Notices
Results 1 to 56 of 56
Like Tree14Likes
  • 2 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By pineapples
  • 2 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 2 Post By sculptor
  • 2 Post By pineapples
  • 1 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By merumario

Thread: What Went Wrong with the First Theistic Religion?

  1. #1 What Went Wrong with the First Theistic Religion? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    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?


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    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?)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    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?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    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)
    zinjanthropos and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    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.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    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.
    pineapples likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    [QUOTE=zinjanthropos;462535]Personally I haven't a clue.
    QUOTE]

    Personally, neither do I.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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.
    zinjanthropos and Lynx_Fox like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Is that a fact?
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    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?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; September 19th, 2013 at 08:21 AM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Is that a fact?
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Is that a fact?
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    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.
    KALSTER and babe like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    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)?
    zinjanthropos and KALSTER like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    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.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    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
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    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!
    zinjanthropos and sculptor like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    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?
    Neverfly likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Can you please explain further about the one captin and lord of the earth#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    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,... .
    zinjanthropos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    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!
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    damn I can't get this quote thing down...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote 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#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    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.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    It was invented.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    It was invented.

    What did they invent?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    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?
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    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?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote 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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    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.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    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.
    Last edited by Trivium; September 23rd, 2013 at 07:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    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.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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#
    babe likes this.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is a religion truly a religion if it has no creation myth?
    By kojax in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: September 14th, 2014, 09:18 AM
  2. Theistic Evolution
    By mrsmile in forum Biology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 12th, 2011, 11:11 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 15th, 2009, 07:23 PM
  4. the R.C.C.* wrong again
    By archaeologist in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 20th, 2009, 04:45 PM
  5. What if we have it wrong....
    By Grizlore in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 9th, 2006, 12:22 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •