Where did it all start?

[cee-dee]

Religion that is?

I was prompted to think of this by a post on the "artifacts" thread with a word that jumped out..... Satan.

Religions often seem connected with the sky, sensational natural events or "something up there" so did it all begin with Man thinking that things "up in the sky" or catastrophic events were controlled by some celestial beings?

Religions that have survived for some thousands of years seem to be somehow connected with vaguely similar beliefs. And then it starts to get complicated..............

Most know how The Serpent (Satan in disguise) tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the Forbidden Fruit but how about The Peacock Angel otherwise known as as Shaitan, or Satan?

God is supposed to have forbidden Adam to eat the Wheat but when The Peacock Angel visited Adam and asked him if he'd eaten the grain, Adam is supposed to have replied "No, God forbade me." The Peacock Angel is then supposed to have persuaded Adam to eat the grain which angered God.

Now The Peacock Angel was supposed to be the first of seven Archangels created by God but fell from favour because after telling the Archangels never to bow to any being, when God created Adam from dust (!!) and was told to bow to Adam, The Peacock Angel refused saying that God had already told him (he's male then?) not to bow to any being. God threw The Peacock Angel in to Hell where he remained for (this is where it gets a bit vague) variously 7,000 or 40,000 years after which time he either quenched the fires of Hell with his tears or filled seven jars with his tears with which he quenched the fires of Hell after which God forgave him and reinstated him.

Now what's all this got to do with Satan or the artifacts thread? Only that I mentioned Göbekli Tepe and that people who revere The Peacock Angel recognise some of the symbols found on some of the stones at Göbekli Tepe so have a think about that convoluted story eh?

[joamur_gosof]

marxism isnt pre science ...only the bbc think that 🙂

marx by the way was a known sponger who could not manage money...hence his scientific quotes on how to manage in a free money to all world of idealism to him.

defining religion is very similar to facism where a group of people control a mass of people with thier own ideas and agendas...but unlike facism there is no one to blame if it all goes t up

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@joamur_gosof wrote:

think it is a religion creeky..they have an idle ...buddah

---

It can't be a religion - Buddhists don't believe in a God.

Buddha is not an idol - Buddhists regard Buddha as a teacher - most of whose teachings are totally anti- religious.

These are some of his 'teachings' :-

"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time).

Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations).

Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation).

Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.

Do not accept anything by mere suppositions.

Do not accept anything by mere inference.

Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons.

Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.

Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted).

Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

[joamur_gosof]

ok ta for info...thought they used to boil children for him too ,..not a religion then ,so how do you define religion from followers of...is it purely the invisible teacher bit. ?

[upthecreekyetagain]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary

Religion (noun) -

1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

2) A particular system of faith or worship.

3) A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

Buddhism doesn't fit the first definition as Buddhists don't teach a belief in a supreme being.  Nor do they fit the second definition as Buddha taught his followers to question everything and not accept concepts on the basis of faith.

Arguably they do fit the third modern definition but no more so than than the example given of the use of that definition in the OED - "consumerism is the new religion" - a totally different use of the word 'religion' to the first two definition.

[joamur_gosof]

so it is a religion in the modern sense ? isnt that what you were asking earlier...if religion becomes modern we would all end up with one belief....ie mine ...getting off this ball 😄

[upthecreekyetagain]

Not really - the third definition of religion in the OED is a completely different concept to the first two.  Someone may well say something like, "consumerism is the new religion" but that doesn't mean that consumerism is really a religion.  It is using the word more as a metaphor rather than literally.

If you want to be pedantic then you can argue that Buddhism is a religion but it doesn't fit the formally accepted definition of religion as defined by (1) or (2).

You are right though that Buddhism is an ideology that is willing to accept challenge and doesn't hold beliefs based on unchallengeable faith.  It has much to be admired for in my eyes.

[malacandran]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary

Religion (noun) -

1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

2) A particular system of faith or worship.

3) A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

Buddhism doesn't fit the first definition as Buddhists don't teach a belief in a supreme being.  Nor do they fit the second definition as Buddha taught his followers to question everything and not accept concepts on the basis of faith.

Arguably they do fit the third modern definition but no more so than than the example given of the use of that definition in the OED - "consumerism is the new religion" - a totally different use of the word 'religion' to the first two definition.

---

Creeky I like your scientific approach to this question, and agree with your views.

[joamur_gosof]

well unity is the only religion or following needed ...the future as you mentioned is modelled on the past mistakes and a willingness to learn from them...then it's beam me up scotty.....which again is kinda the first children tales ever told.

I don't feel like being pedantic so I will accept that only religion has superpeople at the helm.

What was buddah's boiling of children for though or is that made up,if not I kinda don't give a rats if he has a few good points I am steering clear .

[upthecreekyetagain]

As I'm not a Buddhist nor know that much about them other than what I've gleaned for myself I'm not sure what you are referring to as regads children being boiled alive - I must say it doesn't sound very pleasant!

[joamur_gosof]

hmmm you said ''boiled alive''  so you may have heard about it then as I did not mention that 🙂

Still ,I know nothing about  it myself apart from this and that like yourself...but thank you for enlightening me as I really did think it was a religion.

Funny thing is religion is a well used word today,but as thread suggests the actual root isn't known..if it was I suppose we could all debate it properly. Its all pro's and cons and no teeth 🙂

[cee-dee]

So, it's decided then, Buddhism isn't a religion........... and the thread was about where religion all began?

I guess no-one knows where the jump was made from really old beliefs in to "god" as religion stands today but the beginnings can be seen and the root of the major religions seem to stem from the same place with adaptions, additions and omissions?

[joamur_gosof]

where is that stem from same place  then ? 

Is this a thread about where religion begins ???  I had better go elsewhere then as I don't know 🙂

[upthecreekyetagain]

Certainly Christianity and Islam have the same roots and their adherents between them account for just more than half the world's population - Judaeism can be pretty much disregarded as a 'major' religion with its followers being counted in tens of millions rather than billions.

Hinduism surely counts as a major religion as does Taoism, neither of which have common roots with Christianity nor Islam.

[cee-dee]

Christianity was rooted from Judaeism because Jesus Christ lived and died a Jew. (I suppose that'll give rise to argument?) JC aimed to change aspects of Judaeism.

Islam has clear connections which show roots to both Judaeism and Christianity and aimed to change the ideology of both and given less than half a chance, see them off!

Which other religions are causing "trouble" in the World today?

[upthecreekyetagain]

Now I'm confused - I thought you said the thread was about the origins of religion not about which are causing "trouble" - mind you most religions have had their dark periods.

I was responding to your statement that the major religions have a common root which is not the case - just two have the origins you were referring to.  Those two religions happen to be followed by cultures that in the past were the most expansive in terms of empire building and have therefore inevitably been widely spread - not based on their merits but rather because of the secular activities of the countries where those religions were followed.

If we look at Hinduism, Taoism and many of the traditional African religions it is plain that their origins are closely linked to historical secular traditions and codes of behaviour in much the same way as Christianity and Islam are.  The concept of religious beliefs on the surface appear to have been introduced to reinforce those secular rules and to ensure continued adherence to them rather than the other way round.

[joamur_gosof]

so where is the root then ?  is it 10.000 bc or 10 ?

I am still curious as to when the genius of man sat down and said ...''what about this as an idea' then we can stop killing everyone and just convert them with fear and awe . 

Indeed if it is say egyptian empire times then obvious motives spring up...however if the roots of the idea can be traced to sumarian  or even cavemen ..then I am curious as to what happened in evoloution for an animal to make this assumption (which of course spread like wildfire across the globe ) but that said its uncanny that only one species can contemplate the idea....and here we are ....a lot further towards the actual godship.

[cee-dee]

To recap.... Looking at what has been left behind by ancient cultures, it would seem that "in the beginning" it was fear of the results of natural happenings that led Man to think that things were "controlled" by some "supernatural" beings who should be "kept sweet" so that things didn't happen. When they did anyway, these supernatural beings had to be placated or appeased in some way and Man had to make amends for "annoying" them.

Before long images and/or figures were created to represent these beings and Man made offerings or conducted rituals before them. Certainly, there were many different cultures each with their own vision of which beings controlled what.

Jewish people began to collect old traditional "stories" together and eventually wrote down what had previously only been "transmitted" orally. Gradually things leaned towards "god", one god. Moses then stirred the pot telling everyone that what he was saying was the "word of god".

The people of Sumer had their own version of Celestial beings and so did the Egyptians. Later on, the Greeks and the Romans had their own collections of gods too.

What was going on "religion-wise" in Africa and the Far East has, as far as I can see, little to do with creating a widespread religion beyond their own area until much later.

Meanwhile, back in the Middle East, the Jewish religion had taken hold until along comes a decent sort of chap, born, lived and died a Jew, Jesus Christ who, unfortunately for him, caused so much trouble for those in power at the time that the only way they could see their way clear to deal with him was to kill the poor chap as an example to others.

He'd gained a following and his followers spread his word which was eventually written down (as best it was remembered) along with additions by loyal followers. Over centuaries, things were altered and revised, things omitted and others added. Things muddled along until just after 1600 when an English King gave his name to an "Authorised" version of the Christian Bible which eventually carried his name the King James Version.

Note, it's a version? That implies that there had been other versions?

All the while, the Jewish people had been getting along OK with their version of events and let the Christians get on with things.

Just after the middle of the first millenium AD (the CE if you prefer?) along comes a chap who doesn't care for either the Jewish or the Christian way of believing/conducting things so picks and chooses bits from both cultures and invents a lot of his own saying that what he said was the "word of god" which was gradually "revealed" to him over 23 years and everyone should follow his words.

Now this chap didn't write anything down because he was illiterate, and at times said one thing and at others, the opposite. It was only written down after his death by others who "remembered" what he'd said...... Some years later, another chap comes along and writes the "official version" and orders all previous writings to be burned. (As a side note, that implies that the writings were on paper or parchment?).

Now then, it seems that according to what is known so far is that one thing led to another and as ever, not everyone agreed so some remained within the parent religion with side-shoots while others swanned off and started afresh but keeping what bits of the parent religion(s) they agreed with.

Now all of them are still fearful of natural happenings and insist that their followers abide by what's ruled "right" to apease god so they're not stricken with some disaster or other. When they are, it's explained away by saying that god must have been displeased in some way and in future, their followers should stick more closely to "the word of god".....

Heck, we're back to droughts, floods and a bolt from the Blue again? Nothing changes?

[Anonymous]

Here CD, you might like to read this.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/04/god-part-of-the-brain/

[joamur_gosof]

sooo it all evolved from surestiition and fear of the natural ?  sounds about right in context...but because of the way that evolved then the early stories are now almost akin to prophecies and oddly enough prophets were big in the time of religion creating too..

Its an odd path that seems predestined to escape the planet of the apes and I firmly believe that will happen before the earth dies ,therefore the religious thinkers were actually onto something as they changed the direction (maybe ) of the species.

Harrys link is an interesting theory whether its flawed or not..as we did appear to all grasp the idea easily..albiet then get into a huge argument about it 🙂

[jd.linklater]

An interesting read Harry, the review that is not the book. The idea that we are hard wired genetically to be disposed toward religion seems a bit of a stretch of the imagination. If that were the case then why does it cause so much conflict? The author seems to shoot himself in the foot towards the end by stating that "all perspectives are relative, no individual can ever claim that their interpretation of reality is an absolute truth" in other words what he is stating is only his opinion which is no more valid than anyone else's, which sort of countermands everything he is trying to put across.

Doesn't sound a very convincing read, I don't think I'll be buying it.