₦airaland Forum

This topic isn't as pragmatic as most seem to want to make it.

No? You claim that man made money but if you're a Christian, you would also claim that God made man.
Is God not therefore responsible for indirectly creating money?

I really hope this thread doesn't get taken out of the religion section (like the critical thinking thread) because I think that it is very pertinent to religion.

To make sure it doesn't, I'll post the old saying:

"Money is the root of all evil".

Although I don't believe it is the root of all evil, I do believe it is indirectly responsible for a large amount.
Returning to the topic - if money is evil, do you think God would have created it? Would he have created evil? Or is it more logical that it is man-made?

Money is created. However what I don't agree with is that banklords create money. Money represents value. Banklords do not create Value, However if he had no such desire for the water then the bank can fill in ledgers till it's blue in the face but without anybody willing to come and take out a loan it cannot create any value/money.

To some degree, we have no choice in the matter. Money has pervaded every aspect of our being. Even a tribe that has never come into contact with a system of finance invents one - be it with sea shells, pebbles, whatever. Mankind puts a value on everything and then charges his brother for it. There are very, very few (if any) altruistic societies.

One of my favourite parts of the NT is the story of Jesus and the money-changers. Personally, I reckon the lord shoulda been armed with an AK47 and smoked a few of them muthafuckas.

Who created Value

Value is the keyword. Money is merely a medium.

Here is a link that explains how it only exists in your mind.


http://www.uhuh.com/unreal/moncur.htm

Nobody created money.

It doesn't exist. It's just a concept.

@ smile4kenn.

Why do you need other people to convince you that there is a god?

If you believe, you believe. It's as simple as that.
The only one that can make that decision is you.

i can understand your cravings for attention; sadly it wont be from me. keep braying, donkey, and hopefully someone with less to do might indulge your puerile tirades.

me, i cant lower myself to maggot levels.

I've lost count the number of times I've seen imbeciles spout crap like this only to go on and totally contradict themselves just as you have.

and FYI, i'd rather be ANYTHING than a christian if all i have to go with is a disparate collection of contradictory hogwash bound and touted as "word of god".

LOL. Like the Qu'ran is any better - the ramblings of a drugged up pedophile. Keep shitting in your straw, bro. All of you guys smell just as bad as any fundamentalist Christian.

but then, since you're as godless a heathen as they come (your foul language speaks volumes) i guess its lost on you.

Hell yeah. But you got something wrong (again). it's not lost on me because I'm a godless heathen. It's lost on me because I'm being addressed by a slowpoke and to tell the truth, I have a short attention span when reading anything written by a dipshit.

According to the "MAYANS" they believe the world will come to an end on 21st december 2012.

You can rest easy.
For practical reasons 2012 is just the date that the Mayan calender ends.

Oh please.

If you want to advertise your smugness that's fine. But if you're just here to advertise ignorance, try not to bore me too much.

if you want me to include pilate and the entire Roman Legion then ask the first poster to amend the subject to "Judas Iscariot et al-Heroes or villains?

According to you, everyone who was involved in the trial and crucifixion of Christ was a hero. And you call me illogical?
But then, what can one expect from a Muslim conversing about Christianity?

I'm also laughing my ass off about you accusing me of recognising dogma when Islam is nothing but one giant system of dogmatic slavery. But then, I guess as you're a drone who doesn't have to think about his religion (you're not allowed to) you have to try to examine Christianity (poorly) as it's the only way you can question any belief system.

just as your snide remarks are mere darts hurled at a rock for all the effect they have on me.

A rock? Don't you mean cock?

from the onset we all know satan to be the embodiment of evil with or without the tempting of the christ. the temptation is not a fulcrum of your doctrine (or is it dogma?) in relation to the significance of christ's mission and purpose, which is your salvation.

Not mine idiot. Before you make accusations, try checking up to see if you're talking to a hard-core Christian. You aren't.

So you think that Temptation was not a fulcrum of Christian doctrine? What a laughable statement. Without the Temptation, the story is sorely lacking and is just about as worthless as if you remove any other integral part.

we can wholeheartedly say Judas actually saved christianity.

Why not include Pilate in there as a hero too? Or the Roman centurions who arrested Jesus after the last supper? They all played integral parts in your so-called fulcrum.
LOL. Judas was nothing more than a tool of Christianity. Just as you are a tool for making such a dumb statement.

Tsvangirai says crash an accident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7932463.stm

Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has said the car crash that killed his wife Susan was an accident.
Mr Tsvangirai said there was only a "one in a thousand" chance that the incident involved any foul play.

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.

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.

Christianity is no different. You'll find diivisions between different sects and in some cases, this has turned into violence. There have been massive schisms between Protestantism and Catholisism that have led to nations engaging in open warfare against each other.

In Islam, most of the tension is over the importance of certain prophets although it's ultimate goal (just like Christianity) is the same - the salvation of the soul.

Remember what Jesus said - Pay Ceasar what is due and Give God what he also deserves

What this basically means is "You pay men the taxes that you owe, but you pay God with your worship".

Contrary to the context that you have used it in, it shows that tithes are not necessary nor expected.

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.

if the blood of christ was a prerequisite for christian salvation, therefore meaning christ HAD to be crucified, then Judas Iscariot is the real savior because of the role he performed.

That's pretty crappy logic.

One could say the same thing about Jesus being tempted - it was necessary for Satan to tempt Him to prove that he was pure, therefore Satan performed a crucial role, isn't a bad guy and was only helping Jesus to move along.

Same goes for the excuse that Judas was only doing a job and that makes him a good guy. Him and Satan are no different in that respect but you wouldn't suggest the latter was a saviour, would you?

My guess is that at least one of them was deleted because it contained nothing but outright lies.

Sure, go ahead and hate on another religion (although that only proves you're an idiot) but at least if you're going to do it, do it with evidence that isn't just bullshit and lies that can be easily seen to be so just by picking up a copy of the Qu'ran.

I have no love for either fundamentalist Christianity or Islam but if you're going to fight them with lies, you're of nothing but the same ilk as those you proclaim to detest.

All these automatons spouting Bible verses as if that's going to make a difference to a real satanist.

All you need to screw a satanist is logic. You don't need Christ to see that satanism is fundamentally flawed.

Look at it this way: Satan has always had his ass kicked by God. Anything he tried, he got a whipping. He never won shit. There seriously isn't a religious figure who has ever come off as second best as much as Satan.

So if you worship him, you're accepting second best aren't you? Even if you see him as some poor, downtrodden guy who is sorely misunderstood, you can't deny that he is a pussy.

Good luck with your second best pussy-worship, guys.

While I would like people to have a change of heart, that is the least of my objectives.

Are you sure about that? I can't really see an altruistic claim of "stimualting thinking" as being the the main aim unless you're talking about stimulating your own thinking. Your agression does seem to point otherwise at times though.
Whilst I find your posts interesting I do sometimes get the feeling that your attitude to atheism borders on fundamentalism.

The difficulty you have is that when you want people to have a change of heart, you're really no different from those you oppose.

Don't get me wrong, Huxley. I do believe that the religion forum benefits from your balance, but I would ask you to be honest when stating your intentions.

What a crock of shit.

wats bastage is tryin 2 tell us is that the end justifies the means which is outrightly wrong

No. I'm not. Only someone with a shallow understanding would say that.

Can you kindly give drive your points home to the thread my head is spinning.

As the story of Judas is integral to the whole Christ story he must be seen as a villain.

We can't prove that he even existed in real life so he can't be vindicated.

Even if we took the gnostic story of Judas, it's irrelevant. The story of Christ in the New Testament is the basis of Christianity and that makes it clear that Judas is a villain. Anything else is needless conjecture. The nature of Judas' relevance to the Christ story over-rides any other view but guilty.

A real-life Judas may have been innocent. But if that is the case, he is not the Judas in the NT. A comparison would be to say that a real life Jesus was merely a prophet - in that case, he would not be the saviour figure of the NT.

Yet that doesn't explain why certain aspects survive and others don't.

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

Yes ideas have always flowed between peoples but I also believe that ideas can be arrived at separately by different peoples without contact.

I don't dispute that. But I also believe that to some degree, those ideas arose because they were the simplest and most adequate for the job in hand. If we return to Thor, what tool would someone logically give a thunder god back then?

I think the sheer fact that the bible is full of stories of the hebrews turning to the religion of their neighbours is testament to the power and allure of those neighbouring religions.

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.


Regarding diffusion, you may find this link and a bit of further reading on the subject interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_(anthropology)

# Heliocentric diffusionism -- the theory that all cultures originated from one culture. (see Grafton Elliot Smith)
# Culture circles diffusionism (Kulturkreise) -- the theory that cultures originated from a small number of cultures.
# Evolutionary diffusionism -- the theory that societies are influenced by others and that all humans share psychological traits that make them equally likely to innovate, resulting in development of similar innovations in isolation.

What evidence?  And what exactly do you mean by diffusion?  Is that the same as communication?

Communication, migration, competition for space. General contact between people of different religions. Aspects of those religions may then be absorbed by one or both.
Evidence we have is contained within most of the big religions of their absorbing ideas from other belief systems - ie: Judaism absorbing Babylonian religion, Christianity absorbing Judaism, paganism, Mithraism, etc., Islam absorbing Judaism, Buddhism absorbing Hindusim.
We can see the interplay and diffusion between these religions by the way that they have adapted ideas from others.

Religion is not necessary to bring people together.  Humans are social animals and come together like other social animals.  Monkeys don't need a religion to band together and a Pride of Lions are not united by any religion either. That is just what certain species do.

Agreed. But there is nothing that will bind those people together more than a shared belief in religion. For an extreme example to illustrate this, look at how religious cults operate.

It was not only the hebrews that had religion.  All the other nomadic tribes had their own religions too.

True. But their religions weren't powerful enough to make the conversions needed for them to grow. In the early days, the gods were gods of war. Their followers had the convictions and the strength of belief in those gods to be able to spread their religions. Take a look at the spread of Judaism and Islam - it was made by conquest. Even Christianity, had to create a "military" god, to spread itself and hold the land that it had taken.
Powerful gods meants powerful followers.

I still believe that religion survives precisely because, far from being a mere invention of man's imagination, it is in fact a technology in itself.  A technology for dealing with the spiritual world.

I don't know that I would class it as a technology. I see it as more of a tool. But that said, I am a theist and I do profess to be a Christian so I see it as quite a necessary tool. But like all tools, I also believe that it should be adapted for specific times and for specific jobs if need be (as long as it's underlying truth remains pure). Without that ability to evolve, it's a hindrance and not an aid. Hence my problem with dogma.

I am of the opinion that these religious forms arose because people had experience of them.

By diffusion?
It's the easiest and most logical way to explain it and would be confirmed by more recent evidence.

But the thing is that if Religious ideas are so backward and disadvantageous to man then why is it that religious memes outlive and spread further than technological memes.

I would say that it's only within the last few centuries that religious ideas may have become disadvantageous. Prior to that they had huge advantages. Take the Hebrews of the Old Testament as an example - without their religion to tie them together, they would have probably just been like any other nomadic tribe. The belief in the common god with all his rituals and symbols was what held them together and drove them on. The same with the Egyptians, the Sumerians, early Christianity and Islam, etc.
All of those ideas are held onto and drive the religion forwards so that it becomes strong. And historically, when the religion becomes strong, the nations believing in it become strong. Prior to the religion, there may not even have been a nation!!!

In my view, it only became disadvantageous once the religions had become powerful. It took them from a state of growing to a state of trying to overwhelm everything in their path. Today, the means overwhleming the other religions. As they have all taken the same path and have been strengthened by the same bonds, it's only natural that they come into conflict.

Sparks fly when a hammer like object is struck against a hard surface. It is not inconceivable that the two cultures would have noticed that and unconsciously created deities with heavy objects to cause heavenly sparks, that is, lightning.

I don't think you saw my post but I wrote earlier:

Perhaps the sparks that are caused when a hammer hits an object and the loud noise?
Perhaps this is the easiest thing to associate with a thunder god once he has the personality attributed to him?

@ PastorAIO. Two people a couple of hours apart and already we see a common idea. Now put thousands of people together and give them centuries to work on it. The chances are that they could easily have come up with the idea.

New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures. the problem is which scriptures, there is no such scripture.

Maybe not in scriptures of Christianity per se.
But the idea of a Messiah being crucified and resurrected long preceeded Christianity.

Just a few examples:

Tammuz of Mesopotamia 1160 BC.

Iao of Nepal 622 BC.

Hesus of the Celtic Druids 834 BC.

Quezalcoatl of Mexico 587 BC.

Quirinius of Rome 506 BC.

Prometheus 547 B.C.

Thulis of Egypt 1700 BC.

Indra of Tibet 725 BC.

Alcestos of Euripides 600 BC.

Attis of Phrygia 1170 BC.

Crite of Chaldaea 1200 BC.

Bali of Orissa 725 BC.

Mithras of Persia 600 BC.

And of course, lets not forget the Hindu, Krishna.

If mythology travels so easily between cultures, why not technologies?

There's evidence that it does. What about pyramids? The plough?

But yet another thing to remember is that religions are based on older religions. An idea of God was probably one of the first things that mankind came up with, closely followed by religion. Is it possible that these attributes (such as the hammer) were in there at the beginnings of the first religions in the same localised area. Then as mankind spread across the face of the planet, he took those ideas with him and placed them in the later religions?

Let's say the first men to believe in god create a religion with a thunder god who wields a hammer. As their ancestors migrate to new areas, they take the idea of the thunder god and the hammer with them. Although we see what we think are independent occurences of thunder gods with hammers, could they all be related to that first one?

Technologies would be a little more difficult to transfer but say that the same thing happened with pyramids? The earliest men created pyramids (logical because it's the easiest and sturdiest thing to build). As they migrated to their new homes, those pyramids went with them.
Further technology would not travel so well as it wasn't there at the beginning. But it could travel in certain places - Thor Heyerdaal proved that the ancient people were able to traverse great distances.

The idea of this transference is not a new one. It is known as "diffusion". Prior to that, the over-riding thought was that mankind was isolationist. This doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence though. The way that the big religions of today have spread around the planet shows that isolationism is a dead theory.

I can only guess at the hammer. Perhaps the sparks that are caused when a hammer hits an object and the loud noise?
Perhaps this is the easiest thing to associate with a thunder god once he has the personality attributed to him? Bear in mind that the hammer would have been one of the first and most important tools to early civilisations.

In the case of Thor, his hammer was also depicted as an axe or club. Depictions of power just as thunder and lightning are powerful?