Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Arnifix]

What if it isn't a story? Or more interestingly, how did it just happen that the same idea of the gods (being trinitarian in nature) popped up in all those different religions all over the world?

As I mentioned earlier, the idea of a trinity is hardly new. As a plot device you see it everywhere. Think of the pub joke, Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman. Apparently it also relates to the idea of the three classes of society, worker, warrior, priest. First grouping where you can have an alliance of two against one. Lots of info on Wikipedia relating to the concept.

So it seems logical that a storyteller would place gods into groupings of three, his audience are used to stories in which groupings of three occur.

[Ngati_Grim]

- "Man is naturally sinful"
.... I believe this. But as I said, who doesn't believe man is naturally sinful.

I don't believe that Man* is naturally sinful. I think that that is one of the mechanisms that christianity uses to keep people 'in the fold'.
It's a pretty negative concept, really. It's also going to be culturally and socially diverse in the recognition of what a 'sin' actually is. Sure, there are the christian 'sins' that one could use as a template, but there are other cultures that do things differently and they become tarred with the same brush.
However, when viewed through a christian paradigm, I guess you could say that Man is naturally sinful.

Sin-bad

What if it isn't a story? Or more interestingly, how did it just happen that the same idea of the gods (being trinitarian in nature) popped up in all those different religions all over the world?

They didn't pop up all over the world. When you look at the cultures mentioned: Hindu (India) Sumeria/Babylon (Iraq and neighbours) and Egypt, they actually form quite a tight group, as well as different time periods.
It's entirely feasible that people from these cultures/regions interacted, and with interaction comes cross-cultural exchange in the form of ideas etc.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a good start. Compare and contrast with other 'flood' myths. In fact, one could say that the gods of Sumer are still being worshipped, they've just been culturally appropriated.

*meaning 'humans'

[ThaFleastyler]

I don't believe that Man* is naturally sinful. I think that that is one of the mechanisms that christianity uses to keep people 'in the fold'.
It's a pretty negative concept, really. It's also going to be culturally and socially diverse in the recognition of what a 'sin' actually is. Sure, there are the christian 'sins' that one could use as a template, but there are other cultures that do things differently and they become tarred with the same brush.
However, when viewed through a christian paradigm, I guess you could say that Man is naturally sinful.

Sin-bad

*meaning 'humans'

I see where you're coming from, but now we're moving away from a Christian topic, and into some kind of sociology thing - the natural thing for man to do is to get what he needs/wants, right? Man will do anything to get it, include sin to get it. You can't show me a person - Christian or otherwise - who hasn't at one time or another sinned, in terms of going against what is morally accepted in society. Sure, its different from culture to culture, but people will still sin. Its human nature to break the rules dude

They didn't pop up all over the world. When you look at the cultures mentioned: Hindu (India) Sumeria/Babylon (Iraq and neighbours) and Egypt, they actually form quite a tight group, as well as different time periods.
It's entirely feasible that people from these cultures/regions interacted, and with interaction comes cross-cultural exchange in the form of ideas etc.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a good start. Compare and contrast with other 'flood' myths. In fact, one could say that the gods of Sumer are still being worshipped, they've just been culturally appropriated.

So you don't see any kind of similarity between the various Gods of these cultures? Isn't it possible that all these cultures have the same kind of gods and similar stories because they are all talking roughly about the same thing?

[SteddieEddie]

I too don't believe man is naturally sinful.

 The way I see, when the bible was written, roughly 400 years after Jesus's death, the writers incorporated a lot of other religions theory's, holiday's etc to make it easier to convert people.

[dirtyape]

Ok, lets take them one at a time ...

Let's save everyone some time:

- "Jesus was the son of God?"
.... I believe Jesus was God himself. (so yes)
- "Jesus died and was Resurrected?"
.... I believe this
- "Jesus was born unto the Virgin Mary (The Nativity) ?"
.... I believe this
- "The holy trinity is One (Jesus, God, The holy spirit are one) ?"
.... I believe they are all the same entity, yes.
- "Satan exists?"
.... I believe this
- "Heaven exists?"
.... Yes
- "Hell exists?"
.... Yes
- "Angels exist?"
- "Devils exist?"
.... Yes. These are kinda the same thing.
- "Man is naturally sinful"
.... I believe this.
- "Jesus died for Man's sin"
.... I believe this.

So where is the disputed claims, I just don't see them? You believe everything I stated. How you go about justifying your belief is your business. I'm talking fundamentals here - not justification, and these concepts above are common to all Christians. Which was my point.

[ThaFleastyler]

I too don't believe man is naturally sinful.

 The way I see, when the bible was written, roughly 400 years after Jesus's death, the writers incorporated a lot of other religions theory's, holiday's etc to make it easier to convert people.

The bible was only compiled in the 4th Century.

The Old Testament existed at the time of Jesus - the jews of the time used it to base their teachings on, and new rabbis were required to learn the first 5 books (the Pentateuch) off by heart.

The majority of the New Testament is generally believed to have been written between 55AD and 75AD, with some of it dating earlier than that (the main author is Paul, who travelled with the original apostles, and thus couldn't have been alive in 400AD).

[ThaFleastyler]

So where is the disputed claims, I just don't see them? You believe everything I stated. How you go about justifying your belief is your business. I'm talking fundamentals here - not justification, and these concepts above are common to all Christians. Which was my point.

See, you've unfairly taken my comments out of context to demonstrate your own point.

For example, I do believe the nativity story, but not necessarily the method. I believe that a version of hell exists, but not the version of hell everyone thinks of. I believe that versions of angels and demons exists, but not the versions everyone thinks of. These are important distinctions to make.

[Ngati_Grim]

Out of curiosity, why are you hung up on the churches' attitude towards homosexuals?

Because I have been interested in this as well, I'll give my take: I guess for me, I have difficulty with the 'christian' perspective regarding this because a) it is now illegal to discriminate against someone because they are homosexual, yet the churches seem to have a dispensation to discriminate and b) I have relatives and friends who have been affected by these decisions. They are nice, hardworking*, genuine and for all intents and purposes. positively-contributing members of society, yet because of some hardwiring differences with regards to their sexual orientation, they are instantly on the outer and denied full access (well, o.k. they're not denied it if they change, but then they are denying themselves, and it's not as simple as saying: "well, you should change your lifestyle then". On the whole, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it is something one is born with).


* I hate the Neo-Con connotations of this word

So you don't see any kind of similarity between the various Gods of these cultures? Isn't it possible that all these cultures have the same kind of gods and similar stories because they are all talking roughly about the same thing?

Yes, I do see similarities, and that is part of my point. There is a whole lot of appropriation and reinvention occurring. Not surprising when considering the geographical locations of those cultures.
I guess it is possible that they're talking about the same thing, however, I feel it is more to do with establishing control by giving empty promises that can't (surficially) be proven/disproven, are vague enough in their finer points yet specific enough to prey on people's hopes and dreams.

Smoke and Mirrors.

Edit: I should state that these are my opinions

[robbyx]

Happy 3rd birthday religion thread :bounce::bounce::bounce:

[dirtyape]

See, you've unfairly taken my comments out of context to demonstrate your own point.

For example, I do believe the nativity story, but not necessarily the method. I believe that a version of hell exists, but not the version of hell everyone thinks of. I believe that versions of angels and demons exists, but not the versions everyone thinks of. These are important distinctions to make.

No, I summarised your comments in the interest of brevity and to represent the true level of the questions being asked. I'm not trying to analyse your specific belief set, I am testing you to against a Christian template of core beliefs.

You said you believed the nativity is possible but you are referring to a virgin birth I presume. Whether or not your have faith in the circumstances of the birth is irrelevant. It is not my concern and is not in contention. Neither is whether you translate the hebrew word `almah as Virgin or "young woman".

A version of hell is still hell. Seeing as how the bible only alludes to what it is like in hell everyone has a "version" of hell in their mind when they try to think of it. No one has been there, so no one knows what it is like. Fire and brimstone is a medieval concept, but regardless of what you think it is like you will agree that it is not pleasant I presume - therefore you get a tick in the box.

Believing in versions of angels and devils is still believing in angels or devils. How do you know the version I was referring to was not the version you have in your head? I supplied no definition of what an angel was. You have just assumed I was talking about something different then what you are.

You see what I mean? Fascinating! I think you are just taking a negative approach for the sake of it. :-P

[nick247]

its all about making things clearer

Which parts of which things to you believe, what form do they take for you, and WHY do you believe they are significant and valualble to your belief set

For example people saying you can have a relationship with god through christ. What the fuck does this even mean?

Who is Christ and where can i meet him? I am confused as to why i have to go through a middle man, im confused as to why Christ is so great because lol and behold the only piece of literature i have on him is the bible, and that has some crazy shit i know is not true in it, makes me wonder where it stops!

You see nearly all aspects of Christianity can be taken apart and shown to be based on some HUGE jumps in logic or rather dubious circumstances presented as undeniable fact.

[Arnifix]

For example people saying you can have a relationship with god through christ. What the fuck does this even mean?

Well it's easier to have a relationship through christ (I would imagine) because christ was human. Most people find it easier to relate to physical objects than abstract conceptions.

You bring up another interesting point, in that we find it hard to believe the bible is true because it has "crazy shit" that we know isn't true in it. But on the other hand, a christian could very easily say that they believe in the bible because the bible has some true shit in it (don't fuck around, don't kill people, etc).

[dirtyape]

I appreciate all that, but regardless, that was not what I was asking. I was asking for confirmation that all Christians believe these things in one form or another, I thought that was pretty clear. If I were to analyse any too Christians beliefs closely enough I would have to deduce that their is no such thing as the Christian religion at all as everyone believes slightly different things.

Stop being so pedantic. This was a simple broad template, and Flea passed on all accounts (to some degree) whether he agrees or not. Ticks in all boxes.

Now shall we see how a Non Christian compares?

[Ngati_Grim]

Now shall we see how a Non Christian compares?

O.K.


I'm 'No' for all of them.
The shady one is : Is man naturally sinful. Flea made some good points, but I still consider 'no' the appropriate response, for me.
I consider Sin to be a word loaded with religious connotations.

[ThaFleastyler]

I guess in terms of the broadstrokes you're using Ape, I do agree with all those things. But I don't think its quite as simple as that. That said, you have made an interesting point.

Also, I don't have a negative outlook for the sake of it

So how do you work out how a nonChristian compares?

[dirtyape]

- "Jesus was the son of God?"
.... No.
- "Jesus died and was Resurrected?"
.... No.
- "Jesus was born unto the Virgin Mary (The Nativity) ?"
.... No reason why he wasn't. Immaculate conception? Stranger things have happened.
- "The holy trinity is One (Jesus, God, The holy spirit are one) ?"
.... No, no, and no.
- "Satan exists?"
.... No.
- "Heaven exists?"
.... No.
- "Hell exists?"
.... No.
- "Angels exist?"
- "Devils exist?"
.... No.
- "Man is naturally sinful"
.... No.
- "Jesus died for Man's sin"
.... No he died of being crucified by the Roman's because he was inciting civil unrest by claiming he was (or others claiming he was) King of the Jews which was probably going to incite a military uprising by the discontent peasant population in a time when Roman military strength was dwindling due to their collapsing empire.

He stayed dead until the Constantine resurrected him for his own agenda. e.g. Creating a single set of religious laws which can be used for both military mobilisation and peasant control which are self enforcing as they rely on a punishment/reward system that only occurs after one is dead.

Constantine has my utmost respect. The man was absolutely brilliant.

[ThaFleastyler]

I'm 'No' for all of them.
The shady one is : Is man naturally sinful. Flea made some good points, but I still consider 'no' the appropriate response, for me.
I consider Sin to be a word loaded with religious connotations.

See, this is because sin has 2 meanings: one is that sin is a breaking of some divine law handed down by God, but it also just means doing something wrong (Dictionary.com calls it "any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time."). So in that sense, all men naturally sin, whether religious or not, Christian or not.

The only way to avoid sin entirely would be to live with no morals whatsoever.

[krasher]

FYI

- "Jesus was the son of God?"
.... I believe Jesus was God Himself and Human.
- "Jesus died and was Resurrected?"
.... Yes, and in the process lived a perfect life on our behalf and exchanged that for our sinful one and experienced separation from God (hell) which killed him on the cross - some literature indicates He dies of a broken heart.
- "Jesus was born unto the Virgin Mary (The Nativity) ?"
.... I believe a miraculous conception is possible.
- "The holy trinity is One (Jesus, God, The holy spirit are one) ?"
.... I believe they are all the same entity, yes. The "OT=God, Gospel=Jesus, NT/now=Holy Spirit"
- "Satan exists?"
yep
- "Heaven exists?"
yep
- "Hell exists?"
yep - but possibly more in the form of seperation from God - and is locked from the inside...
- "Angels exist?"
yep
- "Devils exist?"
yep - I have seen some weird stuff and this explains it best so far.
- "Man is naturally sinful"
he wasn't created this way but  chose this way in da garden of eden. I see much evidence for this and not much for the contrary.
- "Jesus died for Man's sin"
.... I believe this.

If this stays nice, I'll stick round. If people insist on getting personal and making stupid generalisations I will bugger off. I will also try to follow my own rules

[krasher]

See, this is because sin has 2 meanings: one is that sin is a breaking of some divine law handed down by God, but it also just means doing something wrong (Dictionary.com calls it "any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time."). So in that sense, all men naturally sin, whether religious or not, Christian or not.

The only way to avoid sin entirely would be to live with no morals whatsoever.

I might add...in my belief/theology sin is almost irrelivent for the believer as he has accepted Christ atonement for his sins (past, present, and future). This means - IMHO that what is called sin in the bible is usually referring to things that are not good for us.

Excuse my inclusive language - I mean all of that as IMO.

[SteddieEddie]

I don't understand why I am full of sin because someone a long time ago ate an apple?
Does this mean the bible believes in re incarnation?

[mish]

It was a delicious trap, you must eat it!

[Arnifix]

I might add...in my belief/theology sin is almost irrelivent for the believer as he has accepted Christ atonement for his sins (past, present, and future).

So even a practicing rapist would still go to heaven, simply for believing in god?

[Dr Woomanchu]

Look, practicing homosexuality is a sin according to the bible. As far as I understand, Christian teaching holds that if someone sins they would need to be remorseful and ask forgiveness for that sin. A non-practicing homosexual who believed in Jesus would be the same as anyone else, as far as getting into heaven goes. Its the actual act of a man hooking up with another man which is the sin.

Out of curiosity, why are you hung up on the churches' attitude towards homosexuals?

Because unlike almost any other "sin" you have a group of people telling you you are evil and wrong for just being who you are. And don't bother with the "practicing" bit. Requiring someone to have no sexual contact for their entire life because you have a book that says it's bad is, IMO anyway, evil.

Christian's obsession with the wrongness of homosexuality ( which is mentioned less in the bible that quite a few other sins that the church has decided not to worry about any more) is a constant reminder that close behind christian protestations of love and goodness, lies a core of bigotry and evil intolerance.

[Slim]

The discussion regarding the churches attitude towards homosexuality I personally find particularly pertinent.  It was because of this in fact that caused my parting ways with the bible.  My mum left the old man when I was like 13 for another woman.  The attitude of the church put me in a very awkward position: my faith dictated that my mother was a sinner, and would inevitable burn in hell.  Now I didn't want to pick and mix: you're either a believer or not - you can't call Jesus out on things, thats not how it works.  Now considering I was a leader in my youth group, and rather involved with several churches, I made the difficult decision that I could no longer, sincerely, call myself a Christian.

I don't really have too many regrets on the matter either.  If Jesus and God do exist, and I am not so arrogant as to claim that they don't, the relationship between man and God has become so convoluted through the institution of the church that I don't really want anything to do with it anyway.

The other thing was that my Pop was one of the best men I will ever have the privilege of knowing, and yet he was very much an atheist.  And a God that would cast him in to hell, is not really any God that gets my vote.  I know this is a simplistic argument, but it is how I have structured my, for lack of a better term, metaphysics.

[Ngati_Grim]

Cheers Krasher, it's good to have another perspective here. Before dirtyape gets in, it's pretty/very similar to Fleas, regarding the 'list'...which then raises questions of itself...i.e how much do the differences matter?...

umm...anyway:

- "Hell exists?"
yep - but possibly more in the form of seperation from God - and is locked from the inside...

Now, this one interests me: So, if you turn your back on god and go to hell, there is no return, no chance of repenting, that's it...game over?
Sure, one might argue that you had enough time here on Earth and it's too late....but then that starts to sound more like the vengeful, jealous god of the old testament than the loving god of the new testament.

Also, locked from the inside? Once in, theoretically you can pick the lock, but no one from outside can get in once it's locked?....or is it a metaphor for the mind?


Signed: curious

+1 Slim, I must of* been writing this when you posted.

*have