The Origin of Religion

[kenandkids]

Just completely crossthreaded and didn't even notice... less cerveza and more sleep is needed...

 

[Andiferous]

I use terms that apply, not necessarily what are most suggested in sociology and anthropology.

Can you decide what obscene is? Because some would disagree.
Can you decide what "acting like a mod" is? Because some would disagree.
Pornography? some would disagree.

We live in a grey world with grey tones and grey decisions. Get together and make lists of known troll behaviours and whatnot and then compile them, adding new examples when found. There is no better method. The only way to really screw it up is when a person becomes ban happy and makes unilateral decisions. As long as a consensus can be reached and behaviours compared AND an explanation of concern is presented to the suspected troll, fear not and reach a conclusion.

I could argue obscene, but it seems silly (unless under certain topics) to argue opponents on these kind of issues.
I kinda suck at the 'acting like a mod' part.
Pornography? My weakest button, or among those of my weakest buttons.

I do believe there is some simplicity in chaos. Society and its' reactions have hardly convinced me otherwise.

Of course, you realise we're being terribly complicated here for the default thread.

*FYI I am not a moderator.

 

[kenandkids]

*FYI I am not a moderator.

I do realise that... but we have these nifty things called pm's when a concern pops up...lol.

I was also speaking from the position of a person making a decision. I have the typical bad American habit of using the word "you" when "one' is more appropriate.

 

[Andiferous]

*FYI I am not a moderator.

I do realise that... but we have these nifty things called pm's when a concern pops up...lol.

I was also speaking from the position of a person making a decision. I have the typical bad American habit of using the word "you" when "one' is more appropriate.

More than you know, actually. Lol.

 

[SirYeen]

I haven't read all the responses but Read a history of god. IT really really helps.

 

[sturmgewehr]

I checked all those gods mentioned like Krishna, Dionysys, Mithra and the others and I didn't see how they relate to Jesus and his virgin birth and Crucifiction, I think these kind of stuff come from that Zeitgeist documentary and most of it is a big fat lie.

Krishna wasn't born of a VIrgin.

Dionysis somehow but still the story is not clear if he was born of a virgin.

Mithra wasn't born of a virgin neither and where did they get the idea that all these gods were crucified and so on.

 

[Dean]

sturmgewehr, You really should check the "by-line date" (in a manner of speaking) on posts. This thread has been completely bereft of content for the best part of EIGHT months! Perhaps you ought to be a little more wary of just how cold some of these threads are.

Nevertheless, it's a fascinating question in the OP, e.g. the origin of religious belief. So I may as well seize this opportunity to put my 2,¢ in.

• 1. We are pattern seeking primates so in ancient times at the dawn of mankind, Gods were very likely. Today Gods are highly unlikely (well, totally unlikely). It is therefore likely that people believe in gods out of tradition and indoctrination than out of any other reason, or at least for the most part. The key argument to me therefore is the discrepancy between likelyhood of Gods and likelyhoods of believing in gods. The latter is a million times more likely and also supported by tons of evidence. I'd rather keep Winged Monkeys (i.e. angels) where they belong: into fantasy worlds where I can enjoy their aerodynamics. :lol:
  
  
• 2. Anthropological evidence suggests that religion developed not so much out of a fear of death but significantly out of intuition about another world, elicited by trance states in particular. The whole concept of sacraments is founded on a related notion of visible signs pointing to an invisible reality. For religion, the world is manifestation of a reality that cannot be directly accessed, something transcendental *grin*. Everything in sacred texts are affirmed as pointers to such an alterior state of affairs, regardless of the religion. This is the fundamental religious link between the logical and the empirical, as a pointer to Otherness. That's not to say it's reliable and truthful, of course. It isn't.
  • 2B. With that in mind, maybe Pareidolia is the mother of all gods. Or perhaps even the mother of our entire experience, depending on how you look at it..

 

[sturmgewehr]

@ Dean

I realized that very well.

I just though all this Origin of Religion is taken from that Zeitgest Documentary, I think it is a bunch of nonsense, I was trying to search something about Horus, Dionysis, Krishna and other claims that these gods supposedly were born out of Virgins but I didn't find much about that and even less about them being Crucified.

 

[Prolescum]

I just though all this Origin of Religion is taken from that Zeitgest Documentary, I think it is a bunch of nonsense, I was trying to search something about Horus, Dionysis, Krishna and other claims that these gods supposedly were born out of Virgins but I didn't find much about that and even less about them being Crucified.

This might help.

Osiris (the father) lost his, ahem, organ after being chopped to bits by his brother Set. Isis (the mother) searched high and low, collecting him up yet could not find his phallus. She eventually gave up and decided to just use a facsimile. So Horus had an "immaculate conception".
Don't ask me how that's supposed to work, but this is where the similarity lies, not what is termed a virgin birth, that is, penetration was involved but semen seemingly wasn't. Horus also has pale imitations in the Torah (Moses).

 

[WarK]

Just don't expect to find an exactly the same myth with just names changed. Is there a single original idea about Jesus that didn't appear in other mythologies?

And why do you think that the set of characteristics that Jesus has is the one we should compare other myths against. Why single out just one myth? Why not take, say, Mars and see how other myths are similar to it. Does this change anything? You've just arbitrarily picked one myth and try to set all others against it.

 

[sturmgewehr]

I just though all this Origin of Religion is taken from that Zeitgest Documentary, I think it is a bunch of nonsense, I was trying to search something about Horus, Dionysis, Krishna and other claims that these gods supposedly were born out of Virgins but I didn't find much about that and even less about them being Crucified.

This might help.

Osiris (the father) lost his, ahem, organ after being chopped to bits by his brother Set. Isis (the mother) searched high and low, collecting him up yet could not find his phallus. She eventually gave up and decided to just use a facsimile. So Horus had an "immaculate conception".
Don't ask me how that's supposed to work, but this is where the similarity lies, not what is termed a virgin birth, that is, penetration was involved but semen seemingly wasn't. Horus also has pale imitations in the Torah (Moses).

But we don't know if Horus's mom was a virgin and the story is quite different from that of Jesus.

What do you mean by she decided to use facsimile????

I still don't see how this story relates to the Jesus Story.

Plus what about the Claims that he was crucified also the claims about Krishna and Dionysis or even Mithra.

Just don't expect to find an exactly the same myth with just names changed. Is there a single original idea about Jesus that didn't appear in other mythologies?

And why do you think that the set of characteristics that Jesus has is the one we should compare other myths against. Why single out just one myth? Why not take, say, Mars and see how other myths are similar to it. Does this change anything? You've just arbitrarily picked one myth and try to set all others against it.

I didn't just pick one myth, I am talking about all of them, the documentary says that Dionysis, Mithra, Horus, Krishna were born of VIrgin mothers on December 25th, crucified and Resurrected and I think this is a bunch of lies cuz I never found anything that will prove this.

 

[tuxbox]

Just don't expect to find an exactly the same myth with just names changed. Is there a single original idea about Jesus that didn't appear in other mythologies?

And why do you think that the set of characteristics that Jesus has is the one we should compare other myths against. Why single out just one myth? Why not take, say, Mars and see how other myths are similar to it. Does this change anything? You've just arbitrarily picked one myth and try to set all others against it.

Well one thing that makes Jesus different from the others, is that there is evidence that Jesus was a historical figure that actually lived and was crucified by the Romans.

 

[Prolescum]

But we don't know if Horus's mom was a virgin and the story is quite different from that of Jesus.

It is different, just as the Torah (or other Hebrew books) take bits of the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh and adds their own bollocks. Like the bible takes bits of the Egyptian book of the dead...

That it was an immaculate conception, not a virgin birth is the similarity. See below.

What do you mean by she decided to use facsimile????

She used a pre-fab pecker, a facsimile of his phallus, i.e. not the real one, as she couldn't find it.

I still don't see how this story relates to the Jesus Story.

Jesus, like Horus, was conceived without the daddy bits. The term for this is immaculate conception. This is the reason you cannot find reference to a virgin birth in relation to Isis and Horus. Does this clear it up?

Plus what about the Claims that he was crucified also the claims about Krishna and Dionysis or even Mithra.

I haven't anything to say about those.

 

[Nemesiah]

Just don't expect to find an exactly the same myth with just names changed. Is there a single original idea about Jesus that didn't appear in other mythologies?

And why do you think that the set of characteristics that Jesus has is the one we should compare other myths against. Why single out just one myth? Why not take, say, Mars and see how other myths are similar to it. Does this change anything? You've just arbitrarily picked one myth and try to set all others against it.

Well one thing that makes Jesus different from the others, is that there is evidence that Jesus was a historical figure that actually lived and was crucified by the Romans.

Please (I am not being Facetiuos here) do provide such evidence; I would LOVE to have this said evidence as MY understanding is that it has been proven that there is NO such evidence.

Thanks

Ed.

 

[tuxbox]

Please (I am not being Facetiuos here) do provide such evidence; I would LOVE to have this said evidence as MY understanding is that it has been proven that there is NO such evidence.

Thanks

Ed.

hehe, I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate over this, because frankly it does not concern me one way or the other. That said, most scholars say that there is enough evidence to suggest the historical Jesus existed. I have not heard that it has been proven otherwise. That said, for me, the most convincing non-Christian evidence that he existed is written in Tacitus's "Annals".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

@ Dean

I realized that very well.

I just though all this Origin of Religion is taken from that Zeitgest Documentary, I think it is a bunch of nonsense, I was trying to search something about Horus, Dionysis, Krishna and other claims that these gods supposedly were born out of Virgins but I didn't find much about that and even less about them being Crucified.

I think you're misreading the non-Zeitgeist information. It isn't that the earlier myths all track 1-to-1 with the Christian nonsense, but that the Christian myth seems to have borrowed bits and pieces from the earlier stories.

So some of the myths talk about a child being the offspring of a human mother and a magical father. Others talk of a being who dies and is later resurrected. Some tales speak of healings, others claim different miracles. The time of birth and death correspond to older "holy" dates.

The point is not that other mythologies were 100% identical to the Jesus lies, but that the Jesus lies were not remotely unique in the history of mythological nonsense.

 

[sturmgewehr]

@ Dean

I realized that very well.

I just though all this Origin of Religion is taken from that Zeitgest Documentary, I think it is a bunch of nonsense, I was trying to search something about Horus, Dionysis, Krishna and other claims that these gods supposedly were born out of Virgins but I didn't find much about that and even less about them being Crucified.

I think you're misreading the non-Zeitgeist information. It isn't that the earlier myths all track 1-to-1 with the Christian nonsense, but that the Christian myth seems to have borrowed bits and pieces from the earlier stories.

So some of the myths talk about a child being the offspring of a human mother and a magical father. Others talk of a being who dies and is later resurrected. Some tales speak of healings, others claim different miracles. The time of birth and death correspond to older "holy" dates.

The point is not that other mythologies were 100% identical to the Jesus lies, but that the Jesus lies were not remotely unique in the history of mythological nonsense.

Yeah sure I understand that but the Bible is not a collection of stories ( I would guess ), it is written in the beginning by this man and that man, the man that wrote the bible couldn't have had knowledge about Krishna which is too far away from regions where people wrote the bible reside.

The question is how many times the bible was re-written and what do we know about the people who wrote it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah sure I understand that but the Bible is not a collection of stories ( I would guess ), it is written in the beginning by this man and that man, the man that wrote the bible couldn't have had knowledge about Krishna which is too far away from regions where people wrote the bible reside.

The question is how many times the bible was re-written and what do we know about the people who wrote it.

What do you mean? The Bible is an edited collection of local mythology, developed over the span of at least a thousand years before it was all written down in something like its current form. Krishna's time overlapped much of that time frame, and a simple glance at a map tells you that the journey from the Indian subcontinent to the Middle East isn't much further than the trip from Rome to Jerusalem. So your claim that sometime between 4th century BCE and 1st century CE, there's no way there was a cultural exchange is just silly.

 

[Avatra1]

Please (I am not being Facetiuos here) do provide such evidence; I would LOVE to have this said evidence as MY understanding is that it has been proven that there is NO such evidence.

Thanks

Ed.

hehe, I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate over this, because frankly it does not concern me one way or the other. That said, most scholars say that there is enough evidence to suggest the historical Jesus existed. I have not heard that it has been proven otherwise. That said, for me, the most convincing non-Christian evidence that he existed is written in Tacitus's "Annals".

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#pseudotacitus

You might have to scroll down a bit to get by the "usual" suspects of christian "non christian" evidence.

At best, hearsay, at worst outright fraud.

 

[tuxbox]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#pseudotacitus

You might have to scroll down a bit to get by the "usual" suspects of christian "non christian" evidence.

At best, hearsay, at worst outright fraud.

Most things on the internet about the historical Jesus are biased. The articles are either written by Christians or the anti-religious.


At one point in history the city of Troy was either consider fiction, myth or a legend. That obviously change in the 19th century. One can even argue that Homer never existed as well, since there is very little evidence that he was an actual historical figure. So I believe it is a little premature to say that it has been proven that the historical Jesus never existed and most scholars believe that he did exist. But like I posted previously, I am not going to get into a drawn out debate over this.