
of christianity nor do you meet the root requirements of being 1 ie you
don't believe in creationism you don't believ ein heaven or hell atleast
thst what you told me in a previous messege etc etc you've chosen
someones book you've chosen 1 thing to worship and you don't accept the
religion as is based on its principals you are not a christian you are
your own god.. and you are an idiot... therefore i am adding you as a
blocked user bye bye

Let me give you some more examples from the same link. (what did you do
just read the first page?)

The more often used name in current studies is 'Woman of Willendorf'

'She was originally nicknamed la poire - "the pear" - on account of her
shape.'

' The sculpture shows a woman with a large stomach that overhangs but
does not hide her pubic area. A roll of fat extends around her middle,
joining with large but rather flat buttocks. She is not, as Luce
Passemard has pointed out, steatopygous (that is, possessing protruding
buttocks)'

Her thighs are also large and pressed together down to the knees. Her
forearms, however, are thin, and are shown draped over and holding, with
cursorily indicated fingers, the upper part of her large breasts. Small
markings on her wrists seem to indicate the presence of bracelets. Her
breasts are full and appear soft, but they are not sagging and
pendulous. The nipples are not indicated.


further into the article the author begins to give an archologists view
of the purpose of the statuette in question.

'Her genital area would appear to have been deliberately emphasized with
the labia of the vulva carefully detailed and made clearly visible,
perhaps unnaturally so, and as if she had no pubic hair. This, combined
with her large breasts and the roundness of her stomach, suggests that
the "subject" of the sculpture is female procreativity and nurture and
the piece has long been identified as some sort of fertility idol. '

'Compared with the other Paleolithic figurines in this group, the
"Venus" of Willendorf is a remarkably realistic representation of a fat
woman.'

sororitygurl4life,

I believe in Heaven, I don't believe in hell. Many Christians don't
believe in hell. Hell is a translation of sheol, which means grave. I
have already posted a lot on this subject.

I believe in Creationism. I believe in micro-evolution, but not
macro-evolution. Many Christians believe in evolution or at least
micro-evolution

A non-Christian, even one with a degree in "religious studies", is a
very poor judge of who is or is not a Christian.

The facts don't agree with your belief in the first religions being
"goddess worship", so you are angry. It's okay, because I still love
you.

Once again, I encourage to read the posts of even those people with whom
you disagree.

Red>

If you are interested in pagan litrature that survived the purging of
the romans during such things as the sacking of the library of
alexandria check out the irish writings of the Tuatha de Dannan relating
to Danu. (Earth mother goddess).

She was worshiped even before the time of the sumerians and was based on
an older goddess which I could get know information on. This writings
also survived the purging that occured during the time christianity was
attempting to rid the world of any desenting views.

AdventureBegins,

You still can't find anything scholarly that suggests it is a "goddess"
idol. Your link is very clear that there is no recorded history of what
it was.

Spider>

huh...

dude that is a college/university link i.e. when the link says .edu
instead of .com it is an educational link.

the last part I cut and pasted indicated that it was a representation of
a fertitlity idol.i.e. Earth mother.

The last page of the article does in fact list its possiblity as an
earth goddess but also states (In a quite fair approach) that their is
arguement about the validity of the claim and states that neither side
can substatiate their claim because no written record is present to back
up one or the other.

This is because all written records found up to the 14th century were
destroyed or burned during the Inquisition.

Perhaps in the future somone will find a hidden record of this time
period that survived the purging of our history.

AdventureBegins,

Thanks for the information about Top Level Domains, as a computer
professional, I have often wondered what ".edu" meant. I always assumed
it meant "edumicated".

Your link, which is admittedly hosted on a college domain, does not say
that the figure was a goddess. They offer speculation and state that
without written documentation, the answer will never be known.
Therefore I am right in saying "You still can't find anything scholarly
that suggests it is a "goddess" idol. " Your best shot is a scholarly
site that suggests it might be a fertility idol, but also suggests that
it might have been a talisman, while being clear that the truth might
never be known.