Origins

[Lycan]

Since alot (if not all) of modern religious traditions and practices were orginally pagan, do you think it is wrong for religions that preach whole-heartedly against paganism in any form to practice these various traditions, rituals, etc.?

 

[Lycan]

I smell a trap

No trap, just a question...

 

[Lightkeeper]

Since alot (if not all) of modern religious traditions and practices were orginally pagan, do you think it is wrong for religions that preach whole-heartedly against paganism in any form to practice these various traditions, rituals, etc.?

Could you reword this question? For some reason it's crossing my eyes. Are saying that the religions which preach against paganism still practice some of the traditions and rituals? If that is the question, then I would say yes, it would be wrong to preach against paganism, but still use some of the rituals. But, only if they worship gods other than the God of any particular religion.

 

[Master Vigil]

What hes saying is that religions evolve. The first religions were in fact nature based, primal, "pagan." All religions grew out of these primal, nature based religions. There are still parts of modern day religions that are pagan. So why do they condemn the religions that they came from, and are a part of?

 

[fromthe heart]

I have to wonder why some of what some religions adopted as religious traditions aren't just based on certian events that took place at the same time where pagan religious traditions did and were not taken from pagan tradition at all. It's true there are some things celebrated by both at or near the same time but don't you have to look at the content of the tradition it's self to see where and why?

 

[Master Vigil]

If you look at the history of religions, they all grow from the former. Like you grew from your parents, you are not your parents, but you have many of your parents traits. You can't condemn your parents, because you contain much of them in you, and are thus condemning much of yourself.

 

[No*s]

If you look at the history of religions, they all grow from the former. Like you grew from your parents, you are not your parents, but you have many of your parents traits. You can't condemn your parents, because you contain much of them in you, and are thus condemning much of yourself.

Actually, that hasn't been demonstrated beyond all certainty. Not all of us accept that model of religious development .

 

[Master Vigil]

Do you disagree that islam sprung from christianity? And that christianity sprung from judaism? And that judaism sprung from Zoroastrianism? And that buddhism sprung from hinduism? And that the first religions were indeed earth based, primal religions? Why is it hard to understand that all religions come from the first nature based, primal religions?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually, that hasn't been demonstrated beyond all certainty. Not all of us accept that model of religious development

.

He's right, not everyone accepts that ancient myths evolved into modern ones...just atheists, and anthropologists.

 

[No*s]

Do you disagree that islam sprung from christianity? And that christianity sprung from judaism? And that judaism sprung from Zoroastrianism? And that buddhism sprung from hinduism? And that the first religions were indeed earth based, primal religions? Why is it hard to understand that all religions come from the first nature based, primal religions?

The model suffers from a couple of fatal flaws. First, it is far, far too simple. Judaism predates the time of its extensive contact with Zoroastrianism. Islam sprung from Judaism, Christianity, and the local religions IMO.

Next, there is a big difference between asserting things on those religions and what you are asserting on the "primal religions." On the former, there is documentation, and on the latter, there is no evidence, but only our reconstructions and models based on them. That's a lot of assuming when you say all religions come from those primal religions when we have no real evidence at all.

How do you know it wasn't ancestor worship that spread into other things? Maybe it was some other worship of supernatural spirits which in some religions became synonomous with nature and others where the spirits controlled nature. Heck, it could have been knowledge of the One God that was gradually lost and distorted over time. The point is, you have no evidence and cannot know.

The last big problem is that it is addressed to faiths that believe in divine revelation. So, you are asking me to believe that my belief that God became man and revealed Himself was simply a natural evolution of the cycle. Islam could say the same thing, and so can Judaism, and in pretty much each one of them, we believe God used cultural things and transformed culture simultaneously.

The model is simple and if you ask us to accept it you also ask us to deny any form of divine revelation. It won't fly very far with faiths based on revelation as a result. So, as you can see, I have genuine problems with that model.

 

[No*s]

He's right, not everyone accepts that ancient myths evolved into modern ones...just atheists, and anthropologists.

Now that's just funny :biglaugh:. I'll think about accepting it when I give up any form of revelation or other sorts of supernatural beliefs. Oh, that was funny.

 

[Master Vigil]

I see, Zoroaster was after Abraham and moses, I was taking the idea that Zoroaster influenced them, and assuming it predated it. I'm sorry, however, the pyramid texts of egypt did predate Judaism. Judaism comes from the ancient religion of Syria and Palestine, and was related to that of the major semitic civilization: The mesopotamian. These peoples believed in common deities, like the great mother Ashtoret (Ishtar), and the dying-rising vegetation god Tammuz or Baal. Abraham, according to genesis, came out of Ur in the Valley of Two Rivers, this affirms the strong common cultural background. Judaism did come from a pagan, polytheistic religion.

We also have anthropological evidence that the first peoples had primal, nature based religions. Ancestor worship, and animism (supernatural spirits controlling the natural world), is still pagan, and animism has influence in all religions. It wasn't the idea that one god was lost, there is no archeological evidence to suggest that. In fact, judaism, sikhism, zoroastrianism, etc.. Were the first known monotheistic religions. And these all took place very recently in human history. There is evidence in the evolution of religion from the primal times, none to say the opposite.

And about the revelation beliefs. Since I don't believe that the revelations are true, than the historical, archeological, and anthropological evidence stacks much higher.

 

[michel]

Actually, that hasn't been demonstrated beyond all certainty. Not all of us accept that model of religious development .

I was actually going to make the very same point to you; if you do not accept that model of religious development, can you explain why not? I am not trying to be awkward; I am really interested.

 

[No*s]

I see, Zoroaster was after Abraham and moses, I was taking the idea that Zoroaster influenced them, and assuming it predated it. I'm sorry, however, the pyramid texts of egypt did predate Judaism. Judaism comes from the ancient religion of Syria and Palestine, and was related to that of the major semitic civilization: The mesopotamian. These peoples believed in common deities, like the great mother Ashtoret (Ishtar), and the dying-rising vegetation god Tammuz or Baal. Abraham, according to genesis, came out of Ur in the Valley of Two Rivers, this affirms the strong common cultural background. Judaism did come from a pagan, polytheistic religion.

I didn't say Abraham predated Zoroaster, but that Judaism predates its extensive contact (fifth century BC) . I will grant that Judaism was birthed in that enviroment and culture, but I won't cede divine revelation. The "it is pagan, so you must accept paganism" argument only works if there is no divine revelation, which is in itself a necessary not secondary topic in this thread.

We also have anthropological evidence that the first peoples had primal, nature based religions. Ancestor worship, and animism (supernatural spirits controlling the natural world), is still pagan, and animism has influence in all religions. It wasn't the idea that one god was lost, there is no archeological evidence to suggest that. In fact, judaism, sikhism, zoroastrianism, etc.. Were the first known monotheistic religions. And these all took place very recently in human history. There is evidence in the evolution of religion from the primal times, none to say the opposite.

The evidence you cite is sketchy and far from the earliest humans. We have no evidence on that. Even if you cite a rock formation at 12000 BC, people had still been here a while. This problem isn't solved very readily either. The fact that we don't have any archaeological evidence for a belief in one God is irrelevant when we consider that there isn't much archaeology from that period at all, and remember, this argument is addressed to people who do believe in divine revelation and we do believe in such a primal faith on that source.

And about the revelation beliefs. Since I don't believe that the revelations are true, than the historical, archeological, and anthropological evidence stacks much higher.

You don't, but this thread is addressed to people who do, and since we do believe in it, it factors into our thinking and is something we have to take into consideration. The question is put to us on why we believe what we believe on this matter. Since we accept divine revelation, it has an impact on our answer, and it can't simply be dismissed. You may not accept it, but your belief here isn't self-evident to anyone who accepts revelation, because that changes the variables just as a new piece of information would.

 

[No*s]

I was actually going to make the very same point to you; if you do not accept that model of religious development, can you explain why not? I am not trying to be awkward; I am really interested.

I believe I've got that out now . I believe God intervened in human history, and that much of Judaism and Christianity is a result of this. This view is incompatible with MV's model.

 

[Master Vigil]

I didn't say Abraham predated Zoroaster, but that Judaism predates its extensive contact (fifth century BC) . I will grant that Judaism was birthed in that enviroment and culture, but I won't cede divine revelation. The "it is pagan, so you must accept paganism" argument only works if there is no divine revelation, which is in itself a necessary not secondary topic in this thread.

I understand your need for divine revelation. But the point is, there are commonalities and similarities between judaism and the religions it grew out of. That is what I am saying. All religions grow from their predecessors. And it is evidences that judaism grew from its pagan predecessors. Divine revelation or not.

The evidence you cite is sketchy and far from the earliest humans. We have no evidence on that. Even if you cite a rock formation at 12000 BC, people had still been here a while. This problem isn't solved very readily either. The fact that we don't have any archaeological evidence for a belief in one God is irrelevant when we consider that there isn't much archaeology from that period at all, and remember, this argument is addressed to people who do believe in divine revelation and we do believe in such a primal faith on that source.

They may not have been the first humans, but they were the first known religions. To claim their may be monotheistic religions before that, is completely speculation with absoulutely NO evidence. But there is substantial evidence stating the first religions were nature based, primal religions.

You don't, but this thread is addressed to people who do, and since we do believe in it, it factors into our thinking and is something we have to take into consideration. The question is put to us on why we believe what we believe on this matter. Since we accept divine revelation, it has an impact on our answer, and it can't simply be dismissed. You may not accept it, but your belief here isn't self-evident to anyone who accepts revelation, because that changes the variables just as a new piece of information would.

Historically, archeologically, anthropologically, divine revelation or not, all religions come from their predecessors. And the first religions were primal, nature based religions. The only way that can be the opposite, is if a religion can be found that had no cultural contact, and no similarities with preceding primal, nature based religions. Can you think of one? I can't.

 

[No*s]

I understand your need for divine revelation. But the point is, there are commonalities and similarities between judaism and the religions it grew out of. That is what I am saying. All religions grow from their predecessors. And it is evidences that judaism grew from its pagan predecessors. Divine revelation or not.

However, your model excludes outside forces in God's transforming them. I will willingly acknowledge they came from the peoples around there. Heck, I would have to deny the biblical account for that. However, divine revelation still plays a big role. Why not Baal? If I take the model you gave, the Israelite society simply evolved beyond it, but in my beliefs, God made a covenant with them.

I can affirm parts of your model, but not all of it (for instance, I believe in the activity of spirits besides God). With the acceptance of divine revelation, it also removes all force for why we accept certain practices but reject paganism: divine revelation.

They may not have been the first humans, but they were the first known religions. To claim their may be monotheistic religions before that, is completely speculation with absoulutely NO evidence. But there is substantial evidence stating the first religions were nature based, primal religions.

You are overstepping yourself. Basically, you have evidence, scant evidence, that is at least tens of thousands of years after our first ancestor, and most likely millions. The evidence has to be interpreted and structured. Frankly, we don't know much of anything about ancient religion. We don't have any evidence at all of what early religious beliefs were like, so pointing out we have no evidence of monotheistic religion fifty thousand years ago really becomes a moot point. We don't really have any evidence of anything. There wasn't any writing and hardly anything else survives.

If we go for the evidence, you don't have any evidence either unless it comes tens of thousands of years later. Things do change, and my claim is based on Christian tradition. By your own admission, it isn't from our first ancesters. Frankly, it's not even close to them, so I would question the quality of your evidence because it's too far separated from our earliest ancestors and by consequence from their religion. The evidence you do have is scant, few, and far between. It's hardly the sort of thing we can reconstruct a whole religion out of even for them.

Historically, archeologically, anthropologically, divine revelation or not, all religions come from their predecessors. And the first religions were primal, nature based religions. The only way that can be the opposite, is if a religion can be found that had no cultural contact, and no similarities with preceding primal, nature based religions. Can you think of one? I can't.

You can find similarities in everything. Every culture must emerge from preceding cultures, but at the same time, its beliefs aren't absolutely restricted by it. Divine revelation allows for the Israelites to have a religion separate from the Canaanites. Greek philosophy wasn't just a subset of ancient Greek paganism; it was something very different. Mormonism emerged from Protestantism, but it bears very little resemblance.

The model is too restrictive and simple. Mormonism isn't just another form of Protestantism. Greek philosophy wasn't just an outgrowth of ancient Hellenic paganism. I can appeal to the same thing with divine revelation for the Israelites.

 

[Master Vigil]

However, your model excludes outside forces in God's transforming them. I will willingly acknowledge they came from the peoples around there. Heck, I would have to deny the biblical account for that. However, divine revelation still plays a big role. Why not Baal? If I take the model you gave, the Israelite society simply evolved beyond it, but in my beliefs, God made a covenant with them.

It excludes it because its not important. Even with god transforming them, they still are influenced by their predecessors. If indeed they were completely changed, there would be evidence. But there is none.

I can affirm parts of your model, but not all of it (for instance, I believe in the activity of spirits besides God). With the acceptance of divine revelation, it also removes all force for why we accept certain practices but reject paganism: divine revelation.

Except we find pagan influence even in he religions with divine revelation.

You are overstepping yourself. Basically, you have evidence, scant evidence, that is at least tens of thousands of years after our first ancestor, and most likely millions. The evidence has to be interpreted and structured. Frankly, we don't know much of anything about ancient religion. We don't have any evidence at all of what early religious beliefs were like, so pointing out we have no evidence of monotheistic religion fifty thousand years ago really becomes a moot point. We don't really have any evidence of anything. There wasn't any writing and hardly anything else survives.

We do have evidence. Just because it isn't in writing doesn't mean the evidence is moot. We have cave paintings, graves, sculptures, and there are examples of these all over the world. As Huston Smith states in his book "World Religions" : "The historical religions now pretty much blanket the earth, but chronologically they form only the tip of the religious iceberg; for they span less than 4 thousand years as compared to the 3 MILLION years or so of the religions that preceded them." In "Man's Religions" written by John B. Noss, he says "The Neanderthals, who, after a long gap, flourished from one hundred thousand to tenwty five thousand years ago, definite evidence of their religion is in their graves. The burial of their dead suggests that food offerings (of which broken bones remain) and flint implements, such as hand axes, awls, and chipped scrapers, were placed in the grave during a ceremonial interment." The also have evidence that they worshipped bears, for "they appear to have set aside certain cave bear skulls, without removing the brains, a great delicacy, and also certain long bones, and to have placed them with special care in their caves on elevated slabs of stone, on shelves, or in iches, in order to make them the center of some kind of ritual."

We sure have more evidence for ancient primal, nature based religions than ancient monotheistic, divine revelatory religions.

If we go for the evidence, you don't have any evidence either unless it comes tens of thousands of years later. Things do change, and my claim is based on Christian tradition. By your own admission, it isn't from our first ancesters. Frankly, it's not even close to them, so I would question the quality of your evidence because it's too far separated from our earliest ancestors and by consequence from their religion. The evidence you do have is scant, few, and far between. It's hardly the sort of thing we can reconstruct a whole religion out of even for them.

The internet isn't the same as smoke signals either, but is the internet still not an evolution from the smok signal? There is much in christianity that is still of pagan influence. Christmas, easter, the sacrifice at the alter of christs body and blood, the stories of christ walking on water, healing the sick, etc... All present in ancient pagan myths. The most prominent being that god became human, born of a virgin, was executed and rose from the dead. All present in ancient myths. Nothing is without influence. Divine revelation or not.

You can find similarities in everything. Every culture must emerge from preceding cultures, but at the same time, its beliefs aren't absolutely restricted by it. Divine revelation allows for the Israelites to have a religion separate from the Canaanites. Greek philosophy wasn't just a subset of ancient Greek paganism; it was something very different. Mormonism emerged from Protestantism, but it bears very little resemblance.

It does become different, yet its influence still remains. That is the point, there is pagan influence in greek philosophy (Socrates' Forms for instance), there is pagan influence in modern christianity, like I pointed out above.

The model is too restrictive and simple. Mormonism isn't just another form of Protestantism. Greek philosophy wasn't just an outgrowth of ancient Hellenic paganism. I can appeal to the same thing with divine revelation for the Israelites.

I think mormonism is just another form of protestantism. There are definite similarities. Greek philosophy was a change, but there is still influence. Nothing is completely, utterly new. Divine revelation or not. Everything is a product of its predecessors.

 

[No*s]

It excludes it because its not important. Even with god transforming them, they still are influenced by their predecessors. If indeed they were completely changed, there would be evidence. But there is none.

There isn't? There was massive infighting between the indegenous view and the cult of Yahweh, because they apparantly thought there was something significantly differnt between them as well. There was the radical henotheism, the creation ex nihilo, the character of God, and several other things. Things were quite different between them.

Except we find pagan influence even in he religions with divine revelation.


We do have evidence. Just because it isn't in writing doesn't mean the evidence is moot. We have cave paintings, graves, sculptures, and there are examples of these all over the world. As Huston Smith states in his book "World Religions" : "The historical religions now pretty much blanket the earth, but chronologically they form only the tip of the religious iceberg; for they span less than 4 thousand years as compared to the 3 MILLION years or so of the religions that preceded them." In "Man's Religions" written by John B. Noss, he says "The Neanderthals, who, after a long gap, flourished from one hundred thousand to tenwty five thousand years ago, definite evidence of their religion is in their graves. The burial of their dead suggests that food offerings (of which broken bones remain) and flint implements, such as hand axes, awls, and chipped scrapers, were placed in the grave during a ceremonial interment." The also have evidence that they worshipped bears, for "they appear to have set aside certain cave bear skulls, without removing the brains, a great delicacy, and also certain long bones, and to have placed them with special care in their caves on elevated slabs of stone, on shelves, or in iches, in order to make them the center of some kind of ritual."

We sure have more evidence for ancient primal, nature based religions than ancient monotheistic, divine revelatory religions.

I never made any claim that I was basing my view of the first religion on anything but divine revelation.

Now on the evidence you've mentioned, how many of those do you think can't be interpreted in different ways? Items placed in a grave don't prove nature worship. They do prove a reverance for the dead, and add a probability for a belief in an afterlife of some sort, but it doesn't tell us anything beyond that. I can't know if they worshipped nature herself as a set of deities or one deity. I can't know if they believed in reincarnation, or if it was simply some sort of good luck to bury the man. They aren't here to tell us.

Your bear skulls tell us that they revered these items. My chess board goes in a box, and it is specially set aside. Why did they revere them? Did they revere them, brains and all, in the same way a hunter places heads on his wall? Or perhaps they somehow thought they were beautiful. Maybe they were some kind of religious symbol to a deity separate from the bear. Perhaps they did worship the bear. You simply have no way to know, because they didn't write it down.

The examples you gave are what I would consider scant evidence. We know next-to-nothing about them, and we certainly don't know enough to really know their religious systems. There are simply too many unknowns, and they will always be unknowns unless somebody can travel through time.

The internet isn't the same as smoke signals either, but is the internet still not an evolution from the smok signal? There is much in christianity that is still of pagan influence. Christmas, easter, the sacrifice at the alter of christs body and blood, the stories of christ walking on water, healing the sick, etc... All present in ancient pagan myths. The most prominent being that god became human, born of a virgin, was executed and rose from the dead. All present in ancient myths. Nothing is without influence. Divine revelation or not.

You might be surprised how sketchy those are. Many of the alleged parallels are pretty minimal. For instance, the sacrafice at the alter of Christ's body and blood supposedly comes from Mithraism. The theology is reconstructed from a few pictures or brief statements made in arguments, and all of it well after the time of Christ (third century or the like). The claim that the Virgin birth is also based on Mithraism, but this is pieced together from a picture of a cave where Mithra is half in the cave and half out: he is being born apparently from the cave. This is one of the principle pieces of evidence here. There aren't any other Virgin Birth stories I can think of that don't involve intercourse.

Why do you believe, for instance, that healing the sick was an influence of another religion? Could Christ not have done that, and thus inspired the story directly, and is it not a natural story even beyond that? The story of a god walking on water comes from Baal worship, and IIRC it's Phoenecian and our referance comes after Christianity, but I may be wrong on that one.

Comparative religion is too tricky to be classified that easily, much less used so readily. For any of the parallels to be strong, they must be demonstrated to be clearly pre-christian and with a ready amount of influence. Most of them aren't very strong in that respect.

It does become different, yet its influence still remains. That is the point, there is pagan influence in greek philosophy (Socrates' Forms for instance), there is pagan influence in modern christianity, like I pointed out above.

I think mormonism is just another form of protestantism. There are definite similarities. Greek philosophy was a change, but there is still influence. Nothing is completely, utterly new. Divine revelation or not. Everything is a product of its predecessors.

Influence alone doesn't make it the same thing or even campatible. Greek philosophy was different. It grew different enough that Socrates died for it. Mormonism and Protestantism are two different animals as well. Simply because something comes from another doesn't mean that it is the same thing or even similar.

And, again, the emphasis comes back to revelation. We believe God revealed Himself to the Israelites and transformed their culture. We believe that Christ was God in the flesh revealing Himself to humans. It carries tremendous force, and it explains why some things are acceptable and some are not.

 

[Master Vigil]

First off, I think we are going off on a tangent and losing sight of where we began. Or atleast I have. Do we atleast agree that religions are influenced atleast partly by their predecessors? Is there any religion that doesn't include ANY influence from its predecessors? If there is, tell me.