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

[spankythehippo]

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

No, not at all. These intelligent guys (I need a better name for them) had the right ideals, but my theory postulates that their respective societies have been corrupted from their original ideals, as time progressed. One of peace and harmony (probably).

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, not at all. These intelligent guys (I need a better name for them) had the right ideals, but my theory postulates that their respective societies have been corrupted from their original ideals, as time progressed. One of peace and harmony (probably).

Oh well then I agree with you 100%.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Tuuvi]

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.

AFAIK most Christians believe Christ was born in the spring. Christmas just replaced whatever pagan festival took place around that time because it was convenient. The original Christian sabbath was on Saturday, and then was moved to Sunday. The tradition of giving gifts on Christmas is more of a recent practice.

Also, Mithras is an Iranian god, so I have a hard time believing that he was worshiped on "Sunday" or that the headquarters of his religion was in Rome.

[spankythehippo]

AFAIK most Christians believe Christ was born in the spring. Christmas just replaced whatever pagan festival took place around that time because it was convenient. The original Christian sabbath was on Saturday, and then was moved to Sunday. The tradition of giving gifts on Christmas is more of a recent practice.

Yeah. Mithras' day.

Also, Mithras is an Iranian god, so I have a hard time believing that he was worshiped on "Sunday" or that the headquarters of his religion was in Rome.

No. Mithras is the Roman sun god. Mithra is the Persian god. Mithras is the Roman adaptation of Mithra.

[Tuuvi]

Yeah. Mithras' day.

Ok. A quick skim of wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring. But what it does tell me is that the December 25th date wasn't chosen until the 4th or 5th century, and that the original date of Christmas in Eastern Christianity was January 7th. Yes I know, it's Wikipedia, but I think Wikipedia is still fairly reliable for basic facts.

No. Mithras is the Roman sun god. Mithra is the Persian god. Mithras is the Roman adaptation of Mithra.

Ok I was wrong about that as well but Mithras worship didn't come into practice in Rome until the late 1st century AD, well after the establishment of Christianity.

[spankythehippo]

Ok. A quick skim of wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring. But what it does tell me is that the December 25th date wasn't chosen until the 4th or 5th century, and that the original date of Christmas in Eastern Christianity was January 7th. Yes I know, it's Wikipedia, but I think Wikipedia is still fairly reliable for basic facts.
Ok I was wrong about that as well but Mithras worship didn't come into practice in Rome until the late 1st century AD, well after the establishment of Christianity.

Yeah. Exactly. Christmas day wasn't established until centuries after Christ's death.

[Tuuvi]

lol well I guess that means we're misunderstanding each other, or the facts, or something. All I was trying to say is that I disagree with your assessment that Christmas is a plagiarism of Mithras' day.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sigurd]

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 tirade about how I'm wrong.

Right... You need to stop bringing up Nicaea when talking about the creation of the Bible. Somehow this has become "the event" to mention when talking about the agreed upon compilation of the Canon. That particular council did nothing towards establishing a canon of scripture. They settled the celebration of Easter and handled the heretic Arius and began the process of establishing the doctrine of the Trinity (Which was a direct result of putting down the ideas of Arius. That a smaller group with equally weird ideas, won this debate is a discussion for later).
edit: Bah.. Philipus beat me to it...

Ok. A quick skim of Wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring.

You aren't wrong m8... I could have written that Christ wasn't born during spring in a Wikipedia article and the world would believe it. Most likely the Jesus written about in the New Testament was born during early spring, somewhere around April. It was also convenient for Christianity to absorb mid winter celebrations like Yule.
It's kinda funny that my native word for Christmas is Jul.. which is even worse than x-mas in a modern Christian perspective (yeah.. I know the old tradition concerning this).

As a response to the OP:
Yes, it is a plausible theory and most certainly applicable to most religions, as the logic result of even considering that there is a God, the shear number of religions dictates that some of them, if not most, would be false. And if there are false religions, there would be some agenda behind them.

If we even remotely consider that this world we live on was somehow made under the influence of a Deity, and that there is an agenda behind it. Let's say that we are godly offspring that are to be tested and someday return to this Deity as deity-graduates. This Deity would have put out a training course and given instructions... to .. let's call them prophets. These prophets recorded these instructions and created schools (churches). Most likely this would have happened at a very early stage.. to get this .. agenda.. on track from the beginning.
Yes.. I am talking about a "religion" of Adam (or someone just like him).
Now this would have been the pure religion, the one that would turn man to Deity offspring and a future with Deity.
But because of man's inherent nature of anarchy and wanting to do their own "thing", this pure religion became diluted and many warped versions spread over the continents.
If this is so... there should be a core in them all, which is similar if not identical. I am gonna stop that particular chain of thought here.

Then if we consider the Judeo - Christian particular.
We should all be familiar with its basics. Maybe Moses (the first recorder that we know of) was the originator. But he incorporated stuff that preceded him. Stuff that might have been familiar to the Israelites that were in Egypt. OK maybe there was a guy called Abram and Isaac and Jacob and that they moved to Egypt due to famine. Maybe they had the genealogy with them back to this first man.. called ADAM (A name which incidentally is older that the Judeo - Christian religious roots). Who knows... the ancients was very persistent when it came to family history.
So.. the deity involved with making this planet was someone called Yahweh/Christ and he established a "method" of returning to the Heavens where once we lived (why did we leave in the first place?).
We know the history of said religion... and scrolling down to around present day we find ourselves with quite a few variations of that original Abrahamic religion. Not only Christianity has its roots there, but Judaism (with its several variations) and Islam (with its variations). I am taking Islam into this for the mere fact that Muhammad got instructions from an Angel called ... Gabriel (yeah.. how inventive was that?).

We cannot escape the claim, in this discussion, from a more modern version of this old method of establishing a religion. The claim of Joseph Smith, the founder of a religion that the next president of the mightiest nation subscribes to.
Yes.. this puts the OP to naught (if it is true).

So this kid prays about which church he should join and lo and behold he is visited. Not only by God (singular), but God and his Son (the holy ghost must have been there too). Three distinct entities. Later he is visited by an angel. Not Gabriel this time, but a former American native prophet that lived 1400 years prior to that event, giving directions to a record of the Judeo - Christian religion that the natives of the the Americas lived by. Is that the end of it?
Nope... he is visited by John the Baptist (given authority to baptize), Peter, James and John (yep, the top three Apostles).. and more... Moses, Elijah and a return of Yahweh to bless the first temple, and apparently many more.
Jesus Christ established his church among the native Americans and called 12 apostles among them too. Three of which was granted the same boon that John the beloved was granted - to tarry on the earth until the official return of the Son in glory which is THE event in the Judeo - Christian religion. Yes these three was seen (three men with extraordinary powers) several times in the early history of that church. Not presenting themselves as to who they were, but things like... "My father told me to plant the crops, but I had to go and get the prophet and his wife, how will I be able to do both?" whereupon three men came and with great skill and speed planted the crops for them without being asked. They never introduced themselves, but the speculation is clear.

Much controversy... and all of this is greatly attacked by many.. since the very day this began. But none of the church "fathers" has confessed. Even under torture and grave danger, mobs destroying their settlements, killing their men and raping their women did this religion crumble. Witnesses that later was hostile to the church never denied the testimonies of seeing and angel and holding the ancient record. They would rather restate them.
No attack on this religion has made the house of cards fold.
I have read much of the anti-Mormon stuff, but none of it is too convincing and much if not all is dishonest and based on either projection, outright lies or straw-men.
This religion sticks out like a sore thumb in this discussion.

[Hax]

25th of December was a Holy Day attributed to Sol Invictus, not Mithras.

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.

No, I believe the common idea is that he (Jesus/Isa; note that there is no real difference between the two. It's just a name; there are no real connotations. However, Arab Christians use a different name for Jesus, "Yasu") got switched out at the last moment with a common criminal. Make of it what you will.

I do have to have breakfast now, but I have my own theories concerning the rise of Islam; I'll do that in a couple of minutes.

[The Stranger]

breakfast now? good idea... you must be a student! ill go get mine!

[Hax]

That's right, I only slept for three hours the night before and I had dinner and drinks with some lecturers and professors afterwards, so I got up around 1:00 PM.

In any case, talking about Islam, and more specifically, its origins and the way it came into existence. Of course, professing that it "came into existence" is a form of heresy in its own right as Islam is, according to its own believers, "the original religion of Abraham". Regardless, it's worth taking a look at its history, its practices and its particularities. There are many interesting things within Islam that can be traced to pre-Islamic roots, be they Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian or "pagan".

We know several things about Islam (or at least, we're pretty sure we do);
1) Muhammad started preaching his message in Mecca around the year 600; according to Islamic tradition, he first spread the religion within his close family, before moving out to spread the religion in public around 610; after severe persecution, he and his followers (the so-called muhajirun) moved to Mecca.
2) Prophets in Judaism and Christianity are also acknowledged by Islam
3) Concerning rituals; the central "point" of Islam is the Ka‘aba, located in Mecca; there is a Holy Month in which Muslims should fast (including abstination from other sorts of "wrong" behaviour; sexual promiscuity, lying, getting angry, etc.); every Muslim is obliged to make a Pilgrimage to Mecca in his lifetime; every Muslim is obliged to pay the Zakat (alms tax); every Muslim has to pray five times a day.

So when you take a look at points one to three, there are several footnotes to be made, which in my opinion, are pretty interesting.

Point 1: Muhammad preached his message around the year 600; he moved to Medina after persecution with a small group of follower

For a first glance, this seems pretty straightforward; nobody denies that Muhammad did indeed preach a message of radical monotheism around the start of the 7th century. However, with critical analysis; two things are going to stand out:

1) The discrepancy between the verses revealed in Mecca and the later verses revealed in Medina; when he was still living in Mecca, Muhammad actively tried to harmonise the different traditions into a new, single religion; verses such as "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) or "The People of the Scripture" (2:62, 3:113) (including the relatively little-known "Sabians"; a group of moon-worshipers of a sort in Iraq). However, when he got to Medina, where he was the political leader with heavy responsibilities, the tone of the verses shifted:

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.

Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners[...]

If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.

The word the Qur‘an uses here is "munafiquna" which is usually translated as "hypocrites"; I don't think it refers to non-believers (kafirun) but rather to Muslim apostates who reverted to pagan traditions. In any case, that's not the issue here:

It's evident that the Meccan verses diverge so much from the Medinan verses; it also explains the shift of Muhammad from a religious prophet to a politico-religious statesman.

==============================

Point 2: Prophets of Judaism and Christianity are acknowledged by Islam

The religious argument here being that Islam is the logical conclusion of Judaism and Christianity, and is such, is mandated by God and is also an excellent political tool to use when engaging (on a religious level) with Jews and Christians; how could Muhammad have known about all these religious figures being the illiterate merchant he was; this would only have been possible through divine power.

However, there are a few things that are also commonly accepted about Muhammad's life (besides, there are serious doubts on whether Muhammad was illiterate at all; it's not very likely that a merchant of his caliber and prestige was unable to read or write even the most basic things).

1) He had been in direct contact with a Christian monk (his wife Khadija's cousin, if I recall correctly)
2) In his travels to Syria in his youth, he was said to have discussed religion and spirituality with Christians and Jews there.

It's clear that Muhammad had at least some basic knowledge about how Judaism and Christianity functione; and when the hijra (exodus to Medina) came around, he was able to politicise this knowledge by pointing towards Islam as the logical conclusion of Judaism and Christianity and by pointing towards Jews and Christians as forsaking God by ignoring his message.

And later on, when Mecca was taken over by the Muslims and other tribes flocked to Muhammad, the acknowledgement of the Jewish and Christian prophets (especially by putting Jesus/Isa‘ in a rather elevated position), Arab Christian tribes must have felt more comfortable. In fact, some of those Arab Christian tribes did not initally convert to Islam.

==========================================
Point three: Rituals

This is a subject that intrigues me the most; I spoke at length about this with my professors of Islamology and Literature and it hasn't ceased to be interesting to me. So this'll basically be about the Five Pillars of Islam:

1) There is no God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet (and Shi‘ites additionally say; "and Ali is the viceroy of God")

This was the WHAM moment, basically; for Pagan Arabs this was a radical shift towards pure, uncompromising monotheism. There are some doubts about when exactly this was formulated (the whole Satanic Verses thing sprung from this), but I think that by the time there was no doubt about it. This was radical. I can't possibly stress that enough.

2) Salat; praying five times a day.

I've caught some flak for saying this earlier in a more private environment, but the point remains. This might have been influenced by Zoroastrianism (bolded by me):

and it [veneration of the divinities of natural phenonema] is a duty incumbent on its adherents to offer reverence to the Sun Yazad together with Mithra by recitation of the Khoridd and Mihr Niydyes three times a day (at the sunrise, noon and sunset prayers)

In fact, there are five times of prayer in Zoroastranism; however, this is something I don't really know too much about, so I'm not (yet) willing to say that Zoroastrian rituals definitely influenced Islam. It's an interesting similarity though.

3) Ramadan

Periods of fasting and non-violence have been known throughout Bedouin and pagan Arab practice; there were holy places associated with Gods where warfare was forbidden; markets sprung up around these places and they quickly grew into sizeable towns and hotspots for people to come trade goods and information.

4) Zakat/alms tax

This is something I don't know too much about; however, I know that Arab culture was dominated by the idea of the tribe and the clan; physical and economic security was dependent on your clan. Deviant behaviour would likely result in death. I'm not too sure about this, but the instution of the zakat might very well have been a way of replacing the dependence of the believers on the clan, and rather to the umma (community) as a whole. In my opinion, this was a way of trying to demonopolise the position of the tribe in relationship with the individual believer.

5) Hajj/pilgrimage

As in the case of the Ramadan, pilgrimages to Holy places existed long before the coming of Islam in the Hijaz; the Ka‘aba in Mecca was surrounded by a haram (holy spot) in which many different kinds of Gods and demi-gods were revered. After Muhammad took Mecca, the haram was "purified" and the worship of idols was banned. In any case, the hajj is one of those things that most definitely has a pre-Islamic founding.


A final note on Arab identity
When we spoke in our History classes about the existence of Islam and its success in destroying the Sassanid Empire and bringing the Byzantine Empire to its knees, there were basically two things that were important:
1) The recent Sassanid-Byzantine wars, that left both empires immensely weak
2) The fact the Arab tribes were united for the first time.

While the first subject is something that should not be discussed here as it has had no real influence on the formation of Islam, the second point is important. The concept of a shared Arab identity did not exist until that point; I'm not too sure if the rise of Islam was the affirmation or the cause of the idea of Arab identity, but the idea of the Arabs as forming a single group probably was a reaction to the presence of Persian colonies in southern Arabia. Apart from that; anything goes.


In any case, I'm not yet a professional scholar, I don't speak Arabic fluently and I only started my academic career half a year ago; I'm not at all a good authority, let alone an authority at all on the origins of Islam; I just hope to have sparked some interest, because this is a subject that still requires serious research.