Religious thought

[popelane24]

I am very very VERY interested in early religion, having studied the Bible for years. I seeitof course as being writtenvery specifically for a certain audience. Goblekli Tepe, for instance fascinates me. I am noticing in my first hour or so browsing these forums (You cats have been busy!) that there is a lot of discussion on the effects of faith and religion on man. Discovering the purposes, and origins, of Religion - that mystical Thing we all avoid or cling to with out dear lives- is my goal as an archaeologist, to put it simply.

Anyone else here share the same interest? I DO NOT consider myself a Bible thumper; I am quite open to all points of view including evolution. I am willing to look at all points of view of course.

[Minimalist]

You probably don't want my opinion then.

[Digit]

Time and again I have stated that, IMO, early religion, ie, before it was organised with a power structure etc, was simply a means of explaining what the observers could not explain otherwise.
I have also stated that I see no need for a connection between a 'religious' experience and a God figure.
My home has experienced poltergeist ativity in the past, my previous home echoed to regularly paced foot steps, an earlier property had a haunted room where the door handles rotated.
I have demonstrated 'second sight' to my wife, telling her the time and sex of her sister's child.Simarly with my niece.
My mother woke my sister to tell her that my brother had died, confirmation arrived later that day!
To place these experiences in the hands of God figure is the easiest explanation.

Roy.

[popelane24]

Minimalist: What, you (no offense intended!) anti-Christ? (Not Antichrist. Im more or less meaning anti christian), and open about it? I notice you strongly disregard mst Christian fundamentalist philosophy and especially the archaeology in the toilet. ... LOL. The Bible was written for the time is was written in, and I am NOT a Fundie thank GOD!

Im not the type to start place people in this camp here, this camp there. Youve studied this stuff for a while, and anyone who has, I give my ear to. I dont care if you are Atheist, Satanist, Moslem, Queer, crack Smoker, Martian, green or black man. If you have a knowledgeable, at least mildly educated opinion we should chat.

And, since ive been visiting off and on for quite some time, WhoTF is Arch B)

[Digit]

[Minimalist]

Arch was a particular brand of fundie nut. I still chat with him on his board. We actually agree on a lot of stuff as long as we stay away from his nutty bible stuff.

The biggest problem the bible has is that Protestant Reformers saddled it with a burden that no ancient text could possibly withstand. They claimed it was totally and literally true and in the last 30 years archaeology has torn that premise to shreds.

All of which is perhaps best explained by:

[Digit]

[Minimalist]

Maybe.

But he's really only nuts when it comes to talking snakes and earth-covering floods.

[kbs2244]

I will jump in on the Bible understanding side.
To the dismay of many, it is a mix of literal and symbolic writings.

I believe in the Creation.

But for those “fundies” who it all has to be literal, and think that Creation happened in six 24 hour days, I just point to the books of Daniel and Revelation (anyone of any IQ over room temp would have to agree that there is a whole lot of symbolism in those “beasts.”) and the fact that the Jews of the Gospels often referred to them selves as the “children of Abraham” when he had been dead for almost 2000 years.

This whole “fundie” thing is kind of sad. I have met people who actually believe that Moses came down from the mountain carrying the 10 Commandments in the Old English of the King James Version.

I have to agree Digit in that the OT was written for the Jews. (As separate from the Hebrews. One was a religion, the other a inherited culture.) And that Jesus was a real historical person. In fact there is an very good argument that he was the “perfect Jew.“ And, as such, he fulfilled all the “Messiah” requirements of the OT prophesies.
But in doing so he also opened the “door” to non-Hebrews.

The NT is a mix.
Peter, in spite of his being entrusted with the “keys of the Kingdom” and being the first to experience the fact that non-Hebrews had “received Holy Sprit,” he was clearly interested in the Jews. (BTW, he never even visited Rome. He kept to his comfort zone and preached to Jews in Jerusalem and the very large Hebrew community in Babylon)
He seems to have accepted non-Hebrew converts to Judaism as OK.
(There is an re-occurring, and interesting, reference to “God fearers” in the NT. It appears to refer to non-Hebrew converts to Judaism. Those who saw the logic of a monotheist religion but were not “sons of Abraham.”)

Paul, who is widely considered the one going to the non-Jewish peoples, like any good salesman, concentrated on the “low hanging fruit” and spent his first 2 journeys going first to the Synagogues, which were full of believers in the OT, since Christianity was such a clear progression of the OT teaching.

But Paul is also the one who constantly complains about those who want to stick with the “Old Law.”
It has been replaced.
You can tell he was trained as a lawyer.
His logic is impeccable.
You do not have to be a Jew to be saved.
They had their chance and blew it.
It is open enrollment time now.

[Minimalist]

[Digit]

[kbs2244]

It has always amazed me that people who claim to be good Christians can also be anti-Semitic.
But then I have never studied the Bible in a vacuum.
I also enjoy history.
And there sure was a lot of history being made in Jesus time.

It really doesn’t take much study to realize that Jesus was a Jew.
His father and mother were.
Two genealogies trace him back to David.
He was taken to the Temple yearly as a child.
He amazed the priests with his knowledge of the Law.
That all is a pretty good argument for his being Jewish.

A bit more theological study to realize why he had to be a Jew in order to fulfill all the things the “Messiah” had to do to free the Jews from the restrictions, and impossible to meet requirements, of the Mosaic Law.
And then a bit more study to realize how he also had a secondary role (maybe primary, depending on your point of view) of offering the hope of the “Kingdom” to non-Hebrews since they had blown their opportunity as a “favored people.”

The “Christ Killers” were the Judaic religious leaders, not the common man on the street.
Those priests were desperate to maintain their position of control of the people.
They had come to a kind of “working agreement” with the Romans.
Neither side was happy with it, but it worked in an uncomfortable way.
That they had control of the population via religion was their position of power when negotiating with the Romans.

But Christianity was spreading like a wild fire through out Jerusalem.
As much a 30 percent of the population at the time of the crucifixion.
Those numbers would be a huge loss of their claimed power of population control.
They had to do something drastic to stop this “plague.”
What better way than to kill the one leading it?

[Digit]

Martin Borman had the perfect solution, he wanted to destroy Christianity as well as Judaism as Christianity was a Jewish sect, thus all were Jews.
Mind he was supposedly a Satanist anyway.

Roy.

[kbs2244]

Do the poly-theistic religions have a "Satan?"

I know some have "evil sprits."
But is there a "chief or boss or leader" of an organized resistance to "good" organization?

[Minimalist]

Zoroastrianism is the first place I know of where this whole concept was fleshed out.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/angra_mainyu.html


Every religion has various demons to keep the dolts in line, though.