Thread: What Went Wrong with the First Theistic Religion?

Personally I haven't a clue. However people join religions every day. Something makes one theistic religion more attractive than another, what is it? Once a religion of choice is made then I'm thinking there must be something about all the others that makes them less appealing.

Not every religion began at the same time, so what went wrong, why have some disappeared altogether? Is the first religion still with us and if not, then why would it ever disappear? You would think the first religion would be closer to getting it right, seeing how they would be early enough to observe the god(s) in action. Still, the time of origin doesn't seem important since some religions are more recent than others.

Hard to believe the first theists got it wrong. If you say they did then what's that tell you? If we are talking about a search for the truth then wouldn't it be fair to say that the farther in time you are from the origin of the first religion the less chance you have of finding it? Why would the first religion become so unattractive? Why would the god permit it? I find it odd that the first religion didn't stick. It may still be here but why has it been shunned by many?

It doesn't feel right. I smell human intervention. How does evidence for god change from one era to another? God isn't a new idea, so why isn't the most ancient theistic religion followed? Is it that no one including theists believe God left any evidence for the first theists? Interpretation? How did the first theists know there was a god? Were they wrong?

Current theory holds that the first religion(s?) had a female god(ess) and when agriculture replaced hunter gatherer lifestyles She was surpassed by a male "GOD".

(residual echos of the battle of the sexes of the gods may be seen in the Zeus Hera conflicts?)

Originally Posted by sculptor

Current theory holds that the first religion(s?) had a female god(ess) and when agriculture replaced hunter gatherer lifestyles She was surpassed by a male "GOD".

(residual echos of the battle of the sexes of the gods may be seen in the Zeus Hera conflicts?)

How could the first bonafide theist religion, which for all intents had to be based on strong evidence, be wrong? Theists do claim the evidence is there for a god, so what the heck happened and why isn't it believed today? Modern theists aren't claiming the original theists are wrong, are they?

Much like the "first emperor of china" Qin Shi Huang Di
You do not talk about anything that has gone before.

(and you murder anyone that would)

Are the first theists not to be trusted? Why ignore them? The only thing I can think of is that the first theists are thought to have either interpreted their evidence wrong or they didn't have any at all. Either way it would mean they had absolutely no physical interaction with a genuine god. However someone liked the idea of a god regardless.

First religions probably preceded humans. Like language there's probably a nearly continuous thread of memes between different religion except when the entire population was wiped out.

[QUOTE=zinjanthropos;462535]Personally I haven't a clue.
QUOTE]

Personally, neither do I.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

First religions probably preceded humans. Like language there's probably a nearly continuous thread of memes between different religion except when the entire population was wiped out.

I read about memes being like a mind virus.

So I think, if what you’re saying, religion can be seen as an evolving meme passed on through each generation, in much the same way as languages and cultures branch out, evolve and shift overtime.

So to ask how did the first religion “fail” would be like asking how did the first language fail? Maybe the first religion hasn’t died as such, it’s just evolved into different religions. Bit like Latin is now Italian and Spanish etc.

Originally Posted by pineapples

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

First religions probably preceded humans. Like language there's probably a nearly continuous thread of memes between different religion except when the entire population was wiped out.

I read about memes being like a mind virus.

So I think, if what you’re saying, religion can be seen as an evolving meme passed on through each generation, in much the same way as languages and cultures branch out, evolve and shift overtime.

So to ask how did the first religion “fail” would be like asking how did the first language fail? Maybe the first religion hasn’t died as such, it’s just evolved into different religions. Bit like Latin is now Italian and Spanish etc.

To be fair I didn't say fail. Isn't adaptation at least an attempt to prevent failure? A religion in need of adapting, what can we read between the lines there? I find it kind of odd that the evolution of a religion actually leaves the original notion somewhat a vestigial relic.

When a theistic religion evolves should the god as well? A changing god, this might pose a problem for theists, to admit their supreme being evolves would be like saying they're making the whole thing up. However that could be somewhat negated if the evolution included personal appearances by god or his representative. The implication then would be that God never made his presence known before the first theistic religion came to be.

What qualifies as a divine appearance? Natural events? Like tossing lightning bolts around? Doesn't wash in today's world so theism needed something better, more convincing, thus a need to evolve?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by pineapples

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

First religions probably preceded humans. Like language there's probably a nearly continuous thread of memes between different religion except when the entire population was wiped out.

I read about memes being like a mind virus.

So I think, if what you’re saying, religion can be seen as an evolving meme passed on through each generation, in much the same way as languages and cultures branch out, evolve and shift overtime.

So to ask how did the first religion “fail” would be like asking how did the first language fail? Maybe the first religion hasn’t died as such, it’s just evolved into different religions. Bit like Latin is now Italian and Spanish etc.

To be fair I didn't say fail. Isn't adaptation at least an attempt to prevent failure? A religion in need of adapting, what can we read between the lines there? I find it kind of odd that the evolution of a religion actually leaves the original notion somewhat a vestigial relic.

When a theistic religion evolves should the god as well? A changing god, this might pose a problem for theists, to admit their supreme being evolves would be like saying they're making the whole thing up. However that could be somewhat negated if the evolution included personal appearances by god or his representative. The implication then would be that God never made his presence known before the first theistic religion came to be.

What qualifies as a divine appearance? Natural events? Like tossing lightning bolts around? Doesn't wash in today's world so theism needed something better, more convincing, thus a need to evolve?

To put it strictly,for religion to adapt does not mean the God(s) are changing it all depends on your understanding of the word religion# the god(s) cannot form a religion on their own and they need humans who fight change but always undergo change......

Now if two must work together and one is standing while the other is moving rather inevitably,what would keep them to unite? The stationary one must change alongside to keep its fellowship...

To change does not always mean one has flaws that needs cover up but one must change so as to avoid flaws that one will later cover up#

Originally Posted by merumario

To put it strictly,for religion to adapt does not mean the God(s) are changing it all depends on your understanding of the word religion# the god(s) cannot form a religion on their own and they need humans who fight change but always undergo change......

For some theists, God is omnipotent. If God wants to form a religion then He will. We wouldn't know if He did unless He told us. Since God doesn't directly communicate with us these days, theists will contend that He's leaving religion up to us. Perhaps one could also see that as a huge mistake by the Lord but theists don't appear to see it that way.

Leaving religion for us to decide has its implications. The one that stands out for me is that God probably has never appeared to anyone, never gave us rules or anything we could say with absolute certainty. Thus the implication is that God is a fabrication. I haven't seen much of an evolution regarding the facts about God. I'll assume for the most part that many theists consider holy text as factual. Has this ever changed? Probably not but only because it's such a good thing to assert, no need to adapt there.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by merumario

To put it strictly,for religion to adapt does not mean the God(s) are changing it all depends on your understanding of the word religion# the god(s) cannot form a religion on their own and they need humans who fight change but always undergo change......

For some theists, God is omnipotent. If God wants to form a religion then He will. We wouldn't know if He did unless He told us. Since God doesn't directly communicate with us these days, theists will contend that He's leaving religion up to us. Perhaps one could also see that as a huge mistake by the Lord but theists don't appear to see it that way.

Leaving religion for us to decide has its implications. The one that stands out for me is that God probably has never appeared to anyone, never gave us rules or anything we could say with absolute certainty. Thus the implication is that God is a fabrication. I haven't seen much of an evolution regarding the facts about God. I'll assume for the most part that many theists consider holy text as factual. Has this ever changed? Probably not but only because it's such a good thing to assert, no need to adapt there.

Some religion will say otherwise.....God hates sin and he stays away from it.... So where is holy has his presence#

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by merumario

To put it strictly,for religion to adapt does not mean the God(s) are changing it all depends on your understanding of the word religion# the god(s) cannot form a religion on their own and they need humans who fight change but always undergo change......

For some theists, God is omnipotent. If God wants to form a religion then He will. We wouldn't know if He did unless He told us. Since God doesn't directly communicate with us these days, theists will contend that He's leaving religion up to us. Perhaps one could also see that as a huge mistake by the Lord but theists don't appear to see it that way.

Leaving religion for us to decide has its implications. The one that stands out for me is that God probably has never appeared to anyone, never gave us rules or anything we could say with absolute certainty. Thus the implication is that God is a fabrication. I haven't seen much of an evolution regarding the facts about God. I'll assume for the most part that many theists consider holy text as factual. Has this ever changed? Probably not but only because it's such a good thing to assert, no need to adapt there.

Some religion will say otherwise.....God hates sin and he stays away from it.... So where is holy has his presence#

Is that a fact?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by merumario

To put it strictly,for religion to adapt does not mean the God(s) are changing it all depends on your understanding of the word religion# the god(s) cannot form a religion on their own and they need humans who fight change but always undergo change......

For some theists, God is omnipotent. If God wants to form a religion then He will. We wouldn't know if He did unless He told us. Since God doesn't directly communicate with us these days, theists will contend that He's leaving religion up to us. Perhaps one could also see that as a huge mistake by the Lord but theists don't appear to see it that way.

Leaving religion for us to decide has its implications. The one that stands out for me is that God probably has never appeared to anyone, never gave us rules or anything we could say with absolute certainty. Thus the implication is that God is a fabrication. I haven't seen much of an evolution regarding the facts about God. I'll assume for the most part that many theists consider holy text as factual. Has this ever changed? Probably not but only because it's such a good thing to assert, no need to adapt there.

Some religion will say otherwise.....God hates sin and he stays away from it.... So where is holy has his presence#

Is that a fact?

According to religion yes,but authority is not given to me to decide

Religion is after all is said and done, man made, so the story of the particular religion changes. Just as there are so many different varieties of similar religions around today, I can easily imagine the divergence to just evolve further away from each other (with all else being equal). What has curtailed this in the last few thousand years is the invention of the written word, which doesn't allow all that much deviation from the given.

Is that a fact?

Originally Posted by merumario

According to religion yes, but authority is not given to me to decide

Do you think interpretations considered as facts by religion are misleading to some people? Edit: you don't have to answer as I am drifting off topic

Is the stating of facts without evidence an evolutionary step? If so then do you think the first theistic religion did not rely on facts , in other words....they stated their beliefs without using facts and this led to its downfall or to an adaptation?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Religion is after all is said and done, man made, so the story of the particular religion changes. Just as there are so many different varieties of similar religions around today, I can easily imagine the divergence to just evolve further away from each other (with all else being equal). What has curtailed this in the last few thousand years is the invention of the written word, which doesn't allow all that much deviation from the given.

How about the use of or threat of force ? Possibly an evolutionary step that might also serve a good purpose for the religion. What do you think?

Edit: I was just thinking of how many times the forum has had the anti-evolutionists ask for complete transitional fossil records during an evolution discussion. I wonder if I asked them to provide the same for their religion if they could?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Is that a fact?

Originally Posted by merumario

According to religion yes, but authority is not given to me to decide

Do you think interpretations considered as facts by religion are misleading to some people? Edit: you don't have to answer as I am drifting off topic

Is the stating of facts without evidence an evolutionary step? If so then do you think the first theistic religion did not rely on facts , in other words....they stated their beliefs without using facts and this led to its downfall or to an adaptation?

We must note the word fact which you constantly use#

Is a fact that bodies moving towards each other in space will speed up as they get closer making their convergence inevitable(we can prove that). fact is things we can sure or prove to exist in the concept we think they do#

If the thesist claim direct communication with God(s) and gave written rules gotten from those meeting and many other stories.....and at this current age you seek to know if their claims were facts,Now how do they prove to you something they are now even confused of,something that rational knowledge has mingled too much with?

Religion do not seek fact but believe and have faith in their God(s) and if you must see things from their view you are compelled and subjected to same fate#

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Is that a fact?

Originally Posted by merumario

According to religion yes, but authority is not given to me to decide

Do you think interpretations considered as facts by religion are misleading to some people? Edit: you don't have to answer as I am drifting off topic

Is the stating of facts without evidence an evolutionary step? If so then do you think the first theistic religion did not rely on facts , in other words....they stated their beliefs without using facts and this led to its downfall or to an adaptation?

We must note the word fact which you constantly use#

Is a fact that bodies moving towards each other in space will speed up as they get closer making their convergence inevitable(we can prove that). fact is things we can sure or prove to exist in the concept we think they do#

If the thesist claim direct communication with God(s) and gave written rules gotten from those meeting and many other stories.....and at this current age you seek to know if their claims were facts,Now how do they prove to you something they are now even confused of,something that rational knowledge has mingled too much with?

Religion do not seek fact but believe and have faith in their God(s) and if you must see things from their view you are compelled and subjected to same fate#

Originally Posted by merumario

Do you think interpretations considered as facts by religion are misleading to some people? Edit: you don't have to answer as I am drifting off topic

Is the stating of facts without evidence an evolutionary step? If so then do you think the first theistic religion did not rely on facts , in other words....they stated their beliefs without using facts and this led to its downfall or to an adaptation?

Religion do not seek fact but believe and have faith in their God(s) and if you must see things from their view you are compelled and subjected to same fate#

How about the question I posed? Could the first theists have said ' We have no proof and its not definite but maybe a possibility exists that there is a god?' Maybe agnosticism evolved to become theism.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Personally I haven't a clue. However people join religions every day. Something makes one theistic religion more attractive than another, what is it? Once a religion of choice is made then I'm thinking there must be something about all the others that makes them less appealing.
Not every religion began at the same time, so what went wrong, why have some disappeared altogether? Is the first religion still with us and if not, then why would it ever disappear? You would think the first religion would be closer to getting it right, seeing how they would be early enough to observe the god(s) in action. Still, the time of origin doesn't seem important since some religions are more recent than others.

There never was a first theistic religion, rather like there was never a first human.
The real clue to this lies in the fact that all theistic religions and especially the monotheisms are driven by fear and emotion which escalate over time.
These mobsters would have us believe that we are all sinners and we will all end up in purgatory or hell until we have repented and been converted into their peculiar brand of nut cult. The first religion would have been unidentifiable from any contemporary one.
When I see posters up in the town which say 'The fool has said in his heart there is no God' then I know that the theists are referring to me as a fool, which is interesting as I wouldn't have said anything like that to a believer. I would have put forward a better argument.

Originally Posted by ox

When I see posters up in the town which say 'The fool has said in his heart there is no God' then I know that the theists are referring to me as a fool, which is interesting as I wouldn't have said anything like that to a believer. I would have put forward a better argument.

At least that's a more civil approach then threatening fools with death.

Getting into the minds of the people who left us the stories of "the old gods" will always remain problematic.
From the surviving stories, it seems the the oldest of the old gods were very much nature gods-perhaps more precisely: The stories created a name for certain aspects of nature------and, once you knew the story, you knew something about that aspect of nature.
So, the name of the god became a shorthand for a longer understanding.

for example
a "joke" which I tell my helpers(this used to be an ethnic joke, so fill in your favorite minority)
There was a road crew that painted the lines on the highways.
The focus of the story is a man who just got hired onto that crew.
The boss puts a bucket of paint and a brush in the truck and takes the new guy out to the section of road to be repainted.
Puts the bucket down and hands over the brush, points down the road, and says "just repaint the old paint, understood?
So receiving an affirmative, he gets back in the truck and goes back to the office.
Friday---payday---comes around with performance evaluations and when the new guy comes up, the boss says:
"On Monday you painted almost 10 miles of road, I was really impressed, No one has ever matched that distance.
On Tuesday you only got about 5 miles done, OK still well above average.
On Wednesday, you dropped to a bit below average by only getting 3 miles done.
On Thursday, you only did 2 miles, Ok, new job, maybe you were just getting tired?
And, today, Friday, you didn't even get a whole mile done, I gotta tell you that that just ain't acceptable.
So, tell me Sven, what went wrong?"
and Sven answers:
"Vell, I youst kept getting furder and furder frum da buckett"

So, when I saw my helper leaving the sand bucket in one place, and walking back and forth with the scoop spreading sand on the ice, I called out to him:
"Hey Sven! How's it going?"
He laughed, and went and got the bucket and brought it along with him. Once the story was told. "Hey Sven" was a way of communicating. (Micro managing in a light hearted manner)

"Sven" is a shorthand version for wearing a pouch so you don't have to keep going back to the fastener bin, or carrying the bucket with you.

Over the years of shared stories, the shorthand version seems to no longer need an explanation.
So to with "GOD(s)?

So far the consensus seems to be that the first religion is still here, evolving and branching off into different versions of itself, akin to the evolutionary tree. It adapts to the social conditions of the era I assume. It's sort of like the Galapagos finches, different beaks but still a finch (stand to be corrected). At various times throughout history a branch has fallen off but in some weird way this happenstance creates new growth and the dead limb is replaced by several new shoots.

Personally I like the idea of agnostics being the originator of the God idea. It makes more sense to me that before theism got rolling, the prevailing attitude was that perhaps there was a god but with absolutely no assurances. Humans are smarter than the average bear so I would hope the first ideas of a god were born out of sensible thinking, not blind acceptance. However human nature seems to have a way of reversing that trend and here we are.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So far the consensus seems to be that the first religion is still here, evolving and branching off into different versions of itself, akin to the evolutionary tree. It adapts to the social conditions of the era I assume.

Only today have I learned that Pope Francis is ready to dilute the witch-hunt against gays, is prepared to lessen the opposition to abortion and contraception, and even reach out to women!! Now there's progress and it's only taken them 2 millennia. In other words it's about as slow as biological evolution.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So far the consensus seems to be that the first religion is still here, evolving and branching off into different versions of itself, akin to the evolutionary tree. It adapts to the social conditions of the era I assume.

Only today have I learned that Pope Francis is ready to dilute the witch-hunt against gays, is prepared to lessen the opposition to abortion and contraception, and even reach out to women!! Now there's progress and it's only taken them 2 millennia. In other words it's about as slow as biological evolution.

I see your point but alas if things are as people seem to think then it is only a branch on a branch on religion's evolutionary tree. Somehow it has to fight its way to optimum light to survive. Edit: if you still consider this the Dark Ages

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Personally I like the idea of agnostics being the originator of the God idea. It makes more sense to me that before theism got rolling, the prevailing attitude was that perhaps there was a god but with absolutely no assurances. Humans are smarter than the average bear so I would hope the first ideas of a god were born out of sensible thinking, not blind acceptance. However human nature seems to have a way of reversing that trend and here we are.

I’d say superstition has a lot to answer for, and is much older than religion (Apparently even pigeons are superstitious!). I think superstition is born from a logical fallacy that correlation proves causation. It only takes one individual to become superstitious and away we go.

So maybe "akin to the evolutionary tree", if religion is the DNA of a God then superstition is the RNA!

Originally Posted by pineapples

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

First religions probably preceded humans. Like language there's probably a nearly continuous thread of memes between different religion except when the entire population was wiped out.

I read about memes being like a mind virus.

So I think, if what you’re saying, religion can be seen as an evolving meme passed on through each generation, in much the same way as languages and cultures branch out, evolve and shift overtime.

So to ask how did the first religion “fail” would be like asking how did the first language fail? Maybe the first religion hasn’t died as such, it’s just evolved into different religions. Bit like Latin is now Italian and Spanish etc.

Yes. And the analogy might be more useful to think of religion as a package of memes, than all the things from one religion seen as one meme. At risk of extending the analogy with evolution too far, I think religion is also subject to the red queen hypothesis, where it must change to keep up with other faiths in competition--a continuing arms race for those few people who actually get exposed and get to choice religions. (most stick with the one they are born to). Of course those adaptations might be picking up a prominent figure from one religion as their own or perhaps the date for a similar ceremony etc.

As we evolve and our social constructs evolve, so to our religions.

With kings PMs and presidents, etc..., we seem to be stuck in a "one leader" construct, so, borrowing from Melville:

There is one God that is Lord over the earth, and one Captain
that is lord over the Pequod

We cannot "know" GOD, so our construct "god" reflects our social constructs.

Originally Posted by sculptor

As we evolve and our social constructs evolve, so to our religions.

With kings PMs and presidents, etc..., we seem to be stuck in a "one leader" construct, so, borrowing from Melville:

There is one God that is Lord over the earth, and one Captain
that is lord over the Pequod

We cannot "know" GOD, so our construct "god" reflects our social constructs.

You mean we build God as is deemed by society? Like God changes as technology changes and our knowledge of things increases? I won't argue with that but I don't see why if God was determined to exist in history back (my favorite Mad Max term) then how can He be changed? Unless God is growing up, you'd think He would still be the guy everybody knew back then. What's changing the God telling us that we don't seem to get?

Can you please explain further about the one captin and lord of the earth#

Originally Posted by merumario

Can you please explain further about the one captin and lord of the earth#

aw gee
do I gotta?

......................
short answer
It has to do with perspective,... .

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So far the consensus seems to be that the first religion is still here, evolving and branching off into different versions of itself, akin to the evolutionary tree. It adapts to the social conditions of the era I assume.

Only today have I learned that Pope Francis is ready to dilute the witch-hunt against gays, is prepared to lessen the opposition to abortion and contraception, and even reach out to women!! Now there's progress and it's only taken them 2 millennia. In other words it's about as slow as biological evolution.

I will believe it when it occurs. I don't see the Catholic Church changing. They forgot allowing priests to marry. I find it ironic that Catholic friends had to go to a priest for pre-marriage "counseling". HOW in the WORLD does he have a CLUE!

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So far the consensus seems to be that the first religion is still here, evolving and branching off into different versions of itself, akin to the evolutionary tree. It adapts to the social conditions of the era I assume.

Only today have I learned that Pope Francis is ready to dilute the witch-hunt against gays, is prepared to lessen the opposition to abortion and contraception, and even reach out to women!! Now there's progress and it's only taken them 2 millennia. In other words it's about as slow as biological evolution.

I will believe it when it occurs. I don't see the Catholic Church changing. They forgot allowing priests to marry. I find it ironic that Catholic friends had to go to a priest for pre-marriage "counseling". HOW in the WORLD does he have a CLUE!

All this years this ain't occurred to me. But there might be how!

Originally Posted by merumario

I will believe it when it occurs. I don't see the Catholic Church changing. They forgot allowing priests to marry. I find it ironic that Catholic friends had to go to a priest for pre-marriage "counseling". HOW in the WORLD does he have a CLUE!

All this years this ain't occurred to me. But there might be how![/QUOTE]

I am sorry, I am not understanding.

damn I can't get this quote thing down...

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

I will believe it when it occurs. I don't see the Catholic Church changing. They forgot allowing priests to marry. I find it ironic that Catholic friends had to go to a priest for pre-marriage "counseling". HOW in the WORLD does he have a CLUE!

All this years this ain't occurred to me. But there might be how!

I am sorry, I am not understanding.[/QUOTE]

I meant;it never occurred to me about catholics going to priest that aren't married for marriage counseling#

While at first glance it might seem odd, one doesn't have to experience something to know about it--one doesn't need to be a drug addict to provide addiction treatment counseling, nor a someone who just lost a spouse to do grief counseling, nor a tornado to study mesoscale convective systems.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While at first glance it might seem odd, one doesn't have to experience something to know about it--one doesn't need to be a drug addict to provide addiction treatment counseling, nor a someone who just lost a spouse to do grief counseling, nor a tornado to study mesoscale convective systems.

The above is true for most cases#

It was invented.

Originally Posted by shlunka

It was invented.

What did they invent?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So far the consensus seems to be that the first religion is still here, evolving and branching off into different versions of itself, akin to the evolutionary tree. It adapts to the social conditions of the era I assume. It's sort of like the Galapagos finches, different beaks but still a finch (stand to be corrected). At various times throughout history a branch has fallen off but in some weird way this happenstance creates new growth and the dead limb is replaced by several new shoots.

Personally I like the idea of agnostics being the originator of the God idea. It makes more sense to me that before theism got rolling, the prevailing attitude was that perhaps there was a god but with absolutely no assurances. Humans are smarter than the average bear so I would hope the first ideas of a god were born out of sensible thinking, not blind acceptance. However human nature seems to have a way of reversing that trend and here we are.

It makes sense that there would be some kernel of truth behind there being a "Religion Zero" that was a predecessor to all religions. I also think, however, there is a strong possibility that the first religion isn't necessarily the origin of all succeeding religions. You really have to consider how long it would take a religion to disseminate over a large area. I mean if different clans are covering an area over 3 000 kilometers in size, how could Religion Zero possibly gain so much popularity before a conflicting religion even begins to take shape?

If we think about what qualities a human might attribute to a deity, I'm sure everyone could agree flora, fauna, climate, and geography could play major roles in its creation. I don't think it's likely that an ocean deity would have much of any significance to a clan living deep in a continent, say on flatlands or something like that. I just find it more likely that a clan whose ranges are along a forest would develop a belief system before any contact with a first religion that developed elsewhere. I'd even bet that competition amongst different clans would also play major role in the formation of religions:

If Clan A and Clan B are in competition with one another, what would Clan B think of Clan A's god? And if Clan A's religion was the very first, how would Clan B react? In spite, or with willingness to adopt the belief system?

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So far the consensus seems to be that the first religion is still here, evolving and branching off into different versions of itself, akin to the evolutionary tree. It adapts to the social conditions of the era I assume.

Only today have I learned that Pope Francis is ready to dilute the witch-hunt against gays, is prepared to lessen the opposition to abortion and contraception, and even reach out to women!! Now there's progress and it's only taken them 2 millennia. In other words it's about as slow as biological evolution.

I will believe it when it occurs. I don't see the Catholic Church changing. They forgot allowing priests to marry. I find it ironic that Catholic friends had to go to a priest for pre-marriage "counseling". HOW in the WORLD does he have a CLUE!

The Catholic Church is losing members in various places around the world, so it has to change or face losing power and being marginalised. Most religions that have existed on earth have failed. The Romans worshipped various gods including Mithras. When he let them down in war that was the end of him and the Christian god was seen as a better bet to preserve the empire. But like St. Augustine commented, there was no real difference between the worship of a pagan god and the Christian version.
Does the celibate priest understand marriage? In one aspect he probably does because he sees a lot of people and becomes like an agony uncle. These guys are a lot smarter and wiser than you think. I was a catholic once before I realised there was no god up there.

Originally Posted by ox

These guys are a lot smarter and wiser than you think.

Anonymous Priest, "Yes Mrs Smith, little Billy will be alright with me. "

They are no smarter than you or I but what they do have is the trust of the flock.

When he let them down in war that was the end of him

Where did the Catholic God let them down?

cath·o·lic
/ˈkaTH(ə)lik/

adjective: catholic; adjective: Catholic
including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.

synonyms:
universal, diverse, diversified, wide, broad, broad-based, eclectic, liberal, latitudinarian;
comprehensive, all-encompassing, all-embracing, all-inclusive

.................
defining "human" comes into play

Do you believe in the "genetic bottleneck" said to have been about 70kybp?
Was it before or after this bottleneck that we interbred with neanderthalensis and denisovans?
Did they have religion(s) which interbred with the sapiens sapiens religion(s?) creating a catholic(not roman catholic) religion?
Does the origin of religion go back to our supposed universal precursor, heidelbergensis?
Or does it lie even farther in the past?

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

I will believe it when it occurs. I don't see the Catholic Church changing. They forgot allowing priests to marry. I find it ironic that Catholic friends had to go to a priest for pre-marriage "counseling". HOW in the WORLD does he have a CLUE!

All this years this ain't occurred to me. But there might be how!

I am sorry, I am not understanding.

I meant;it never occurred to me about catholics going to priest that aren't married for marriage counseling#[/QUOTE]

How can you counsel on what you don't know?

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So far the consensus seems to be that the first religion is still here, evolving and branching off into different versions of itself, akin to the evolutionary tree. It adapts to the social conditions of the era I assume.

Only today have I learned that Pope Francis is ready to dilute the witch-hunt against gays, is prepared to lessen the opposition to abortion and contraception, and even reach out to women!! Now there's progress and it's only taken them 2 millennia. In other words it's about as slow as biological evolution.

I will believe it when it occurs. I don't see the Catholic Church changing. They forgot allowing priests to marry. I find it ironic that Catholic friends had to go to a priest for pre-marriage "counseling". HOW in the WORLD does he have a CLUE!

The Catholic Church is losing members in various places around the world, so it has to change or face losing power and being marginalised. Most religions that have existed on earth have failed. The Romans worshipped various gods including Mithras. When he let them down in war that was the end of him and the Christian god was seen as a better bet to preserve the empire. But like St. Augustine commented, there was no real difference between the worship of a pagan god and the Christian version.
Does the celibate priest understand marriage? In one aspect he probably does because he sees a lot of people and becomes like an agony uncle. These guys are a lot smarter and wiser than you think. I was a catholic once before I realised there was no god up there.

Left the Catholic faith at the age of 14.

The priest was screwing the organ player (ironic isn't it). Didn't find anything there for me but some nice music........years later my parents became ordained Pentecostal ministers...talk about a swing!

I like nature.....that is where I find my solace and my peace when I need to look at something. I simply go to the ocean or the mountains or, the golf course, which is peaceful, quiet and beautiful ....and reflect....while walking.

Just for clarity the prenuptial counseling is rather routine and not developed by the priest--he's a trusted messenger. It's a lot easier and required less skill than marriage counseling that might be needed later. And most priest have extensive counseling training and experience along the way--between their undergraduate degree, seminary and experiences before their ordination.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Just for clarity the prenuptial counseling is rather routine and not developed by the priest--he's a trusted messenger. It's a lot easier and required less skill than marriage counseling that might be needed later. And most priest have extensive counseling training and experience along the way--between their undergraduate degree, seminary and experiences before their ordination.

Fair enough, but they should be allowed to marry.....then they'd get the 360 of the entire experience!

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Just for clarity the prenuptial counseling is rather routine and not developed by the priest--he's a trusted messenger. It's a lot easier and required less skill than marriage counseling that might be needed later. And most priest have extensive counseling training and experience along the way--between their undergraduate degree, seminary and experiences before their ordination.

Fair enough, but they should be allowed to marry.....then they'd get the 360 of the entire experience!

After all have been said and agreed,does it really imply that most people who are married are good counselors? Or better than priest?

The experience of the priest doesn't really need to be subjective. It can arise from series of marriage problems that he has helped out with.....that kind of experience despite being unmarried is invaluable#

This is merely a hypothesis.

Let's first lay out some (well accepted) definitions:

religion - a belief system.
theism - a belief in God.

If we look at the current state of society religions seem to be associated with tradition and isolation, the west is predominately Christian, the Arab world predominately Islam; these theological systems are rooted in centuries of development that were developed independently of one another for a variety of reasons.

I would say that the reasons below are reasonable assumptions although none of them may be true:
- Establish a social hierarchy and a way of obtaining unchallenged authority (obviously incredibly important when we moved from hunting to agriculture).
- To explain natural phenomena.
- To establish a complex mythological system deriving from cultural traditions (e.g in the case of the Greeks) usually to do the above.
- Because they actually believe in the existence in God or Gods.
- Rituals and superstitous behaviour in general.

I would say that some religions have disappered due to them not being flexible enough to establish a social hierarchy, not good enough to explain natural phenomena, lost as a result of conquest or because the original individuals no longer believed it themselves.

We must remember that theological systems are not like science in that they do not really progress in the manner of science but rather extend in terms of understanding through hermeneutics. Since interpretation is often subjective there has been much divide in existing religions as many more people have become literate and have challenged orthodox views.

We do not know who the first theists are; remember that most theological systems now are dependent on sacred scripture which probably wasn't around at the time (certainly if they did no fragments remain), the first theists were likely those who were just incredibly superstitous, finding the truth through faith is always a leap and I would agree that to do so we should look at the historical context, but we do not have any remaining fragments, it's likely that if they had a theological system it was precisely what started to appear in sacred texts.

This isn't an incredibly coherent response so for that I do apologise, but I will conclude by restating some of the above in a more comprehendable manner, the main points are: a) the first theological system can not be pinpointed, b) the first theological system would have been oral (or maybe expressed through paintings, stone etc, no fragments really survive though), c) modern day theological systems most likely derive from tradition and oral legend that was eventually written, d) if they don't it's likely because the people who believed in such a religion were killed or had different views imposed on them, e) religion is an excellent way of establishing a social hierarchy and obedience.

Originally Posted by Trivium

This is merely a hypothesis.


I would say that some religions have disappered due to them not being flexible enough to establish a social hierarchy, not good enough to explain natural phenomena, lost as a result of conquest or because the original individuals no longer believed it themselves.

I'm thinking that the first people to establish a hierarchy for their religion are responsible for much of what we see today. Passed down through generations it has become acceptable to not only embrace but obey those in charge. After that, power does its thing.

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Just for clarity the prenuptial counseling is rather routine and not developed by the priest--he's a trusted messenger. It's a lot easier and required less skill than marriage counseling that might be needed later. And most priest have extensive counseling training and experience along the way--between their undergraduate degree, seminary and experiences before their ordination.

Fair enough, but they should be allowed to marry.....then they'd get the 360 of the entire experience!

After all have been said and agreed,does it really imply that most people who are married are good counselors? Or better than priest?

The experience of the priest doesn't really need to be subjective. It can arise from series of marriage problems that he has helped out with.....that kind of experience despite being unmarried is invaluable#

Maybe not BETTER counselors, but as far as living a married life day to day as a couple and living the life of a priest, I don't believe a priest has the capacity to understand that kind of relationship.

AND I certainly don't think a priest could COUNSEL you on sexual problems in a marriage. He doesn't have HANDS ON, so to speak experience of that type of intimacy!

Originally Posted by babe

He doesn't have HANDS ON, so to speak experience of that type of intimacy!

(looking up)
In the name of the father, spirit and holy ghost...help me resist temptation!...

Sorry :-)

I do agree with you babe.... few clergy have sufficient training to deal with the day to day marriage counseling, which takes far more skills than prenuptial counseling. Next chance I get I'll ask someone still close to the Catholic church what they do now days.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by merumario

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Just for clarity the prenuptial counseling is rather routine and not developed by the priest--he's a trusted messenger. It's a lot easier and required less skill than marriage counseling that might be needed later. And most priest have extensive counseling training and experience along the way--between their undergraduate degree, seminary and experiences before their ordination.

Fair enough, but they should be allowed to marry.....then they'd get the 360 of the entire experience!

After all have been said and agreed,does it really imply that most people who are married are good counselors? Or better than priest?

The experience of the priest doesn't really need to be subjective. It can arise from series of marriage problems that he has helped out with.....that kind of experience despite being unmarried is invaluable#

Maybe not BETTER counselors, but as far as living a married life day to day as a couple and living the life of a priest, I don't believe a priest has the capacity to understand that kind of relationship.

AND I certainly don't think a priest could COUNSEL you on sexual problems in a marriage. He doesn't have HANDS ON, so to speak experience of that type of intimacy!

Agree with you babe just as lynx fox said,I try and ask around#

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by babe

He doesn't have HANDS ON, so to speak experience of that type of intimacy!

(looking up)
In the name of the father, spirit and holy ghost...help me resist temptation!...

Sorry :-)

I do agree with you babe.... few clergy have sufficient training to deal with the day to day marriage counseling, which takes far more skills than prenuptial counseling. Next chance I get I'll ask someone still close to the Catholic church what they do now days.

From those I know who still do Catholic church and marriage about the same as they always have!

As to the "hands on" *chuckle*....my mind went there too!