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 -
sci-nerd

God without scriptures?

191 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Podo

If the Middle-Eastern death cults hadn't gained prominence, we'd be arguing about something else. Would it be religious? Probably, since idiots always find a way to put their thoughts and feelings before evidence and facts. It'd just be some other religion. The Abrahamic nonsense are definitely particularly bloodthirsty compared to most world religions, but any group when given enough power is bound to get violent. Would things be better without them? I think so. Would humans be free of conflict and hatred and bigotry? Not by a long shot. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil

The appearance of the Bible and Christ is inevitable since Christ brought the new law of forgiveness and God’s love by replacing the old law of equal reward for crime. From a mystical point of view, Christ implanted supreme love into the earth’s consciousness and body(earthquake) and therefore advanced our consciousness and evolution far ahead but his mission still remained unfinished, so we have wars and confrontations on earth between nations and people.

God could give people every day a dozen books-revelations equal to the Bible and so for thousands of years but what's the point if even for one book mankind cannot live  and Christ was nailed.

However, after Christ there were several more avatars, not so famous and not attracting attention but they did a great job for humanity.

We can say that the brick to the new supramental race is laid but our race will not save it. We failed the test of understanding but God is merciful, he drags us on himself and all the hard work is done by avatars. It is necessary to have great patience that everything will be done as needed. If they were able to transform themselves into light beings, then we can when a new evolutionary turn comes.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
19 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Do you think, that without the bible/koran, there would be as much animosity by religion?

Would there be such large blocks of people shouting "I know I'm right, because MY god is the TRUE god!"?

Or do you think religions would be more or less equal, across the board?

We'd just find new and more creative reasons to murder each other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Yes god would be known to people today through both faith and encounter. The scriptures are just a selection of  descriptions of a god, and its desires for humanity, based on human encounters and faith.

Spoken like a true believer, but also like someone ignorant of human nature and history.

Truth is that the written stories and thoughts from the first generation(s) of a new paradigm are crucial to it's survival.
Take Greek philosophy and Plato's writings as an example. It still stands strong today, even without being directly religious. Because the writings survived!

Without the Tanakh, Jesus would have had no foundation and no message. And without the Bible, I doubt very much that Mohammad would have had that either.

We would live with a mixture of Roman and northern European gods today (they share many), if the ancient Jews had failed to write their Tanakh. That is the truth.
Would there be monotheism? Of course! There will always be the oddballs that contradicts mainstream. But they would be considered oddballs.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
7 hours ago, danydandan said:

But as others have pointed out, I feel a singular God construct was inevitable due to power struggles, empire building and nationalism, because at the end of the day that's what brought God into fray

I disagree. The Roman empire, with polytheism, and even the vikings with theirs, were doing fine. The native Americans also. But they all lacked scriptures. Something tangible for their clerks to point to and say: Look! This is the words of the gods written by our forefathers!

That is the critical advantage that made monotheism prevail!

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

Spoken like a true believer, but also like someone ignorant of human nature and history.

Truth is that the written stories and thoughts from the first generation(s) of a new paradigm are crucial to it's survival.
Take Greek philosophy and Plato's writings as an example. It still stands strong today, even without being directly religious. Because the writings survived!

Without the Tanakh, Jesus would have had no foundation and no message. And without the Bible, I doubt very much that Mohammad would have had that either.

We would live with a mixture of Roman and northern European gods today (they share many), if the ancient Jews had failed to write their Tanakh. That is the truth.
Would there be monotheism? Of course! There will always be the oddballs that contradicts mainstream. But they would be considered oddballs.

I am not "a believer" and i am  university educated in many aspects of history and a teacher of history for 40 years so i don't accept your first points.

You will note i used god with no capital. God can be known through encounter or faith, and the human mind has evolved to experience both. So today people would still be religious and faithful.

I think you misunderstood my point  We would know god but not necessarily in the christian form. That was spread around the world by attachment to to powerful forces such as the  Roman empire and European colonial empires   However it clearly met human needs better than some other religions, as many people converted willingly. 

Until the printing press there were few books and 90% or more of the human population was illiterate so while writings are important the y are not essential.  For centuries Catholics were not allowed to own a bible  precisely so the theology could be controlled by the priesthood 

WE would not have ancient gods because science would have broken our faith in them. However we would have new ones, constructed or perceived via the most basic human psychological needs, but suited to modern times.

  The jewish faith reflected a unique, evolved, understanding of the whole world, as well as a new form of god and a new individual way of connecting to that god.

Faiths do not drive society to evolve, as much as societies drive faiths  to evolve

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
20 hours ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  Because every people group that has ever existed has some belief in the spiritual or supernatural (that I know of) except for atheists.  But atheists also have beliefs because believing there is nothing is believing something.

There's a difference between knowing what is, and believing in nothing.

For atheists "belief" is fantasy. Even atheists have fantasies, but they are not defined by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

WE would not have ancient gods because science would have broken our faith in them.

Concur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 hours ago, Podo said:

If the Middle-Eastern death cults hadn't gained prominence, we'd be arguing about something else. Would it be religious? Probably, since idiots always find a way to put their thoughts and feelings before evidence and facts. It'd just be some other religion. The Abrahamic nonsense are definitely particularly bloodthirsty compared to most world religions, but any group when given enough power is bound to get violent. Would things be better without them? I think so. Would humans be free of conflict and hatred and bigotry? Not by a long shot. 

Actually if we lived with almost ANY ancient religion today, it would appear violent and barbaric.

That is because they all evolved in times of very different circumstances, and hence human values.

Even the peaceful pacific islanders had constant warfare, cannibalism  and some fairly weird social practices based on beliefs   What about japanese Bushido,  the vikings, Huns, mongols, or my favourite, the meso american natives and their religious practices and warfare.    African tribes  had wars and slavery  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually if we lived with almost ANY ancient religion today, it would appear violent and barbaric.

That is because they all evolved in times of very different circumstances, and hence human values.

Even the peaceful pacific islanders had constant warfare, cannibalism  and some fairly weird social practices based on beliefs   What about japanese Bushido,  the vikings, Huns, mongols, or my favourite, the meso american natives and their religious practices and warfare.    African tribes  had wars and slavery  

You really can't just say "I agree," can you? You gotta turn everything into a moose-tossing contest. Take off, eh?

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
23 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 if you live in a community, it is wise to know and understand, and even live by, the laws customs and beliefs of that community, especially if you have no compelling reason not to.

If I lived in a Muslim, Jewish, or  Buddhist country i would do exactly  the same  thing, and follow their beliefs ( as far as my own understanding, ethics,  conscience and connection to god allowed me to)

Only a fool deliberately, and without pressing need, defies the will and custom of his community.     

Perhaps, for  you, as you are limited by your beleif system simply due to the homogenous expression.

“To say only a fool deliberately, and without pressing need, defies the will and custom of his community”( Walker), says to me that without a darn good reason you can’t go against the consensus. It sounds like you are fear mongered.

I live in a huge metropolis exposed to all kinds of religious and non religious perspectives, it makes for interesting conversations and tolerance for each other and room for diversity, what I see as a limit in a homogeneous expression, there is no need to follow anyone for fear of. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
20 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Actually, the Judeo-Christian God is deeply embedded and beholden to Mesopotamian religious traditions, going back thousands of years before there even was a Jew. All the things you cite were inherited from those ancient civilizations, who were, often even more barbaric, sadistic, avaricious and perverse than the Jews ever hoped to be. The Assyrians  make the Jews look like rank amateurs when it comes to atrocities and like the Jews, their religious narrative had their gods supporting them every step of the way. Judaism was/is far from pristine and untouched by the cultural complexes it found it's diaspora embedded in throughout it's history. Never-the-less, it was and is a Middle Eastern religion.

True enough, and I agree with you. However, I don't think we see too many Mesopotamian churches, at least not in my neck of the woods. :)

From wherever the seeds of Judaism came from, we know that other areas of the planet had gods who were not so keen on mass slaughter as the Middle Eastern ones were.

And I am not discounted the South and Middle American religions that practiced ritual sacrifice either.

A hard world demanded hard gods. But most of the old gods and their tales didn't involve mass slaughter of entire tribes. As I stated, the 'gods' may have favored one side, or even one person, but I cannot recall any mythos wherein a god commanded 'slay them all".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

For atheists "belief" is fantasy. Even atheists have fantasies, but they are not defined by them.

 

Atheists are defined by their belief in the fantasy that there isn't a God. 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Podo said:

You really can't just say "I agree," can you? You gotta turn everything into a moose-tossing contest. Take off, eh?

If i agree, i usually don't comment. People don't need a validation of a point which is clearly correct. 

No point.

In this thread i have expressed some agreement with some points, yet this was not understood.

Nothing is simple, or black and white. Everything is nuanced.  To understand a difernt pov it must be challenged, so that it can be explored and expanded.

Besides; debating ideas, opinions, views and values,  is fun  :)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Atheists are defined by their belief in the fantasy that there isn't a God. 

I wish your God would just show himself. What's the point of omnipotens if you have to hide? He clearly misunderstood his job description. What a fool.

If he exists he is a coward, and I would still denounce him. He is worthless in our world. At best he's a mind crutch to the desperate and ignorant.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
7 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I wish your God would just show himself. What's the point of omnipotens if you have to hide? He clearly misunderstood his job description. What a fool.

If he exists he is a coward, and I would still denounce him. He is worthless in our world. At best he's a mind crutch to the desperate and ignorant.

 

Isn't this all just another fantasy of yours that you believe? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
41 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

True enough, and I agree with you. However, I don't think we see too many Mesopotamian churches, at least not in my neck of the woods. :)

From wherever the seeds of Judaism came from, we know that other areas of the planet had gods who were not so keen on mass slaughter as the Middle Eastern ones were.

And I am not discounted the South and Middle American religions that practiced ritual sacrifice either.

A hard world demanded hard gods. But most of the old gods and their tales didn't involve mass slaughter of entire tribes. As I stated, the 'gods' may have favored one side, or even one person, but I cannot recall any mythos wherein a god commanded 'slay them all".

id suggest researching Ares and to a lesser extent Mars and their influence on Greek and roman attitudes. Ares was the main god of the Spartans and typifies their attitude to war and conflict  A lso the Anasazi and celts  The Anasazi butchered and ate their enemies. The y killed and then defecated their remains into  the hearths of their victim's homes This occurred  among several north american tribes

The only difference is that, without written records, we don't KNOW this as well/popularly  as we know jewish history  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I wish your God would just show himself. What's the point of omnipotens if you have to hide? He clearly misunderstood his job description. What a fool.

If he exists he is a coward, and I would still denounce him. He is worthless in our world. At best he's a mind crutch to the desperate and ignorant.

Quite a rant. You are angry that this God does not comply with your demands, despite being labelled a fool, a coward, and worthless. No wonder there is no response !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The Anasazi butchered and ate their enemies.

Could you provide a link? As far as I know, there is very little known about Anasazi culture. But my data may be out of date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Quite a rant. You are angry that this God does not comply with your demands, despite being labelled a fool, a coward, and worthless. No wonder there is no response !

Can I ask you if you ever actually contribute to a discussion? Or do you just attack others?

Seriously, can you show something that has sparked a topic, or created a thinking point?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Perhaps, for  you, as you are limited by your beleif system simply due to the homogenous expression.

“To say only a fool deliberately, and without pressing need, defies the will and custom of his community”( Walker), says to me that without a darn good reason you can’t go against the consensus. It sounds like you are fear mongered.

I live in a huge metropolis exposed to all kinds of religious and non religious perspectives, it makes for interesting conversations and tolerance for each other and room for diversity, what I see as a limit in a homogeneous expression, there is no need to follow anyone for fear of. 

 

 

 

 

 

lol of course I am the one who is "limited", yet could live in any religion which was not intended to do harm 

Read as you will.

Unless you have a pressing need, to go against your community is foolish.

You will be insulted, ostracised, subject to physical and  social media pressures You wont be protected by authorities because, in opposing your society you oppose the rule of law of that society Youmay be gaoled or at least fined   

This is worth while  honorable ,and tolerable, if your reasons  are sound and practical,  but dumb if its just being belief driven and comes from obstinacy.

Go and find somewhere you can live in peace, with neighbours of a similar mind .

Like me, you live in a tolerant society, but try walking to the shops in the nude and see how tolerant your society is. :)

Ask if you can marry your sister  (or brother) and see what happens. 

Go to Saudi Arabia before the law was changed,  and try to drive.

Drink alcohol, hold hands, or kiss in public, in a Muslim country and see what happens  (or even kiss on a bus in some american states )

You just feel safe because our society has a wide tolerance of social behaviours, but it only extends so far  

Carry a gun in public in Australia, and see what occurs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Could you provide a link? As far as I know, there is very little known about Anasazi culture. But my data may be out of date.

the link is very long, but i will try to copy it 

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=L_j0ZTidkXMC&pg=PT416&lpg=PT416&dq=which+ancient+gods+demanded+slaughter+of+enemies&source=bl&ots=sIKEECYyE4&sig=ACfU3U1nMePiOVVY8xFBJvA2qHsZhfX6Tw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZj9CPl93gAhWTeisKHfkJCqcQ6AEwD3oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=which ancient gods demanded slaughter of enemies&f=false

 

also

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2000/09/anasazi-ate-their-enemies

 

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/7705

 

also to add to the point that the Mongols practiced genocide on a wide scale 

The death and destruction during the 13th century Mongol conquests have been widely noted in both the scholarly literature and popular memory. It has been calculated that approximately 5% of the world's population were killed during Turco-Mongol invasions or in their immediate aftermath.[citation needed] If these calculations are accurate, this would make the events the deadliest acts of mass killings in human history.

Diana Lary contends that the Mongol invasions induced population displacement "on a scale never seen before", particularly in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. She adds, "the impending arrival of the Mongol hordes spread terror and panic".[1] In addition, the Mongols practiced biological warfare by catapulting diseased cadavers into at least one of the cities they besieged.[2][3][4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

If i agree, i usually don't comment. People don't need a validation of a point which is clearly correct. 

No point.

In this thread i have expressed some agreement with some points, yet this was not understood.

Nothing is simple, or black and white. Everything is nuanced.  To understand a difernt pov it must be challenged, so that it can be explored and expanded.

Besides; debating ideas, opinions, views and values,  is fun  :)   

You're a looney.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 minutes ago, Podo said:

You're a looney.

 objective evidences, and  sources, please . :) 

What did you  find  even the slightest bit unbalanced in my post?  

ps is that an Americanism (as mad as a loon) or an anglicism (affected by the moon or luna) ?

Ah you are Canadian, so probably a reference to the Common Loon or  Great Northern Diver, as its known in Europe  (Isn't it an unofficial national bird for Canada?)  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
28 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Can I ask you if you ever actually contribute to a discussion? Or do you just attack others?

Seriously, can you show something that has sparked a topic, or created a thinking point?

I'll leave that for others to judge.

Share this post


Link to post
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.