The Faith & Religion mega Thread

I respect your viewpoints on "prophecy." I do not entirely share them, but I will not engage you concerning this topic.

Also – I personally do not consider any religion to be "true" nor "false." Religion has been a very fundamental part of humanity ever since there were stars in the sky. It is a treasured part of who and what we all are; a thing to be prized and respected.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I respect your viewpoints on "prophecy." I do not entirely share them, but I will not engage you concerning this topic. Also – I personally do not consider any religion to be "true" nor "false." Religion has been a very fundamental part of humanity ever since there were stars in the sky. It is a treasured part of who and what we all are; a thing to be prized and respected.

I'm pleasantly surprised that you respect my views on prophecy. I'm throwing out fulfillments like I was reading the Da Vinci code, and I'm not surprised you don't share them. You'd be credulous if you did. Faith is built on a foundation, and someone has to build that foundation in you, if you want it. My foundation got built 1974-1976, and there's been lots of additions & a few updates since.

Religion, or worship goes all the way back in man's history, to be sure. But there is true and false religion, although not everyone finds the true or recognizes it when he does. Look at it this way: Consider the creation, the gentle nature of pets,the beauty in a sunset, hear a dawn chorus, and ask what these things tell you about God. Most of us will agree He (God) is a nice guy from considering those things. Then look at religious doctrines; does a God who permits eternal torture of wayward folks sound like a nice guy? Those wayward folks could be your wife, your family. Would you be happy in your eternal reward knowing your nearest & dearest were in unending agony? No nice guy there!

It becomes clear that lies are being told and everything is not going according to the original plan. This may be better on PM, but our view on it is that there is true religion, and EVERYTHING else is false. The false ones are pictured in Revelation 17, but Revelation is like the answers in the back of the maths book: if you have studied the book, the answers make sense.

I really am not actively trying to offend anyone but this probably will. I'd really like to understand why fundamentalists think it makes sense that God is a He. Do you think a God must have gender and does that mean he engages in Sex? and if so, with whom? If not, why gender? Or, does it make more sense that the writers of the Bible were more human-centric and assumed a leader is most likely Male?

Weirdly enough, non-Christian religions (like those which were fighted by "Christian" "missionaries" with weapons because they did not have any good arguments for their "God") did have female leaders.

Originally Posted by enorbet I really am not actively trying to offend anyone but this probably will. I'd really like to understand why fundamentalists think it makes sense that God is a He. Do you think a God must have gender and does that mean he engages in Sex? and if so, with whom? If not, why gender? Or, does it make more sense that the writers of the Bible were more human-centric and assumed a leader is most likely Male?

No offence, God is definitely not a 'He,' but I am following the convention of using the male pronoun. In many lands women were not viewed as able to protect themselves, and were bought and sold as posessions. Luke 20:35,36 indicates that the Angels (and therefore, probably God) are not married. So whereas the spirit creatures are described as male, organizations are often pictured as women.

I think most modern Christians see the masculinity of God as a convention rather than a real statement about his nature. Personally, as a woman, I like it. I feel the need to worship something that is not like me. Goddess worship has always seemed to me to be like that Nina and Frederick song about the worm who fell in love with his own back end.

But it might be worth pointing out that most of the archetypes of Christ in the Old Testament (or at least those passages which are traditionally read as archetypes) are female, for example Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, and Israel. Actually Israel is both God's Bride and his Son, which will probably shock enorbet.

Originally Posted by business_kid No offence, God is definitely not a 'He,' but I am following the convention of using the male pronoun. In many lands women were not viewed as able to protect themselves, and were bought and sold as posessions. Luke 20:35,36 indicates that the Angels (and therefore, probably God) are not married. So whereas the spirit creatures are described as male, organizations are often pictured as women.

Nephalim? Also apparently "in his own image" has a litany of exceptions, eh?

No hazel. I am not shocked at all. I'm not entirely ignorant, just incredulous.. I've noticed Deus es Machina like "turtles all the way down" in all Myth.

Incidentally I do see the value of Myth or as Jordan Peterson calls them, "The Stories" that civilizations build around themselves as a kind of "social glue" so I don't consider "Myth" to be utterly derogatory, just limited in application.

I think that the Catholics definitely added a "Goddess," named The Virgin Mary. There are many variations of the legends concerning her, but many of them assert that she was truly divine, and that at the end of her life she did not die, but also ascended.

Continuing this thought, there are also legends that describe a vengeful, vindictive, ruthless Christ who wants to destroy everything and who would do so except that He must obey his Mother. People pray, not to Christ but to Mary, asking Her to "intercede" for them. Roman state religions prior to Christianity had similar ideas concerning e.g. Hera and Zeus.

Catholicism has very wide international "territory" and with it many theological variants. Some have extremely obvious parallels to the regional "pagan" belief systems that they either replaced or were superimposed on top of. It's all very interesting, and not at all easy to explain or describe. Were they not all "under one roof," they'd likely best be described as entirely separate and distinct religious systems. Not all "Catholics" worldwide believe or act the same way.

Originally Posted by enorbet Incidentally I do see the value of Myth or as Jordan Peterson calls them, "The Stories" that civilizations build around themselves as a kind of "social glue" so I don't consider "Myth" to be utterly derogatory, just limited in application.

C S Lewis once wrote that "God became man" implies "Myth became fact". He argued that the resonances of traditional hero myths in the life of Christ are just what we ought to expect if Christianity is true. But he also pointed out that the Christ story originated among the Jews, the only people of their time who never used that kind of mythological language and who therefore were the least likely of all people to make up such stories.

One moment in particular stands out. A corn king, the only corn king who might conceivably have been historical, takes bread into his hands and says, "This is my body". Surely here if nowhere else, the truth should come out, the connection between the dying god and the annual drama of the crops. But not a bit of it! It's almost as though he didn't know what he was saying.

Originally Posted by enorbet Nephalim? Also apparently "in his own image" has a litany of exceptions, eh?

/Sigh. Seeing as you ask, and not because I intend to prove it scientifically, or convert you:

Adam & Eve were made in God's image. After the rebellion in Genesis 3, they lost that perfection. Some of the consequences were laid out, e.g. death: Genesis 3:19 "…For dust you are and to dust you will return." As Romans 5:12 makes clear, Cain & Abel only had the imperfection passed on by their parents.

Another rebellion took place as laid out in Genesis 6:2-4. Apparently some angels materialised fleshly bodies, intermarried with humans, and the children borne to them were hybrids called Nephilim or "Fellers" (of men). Hybrids like the Nephilim were are usually infertile. So with the angels taking any woman they fancied (married or not), and their bullying ill-disciplined offspring, the earth became 'filled with violence.'

Neither the materialised angels, their imperfect wives or bullying offspring were perfect. As Ecclesiastes 7:29 observes: "This alone I have found: The true God made mankind upright, but they have sought out many schemes." I think that explains the litany of exceptions. It was not in God's plan to have humans decrepit after 70 or 80 years.

Most of these things are alluded to many times in Scripture, but I'm trying as usual to give one simple clear reference just to show there is Scriptural support.for my view. But just because I quote one verse doesn't mean there is only one verse; that's my point.

Thanks guys. I am a bit curious since many ancient religions actually have their deities procreating in the human manner... or close to it. It's a bit difficult to tell if Leda and the Swan are to be taken literally or as allegory or just some manner of politeness or prudishness uncommon back then, or simply as poetic imagery. I am more confused about Gilgamesh who was deified after he had died but what that deification implies for his forebears (not to be confused with The 3 Bears ) since apparently his grandfather as I recall locked up his wife so she would not ever become pregnant, and though I don't recall how she did or by whom, her baby was reportedly tossed out the tower window but saved by an eagle.

Another chapter/"series of events" really hard to grasp regarding sexuality is of course the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. IIRC angels appeared at Lot's door seeking sexual congress and he offered his daughters. I suppose they got even later in the cave by getting their Father drunk and seducing him.

Soap Opera's have nothing on Mythology. A Literature professor of mine once stated the 3 main successful topics of Literature are Sex, Money and Murder. Apparently the ancients knew this as far back as anyone could ever tell. It's probably instinctive. It just got somewhat less obvious and more figurative or hidden by The Middle Ages... well at least the Sex and Money parts.

Originally Posted by enorbet Another chapter/"series of events" really hard to grasp regarding sexuality is of course the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. IIRC angels appeared at Lot's door seeking sexual congress and he offered his daughters. I suppose they got even later in the cave by getting their Father drunk and seducing him.

Not quite! According to the Bible, the angels came to Sodom to check up on the stories they had heard about the place. It had acquired a bad reputation. Unfortunately the man who gave them shelter wasn't a citizen but a resident alien and such people had few rights. When the citizens heard that this foreigner was sheltering other foreigners, they concluded that the men were spies and a mob gathered outside Lot's house demanding that they be brought out to be gang-raped.

In those days, wars were brutal, nasty and short. You killed the warriors and then raped their women. But spies were not warriors so you could rape them too if you caught them.

Lot offered his daughters instead, evidently believing that if anybody was going to get raped, better a woman than a man. This has always struck me as remarkable honesty on the part of the biblical writer. Because when push comes to shove, men will protect each other. Even decent men who would never commit rape themselves still believe that it is somehow less serious, less traumatic, if it happens to a woman rather than to one of themselves. The angels however would have none of this and simply struck everybody blind so that nobody got raped in the end. And the city whose culture produced this nasty xenophobic mob was totally destroyed.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I think that the Catholics definitely added a "Goddess," named The Virgin Mary. There are many variations of the legends concerning her, but many of them assert that she was truly divine, and that at the end of her life she did not die, but also ascended. Continuing this thought, there are also legends that describe a vengeful, vindictive, ruthless Christ who wants to destroy everything and who would do so except that He must obey his Mother. People pray, not to Christ but to Mary, asking Her to "intercede" for them. Roman state religions prior to Christianity had similar ideas concerning e.g. Hera and Zeus. Catholicism has very wide international "territory" and with it many theological variants. Some have extremely obvious parallels to the regional "pagan" belief systems that they either replaced or were superimposed on top of. It's all very interesting, and not at all easy to explain or describe. Were they not all "under one roof," they'd likely best be described as entirely separate and distinct religious systems. Not all "Catholics" worldwide believe or act the same way.

This is interesting, so I'll answer it at the risk of offending some folks. The Roman State Religion (later 'The Church', later Catholics) didn't add a Godess; they imported not one, but several in fact. It's best to start where post-Flood paganism began, according to the best information. The Bible doesn't dwell on it, so I won't defend it beyond saying what I am laying out is my best reading of the sources. None of it touches on my Scriptural beliefs.

Subsequent to the Flood, Genesis 11 briefly records the events at the tower of Babel. The Flood & The Tower of Babel were also recorded in the history of Josephus (Antiquities Book 1) Chapters 3, & 4, a bevvy of ancient historians, and the tower itself has been researched by George Howard a guy from some UK University. Also good evidence is a 19th century Baron Henry Rawlinson, who translated the Behistun inscription, rediscovering two dead languages in the process. When you piece this information with some early bits of Alexander Hislop's "The two Babylons…" (1924 version) you get the following scenario.

Nimrod set himself up as a pagan God or intermediary. The original name of Babel [e-temen-anki] indicates the tower was a 'gateway to the heavens.' Probably sex worship with his wife was the main rite and a child followed at some stage. This was the original trinity - Nimrod, his wife, & son (= Nimrod reborn). Nimrod met an early demise (Hislop recorded Nimrod was killed by Noah's son Shem in an attempt to kill off false worship), so it became Mother & Son worship (sound familiar?). After Nimrod's death, False worship retreated into 'mysteries,' which you had to be initiated into. Confession was also invented, perhaps as insurance. Then languages were confused, and people spread about, taking their false worship with them in their various languages & scripts. Mother & son worship is common with a distant Father figure.

Concerning the focal point from which the spreading of ancient languages began, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Oriental language scholar, observed: "If we were to be thus guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated." -The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britian and Ireland, London, 1855, Vol. 15, p. 232.

I have personally checked that quote on archive.org. It has the archives of the Royal Asiatic Society & the Smithsonian Institute, but I am not digging out links!

The Old Testament has the names of many pagan gods, including "the queen of the heavens" (Jeremiah 44:16-19). The pagan mother Goddess with child was in fact in Egypt and nearly Universal. 'Communion with the Gods' was a common worship ritual. Madonna(& child) statues have also been found in India, & Africa.

Fast forward to Roman times, and the Romans simply imported any important God into their pantheon, renaming him/her. Chief God among the Romans was Mithras, the Roman Sun-God (also a Trinity). Not surprisingly, Catholics have a hymn, "Hail Queen of Heaven" (scroll down for lyrics). The first verse at least sounds as if it could have been sung by pagan sailors. In the fourth century, there was a 'meeting of minds' between pagan & (already apostate) "Christian" systems, most of these pagan figureheads got in to Christianity somehow. In this arranged marriage, Paganism seemed to get the rites & symbols, but Christianity got the brand names.

Stop and ask yourself: Why is the Body & Blood of Jesus served up as round whitened compressed disks? And why use a monstrance for showing it off? Hasn't that more to do with Sun worship? Christians had no birthdays, but suddenly in the 4th century we got the birthday of Jesus on the Big day of the Roman Saturtnalia ("Birth of the Invincible Sun"). But I'll stop there, because this will be hard to take for some folks.

@enorbet: The only insight I can offer on Lot's daughters was that the crowd were male homosexuals, and the daughters were engaged to folks there. Perhaps Lot was trying to divide the loyalties of the crowd of opposers?

It is my understanding that one method of convincing pagans to convert was by incorporation. Holiday dates were sometimes transposed to coincide with revered pagan holidays to provide a "bridge" for pagans to embrace a new religion. Such events are extremely difficult to verify since verifying the birth of Jesus of Nazareth is complicated by many factors not the least of which is while it seems highly likely that Jesus was an actual individual, it can't be proven since Roman records on Jews were sparse and Jewish written records at that time were nearly non-existent (not to mention provincial). It is further complicated by the disparity of description between the accounts of apostles, not to mention the alteration of accounts far more common than just the Council of Nicea. That was easily accomplished during the many centuries in which illiteracy was absolutely common.

However astronomical events, assuming the 3 Wise Men account is real, were very accurately kept in The East so if those are true it seems like sometime around June is likely. The exact year is a bit harder. Few civilizations had important holidays in June back then but almost all of them had important events around Winter Solstice. It seems that iirc Christmas in ~350 AD was formalized to coincide with the much older Candlemas which coincided with several pagan Solstice holidays, including but not limited to Saturnalia.

I'm not saying the motivation for transposing dates was entirely self-serving and deceptive, but it was a component. I recall reading about Guy Fawkes and that a common complaint, even actual legal complaints, against Jesuits circa 1600 was their justification for lying "for good cause". There was actually a specific term used by Jesuits for the practice but I have long forgotten it. That happens when many decades pass