Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Would People invent GOD ?


Spock_the_Future

Recommended Posts

I'm kind of new on this particular thread but here is an interesting quote I found while doing research for a book I'm working on. The quotes was found in a copy of "When God was a Woman" by Merlin Stone and she was herself quoting Sheila Collins:

Theology is ultimately political. The way human communities deify the transcendent and determine tghe categories of good and evil have more to do with the power dynamics of the social system which create the theologies than with the spontaneous revelation of truth from another quarter

Quoted from A Feminist Reading of History radical religion journal Berkeley CA 1974 12-17

Stone was using the argument while writing about the introduction of stoning raped women by the Hebrews in an otherwise primarely matriarcal societies

Edit for errors darn French computers doesn't same keyboard as an ordinary one

Edited by Paracelse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Spock_the_Future

    43

  • Mr Walker

    11

  • eight bits

    10

  • encouraged

    5

Theology is ultimately political. The way human communities deify the transcendent and determine tghe categories of good and evil have more to do with the power dynamics of the social system which create the theologies than with the spontaneous revelation of truth from another quarter

This I believe could be one of the explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spock

I would ask you to revisit the story quoted by you with the concept in mind that the messenger wants to be acknowledged and wants to become known with whatever means necessary.

True, but give people any surprising incident, and ask them "Why did the hero do that?" and you'll get plenty of incompatible answers. People looking for an "angle" will find one. People looking for spiritual reasons will find those. People looking for psychology will find that.

What really happened? The guy himself maybe doesn't know. How the hell are you going to sort it out, knowing only what he did?

Thought experiment in the style of Rashomon Here is a very famous very short story, the Other Thief pericope in Luke 23: 29-43.

Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God? For you are subject to the same condemnation. And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

Why does the Other Thief act that way?

Plenty Venal (possibly "Protestant") The goal of spiritual life is to get yourself into heaven. The only way to do this is to admit you're a sinner, and ask Jesus for salvation. OT wanted in, so he said the words, and Jesus took him, as he had to, according to the New Covenant.

Venal (possibly "Catholic") The goal of spiritual life is to get yourself into heaven. You must have faith, repentance, and do good works. OT did the one and only good deed he could do, he silenced the first thief. Then he took responsibility for his own sins, and appealed to Jesus' mercy. Jesus exercised the divine prerogative of judgment, and granted OT Heaven.

Spiritual (possibly "Buddhist") The goal of spiritual life is to end ego-attachment. OT realizes that ego attachments got him into this fatal predicament. Maybe for the first time ever, he overlooks his own pain, and performs two compassionate acts. First, he protects the dying Jesus from the taunts of the bad thief. Second, he plays along with Jesus' own ego-attachment, that he is, as the sign under which he is dying says, the King of the Jews. Although it is only too obvious that "when Jesus comes into his kingdom" will be half-past never, OT confers what comfort he can.

Psychological (possibly "Jungian") The goal of human life is individuation. In a moment of clarity, OT's consciousness expands. He retains ego function, silencing the taunter and making a life inventory. But ego now functions harmoniously within a larger concept of Self, seeing that Jesus, the taunting adversary and himself are identically situated. Rationally contemplating his few options, he sees that the only course which does anyone any good is to comfort the innocent Jesus. Without descending into a folie a deux, OT nevertheless shows Jesus the respect he craves. Jesus acknowledges what he has heard, but can understand it only in terms of his own ego-goals, as if OT is yet another petitioner asking Jesus to fix something for him.

Well, Spock, there you have it. You tell me, why did the Other Thief do it? Any one of those, and more besides, can be adapted to explain why the hero in the "Room with a Window" story plays along, including the simple and especially venal possibility you suggested.

They aren't even mutually exclusive, and might be mostly just different ways of thinking about what's going on.

Concept of GOD was never a single window in a particular wall to people, ...

True. But the prophet of God claims that he can see something you can't, that he has some edge that you don't that explains why he sees Bruno and you don't. That should remind you of shamanism, which doesn't necessarily have any gods, and by typical definition has no full-time clergy. either. Give the shaman his window (trance, drugs, ...), and the god will come in time.

The "lines" between a tribal shaman's familiar eagle-spirit becoming the tribe's totem spirit-eagle, and the tribe's totem spirit-eagle becoming that eagle over there, Bruno, who is the avatar of the tribal patron demon, who finally becomes Bruno the Winged Wonder Raptor, a god in full, are fuzzy at best. That progression started with one guy, who actually worked at some day job, saying he saw stuff through a "window" that you can't find, and the possibility that there was any window at all gave somebody hope. IMO, as goes without saying.

-

Edited by eight bits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spock

1.

What really happened? The guy himself maybe doesn't know. How the hell are you going to sort it out, knowing only what he did?

Thought experiment in the style of Rashomon Here is a very famous very short story, the Other Thief pericope in Luke 23: 29-43.

2.

Why does the Other Thief act that way?

Well, Spock, there you have it. You tell me, why did the Other Thief do it? Any one of those, and more besides, can be adapted to explain why the hero in the "Room with a Window" story plays along, including the simple and especially venal possibility you suggested.

They aren't even mutually exclusive, and might be mostly just different ways of thinking about what's going on.

Well are we talking about people who we know lived and walked or are we talking about people in Bible for whom we read that they lived and walked ? (And now please don't ask me to prove the existence of the messenger as that would take the topic to some other road). Let me say this, The Other Thief did this because the Messenger told us that "the other thief" did so and thus was sent to Heaven, and if we also follow the Messenger then we would also, even when we have sinned and are being punished for it come into his grace, submit ourselves to the power of the Messenger, get to Heaven.

Maybe that would explain the reasons of both the Messenger and The Other Thief. By the way I also love Rashomon, It's a great movie.

True. But the prophet of God claims that he can see something you can't, that he has some edge that you don't that explains why he sees Bruno and you don't. That should remind you of shamanism, which doesn't necessarily have any gods, and by typical definition has no full-time clergy. either. Give the shaman his window (trance, drugs, ...), and the god will come in time.

The "lines" between a tribal shaman's familiar eagle-spirit becoming the tribe's totem spirit-eagle, and the tribe's totem spirit-eagle becoming that eagle over there, Bruno, who is the avatar of the tribal patron demon, who finally becomes Bruno the Winged Wonder Raptor, a god in full, are fuzzy at best. That progression started with one guy, who actually worked at some day job, saying he saw stuff through a "window" that you can't find, and the possibility that there was any window at all gave somebody hope. IMO, as goes without saying.

-

So then Bruno does become some powerful entity because of a conjuring done by a Shaman ? then the Shaman becomes the Messenger here and with this position he can now take the whole tribe under his wing because only he can see and talk with Bruno. A whole tribe now worshiping the Shaman though whom they believe they are worshiping Bruno (conjured by the Shaman).

So ? Would people invent GOD if none actually existed ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Walker,

I don't think that we would tend not to believe the tangible. the example you provide is a tangible truth, what I am asking about is the intangible, the unproven. Still I would ten to say that what matters most is what we believe as it is our collective belief that shapes the world and shapes the future that we head into. This notion is not only limited to some topic in a forum, It makes us who we are collectively today and shapes our world.

Good point. Everything we create is, in some way, connected to what we believe, from the mona lisa to stonehenge and the pyramids.

The more collective the belief (usually) the more physical power to transform it gathers to itself. Hence the differnce in scale betwen the mona lisa and the pyramids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are talking the way it is. :yes:

Its up to the individual belief right ? then doesn't our individual beliefs tends to make us seek the ones agreeing with and rather then making us singular makes us a group believing the same thing, thus the individual belief becomes a collective belief. It does tend to makes us invent or does it not ?

There are many practical, and other, reasons why humans seek each others company and especially, "like" ' company. But, in general, our beliefs begin, and remain, singular. The "best" we can do is to join our beliefs with others, adapting and evolving them perhaps into a communal set. This is evident in religions and other institutions. Eventually, some people find the common set diverging from their own and leave; while others are attracted to it, and join.

Being with others will evolve and adapt our beiefs, much more than they will do if we live alone. This is why some religions and cults try to separate their members from "the world"

Not sure how it effects our tendency to "invent"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spock

So then Bruno does become some powerful entity because of a conjuring done by a Shaman ?

In that scenario, yes. But what the Shaman conjures isn't a god. It's an eagle. Not even an eagle, but an eagle of the mind. Maybe the Shaman never has any experience of any god, ever. The Shaman's conjuring only sets in motion a sequence of events. Eventually, downstream, we find a god. In retrospect, we can see in the god traces of the non-god from way back in the original conjuring. At least the chain has a beginning.

Even if we had the complete record... well, we don't. This Shaman we're talking about lived back when people wondered whether living with a wolf in the village would really be a good idea. (Speaking of whom, were domesticated wolves invented? The living examples, dogs, were, but what of the originals? Although, then again, what about the ferals and mixed breeds?) But even if we had the complete record, was the god invented?

Not by this Shaman. He died without ever knowing what a god is. If invented, then by whom in the long chain of events that gives us Bruno the Winged Wonder Raptor? When, exactly, did Bruno become a god? Why Bruno, the one-time avatar of the tribal demon, and not the demon? Or did they merge? In which case, isn't the Shaman's contribution to the end product even less? Does the chain still have a definite beginning, or only just one strand of it?

Are words, another cultural feature, invented? Some of them are, agnostic for example. But even then, it is a cultural thing that we attend to Thomas Huxley's role (coining the word), and discount the importance of the second person to use the word, whose name we don't know. But, that second person is as necessary as Huxley for the word to be a word today. And the early adopters' role wasn't passive. They stripped the word down to its essential meaning. Huxley even complained about that a little, but the fact is, nobody today needs a word for "holding similar views to Thomas Huxley's on a variety of topics." No stripping, no survival. No "fleshing out," no Bruno TWWR.

Are all words invented? They're all of human origin, and no doubt each served some original purpose, gross or sublime. But what about whisper? Doesn't that kind of sound like what it names?

I guess my final answer to your question is that bigger than Hell I don't know, and I don't think I'm the only one, because the problem is a lot harder than it looks at first.

-

Edited by eight bits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okey so just in case I'm like like or this has already been said, I'm just going to say it again because I can't be bothered to read 81 posts now... :)

So yes, people have created the big almighty God. And the reason they created him is because they needed something to believe. That there was some meaning to life, some bigger purpose to strive to. It gives them hope and a purpose...I mean who doesn't ask themselves why we are alive?

Theology, If I am right is for people who don't believe in god a way of living. It's kinda political I guess, but then I'm not to well informed on it, I just got the principle down.

People like to explain to themselves about the world. They are afraid of the unknown so they need something to explain the unknown. Example, in older times when someone died, their spirit is supposed to be the watcher of that graveyard, or that a spiked head is a vessle that god can speak through, that the dead can contact you through them, something like that.

The unknown is general something that scares people, so they need something to explain it to them. There is a big GOD, to make it all easier. The interesting thing is (Not sure if it's ontopic) that the bible says that christ will come again, but the fact that christ has already come again goes unoticed by most people. He is generally the Sun, so like Apollo in the greek legend. Most religions have some things in common, many different religions have a virgin mary, a person with super powers and stuff like that, the fact that so mant cultures have the same belief, point that there is some kind of higher beeing, but not necessarily the big god almighty.

Edit* So just realized that this comment is like so not needed here :D Sorry bout the trouble

Edited by Wolfpower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my final answer to your question is that bigger than Hell I don't know, and I don't think I'm the only one, because the problem is a lot harder than it looks at first.

Hi eight,

I can say that I am with you on this (I don't know either). I'll also ask you to stay with us on this topic and assist to get to a probable conclusion, your views are most certainly appreciated and your point of view is something I would like to have for other additional comments if any come this way. All different and conflicting views kind of make us whole don't they ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit* So just realized that this comment is like so not needed here :D Sorry bout the trouble

You are most welcome to join the discussion Wolf, We have your views why not edit and wait for a reply ? maybe your views are something yet not said on this topic ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many practical, and other, reasons why humans seek each others company and especially, "like" ' company. But, in general, our beliefs begin, and remain, singular. The "best" we can do is to join our beliefs with others, adapting and evolving them perhaps into a communal set. This is evident in religions and other institutions. Eventually, some people find the common set diverging from their own and leave; while others are attracted to it, and join.

Being with others will evolve and adapt our beiefs, much more than they will do if we live alone. This is why some religions and cults try to separate their members from "the world"

Not sure how it effects our tendency to "invent"

They are singular agreed, we still reach of approval and likeness. I invent something and if you like it you will approve of it and the would become a collective part of my group, and vice versa. That's Human nature maybe. I invent something and I being either powerful or rich, or maybe both or just a good orator would make you part of my group and the power of my invention will kick in. You'll believe and in the end may end up making a few more believe of my invention. I don't actually know how the human mind works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copa

As to the "does it matter?" Well, it is the topic of the thread. And this subject, theogenesis(?), has one thing that the biogenesis problem lacks: an all but logically necessary creator. 'Twas him, us, or both... but it was somebody.

And I guess the remaining issue is whether that means that God was intelligently designed :).

Yes, I would be thinking genes are emergent non-invented.

I really don't know. The roots of all this could be ancestor worship. Grandpa was specific and emergent-uninvented. Maybe better yet, the king's Grandpa was, too. Or, look at all those dreams in the Bible. They come too late for direct application to our problem, but one or two good dreams, full of nicely specific emergent-uninvented dream characters...

As to our personal enslavement by a meme... Meh, we are adapting Feynman's advice: if we can't explain it here, then we don't really understand it. Besides, it's good for our souls.

In deed. But is the memory of grandpa invented. That is what matters no? If our memory is a simulation of encounters we experience, then they could be invented. So another lay to add for us then I think, conscious or unconscious invention?

So we can have emergent-invented-conscious (EIC) or emergent-invented-unconscious (EIU). Now we're getting interesting.

How much do you know about dreams? Have you delved in the actual biology of them before? I know you are Jung fan (fanboi? I kid, I kid :P), but suffice it to say a lot has been learned since those latter days.

Of more particular interest to you may be rats, mazes and their dreams thereof--Remind me of that in a couple days time if I forget. Looking down the barrel of a pharmacology exam come Monday (and 40% is cumulative!), so short and sweet is all I have time for. Back to the books, right about now another degree is sounding like a p***-poor idea :rofl:

Edited by Copasetic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a tangled hierarchy? Why not both? Emergent properties of emergent properties in ever increasing concentric rings. Whose to say it has not been going on for an eternity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spock

Thanks for the kind words, and here I am back already. This is a good thread, and good conversation. I'll definitely be lurking, and probably drop in now and then.

Copa

My understanding of ancestor worship is that the objects of veneration are actual people. I know from researching my own that there have been stories told in the family about our ancestors that fail to withstand scrutiny. On the other hand, other stories have been verified, and it is the verification that has led to increasing detail, not imaginary embellishment.

This is probably a great time to point out that I use "emergent" as an engineering term, where it means "not engineered but you wouldn't have been too surprised if it had been." Hence, for me, it's a simple antonym to "invented" as I understand the OP. You work in a field where almost none of the workpieces are engineered (pace Answers in Genesis), and so clearly have a different sense of the term. You need to keep in mind that for me, "emergent-invented" is an oxymoron, meaningful only because we've bound the string to a local definition. The acronym, then, is a bad sign :).

Now we're getting interesting.

Yes, you've actually restated the Freud-Jung split, but left out the sex.

How much do you know about dreams?

I don't have any professional involvement. I can often follow the conversation. Serious amateur?

Lapsing once again into engineering-speak, Jung wasn't competing with physiologists. He was looking at a phenomenon "top down" which the physiologists view "bottom up." Ideally, the two avenues of investigation will eventually meet and join. In the meantime, there is an intersecting pair of problem sets, each set comprising practical concerns for which one or the other approach is crucial to effective management, at the current state of the art. So there.

I have indeed made a note about the maze dreams of rats. Best wishes on your exam! (Apparently, you are having Gertrude Stein moment, and as much as you hate second-degreeing, I am confident that you will love having second-degreed.)

Seeker

Oh, it's probably worse than that :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So any more reverts regarding the points I have listed or are they not sufficient and I need to add or delete a few things ? me and "eight bits" (I hope) are still waiting for your reverts, We do have conflicting views but are not afraid to discuss any mentioned point.

Anyone with an opinion is welcome ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

damnit!

Edited by Hazrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

Edited by Hazrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm finally able to be able to address this question with my opinions.

I found it interesting that the topic started at the same time that I was considering the same question. I love it when people are thinking on the same track and don't know it!

My thinking has been:

Regardless of any other reason, the result of seeing at night what people think are other people during the occurrences of sleep paralysis--although somewhat uncommon, but not uncommon on this website--would cause a need for explanation. That explanation would have to be spiritual and thereby bring about a hierarchy of spiritual matters and beliefs, in order to fill those needs thus constructing an imaginary spiritual world.

However, there is a further question which would be nice if we could answer, however, can not, because they are actually matters of faith. The question:

"Is sleep paralysis a planted phenomenon in man to bring about, through his imagination, some kind of spiritual thinking which a higher life form used and developed in man for a gradual series of direct revelations to bring about an accurate religion concerning higher life form."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theology is ultimately political. The way human communities deify the transcendent and determine tghe categories of good and evil have more to do with the power dynamics of the social system which create the theologies than with the spontaneous revelation of truth from another quarter

The above quote is from a post by Paracelse...

Rather than Theology being ultimately political, I think that it is ultimately Egotistical. I think that the catalyst for Theology was indeed Revelation of Truth...that Truth being revealed, set the 'revealer' up on a platform. The Ego likes the Platform and wants to stay, and so the 'revealer of truth' has need of revealing even more Truth. The seed of Theology thus formed grows like a cancer, ultimately the Ego begins dictating Truth rather than Revealing because, after all, the Ego is a lie and is incapable of acknowledging 'truth'. Finally, the Ego must Enforce said Truth by fiat. The stoning of, the burning at the stake of, otherwise innocent men and women, then the Total Control of society as the Truth Revealer seeks to maintain the Platform. The Revealer must acknowledge that the Truth was given to him by God. It is a vicious cycle of Lies in which the real Truth has no part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, earlier people invented god simply because they didn't have the technological or scientific means to explain certain things. They couldn't explain how we came to be, so god must've done it. They couldn't explain how the planet got here, so god must have done it, etc.

Also, it's human nature to yearn and desire power, and what more could a person use as an alibi to subjugate fickle individuals than an almighty creator who will punish you for not following or adhering to certain rules? Religion is a powerful tool against weak minds.

I am also confused as to why religion is still so prominent amongst society... people are STILL weak minded...

Edited by Alienated Being
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above quote is from a post by Paracelse...

Rather than Theology being ultimately political, I think that it is ultimately Egotistical. I think that the catalyst for Theology was indeed Revelation of Truth...that Truth being revealed, set the 'revealer' up on a platform. The Ego likes the Platform and wants to stay, and so the 'revealer of truth' has need of revealing even more Truth. The seed of Theology thus formed grows like a cancer, ultimately the Ego begins dictating Truth rather than Revealing because, after all, the Ego is a lie and is incapable of acknowledging 'truth'. Finally, the Ego must Enforce said Truth by fiat. The stoning of, the burning at the stake of, otherwise innocent men and women, then the Total Control of society as the Truth Revealer seeks to maintain the Platform. The Revealer must acknowledge that the Truth was given to him by God. It is a vicious cycle of Lies in which the real Truth has no part.

This is an interesting thought joc. Thanks for your input. It does explain one point of view why GOD would be invented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also confused as to why religion is still so prominent amongst society... people are STILL weak minded...

We are and it's not only because of religion, It's the blind faith in whatever it is - Religion, Atheism, Science, Spiritualism and so on....

It is because of our inability to stop and reconsider. I ask what defines the actual truth ? The ego drives us the most and then the truth becomes what we make of it and what we believe is the actual truth as it suits our thoughts. We are not at all open to possibilities, either of us (Theist, Atheist, Scientists, Paranormal believers). We are all weak minded as you rightly said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm finally able to be able to address this question with my opinions.

I found it interesting that the topic started at the same time that I was considering the same question. I love it when people are thinking on the same track and don't know it!

My thinking has been:

Regardless of any other reason, the result of seeing at night what people think are other people during the occurrences of sleep paralysis--although somewhat uncommon, but not uncommon on this website--would cause a need for explanation. That explanation would have to be spiritual and thereby bring about a hierarchy of spiritual matters and beliefs, in order to fill those needs thus constructing an imaginary spiritual world.

However, there is a further question which would be nice if we could answer, however, can not, because they are actually matters of faith. The question:

"Is sleep paralysis a planted phenomenon in man to bring about, through his imagination, some kind of spiritual thinking which a higher life form used and developed in man for a gradual series of direct revelations to bring about an accurate religion concerning higher life form."

Is it the unconscious part of the mind that you are talking about ? We still don't know what it stands for after many studies so it's a bit of a conjuncture. Anyway it is capable of doing too many things as the various hypothesis say which includes conjuring up non-existent beings into physical reality.

Do you really want to discuss this as a possibility ? It is a wide and unrepresented(or maybe not) field(as far as I know) you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.