The History of Religion

[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;45q6l. 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?