At 3/11/07 05:06 PM, Peter-II wrote:
Clocking in at less replies than such informative topics as Ive been thinking..., Anti-Terrorist Images and home work what do u think! Perhaps the BBS thought that because of this topic's title, it was yet another anti-Islam / anti-Pagan / anti-science rant and ended up being disappointed?
We can only hope.
The various ways in which Yahweh is presented conflict more extremely, though (correct me if I'm wrong). We have the epiphany Yahweh who has dinner with Abraham and wrestles with Jacob, and the murderous Yahweh who can't be looked at (upon pain of death) and inflicts the plague upon Egypt and drowns the soldiers while they were chasing the Hebrews.
True... he certainly does seem much more willing to cull the herd, so to speak, back then. And it's interesting that God himself should come down to Earth, or give himself an earthly appendage (one wonders if it is noodly), which is somewhat conflicting with his eventual transformation into a much more "distant" ruler of the universe, and the event so strikingly uinique that it spawned an entirely new religion, the sending of his son (who is really him, I guess... can't really wrap my head around that redneck family tree, but whatever :P) to earth.
Then again, several Hindu gods have made several earthly appearances, in the forms of men, turtles, cows (hense their holiness). Brahman (sub-brahman, not big brahman... hard to explain) especially was known for this, and his appearance as a tortoise on the banks of the *coughcantremember* River, is still venerated as one of the most holy places in India.
But I digress. Maybe it was a way to mitigate all the fire and brimstone and frogs that they told these stories of their god tussling and eating with the people, showing them that he DID have a gentler side when they did what he asked.
May have been, but it's far more likely IMO that Abraham adopted the Canaanite god El, considering he was living in Canaan at the time, bears many similarites to El of Bethel and introduces himself as "El of the mountain".
Heh, now that's interesting... copping someone else's god and metamorphosing him into your own. Sneaky...
Ah yes, the god Yeshua...of course, it's interesting to see why Christians believe why Yeshua is god, considering he never claimed it himself. The disciples call him the Lord in the gospels, but even that's a little fishy...the Christian church hadn't decided on the role of Yeshua until the 4th century AD.
Wow, would it be interesting to be a fly on the wall for THAT discussion! Maybe they figured he couldn't be the son of god without himself being divine, and thus a part of god, himself? Eh, I can only speculate.
Possibly, although Yahweh was incredibly jealous, as several Torah verses seem to state - in fact, Yahweh seems to hate all goyims (Jeremiah 10).
Well, shit, what if some pussy god came into your pad and was all like "I made that shit"? A GOD can't stand for that kind of crap, he's got a reputation to maintain. You let them get away with that, then every Odin, Loki and Vishnu thinks they're all that, and then people start believing THEM, that THEY made the earth... aw, HELL no!
At 3/11/07 06:34 PM, Imperator wrote:
First off, PROPS to this thread! Even though it's public, I have a feeling (evidence growing) that it will in fact be fairly "private" in nature.....
Danke... let us hope!
THAT would be a very substantial theory, because it would then denote that religious thought not only has a hierarchy, but an evolution and succession, starting with polytheism being the most "barbaric" of religious practices.
One wonders then at the growing deist and atheistic movements (while nonbelief in a deity is hardly new, it's widespread appeal and general acceptance by the public most certainly is). Maybe it is just the next step in an ever-evolving religious meme.
But then we look at Hinduism, which just tosses most of that out the window. Either that, or they're more enlightened than we ever gave them credit for. Hinduism is seen as purely polytheistic. However, their 3 top-teir gods (Vishnu, Shiva and Brahman) are still subordinate to their main god. It, like the Greek one, is hard to define because it is not often talked about. They basically believe that Brahman (the only name I can find for it, and it is distinct from the other Brahman, the one who was a turtle... gotta love the hindus...) is this omnipotent force that permeates the universe and everything else. they give it VERY few actual features... no omnibenevolence or anything like that. Their basic philosophy is that such a god is so alien to the human psyche, that noone can easily relate to it. So they use the lesser gods (Vishnu, Shiva, Littlebrahman, Ganesha, , et al) to give the people something more personal, with whom they can more easily relate, to get them closer to enlightenment, to understanding Brahman. they see other religions as the same thing... we're not wrong we just use a different catalyst for our attempts to understand and know God/Brahman. It is as though, even with different characteristics, all of the gods in the world are a part of the same divine energy. We just choose to view them (or we are only ABLE to do so) through these "lesser" forms.
You could also pull up sacred chickens, oracular (is this even a word?) predictions, Roman rules regulating fighting around religion (superstitiions), Roman declaration of war, and even the little known aspect of the "true" name of the city of Rome as superstitious rituals for a compare and contrast to faerie tales as types of pseudo-religious beliefs.
Ok, now my curiosity hath been peaked.
Sacred CHICKENS? I mean I know about hindus and their cows (they really do love their moomoos), but romans and chickens?