The History of Religion

[Cris]

The History of Religion.

1. Ancient humans embraced polytheism.

2. Later they switched to monotheism.

3. The ultimate step in this progression and final relief from pious obsession – is the rise of zerotheism.

(Mitch Marcovici, Secular Nation April-June 2001)

[Tiassa]

I would like to add a new step 1, and bump the other three to 2-4.

Step 1: Humans, unable developmentally to perceive the unique state of its own self-aware psyche, assumes awareness of all mysteries in the Universe, and calls those things perceived superior to humans Gods.

(We see here the natural occurrence of polytheism: Fire God, God of Thunder, Spirit of the River, Rain King, Rex Nemorensis, and others ....)

Just a thought .... (or is it too specific for the processes you've enumerated?)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

[Cris]

tiassa,

Ummm OK. Although it needs to represent a value numerically larger than 'poly...'.

But the sequence really represents increasing knowledge and hence increasing wisdom, ranging from the primitively ignorant to the ultimate enlightment and rationality of the non-religious.

[tony1]

Originally posted by Cris
But the sequence really represents increasing knowledge and hence increasing wisdom, ranging from the primitively ignorant to the ultimate enlightment and rationality of the non-religious.
Sure, it does.

The next number in the sequence is -1.

Presumably, that would be the completely mindless flaunting their superiority over the merely rational.

[Cris]

tony1,

What does a negative number of gods mean?

The impossibility of your implication highlights the utter stupidity of religious beliefs that you delight in supporting.

If you are going to contribute anything of value, either here or in any of the other threads, then try to think more carefully instead of just inserting your childish one line innuendos and offensive insinuations.

[Deadwood]

You think you are enlightened now, but what will people think of you in 2000 years?

According to evolutionists, it took us 63 million years to become primitive, and 2000 years to become enlightened. Whats the deal with that?

[Cris]

Deadwood,

You think you are enlightened now, but what will people think of you in 2000 years?
Errr - more enlightend?

According to evolutionists, it took us 63 million years to become primitive, and 2000 years to become enlightened. Whats the deal with that?
Science matured.

Cris

[tony1]

Originally posted by Cris
What does a negative number of gods mean?
Minusonetheism.

The impossibility of your implication highlights the utter stupidity...
I'm glad you see my point.
"Utter stupidity" was what I was trying to highlight.

If you are going to contribute anything of value, either here or in any of the other threads, then try to think more carefully instead of just inserting your childish one line innuendos and offensive insinuations.

I did try to see what your point was, Cris.

I thought to myself, Cris must be thinking that the numeric progression is leading to a nugget of wisdom.
So, I followed the obvious numeric progression past zero to minus one.
Your point didn't make quite as much sense when I did that.

You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss things like that, though.

After all, the discovery of the square root of minus one introduced complex mathematics.
I'm sure there were many who pooh-poohed that concept.

Originally posted by Cris
Errr - more enlightend?

Do you really think that people 2000 years from today will think of YOU as enlightened?
Or, will they think of you as being as "endarkened" as the rest of the population?

You yourself think of the Jews from 2000 years ago as being pathetically superstitious.
I propose that people 2000 years from now will think of you the same way.

[Tiassa]

After all: You yourself think of the Jews from 2000 years ago as being pathetically superstitious.
I propose that people 2000 years from now will think of you the same way.
To the other, in 2,000 years, Tony will still think he has a point.

Of course, I think part of the communication problem is that Tony doesn't acknowledge the difference between the recognition of something that would be, by any theistic construction, "part of God's universe", and "God itself". It's kind of like all of those other bad comparisons theists often make, whereby some situational behavior will be posited as analgous to a process of God. The situational human behavior, of course, is exceptionally limited, and does not have massive repercussions on the state of the Universe in the sense that we might find if God, uh ... changed his mind, as such. Or something like that. You know, it's what happens when we hear certain theistic persons talking about "rights" while failing to understand that they, with their rights, are attempting to usurp that thing that rights are designed to benefit, namely life.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[Cris]

Tony1,

Ah I see you were thinking of my current enlightenment and asking how people 2000 years in the future would see me now. I took your question “You think you are enlightened now, but what will people think of you in 2000 years?” to mean how will I be seen with an additional 2000 years of enlightenment to my credit. So now you will understand my answer a little better – Errr - more enlightened?

So your next question is somewhat out of phase with my answer but –
Do you really think that people 2000 years from today will think of YOU as enlightened?
Or, will they think of you as being as "endarkened" as the rest of the population?
If I’m still alive in 2000 years (I fully expect to achieve that) then I certainly hope I will be more enlightened. But compared to everyone today then looking back from 2000 years ahead we will all look quite primitive.

Cris

[Red Devil]

Tiasa - you put it better than me, with your step 1 theory. I agree with you. To ancient mankind what could not be explained became Religion. Now it can be explained = therefore no religion! *poof*

[Chagur]

Red Devil

To ancient mankind what could not be explained became Religion. Now it can be explained = therefore no religion!

If what you're referring to is Science, it seems to me that very little is 'explained'. A lot of theories and suppositions, yes. Explanations in the sense 'this is why', no.

[Medicine*Woman]

Cris: The History of Religion.

1. Ancient humans embraced polytheism.

2. Later they switched to monotheism.

3. The ultimate step in this progression and final relief from pious obsession – is the rise of zerotheism.

(Mitch Marcovici, Secular Nation April-June 2001)
*************
M*W: As I read through some early posts, I found this one posted by Cris on the history of religion, and I shall comment:

1) Ancient humans did, in fact, embrace polytheism that included the 'terrifying' elements of the earth -- the rugged lands, the fierce winds, the uncontrollable fires, the torrential rains, and the blazing sun.

2) Later in the history of the Earth, and with the fervent help of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV, aka "Moses," people were convinced to believe in only one god -- the sun. Otherwise, known as the "sun of god."

3) My, how humanity has progressed since the time of Moses! The more technologically inventive and advanced that we (humanity) becomes, the lesser 'need' we have for this monotheistic god -- aka "the sun." We've nearly reached the end of our "pious obsession," and god is on its deathbed. And during god's existence in humanity's needy mind, it was somewhat short-lived. What we really know, now, is that there is no god at all. What we do know, is that we are really here, and we are all alone in the universe. Not to say that there are other entities out there that are not like us, but we, the humans of the Earth, are all alone. So, everything that is invented, everything that becomes known, is the product of our human ingenuity. No gods need apply for this position.

[James R]

I don't think it was quite that simple.

[David F.]

May I propose a different history?

1. The original mono-theistic Father God creates the universe and man.

2. Father God makes woman from man.

3. Man sees that woman came from man and imagines Mother-God from Father-God

4. Mother-God by definition means fertility and offspring producing child-gods which leads to Polytheism.

5. Father-God worshipers and Mother-God/child-god worshippers quarrel and war since the two systems are non-compatible (sometimes Father-God worshippers hold the upper hand and sometimes Mother-God worshippers hold the upper hand).

6. Writing begins. Since the Father-God vs. Mother-God wars were already in place before the advent of writing, future generations cannot tell which came first.

7. In disgust and confussion, some forsake all God worship and become aTheists.

[one_raven]

What about the theory that "Religion" actually started out as fables to asist an agrarian peoples without a written language to understand and plot the planting and harvesting seasons by making up stories about the shapes they drew in the stars and how they moved in relation to each other?

It's hard to deny the obvious parallels between the Bible stories and the stories of ancient Grecian and Roman mythology (yes, we call it "mythology" now), and it is all but impossible to deny the basis of those Gods and stopries were based on the planets and constellations moving through the sky predictably at different times of the year.
From an essay by Acharya S., and alluding to Medicine Woman's "Sun God" point:
For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th ("Christmas"). This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th. The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
...
The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.
The parallels go far beyond these few simple "coincidences".

Later, people tried understanding more about the world around them, but were initially unable, so simply assigned the "unknown" tasks to these characters (which, amazingly and sadly, "enlightened" people STILL do) that were made up (characters that were known to be ficticious characters in simple fables) by the "primative" people that created them.

It is no coincidence that we find evidence of many ancient civilizations practicing (seemably even perfecting) astronomy.
Some even seem to have astronomy as a central point that their civilizations revolved around.
Perhaps most notably, the Mayan astronomical calendar, ancient Egypt and Stonehenge (which the latest evidence reveals that it was built long before the Druids were in the region, and was built during the time that "primative" agrarian societies lived there).

Then we find ourselves at step 1.

Don't forget that there was an important step between 1 and 2 (step 1.5) when people started to amass in larger civilizations and interact with people of OTHER civilizations and complex systems of governing those masses HAD to form.
Some brilliant person realized the power these "Gods" had over people and how much power (s)he could weild over people if (s)he could contain and control them and what people thought about them.
They finally perfected it, and thus, the Holy Roman Catholic Chruch was born on the cusp of step 2.

[Red Devil]

2) Later in the history of the Earth, and with the fervent help of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV, aka "Moses," people were convinced to believe in only one god -- the sun. Otherwise, known as the "sun of god."

Moses was real enough, learnt to read and write in the Pharaoh's court and visited the now deserted Amarna where he read on a pillar Akhenaten's Prayer To The Sun God and he copied it down and rewrote it as Prayer To The One God and was universally aclaimed as being the author. When hyreoglyphics became translatable thanks to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, the original column was successfully translated when found.

Here is the text only, from a web page of mine:

Archaeological finds, shown to the world in a Discovery TV programme, Who Was Moses?, have found that the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament was quite accurate in its telling, apart from the fact that its dates are some 400 years out. It actually took place around the year 2000BC. Moses, an extremely literate man had been educated by the Egyptian court. It is supposed that it was he who actually wrote the Book of Exodus.

The plagues were supposed to have been sent by Moses to punish the intransigence of the Egyptians. But where they? In 2000BC the volcanic island of Santorini exploded with such force that virtually the whole island was destroyed (see note below). Egypt was bombarded with "fire and brimstone" at exactly the same time - which in turn gave way to the "dust" and also the darkening of the skies. A plague of frogs was also reported in Exodus; just the same as in the USA following the eruption of Mount St Helens. Naturalists reported an explosion in the frog population. Flies have always been a problem in Egypt when the time of the Nile floods. Their proliferation was immense. Again, just as there was a massive increase in insect population after St Helens erupted.

When Moses was supposed to lead the people of Israel across the Red Sea it was in fact, according to the original Hebrew - across the Yam Suph - which means in Hebrew Sea of Reeds - NOT the Red Sea. The Yam Suph is in fact a region to the north of the Red Sea between the Red Sea and the Nile Delta and linked to the sea by channels. When the tidal wave crossed the Mediterranean Sea, it was preceded by a massive withdrawal of water before the tidal wave crossed the coast and drowned the Yam Suph. In 1940, the same volcano erupted and eye witnesses on the Island of Crete described the coast emptying of water to such an extend that the fish could be seen jumping about on the sea bed, then a 10 foot high tidal wave hit the coast. Also, pumice stone from Santorini has been found on Crete, on top of a 300-foot hill, and also in the Yam Suph. Pumice is to heavy to be carried by air, but it WILL float on water.

Moses arrived at the "Mountain of God", supposed by many to mean Mount Sinai. Was it in fact "a mount in Sinai". It was actually Mount Kharkom (spelling may be wrong), which is on the present Egypt - Israeli border. The name means "Mountain of God" - and is flat topped, like a plateau. At the base of this mountain has been found a 2000BC settlement but most remarkably, a twelve stone altar - just as described in Exodus. Also, to put the icing on the cake so to speak, has been found rock carvings, dated the same, in Hebrew - showing, amongst other things, a depiction of a the traditional idea of the 10 Commandment's type of drawing - what can best described as a double tablet with 10 compartments. It is generally believed amongst archaeologists that the Hebrew race at the time could and did write - a most literate race. Their rock carvings are in Hebrew. Moses, having been educated within the Egyptian equivalent of Oxford or Yale, was the most literate. I suppose the final proof will be when someone follows the route and finds the grave of Moses, who "never reached the promised land".
*
Now here is another revelation - unlike the character Moses in the well known film, The Ten Commandments, Charlton Heston, was a Caucasian, with his flowing locks and bearded face. Moses was almost certainly a black man, as he lived all his life in Africa and was therefore of that race. The reasons why this is accepted have not been found by me in my research, but accepted nevertheless. The Plagues of Egypt were caused by the volcanic eruption of Santorini, not by any divine hand and the parting of the Red Sea never took place - it was much further north in the Yam Suph, the Sea of Reeds. The original Hebrew text bears this out, it was only translation that caused the well known error, Suph being mistaken for Red not Reed. It was Moses himself who wrote the Commandments.

Finally, the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten; displaced the multi god culture of the time with a single god worship - the god RA - the sun. This is preceding the time of Moses. He wrote a poem to the sun god, which has been found in a recently discovered city in the desert, carved on some pillars. Following this man's death, Egypt reverted to the multi god society and erased the one god religion from their history. It is the same virtually word for word as some lines in the bible (sorry, cannot remember where in the Book of Psalms) but was written BEFORE the alleged biblical version. The words have been amended by whoever wrote the biblical version to reflect the scribe’s (Moses?) views and not those of an Egyptian Pharaoh. Could this have been Moses "one god" approach? Moses must have copied the original text from these pillars, substituting the word Ra for God and using it as his basis for his own "one god" theory. Or did Moses copy it word for word only for it to be later lost in translation by those who only saw what they wanted to see.

Note:

Santorini was almost certainly the site of "Atlantis" as a whole culture was obliterated in this eruption, nothing was left of the city of splendour on the island, hence the "disappearance" of Atlantis.

[one_raven]

Red Devil,
You say all of that as if it is proven fact.
There is SO MUCH supposition and speculation there.
I have heard the theories in there before (and some even make sense) but they are FAR from being universally accepted or "proven".

[Red Devil]

I state the above as my accepted "proof" - it is what I personally believe. It is up to the reader, as with any other work, to beleive or disbelieve the written word.

[one_raven]

I understand, and agree.
I just thought it important to point out that it isn't widely accepted proof.

[what768]

1. Ancient humans embraced polytheism.
2. Later they switched to monotheism.
3. The ultimate step in this progression and final relief from pious obsession – is the rise of zerotheism.
---
Maybe the "ultimate step" is instead a kind of "combination" of all these. If we could unify rather than separate.

[TheERK]

It's hard to deny the obvious parallels between the Bible stories and the stories of ancient Grecian and Roman mythology (yes, we call it "mythology" now), and it is all but impossible to deny the basis of those Gods and stopries were based on the planets and constellations moving through the sky predictably at different times of the year.
From an essay by Acharya S., and ljkjklasdljk 3jlk4423ljkl 23ljk423jl4kjlk ljkasdjl m,n4n, swekrl43n, s wkl 4klnnkl34

wen.5rm53n5 nsdlfn4m3 sdflkn34ljk fmnew4, erwnw34nj wer43w25ljk 435lk34l5k.

vmscm nae;aq! elkrlfklbl;;sl fasearm45 e4l e5v53mb4sj. f,nsdfsdlkrwa;3;l5knltklfdkdfgndgtkl;jdhtgaw6tl;45 q6l. rnkrawj5r4baga43awb5l3w5m,.

From the point anybody uses Achyara S. as a reference, the remainder of the post becomes worthless. She just sort of makes stuff up and can't provide a source for her allegations when asked.

[one_raven]

From the point anybody uses Achyara S. as a reference, the remainder of the post becomes worthless. She just sort of makes stuff up and can't provide a source for her allegations when asked.
That's a crappy attitude.
You should look at what she says specifically about something in particular and look at what I say in particular.
I understand how you feel about her, but put please that aside for a minute.
What I am sayiing is supported by a lot more people than just her and justifyably so.

Do me a favor and look at the post again, this time ignoring her quote altogether.

[SnakeLord]

May I propose a different history?

1. The original mono-theistic Father God creates the universe and man.

2. Father God makes woman from man.

3. Man sees that woman came from man and imagines Mother-God from Father-God

Well, as we know, Sumerian writing came way before biblical writing, (some 1,500 years beforehand), and their main god was a female, (Tiamat). She then created other gods.

It's not of much worth to claim monotheism before polytheism, when history shows the opposite.

4. Mother-God by definition means fertility and offspring producing child-gods which leads to Polytheism.

Look at an early race of people - all of whom would see one very apparent truth: offspring always come from a woman - which leads to the earlier beliefs being based upon women.. Once the power side comes along, gods were looked upon as men - but even then the presence of woman gods was a major factor - even in christianity, where a woman needs to give birth to a god. It's not like god just snaps his fingers to create this mini-god, but actually goes through the only real process by which anything can be born.

Even the early parts of the bible are quite clearly based upon the earlier Sumerian texts, but with the actual beginning chopped off.

6. Writing begins. Since the Father-God vs. Mother-God wars were already in place before the advent of writing, future generations cannot tell which came first.

Monotheism is but a baby in comparison to when man was writing.

7. In disgust and confussion, some forsake all God worship and become aTheists.

It has nothing to do with disgust or confusion.

[TheERK]

That's a crappy attitude.

Criticism of a crappy scholar that makes skeptics look bad is crappy?

Do me a favor and look at the post again, this time ignoring her quote altogether.

If the post still makes its point without the use of an Achyara S. quote, then she should not have been referenced in the first place. Although I agree with many of her ideas and Christianity having many aspects derived from other religions, making up crap and embellishing can only hurt.

[robtex]

Theories built upon theories. The only reality that we have ascertained for sure to date is that man as a total unit is not congruent on the nature of his existance. Following the history of religion is not the answer to the nature of the universe. If you look at the various arguements made as to "there is a God" you will see few of them embedded in scripture. From St Thomas Aquinas to Immanual Kant, to you insert the name the theoies center around applying divintiy to morality, the universe, the philosphy of time, space ect ect. With very few exceptions like CS Lewis and Jeffery Day does one see dogma presented as "proof" of a higher power.

The history of religon though is important to study because it shows the trends throughout history in man's relationship with his universe irregardless if he accepts it with a divine presense or not.

Acutally there is one more thing that the history of religion has proved....that we don't know everything......not knowing everything or even most things.....invites the presense of theories some of which are articuated as religion. Their accuracy or inaccuracy doesn't prove God exists or doesn't exit....it proves that interpretation is more accurate or less accurate than others.

I see the value in study religious history as tolerance more than anything else. What makes a Jew different than a muslim. Or a Christian. They both eat breath sleep bath....ect.....why do Buddiest reject war as a rational solution while other religions embrace it....what makes man kill another man for a similar belief to his own? To me answering that and reducing the fricition because of that would be so much more valuable in this lifetime than prediction/hypothizing the nature of God.

[one_raven]

If the post still makes its point without the use of an Achyara S. quote, then she should not have been referenced in the first place.
OK, fine....

What about the theory that "Religion" actually started out as fables to asist an agrarian peoples without a written language to understand and plot the planting and harvesting seasons by making up stories about the shapes they drew in the stars and how they moved in relation to each other?

It's hard to deny the obvious parallels between the Bible stories and the stories of ancient Grecian and Roman mythology (yes, we call it "mythology" now), and it is all but impossible to deny the basis of those Gods and stories were based on the planets and constellations moving through the sky predictably at different times of the year.

Later, people tried understanding more about the world around them, but were initially unable, so simply assigned the "unknown" tasks to these characters (which, amazingly and sadly, "enlightened" people STILL do) that were made up (characters that were known to be ficticious characters in simple fables) by the "primative" people that created them.

It is no coincidence that we find evidence of many ancient civilizations practicing (seemably even perfecting) astronomy.
Some even seem to have astronomy as a central point that their civilizations revolved around.
Perhaps most notably, the Mayan astronomical calendar, ancient Egypt and Stonehenge (which the latest evidence reveals that it was built long before the Druids were in the region, and was built during the time that "primative" agrarian societies lived there).

Then we find ourselves at step 1.

Don't forget that there was an important step between 1 and 2 (step 1.5) when people started to amass in larger civilizations and interact with people of OTHER civilizations and complex systems of governing those masses HAD to form.
Some brilliant person realized the power these "Gods" had over people and how much power (s)he could weild over people if (s)he could contain and control them and what people thought about them.
They finally perfected it, and thus, the Holy Roman Catholic Chruch was born on the cusp of step 2.

How's that? :D