So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

[spankythehippo]

Alright. So, I'm a nihilistic atheist.

My theory is that all Abrahamic religions were created by very intelligent leaders as a way to control the populace. They then became, holy men. They controlled the people by putting the fear of God into them. But when the innovators died, their descendents took over. And when they died, the same thing happened. As time went on, these holy men actually started to believe what they were preaching to the people. And then they got greedy.

Look back at history. Huge amounts of taxes were paid to churches in medieval times. Beacuse people wanted to believe in a god. They wanted to believe that there was a big flying spaghetti monster controlling things out of their reach. And they believe this god has the power to take your life and send you to hell, if you don't obey his will. The churches capitalised on this fear. They Christians spread their religion as far and as wide as possible, ruining cultures in the process.
They did not preserve the other peoples cultures. They destroyed them. Most notable example is in Scandinavia. They tried to teach the vikings the ways of Jeebus. It worked. What happened? They started ignoring Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. A lot of vikings fought against the Christians to preserve their way of life, but they were either killed or succumbed to this disease called religion. That's how lands were "Christianised". By killing most, if not all, of the pagan population.
What problems occurred in the world before the formation of religion? Petty ones, like "Oh s!@#, there's no more food!!!"
What was the answer to their problem, look for food.
Unlike what's happening now. Now, people are trying to hide this problem by hushing the truth.

I'm very anti-religious and anti-capitalist (not so much). But that doesn't mean I don't think religious teachings are bad. Religion is good as a set of morals. I, personally, do not follow any religion, since I have created my own set of morals to be used only by me. If other people adopt my system, good for them, but I don't care.

If you have any other theories, or would like to question what I've written, feel free to do whatever.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Disagree. Religion is a natural manifestation of order in regions where structured government systems that have the power to cater to its populace are not feasible.

Judaism was created in a region of multiple powerhouses surrounding a region of tribal lands. Shared belief allowed early folks to be able to trust one another which allowed for communities to be established. Religion was necessary for disorganized states so that proper systems of labor could be established.

Christianity was widespread by the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire but the age of Popes controlling fragmented kingdoms came about because of the power vacuum that resulted from the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The tribes that came to dominate the lands taken from the Romans were in no position to continue the same kind of social programs and order on the scale that the Roman bureaucratic system did. More responsibility was placed upon the priests and monks and religious system and what became the Catholic Church would come to embrace the responsibility to supplementing the tribes so that a reasonable level of order could once again be present in Western Europe. After centuries of this of course, as the saying goes, power corrupts and we began to see the repercussions of Popes that were no longer relevant in an age where Monarchies now once again achieved the level of complexity and order that the Roman Empire had achieved before.

Islam was similar in that, (if I recall correctly), the bulk of the Middle East still consisted of tribal lands when Mohammed came about preaching and conquering under the banner of Islam to unify the arab peoples.

That's my half thought out, crappy theory. I don't think that any religion was created for power and to manipulate but became powerful institutions because religion is a natural way for people to invest themselves collectively in order to continue their higher standard of living in an age where government could only rule as far as the king could see out his window.

[spankythehippo]

But according to my theory, all the prophets never existed. They were just figments of their imaginations. But, my theory is a bit controversial.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But according to my theory, all the prophets never existed. They were just figments of their imaginations. But, my theory is a bit controversial.

Doesn't matter if the prophets existed or not. Something was needed to establish a common trait throughout a populace in order to get them to work together.

Moses was probably an intelligent slave that created the idea of God and told it to fellow slaves in order to unify them against the Egyptian regime. By telling them they were the chosen ones, they rallied around him and he now had the power to free all the slaves from suffering. Not exactly an evil villain type thing to do. From there, they could create their own community, and so Moses isolated himself from everyone and came up with some basic but very smart rules to make sure that social order is maintained. He then came back and passed it off as God telling him directly. From that we got the 10 Commandments story.

Fast forward many years and you have the same situation. The Jewish people are now under the authority of the Romans who are not exactly very nice to them. An intelligent man comes along who isnow called Jesus and he sees how crappy everyone is treated in the region. He attempts to do the same thing that Moses did way back when, except this time some people don't believe him (those that would still be Jews) but many other people do believe him (the now Christians). This time though, the status quo wins and they kill Jesus. However, people love martyrs. So his popularity grows due to his dedicated fan base.

Neither of these cases has religion be some evil plot for control, but instead has been an emerging entity that attempts to correct injustices and restore social order.

EDIT: My point here being is that these intelligent people would have come along at some point or another. It is natural for someone to finally step up and say, "Let's do things differently because this sucks. Why? Because God."

EDIT 2: Ok, I still don't think I have made my distinction clear.

Religion was created by intelligent people to control a populace. BUT it was not out of malice and it was not a conspiracy. These intelligent men manufactured religion to control a population out of necessity for altruistic reasons. Religion in this way was inevitable to arise by someone with the balls to do it, because the impetus was there. These religions then grew out of control as they evolved beyond the life of the original creator.

No one ever sat around and said, "Imma create a religion so I can rule all these suckers and make lots of money$$$$$!" At least until L. Ron Hubbard.

[spankythehippo]

Doesn't matter if the prophets existed or not. Something was needed to establish a common trait throughout a populace in order to get them to work together.

Moses was probably an intelligent slave that created the idea of God and told it to fellow slaves in order to unify them against the Egyptian regime. By telling them they were the chosen ones, they rallied around him and he now had the power to free all the slaves from suffering. Not exactly an evil villain type thing to do. From there, they could create their own community, and so Moses isolated himself from everyone and came up with some basic but very smart rules to make sure that social order is maintained. He then came back and passed it off as God telling him directly. From that we got the 10 Commandments story.

Fast forward many years and you have the same situation. The Jewish people are now under the authority of the Romans who are not exactly very nice to them. An intelligent man comes along who isnow called Jesus and he sees how crappy everyone is treated in the region. He attempts to do the same thing that Moses did way back when, except this time some people don't believe him (those that would still be Jews) but many other people do believe him (the now Christians). This time though, the status quo wins and they kill Jesus. However, people love martyrs. So his popularity grows due to his dedicated fan base.

Neither of these cases has religion be some evil plot for control, but instead has been an emerging entity that attempts to correct injustices and restore social order.

EDIT: My point here being is that these intelligent people would have come along at some point or another. It is natural for someone to finally step up and say, "Let's do things differently because this sucks. Why? Because God."

You are merely proving my point. These intelligent guys were/are intelligent. But their descendants either got greedy or actually fervently believed the stories of their ancestors.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are merely proving my point. These intelligent guys were/are intelligent. But their descendants either got greedy or actually fervently believed the stories of their ancestors.

I was under the impression you were ascribing some malicious intent to the intelligent guys.

EDIT: AFGSHGD I misread like a ******* idiot. I read first couple sentences and then saw the word "greedy" and went "oh boy" and didn't take the time to read properly.

NEVERMIND

[Crazed Rabbit]

My theory is that all Abrahamic religions were created by very intelligent leaders as a way to control the populace.

What populace did Jesus Christ try to control?

They did not preserve the other peoples cultures. They destroyed them. Most notable example is in Scandinavia. They tried to teach the vikings the ways of Jeebus. It worked. What happened? They started ignoring Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. A lot of vikings fought against the Christians to preserve their way of life, but they were either killed or succumbed to this disease called religion.

But Odinism, or whatever it's called, wasn't a religion? Wouldn't the Norse have already 'succumbed' to religion in your example?

That's how lands were "Christianised". By killing most, if not all, of the pagan population.

In cases were killing happened, wasn't it just the threat of killing that got most people to convert? So most of the population in such cases were not killed?

What problems occurred in the world before the formation of religion? Petty ones, like "Oh s!@#, there's no more food!!!"
What was the answer to their problem, look for food.
Unlike what's happening now. Now, people are trying to hide this problem by hushing the truth.

What truth? That, for your example, we're low on food?

CR

[spankythehippo]

What populace did Jesus Christ try to control?

Control might be a wrong word. Reform. And there is the possibility that Jesus never existed.

But Odinism, or whatever it's called, wasn't a religion? Wouldn't the Norse have already 'succumbed' to religion in your example?

It's a belief. What would you do if someone came up to you and demanded you should stop all your beliefs/customs/ceremonies etc. and convert to their religion? Would you give up lightly? I think not. The Vikings showed incredibly fierce resistance. And whenever the Christians found any pagan temple, they killed all the inhabitants and any people nearby. Then they would place a big stone cross on it.

In cases were killing happened, wasn't it just the threat of killing that got most people to convert? So most of the population in such cases were not killed?

These are Vikings we are talking about. They don't give up easily.

What truth? That, for your example, we're low on food?

CR

Ignore that part. That was accidental.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What populace did Jesus Christ try to control?
CR

The Jewish population there? If I remember correctly, the Romans and Jews didn't get along in the region. Wasn't there like three different major rebellions by the Jewish people living there at various times?

[spankythehippo]

Islam is a whole different beast. How many of you knew that Muslims consider Jesus one of the most important Prophets? To Islamic eyes, being a Muslim is not being in opposition to christianity--it is being the next logical step forward like Christianity was to Judaism.

My arm is aching, so I'll just answer this part. Jesus was not Jesus, but Isa. And he was never crucified, in Islam. There's alot of things about Islam that people don't know about, including the fundamentalist extremists out there.

[spankythehippo]

I thought they believed that he was crucified, but that he was not resurrected?

I think that might be the case. I vaguely remember the whole crucifixion being completely different, if not, non-existent, to the folklore in Christianity.

[spankythehippo]

I don't doubt that. Some day, long after I'm dead, I hope someone lets me in on all these secrets. The very nature of organized religion makes it difficult to get facts.

Christianity is one of my favorites, because so many Christians like to act like The Bible is god's own text. I bring up the Council of Nicaea to point out that The Bible is most certainly a product of man-made revision and editing. 99 times out of 100, that leads to some kind of insulting tyrade about how I'm wrong.

You know what my most hated time of the year is? Christmas. Because it isn't his birthday. It's Mithras' birthday. They "borrowed" his birthday. He's a Roman sun god. The legends that surround Mithras are uncanny to the feats that Jesus supposedly did.

Mithras was a saviour. Sent to Earth to live as a mortal. From whom it was possible for sinners to be reborn into immortal life. He died for the sins of others. But came back to life the following Sunday. He was born of a virgin on the December the 25 in a manger, attended by shepherds. He became known as The Light Of The World. He had 12 disciples with whom he shared his last meal before dying. His devotees symbolically consumed the flesh and blood of him. Since he was a sun god, he was worshipped on Sunday. He's often depicted with a halo above his head. Followers of Mithras gave each other gifts on December 25th. The leader of the religion was called the Papa. And their headquarters was in Vatican Hill, Rome.

In fact, most of Christianity's stories are unoriginal.

The reason why Christmas is celebrated on Mithras' birthday is so that the Christians can slip Christmas in on people that already celebrated on that date.

And according to the Qu'ran, Isa (aka Jesus) was born in the summer. And according to Jehovah's Witnesses (no comment here) his birthday was on the 1st of October.

[Papewaio]

Religion when applied properly is about enlightenment.

Most religions that survived helped the societies they integrated into... Not sure how the Thugee cult survived so long, but they weren't particularly big in comparison.

Having a common framework and belief system creates a more powerful society that can survive better. The meme sets that developed meant that religious societies like are much like gene based animals they compete, create, and share resources.

IMDHO religions changed overtime to reflect the societies they were in. Changing from animalistic to animal-human hybrids to pantheons to families, paired entities and finally a single father figure. These changes were about the way we interacted with our environment moving from nomadic, to seasonal farming to city dwellers. No big conspiracy just humans trying to make sense of their surroundings.

[The Stranger]

Religion when applied properly is about enlightenment.

Most religions that survived helped the societies they integrated into... Not sure how the Thugee cult survived so long, but they weren't particularly big in comparison.

Having a common framework and belief system creates a more powerful society that can survive better. The meme sets that developed meant that religious societies like are much like gene based animals they compete, create, and share resources.

IMDHO religions changed overtime to reflect the societies they were in. Changing from animalistic to animal-human hybrids to pantheons to families, paired entities and finally a single father figure. These changes were about the way we interacted with our environment moving from nomadic, to seasonal farming to city dwellers. No big conspiracy just humans trying to make sense of their surroundings.

What exactly do you mean by enlightment? Emancipation into an free-thinking individual? If so I disagree, religion in any sense of the word, i think is a group thing. The group goes before the individual, and the Truth (god or whatever) goes before all.

Enlightment is supposed to be the victory of rationality, but I dont believe rationality is the answer to all problems, and i also believe that it is quite undebatable that rationality (whether because we cannot oversee the consequenses of all our actions, or because we are not as rational as we believe, or just because rationality has to be kept in check by other forces) has been the cause of many new problems.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I mean, when did Judaism actually start? When were the first scrolls of the Torah written? Surely thousands of years before Christ.

The first scrolls may have been written thousands of years ago but they lay hidden for a long time after, it was only when David united the tribes that the Jews rediscovered fragments of them, which made the reforms of King Hezekiah possible. Although even then it was only when the Jews were exiled to Babylon that anything recognizable to modern Judaism emerged. It was only the shock of being separated from the temple that led to the Jews placing more emphasis on studying the Tanakh and it was during their exile in Babylon that they began to observe the sabbath and their other customs that allowed them to keep their identity.

Of course, out of this group came Jesus. Whether you're a religious person or not, the reason Jesus Christ was such a hit was because of the Romans--and the way they dealt with him was classic martyrdom. The results should have been predictable, but for some reason nobody thought of that before they stuck him up on a cross.

Well it was a pretty effective method of dealing with the prophetic leaders of the many cults that were in the area at the time. It was also pretty effective in dealing with Christianity in Judea itself, martyrdom didn't do much for Jesus there. The real question is why Christianity appealed so much to the Jewish diaspora.

Islam is a whole different beast. How many of you knew that Muslims consider Jesus one of the most important Prophets? To Islamic eyes, being a Muslim is not being in opposition to christianity--it is being the next logical step forward like Christianity was to Judaism.

Well yes, four of Islam's five major prophets are Biblical characters. Although this doesn't mean you should get too hopeful about the inter-faith possibilities, the Muslim understanding of the Bible is very different to that of Jews and Christians.

[Papewaio]

When religion opens the mind and doesn't close it, that is enlightenment with a small e.

Jesuit priests would have to be an example of this. Gene dominance and the Big Bang Theory originate from within that order.

=][=

If you put your trust in evidence and not unprovables you can lead a non Faith based life. Science works when ideas are tested, it doesnt work in untestable absolutes. Also for scientists untestable absolutes are like couch to extreme sportsmen... comfortable but neither satisfying nor challenging and certainly doesnt inform ones life. Trusting in people and evidence is not faith. Faith is believing and trusting in an entity you havn't met, can't measure and can't disprove. Such entities are called tooth fairies, Santa Claus and unicorns for children. An adult who believes in the tooth fairy is ridiculed, yet no one can prove or disprove such an entity any easier then God.

I don't have faith that their is a higher power. If others wish to believe in a tooth fairy they are welcome. Just dont expect me to wear fairy wings, donate to your faith or be impressed with it being exempt to taxes. If evidence comes along to prove one I'll at that point change my mind. After all there is always the chance another black swan event can happen.

[Viking]

I don't think leaders create religions. One often sees that "prophetic" people create new offspring of already existing religions (or mix two or more of them). So I'd place my money on that the more ideological religions (as opposed to those who rely more on rituals rather than moral understanding) are created by "prophetic" people. Maybe not every "prophet" believes his own words, but I'd bet that the majority of them do.

What goes on in North Korea might look related to religion, but relevant to this topic one must note that the 'religion' here focuses on the individuals here on Earth, and do IIRC not provide any mandate from some higher power for the ruling of the guys at the top; so it might not be relevant.

BTW, your understanding of the Christianisation of Scandinavia strikes me as pretty odd. I don't know the story in Denmark and Sweden, but in Norway, it was Vikings that fought Vikings over the issue; and the Christian Viking kings won in the end (unfortunately, I suppose; this bit becomes pretty theoretic).

[Strike For The South]

You can't love dogs, you're a nhillist

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Alright. So, I'm a nihilistic atheist.

My theory is that all Abrahamic religions were created by very intelligent leaders as a way to control the populace. They then became, holy men. They controlled the people by putting the fear of God into them. But when the innovators died, their descendents took over. And when they died, the same thing happened. As time went on, these holy men actually started to believe what they were preaching to the people. And then they got greedy.

Look back at history. Huge amounts of taxes were paid to churches in medieval times. Beacuse people wanted to believe in a god. They wanted to believe that there was a big flying spaghetti monster controlling things out of their reach. And they believe this god has the power to take your life and send you to hell, if you don't obey his will. The churches capitalised on this fear. They Christians spread their religion as far and as wide as possible, ruining cultures in the process.
They did not preserve the other peoples cultures. They destroyed them. Most notable example is in Scandinavia. They tried to teach the vikings the ways of Jeebus. It worked. What happened? They started ignoring Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. A lot of vikings fought against the Christians to preserve their way of life, but they were either killed or succumbed to this disease called religion. That's how lands were "Christianised". By killing most, if not all, of the pagan population.
What problems occurred in the world before the formation of religion? Petty ones, like "Oh s!@#, there's no more food!!!"
What was the answer to their problem, look for food.
Unlike what's happening now. Now, people are trying to hide this problem by hushing the truth.

I'm very anti-religious and anti-capitalist (not so much). But that doesn't mean I don't think religious teachings are bad. Religion is good as a set of morals. I, personally, do not follow any religion, since I have created my own set of morals to be used only by me. If other people adopt my system, good for them, but I don't care.

If you have any other theories, or would like to question what I've written, feel free to do whatever.

You're a hypocrite - if religion is a lie then the religious doctrines do not stand up and should be opposed. Without a forgiving God christianity is a crock and totally nonsensicle.

Beyond that, your position is absurd and worthy od ridicule, it is based on the sort of historical ignorance practiced as a virtue by the segment of the urban population who wish to consider themselves intelligent and everyone else stupid. I suggest you look into the actual history of the Christianising of Scandanavia, particularly before Cnut put the full force of the Norwegian throne behind it.

I'll get you started, the english had a boast, "we were the only people who did not murder the missionaries sent to us".

You might also want to look at the cultural practices that were actually "supressed", it wasn't Yule, Yule logs, or Hobby Horses - it was rather more the hanging of dead men for the pleasure of Odin and the sacrificing, or ritual maiming, of captives to please the Gods.

Finally, if you think that a culture which glorifies death, violence, murder and rape, sees the world as spiralling down to the doom of Ragnorak and whose chief God is an undead Necromancer who exacts bloody vengence upon his enemies, and I mean really bloody, - is prefereable to ANY form of Christianity you are, frankly dangerously insane.

Go ask the Anglo Saxons how they felt about Danish Paganism, maybe ask Alfred why he spent a year in a swamp while his people were slaughtered and made into slaves.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Control might be a wrong word. Reform. And there is the possibility that Jesus never existed.

Possible, but unlikely, just as it is unlikely that the Trojan War didn't hasppen (in fact evidence increasingly stacks up in the "yes" camp there.

It's a belief. What would you do if someone came up to you and demanded you should stop all your beliefs/customs/ceremonies etc. and convert to their religion? Would you give up lightly? I think not. The Vikings showed incredibly fierce resistance. And whenever the Christians found any pagan temple, they killed all the inhabitants and any people nearby. Then they would place a big stone cross on it.

When Christians came to a Pagan temples/sites they did indeed put crosses on/near them, but there is no evidence of slaughter connected to those events - I have never heard tell of mass graves near Christianised cult sites, and it runs in the face of the instructions given to missionaries like Augustine and Melius. "killing all the inhabitants" is pretty stupid really, because then you have no one to convert.

So I can only assume whoever told you this was pretty stupid.

On the other hand, Danes were keen on crucifying, or otherwise martyering missionaries, when they felt missionaries were being overly offensive to the Alfader, of course. The key difference being that Danes went in for sacrifices, Christians didn't.

These are Vikings we are talking about. They don't give up easily.

Were these Saxon Vikings, or Frankish Vikings?

What do you think, "Viking" means - you can by Christian and Viking you know, and Danish and not Viking.

I don't doubt that. Some day, long after I'm dead, I hope someone lets me in on all these secrets. The very nature of organized religion makes it difficult to get facts.

Christianity is one of my favorites, because so many Christians like to act like The Bible is god's own text. I bring up the Council of Nicaea to point out that The Bible is most certainly a product of man-made revision and editing. 99 times out of 100, that leads to some kind of insulting tyrade about how I'm wrong.

Ah, Council of Nicea - the one that actually canonised the Bible was the Council of Carthage about sixty odd years later. You are basically right though.

You know what my most hated time of the year is? Christmas. Because it isn't his birthday. It's Mithras' birthday. They "borrowed" his birthday. He's a Roman sun god. The legends that surround Mithras are uncanny to the feats that Jesus supposedly did.

Mithras was a saviour. Sent to Earth to live as a mortal. From whom it was possible for sinners to be reborn into immortal life. He died for the sins of others. But came back to life the following Sunday. He was born of a virgin on the December the 25 in a manger, attended by shepherds. He became known as The Light Of The World. He had 12 disciples with whom he shared his last meal before dying. His devotees symbolically consumed the flesh and blood of him. Since he was a sun god, he was worshipped on Sunday. He's often depicted with a halo above his head. Followers of Mithras gave each other gifts on December 25th. The leader of the religion was called the Papa. And their headquarters was in Vatican Hill, Rome.

In fact, most of Christianity's stories are unoriginal.

The reason why Christmas is celebrated on Mithras' birthday is so that the Christians can slip Christmas in on people that already celebrated on that date.

And according to the Qu'ran, Isa (aka Jesus) was born in the summer. And according to Jehovah's Witnesses (no comment here) his birthday was on the 1st of October.

Actually, Yeshua was probably born in September, because the shepards would not have been on the hills in the spring because the ewes would likely have been lambing.

You're also confusing Mithras and Sol Invictus, who were sort of squidged together with Jesus to make the formal Roman Christian cult. Mithras was not a Roman "Sun God", he was an Eastern warrior-saviour and his followers did not consume his flesh, but the flesh of a white bull which symbolised the one he killed in a cave, nor was he depicted with sunbeams (halo) that was Sol, nor were his followers burried facing the rising sun (Sol again).

A few more things, the "Pope" is called "Father" because all priests were in Roman parlance, he is not even the only current "Pope" in Christianity, and December 23rd (and 25th) is a significant date because it is the Winter Soltice, and the Roman festival was the Saturnalia - with Seneca was complaining had been comercialised as early as the 1st Century AD.

you've been watching Zeitgiest.

It's crap.

[spankythehippo]

Possible, but unlikely, just as it is unlikely that the Trojan War didn't hasppen (in fact evidence increasingly stacks up in the "yes" camp there.



When Christians came to a Pagan temples/sites they did indeed put crosses on/near them, but there is no evidence of slaughter connected to those events - I have never heard tell of mass graves near Christianised cult sites, and it runs in the face of the instructions given to missionaries like Augustine and Melius. "killing all the inhabitants" is pretty stupid really, because then you have no one to convert.

So I can only assume whoever told you this was pretty stupid.

On the other hand, Danes were keen on crucifying, or otherwise martyering missionaries, when they felt missionaries were being overly offensive to the Alfader, of course. The key difference being that Danes went in for sacrifices, Christians didn't.



Were these Saxon Vikings, or Frankish Vikings?

What do you think, "Viking" means - you can by Christian and Viking you know, and Danish and not Viking.



Ah, Council of Nicea - the one that actually canonised the Bible was the Council of Carthage about sixty odd years later. You are basically right though.



Actually, Yeshua was probably born in September, because the shepards would not have been on the hills in the spring because the ewes would likely have been lambing.

You're also confusing Mithras and Sol Invictus, who were sort of squidged together with Jesus to make the formal Roman Christian cult. Mithras was not a Roman "Sun God", he was an Eastern warrior-saviour and his followers did not consume his flesh, but the flesh of a white bull which symbolised the one he killed in a cave, nor was he depicted with sunbeams (halo) that was Sol, nor were his followers burried facing the rising sun (Sol again).

A few more things, the "Pope" is called "Father" because all priests were in Roman parlance, he is not even the only current "Pope" in Christianity, and December 23rd (and 25th) is a significant date because it is the Winter Soltice, and the Roman festival was the Saturnalia - with Seneca was complaining had been comercialised as early as the 1st Century AD.

you've been watching Zeitgiest.

It's crap.

Since history is not my career, but only an interest, I'll just write this.

There is a lot of contradictory evidence out there in ancient history. Blatantly dismissing a theory purely on the basis of another theory does not make the former theory incorrect. Neither does it make the latter theory incorrect. There could be another theory which is correct.

Here's one: There are magical monkey poopy faced people out there that preached 3 religions to 3 groups of people, just so they can start fighting and make bets on them with their mates. It's a theory. Now it's just waiting to be disproved. But in this case, it can't be, since there is no evidence behind it. But I wish there were.

I had to google what you meant by Zeitgiest. I don't watch anything on TV, or movies. Except for 3 shows. And I especially hate conspiracy theories that are half-arsed.

Man didn't land on the moon? Shut the up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't understand how I'm a hypocrite. I don't believe in a god. I don't believe in religion. That doesn't mean other people do the same.

Ahhh... You see. There is no god.

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.

The Christianisation of Scandinavia was much slower than other parts of the world. The most likely reason for this was opposition of some sort.

What?

The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.

I never mentioned anything about the suppression of cultural practices. But either way, Odin was the patron for hanged men. The Norse were barbaric. It's in their culture. Their culture should be respected. If you walk past a holy pagan burial site, it isn't wise to spit, defecate, urinate etc. on it, just because these people were savage. If I walked by Hitler's grave, I would show some deal of respect. The man had discipline, and did A LOT of good things, but also did a lot more bad things which outweigh the good that he did.

Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.

I have been called sociopathic. And I don't care.

Well, if you really don't care about other people - that would be sociopathy.

You are speaking as if people will still hold grudges against the Danes. If something bad happens, learn from your mistakes and move along. Don't dwell on the past.

Alfred was only human. No one is perfect.

Congratulations - you completely failed to get the point. Before you bemoan the death of Nordic culture, you might want to see which bits were killed off. Read Snorri Sturlasson.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.

Since history is not my career, but only an interest, I'll just write this.

There is a lot of contradictory evidence out there in ancient history. Blatantly dismissing a theory purely on the basis of another theory does not make the former theory incorrect. Neither does it make the latter theory incorrect. There could be another theory which is correct.

There's a lot of evidence, Constantine's religious reforms combined Sol Invictus (God of the elite) with Mithras (God the army) with Yeshua (God the poor). It was about unity, and winning an Empire. It is also, believe it or not, a matter of historical record, as is Constantine's life. You can't even distinguish Sol Invictus from Mithras, you're working off hearsay, books written by hack writers, not history.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, its not the be-all and end-all, but it highlights my point that the Bible is a heavily edited and revised document written by human hands and compiled by human hands. I don't think anyone on this forum thinks otherwise, but there are a lot of people that do.

And I am one of them! As has been pointed out, Nicea had nothing to do with the canon, and it was in fact the Third Council of Carthage that formulated it. However the canon that was approved by that council was not formulated by it, it was merely putting a rubber stamp on what was widely accepted throughout Christendom.

First off, around 80% of the Bible is the Old Testament, which given the Judaic roots of Christianity, meant it was taken for granted by Christians as part of the canon.

So that leaves just 20% which the whole controversy is over. And in fact, there are suggestions within the scripture itself that even while it was still being written, a somewhat coherent set of documents had come to be accepted as scripture:

"As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

[The Stranger]

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.



The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.



Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.



Well, if you really don't care about other people - that would be sociopathy.



Congratulations - you completely failed to get the point. Before you bemoan the death of Nordic culture, you might want to see which bits were killed off. Read Snorri Sturlasson.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.



There's a lot of evidence, Constantine's religious reforms combined Sol Invictus (God of the elite) with Mithras (God the army) with Yeshua (God the poor). It was about unity, and winning an Empire. It is also, believe it or not, a matter of historical record, as is Constantine's life. You can't even distinguish Sol Invictus from Mithras, you're working off hearsay, books written by hack writers, not history.

faith should be a personal matter. religion a is always a matter of state. whether you unify state with religion or seperate it, doesnt matter. the state will decide upon this. could be so that the religion is (rules) the state tho.

[Sigurd]

No, its not the be-all and end-all, but it highlights my point that the Bible is a heavily edited and revised document written by human hands and compiled by human hands. I don't think anyone on this forum thinks otherwise, but there are a lot of people that do.

Hey... I am not arguing the validity of you point, just the reference to the wrong council.
Even though the Bible apologetics will throw the "It was a widely accepted compilation", it doesn't remove the fact that this is a human construct.
If I am not mistaken, it was the same culprit that formulated the doctrine of the trinity, that was asked to suggest which books were considered canon. He compiled a list and several contemporary scholars agreed. It was not decided on a particular council, but the process would be too similar to ignore.
If only they would recognize the Bible for what it is and what it claims, I think we would have had a bit fewer versions of established denominations in the Christian world.

[spankythehippo]

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.

I do not "like" the religious system. That should speak for itself. Judging by your abrasiveness, it suggests that you are religious. It shouldn't matter to you what I think. If you believe in a god, go ahead and worship him. But I won't. And no one will force me to.

The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.

And?

Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.

He IS the patron god of hanged men. He was hanged himself on Yggdrasil to gain the knowledge of the Nine Worlds. And gave up his right (?) eye to Mimir.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.

OK then. Do you want a medal? Being hostile to others brings forth more hostility. If I'm wrong about anything, I question why I am wrong, and why other's are right. It's the process of learning. As I said, history is not my career, so I do not focus my full attention to it.

[spankythehippo]

You're a hypocrite - if religion is a lie then the religious doctrines do not stand up and should be opposed. Without a forgiving God christianity is a crock and totally nonsensicle.

I don't understand how I'm a hypocrite. I don't believe in a god. I don't believe in religion. That doesn't mean other people do the same.

Ahhh... You see. There is no god.

Beyond that, your position is absurd and worthy od ridicule, it is based on the sort of historical ignorance practiced as a virtue by the segment of the urban population who wish to consider themselves intelligent and everyone else stupid. I suggest you look into the actual history of the Christianising of Scandanavia, particularly before Cnut put the full force of the Norwegian throne behind it.

The Christianisation of Scandinavia was much slower than other parts of the world. The most likely reason for this was opposition of some sort.

I'll get you started, the english had a boast, "we were the only people who did not murder the missionaries sent to us".

What?

You might also want to look at the cultural practices that were actually "supressed", it wasn't Yule, Yule logs, or Hobby Horses - it was rather more the hanging of dead men for the pleasure of Odin and the sacrificing, or ritual maiming, of captives to please the Gods.

I never mentioned anything about the suppression of cultural practices. But either way, Odin was the patron for hanged men. The Norse were barbaric. It's in their culture. Their culture should be respected. If you walk past a holy pagan burial site, it isn't wise to spit, defecate, urinate etc. on it, just because these people were savage. If I walked by Hitler's grave, I would show some deal of respect. The man had discipline, and did A LOT of good things, but also did a lot more bad things which outweigh the good that he did.

Finally, if you think that a culture which glorifies death, violence, murder and rape, sees the world as spiralling down to the doom of Ragnorak and whose chief God is an undead Necromancer who exacts bloody vengence upon his enemies, and I mean really bloody, - is prefereable to ANY form of Christianity you are, frankly dangerously insane.

I have been called sociopathic. And I don't care.

Go ask the Anglo Saxons how they felt about Danish Paganism, maybe ask Alfred why he spent a year in a swamp while his people were slaughtered and made into slaves.

You are speaking as if people will still hold grudges against the Danes. If something bad happens, learn from your mistakes and move along. Don't dwell on the past.

Alfred was only human. No one is perfect.

[The Stranger]

Alright. So, I'm a nihilistic atheist.

My theory is that all Abrahamic religions were created by very intelligent leaders as a way to control the populace. They then became, holy men. They controlled the people by putting the fear of God into them. But when the innovators died, their descendents took over. And when they died, the same thing happened. As time went on, these holy men actually started to believe what they were preaching to the people. And then they got greedy.

Look back at history. Huge amounts of taxes were paid to churches in medieval times. Beacuse people wanted to believe in a god. They wanted to believe that there was a big flying spaghetti monster controlling things out of their reach. And they believe this god has the power to take your life and send you to hell, if you don't obey his will. The churches capitalised on this fear. They Christians spread their religion as far and as wide as possible, ruining cultures in the process.
They did not preserve the other peoples cultures. They destroyed them. Most notable example is in Scandinavia. They tried to teach the vikings the ways of Jeebus. It worked. What happened? They started ignoring Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. A lot of vikings fought against the Christians to preserve their way of life, but they were either killed or succumbed to this disease called religion. That's how lands were "Christianised". By killing most, if not all, of the pagan population.
What problems occurred in the world before the formation of religion? Petty ones, like "Oh s!@#, there's no more food!!!"
What was the answer to their problem, look for food.
Unlike what's happening now. Now, people are trying to hide this problem by hushing the truth.

I'm very anti-religious and anti-capitalist (not so much). But that doesn't mean I don't think religious teachings are bad. Religion is good as a set of morals. I, personally, do not follow any religion, since I have created my own set of morals to be used only by me. If other people adopt my system, good for them, but I don't care.

If you have any other theories, or would like to question what I've written, feel free to do whatever.

what is your view on non Abrahamic religions then?

I think that there are two seperate matters that are often confused. Faith (common to all men, the fundamental principals on which they base their worldview) and Religion (institute of power which acknowledges no other truth which impairs the truth they stand for)

I dont think that there people who have no faith. The person who would come closest to it would be a total skeptic but I dont think such a person can exist.

People can have faith in a God without being religious if they were to tolerate other Faiths as being (possibly) truthful.
People can partake in groups of people who share common faith without being religious for the same reason.

Religion has little to do with faith tho it exploits faith to get a better grip on their followers, to create a feeling of us vs them. Religion is an institute to claim, consolidate and expand power. (or wealth, and through wealth power).

Both my notions of faith and religion not neccesarily mean that a God is involved in the traditional way. A scientist has faith the same way a christian does, even tho their values might be different. I think of organised Capitalism as religious, same as islam as an institute.

I think the corruption went a different way with religion, to a point where the people involved start to belief truly in the message they spread as a justification for what they are doing. instead of it just being a cover for what they are doing.

there are still some problems with this, such as how can individual people be religious other than being followers of a religious group. What if a person or an institute doesnt acknowledge any other truth but his own truth but doesnt not aim to acquire more power.

Anyway, it is possible that certain religions came from groups of people with shared faith (wether this was through education/social processes or coincidence is up for debate) which had the idea to shape the world they lived in according to their values, and this process deteriorated into a powerstruggle. I guess its a simultanious process. As soon as someone starts something for whatever reasons there will almost always be someone looking to get a profit out of it.

An interesting thing is that out of all the faiths that the world has known only a few were very agressive expansionistic (the 3 faiths of the book and perhaps Hinduism, tho i am not sure about that at all, and also judaism being an exception because they are not really expansionistic but not tolerant either). Someone told me this is because the faiths of the book acknowledge no other truth but their own truth, they acknowlegde only one god, and there is no god but God. And God is truth. It is an interesting notion i think, and i would like to know from Pape what he thinks this process resembles in our "evolution" from hunter-gatheres to city dwellers.

Religion is a natural manifestation of order in regions where structured government systems that have the power to cater to its populace are not feasible.

this is an interesting thought, ill think on it some more.