While you have your reasons for your beliefs, they are still beliefs. Nonetheless I have a simpler explanation - humans frequently traveled to other nation-states on horseback, saw these religions and adopted them as their own.
This sounds rather wild. As an agnostic I'm actually open to your claims but I will need to see irrefutable, scientifically testable and verifiable proof for this claim, except I am sure you cannot provide any. Still, that is quite the imaginative and speculative theory you've concocted. It was entertaining to say the least.
I agree 100%. Let's say hypothetically that we both agree there is a creator, and that we both agree with what you just said. What can we deduce then about the Creator?
In Norse Odin (that is to say Whotan, Whotanaz, Oski) bound Loki (Villi in Old Icelandic - which is where we drive "villain" from historically) to the world tree for 1000 years, whom is Cupid in Roman, Lucifer in Greek, Shaitan in Hebrew, Quetzalcoatl in Aztek, etc.
In Biblical yes we all know the story as well. Why would God do these things to humans both directly and indirectly knowing what Satan will do and also do in return to humans?
I think to answer you question in a hypothetical sense, is to say God is not what most people perceive him as, and thus hold silly interpretations of this goody-two-shoes personification.
In all prechristian as well as Christianity, God is seen as a destroyer, a warrior, a killer, a violent God with a harsh temper. He created thorns to inflict pain, created domestic violence in Genesis between Adam and Eve, gave us diseases, limits our lifespans to 120 years, and more. I would say that God is no more evil than Satan, but the fact remains that God created Satan, was more powerful, and retained power and control over Satan, as well as humans recorded in Norse and Greek with the great war. I would deduce that all evil that comes to humans, is from God either directly or from Satan which God allows or even encouraged considering the free reign explained throughout written texts that God gave him (Satan).
Are you familiar with Zoroastrianism? If I'm not mistaken that's what Ahura Mazda was described as, a violent God. If I remember correctly I believe Angra Mainyu was his "evil" counterpart, correct? I must say that if my memory serves me right then your beliefs are indeed cross-cultural. Now this is really piquing my interest. And regarding Christianity, both Jesus and Jehovah are all-good, at least according to modern-day iterations. Is that viewpoint also mistaken?
scruffypup
Tourist
Well the universe exists, and there may be more than one.
There might be a god, there might be many gods, there might be no gods, I don't really mind not knowing unlike some people. Is it even an important question to worry about? It seems like a lot of energy is wasted on trying to answer a question nobody really has any definitive proof of. I doubt animals worry about this question, which makes me think we shouldn't either as we're animals too.
Having said that though I think the closest thing to a god might very well be the concept of "life" and "death". Its not exactly an entity, (does it even need to be?) but rather a state such as existing or not existing. As a result of this, most of us probably prefer to worship "life" because of natural instinct to preserve our current state.
That can extend to further things such and questions like "Well, what do I need, to remain alive?" One thing we know is that our existence has some fairly specific requirements. There is a reason humans cannot live on the Moon, or Mars or some other planet with a different environment (without aids).
I think the closest thing to sacrilegious behavior, would be the desecration of the environment we require to exist.
There might be a god, there might be many gods, there might be no gods, I don't really mind not knowing unlike some people. Is it even an important question to worry about? It seems like a lot of energy is wasted on trying to answer a question nobody really has any definitive proof of. I doubt animals worry about this question, which makes me think we shouldn't either as we're animals too.
Having said that though I think the closest thing to a god might very well be the concept of "life" and "death". Its not exactly an entity, (does it even need to be?) but rather a state such as existing or not existing. As a result of this, most of us probably prefer to worship "life" because of natural instinct to preserve our current state.
That can extend to further things such and questions like "Well, what do I need, to remain alive?" One thing we know is that our existence has some fairly specific requirements. There is a reason humans cannot live on the Moon, or Mars or some other planet with a different environment (without aids).
I think the closest thing to sacrilegious behavior, would be the desecration of the environment we require to exist.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you're familiar with Pascal's wager, but if that truly applies to any kind of possibly existing deity then I certainly do not want to be on the receiving end of a deity's hate.
That is possible yes. But across the oceans...heck it was a voyage for vikings to go to Ireland and thrash Catholic monasteries and written texts...how would such historical records of such chaos of burning other cultures writings and traditions be counteracted with a world wide spread of sharing? That along would be tough to hurdle; I would assume if the whole planet shared ideologies amongst it's ancient civilizations that there would have also been a one world government before the great world flooding that engulfed the lost land of MU (Lemuria) and Atlantis?
If we can create a diagram of the carbon dates of each ancient text, then put them on a timeline and also map their cultural regions from each other based on the time frame of their carbon dates, we would have a chance at your proposal...we would then need to support each corresponding culture to have made some sort of contact with the next by some other historical document or artifact. Certainly not impossible, but even if it were true, it does not defunct the reality of extra-terrestrial, and the fact that God and gods/goddesses are known to be not terrestrial (thus one in the same).
scruffypup
Tourist
If there's no definitive evidence of a deity existing, and they punish you for not blindly believing that kinda makes them the asshole. The other thing also to keep in mind is would a deity even care whether you believe in them or not, that seems like a very "human thought". I would imagine a being on that level wouldn't care. Do we care if a single ant exists? We're not going to get upset if it didn't.
If the environment, or perhaps even a universe was created by a deity though and we went and fucked that up, they might be upset about that though, or once again they might not care, because basic emotions like being angry, or upset might not even apply.
TLDR, live life to the best while you're able to, it is finite and doesn't last forever. Try not to impact the lives of others negatively, and for extra points try to leave something behind that makes life better for others/future people.
It is a misperception. Most Christians have never read the Bible. I have seen many pastors tell their congregation something contrary to the Bible for political motive.
There are countless acts recorded in the Bible of how God is, a loving and slow to anger God capable of forgiveness is not a lie, but it is also the only part most Christians will convey, even when confronted by biblical verses of his other demeanor and characteristics.
I will say that Christ was a bit different in Bible terms, but will conclude this observation with the fact that the Vatican intentionally deprived the whole story from public view. Read the Gospel of Thomas? Can you link the gospel of Thomas to the Elder Edda?
That's not the way of the world, humans have both positive and negative traits to them, and that's totally based on a person's subjectivity. What many people might call negative, others call positive. History has already deemed that as truth - while starving Mongols were led by Genghis Khan to unimaginable wealth for them, various empires were decimated in the process. The Mongols did what they saw as good and the defeated empires saw it as bad - take your pick.
I don't believe that for a second. While I have not read the entirety of the Holy Bible, I have read various stories of God's wrath onto unbelievers, from Egypt to Canaan and Samaria. Samaria was demolished for their unbelief, including infants and pregnant women. The accounts in the book of Hosea were rather detailed, to say the least.
That's what I'm saying. God is not a goody-two-shoes in any version, including biblically.
According to modern Christianity, God is good at all times, even when he is committing atrocious acts. If you are saying that modern day Christians are in error with their claims, I actually find myself agreeing with you.
Christians will try and cover this up when confronted about such things, for advancing the belief and notion of their creator, but what is neglected to be acknowledged is by covering the truth of God's not so goofy side, is a sin. It is a lie, and God only laid down 10 laws for mankind, and this is breaking one of them.
Hmm, I never thought about it that way. But you are totally correct in your observation, they bear false witness to the God they claim to believe in, no? I wonder if that's ignorance on behalf of the masses or intentional misrepresentation by the church. Yikes, now I might start to sound like a conspiracy theorist against the Vatican.
scruffypup
Tourist
That is why I said "try" and I meant overall, it's pretty likely those around you want to live to the best of their ability.
I think to be honest that's cherry picking one particular point in history. Fortunately most of us won't have to make decisions like that with outcomes as significant as that. Thankfully imperialistic invasions are on a decline for most parts of the world in the modern century.
I think one of the ways in deciding whether something is negative is to look at the harm caused. Is the harm caused greater than the reason for doing a thing? Is there an alternative solution? All these things are worth considering.
It is wrong, however what we believe and think, whether we're right or wrong means nothing.
Let us say for example two men are in a locked room. One much stronger than the other. The weaker one believes he is right, while the stronger believes himself correct. Does it matter who is right or wrong when in the end the stronger one will win in a forceful physical altercation? No, because one is stronger, this the stronger one is right, even when they're not.
We see this when Satan was in the garden of Eden. The Devil enlightened Adam through Eve to be aware and intelligent...was what he did wrong? Did God not turn the dragon into a serpent and I exil him all by force?
So to an extent, perhaps mainstream Christians aren't wrong when we get to the point of what God says goes, cause if it comes down to being faced with him one on one, even if he's wrong, he would win because he's more powerful, thus in this sense of perception he is right even if he is wrong, because he is stronger and could beat me to a pulp or shove a thunderbolt up my ass and make my head explode, or shape shifting into a horse and rape me while my ass splits asunder.
Oh my God, that was a hilarious finish to your paragraph. And your statement basically boils down to this: "Might Makes Right." You are correct in your statement, might is what maintains everything, not reason or philosophy.
Is it cherry picking? We can see these same examples playing out to this day. Starving Africans stealing food from their neighbors see that theft as a good thing whereas the victim of the theft sees it as a bad thing. It's all subjective, no man will allow himself to starve to death when he can use whatever means necessary to survive, even when that includes what society has deemed to be criminal behavior.
scruffypup
Tourist
That is a better example because its more a negative and a positive, it's still not the right thing to do though, as you've now taken something from someone else. The thing about right and wrong though is it's quite difficult to isolate a single instance and start from there.
The bigger question is, why is either person hungry in the first place? Why isn't there enough food for both of them?
That's totally irrelevant - my point here is that right and wrong is totally subjective. Zoophilia is another example of this subjectivity, most people would think dog fucking is evil whereas those who engage in it would say it's good.
dartel
Prized Citizen of ZV
"Natural selection has given you the illusion that you understand fundamental reality. But you do no. How could you? Do beetles understand fundamental reality? Do Chimpanzees? You are an animal like them. You evolved like them, you reproduce like them, you have the same basic neural structures. You differ from the chimpanzee by a mere two hundred genes. How could that minuscule difference enable you to comprehend the universe when the chimpanzee cannot even comprehend a grain of sand?"
We understand fundamental reality based on observation. The chimpanzee doesn't understand what a grain of sand is, much less have rational thought. Chimpanzees also fling their own feces at each other whereas most humans would never touch feces outside of employment; chimps do not have language, cannot invent technology as humans have done. Yet humans are still animals, just with a greater sense of understanding. We human animals are the only animals on this planet to have reached the moon and travel to space. The results speak for themselves.
I have a story about a wasp that would change people's opinions on insects themselves.
In due time. That's a big writeup to do in the future
No one denies the intellect of animals, animals just do not have the same understanding of reality as humans do.
What if they do and they play on our assumptions that we assume they do not.
What happens then?.
It's a doggone conspiracy through the beginning of time. The true form of extraterrestrial life on the planet earth
It sounds to me like you watch too much Futurama. There is zero evidence to corroborate this claim and other animal behavior indicates this is not the case, whether that includes chimpanzees hurling their own feces at each other or dogs consuming their own vomit off of the ground.
One argument with my dog just might change that perception of that. You're not capable to smell like they can. They have anal glands and for all we know..... They've been puffing anal doggy Morse code all this time.
Can you decipher scents you smell in the air? I don't think so... So there's a lot to still be learned and hopefully dogs like Bunny on YouTube wil greatly advance what dogs know and their intelligence can be truthfully explored and scientifically proven.
Communicating in a limited manner does not bode as a sign of intelligence nor do enhanced senses.
Well I could say the same about some things on this place. Kind of the point.