@post
the truth is that all religions fail to answer all questions that we as humans want to know about our reality and our role in the scheme of things. we don't even know why we exist. but we are certain there is a creator. Some religions were created by men granted but God did reveal himself to our ancestors and some religions were started based on this revelation. It is quite possible that God did not even start any religion but men did in their awe of his supreme powers.

Please what evidence do you have to support your assertions?

Chrisbenogor:

To further iterate on why religion has survived this long.
Religion springs from man not being able to answer some questions the fundamental of which includes, the origin of our existence and the purpose of our existence.
Our brains process far more than that of a pride of lions or a pack of wolves and thus it is only logical that we would seek for more explanations than them, and when we cannot come up with these answers we find ourselves in the same position as our ancestors thousands of years ago looking for answers to the unknown and then we settle for the path of least resistance( cognitive dissonance) which is that a God must gave been responsible.

all gods including the Christian god are but figments of the imagination or outright inventions of the mind. the environment of primitive man which lacked a scientific explanation of nature's torments had every reason to be permeated with superstition and al forms of mythologies and magic to help in explaining away the pesky questions that still remain with us till this day.

BabeX:

@poster.
Good topic.
Many questions, only GOD has the answers.

yes only God, if He can come down to give answers, it will be better for Mankind

Bastage:


Again, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that those religions died out whilst Judaism became stronger. They simply weren't as powerful. Sure, people converted back and forth but, in the end, the more powerful won.
If we take a look at one of those religions - Baal worship - we can even see where the Hebrews absorbed it and took it for themselves.

I don't quite know what you mean when you say that 'those religions died out'.  What does it mean for a religion to die out?  What if all it's practices were continued under a different name and presided over by a different priesthood, would it still be the same religion?  If all the salient elements of Baal worship are found in the cultural practices of peoples from the middle east all the way up to Europe can we really say that Baal worship has died out, just because it is not identified as Baal anymore? 

Bastage:

Which aspects?
Maybe give some examples and we can examine them?

I think this is best illustrated by looking at the effect of attempting to innovate in religion by removing certain aspects.  The resistance of certain aspects of religion to change suggests to me that there are forces holding it in place and making it resistant to invention and man's creative whims. 

A case in point would be the establishment of Mary as the Theotokos, that is the 'mother of God'.  In 431 AD Mary was declared the Mother of God in the Council of Ephesus.  Prior to that the deification of Mary was not church doctrine.  Since Christianity had been made the Imperial religion all the pagan cults of Rome had been banned.  In the city of Ephesus had been one of the biggest cult centers of Artemis the Virgin Goddess that was the mother of all living.  It was in Ephesus that the Temple of Artemis was situated, it was one of the seven wonder of the aancient world. 
Now in Christianity there was no theology at first articulated regarding the Virgin mother.  And when it began to happen there was resistance.  On the one hand Nestorius the bishop of Constantinople refused to accept that Mary was the Mother of God (theotokos) but was ready to give her Mother of Christ (christotokos).  Bishop Cyril of Alexandria on the other hand wanted her to be the Mother of God. 
Unfortunately for Nestorius he arrived at Ephesus late and when he wanted to reverse the decision they had made (that Mary was Mother of God) he met with resistance in more than just argument form.  There were mobs on the streets. 

Other documents indicate that the Ephesians even formed a mob that treated Nestorius, John of Antioch, and other members of the anti-Cyrilline party with outright hostility and physical violence. Their houses came under attack, they were barred from all the churches and locked in their homes. Nestorius later described the scene in complaints written to the emperor and others:

They were taking bells round the city and were kindling fire in many places and handing round documents of various kinds; and all those things which were taking place were [matters] of astonishment and of fear, so that they blocked all the ways and made every one flee and not be seen, and were behaving arbitrarily, giving way to drunkenness and to intoxication and to a disgraceful outcry.[18]
Nestorius pointed out that this frightening mob was aided by none other than Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, and Cyril of Alexandria.[19]
This popular support of Cyril and the Theotokos title against Nestorius has been seen as yet further evidence for popular Marian devotion in Ephesus. Foss comments, for instance, that the city ‘rioted as enthusiastically for the Virgin as it had for her predecessor, the virgin goddess Artemis’.[20] Stephen Karweise states that the Council concerned ‘an issue which must have had great local importance for the Ephesian Christians’.[

  From here:
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/ephesus-virgin-mary.htm#_ftn18

To what extent is the cult of the virgin Mary today simply a testament to the durability of the cult of Artemis Diana.  Many things are invented everyday in religion that do not pass the test of time, but if religion were merely invention then we need to explain why certain aspects remain resilient in spite of full frontal attacks in the form of innovations for centuries.  History is full of such stories.

Christianity is iconoclastic in essence.  Originally there were no idols and icons as is the case with Judaism.  Yet in the practice of christianity in the formerly pagan empire it became overrun with images and icons.  These Icons have persisted in spite of numerous Iconoclastic revolutions. 

The use of images had probably been increasing in the years leading up to the outbreak of iconoclasm. One notable change came in 695, when Justinian II put a full-faced image of Christ on the obverse of his gold coins. The effect on iconoclast opinion is unknown, but the change certainly caused Caliph Abd al-Malik to break permanently with his previous adoption of Byzantine coin types to start a purely Islamic coinage with lettering only.[1] A letter by the patriarch Germanus written before 726 to two Iconoclast bishops says that "now whole towns and multitudes of people are in considerable agitation over this matter" but we have very little evidence as to the growth of the debate.[2]
[edit]The first iconoclastic period: 730-787

Sometime between 726-730 the Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian ordered the removal of an image of Christ prominently placed over the Chalke gate, the ceremonial entrance to the Great Palace of Constantinople,

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm_(Byzantine)

And it is not just in Christianity that the iconoclasm of 'innovation' is resisted.  Even in Buddhism, another Atheist religion, it is impossible to suppress the icons and Gods of the religions that existed prior to Buddhism coming to a land.  Take for instance the Tantric buddhism of Tibet.  It is full of all the Tantric dieties as well as the old Gods of Tibet.  They are just incorporated in the Buddhism.

Or again we can look closer to home.  To what extent is the Aladura church just a reemergence of the Oshun cult in christian guise?

Is there anywhere where we can find a religious innovation that has persisted and stood the test of time?  I don't just mean short periods of Iconoclasm but a proper established innovation that has lasted for centuries.

Jesus Never Existed.

merge:

Jesus Never Existed.

What does it mean for a religion to die out?

I would say it dies out when it's power base is destroyed - ie: it's priests and churches don't function. Without those two integral parts the worshippers tend to float away. Sure, aspects of that religion may be absorbed by others but it never exists in it's exact form.

If all the salient elements of Baal worship are found in the cultural practices of peoples from the middle east all the way up to Europe can we really say that Baal worship has died out, just because it is not identified as Baal anymore?

See above. I know of no instance where all of the salient elements of a "dead" religion have survived in another.

A case in point would be the establishment of Mary as the Theotokos, that is the 'mother of God', To what extent is the cult of the virgin Mary today simply a testament to the durability of the cult of Artemis Diana.

I would say much more of a testament to the Egyptian Isis. And before Isis, Tiamat. For further reading about this subject you might want to read up about "stella mare".
My personal belief is that it is not so much a testament of durability. More that religion became genderised and neglected the aspect of the female. Perhaps "neglected" is a bit of a tame way of saying "subjugated". If anything, the Ephesus decree was merely an affirmation of something that had been swept under the carpet for a couple of centuries.

Christianity is iconoclastic in essence. Originally there were no idols and icons as is the case with Judaism.

Respectfully, I would have to disagree with you there. For a start, we have the emblem of the fish which sprang up very early in Christianity's beginnings. But also, we have to look at the fish and realise what it was - it was a secret emblem used as a means of identification. We simply do not know what idols or icons the very early Christians used purely because it was a secret religion. It had to be, otherwise the follower would be persecuted or put to death. Much of very early Christianity is shrouded in mystery for precisely this reason.

Is there anywhere where we can find a religious innovation that has persisted and stood the test of time?

It depends on what time basis and how you classify "innovation" but I would say that a quick look at Eyptian religion/mythology shows plenty that has come down to us through the millenia - Osiris/Horus/Isis immedaitely springs to mind and also elements of Ma'at.

I've had to read the entire thread again from the top because it got to the point where I wasn't sure what I was talking about again or what the topic is about.  We are beginning to dig deep into the realms of speculations and the truth is there are many assertions that I might make that I cannot really defend as anything more than speculation.  For instance the matter of whether christianity is iconoclastic or not.  As you said, the origins of christianity are too shrouded in secrecy for me to be able to say for sure that they had no icons. 

I think my position can be summarised like this:  Life is about the interactions of different elements in one's life.  From the very beginning I was aware of my mother and aware of my dependence on her.  Automatically it follows that I will adjust my behaviour in such a way as to retain her favour and not upset her or make her go away.  As I grow up I become aware of other forces and influences that automatically must be similarly appeased.  The process of doing so may be called Politics, or just simply social interaction. 

Similarly, as soon as I become aware of Divinity it follows automatically that I will seek a means of appeasing it, and getting it on my side, trying to ensure that it doesn't go away but continues to support me.  This interaction with the Divine is what I call religion.  Where the interaction between humans is politics, the interaction between God and man is Religion.   The two, being similar in a way, can often get conflated. 

My main point is that as soon as you are aware of God and you adjust your life accordingly you are practising religion.  Your religion may or may not be infected with varying degrees of politics. 

I also believe that the various forms and icons of religion are not mere inventions of men but rather that they have (at least in part) their origins quite independent of man's inventiveness.  For instance, to go back to the Sango example, I think that his iconography may have arisen from the 'subconscious' of yoruba people as well as the iconography of Thor has risen from the 'subconscious' of Norse people. 

ps.  Thanks for telling me about Stella Maris.  It was very interesting.

My main point is that as soon as you are aware of God and you adjust your life accordingly you are practising religion.  Your religion may or may not be infected with varying degrees of politics.

This is where our opinions part. I would say that when you are aware of God, you are practicing Spiritualism. Then, when the politics and rituals of man get involved in your spiritualism, that's when you are practicing religion.

I suppose we need to define religion first:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

It seems to me that one person on his own cannot practice a religion. It takes a group of people to get together to create rules and definitions.
Let's say that a baby is parachuted from a burning plane and lands on an island where he grows up to be the only human being and he discovers a belief in God. Would you say that he is practicing religion? My own opinion is that he would have faith and would be practicing spiritualism but not religion.

For instance, to go back to the Sango example, I think that his iconography may have arisen from the subconscious of yoruba people as well as the iconography of Thor has risen from the subconscious of Norse people.

I don't disagree. There are instances where mankind will find the shortest route from a to b without having to copy other men. I believe the above is an example of Evolutionary diffusionism.

Thanks for telling me about Stella Maris.

Sorry I mis-spelt it. But if it is the sort of thing that interests you then you may also like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna

I've posted the Wiki link but there are a wealth of pages on the internet regarding the origins of the Black Madonnas - their originally being representations of Isis is quite a compelling explanation.

Bastage:

This is where our opinions part. I would say that when you are aware of God, you are practicing Spiritualism. Then, when the politics and rituals of man get involved in your spiritualism, that's when you are practicing religion.

I suppose we need to define religion first:

It seems to me that one person on his own cannot practice a religion. It takes a group of people to get together to create rules and definitions.
Let's say that a baby is parachuted from a burning plane and lands on an island where he grows up to be the only human being and he discovers a belief in God. Would you say that he is practicing religion? My own opinion is that he would have faith and would be practicing spiritualism but not religion.

Ultimately it all boils down to definitions. We are using the same term for two different things. The funny things is that I was going to use the isolated man as an example too but then I didn't.
I would say that if a man was isolated on an island and Discovered God, or rather God was revealed to him, or whatever, then the manner in which he would articulate the experience would involve many of the forms and icons that we find in religion today even though he has never come into contact with those religions.
That you wouldn't call it a religion is, for me, not a point worth squabbling over.

Bastage:

Sorry I mis-spelt it. But if it is the sort of thing that interests you then you may also like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna

I've posted the Wiki link but there are a wealth of pages on the internet regarding the origins of the Black Madonnas - their originally being representations of Isis is quite a compelling explanation.

It is interesting that you think that the veneration of the virgin is more related to Isis than to Artemis Diana. What about Kali Durga, I wonder? Have you heard of the virgin called Kali Sara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarah

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kopachi/articles/romanigoddess.html

It is interesting that you think that the veneration of the virgin is more related to Isis than to Artemis Diana.

I don't discount the influence of Artemis (although I believe that Demeter is really the goddess to look at here) but what I tend to do (rightly or wrongly) is examine the older gods or goddesses who look like they may have been likely influences.

So Mary's line may have gone something like this:

Tiamat -> Isis -> Artemis/Demeter -> Ceres -> Mary.

That's probably not a complete lineage as there would probably be many more female deities who had an influence.

What about Kali Durga, I wonder?

To my knowledge, Kali is quite a late-comer so we can look probably upon her as being influenced rather than the influence itself.
A couple of things that are interesting about her though: a) Her character has changed from one of being near enough a demon to that of a mother figure. b) Although I state not an influence, Kali does seem to have been involved in the beginnings of the Wicca religion.
You've given a good example that shows how religions not only evolve amongst themselves but how they influence others.
Where the idea for Kali originally came from, I can't tell you. I'm afraid that my knowlege of Hinduism is pretty limited. Perhaps she was seen as necessary as a female counterbalance/consort of Shiva?

Have you heard of the virgin called Kali Sara.

Yes. I read about her a couple of years ago whilst following up after reading "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". I can't remember the website, but there was also a theory that she was also responsible for the Black Madonnas that are found dotted around Western Europe. There is also a legend that she landed in England and travelled to Glastonbury Tor with Joseph of Arimathea. Incidentally this is a centre of Wiccan worship.
Another interesting piece regarding Kali Sara is her name. I have to admit that I've only ever heard of her being called Saint Sarah, but Kali Sara seems to be a very common name for her. The point of interest here is that Kali Durga originated in India. This is also thought to be where the Roma people originally came from.
For myself though, I see Roma worship of Kali Sara as being relatively late - ie: I don't believe that it held an unbroken line back to India. More that she was a "rediscovered" saint that was adopted and adapted.

Deism is a better way of life than all this religious crap,  There is a GOD but looking at it from a sane point why take a guess from 40,000 options (1/40,000) when you can just believe in him yourself and live right,

I know this is an old topic but I only came to drop by and say that the opening post was so beautifully composed.

mkmyers45:

Deism is a better way of life than all this religious crap,  There is a GOD but looking at it from a sane point why take a guess from 4,000 options (1/40,000) when you can just believe in him yourself and live right,

That's an interesting way of putting it. But perhaps there is a common denominator: the similarities found in most belief systems. And perhaps people built on top of those foundations. Maybe one could thus search for commonalities if they hope to narrow their search or alternatively carve out a unique path that way no danger of being misled

emöfine:

I know this is an old topic but I only came to drop by and say that the opening post was so beautifully composed.

That's an interesting way of putting it. But perhaps there is a common denominator: the similarities found in most belief systems. And perhaps people built on top of those foundations. Maybe one could thus search for commonalities if they hope to narrow their search or alternatively carve out a unique path that way no danger of being misled

emöfine:

I know this is an old topic but I only came to drop by and say that the opening post was so beautifully composed.

That's an interesting way of putting it. But perhaps there is a common denominator: the similarities found in most belief systems. And perhaps people built on top of those foundations. Maybe one could thus search for commonalities if they hope to narrow their search or alternatively carve out a unique path that way no danger of being misled

The best thing to do is to believe that

There is one Supreme God.
He ought to be worshipped.
Virtue and piety are the chief parts of divine worship.
We ought to be sorry for our sins and repent of them
Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it.

Form a pact based on this points and you are okay. Looking not to be misled will lead to more confusion

@op, who told you that there is only one god

PAGAN 9JA, I would be really interested in hearing your beliefs one day - if you're willing to share.