In the Beginning there was One Religion

reply to post by Ghost in the Machine

Incorrect. Death is the price of sin. Very simple scripture, very simple to understand. There was no sin in the Garden of Eden, God did now allow it. The first sin on earth was when Eve ate the fruit of Knowledge, the result being they were banished from the Garden.

Can you quote scripture on this? I can't find any scriptural evidence that death was punishment for the sin committed.

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,

This doesn't appear to explicitly imply that we were ever immortal or ever to die as punishment for the sin.

reply to post by sirnex


Romans chapter 6 verse 23
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Direct indication of of death as a result of sin.

reply to post by Ghost in the Machine


You do realize that you are quoting Christian scripture? Look at the punishment given for the first sin as accounted in Genesis. No where is it stated that death is punishment or that we would be immortal.

reply to post by sirnex


Right, Because nothing was set into motion until after the fall of Adam, if he did not fall there would be no Christ, no technology and no plan of salvation because we'd all still be in the garden and in direct contact with God. It wasnt until Adam ate the fruit(after Eve did) that there was Sin on earth. It would be pointless to have come to earth if all we were to do is what we did in Heaven.

Originally posted by Ghost in the Machine
reply to post by sirnex

 

Right, Because nothing was set into motion until after the fall of Adam, if he did not fall there would be no Christ, no technology and no plan of salvation because we'd all still be in the garden and in direct contact with God. It wasnt until Adam ate the fruit(after Eve did) that there was Sin on earth. It would be pointless to have come to earth if all we were to do is what we did in Heaven.

There is no indication that sin was God's original intent. If anything, the flood is clear indication of how verily against he is on having a world of sinner's. He didn't send them a Messiah, he just outright took the lot of them off the face of the Earth. It was only after the second time sinner's began to become numerous that he decided to send a Messiah.

reply to post by sirnex


Sin was only a very small part of the reason for the flood. The major reason was because Satan was trying to deflower all the virgins. In his plan(Satan) he would Deflower the virgins in order for there to be none left, which in tern would mean that Christ would be unable to be born. Secondly, it was to cleanse the earth of the "Giants".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Ghost in the Machine]

reply to post by Ghost in the Machine

Sin was only a very small part of the reason for the flood. The major reason was because Satan was trying to deflower all the virgins. In his plan(Satan) he would Deflower the virgins in order for there to be none left, which in tern would mean that Christ would be unable to be born. Secondly, it was to cleanse the earth of the "Giants".

Really? I can't find that being the reason for the flood.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.

Can I ask that next time you post to back up what you say with scripture and how you interpret that verse to mean what you think it says?

Purest only in regards to the original conceptualization of the religion by the "prophet" or author. Religion can be seen as a collection of successful symbiotic memes which as a whole are more likely to be replicated and passed on than as individual scraps of information. For instance, consider that it's well documented just how extensively the Abrahamic religions (including their celebrations) have borrowed from various sources - either purely cultural practice or from other religions.

Once passed beyond the original author/creator of the religion, it is exposed to outside minds and interpretations - coming into contact with new and existing memes already populating the sphere of human thought and dialog. Some combinations and modifications make the meme more successful, while others have floundered. Some died out from disenfranchisement or subversion - and some by bloody oppression.

Still... a wrong idea in it's purest and most original form... is still a wrong idea. If your professor asks you a question, and you take a guess that's utterly wrong - does that make the next student asked slightly more correct when he similarly answers a shot in the dark guess? Of course not. In fact, if similarly un-knowledgeable as you in the subject matter - then they are all the more likely to simply modify your guess slightly and repeat it - or reactively offer an answer which is in pronounced and direct contrast to yours.


I think the conceptual underpinning of your thread and question is reflective of the concept of the "Noble Savage" - the idea that a state fundamentally less altered human activity is somehow better or more ideal. It's a return to Eden fantasy, conceptualized best in the story of Genesis - though not confined or root to biblical sources. It's actually quite common and pervasive in many cultures. It suggests that humanity was once in a state of harmony and peace with nature - but have since that time have progressively allowed the sin of separation from nature... of the exercise of influence on or over our environments... to corrupt humanity with evils and temptations not known to the natural state. The Noble Savage suggests that we are in a "fallen" state, in need of redemption.

In pursuit of this "redemption", people tend to seek out "Natural Foods", "Natural Cures", "Natural Environments", etc. Natural, of course, not denoting what the word actually means (because as the product of a natural system, nothing we can do is ever un-natural - no matter how unprecedented) - and is instead co-opted to mean "Untampered with by Man".


I tend to view the Noble Savage as an anti-intellectual/pro-ignorance movement that distorts the reality of nature and our place in it for (more or less) religiously based or reinforced motives. If Nature seems to surprise us with unintended and often detrimental consequences for our actions - it is only because nature operates and adapts to changes on a scale beyond human conceptualization. We create new environments and introduce new selective pressures on our species by our actions - inhabiting environments we did not evolve adaptations for, relying instead on our ingenuity and ability to understand the world as a means to mitigate environmental selectors and promote survival.

We are a product of nature, and we behave accordingly. Some may not see it through the complexity of human thought, and some may want to deny it - suggesting some special attribute which makes us somehow "different and separate" from all other life on Earth. In reality, we are by no measure outside or separate from any other species in the biosphere - just uniquely adapted for understanding and manipulating our environment. The demons which haunt the hearts of men (as well as the angles)... cruelty, power, domination, sorrow, pain, greed, lust - they are tethered irrevocably to origins in nature. Returning to a more primitive state would not dispell those demons... but rather serve only to promote their exercise as a tool for survival were we to drop our defenses of understanding - edging us closer to a perilously vulnerable position which Darwin referred to as "The War of Nature", a state of perpetual famine and death.

Thomas Hobbes referred to the "Natural State" as one in which "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man." A state in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". That this perpetual war of misery is fought for gain, for safety, and for promotion of self-interest. We still fight this war with our fellow creatures on Earth, but governance and technology has provided humanity with the tools to develop and establish social contracts and infrastructures to ease the suffering, establish a standard of justice, and improve the quality of life for ourselves. Yet we can never divorce ourselves from nature, and natural laws can form the basis for identifying and promoting natural and inalienable rights, balanced more justly by our improving (but far from perfect or homogeneously applicable) social contracts that promote the atmospheres in which our better angles of love, empathy, curiosity, sympathy, creativity, altruism & generosity, and a desire for peaceful existence can more freely flourish.

"That a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself."

While I don't agree with the Leviathan Theory as proposed by Hobbes, the basic concept is demonstrably sound when comparing regions with an adequately strong enforcement agent for the contract against areas of lawlessness and illegitimate weak governments. Modern nomadic tribal societies are little better, as were pre-colonial Native American tribal bands. It's telling that almost immediately upon the start of colonization in the N. American hemisphere by French and English settlers, the native tribes of adjacent and co-occupied territories latched onto alliances with the European invaders - short shortsightedly using those nations preexisting animosities as a basis for alliance and support of their own tribal infighting. Studies of modern nomadic tribes in the African, Asian, and S. American jungles reveals that the chance of dying at the hands of another man for them exceeds (by far, in most cases) the chance of such happening in most nations, especially the first world nations, in the past 20th century - even when taking into account the deaths inflicted by WWI & II.


The concept of the "Noble Savage", and all it details - both expressly and in influence - needs to be unseated from the place it's taken in the public's mind. It relies on romanticism and sentimentality, not an accurate reflection or understanding of reality. It promotes the pursuit and embrace of pseudosciences long since debated and marginalized for ineffectiveness for centuries - ultimately disproven and discarded. It's promoted these days more by pseudo-religious groups and spiritualists, promising enlightenment while eroding confidence in science and human knowledge - pointing the way back to the Dark Ages as something to strive for. It confuses people's concepts of morality, purity, safety, and makes them susceptible to all manner of snake-oil charms and elixirs. It's hard for many in the public to resolve the disconnect between science's advancement, societies progress - and the near ever-present and repeated invocation of the "Expulsion from Eden". Especially when uncritical examinations of scientific principals, such as entropy, seem to support it. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics being a favorite stumbling block for Creationists. Even our own sense of nostalgia can seem to confirm it, projecting subjective experience in the stead of objective observations.


For me... I prefer an incomplete, but workable answer - rather than comfort myself with a complete falsehood. Let alone embrace the easy and exotic answers of a long discarded falsehood. Embraced for little or naught else but the virtue of being old -- the falsehood of assuming a correlation between purity and antiquity. Of trusting the lack of man's involvement as the measure by which to ensure accuracy, rather than the objective evidence of reality and reproducible results.


(Sorry for rambling)

Originally posted by Ghost in the Machine
Ok, the title pretty much explains it all.

The question I am most interested in hearing your feedback from is, In the beginning, when the first religion was established, wouldn't that have been the purest of all religions? and if so, What do you think happened to it?

religion is a product of man. asking what is the purest religion is like breaking a wine glass and asking what piece is not sharp.

religion is the ultimate form of control. after all, if a person does not abide by the governments rules, then make their creator ashamed of them.

the ultimate shame a society can have (spiritually) IMHO, is to have a god who is ashamed of it's creation. from confusion to denial and everything in between......

the controllers make sure it's full of unsolvable riddles, parables, and fairy tales.
top that off by telling everyone the opposite of what you really want them to believe. as a result, it's people go through life never learning the lessons that earth has to teach.

the rock is full of nothing but (almost) zombies that wander aimlessly supporting a "buy me now" mentality all the while taking no responsibility for anything they do cause "the devil made them do it."

if my creator takes responsibility and guilt away from my actions because i have a deity to blame for everything, how responsible will i be?



school is in session, time to listen up.




[edit on 6-11-2009 by anonamousantichrist]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by anonamousantichrist]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by anonamousantichrist]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by anonamousantichrist]

reply to post by Lasheic


Good read, although you did go off topic abit there

Once passed beyond the original author/creator of the religion, it is exposed to outside minds and interpretations - coming into contact with new and existing memes already populating the sphere of human thought and dialog. Some combinations and modifications make the meme more successful, while others have floundered. Some died out from disenfranchisement or subversion - and some by bloody oppression.

True, but the original religion would not have needed modifications. Thats what I'm getting at. Why would the very first religion which would be the most accurate(Accurate because there was direct contact with God, Assuming we are using the Christian God.)Need to be modified in anyway whatsoever? I see no logical sense in taking something thats Perfect(Everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden up until the time of the fall of Adam.) and changing it at all. (Slightly off topic, but I felt I need to say it)

Still... a wrong idea in it's purest and most original form... is still a wrong idea. If your professor asks you a question, and you take a guess that's utterly wrong - does that make the next student asked slightly more correct when he similarly answers a shot in the dark guess? Of course not. In fact, if similarly un-knowledgeable as you in the subject matter - then they are all the more likely to simply modify your guess slightly and repeat it - or reactively offer an answer which is in pronounced and direct contrast to yours.

I'm confused by this paragraph. Are you insulting me?

reply to post by Shane

With that offered, I would say with confidence, YES, at one time there was only 1 (ONE) religious practice occuring on this planet.

Tautologically, yes, there must always be a "first" within definable boundaries. However, the concept of religion likely evolved slowly over time from scattered superstitions and traditions anthropomorphizing human qualities to non-human phenomena. Forces of nature, predators, prey, etc. Perhaps the earlier religions looked more akin to the practice of Voodoo before it's merger with Christian influences prior to the establishment of the slave trade.

Yet trying to define that "moment" that loose associations of superstitions becomes a "Religion" would be like (to compare it to biology) asking on which day does a child cease to exist, and a man emerge as a result? We can assign arbitrary points... the loss of virginity, the completion of a ritual, the first time they kill in battle, the 18th birthday... etc. But the truth is, it's a slow progression over long periods of time - and at no one "singular" time did the first religion likely emerge.

In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first attribution of religious practice emerging within society occurred in a hominid (likely a variety of Homo Sapien, but perhaps not) species prior to the separation of Homo Sapien Sapien (us) as a unique and distinct species from the other human and hominid lines.

reply to post by anonamousantichrist


Yes, religion is a product of man, but at first there must have been a formal way of worship with protocols etc etc... That then must have been established into a ceremony(religion?)

That very first established religion, that very first way of worship. That must have been in itself the correct one.

...or am I wrong to assume this?

Originally posted by Ghost in the Machine
reply to post by anonamousantichrist

 

Yes, religion is a product of man, but at first there must have been a formal way of worship with protocols etc etc... That then must have been established into a ceremony(religion?)

That very first established religion, that very first way of worship. That must have been in itself the correct one.

...or am I wrong to assume this?

If you want to go by the very first religious practice, it would have to be animism or shamanism or a combination of both.

The first religious act was when Adam and Eve made aprons to hide their nakedness.

The first religious service was when Cain offered vegetables upon and altar instead of a blood sacrifice.

The first religion was created by the watchers for control of human kind through magic, sorcery, and drugs.

The first Godly religion was that which was given to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai when the law of God was given.

Christianity, while called a religion is actually a relationship with the living God through His Son Jesus. It is a relationship of family, eternal life, and inheritance.


[edit on 6-11-2009 by Fromabove]

The first worshiping was nature as ancient man depended on nature fo their survival.

religion is a way to make money ... so, yeah, "this first religion" went away, since it was not a money machine .. so they figure it out other ways to eslave people ... and it works until today ... its really sad what some people do because of a book

Originally posted by Faiol
religion is a way to make money ... so, yeah, "this first religion" went away, since it was not a money machine .. so they figure it out other ways to eslave people ... and it works until today ... its really sad what some people do because of a book

Which book is that..? We have science books, Bibles, the Quran, Eastern religion, and cook books... Or are you just saying the Bible..?

reply to post by Ghost in the Machine

Why would the very first religion which would be the most accurate(Accurate because there was direct contact with God, Assuming we are using the Christian God.)Need to be modified in anyway whatsoever? I see no logical sense in taking something thats Perfect(Everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden up until the time of the fall of Adam.)

The entire "off topic" segment was in regards to that exact issue. The fallacy of false correlation between antiquity and accuracy. The assumption or belief that man's applied will can result in no positive benefit, but furtherance from god or nature's perfection.

Whether you call it the Noble Savage and take it to heart ideologically, or call it "The Fall/Expulsion from Eden" and believe in it as literally true... it's still the same fallacy.

Ironic, though, considering your UN is Ghost in the Machine. The Ghost in the Machine and Noble Savage are two of a trio of false doctrines (as S. Pinker refers to them) which are closely associated with each other. The Tabula Rasa being the third.

I'm confused by this paragraph. Are you insulting me?

Not at all. I was merely trying to illustrate a common trend in a common situation, and the cognitive trick behind it. You often hear that people have a "herd mentality". This can be very true in various situations. If one person cheats successfully, it significantly increases the odds of more people to cheat. If one person rebels against a situation, it significantly increases the odds of more people to rebel. People show a tendency to follow or react directly in response to perceived leaders - even when they think they are acting and making their own unique and independent decisions. In reality, most of the decisions and positions you take are not decided upon by the individual - but in an almost automatic reaction to the specific circumstances and situations you find yourself in.

We just tend to rationalize and justify our behaviors and decisions as an afterthought.

Another example is preset expectations built by others replacing impartial and personally formed analysis. If you are giving job interviews, and the secretary arranging your appointments suggests that the people waiting in the lobby "seem like nice people", you're far more apt to treat them favorably and notice positive personality traits - whereas her suggestion that they "seem like animals" will make you more apt to place undue focus on negative personality traits. You become less likely to give them a fair evaluation, because you will subconsciously tend to justify the assessment.

Many misdiagnosis in the health care industry begin with patients telling their doctors what they think they have... rather than just giving the symptoms. This predisposes the doctor to look for those symptoms related to that ailment and potentially overlook or forget to check for symptoms which would invalidate that diagnosis.

But that is all context and filler for a side-point. The real point is, that regardless of whether a wrong conclusion is unique and independently arrived, it's still wrong. Whether the conclusion arrived at was influenced by previous guesses - the conclusion is still just as wrong. The only way to verify accuracy is by how well it reflects reality via reproduction, observation, and predictability.

Alchemy doesn't work, but Chemistry does.
Astrology doesn't work, but Astronomy does.
Homeopathy doesn't work, but Penicillin does.

By adhering to a Noble Savage view of the world, Alchemy, Astrology, and Homeopathy would all necessarily have to work and work better than their modern evidence based replacements. If they don't work, then apologetics are employed to make excuses and cover mistakes. "The Secrets are Lost, Your spirit has too low a vibrational frequency, etc. Ultimately, however, the fault lies with the basic flaw in original supposition... that the first proposition, no matter how ill-informed in reality, must be the most correct position simply by virtue of being original and therefore bearing the least weight of corrupting modification by the entropy of human manipulation.

Didnt read all the posts, But!

i would say the the first religion whatever it may be(leaning towards Earth Goddess, Paganism) no longer exists thanks to Christianity, Islam and whatever else people follow these days. Therefore we will never know. Therefore its a irrelevant question as the question will never be answered...

reply to post by Faiol

... its really sad what some people do because of a book

Yet, this forum is also filled with posters who propose and endorse all manner of violent uprisings regardless of the cost to society, spew vile dehumanizing rhetoric and hatred at the slightest mention of alteration, and will "defend with their final breath" a 200+ year old government document. To say nothing of the actual people who HAVE, ARE, and WILL in the future actually make good on those words.

Religion isn't the problem. It's only a damned fine conduit for the expression of the problem. The problem is human behavior, and our taboos, insecurities, and fears which prevent us from acknowledging those human behaviors - both innate and accumulated via culture.

"Man will only become better when you show him what he is like." Anton Chekhov