A lot of people ask how something as diverse and long lasting as religion have been created if God really doesn't exist. The following explanation not only makes perfect sense, but agrees with the Bible almost 100% (when look at it from the viewpoint of people 2000 years ago).

It's really quite simple too, and can be explained in one word... aliens. Aliens is one of those words that instantly makes people look at anything following it as either science fiction or absurd, but it really isn't if you take the time to think about it.

Here are our ancestors, 2000 years ago, with no knowlege that those points in the sky are really huge spheres of burning elements, even that there is other land in the world on the other side of the ocean. One day, some alien race decides to pay a visit. Can you imagine how any sort of technology a race capable of traveling through space like this would have? It would seem like magic even today, think of how people 2000 years ago saw it.

All the "miracles" like the parting of the water, the pillar of fire that swept up the roman army, the various healings and so on, can all be easily explained by advanced technology. Of course, these people would see these aliens as Gods (the aliens may even have sent just one representative to Earth, in the form of a human being or something). After all, what kind of being can part a sea or bring people back from death? A God of course. They had no way of knowing these were simply other beings from another planet, in their eyes they were true Gods in every sense of the word.

And not only miracles can be explained in this way. Angels for example could have been holograms. The fire of the holy spirit could have been any number of things (the aliens could have been tagging the apostles like lab specimens for all we know). Turning the river red could be easily done through the use of holograms or another type of illusionary effect.

When you look at it from this perspective it all makes perfect sense. Is it really that much harder to believe than a single omniscient being creating the entire universe in 6 days?

Here's one idea.....
The Indians in North America first thought of spirits because they saw steam rising from bodies. Early man first had 'Shamans' as the leader of a tribe. The Shaman was a spiritual leader as well as the political leader. So religion has been around for ages. In early human though, the religion was just about how human spirits went up to the sky after death. It just progressed as people began to have more and more abilities and less and less explinations for their growing number of questions.


Note: I hope nobody wants to correct me for calling them 'Indians'. I'm getting fed up with all these PC bastards who think they have the right to ignorantly stop people using that word. It all comes from this stupid fucking belief that Columbus called them 'Indians' because he thought he was in India. For one, a Spaniard would not make the word Indians from Indian, that's English morphing of a word, not Spanis. Seoncd; "Un genta in Dios." The words of Columbus. Know what it means? A people in God. He called them A People In God. 'in Dios'. Indians. Someone explain to me how this name is degrading? Calling them a people in god is degrading? Bullshit. Third, Hindustan. There was no India at the time. It was called Hindustan.

pc bullshit.

I think "Native people who were so fucking superior to you white bastards who mercilessly slaughtered them and stole thier land you horrid bad people who should feel guilty because you are white" is the politically correct term.

Or "NPWWSFSTYWBWMSTASTLYHBPWSFGBYAW"

touche!

Xelios,

It's really quite simple too, and can be explained in one word... aliens. Aliens is one of those words that instantly makes people look at anything following it as either science fiction or absurd, but it really isn't if you take the time to think about it.

Good point, the aliens would come from this universe, would they not? God is the Supreme Controller according to religious scripture.

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. BG.

Could this be the arrangement of God?

You seem to be hung up on Christianity being ‘religion itself’ how do you explain the Vedas, which was written 5000 years ago and accounts for religous history thousands of years before that.

Love

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[You seem to be hung up on Christianity being ‘religion itself’ how do you explain the Vedas, which was written 5000 years ago and accounts for religous history thousands of years before that./QUOTE]

The Rig Veda, oldest of the Vedas, is believed to have been written around 1300-1500BC, at the time of the Aryan migration/invasion into the Inus Valley. It is possible that portions of the Vedas were being developed as early as 1700-2000BC and there is some possibilty that the oral tradition goes back even farther. However, to jump to 5000BC is a rather large leap of faith and there is no written evidence before 1500BC or so. Do you have any contradictory historical proof or references?

~Raithere

Here are some sources:

"The Rig Veda was written by the Aryans who entered the Indus Valey toward the end of the Harappan Civilization. They wrote this Veda between 1300 and 1000 BC, during the period of the Aryan Migrations. However, there may be possible Harappan influences on these works. This is because the Vedas were actually being developed before the Aryans arrived around 2000 B.C."

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/India/RigVeda.html

"There are four Vedas, the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda. The Vedas are the primary texts of Hinduism. They also had a vast influence on Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. The Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and written down about 600 B.C."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/

"The earliest history of the Aryans in India is called the Rigvedic Period (1700-1000 BC) after the religious praise poems that are the oldest pieces of literature in India. These poems, the Rig Veda, are believed to represent the most primitive layer of Indo-European religion and have many characteristics in common with Persian religion since the two peoples are closely related in time. "

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/ARYANS.HTM

You're all full of crap.

I started religion! :p

PS: It's true because I used Big Blue Letters.

Ive always kinda thought that aliens is a posibility but not seriously. The easiest way to expain miricles is that they're a load of crap.

adam,

WOW your alot older than i thought :D

Yep. Eternal and infinite and all that.

Suta Goswami said: When the second millennium overlapped the third, the great sage (Srila Vyasadeva) was born to Parashara in the womb of Satyavati, the daughter of Vasu.
Once upon a time Vyasadeva, as the sun rose, took his morning ablution in the waters of the Sarasvati (river) and sat alone to concentrate.
The great sage saw anomalies in the duties of the millennium. This happens on the earth in different ages, due to unseen forces in the course of time.
The great sage, who was fully equipped in knowledge, could see, through his transcendental vision, the deterioration of everything material, due to the influence of the age. He could also see that the faithless people in general would be reduced in duration of life and would be impatient due to lack of Goodness. Thus he contemplated for the welfare of men in all statuses and orders of life.
He saw that the sacrifices mentioned in the vedas were means by which the people’s occupations could be purified. And to simplify the process he divided the one Veda into four, in order to expand them among men.
The four divisions of the original sources of knowledge (the vedas) were made separately. But the historical facts and authentic stories mentioned in the Puranas are called the fifth Veda.
After the Vedas were divided into four divisions, Paila Reeshi became the professor of the Rg Veda, Jaimini the professor of the Sama Veda, and Vaishampayana alone became glorified by the Yajur Veda.
All these learned scholars, in their turn, rendered their entrusted Vedas unto their many disciples, granddisciples and great-granddisciples, and thus the respective branches of the followers of the Vedas came into being.
Thus the great sage Vyasadeva, who is very kind to the ignorant masses, edited the Vedas so they might be assimilated by less intellectual men.

Srimad Bhagavatam.

However, to jump to 5000BC is a rather large leap of faith and there is no written evidence before 1500BC or so. Do you have any contradictory historical proof or references?

You are so right, please forgive me;

Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Shree Vyasadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavatee through Parashara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several brances and sub-branches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent.

As in the nineteenth and twentieth incarnation, the Lord advented as Himself and Lord Balarama, this advent took place about 150 years before the end of the third millenium which ended approximately 5000 years ago. So Srila Vyasadeva appearaed at the cusp of the 2nd and 3rd millenium Treta and Dwapara. Now Dwapara millenium lasts for 864,000 earth years, so try and work that one out for yourself.

As for the ‘Aryan Race’ you have no idea.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Don't flame me just yet; I can justify that statement. Think about primates. They do not kill each other. And then something happened and a group of them was capable of interspecies violence. The only problem with this was, and this is pretty much undeniable, without a means of seperation and way of removing guilt/fear of killing and death, no killing occurred prior to religion. There were tribes but no sign of violence what-so-ever. And then religion was introduced in Mesopotamia. Why is this so? Simple, how does one remove that fear/guilt? Convince them that this life is only a prelude to an eternal life. That way one person can force countless others to kill and plunder for his/her gain.

The same thing occurs today.

Gorillas and baboons and such kill each other sometimes.

religion started when we first started to give questions, when we first saw smth we could not explain

[Just another religion]
Lightning, thunder and burning pain,
striking through a nomads heart.
Holy power went through him,
and returned to the mother earth

Nameless hero gets' up and sees,
crowds gathering by his knees.
Devotions, prayers, restless cries,
just to hear his mighty voice.

Oh thee my lord,
we saw a spirit of holy sky,
go through thine body and bless thine mind,
let us pray to you.

© by Avatar especially for How did religion get started? :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Suta Goswami said: When the second millennium overlapped the third, the great sage (Srila Vyasadeva) was born to Parashara in the womb of Satyavati, the daughter of Vasu.

Pardon me, but "Srila Vyasadeva) was born to Parashara in the womb of Satyavati" sounds as if you mean that Parashara was Srila's mother and was still in the womb (i.e. unborn) when she gave birth to Srila. Or am I reading this wrong? Are the proper names not all referring to people? It's a bit vague.

The great sage saw anomalies in the duties of the millennium.

The duties of the millennium? A rather anthropomorphic statement, that. How does one see an anomaly in a duty? This sentence, as it stands, means nothing. As with most religious nonsense, it means nothing in and of itself. It must be sub-referenced and interpreted.

He could also see that the faithless people in general would be reduced in duration of life and would be impatient due to lack of Goodness.

Does this imply that faithlessness causes a reduction in longevity? Care to prove it empirically?

After the Vedas were divided into four divisions …. and thus the respective branches of the followers of the Vedas came into being.

Interesting historical story there but is there any outside verification of this? What documentary and/or archaeological evidence exists to support this story? Do you have any evidence this story is anything but fiction?

As in the nineteenth and twentieth incarnation, the Lord advented as Himself and Lord Balarama, this advent took place about 150 years before the end of the third millenium which ended approximately 5000 years ago.

Documentation? Evidence? Thus far I have only your word on this. It sounds self-referential as well.

As for the ‘Aryan Race’ you have no idea.

I have no idea of what? Rather presumptuous of you to state that I "have no idea" regarding any topic.

So far, you have yet to give me any evidence. Your "arguments" are akin to Christians "proving" the Bible is true by determining the age of the Earth by counting the generations listed in the Bible. Typical, theistic, self-referential nonsense.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Teg
Think about primates. They do not kill each other.

Monkeys have also been observed to murder, both each other and other species for no apparent reason (such as for food or in competition to reproduce). Sometimes they commit murder en masse... ganging up on one, unfortunate, individual and beating him to death.

Mice and rats will also kill each other and sometime thier own children for no apparent reason as well. Though some argue stress as a cause this could apply as the "reason" humans do it too. I've observed this myself.

The lie of the pacifist / "death only for necessity" aspect of nature is just that... a lie.

Conversely there is a primate species (I forget the name) where the females will diffuse male agression by proving sex on the spot. ;) Think on that a while.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
It's a bit vague.

Cause you don't understand, :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Cause you don't understand, :)


AMAZING! Jan's answers have been so concise, and complete I am now enlightened and know the secrets of the universe. :bugeye:

If anyone else would like to know, just call me at 1-900-331....

-=-=-=-=-=-

Xev,

Bonobos. Thanks!

I was thinking of flying out to join one of their packs.
Let me know if you wish to join me.

I've already adopted their philosophy:

Pleasure Eases Pain
Good Sex Defuses Tension
Affection Calms Terror
Love Lessens Violence
Females Rule
And You Can’t Very Well Fight a War While You’re Having an Orgasm

BTW This site is rather fun (warning: adult content, mature bonobos only).
http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
Pardon me, but "Srila Vyasadeva) was born to Parashara in the womb of Satyavati" sounds as if you mean that Parashara was Srila's mother

No, Parashara was the father, that was how it was interpreted.

Or am I reading this wrong?

Or maybe just trying to make it sound so.

The great sage saw anomalies in the duties of the millennium.

Yes. Each millenium is characterized by the qualities of nature, goodness, passion and ignorance, if you like I can give more detail.

The duties of the millennium?

The duties performed by the people of that millenium.

A rather anthropomorphic statement, that. How does one see an anomaly in a duty?

Anomaly means irregularity of behaviour. The peoples behaviour would become uncharacteristic of the age.

This sentence, as it stands, means nothing.

Let me help to clarify it, the great sage could see that eventually in the passing of time people would desist from their duties characterised by that millenium.

As with most religious nonsense, it means nothing in and of itself. It must be sub-referenced and interpreted.

Well you say most religious nonsense, firstly it would be nonsense to someone who cannot understand it, and secondly, what do you regard as ‘sense,’ if most is nonsense. Maybe we talk along those lines.

It sounds self-referential as well.

No, as I stated at the end, they are verses out of the Bhagavat Purana, I added nothing.

Typical, theistic, self-referential nonsense.

At present, you have a poor fund of knowledge when it comes to things spiritual, its bound to sound nonsensical to you, its like trying to explain the intricacies of life to a 3 year old.
You say you have read the BG, and make some remark about ‘reality means illusion’ being cited in it, which shows, if you have read it, you most certainly did not understand it, and now you act as if you do. That is blatant ignorance.
My advise to you is, read it, try and develop some kind of understanding, doesn’t matter how basic, then argue from that point of veiw, if you must discredit it. Finding out when it was written or who it was written by is information that has no bearing on the philosophy of truth, if it is truth it will become a part of you, depending on how much of the truth is accessable according to your conditioning.

AMAZING! Jan's answers have been so concise, and complete I am now enlightened and know the secrets of the universe.

Steady on, I did not have time to post a full post, but I see you couldn’t wait to put me down, he who says does not insult. :p

Love

Jan Ardena.

Xelios,

You are not the first to come up with that idea... ;):)


Tyler,

The Indians in North America first thought of spirits because they saw steam rising from bodies. Early man first had 'Shamans' as the leader of a tribe. The Shaman was a spiritual leader as well as the political leader. So religion has been around for ages. In early human though, the religion was just about how human spirits went up to the sky after death. It just progressed as people began to have more and more abilities and less and less explinations for their growing number of questions.

No. Every Religion all around the world have the exact same ideas. What differentiates them is only their background, the different cultures, languages and the course it takes during History.

If you get all Religions in their beginnings all around the world you will have the exact same Religion. Concidence? No. There must be some Truth there.

Besides that, they explained everything, not "and less and less explanations"... Just read about any Religion and you will see...

Love,
Nelson

How did religion get started?

Religion got started when man had an urge to explain the Universe and himself. For that, he looked inside himself as it was the only place where he could find a changeless Reality, the Truth. Those who found tried to tell the others by writting Holy Books where the Truth is expressed rationally.

Words constitues about 5% of a Holy Book. The other 95% comes all from the Spirit, which is the Truth made present in one's Heart.

Explaning rationally is trying to limit what is unlimited, the Truth.
That's why words are not enought and experience is made necessary.

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
No, Parashara was the father, that was how it was interpreted.

Thanks for the clarification. I still think "born in the womb" is an odd way of saying conceived or born but allowances have to be made for translation.

Well you say most religious nonsense, firstly it would be nonsense to someone who cannot understand it, and secondly, what do you regard as ‘sense,’ if most is nonsense. Maybe we talk along those lines.

I find that religious literature is often very vague and interpretation is necessary for understanding. This allows for a wide range of, sometimes contrary, beliefs to be based upon the same text. Transubstantiation of bread and wind into flesh and blood in the Christian doctrine is a good example of this. Some take it literally, others figuratively. Point is, based upon the text itself no determination can be made. This I regard as nonsensical. If one is trying to honestly convey knowledge one has a duty to be as clear as possible. Deliberately being vague is simply a way of avoiding contradiction.

It sounds self-referential as well.
No, as I stated at the end, they are verses out of the Bhagavat Purana, I added nothing.

By "self-referential" I was referring to the fact that you were pointing to your own religious doctrine as verification of the age of that doctrine. Like pointing to the generations listed in the Bible as proof of the age and history of the Biblical texts. Referring to part of the text that is in question as verification of the truth of the text is self-referential, also known as the fallacy of circular logic.

At present, you have a poor fund of knowledge when it comes to things spiritual, its bound to sound nonsensical to you, its like trying to explain the intricacies of life to a 3 year old.

And you say I'm insulting? First, you presume to know the extent of my knowledge then you compare me to a three-year-old.

You say you have read the BG, and make some remark about ‘reality means illusion’ being cited in it, which shows, if you have read it, you most certainly did not understand it, and now you act as if you do. That is blatant ignorance.

My reference was perhaps unclear and poorly cited. Hinduism does, however, refer to the illusory nature of the perceived world, does it not? Here are some proper cites:

"According to Sri Sankara, there is one Absolute Brahman who is Sat-chit-ananda, who is of an absolutely homogeneous nature. The appearance of this world is due to Maya - the illusory power of Brahman which is neither Sat nor Asat. This world is unreal. This world is a Vivarta or apparent modification through Maya. Brahman appears as this universe through Maya. Brahman is the only reality." - Brahma Sutras by Swami Sivananda
rthe 'rtham yat pratiyeta
na pratiyeta catmani
tad vidyad atmano mayam
yathabhaso yatha tamah

Translation:
O Brahma, whatever appears to be of any value, if it is without relation to Me, has no reality. Know it as My illusory energy, that reflection which appears to be in darkness.
"The Supreme Lord said: Both you and I have taken many births. I remember them all, O Arjuna, but you do not remember. (4.05)
Though I am eternal, immutable, and the Lord of all beings, yet I (voluntarily) manifest by controlling My own material nature using My Yoga-maya. (See also 10.14) (4.06)
Yoga-maya is the Ananda Shakti of Lord Krishna. Maha-maya is the fractional reflection of Yoga-maya. Kala-maya is the reflection of Maha-maya. And Maya, the illusory energy, is the supernatural, extraordinary, and mystic power of Brahma. Maha-maya, Kala-maya, and Maya are also called Adi Prakriti; and Prakriti is considered the reflection of Maya. Thus Yoga-maya is the origin of both Maya and Prakriti. Guru Nanak said: "He has created Maya that deceives (and controls) us." The word Maya also means unreal, illusory, or deceptive image of Reality. Due to the power of Maya one considers the universe existent and distinct from Brahma. Brahma-jyoti is the invisible potential energy, and Maya is the kinetic energy, the force of action of Brahma. They are inseparable like fire and heat. Maya is also used as a metaphor to explain the visible world or Jagat to common people. " - The Bhagavad-Gita Translated by Dr. Ramananda Prasad Second Edition
So before you tell me I am speaking from "blatant ignorance" you can refute my sources. As I said earlier the text is unclear and requires interpretation.

My advise to you is, read it, try and develop some kind of understanding, doesn’t matter how basic, then argue from that point of veiw, if you must discredit it.

I have and continue to do so.

Finding out when it was written or who it was written by is information that has no bearing on the philosophy of truth, if it is truth it will become a part of you, depending on how much of the truth is accessable according to your conditioning.

A philosophical truth does not necessarily have any bearing upon historical or empirical truth. This particular exchange we are engaged in comes from my questioning your assertion that the Vedas are over 5000 years old. Something you have yet to prove.

Steady on, I did not have time to post a full post, but I see you couldn’t wait to put me down, he who says does not insult.

Yes, I apologize, that was rather sarcastic and a bit insulting.

~Raithere

Gorillas and baboons and such kill each other sometimes.
That is a misleading statement. They, like all mammals, have what can be classified as aggressive play behavior. It in no way represents malice. Any death is incidental.
Monkeys have also been observed to murder, both each other and other species for no apparent reason (such as for food or in competition to reproduce). Sometimes they commit murder en masse... ganging up on one, unfortunate, individual and beating him to death.

Mice and rats will also kill each other and sometime thier own children for no apparent reason as well. Though some argue stress as a cause this could apply as the "reason" humans do it too. I've observed this myself.

The lie of the pacifist / "death only for necessity" aspect of nature is just that... a lie.
I would have to disagree. As I stated above there is no observable tendency towards malevolent behavior. Are we supposed to believe that a creature whose main diet consists of vegetables, leaves, insects, small mammals, and small birds would kill each other for food? When was the last time you saw a carnivore killing one of its kind for food(excluding canabalistic humans)? Killing for no apparent reason? You pump those things full of experimental drugs and then question their erratic behavior.

"No. Every Religion all around the world have the exact same ideas. What differentiates them is only their background, the different cultures, languages and the course it takes during History.

If you get all Religions in their beginnings all around the world you will have the exact same Religion. Concidence? No. There must be some Truth there."

Oh. My mistake. I must have missed the part in the Bible where the great eagle creates rain. And I keep missing that part in Indian religion where there is only one god. Could you find it for me?


"Besides that, they explained everything, not "and less and less explanations"... Just read about any Religion and you will see..."

The Natives believed many scientifically impossible things. Because they did not have the science to explain the things, they explained it through super-natural (and now, as we know, impossible) ways.

Hey teg - black widow spiders.

Originally posted by Teg
That is a misleading statement. They, like all mammals, have what can be classified as aggressive play behavior. It in no way represents malice. Any death is incidental.

Wrong. Although I shouldn't have included Gorillas who are quite peaceful.

Baboons and Chimpanzee's, on the other hand, can be quite violent and kill members of their own species as well as other species for no apparent reason. The bodies are not later eaten, the other animal was not being aggressive.

There are plenty of cases of humans being killed by baboons for no apparent reason other than fear and territoriality. How about sharks, who have a tendency to bite first and ask questions later. Humans are rarely, if ever, eaten by sharks they are only bitten (maybe a few times) and released. Ask a hiker, who's been mauled by a grizzly if there was a reason (not all bear attacks involve cubs).

As far as malice is concerned you're on rather tenuous ground there. How does one establish the presence or absence of malice in a non-human animal?

I would have to disagree. As I stated above there is no observable tendency towards malevolent behavior. Are we supposed to believe that a creature whose main diet consists of vegetables, leaves, insects, small mammals, and small birds would kill each other for food?

There sure is. And sometimes not even for food. That's the point. Why would one creature kill another for reasons other than food or defense? Yet they do. Try watching the discovery channel for a week.

When was the last time you saw a carnivore killing one of its kind for food(excluding canabalistic humans)? Killing for no apparent reason? You pump those things full of experimental drugs and then question their erratic behavior.

Since when was murder defined as "killing for no apparent reason"? A lion, when taking over a new pride of females, will sometimes kill the offspring of the former sire. This happens in the wild. Is it "for no apparent reason"? No, there's a definite genetic advantage to kill competitors of your own offspring, the lioness will also come back into heat sooner if her cubs are killed. Would you classify it as murder if a human male killed his new wife's children from another marriage? Of course.

These observances were not made after "pump(ing) those things full of experimental drugs". These observations occur out in the wild as well with "kept" animals in laboratories and as pets. I've seen pet mice and rats kill each other for no apparent reason. Plenty of room, plenty of food, they were sexually segregated so they were not competing to win a mate. In one case a single male rat was caged with a single female. The male killed the female, again for no discernable reason. Why then did they kill each other if not out of pure aggression or territoriality? They were not drugged, they were not unduly stressed, in fact we were hoping that they would mate.

Part of your post that I was initially responding to was " The only problem with this was, and this is pretty much undeniable, without a means of seperation and way of removing guilt/fear of killing and death, no killing occurred prior to religion."

This is purely hypothetical BS. You have no corroborating evidence, no written history to refer to. Lack of evidence is not evidence. I won't argue that religion hasn't given humans a reason or an excuse to kill but your presumption that prior to religion no killing occurred is utterly unfounded.

In fact, a major part of most religions is a declaration against such behavior which would indicate that part of it's function was to stop these activities. Why command "thou shalt not kill" if no one was killing anyone?

The relevance of "Mesopotamia" (a bit inaccurate but I understand your point) that you are missing is the advent of civilization and writing. This is not when religion first occured, it is simply the beginning of a written history. Religion was existant long before this. So was killing, although that was/is not limited to humans.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
Thanks for the clarification. I still think "born in the womb" is an odd way of saying conceived or born but allowances have to be made for translation.

I believe it stated that Vyasadev was ‘born to’ Parashara in the womb of…..
Srila Vyasadeva is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord (known as the literary incarnation of God), His father was the great sage Parashara Muni. As all incarnation are scheduled and sages are celibate (but for procreation), the sage must have undergone very serious penances in order to have the great honour of having the Lord as his son.
So although he discharged his semen into his wife, it was because of Parashara Muni's unconditional love for God, why Srila Vyasadev entered into his seminal fluid, into the womb of his wife.

This allows for a wide range of, sometimes contrary, beliefs to be based upon the same text.

I totally agree, this is why God sends His representatives or comes Himself, to give clarity.
To know if the representative is genuine, his forthcoming will be prophesied in the scriptures.
For example in the Bhavishya Purana[/] it says;

[I]etan mtrantare mleccha
acaryena samanvitah
Mahamd it Khatah
Siyyagrasva samanvitah.

”An illiterate teacher will come along, Mohammaed by name, and he will give religion to his fifth-class companions.”

And;

tatah kalau sampravrte
Sammobaya sura-dwistham
buddho namnanjana-suta
Kikateshu bhavishyati.

“In the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Personality of Godhead will appear in the province of Gaya as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, to bewilder the demons who are always envious of the devotees.”

Transubstantiation of bread and wine into flesh and blood in the Christian doctrine is a good example of this.

Try first to understand the mentality of the people at that time, no doubt the act would have been accompanied by a mantra (prayer), the person who authorised it (Jesus??) would be perfectly qualified.
The idea would be to remember God at all times, and if the people were accustomed to drinking wine and eating bread as a general pastime, then it would be easier for them to relate to God on that basis.
Just a guess.

Point is, based upon the text itself no determination can be made. This I regard as nonsensical.

The text would have been easily understood at that time, but not only do we live in a completely different time, we live a completely different lifestyle, so the meaning could easily be lost.

A lot of people in this day and age find it hard to understand the plays and sonnets of Billy Shakespear.

By "self-referential" I was referring to the fact that you were pointing to your own religious doctrine as verification of the age of that doctrine. Like pointing to the generations listed in the Bible as proof of the age and history of the Biblical texts.

The Bible, Qu’ran and Vedanta are non-different in essence, God is the same, but the situations differ according to time place and circumstance. ‘Vedenta’ simply means ‘end of knowledge’ in other words, it gives a complete account of God, whereas religions give accounts according to the people mentality at the time and place.

And you say I'm insulting? First, you presume to know the extent of my knowledge then you compare me to a three-year-old.

I totally apologise, I obviously wouldn't compare you to a three year old, I guess I was a bit naughty in that I didn’t state it. Please accept my apology.

My reference was perhaps unclear and poorly cited. Hinduism does, however, refer to the illusory nature of the perceived world, does it not? Here are some proper cites:

I shall come back to this and the rest of your post later.

Cheers.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Wrong wrong wrong! I started religion! It was 74,332 years ago, and I recall it like it was just yesterday...

There I was with my friend Ug at the local McMammothburger, munching on a half-kilo of mammoth on a sesame seed bun, when Ug suggested "Ug". And I thought "Yeah, that's a damn interesting idea. But would anyone go for it?" Ug replied "Ug". So I decided to give it a try, just for something to do. We were all terribly bored back then, lots of free time, particularly in Winter.

So, I started religion.



And you know it's all true because I used Big Blue Letters!

HEY ADAM, WHAT ARE THE TENENTS OF YOUR RELIGION? THE GREAT CTHULHU WANTS TO KNOW SO I AM USING BIG GREEN LETTERS!!

Thou shalt.

I SHALT WHAT, ADAMSKI? SHALT I EAT MARSHMALLOWS WHILE DRINKING BEER AND SETTING OFF BOTTLE ROCKETS?

HEY! That gives me an idea....:D

Thou shalt.

Thou shalt do whatever the hell ye want.