Bravo ElJay ...

You know, i've even heard the view that since God created Eve from Adam's rib, and therefore had "better raw materials" than he did with Adam, that Eve (and all female descendants thereafter) was the superior being, and that's why God also created women to bear life within them.
just a thought....slightly off topic

Wow! That's cool !

thank you Dan!!!

Nice to see you stop by !

Have a great evening

thanks, you too!

thank you...well actually, i should say...

Have a Great Morning

for it well past midnight this brand new day

Here on the West Coast of the U S of A

"Eljay" Adam and Eve brings up the evolutionary concept of which came first "The Chicken or The Egg" ..in biblical evolution Man came before woman so it's clear that Eve was an after-thought or atleast an after-creation because she was sculptured from a piece of the already formed Adam

I thought this would be a interesting quote to share:

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

Mohandas Gandhi

Do you believe religion is controlling our politics today?

To answer Smiless: Oh most definately, at least here in the U.S., but it is also both ways. (Organized) Religion is also dominated by politics. That's why I never actually "joined" a church, I didn't think it was a requirement to have a belief.


And from the topic above. How come no one brought up that Eve was Adams second wife? (The first was also made of the ground, but refused to be subserviant to Adam and was cast out. Thus God made woman from man, making her part of him.)

hmm? `~`, (1), \/
..
~~ >< )(
( )
==
^>~~ <>----

Eljay,

You are determined to believe in Mediterranean mythology over common sense and intellectual discovery. For some reason you find it desirable to believe that some man was nailed to a pole because you are a rebellious creature who has sadly failed your creator. That's basically what the myth ends up being about. It's a story about a race of creatures who are so pathetically disobedient that their creator had to send his only begotten son to be nailed on a pole to pay for their pathetic rebellious disobedience of him.

Why you find that to be such an attractive picture of the relationship between mankind and his creator is far beyond my ability to comprehend. If I could choose a belief system I would not feely choose such a pathetically discussing picture. Yet you are free to choose. You are free to decide how you will think of your relationship with your creator. For some strange reason you prefer to believe that you are an absolute rebellious spiteful failure who is unworthy of your creator's love and who is totally responsible for the need for Jesus to be nailed to a pole. According to this religion you are the reason that was necessary. You are fully responsible for it, and by accepting it you actually accept the hammer and spikes and you are offering to nail your God to a pole to pay for you disobedience.

This somehow makes sense to you.

Yet, the fact that intellectual observations have clearly shown that death and destruction have been a part of nature and the animal and plant world long before mankind ever came on the scene shows that mankind is clearly not responsible for the imperfections in the world. You would rather reject that knowledge in favor of believing that you are a dismal rebellious failure who has miserably failed your creator and is now only going to be saved from your worthless predicament though the absurd notion that by nailing someone to a pole it will make it all better.

This is a picture of a God who demands that humans nail his son to a pole so that he can forgive them for they disgusting failure and rebellion to him.

This is a God who has told people to stone each other to death. You can deny that until you blue in the face but it's in the story.

You are so committed to believing in this myth that you will reject an sense of rationality to salvage it.

Why? I have absolutely no idea.

If I could choose a picture of God why would I want to choose a picture of God that places me as a dismal failure needed to nail God's son to a pole in order to be saved?

To me that's truly absurd. It's an utterly absurd notion. Beyond belief.

If I have to choose a picture of a God, and my relationship with God, that'd be the very last picture I would choose. It would be the absolute last resort after all other pictures of God where shown to be untenable.

But fortunately for me, there are other picture of God that are actually much more sane. Not only are they more tenable and less problematic, but they don't even fly in the face of what the universe is showing us. They are completely compatible with everything we know about our true physical nature.

In order to believe that we are miserable failures of a God who tells us to stone each other to death and nail his son on a pole, I'd have to reject common sense, reason, and observational evidence that the universe has revealed us in a myriad of differnet conformational ways. I'd have to give up common sense, reason, and observational knowledge to believe in the Mediterranean mythology that says that we are responsible for the imperfections of the world and that we are miserable failures in Gods eyes and can only be "saved" if we are willing to take part in nailing his son to a pole.

As far as I'm concerned that is a truly sick perverted situation to be in. As I say, I would only believe it if there was no other viable choice. And even then my heart would sink and I would be miserably depressed at how terrible of a situation I was born into. If that story is true, then I never even had a chance to have a truly loving relationship with my maker. The only possible relationship I could have is to help nail his son to a pole and go to him burdened with the complete guilt and shame that it my fault and that I'm fully responsible for this whole sick nightmare.

Like I say, that would be my absolute last choice for a picture of God if I get to choose. And based on what the universe is telling us (along with the myriad of self-inconsistencies and contradictions within the mythology itself) there it truly no sensible reason why I should believe it.

So why choose to believe something that is so incredulously unbelievable, self-inconsistent, and contradicts the real universe?

Why are you so obsessed with believing that you are a complete failure to your creator and the only way you can patch things up with him is by nailing his son to a pole.

Why is that picture so attractive to you. Are you an emotional masochistic or something?

I would only accept that picture if there was no other viable choice. But there are other viable choices. In fact, the other choices are extremely more reasonable. They are more healthy, they are better pictures of God, they are better pictures of humanity, they don't require nailing people to poles, or stoning people to death. And they are in completely agreement with what the universe is showing us.

I'll never understand why anyone would want to choose a dismal picture for God when very healthy beautiful pictures of God actually exist that are far superior, not only for the relationship of man and God, but they are far superior pictures of God.

If you have a good picture of God, and a bad picture of God. Why would you choose the bad picture of God? Do you think that God is bad?

Well, I'd go with after-creation here, because it seems logical to assume that previous to creating Adam that God had always intended to create Eve.

Absolutely! Always has - always will.

As compared to banging my head on the ground five times a day, or relying on a deck of cards or the alignment of the stars, or hugging tree's and saving the wild forests, or coming back as a snail, or a bird, or an Aardvark (always wanted to use that word in a post) over and over again;
Yes. This makes more sense to me than all of the other options that have been presented to me over the years. Chosing to think that God did not exist proved illogical to me as well when I chose that route.

However - I don't quite see it as you've laid it out here, I'm not far from disagreeing with it. This does not have so much to do with the perception I have of myself (though I do not claim to be blameless before a perfect God) but of the world and people around me. Very rarely do I see people NOT screw up. One way or another, I keep hearing the phrase "well, they're only human". What does that actually mean. "Only human"? To me, it means that when matched up to perfection - man falls short, and makes mistakes.
I'm not pre-occupied with this as you are, I just accept it. I don't pretend to assume that I've got a better idea of how to reconcile this "being human" with a God who is - well "Godlike and perfect". Do I think that the crucifixion was a logical conclusion to "pay for the wrongs of man"?
No more than you do. But that doesn't mean I see it as "illogical" in the overall sense. What I see as illogical - is the idea that man thinks he can do enough "good" to "outweigh" the "bad". Is that what you think God is going to do? Count up the good deeds and measure them up against the bad? Tell me how that system works - if you think that's what's going on. Or do you think God just ignores what man does - good or bad?



Here I completely disagree with you. There is no "long before mankind ever came on the scene."
This is a myth that makes me laugh harder. But that is a discussion for another thread.



That is part of my point though Abra - your exegesis is wacked. This is not the idea i have of God. I do not see God as a boot camp sargeant - dictating to me what I need to do to win his favor. I do not envision the bible as a set of rules that I have to follow, and that when a rule is broken - I have to beat myself profusely. I have not compromised any sense of rationality, nor is my sense of reality altered.
And where does this idea of "commited" come from?
As though I have to accept something blindly? Believe me - I don't. Which is why I refuse to accept any of the nonsense about "Darwanism". I could care less how much time someone spends in school, or how mant letters they have after their name - I just don't swallow that "chit". These so called "scientific" and "proven facts" that the world is billions of years old. Do you actually believe this fairy tale? Do you actually think that the people who have devoted their lives to attempting to prove this nonsense are doing something "worthy for man kind"? Then save your head shacking concerns about the myths I believe in, and start thinking about your own delusions.



The thing is Abra - you spend your time concerned over what God isn't, yet you don't give up the idea of God - so WHAT IS IT? Your picture of God changes with the seasons. One day it's a she, the next it's a bird-fairy. Really. You know that I've already abandoned the "There is no God" concept, and I'm not ignorant of all of the wonderful options that are out there as far as Mohammad to Mary Baker Eddy. I don't see a viable replacement, and my days of "Create-A-God" have come and gone. So what do you suggest I do?
The "Unity" idea of God is pointless. Take a little from here - take a little from there. That's even less appealing than just inventing my own. I'm fine with what I percieve the God of the scriptures to be.



It isn't an obsession, and we have differing opinions about "failures and successes". It doesn't take a genious to recognise that man is a flawed creature. We are constantly reminded of this fact every day by Madison avenue. We are surrounded by it everywhere we go. It strikes to the core of man's existance. The world revolves around it. Man just does not measure up - to his OWN expectations - let alone God's. And why would you think the creator thinks I'm a failure?
Do you think, I think, I disappoint Him? That I do things to "surprise" Him? That's an absurd notion. I get up everyday and face the same options and choices everyone else does, and if I do something wrong, I accept the consequences and move on. I don't stand there frozen and give up on life? What exactly is it that you think I'm "missing" in my life? Please. What have I sacrificed in my life that you have in yours? If you could come up with a reasonable response to that question I might take what you say seriously. But to me - you just sound like a little kid who thinks he's missing out on something in life because the "kids" around him has something he can't comprehend.



But these options that you have only exist in your mind Abra, because when called upon - you can only site whatever god you've created for that day is. And it isn't one that stands on its own - just one that contradicts what you don't like about the biblical God. It's fine with me if you want to create a smorgassboard God for yourself and change the flavors on a daily basis.
I have no problem with that. But your perception of the God that I tend to think is a better option does not line up with my understanding.



But I don't have a bad picture of God. We're not looking at the same picture. Or if we are, we're not looking at it in the same way. Which I suppose is fairly obvious, eH. But these "beautiful pictures" you see of god - I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is this "god" who stands outside of the realm of scripture to which you refer? What is it all about that so contradicts the "God of old"? Who has suddenly showed up in the last half-century.
Tell me more.

I don't think main stream accepted science has gotten that far, although there are offshoots and government funded organizations that explore remote viewing and out of body awareness. This of course is with an agenda of spying, not of finding god as would be expected.

I saw an ad in a Denver newspaper for psychics wanted for an exploration mission somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle where some strange disappearances were going on. eewwww... I don't think I would apply for that job even if I was psychic.

JB

Lin Yutang:

Probably the difference between man and the monkeys is that the monkeys are merely bored, while man has boredom plus imagination.

You've locked yourself into only believing in a single archaic mythology and claim that because you refuse to consider anything else this gives your 'god' some kind of stability.

That truly is funny Eljay. I hope that someday you'll see the humor in that.

HEY, DON'T MIND ME, I'M JUST THE 'CROCO-FEEDER'!!!

I'VE BROUGHT TONS OF TUNA THIS TIME!!!
(probably a better idea than a handful of 'minoes',
... when dealing with 'crocos'!)

Not that I have huge expectations, or delusional ideals of having an exchange that would actually be FREE OF THE 'BEING-RELIGIOUS / BEING-NON-RELIGIOUS' ROBOTIC SYNDROME,

but here is the propsed agenda(curriculum) of THIS thread!

It thought of posting the subject matter that is up for discussion, in a certain chronological order, thinking that would help with 'topic direction'.

NO EXPECTATIONS,


... BUT I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE HOW THE CROCOS ARE GOING TO TEAR UP THIS TUNA!!!


Here we go...



HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

PROLEGOMENON
(that's a word which I found so snobbish when a college professor first introduced me t it in one of his lectures. With time, I have found that it actually has a very pertinent use with respect to the tenents of approaching a subject from scientific/pragmatic/objective perspective. So please, no accusation of the SPECIOUS nature!)


So here are the preliminary and fundamental pieces and aspects constituting the basis of, and context when approaching ‘history of religions’.

WHAT IS RELIGION?
A few posts address this one already.
More observations could be raised.

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
More to come, but ‘belief’ and ‘believing’, in the context of all religions, is strictly used in the sense of ‘faith’:

‘… an unsubstantiated ‘something’, which one holds as being true for himself...’,

as opposed to ‘I believe’, in the more common sense of someone suggesting what he THINKS HE KNOWS TO BE A FACT, REFERRING TO AN EXISTING FACT which may require confirmation.

Will cover that extensively!!!

SUPERHUMAN BEINGS

MYTHS

Of course superhuman biengs and other personages comes before ‘myths’. Myths as such couldn’t exist without personages, speckled with a few superhuman beings here and there. Understanding this from an observer’s perspective is a crucial part of our discussion.

RITUALS

Makes sense that ‘rituals’ would be the next step chronologically. Superhuman beings, the ‘myths’ (stories) which constitutes them in the form of suggested belief, then comes those whom will chose to believe and ritualistically address them through prayer or forms of meditative states.

OTHER RELIGIOUS PHENOMENONS

Identifying the ultimate ‘raison d’être’ of rituals, of beliefs in superhuman beings and their myths, should be enough one thinks, to define the fundamental homogeneity of all religious manifestations.
Not so. Other phenomenons are clearly an intrinsic part of the whole religious domain.

TABOOS, as designated from the Polynesian term, establishing formal interdictions, either imposed by some ultimate boss of a superhuman ‘inexistent’ being, or by an existing human authority. Taboos will cover a series of domains that will be declared off limits, such as foods, objects, other people, rapports with our own people (incest, rape for example).

THE SACRED, SACRIFICES, SACRILEGIOUS, THE PROFANE, THE ‘CELEBRATIONS’, ‘OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION’ (chiefs, priests, etc.).

What is the ‘history of religions’ ?

While we asked at the beginning of this thread, as the first fundamental question to address, that question leaves out the other fundamental question of this exploration: ‘what is the history of religions?’.

It is a fascinating question when you put it in context.

If I were to undertake the history of the ‘automobile’, from an academic and rigorous point of view, it would be a painstaking task. But compared to ‘history of religions’, the history of the automobile is a walk in marvelously manicured park, with a team of caterers serving you freshly squeezed lemonade, along with platters of exotic fresh fruit.

Of course painstaking nonetheless because any rigorous historical recording deals with details and accuracy of things past which need a measure of reconstitution in order to be ‘told’ so to speak.
In the case of ‘automobile’ however, one deals with an era of very ‘short’ history were the reconstitution effort is a piece of cake (literacy, records, witnesses, original objects, etc.), compared with ‘religions’ which deals with an era spanning all of human history where, for the most part, there exists no material record of any sort (for now).

Impossible uindertaking? Of course not. It hasn’t stopped the history of man, anthropology, the history of thought, the history of mythologies, from contributing massively to the domain of ‘hard knowledge’ in their specific manner.

Watch for that one. Fascinating ride.

That would cover the fundamental pieces, which then would bring us to ‘religions’ in particular.

In chronological order, starting with ‘antique religions’ (can’t cover from a historical perspective, presumed religions for which there exists no records. Although phonetically close, ‘Hearsay’ as nothing to do with ‘History’!!!).

Here is THE LIST OF RELIGIONS,
‘history’ can legitimately cover (so far). I will not repeat ‘religion’ after each category. It is assumed.


ANTIQUITY:
Egyptian
Meroitic
Sumerian
Babylonian
Elamite
Anatolian
Western Semitic
Amorite (mostly Mari)
Ras Shamra-Ougarit
Phoenicians (no epigraphic records, but nonetheless records worthy of mention)
Aramean (little epigraphic records, but like Phoenicians, other records worth
mentioning)
Northern and Central Arabia
Southern Arabia
Israelite: from origins to the taking of Babylone
Minoan Crete and Achean Greek
Minoan
Achean
Greek (Archaïc and classical period)
Minoan contribution
Thraco-Phrygian influences
Indo-European remnants
Achean innovations
Naturalist and Agrarian cults
Religion of the Above: Zeus, atmospheric god
Religion of the earth: Agrarian cults
Religion of the families
Religion of the Nation
Amphictionies
Panegyries
Ecstatic Mysteries and Cults
Eleusis
Apollinian Chamanism
Pythagorism
Orphism
Dionysaic Ecstacy
Demons and Heros
Demons and Minor Deities
Heros
Vedic
Veda
Asura – Deva
The Aditya
Mitra – Varuna
Savitar
Asvin
Vayu
Indra
Rudra
Pusan
Visnu
Agni
Antique Iran & Zoroastrism
Slavic
Baltic
Germanic
Celtic
Etrusquian
Roman
Antique Chinese
Antique Japanese

Universal religions (salutary religions : India and Far-East)
Hinduism
Visnu +
First Avatars
Parasurama
Rama
Krsna
Buddha
Kalkin
Siva
Secondary gods or avatars
Indra
Agni
Vayu
Varuna
Yama
Surya
Kubera
Kama
Sectarian cults
Jainaism
Indian Buddhism
Taoism
Chinese Buddhism
Japanese Buddhism

Universal religions (salutary religions : Mediterrenean and Middle-East)
Sassanidist and Mazdeism
Eastern religions of the Roman Empire
End of Paganism
Judaïsm (from the capture of Balylone to the Bar-Kokheba revolt – 587-138)
Christianism (from origins to the Council of Nicea, to 325)
Jesus
Palestinian Milieu
Hellenists
Christianity (from Sect to Church, approx. 125-250)
Birth of a Christian Philosophy
Gnostics
Marcionite Schism
Montanism
Improvement of Ecclesiastic Structures
Sacred Books
First Orthodox Theologians
Christians; first part of the 3rd century
Traditional Cults and Anti-Chritianism
Church and State (250-325)
State of Christianism, (3rd century)
The decisive Battle
Flavius Valerius Constatinus
Eastern Churches
The Arian conflict -
The council of Nicea
Gnosticism
Egyptian Hermetism
Mandean
Manicheism
Birth of Islam (VII century)

Occidental constituted religions
Post Bar-Kokheba Judaïsm
Occidental Medieval Christianism (from the Council of Nicea-325, to The Reform-start of XVI century)
Non Orthodox Oriental Churches
Protestantism(s) and The Reform
The Orthodox Church
Posttridentin Catholicism
Catholic Missions
Protestant Missions
Occidental Religious Non-Conformism
Christian Esoterism (XVI – XX centuries)
Spiritism and Theosophic Society (19th century)
Maçons (Franc-Maçons)

READ THROUGH THE LIST OF THINGS TO COME
I’VE PUT IT ALL IN A CERTAIN ORDER, EXPECTING NO ONE WILL RESPECT IT. (that’s fine. Expecting a ‘croco pool to act otherwise would be delusional!!!)
PICK AND CHOSE AS YOU WISH, DO YOUR RESEARCH, GET BACK TO THE THREAD AND I’LL RESPOND FROM THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND HISTORICAL FACTS AND SOURCES I HAVE ON THE SUBJECT. (thus the real and serious debate on the ‘history of religions!!!)

There’s more, but I’ve got to run.

Besides, if that is not enough TUNA for the Crocos, I QUIT!!!

Egyptian:

I am a terrible historian and I would like to know what the best sources for Egyptian history are. I feel that the beginning of religion as we know it today began here, in this region and with the gods worshiped by these people.

I think there are many amazing secrets in the underground of Egypt, in the pyramids, and the history. I suspect an ancient advanced civilization left its mark on this land at this location.

JB

remember the bible said that God made "Man" in his own image which could suggest that God had no intentions of creating women so why would you assume that God always intended to create Eve ...

surely you're not suggesting that Eve was part of "God's Divine Plan" because they would mean there is no "Free Will" so could you explain why the creation of Eve is not an after-thought