Oh, how fortuitous, I just wrote this for another thread, but it fits here too.

The field of anthropology includes a treasure trove of material from all over the world regarding what humans have believed. The earliest known beliefs were that of Animism and it existed in most of the aboriginal and native cultures. While there are a diverse number of characteristics between all these beliefs, there seems to be one basic commonality; spirituality.

It was believed that every object was endowed with a spirit. The spirt was the life force of the object and existed as an immaterial spirit when it was no longer part of the life force of the object. The immaterial spirit was not individual, it was a shared, common, universal spirit.

Many of these beliefs carried in the follow up belief systems of pantheism.

The earliest idea of a separate god is often linked to sex. Since animism was a complete veneration of all life force, and all life force, “spirit” existed in every natural object, it was nature that was venerated.

As man began to develop a sense of understanding that, in nature, it was only females that brought forth life, it was believed that women were the givers of that life force. This is how god became a separate notion. In most cultures it was Earth, itself, that became the ‘supreme’ live giving force, because Earth yielded all that was necessary for the continuance of life (ecosystem).

Later developments included the goddesses of matriarchal societies. But women tended to be more transient, following their men ‘husbands’ and leaving their rightfully inherited fortunes to their male members. As cultures developed many of the them share the same transitions.

As men gained power through their new ownerships, intellect was also gaining momentum and it was realized that women were only a vessel and it was the seed of ‘man’ that created the life force. History then shows new gods appearing if the male form.

At some point it was acknowledged that men and women were equal necessities to the emergence of new life force, and therefore there must be a greater singular creative force – monotheism was born. There had to be a dualistic nature to the one god as ‘He’ created a dualistic nature in the universe, requiring both male and female to give life.

It was this idea, and the questions surrounding this notion that eventually became the Christion idea of god in three persons – God the father, God the son (remember by this time societies were patriarchal and they still believe God favored them as the ‘carrier’ of the ‘seed’. They didn’t yet understand that about the seed and the germ. And then, of course, we can’t leave the oldest belief system known to man totally out of the picture, thus there was God the ‘spirit’.

This is all very, very brief, and there is much more in the way of time and developments, but I’ve given the highlights.

So there you have it – ALL gods are the creation of man (AND HAVE EVOLVED) as humans have and civilisation has evolved, and not the other way around.

In fact – all humans began as atheists because animism did not have any god or gods, only spirit – ‘the life force’ and it was a universal ‘one’, so all the universe was connected and was one with the spirit.

That was all very interesting. But what I liked the best was the last part, too bad it isn't so today, think how much different the world would be if we were to relate to one another as human beings connected to the life force... I love it...

If only we could find out what that is??? I guess perhaps impossible to find out.

"smiles" ....it's not impossible ..one of those things that could have existed before God may in fact be yourself

the first rule of existence is ... the only existence that can ever be absolutely proved is the existence of yourself to yourself because everything else may be a delusion

Who needs god (or a Goddess) besides man? A need for this concept created a void which required filling, thus man invented the concept of Spirit and eventually the premise behind a deity. First a Goddess, and then much later a male godhead.

the need for a God can be used to fill a deeper void ...in every society a certain amount of delusion is known to exist among it's citizens ...

the concept of God can be use to keep this delusion under control and acceptable and can be used to possibly identify the citizens that may be delusional

and example of this is someone may be paranoid with delusions that someone or something unseen is constantly staring at them ..to claim that the something is God fixes the problem and keeps the person content enough to function in society

it matters greatly to me because that is what i put my faith in.don't see how you'd see what i wrote as a contridiction.but i do agree with you about GOD filling a void in our life.spiritual seperation left me filling empty and JESUS(GOD) filled that void and now i feel complete.
just because i don't have proof doesn't mean i cann't have faith

krimsa it took more than just mamma to create me .oh and man is the only beings that have a spirit not animals or trees.if you have never known GOD then you cann't possibly miss (fill empty) what you don't know

Deke proselytized:



Yes, indeed I failed to mention your daddy's little squirt. It was a 50/50 joint conglomeration of efforts no doubt. Point? However your momma, carried you for nine months and gave birth. Why do you think the concept of the divine feminine preceded the idea of a male godhead that can give birth?

Man is the only thing that carries a spirit within? How do you know such things? Thats an absurd proclamation to make.

I have never known your boy god, yet that does not mean I have not been spiritually fulfilled.

that's what my belief is if you believe in some crazy idea that divine feminine proceeded everything(where did you get that from?)let me guess from some liberalized lesbian let's kill baby's because it's own body's book (just curious) from what source do you find sprituality in

"deke" I called it a contradiction because first you are preaching to everyone that it shouldn't matter and now in the same breath you are preaching that it matter to you ... I mean don't you see the contradiction because it should be as clear as your computer screen ..unless you have a bad graphic card driver

also to base anything on faith is no different than gambling ...faith doesn't exist beyond the mind

For Deke

If you like, next I will start offering up the archeological evidence and photographs.

GODDESS WORSHIP

Although Adam, Eve, and a nasty serpent define images of origin in this culture, historical, mythological, and archaeological evidence indicates:

* a male-oriented view of divinity can claim only about 5000 years of history.
* female deities were worshipped at least 7000 bce, thousands of years before Abraham served as prophet of Yahweh, and some say as far back as 30,000 bce (based on Upper Paleolithic figurines, cave paintings, and other archaeological finds in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa).

The Goddess would have been thought of as the original creator (since this makes sense as a female role) and as patroness of sex and reproduction. These early social and religious structures, when acknowledged to have existed, have traditionally been dismissed as "fertility cults."

SERPENTS

The serpent of Genesis was a deity in its own right, revered in the Levant for at least 7000 years before Genesis was written. Trees and gardens were involved in these early religions also, with no associations concerning guilt, sin, disobedience, or unpleasantness.

The serpent’s divine association has been insistently (and hopefully) interpreted as phallic, but the serpent was revered as female in the Near and Middle East (based on Sumerian and Babylonian texts, artifacts from Crete). (Did pre-dynastic Egyptians flee to Crete in 3000 bce with their belief in the cobra goddess?)

In ancient myths, the female deity was often symbolized as a serpent or dragon. The picture of the cobra as symbol of mystic insight and wisdom is used as a hieroglyphic sign signifying goddess, and it precedes the name of any goddess in Egyptian writing.

THEORIES OF EVOLUTION

Previous theorizing as to what happened, how did the shift to male deities occur, include the so-called "big discovery" which assumes that the ancients were in awe of reproduction (Hebrew and Aramaic terms for "magic" derive from words meaning serpent). But eventually people came to realize men’s role in reproduction. Lately this theory has been seen as absurd since these same early peoples were animal breeders.

Actually, sporadic invasions from the north seem to be responsible. During the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age came the violent entry, massacres, and territorial conquests of the cattle-herding Indo-European or Indo-Aryan tribes with their own concepts of light and good vs. dark and evil, and worshipping a male storm god often conceived of as residing high on a mountain and blazing fire (volcanos?). (To some extent also, Semitic sheep-and-goat-herders from the south also invaded.)

These invaders either subjugated and suppressed, absorbed, or eliminated goddess worship. Male became valued above female, kings and priestly classes were established. In these new religions, goddesses/women were more likely to be associated with darkness/evil. Sometimes, as with the Greeks invaded by the Indo-Europeans between the 14th and 12th centuries bce (Homer’s "Achaeans"), the female was symbolically included into male god myths, but as reduced and conquered. Here the patriarchal gods marry instead of exterminate the goddesses indiginous to the land they conquered.

The Hebrews retain a shady memory of the mythic battle between Yahweh and the primordial serpent, Leviathan, although this has mostly been removed from scriptures; but see Job 26:13, Psalms 104, 74. Leviathan was known in northern Canaanite texts as the foe of the storm god Baal at least as early as the 14th century bce (var. Lotan, Lawtan, and Lat = goddess in Canaanite).

This mythic battle of male antropomorphic god and serpentine goddess emerges indirectly again in the Greek myth of Heracles/Hercules killing the serpent-dragon Ladon, said to be guarding a sacred fruit tree of a goddess.

Other Greek indications of cultural dominance include Athena born from the head of Zeus so that the male takes the role of creator (and Zeus is one of the few Greek gods never appearing with a snake), and Aphrodite being born from the genitals of Kronos. The Amazons are worrisome, perhaps reflecting the memory of a goddess-worshipping people who fought the initial seizure?

In Hebrew texts, Yahweh advocates the destruction of the shrines to female deities, so they did continue to exist, attract fans, and offend the Levite priests who established male authority and revised circulating creation myths. The shrines themselves probably involved a priestess who would give divine revelations of the goddess. The tree involved would probably have been a fig tree, the fig = "flesh and fluid of Hathor the goddess" in Egyptian texts, and fig leaves are mentioned in the story of Adam and Eve, displaced, with the fruit they ate unspecified. There may have been a type of communion with the goddess involved in eating the sacred fruit. The snakes involved may have been used for their bites, known in some religions to be used like sacred mushrooms -- the venom acts like an hallucinogen, yielding mystical perception changes.

So then the phrase "Before God" has no meaning. If your third scanario is correct - then God just is. No "before" applies.

Of course there is always the fourth option. That there is no God. You omitted that from the list of options.

But that doesn't make sense. How do you now explain the purpose for man doing this in the first place?

What? How do I explain this need that humans have to offset the fear of death and the hope of rebirth in some fashion? Are you serious here? You even watched that show with me on the Neanderthals. Do you remember when they had excavated one of their tombs?

Howevr you have completely omitted Judism from your historical evaluation which contradicts this overview. In history - no other society or people has been documented more than this former world power - so how could you not include it's world view of God?

I could see the need to invent God's and Godessess in order to fullfill the need to negate anothers idea of these concepts - but not for the original idea of it. What was the purpose of this first individual who created God - and who was it?

Well now you are getting into the actual archeological aspect of the concept which I know you take with a grain of salt. Be that as it may. Probably these very first homo sapiens (and Neanderthal) were every bit as frightened of death as we are today. Or at least they were very curious just as we are today. What happens etc. Its easier for people to believe in something, anything. That would have sparked the initial "need" to fill a void amongst early hominids and eventually modern humans. There lies the root of ALL spirituality. Animals are in the here and now as far as their thought process is concerned. Arguably higher primates are much more adept at remembering past events but they are not capable of complicated abstract thought on the same level that humans are.

So my guess is Neaderthal was the absolute beginning of it.

"Eljay" you keep making the same mistake as everyone else by equating Time with Existence ...Time only applies to consciousness ..for example ..why would someone in a coma or unconscious need a "Watch" to exist ...time started for God once God said "I Am" at that point of consciousness God cease being eternal

which means there were existence before God acheived consciousness which means something beyond God had to exist in order to create God's consciousness which means God is not the creator of everything



that's because that fourth option should never be used in a debate

it's delusional to try and prove that something doesn't exist...so I leave it up to the claimer to prove that it does exist and if they can not provide sufficient evidence to prove existence, then I probably consider them as being delusional for making such a claim

Its probably delusional to attempt to prove that something is delusional in a theological discussion also.

a theological discussion is the practice of exchanging delusions