Religous debates and questions

Pettytyrant101 wrote: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).

Mmm... I only chanced on the Abraham going from 'Summerian' to Egypt bit. I'll let you know if I have more complaints. (And I no doubt will, as I have studied the period myself... )

It will be good to have the thoughts of someone who also knows something of the period Orwell- I make no claim to be an authority- just an interested observer. Anything I have missed or you think I have got wrong do point out, I never say no to more knowledge!

Ive read all the posts about religion up to page 10,when Halfwise said about "life of Brian" etc, its a very eruptive topic,religion. Its caused a lot of argument over the years,so violent that its caused vicious wars with many people dying. Not once did God,or ANY God,step in & say "enoughs anough!", I see the Bible as very contradictory. One minute god is all forgiving & loving,then the next hes cruel & vengeful. My own opinion is that God,(any God) is a mirror reflection of OURSELVES. We make books,labled the Bible or Quoran,or whatever, not necessarilly to brain wash,but to enforce a view from a dictator of sorts. All these religious books were written long after christ or who ever left this mortal world. I think we learn whats right or wrong thru our own experiences. we look back on history,especially wars & acts of cruelty,like slavery & decide..that was bad,wont do that again.. My question is..who made God? did he just pop up one day, like when you turn on a light? "poof" there he is ? where exactly did god come from ?, & IF there were aliens before man walked the Earth,were did THEY come from ? what is or was THEIR god ? No wonder the society of humans is so F**ked up if God made the world in the dark ? Why didnt he create light FIRST ? I believe certain orders that called for blood sacrifice used the theory that God wanted them to do it,so they could use that excuse to do what was in their urges, but they had to give "urges" a name,to exempt themselves from punishment, so, they called for a "DEVIL", a "Satan" to take away blame. It goes so deep,religion. it gives me a headache !, Also, another question, "How would things be if there was NO religion of ANY sort?"

I'm really enjoying your speculative historical context Petty. I don't know much about this period, and what I did learn is probably 30 years out of date.

One question: Zoroaster. At 2000+ BCE we're in the same rough time period aren't we? Surely that isn't a coincidence?

Orwell wrote:
Let me explain by way of example (so as you'll 'know' what I mean when I talk about 'knowledge'! )

I have a 1994 Toyota sedan and it has a steering wheel. I'm prepared to say, I 'know' it has a steering wheel and that it's not just a belief but a fact of nature. The facts as I (scientifically) know them encourage me to shout it from the rooftops: "I know my car has a steering wheel! Hurrah!"

Does anyone (other than an existentialist maybe ) doubt it?

Of course, you may have to choose a car of your personal knowledge to concede the point. Think of your family car, Eldo. Does it have a steering wheel? It does! Good, then I trust you 'know' your car has a steering wheel. Indeed, you know you have a whole car! (Your knowledge enlarges! ) You are in no way agnostic about it, and I trust in your knowledge. It may be your belief but I know your belief is true! It's a scientic fact you have a car - or at least, you know cars exist (just in case your family doesn't actually have a car of their own. I feel for you if that's the case - cars being so practical, real, and status building. )

Normally I don't let myself get drawn into religious debates, but I do like the car analogy.

Now I "know" that my car has a steering wheel (though I'm not certain what model year) and I "believe" it is attached to something and the car will turn when I turn the wheel. I even crawl in underneath from time to time to have a look, and maybe check the brakes while I'm at it. I suppose that makes me a mechanical agnostic as well.

But when I'm driving on a mountain road with blind corners and steep drop-offs, and there are people I care about in the car with me, I put all that agnosticism completely out of my head. I need to "know" that when I turn the wheel the car will do what I ask. I need to drive with a certain confidence or I shouldn't be driving at all. I believe this is related to the "tunnel vision" you sometimes refer to.

There are times when stopping and questioning yourself isn't healthy, and for somebody else to judge you is a bit rude.

To bring the analogy back to religious faith, I should say that about 10 years ago I spent the better part of 6 months in a hospital chemotherapy ward. I met many families who were being held together through the stress of facing mortality by their common faith. I'd no more think of tinkering with that than I would with the tie-rods of your Toyota. Fair enough?

David the question of where zorastrianism enters the equation is a tricky one- there is no direct evidence of it being practisiced in Sumer at this time, although it probably existed as far back as 2000bce.
As a religion is does not make recoded history until more than a thousand years later so the record of its early days is pretty much unknown beyond its own foundation stories.
What we can say with a bit more certainty is that the people who began and practised this religion were entering Mesopotamis from about 2000bce onwards and by 500bce would form the main state religion of what is now Iran.
Whether or not this was an influencing factor on Abraham and his own theological movement or with his leaving Mesopotamia is another question entirely for which there is no real evidence either way to base an opinion on.
One could compare the two religions and look for overlaps but you can do that with 99% of religions and find overlaps without it being proof of contact between the two- humans in different places tend to come up with similar religious ideas.

David H wrote:Normally I don't let myself get drawn into religious debates, but I do like the car analogy.

Now I "know" that my car has a steering wheel (though I'm not certain what model year) and I "believe" it is attached to something and the car will turn when I turn the wheel. I even crawl in underneath from time to time to have a look, and maybe check the brakes while I'm at it. I suppose that makes me a mechanical agnostic as well.

But when I'm driving on a mountain road with blind corners and steep drop-offs, and there are people I care about in the car with me, I put all that agnosticism completely out of my head. I need to "know" that when I turn the wheel the car will do what I ask. I need to drive with a certain confidence or I shouldn't be driving at all. I believe this is related to the "tunnel vision" you sometimes refer to.

I'm not sure if we're seeing exactly eye to eye on this. I am not at all agnostic about the existence of my steering wheel. I'm a Fundamentalist about it. I 'know' it exists.

David H wrote:There are times when stopping and questioning yourself isn't healthy, and for somebody else to judge you is a bit rude.

To bring the analogy back to religious faith, I should say that about 10 years ago I spent the better part of 6 months in a hospital chemotherapy ward. I met many families who were being held together through the stress of facing mortality by their common faith. I'd no more think of tinkering with that than I would with the tie-rods of your Toyota. Fair enough?

We all want the truth (or most of us, anyway). If someone does not want to have their Faith questioned, then they must put in certain safeguards to avoid having them tested, like not dropping into the Religious Thread as one example. (Mind you, Jesus was tested by the Devil, so maybe being tested is part of God's plan anyway? There you go, I'm being a Devil's advocate!) But as to Faith getting people through difficult times, I think the 'knowledge' that a 'belief' in the power of positive thinking, alongside (hopefully) the loving support of others through difficult situations and times of healing, might be every bit as efficacious as a simple and trusting 'belief' in gods or spirits (I have no stats); with the logical bonus you are facing reality on your own terms but without kidding yourself non-existent gods (or spirits) are rooting for you.

I would add also, I'm not really against Faith - I am an agnostic! - but I am against non-existent stereotypical gods and even more so religion, that foul edifice of men. (Yes, 'men'!)

You've got me thinking David (which some would say is a miracle, my friend! )

If I was to know a child and they were very sick but trusting very much in their god, I would likely as not encourage them to keep the Faith, while encouraging them to do everything else medically sensible to show god they did not take his Grace lightly and were willing to work alongside Him to recover. (I might even cite the Epistle of James, about works and faith going hand in hand - even if Saint Paul hated that idea! )

If they asked, "Will God save me?" I'd say, "We must not put God to the test. Whatever happens, you will be fine, for you will remain with people who love you if you stay, or be with God if you go."

I would, to put it plainly, lie to my heart's content if I honestly thought that lying helped a child get through a difficult time, which is very Priestly of me, what.

Yes, yes all very philosphical and everything Orwell but I thought you were going to rubbish my piece on Abraham? Or is this going to be like the War of the Worlds script all over again and I'll still be waiting months later!

or like him waiting for his music vid?

or me waiting for more Wholesome.

or all of us waiting for the new Forumshire vid.

or Norc waiting for Sherlock season 3

or Dave waiting for his weird shaped cranberries to mature so he can squish em into juice.

or Halfwise waiting for suitable wind

or Eldo waiting for wind to dissipate

or me waiting to know who the fook Carly Castle is

Yes but those things are different Mrs Figg in a crucial manner- they aren't Orwells fault!

Orwell wrote:You've got me thinking David (which some would say is a miracle, my friend! )

If I was to know a child and they were very sick but trusting very much in their god, I would likely as not encourage them to keep the Faith, while encouraging them to do everything else medically sensible to show god they did not take his Grace lightly and were willing to work alongside Him to recover. (I might even cite the Epistle of James, about works and faith going hand in hand - even if Saint Paul hated that idea! )

If they asked, "Will God save me?" I'd say, "We must not put God to the test. Whatever happens, you will be fine, for you will remain with people who love you if you stay, or be with God if you go."

I would, to put it plainly, lie to my heart's content if I honestly thought that lying helped a child get through a difficult time, which is very Priestly of me, what.

Good! So it sounds like we're on the same page as far as the sick child.

Now how about the child's mother?

She's trying to say the same comforting things to the sick child, while at the same time reassuring the other kids, keeping the home as normal as possible and all the other hundreds of details that come with being a mother, while not letting it affect her performance at work, trying to get a few hours sleep, and in the gaps wrestling with her own grief and doubts.

What possible good can extra philosophical doubts do her at this moment in her life? Can't you still respect her if she finds some solace in faith in God?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:David the question of where zorastrianism enters the equation is a tricky one- there is no direct evidence of it being practisiced in Sumer at this time, although it probably existed as far back as 2000bce.
As a religion is does not make recoded history until more than a thousand years later so the record of its early days is pretty much unknown beyond its own foundation stories.
What we can say with a bit more certainty is that the people who began and practised this religion were entering Mesopotamis from about 2000bce onwards and by 500bce would form the main state religion of what is now Iran.

Isn't the same true of the record of Abraham?

Petty - tonight's the night -- or tomorrow morning! I have printed a copy, that's a start!

David, I assure you, I am sensitive to the cares of people, honest, and tactful when I think it's merited.

Orwell wrote:
David, I assure you, I am sensitive to the cares of people, honest, and tactful when I think it's merited.

I know you are Orwell.
I wasn't trying to imply you weren't.
I was just trying to illustrate by example my opinion that agnosticism is a luxury that many people can't afford.

(Also I was trying to distract myself as I kept checking Facebook to see if a friend of mine on the ship that sank was going to check in. Sorry if I made my case with more force and less humour. I know that's a Forumshire party foul.)

David, whether forcibly or feebly, so long as we address the facts at last, there is nothing foul about it.

I would suggest though that if someone wishes to discuss religion, then I'm ready to offer my view. Like the other Orwell, I am an implacacable foe of suppression! Ideas may be avoided sometimes, given good compassionate and immediate reasons, and only in the way of sensitive tact, but if someone has a right (in Forumshire at least) to profess their belief in the existence of gods, I have as much right to refute it, as I am an enemy of all pernicious superstitions, always!

Petty, I have read your outrageous theories on Abraham and find no real fault in them. Makes me think of how the Christians made a new shoot (pretty much a brand new religion) out of Judaism. Judaism may well have been a new shoot out of Abrahamism. It'd not really occurred to me that an actual full blown 're-religioning' as opposed to a mere 'modification' might have taken place. I mean, Judaism was a new religion sprouting from an older one, rather than one just borrowing a few new ideas added to an already existing belief system. The Jews made Abraham's local God into the Only God, and, of course, grew a whole new religion from it's root.

Oh yes - some further editing might be welcome!

Nonetheless, verrrrry interesting!

Isn't the same true of the record of Abraham?- David

Yes and no! Yes in that there is nothing comtemporary or in the archeological record thats basically says "Abaraham was 'ere'" any more than there is to say Zorastrains were there at the time.
No in that there are two major religions which attestify to his presence there about that time and we have the geneologies by which he can be approximetly placed in time. And the religion of Abraham gets a mention in texts that are not from either of the religions he founded, although these are not contemporary to his life time either they are some evidence that at least the stroy of Abraham was well known quite early on.
The first recorded information on Zorastrians is not until 500bce, 1500 years away from the time of Abraham. Making it tricky to assertain if it was present in the country when he was.

In short I would say there no actual evidence for either being there- but there is a lot of circumstantal evidence for Abraham being there and almost no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise for Zorastrians being there at that time, or at best the religion was only just begining to arrive in the land.

There is a much better argument however that Zorastrian thinking informed the wider thinking of Iran and so the whole middle-east and that this thinking was present in Babylon and influenced the proto Jews, but thats much later events in history.

Oh yes - some further editing might be welcome!- Orwell

Thanks for the comments Orwell. Sorry about the lack of editing- Im afraid folks get it here as it leaves my head- I dont do drafts or anything for this stuff and I have only a very general idea of what I plan to say (can you tell?) but that way I get some good ideas in there I hadnt necessarily thought of beforehand, as is the way with writing on the fly, the downside is its a bit of a wobbly read at times.

Abraham, his calling and Harran.

According to the Bible Abraham was given a message by God, the one true God that is. God instructed Abraham to '"Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you."
Accordingly Abraham packed his bags and set off for this promised land, but he first went to Harran where his father, Terah, passed away. From there he proceeded on in search of theland promised to him and his descendants by God.

But there are some problems here that are not immediately obvious just from reading the Bible.
I have already shown how it is very likely that the religion of Abraham was in fact related to that of the Moon God Sin and his consort, if not exactly the same. Harran was in Syria and it became famous for its association with the Moon God.
Also, and more difficult for Christians is the line, "Terah took Abram". Terah we are informed was an idolitor, indeed his job was making idols of the Gods, primarily those of the Moon God. Commercially living in Ur Moon God idols were the most popular. So if God instructed Abraham to leave his home, people and his father, why then is it Terah who takes Abraham? What is Terah doing going at all when God has instructed Abraham to leave him?
Well it could just be that Abraham loved his father despite the idolitory and could not leave him- but I find that unlikely as it relies on the assumption the one true God had spoken to Abraham- but as this point in history the idea of just one God had not even arisen yet.
More likely it seems to me is that when Abraham left he left because his father had got a new appointment, possibly to decorate a new Temple or such like in Harran. He seems to have had a large workshop in Ur and one can assume he was good at his job.
The move to Harran therefore, another centre for the Moon God cult is not odd at all if you take it in light of being headhunted for a job. And fully explains why Terah, the head of the household would make that decision for his family and would be the one to 'lead'.

However the Bible story hints at an urgency to the journey which a simple change of job does not give.
It is for this reason I believe Abraham should be placed at the end of Ur II not at the begininng of Ur III. If you remember the story I told of Enheduanna and her appointment as en-priestess at Ur and the trouble that resulted from doing so, and then take into account how those political manipulations fed into the change of regime that was imminent it provides the impetus to the story.
Either they left Ur for Harran to get away from potential trouble and uprisings- in which case Harran is a good choice, less important but still with a thriving trade in Moon God idols (see below). Or alternatively Abraham and his family were backing the wrong side and when Enheduanna got the backing of Uruk they fled the city for their own safety and again Harran was a reasonable choice of location.
For me either account is more viable than Abraham hearing the voice of a one God he had never heard of and following its instructions.
And into this we must take into account how this was perceived by people of the time. We know, again from the story of Enheduanna that in the peoples minds there was no difference between the priesthood, the city and the Gods. When Enheduanna goes to Uruk and gets the backing of its priests and its political classes she does not record it this way in her account- instead she records it as a direct appeal to the Great God An, and that An responds to her pleas.
By the same thinking when the Abraham story informs us God told Abraham to leave this could well be that the priesthood and authorities of Ur told them to leave. Perhaps as a result of their joining the opposition to Enheduanna's appointment.
However the actual events played out the Bible itself tells us that Terah took his family from Ur, not Abraham. and that they went to Harran. The general rule in deciding the likihood of something being true in the Bible is to see if it useful or not to the authors. Terah leading Abraham is not useful- it directly contravenes the instruction given by God to Abraham to leave his father (and indeed has resulted in many debates over the centuries as to whether Abraham honoured or dishonoured his father and whether Gods instructions were to dishonour his father, even resulting in such fudges as God spoke to Abraham twice- once in Ur and then again after Harran and his fathers death just to get round the problem). The very fact the line is controversial and contradicts God gives it a higher likihood of truth- these things are 'smoothed' out where possible in the Bilbe- where they are not they generally remain becuase it was a well known bit of the story and could not just be altered despite it not quite 'fitting' the new narrative being imposed on the original events.

Harran
The first mention of Harran we have outside the Bible comes ftom a set of tablets known as the Ebla Tablets and date to 2300bce. Exactly when Harrran was founded is less clear and there are conflicting stories about its creation.
Going by Islamic sources in the Book of Rolls it was built by Nimrod, great grandson of Noah.I find this unlikely if only becuase there is a tradition in early Islamic stories of attributing the building of several places to Nimrod and he would have been a very, very busy man to have accomplished all of them. More likely it was an attempt to make associations between later inmportant places in the story of God with earlier people in the story to give the impression of one long continous plan. It also would seem far to early fdor the founding of a city which does not get a mention until 2300bce.
Some Chrisitan scholars prefer to give the building of Harran to Cainan. Cainan was known for his astronomical knowledge which he had inscribed on stone (but which have never been found). I find this association more likely as even into the Roman period Harran was still known for its worship of the Moon God.

Unfortunetly no one has yet managed to excavate to the bottom levels of Harran so many things go unanswered including the dates for its founding, and we do not know what the city was like in the days of Abraham. But in all likeihood it was still relatively new. It developed by the 19th century bce into an important merchant route (and indeed the name Harrran translates as 'road'). The city was in its prime during the Assyrina period in the 18th Cebntury Bce.
It is very tempting therefore to see the Harran in Abraham's time as a new city in development- and establishing what would go on to be a very enduring centre for the worship of the moon-god, and this was the reason Terah took his family there.
Perhaps when the BIble tells us Abraham was instructed by God to leave Ur it meant he and the dissedent Ur Priesthood who had opposed the en-priestess appointment all left and set up anew in Harran, helping to establish there the cultic centre of Moon God worship that would be among the longest lasting in history.

Next- what happened in Harran? Abraham moves on to Caanan. Why?

There is norcing and there is derailing- so I am switching the Jesus convo from the jokes thread (oh the irony) to here.

"I don't know. That's an interesting question.
If it does, it would be possible that later descriptions of ugliness were attempts to make reality match prophesy, and might not be an accurate description.
If it doesn't and it was added later by early Christians to make the prophesy match the reality, then why wouldn't early Christians also have retained and accentuated the image in iconography?"- David

On the last point I suppose it is possible, if we believe Andreas Hierosolymitanus or Tertullian- that those contemporary with Jesus life noted he was not a very attractive individual with some sort of physical deformity such as a hunchback- and it was at this time they adjusted Isaiah to reflect this- and later as the Church developed they altered things again to make Jesus a handsome, unblemished person.

There is also the chance that he survived the cross and that reports of a hunchback were actually a result of crucifiction- this might also explain his disciples difficulty in regonsiing him when he appears to them afterwards.

Of course if versions of Isaiah do have the relevant passage predating Jesus life by a significant amount then either he was a really good prohpet, its a coincidence, or not true.
My own hunch is that Isaiah is untampered with- there are many predictions for the Messiah in the UT and they caused mainly problems for the writers of the NT who had to make up silly nonsense about an impossible unworkable census to get him in the predicted place of birth for example.
If they could get away with just altering the prohecies this would have been unnecessary.

But decriptions of Jesus from the Church are in my view even more suspect- as there he is described as so perfect in form and in being it was obvious just from seeing him he was the Son of God- but the actual account of his life in the NT does not support this at all.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

But decriptions of Jesus from the Church are in my view even more suspect- as there he is described as so perfect in form and in being it was obvious just from seeing him he was the Son of God- but the actual account of his life in the NT does not support this at all.

That's what I found suspect about the first few quotations on the link I posted that included the supposed Pilot quote. The writer, or at very least the translator, clearly had a vision they were trying to fit. But some of the quotations you're citing I first heard of in the 70's and 80's as part of the argument the Jesus was Black, which some people felt just as passionately about, so I'm instantly on my guard. It seems that in every period Christians have tried to prove that Jesus looked like them, right from the beginning. And without an actual contemporary document in hand, how do you prove one over the other? It's like the grey horse thing.

My own hunch is that he was probably an average looking Jewish male of his time- I base this on the fact that if he did really have some extrodinary physical aspect- either hunchbacked- or very tall or something- it would have got a mention somewhere in the actual NT account- the very absence of anyone noting anyting particularly distinguishing about his appearence (and his enemies in the NT surely would have if he was malformed- cripples cant enter the Temple for example) hints to me that it was becuase he was perfectly ordinary looking.

That's my guess as well, though it's fun to look at all the other options. Have you looked into the Ethiopian traditions?

Yeah they are quite intresting- there is even a tomb there- aligned like a christian burial which is supposed to be the tomb of Jesus.

And of course there is all the specualtion about his family moving to southern France- where you get all the Mary cults and of course the 'bloodlines' of Jesus Da Vinci stuff comes from.

Oddly enuogh whilst the Church still tends to give the impression Jesus was the only child Mary had its quite clear from several other sources (including the Bilbe itslef!) that he had an older brother, James.

Interestingly enough, I'm currently reading "James the brother of Jesus" again at the moment. Probably find it more fascinating and illuminating than I did last time.

David H wrote: .... It seems that in every period Christians have tried to prove that Jesus looked like them, right from the beginning. And without an actual contemporary document in hand, how do you prove one over the other? ....

Yep, he looked like me. Bunch of mop heads back then.