Are you a TRUE Christian?!?

by brotherdan 152 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Curtains

  thanks for sharing your research zid. lots I can agree with. Polytheism acknowledges the importance of the feminine whereas monotheism tends to be purely masculine. I think holy spirit could incorporate the feminine if believers would let her. However I don't see evidence of this in this thread so will assume believers don't.

  I particularly like these points, zid,

  I've said it before, I'll say it again - religion itself evolved - or perhaps devolved, as the range of options SHRANK... Polytheism was generally the RULE in older civilizations, not monotheism... And Monotheism, by its very nature, LIMITS the number of deities available for worship. Therefore, the period of time in which Polytheism was common would NATUARLLY have MORE deities - and more methods of worship - than our modern, monotheistic world. So, it didn't start out with "someONE"... It started out in MANY locations with many different kinds of humans... It WASN'T homogenous; it was - again - POLYtheistic, with a WIDE VARIETY of deities and methods of worship...

  these points are a fantastic rebuttal to the theme of htis thread and sorely needed.
• 

  AGuest

  Nooo, Shelby. First of all, "towns/tribes/community folks" DIDN'T "start worshipping a god!"...... they started worshipping GODDESSES... Many "Goddesses", in fact.

  Perhaps, dear Zid (again, peace to you!), but my point was that at SOME point they started worshipping.

  It appears that most of the early Goddesses may have had some characteristics in common with the image of the GREAT Mother, a primal maternal image that was probably the initial deity of Homo Erectus - earliest primitive humanity's forebears... Which was a deification of their earliest experiences as human babies clinging to a human mother for their very life - and you'll notice that I'm not limiting that to Homo Sapiens, by the way...

  While I have my thoughts as to the whole "homo erectus/neanderthalis/sapien"... thing... you're only restating what I said: it all started somewhere with someone. That "someone" was homo erectus (for the sake of argument) is neither here nor there, dear one.

  There is solid paleo-archaeological evidence that "Goddess" worship PREDATES Homo Sapien... Which is fascinating and astounding, when one thinks about it... Just check out the "Berekhat Ram" figurine...

  See, now, I had that discussion a few months ago and I'm just not willing to go there again, as it seems that scientists now believe homo neanderthalis and homo sapien are one and the same. My thought? They're gonna eventually figure out that homo erectus and homo sapien are one and the same, too.

  "Worship" of a primal "Goddess" probably started with Homo Erectus, well over 200,000 years ago - quite possibly as long ago as 800,000 years... [That's if you consider Homo Erectus to be separate from Homo Sapien, who is generally believed to be only around 100,000 years old...]

  See above for my position on homo erectus... and please know that I also have my concerns regarding the "well over such and so" amount of years. While I know that the earth is more than 6,000 or so years old... I must side with those scientists who believe in a relatively young earth. And they do exist, dear one.

  The worship of "Goddesses" also totally predates that mythological group that you mentioned:

  I absolutely do NOT doubt that, dear Zid! I am more than willing to concede that goddess worship predated Noah. Absolutely!

  The mythology which generated the tale of "Noah" probably isn't much older than 7,000 - 8,000 years - if one considers the flooding of the Black Sea as the origin of the "Noah's Ark" story, and not some more localized Mesopotamian flood...

  I consider neither; even so, I believe Noah and his sons were the start of a "new" humankind... so my comment stands. Because what is NOW... is what came after them... regardless of what occurred... or what/who was worshipped [by those who lived prior] BEFORE them.

  your hypothetical "scads of people everywhere..." - with some initial "commonality" - who "said to their fellow towns/tribes/community folks, at the same or very close moments" - never happened.

  Ummmm... I invite you go back and read that hypothetical, dear one, as I never stated that such a thing occurred. You misunderstood my point.

  Human communities, especially at the time periods that you are referring to - around 4,000 to 3,000 years ago, were rather separated by distance, and many tribal groups lived out their existence with little to no contact with other civilizations - unless invaded by larger groups...

  Yep, that's kind of what I was alluding to: that people absorbed the religions and beliefs of those they lived among, including those they captured or were captured by... as well as those sold to nomadic passersby...

  Which allowed quite a variety of deities to develop.

  I agree. However, deities are not necessarily religions, dear one. Indeed, while deities tended to belong to one (or perhaps a few religions), some (many) religions had a plethora of deities. You are counting religions by number of deities. But, again, that doesn't work as some religions had hundreds of deities. In ONE religion. See how that works?

  I've said it before, I'll say it again - religion itself evolved - or perhaps devolved, as the range of options SHRANK... Polytheism was generally the RULE in older civilizations, not monotheism...

  And I will say that while there was an attempt to force religion down to ONE... that didn't really work. There are "scads" now. Just in "christianity" alone there are, what a couple/few dozen "denominations"... and then in each denomination there are, what, a couple hundred sects... and then in each sect there are, what, a whole nuther hundred or so individual "churches"? Heck, there are at least 75 within a one mile radius of my house! And that's just the so-called "christian" stuff. The number bumps up when you add in the Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Hara Krishna, metaphysical, Universal Unitarian, pagan, wiccan, voodoo, native american (including but not limited to Aztecan, Mayan, and more)... and the various denominations, sects, and/or individual "groups"/individuals under each of these!

  And Monotheism, by its very nature, LIMITS the number of deities available for worship. Therefore, the period of time in which Polytheism was common would NATUARLLY have MORE deities - and more methods of worship - than our modern, monotheistic world.

  I disagree. While I agree that there were more deities... and so more methods... I do not agree that there were more religions. Problem is, you see all "christians", etc., as one religion. I do not. I see less classifications of religions, yes. But not less religions.

  So, it didn't start out with "someONE"... It started out in MANY locations with many different kinds of humans... It WASN'T homogenous; it was - again - POLYtheistic, with a WIDE VARIETY of deities and methods of worship...

  Like I said, YOUR position is that people "everywhere" said to their fellow towns/tribes/community folks, at the same or very close moments, "Heyyyyyy, let's start worshipping a... okay, goddess!" Right?

  But, I guess you'll take the word ot that "guy" who "talks" in your ear, over the hundreds of thousands of hours of work by of hundreds - thousands - of archaeologists, paleo-archaeologists, paleo-anthropologists, paleontologists, and geologists, and all of the artifacts and data that they present...

  The guy who talks in my ear aside, I think you should go back and re-read my comments. Because what we have here is a failure to communicate, dear one. But I don't think it's on my end, truly.

  But, as always, peace to you, dear Zid!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Curtains

  I would not take up the story of worship with SOMEONE as you suggest Aguest. To me plants, animals etc present themselves as meditating in worship, for example in turning towards the sun. One only needs to look at them to feel their calming meditative influence. No someone here. You can keep your guy/someone who talks in your ear. I prefer the babbling brook of nature.

  edit: And in returning to the title of this thread, what could be more true than that?
• 

  ziddina

  LOL! Good for you, Curtains!!!
• 

  ziddina

  And Shelby - shame on you for not sticking to your original points, but waffling your comments and twisting them around!!!

  That is the LAST TIME I play in YOUR ratty sandbox!!
• 

  AGuest

  I believe that plants AND animals all [have the capacity to] worship God... and most DO, dear Curtains (peace to you!). Which I have stated here on many occasions, even when others rididule. I am not sure I consider turning toward the sun as "worshipping" it, though (although, we do have "scads" of human sun worshippers here in Cali, so....)

  I think the problem with the discussion between dear Zid and I is that, in responding to a question as to the wisdom of Buddha as that relates to the teachings of Christ, I mentioned Abraham's ancestors being from the east (but not the "far" east, so don't see why that became an issue). I did that to show that, from a common point, beliefs went "out". Whether from the Mesopotamian Valley... or Africa (as some believe)... they started somewhere. In relation to religion, and religous beliefs, someone (and not something although, again, I get it that animals and plants worship, also - never stated differently)... chose/decided to worship/make/teach others to worship... god, God, or goddesses... first.

  Perhaps it was one or two. Or twenty. Or 200. My understanding is that it was eight. Eight who were together, bore children and multiplied, and then separated (or the generation(s) after them separated), taking their common belief system with them... which system changed/evolved over time as each generation retold it. Then, at some point, tribes, communities, etc., would come across others with varying versions of the same "belief" and take what they liked/agreed with and discard what they didn't.

  So that, today, virtually all religions have SOME similar tale, story, foundation, hope, destiny, or whatever you want to call the similarities.

  My point is that regardless of whether you go back 7,000 years... or 7 millions years... "it" "started" somewhere, with someone.

  But let's assume dear Zid is right... that it started in several places... among many... all at once. With none of them knowing anything else just prior. In that case, I think the next question would be why would that occur... what (or perhaps who) would cause that kind of phenomenon... and how... if none of them ever came across one another, had absolutely nothing in common, and never even knew one another. Which is what I perceive she is saying. I could be wrong, but if I am it's because she totally misunderstood what I asked her.

  Okay, it's late, so gonna turn in. Peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  And Shelby - shame on you for not sticking to your original points, but waffling your comments and twisting them around!!! That is the LAST TIME I play in YOUR ratty sandbox!!

  What the...??? What are you speaking of, dear Zid (again, peace to you!)??? WHat in the world did I change, not stick to, waffle on, or twist around??? Seriously, please do tell!

  Peace... and I await your response!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA, who reiterates that THIS is why she responds to comments line by line... so that to the best of her ability she doesn't misunderstand and/or misconstrue what another posts... which oftens happens when folks try to "rush" through reading a post...
• 

  Curtains

  aguest in your line by line replies, it is clear to me that you are misunderstanding and delimiting what zid is saying.

  A general point I will make and which I feel agrees with what Zid is saying is that the worship she describes has a multiplying effect whereas monothieism has a subtracting effect - subtracting down to one. And then monothieism when taken to suggest a single start does not allow for the fact singleness is absent in nature - what we have instead is profusion. So I would suggest saying always profusion and abundance. Archaelogocal and anthropological evidence supports this idea of profusion and always is a much more liberating way of seeing existence.

  The Noah story perhaps testifies to having to make a new start after some sort of cataclysm (of which there have been many). Although the story possibly relates to a real life event, I see it as one of many such stories and as having been experienced not just by humans.
• 

  AGuest

  aguest in your line by line replies, it is clear to me that you are misunderstanding and delimiting what zid is saying.

  I am not sure I agree, dear Curtains (peace to you!), but I am MORE than willing to hear you and dear Zid (peace to you, as well!) out!

  A general point I will make and which I feel agrees with what Zid is saying is that the worship she describes has a multiplying effect whereas monothieism has a subtracting effect - subtracting down to one.

  I didn't misunderstand that, dear one - I simply disagreed. Which is okay to do, right? I did take her to believe that because there were many deities there were, correspondingly many religions. I disagreed with that, as well, on the basis that many polytheistic religions have hundreds, if not thousands of gods/goddesses. ONE religion... may have, say, 200 deities that it worshipped. My point being, many deities does not necessarily denote many religions.

  And then monothieism when taken to suggest a single start does not allow for the fact singleness is absent in nature

  Please explain. I ask because of how I see it, which is this: although there are MANY stars, there is only one sun and one moon. Both of these are larger (in perception) than the stars. So, let's say ancient people considered the sun a god, the moon a god, and the stars gods. The logical thing would be that they considered the sun the GREAT god, the moon a lesser god, and the stars even lesser gods. That they worshipped ALL of these, however, was STILL by means of ONE religion, whatever theirs happened to be. And regardless of the number of stars, they would consider the SUN the singly GREATEST of their gods.

  - what we have instead is profusion. So I would suggest saying always profusion and abundance. Archaelogocal and anthropological evidence supports this idea of profusion and always is a much more liberating way of seeing existence.

  Of gods/goddesses, yes! Absolutely! I do NOT deny that. Of RELIGIONS, I disagree. What you and dear Zid seem to be saying is that if, for example, a certain tribe worshipped 1,500 gods... then there were 1,500 religions. I submit that that certain tribe worshipped their 1,500 gods... in ONE religion. I offer the religion of ancient native [Americans] and African tribes. Both of these worship[ped] a plethora of gods/goddesses; however, if you ask them, they will tell that their form of worship has ONE name.

  The Noah story perhaps testifies to having to make a new start after some sort of cataclysm (of which there have been many).

  Yes! And based on MY belief and understanding, I would have to start THERE in order to look at today's religions. Because what occurred BEFORE that event is moot. Regardless of what peoples/tribes/communities believed and worshipped BEFORE Noah... what came AFTER the Flood is what Noah... and his household... believed. And everything today... had to originate with that. Because there was no one else to, well, I am sure there is a better word but I can't think of it, right now... "propogate" anything other than what Noah and his household believed.

  Now, the difference in what Zid believes and what I believes in based on her rejection of a global flood and my acceptance of it. IF there was not flood, then what she says makes sense; however, again, I don't agree with that. In that light, if there was, then Noah would be that "someone" that I mentioned.

  Although the story possibly relates to a real life event, I see it as one of many such stories and as having been experienced not just by humans.

  And I don't disagree! I have LONG said that animals and plants not only hear God and communicate with Him, but worship Him as well! And I have been blasted for saying so. But they are spirits, too... as ALL living things are... just in different "vessels" and according to THEIR "kind." But that is an entirely different subject and thread (as is the assumptions as to homo erectus and homo sapien), which I have had here, in length. So, I didn't go "deep" into either subject it wasn't within the scope of this thread.

  Rather, the question was asked regarding how Buddha could share wisdom that preceded Christ. I explained that, as well as how ALL religions have some commonality. I don't care whether it's Christian, Buddha, Hindu, native, tribal, or what have you... you will find SOME commonality. Since they all started from ONE belief, that shouldn't be so hard to grasp.

  I am not sure how you and Zid think I misunderstood her. I really do believe you both misunderstood me. Either way, I don't want to "fight" about it and if I offended dear Zid I truly apologize. But I did not change anything as to my position. I did concede to "goddesses" because I realize that there WAS goddess worship - heck, Egypt worshipped a whole LOT of goddesses - so why pick at straws between worship of gods or worship of goddesses?? I couldn't see the point. But that wasn't a change of my position... and other than that, I have NO idea what dear Zid is referring to. Truly.

  So... well, again, peace to you both!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Curtains

  SA/aguest

  I'm happy to leave it at that then

  peace to you too!