Religous debates and questions

Orwell wrote:Hey! Pope Benedict is probably 99% the beliver and 1% the non-believer (with the view that no one can be 100% sure, surely? ) So he is - by Eldo and Petty's reckoning at least - a Catholic-agnostic, just as Dawkins is an atheist-agnostic! There! We can all agree now!

If Pope Benedict says that he has faith in God but is not completely sure, then he would be both an agnostic and a theist by my reckoning.

The percentage bit was about surety of knowledge, not belief. You keep mixing the two and I find that a rather disingenuous way of responding to my argument. If someone claims to be absolutely certain -- in other words, to have knowledge rather than belief -- then I would say they are a "pure" atheist or theist, and not at all an agnostic. I suspect that there are not many people who fit this category, though.

Agnostic AND theist? Not Catholic-agnostic? Disengenuous yourself!

Eldo said: "If someone claims to be absolutely certain -- in other words, to have knowledge rather than belief -- then I would say they are a "pure" atheist or theist, and not at all an agnostic." Hasn't that been my point all along? The 'pure' is interchangeable of course, though an unecessary word.

Petty, how about putting your stuff in a doc and sending it to me. That way you can do a quick re-edit too, in case there are things you think need tinkering with. (It'll save me cutting and pasting my own document, you know, and that's the important detail here! )

Orwell wrote:Agnostic AND theist? Not Catholic-agnostic? Disengenuous yourself!

Yes. Atheism and theism are broad categories, Catholic is more specific. "Atheist-agnostic" and "Catholic-agnostic" would not be equivalent.

And with that, I think I'm done for the night. It's after midnight and I'm afraid this has become rather tedious and boring. As you should know, Orwell, being boring is the only cardinal sin in the Church of Forumshire.

Eldorion wrote:Yes. Atheism and theism are broad categories, Catholic is more specific. "Atheist-agnostic" and "Catholic-agnostic" would not be equivalent.

Good night, little Catholic!

Petty, how about putting your stuff in a doc and sending it to me.- Orwell

I havnet got a doc, I just compose it here as Im going along Im afraid!

But I will gather together the 3 parts so far and send you those.

The first wives club is actually on netflix now, I wasn't joking about that for the record

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Petty, how about putting your stuff in a doc and sending it to me.- Orwell

I havnet got a doc, I just compose it here as Im going along Im afraid!

But I will gather together the 3 parts so far and send you those.

Don't forget to neaten them though, as I might get nit-pickety if you don't!

Carly Castle wrote:The first wives club is actually on netflix now, I wasn't joking about that for the record

And that makes all the difference, of course.

Orwell wrote:Good night, little Catholic!

I love you too, Orwell.

And no you-know-whatting... You'll go blind!

Don't forget to neaten them though, as I might get nit-pickety if you don't!- Orwell

I corrected some of the more ridiculous spelling erors if thats any help - but I havent rewritten any of it- so you get it as written (ie off the top of my buckied head)

Ignore Orwell Eldo- its worth it- just wear glasses.

Orwell wrote:And no you-know-whatting... You'll go blind!

I'll be thinking of you.

He's joking of course Eldorion. The first wives club is a perfectly respectable film to watch before bed xx

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ignore Orwell Eldo- its worth it- just wear glasses.

I usually do that, but sometimes the mood takes me!

I'm having one of those "Please don't do it, Mrs Figg!" moments just now...

Well, when the cat lady is away....

Carly Castle wrote:He's joking of course Eldorion. The first wives club is a perfectly respectable film to watch before bed xx

Yeah, sure ---- we're talking about our Eldo, Carly...

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well, when the cat lady is away....

This current conversation may flush her out, you know...

Seeing as Ive gathered together everything so far for Orwell I thought I would put it here in one chunk for ease of reading.

The Bible does not tell us where God came from. He was just there from the start.
"Inthe beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
But where and when exactly did humans and God meet?
The archaeological record shows that early man had some conception of at least noting death- as they put goods in the grave. As too did our human cousins Neanderthals who may have been the first to put flowers in graves as the amounts of pollen found in Neanderthal graves shows.
And it is difficult not to read into the enigmatic patterns and designs on cave walls in Europe or on Australian outcrops signs of some spiritual or even religious beliefs.
But the God we are concerned with is the one who would go on to claim to be the only God- who would found the Jewish nation and give rise to Islam.
Who is he and where the hell did he come from?

Well our beginning clue is from the Bible-God created the earth, Adam and Eve, the world was populated- God didn’t like it, God flooded the world, saved Noah. Noah had a lot of incestous sex and repopulated the world. One of his descendants Abram (Abraham) took God from the city of Ur to Caaninite.

It should be noted before going on that the biblical account of Abram we have to be wary of, it was clearly written much later when some things were no longer known, as it is strewn with historical mistakes- Ur is described as Ur of the Chaldeans- a name for the Babylonians who did not yet exist. There is a reference to the Philistines at least a millennium out of place.

If there was an Eden no one knows for sure where it is (for the record I place it in the Zargos Mountains) so although God and humans are present it doesn't help much in finding a starting point for our search.
Noah unfortunately we don’t know where he lived. So we cannot place him in the historical record, (although I will offer a possibility of where it was later).
Abram however gives us our first bit of meat to work with. He and his God lived in the city of Ur. And it we know something about. So lets start there.

Those who date the patriarchs from the Bible place Abram at about 2018bce- that would seem about right to me for Ur and possibly even telling.
Ur is located in at the site of modern Tell el-Muqayyar in Iraq. It existed as an inhabited functioning city from approximately 3800bc (early bronze age) until 550Ad (iron age).
Ur was a major ceremonial and religious centre complete with ziggarut (built about 2100bce). It was also home to the shrine of a God- the Moon-God called Nannar in Sumerian and Sin in Akkadian.
This moon god left Ur when it fell into less favourable times- although Ur survived a remarkable amount of time it lost its prestige. The deltas on which the cities were built shifted over time, so the river which provided your wealth might end up miles away within a few generations. Ur survived its fall from grace to continue on. It was restored to splendour by Nebuchadrezzar II and finally was deserted when Mesopotamia was incorporated into the Achaemenid Empire in 550AD. But by then its moon-god had long since left and gone much further west and taken root mainly in Syria.

This brief overview of Ur tells us some important things- that it was a religious centre during a time of many Gods. That the God Sin was the most prominent God of the City and almost certainly its patron and considered to literally dwell in the Temple within the City (as this was the common belief in all the cities across the region at the time and each city had its own God or Goddess in residence).
And we know from the story of Sin that Gods can leave a city- and go elsewhere.
On last thing of note about Ur- between the earliest layers of the city and the classical Ubaid period of approx 3500bce there is a eight foot thick layer of deposited clay. It would seem the city and surrounding land suffered a very large and near catastrophic flood that flattened everything for miles and miles. The later Ur was slowly rebuilt on top of the old, leaving the thick layer of clay untouched.
This may well be the Flood recorded in the Bible and if so would also place Noah in the region of Ur in 3500bce, some 1200 years before Abram who the Bible says was the 10th generation from Noah.

Who's Who? (Sumerian edition)

The Sumerians never threw away a Deity- it is estimated that there were about 3600 different deities in the Sumerian pantheon.
But some were more important than others.

The chief God was An, Great Father of the Gods, King of the Sun. His symbol was a star. He was the original head honcho- however despite this and having the title Father of the Gods his popularity waned over time- by the period of Abram An's powers had been transferred to Enlil (see below).

Enki was Lord of water, wisdom, creation and fertility. He was the inventor of writing. His symbol was two serpents entwined on a staff. In the Sumerian tradition it was Enki who warned Ziusudra (the original Noah) of the impending flood. He was patron of the city Eridu where he resided.

Enlil was Lord of Rain, wind and air. He invented agriculture and he caused the Deluge to destroy mankind but was thwarted by Enki telling Zisudra. Enlil usurped An's position as Head of the Pantheon and took on many of the formers traits. His symbol was seven small circles.

Ninhursag was the Great Mother Goddess, Godess of Childbrith and Queen of the Mountains. She took part in the creation of humans by bearing children to term to create the first modern humans.

These make up the Main Four Gods in Pantheon, however there are three more prominant Gods who together with the first four make up 'The Seven Who Decreed Fate';

Inanna was the the Goddess of Love, fertilitly, procreation and war. She was also Queen of the beasts. She resided in the city of Erech.

Sin was an Ur God, the God of the Moon. He was symbolised by a crescent.

Utu was the Sun God of Justice. And is a God little is known about.

These are followed by a further 20 deities who make up The Annunaki.
After those there are the demigods such as Gilgamesh and Flood survivor Ziusura who was given eternal life.
To this you can add a long list of deities, some borrowed or merged with neighbouring Akkadian Gods.

It is clear therefore that at this moment in history the notion of a single God was a long way off in theological thought.
But in a sense the seed of it did exist- Deities were associated not with some other realm, or heavenly space in the sky but to physical locations. More so actual individual rooms.
In the earliest stages these were in fact a single reed room built on a mound. Later as the first settlements developed around the shrines they were made of mud brick and eventually stone and finally in a ziggurat- but the idea remained the same- Gods might have wide spheres of influence but they were also localised.
And they were also personal.
It does not seem that the Sumerian citizen was required to worship all the gods- certainly in any given city everyone would pay attention to the cities patron deity- you were in their territory- but what happened if you worshipped one god in your home city but had to go spend periods of time in another city?
Did you abandon your own god whilst away and worship the local god? Would that anger your own upon your return?
This was a real problem for people and at some point someone came up with the solution- and they were called arks.
Into your ark you placed a stone representation of your local deity and you took it with you- that way your god was wherever you were.
When in a foreign city it was politic to pay religious duties to whoever the local god was, it was still their patch, but you could also keep your own with you and honour it too.
It is likely people travelled with more than one God- if you were from Ur for example it would be unlikely you would take the God but not the Goddess to watch over you- more likely you would take both with you for protection and possibly others-a cattle merchant might for example also take Amashilamma, a cow goddess with him whilst a merchant may go with Bogu God of Wealth.
Its possible to see from this how the idea of having a set of gods tailored with an individual could arise, and it be the very first seed of narrowing the field down to just one personal god- but that was a very long way off yet.


So a world of many Gods- but what was the Sumerian view of the world?
Well they saw the universe a bit like a snow globe- the base of it was the world, the dome part was the domain of the air and outside it was a primordial eternal salt ocean. Beneath the base was another ocean and underworld called the Apsu- this one was fresh water.

The earliest version of the Sumerian creation myth we have comes from a clay tablet dated to 2150bc and was excavated in Nippur- and its quite a brief tale.

The Gods create men to labour for them (the same reason as given in Genesis 'to till the earth'). Kingship descends from the Heavens and the first cities are founded.
The next bit of the tablet is missing and when it begins again it seems the gods have decided to get rid of the humans by causing a flood- the gods make the decision by council- it seems to have been put forward as a proposal to be considered and they decide not to prevent it.
However the God Enki warns the hero of the tale Zirusta of the impending doom and gives him instructions for building a vessel to ride out the flood.
The huge boat is rocked for seven days and nights before the Sun God appears again.
There is another break in the text and it resumes with the flood receded. Zirsuta lets the animals out and sacrifices to the gods- in return he is taken to Dilmun ( a sort of mythical place that may have some basis in a real place) and is given immortality.

The Epic of Gilgamesh goes back in written form to at least 2150bc- so must have been one of the first things to be widely set down- and it also contains a version of the Flood Tale and the Creation of man in more detail.
There are obvious and striking parallels in the creation story in the Epic to that told in Genesis- for example in both man is made from dust. In both his purpose is to work the earth and make produce. In both he is tempted by a woman and in both he takes food from her, covers his nakedness and is cast out from his land and must find another to dwell in.
In the Sumerian the God Enki also makes an appearance and steals a seed which comes back into the story of the Epic later- Enki's symbol was two serpents giving another possible connection to the Genesis story.

So what we have here is a creation story and a flood story, remarkably similar to the later Genesis accounts in a world of many Gods.

Ur in the time of Abraham.

The OT puts Abraham at 2018bce. Now its unlikely (although not impossible) this date is 100% correct, but its probably in the right area give or take a hundred years. Certainly there is nothing in Abraham's story which makes it impossible.

But what was Ur like at this time? Well the date for Abraham is a controversial time period for Ur, depending which side of the dating divide you place Abraham’s birth he was either born in the last days of Ur II Empire, or he was born at the start of what would become Ur's greatest period of influence and power Ur III under the Akkadian King Ur-Nammu. Ur would go on to be his capital city of an Empire that took control of the entire region and became the centralised seat of government for it. It would also see the building of a massive ziggurat.
Ur's main gods remained the same however with the chief God being the moon god and his female consort.

Of Abraham himself there is no direct evidence- his name so far has not appeared on any tablet or shrine. And the only contemporary stories we know about him are the few scattered in religious texts that are
many thousand of years apart from the events.
So do we know anything of Abraham? Well his character that has survived is that of 'Father of All Nations'- he came to represent righteousness and faith in God, even, or especially when the physical facts seem to
contradict it- such as the barrenness of his aged wife despite God saying he would father nations. Abraham continued to believe this would be the case despite 'knowing' she was too old to bear children.
And of course his faith was literally born out.
There is also a tale from the Talmud that describes an event supposedly from his childhood.
His father made idols of the many gods of Summer and in particular he made prominent idols of Ur's moon god and goddess.
One day Abraham’s father left him in charge of the shop only to come back and find that all the statues but one were smashed- only a massive statue of the moon god remained. When asked what had happened Abraham told his father that the big statue had smashed all the other ones up.
His father angrily replied, "Idols do not get up and walk about. They do not smash things up. They do not eat nor breath."
To which Abraham replied "Then why worship them?"
And got a clip round the ear for cheek- (that last bit is not included in the Talmud but its probably what happened!)

Christianity has a harder time than Judiasm at dealing with the fact their own history records that their ancestors worshipped more than one God. Judiasm can avoid the issue less as large parts of the OT, up to and beyond the time of David and Solomon, deals with historical periods when people fell away from the one God idea and turned to other Gods.
Christianity would prefer to present the idea that from the beginning there was only One God and it just took people a bit longer to realise which was real and which was fake.

For either religion its an uncomfortable truth that stories like the above try to make sense off.
Much of the Abraham story at heart is wrestling with this problem- how can the father of nations, the founder of a one God religion follow more than one God himself?
And the answer is of course because when he lived the idea of one god seemed preposterous and no one had even thought of it yet, but those who recorded his story where at the other end of history and could see the result of what Abraham began and fitted it into their story of the one God.

Certainly it would be useful to know for certain when Abraham lived. If he was alive during the end of the Ur II period his leaving the city may have been necessitated by a change of regime rather than choice. If he was born after the beginnings of Ur III is harder to see why he would leave at all as the city not only prospered under its Kingly patronage but blossomed as a religious centre.

History rarely records the little people, Joe Bloggs that made pots and went to the pub twice a week then died, and its unlikely Abraham was a little person or history would not have remembered him at all.
For what it is worth my own gut feeling is that he was a priest of the Moon God of Ur in the years leading up to the end of Ur II and left the city as a direct result of the change of regime that occurred.

I would like to go on a short diversion to tell you a story at this point-the same story twice in fact.
It concerns a woman who should be remembered as a great historical figure but sadly, as with many women in history, has been largely forgotten about. Its unlikely you will ever have heard of her.
Her name was Enheduanna, and as far as we know, amongst other things, she was the first female author ever. And this in short (very short) is the tale she wrote-

She praises the Goddess Inanna before switching to a first person style in which she speaks of her misery at the hands of a person called Lugal-ane.
She was a priestess and this Lugal-ane had forced her from her sanctuary and barred her from performing her sacred duties at Ur for the Moon God Nannar.
This cut her off from direct access to the Moon God so she appeals directly instead to Inanna to challenge the decision and also seeks help from the great god An. Inanna backs her but cannot directly solve the dilemma so Enheduanna turns to An. The Great God An decides in her favour and hears her plea. Lugal-ane is forced to back down and she is restored to her place as Priestess in the sanctuary at the moon-temple in Ur.

What is interesting about this is we know quite a lot of the history now of what this tale is recording.
Enheduanna we know quite a bit about- she was a famous author- she wrote the most challenging Sumerian literature ever composed known as Nin-me-sara (from which the above tale derives). She was the editor of the Summerian Temple Hymns and after her lifetime her written works were the base for the scribal schools of the entire region for centuries to come. The development of language, of recording events and much else would never have come about without her influence and genius.

But what her poem really tells us is how people saw things. Here is a modern historical account of her story-

She was appointed an en-priestess (consort to a God) by Sargon. This was seen by many in Ur and the southern cities as direct interference in their religious sphere. The southern cities rebelled against the Akkadian government, a revolt led by a man called Lugal-ane. He directly challenged her right to be the en-priestess and cast her out of the temple in Ur.
For aid she turned to the city of Akkad (whose goddess was Inaana) and got support there, but not enough.
After an incredibly brave but foolhardy attempt under threats from Lugal-ane she attempted to return to her temple at Ur but was thwarted. So she turned to the city of Uruk- the most politically powerful city in the land and home to the Great God An. Backed by the authorities and priesthood of Uruk, Lugal-ane could not prevent her returning and taking up her post.
In turn all this fed into the events which saw the establishment of the new regime under Ur III.

As you can see both versions of the story are essentially the same- but the difference is in perception.
A modern eye can read the tale as a political power play involving the authorities in the major cities of the region.
But the people of the time saw it as playing through the actions of Gods- its to Inanna and An she appeals and deals with directly and who support her in the story, not the priesthoods or authorities of those cities.

It is worth bearing in mind therefore when dealing with biblical accounts from this period that the same thinking applies- when Abraham leaves Ur taking his God with him this could refer to literally taking a stone representation of his God with him, or to taking the entire priesthood.

So who did Abraham take with him when he left. Which God? It cannot have been the one God of later biblical texts as he did not exist yet in that form.
Well Ur's main deities were its Moon God and Goddess. And there is evidence to support the contention that the early God of the Hebrew religion was in fact a Moon God.
Perhaps the most obvious connection surviving today is in the symbol of Islam- which is a crescent moon and the star Venus. Both part of the worship at Ur of the moon god and of Sin, the later name used for the moon-god. Venus was the symbol of Innana (later called Ishtar). So there is good reason to believe that the Gods of Abraham were indeed the two main deities of his home city.

At the time of Abraham the moon God had not one but two main centres- Ur of course was one of them- the other was at the city of Harran- which is where Abraham moved to when he left Ur.

Worship of a moon god seems to have followed Abraham and his descendants around- it can be found later in Babylon and even in Cannan where a major excavation in the 1950's unearthed idols and statues of the moon god and Goddess in their later form of Sin and Ishtar.

So what we have his a man born in one of the great cities of his time. A centre for learning and religion and dedicated to the moon god and his consort.
Abraham then moved to Harran- another city famed for its connection to the moon God and consort.
I think it is highly likely that the religion Abraham would take with him from Summeria to Egypt and eventually to Caanan was that of the moon God.

Jesus Christ what happened to your formatting, Petty.

I have no idea Eldo but its driving me mad- whenever I copy and paste from somewhere- wether its notepad, open office of a webpage it does that to it and I have to fix it (as I just did the above) by tediously going throughit manually line by line.

Any ideas why it happens?

Some software puts in lots of line breaks but I haven't had that problem with OpenOffice so I'm not sure what's up for you. Usually Notepad should remove stuff like that, anyway. :/

Started happening a month or so ago- and being doing it ever since- its very, very annoying, and I cant work out the cause as it doesnt seem to matter where I copy text from -and worse it looks fine on here until I post it, then its all screwed up.

Easy reading? How about sorting out the spelling of names! Or do I have to look up the sources myself? And did Abraham go from Samaria or Sumer to Egypt? You have from Summerian or similar? (I've already changed to Samaria, but was I right to do so? )

The land was called Sumer the people called Summerians. Although spellings of both alter across time not just in my writting!
And Abraham went from Ur to Harran to Egypt. (And yes the spelling of his name alters too as its given in several different forms depending on what you are reading).