a History lesson for my atheists friends.

[Ultimaja]

Not only atheists could say that. I’m not an atheist either.

Agnostics and many religious people doubt and criticise the morality of some sections of a number of religious texts. Because the world is changing and, whilst the terrible afflictions of man (intolerance, violence, murder, etc) do remain, a reassuring number of people are against these things. And since the world is more connected today (travel-wise, communications-wise, and with the internet, etc, etc), people are in better positions to meet, and learn from, people who were born into very different circumstances than themselves, worldwide, and some people think that being born into these different lives and thinking differently is no crime or sin.

I can understand the counter-argument that God’s morals are unfathomable to man, and perhaps if he was today to call for genocide and slavery and inequality then perhaps we’ll never understand his reasoning, and it would be our failure as mere humans. However, I may be naïve, but I hope that most people on this earth today are much better than that now. Not all, but most. Or, if not most, at least a significantly larger portion of the earth’s population than in earth’s more brutal historical periods. Even though they can and do still happen, more people will be against these things than for it today. Then there is also the consideration that what is recorded in the Bible is man-written, and not directly recorded from the tongue of God (although there will be some to contest that). Therefore, who would truly know what God wanted in the first place? There’s a lot of trust involved, not just regarding God, but the man-scribed book itself. Trust and faith in positive things may be a good and healthy thing, but to also put trust in the aspects which leads to harm, hatred, and death?

These arguments that god wills such and such and we simply don’t understand why could be quite dangerous, and acting on these grounds can lead to horrific acts.

If God is Logic, and he doesn’t consider to explain his reasoning to all people, and if God’s Logos is harmful to our species or the planet, then that makes him a tyrant. But we do not know what God really wills, if he exists. We can individually believe that he wills certain things, and have faith in a variety of things connected to him, but we do not know.

Therefore I am unprepared to commit horrific acts, or hate people for the opinions they hold, or the lives they have been born into, just to adhere to what some people (not all) say God desires.

In absence of knowledge of God’s will, I think it is better for humans to do right by each other, and reduce harm. Not all people want this, and this inevitably complicates things for the rest of us, but still.

There is a consequence of God in that He cannot contradict Himself. He cannot bend or resort to anything that would make Him imperfect.

That is something that is usually abandoned in thought of God, even though it is demanded by definition of God. If He were imperfect, then whatever should be considered perfection would be the Logic and He would not.
To put it in a better way, there are points in the Bible where God actually has to refer to His own righteousness to determine certain judgements. This is because there is nothing more perfect or authoritatively granted.

It can mistaken as tyranny, but it's really just Him being the perfect God. The Old Law made man mercilessly accountable for his undoing, that if followed exactly, one could imitate perfection.
And perfection does not imply grace, in fact it implies the opposite- true, holy justice is not pleasant.

Abrahamic belief holds to very deep moral truths that do not exist in man's morals. For example, the fact that words kill, and that killing one man is like killing mankind- and vice versa- saving a man is like saving mankind.
There's incredible observations relevant to morality that stem from Abrahamic religion which the world abandons. Really getting down to the gears that drive God's morals is the key to understanding.

In which case, it's not really that we cannot understand God's morals, it's rather that we are inept at focusing such morality. It's an endless maze of virtues that we can barely comprehend, let alone standardize to our being.
Mankind is fallen and hopelessly prefers his own righteousness which cannot suffice, and this is ultimately where the Christ comes into play.

Which brings me to the next thing. The fact that there had to be a perfect atonement is really the best example of God not being able to contradict Himself.
He could have easily just forgiven us, but instead came down and took the penalty- which was demanded by His own righteousness.
The crucifixion was an outright exercise in perfection.

Cultural transference, most plausibly. But not the concept of the sole and only God, and the God of the Bible itself.

Generally much ancient mythology and poetic ideas and narratives stemmed from the earliest Near East. A lot of Greek mythology also lends itself to be considered as an appropriation of earlier Near Eastern mythologies (i.e, compare and contrast Hesiod’s Theogony with the Babylonian Enuma Elis and Hittite / Hurrian Song of Kumarbi, etc, and the narrative similarities are fascinating).

These links are interesting, but the thing about mythological and religious appropriation is that the cultures who embrace a concept from another culture tend to reinvent them to fit their own society’s values and outlook and fit them within other, local, narratives and mythic cycles. Also, over time, all of these ideas evolve and intermingle with other ideas.

This is presumably somewhat less fluid after written canonical holy texts such as the Bible are created, but alterations, translations, and culture-relative interpretations of such texts continued also, as well as various localised religious-themed tales outside of the Bible itself.

So if we want to entertain the idea that God has been transmitted from Sumerian religion, as being the same God as the God of the Bible, then we’re sidestepping the changes over time. There was not a pure and linear transference. Gods and their characteristics and associated stories change from time to time, and culture to culture. The Biblical God is not the same as the Sumerian deities, even if his concept evolved or merged with certain ideas before being immortalised in the form we know him in the Bible. (Or if God does exist in the Biblical form, perhaps the Sumerians and many other ancient cultures misinterpreted what they saw, and that is why they did not witness the same God in a Biblical sense - but as for if this is or isn't true, it is impossible for me know).

Scripture itself has mythological symbols which span across different cultures. For example, the Jews were promised a land of milk and honey- in Greek myth, these are the foods of the gods.
And the olive branch which Noah's dove returned with is a regal symbol of ancient Greece, representing unity.

Other ones are God being symbolized as the Sun, and Satan being represented as Venus (Lucifer in antiquity), all which has some connection to other mythological structures.
There is something unique with the Abrahamic God in that He encompasses more then other gods. Most other religions relevant to these traits have died, but the God of Abraham still prevails. It's almost like a process of elimination.

Ultimately, it all traces back to the Sumerians, and that is ample reasoning to conclude that He is the same monotheistic God of Him.

 

[Dionysos]

There is a consequence of God in that He cannot contradict Himself. He cannot bend or resort to anything that would make Him imperfect.

That is something that is usually abandoned in thought of God, even though it is demanded by definition of God. If He were imperfect, then whatever should be considered perfection would be the Logic and He would not.
To put it in a better way, there are points in the Bible where God actually has to refer to His own righteousness to determine certain judgements. This is because there is nothing more perfect or authoritatively granted.

It can mistaken as tyranny, but it's really just Him being the perfect God. The Old Law made man mercilessly accountable for his undoing, that if followed exactly, one could imitate perfection.
And perfection does not imply grace, in fact it implies the opposite- true, holy justice is not pleasant.

This is the part that concerns me.

All of this is just an opinion on God, which many people may hold, and many people may not hold. And many people would not believe in this form of God, and likewise many people do not believe in God in general.

For certain things, what one man may call perfection, another will be horrified at the continued existence of in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] Century.

I’m just saying that if it is indeed correct that God is perfection, and that he has the righteous morality, and is the truth, then I don’t believe that any mortal man has the right to claim to know and understand what that truth is, and to act and lead other men / women into acting on that professed ‘truth’. Because we, as ignorant feeble and unknowing mortals, cannot truly know. Therefore, on negative matters where safety and humanity is concerned, let us not be led by people who mean to tell us that God wishes such and such, so we should create pariahs of such and such, and scowl at and turn noses at, and ridicule such and such for being such and such. Open-mindedness does not need to be a sin. People are different, and that doesn't need to be the huge issue and terrible crime that is is sometimes considered to be.

If God isn’t placing the yoke on mankind, then some of the people who claim to utter (or even simply ‘know’) the wishes of God do.

These are issues that are not yet ironed out, and are relevant to the topic of this thread as a result by what they can lead to, yet need not.

Scripture itself has mythological symbols which span across different cultures. For example, the Jews were promised a land of milk and honey- in Greek myth, these are the foods of the gods.
And the olive branch which Noah's dove returned with is a regal symbol of ancient Greece, representing unity.

Other ones are God being symbolized as the Sun, and Satan being represented as Venus (Lucifer in antiquity), all which has some connection to other mythological structures.
There is something unique with the Abrahamic God in that He encompasses more then other gods. Most other religions relevant to these traits have died, but the God of Abraham still prevails. It's almost like a process of elimination.

Ultimately, it all traces back to the Sumerians, and that is ample reasoning to conclude that He is the same monotheistic God of Him.

The Abrahamic God still prevails largely because the emperor of the empire that dominated the then-known (by the west) world decided to legalise Christianity, and a later emperor enforced Christianity, and it was taken across Europe. It then spread and entrenched itself in the cultural development, customs, and beliefs of European countries. Then when some of these dominating Christian European cultures colonised the New World, and gradually also generally moved across the world in general and colonised other places, they naturally took Christianity (and its various forms) with them also. Add Missionaries to this too.

Likewise, Arabic conquests spread across the Near East and Mediterranean coast of Africa (and elsewhere), and so naturally, with this (and as a big part of this), the Islamic religion moved.

It is not surprising that Abrahamic religions dominate the world today, because the people who believe in them did most recently, and widely. So it’s not necessarily because these religions must be representing the only ‘correct’ religions. It’s just the way things happened historically.

Also, being monotheistic, it generally did not allow other beliefs to co-exist with it, and can be more divisive on that front. What was ‘true’ and ‘false’ or ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ was presented in more defined black and white terms, and ‘paganism’ would generally become ‘false’, unless aspects were altered.

The ‘pagan’ or polytheistic ancient gods and related narratives and themes came to survive as a sort of poetic escapism, and as popular literary subjects. And since Christianity at first was to an extent tweaked to be more palatable to a previously ‘pagan’ Roman/etc people, for example, easing the transition slightly, and so certain concepts would continue.

So perhaps this all played its role in minimising a desire for the old polytheism to resurface, and because there was less power in this form of religion which had looser organisation. The religion of empires and kingdoms became Christianity (and Islam, etc, respectively).

Today, because the void between then and now is so wide, and because few of us will feel an ancestral cultural reason to revert back to previous polytheistic cults, very few people believe in or worship these deities, save for a number of ‘neo-paganists’ and minor subgroups, etc (and of course that is not counting the polytheistic religions that do continue to have worshipers, such as Hinduism). Polytheism is not so widespread in the western world because it hasn’t been for nearly two millennia. Most people follow (or had followed) the religion of their youth / parents, or generally what is around them locally as an option.

-
As for the symbolism. Symbolism is important too, but I didn’t just mean symbolism. I mainly meant the narrative similarities and the associations of deities and the like. The more noticeable and traceable transmissions, but things that have also been altered and adapted over time to fit different cultural outlooks. The stories and characters themselves, not just the related symbols. To go back to the Hesiodic example, he provides the earliest reference in Greek mythology to Kronos eating his children and being tricked into eating a stone instead of Zeus. In the much earlier Song of Kumarbi, Kumarbi is fed a stone instead of his child Teshub (who is also a storm-god of sorts). Likewise, there are shared narratives regarding the castrations, and the birth-out-of-head motif. Many scholars had been surprised by the degree of similarity, and suggest that this narrative has been transmitted and appropriated into the Greek story.

The example is not so important, but was only to try and demonstrate the sort of thing I was referring to.

-

Again, I have nothing against religion, and do not believe it is as harmful as many people do. I believe it has issues, and these issues largely lie with tolerance of others (and similar things can be said with many atheists too, sure), and the often harmful strength of a belief of one's own correctness over all other people. It needn't be like this.

 

[Ultimaja]

This is the part that concerns me.

All of this is just an opinion on God, which many people may hold, and many people may not hold. And many people would not believe in this form of God, and likewise many people do not believe in God in general.

For certain things, what one man may call perfection, another will be horrified at the continued existence of in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] Century.

I’m just saying that if it is indeed correct that God is perfection, and that he has the righteous morality, and is the truth, then I don’t believe that any mortal man has the right to claim to know and understand what that truth is, and to act and lead other men / women into acting on that professed ‘truth’. Because we, as ignorant feeble and unknowing mortals, cannot truly know. Therefore, on negative matters where safety and humanity is concerned, let us not be led by people who mean to tell us that God wishes such and such, so we should create pariahs of such and such, and scowl at and turn noses at, and ridicule such and such for being such and such. Open-mindedness does not need to be a sin. People are different, and that doesn't need to be the huge issue and terrible crime that is is sometimes considered to be.

If God isn’t placing the yoke on mankind, then some of the people who claim to utter (or even simply ‘know’) the wishes of God do.

These are issues that are not yet ironed out, and are relevant to the topic of this thread as a result by what they can lead to, yet need not.

Well to expound further, there needs to be a few more observations of Christianity.

Christianity is a unique form of monotheism in that God is a trinity- the refined definition being that the Logos is manifest as three distinct beings. And one remarkable thing to realize about the trinity is that there is a father and son within it, and we as humans are created in God's image and likeness.
There's a very human-like aspect in it.
By extension, it also entails that Jesus is our big brother, Mary our mother, and Yahweh our father.

The Church relays this quite thoroughly in that God while God may be the great Mystery on distant shores, we are still connected in a very big way.
And that connection is granted by the fact that we imitate God- we reason and rule in a way that other creatures cannot.

Therefore, we do in fact have a dormant capability to understand God, but according to Christian belief, the Spirit of the Godhead is needed to edify us because of our fallen nature.
I believe this is truly where some become very skeptical, because part of the religion of Christ is that a mysterious force inspires people to truth and God's will; something that one cannot find in a fallen state.
There is no mere sentimentality in that regard, it is very literal in Christian dogma.

~This is sort of where a dividing line begins to be drawn~
Where non-believers may be skeptical and bent on doing things in a way that ascertains perpetual inquiry of our origins, Christianity states that you can only receive Godly knowledge by allowing the Spirit to open your eyes.

The Abrahamic God still prevails largely because the emperor of the empire that dominated the then-known (by the west) world decided to legalise Christianity, and a later emperor enforced Christianity, and it was taken across Europe. It then spread and entrenched itself in the cultural development, customs, and beliefs of European countries. Then when some of these dominating Christian European cultures colonised the New World, and gradually also generally moved across the world in general and colonised other places, they naturally took Christianity (and its various forms) with them also. Add Missionaries to this too.

Likewise, Arabic conquests spread across the Near East and Mediterranean coast of Africa (and elsewhere), and so naturally, with this (and as a big part of this), the Islamic religion moved.

It is not surprising that Abrahamic religions dominate the world today, because the people who believe in them did most recently, and widely. So it’s not necessarily because these religions must be representing the only ‘correct’ religions. It’s just the way things happened historically.

I'm aware of Constantine's conquests and the Arabic regimes inspired by Mohammed, the thing to know about both is that Islam was pretty much inevitable. It postdates Christianity by several hundred years and with little in the way of it other then Christianity.
But while Constantine may be credited with making Christianity a mighty religion, he only simply sped up the inevitable. Just like Islam.
Early Christians had a mighty, mighty fortitude because it was the champion belief among the poor. And martyrdom only made them more and more pervasive until it spread to the more wealthy.

It's one of the great, prestigious aspects of Christianity- it is very capable of permeating a society. I mean, that is what made Constantine make such a political stand on it. He had both motive and little choice; in other words, what he wanted also happened to be something he didn't have too much ambiguity with anyway.

Also, being monotheistic, it generally did not allow other beliefs to co-exist with it, and can be more divisive on that front. What was ‘true’ and ‘false’ or ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ was presented in more defined black and white terms, and ‘paganism’ would generally become ‘false’, unless aspects were altered.

The ‘pagan’ or polytheistic ancient gods and related narratives and themes came to survive as a sort of poetic escapism, and as popular literary subjects. And since Christianity at first was to an extent tweaked to be more palatable to a previously ‘pagan’ Roman/etc people, for example, easing the transition slightly, and so certain concepts would continue.

That's not necessarily true. It just seems that way because the Church Christianized cultural affinities. Winter Solstice is a great example- it became Christmas. People kept their trees, which were thought to bring a natural spirit into the household, but put a star on top to represent the Star of Bethlehem- and the natural spirit of the tree becomes the Holy Spirit.

Interesting stuff, no?

But I'm guessing that doesn't suffice for Rome and Greece specifically. Solstice was something of the North, much like the festivals of the dead in Gaelic tradition which would eventually become Halloween, or All Saints Day- the veneration of dead saints.


Greece and Rome were big on the slice of philosophy, and it naturally found a home in mythology because of it's much more ancient roots. Just how a religious philosopher resembles a theologian, they would do the same.
So when Christianity came around, there was a lot of fiddling with this embedded philosophy in order to edify the religion. However, it wasn't their intention to include any of the mythic gods to the Abrahamic God. Be reminded as well that Greek symbolism is after all in the Abrahamic holy books, they were very aware of this.
They would ultimately do what they would do to the beliefs in the north- they would Christianize the myths, but take advantage of the philosophies laced within them. One of the most notable is Mithra and her place in Mariology.
Protestants are very keen on sinking their teeth right into that, calling the dogmas of Mary inspired by paganism, but it's simply not true.

As for the symbolism. Symbolism is important too, but I didn’t just mean symbolism. I mainly meant the narrative similarities and the associations of deities and the like. The more noticeable and traceable transmissions, but things that have also been altered and adapted over time to fit different cultural outlooks. The stories and characters themselves, not just the related symbols. To go back to the Hesiodic example, he provides the earliest reference in Greek mythology to Kronos eating his children and being tricked into eating a stone instead of Zeus. In the much earlier Song of Kumarbi, Kumarbi is fed a stone instead of his child Teshub (who is also a storm-god of sorts). Likewise, there are shared narratives regarding the castrations, and the birth-out-of-head motif. Many scholars had been surprised by the degree of similarity, and suggest that this narrative has been transmitted and appropriated into the Greek story.

Well it's just like the Flood story. The Deluge pops up in many cultures, including ones that are hardly otherwise relevant to surrounding myths, like China. And they all vary, but have the same general idea.
They were obviously adapted to each culture, interestingly in a way that ascertains and serves each culture. That's no doubt what happened with Kronos and the Song of Kumarbi.

As a side note, Kronos is colloquially Father Time, and serves as a very good template for God in every metaphysical and philosophical sense.

 

[Dionysos]

Well to expound further, there needs to be a few more observations of Christianity.

Christianity is a unique form of monotheism in that God is a trinity- the refined definition being that the Logos is manifest as three distinct beings. And one remarkable thing to realize about the trinity is that there is a father and son within it, and we as humans are created in God's image and likeness.
There's a very human-like aspect in it.
By extension, it also entails that Jesus is our big brother, Mary our mother, and Yahweh our father.

The Church relays this quite thoroughly in that God while God may be the great Mystery on distant shores, we are still connected in a very big way.
And that connection is granted by the fact that we imitate God- we reason and rule in a way that other creatures cannot.

Therefore, we do in fact have a dormant capability to understand God, but according to Christian belief, the Spirit of the Godhead is needed to edify us because of our fallen nature.
I believe this is truly where some become very skeptical, because part of the religion of Christ is that a mysterious force inspires people to truth and God's will; something that one cannot find in a fallen state.
There is no mere sentimentality in that regard, it is very literal in Christian dogma.

~This is sort of where a dividing line begins to be drawn~
Where non-believers may be skeptical and bent on doing things in a way that ascertains perpetual inquiry of our origins, Christianity states that you can only receive Godly knowledge by allowing the Spirit to open your eyes.

So people would need to have been reached (by having faith and letting God into their lives, etc) in order to be enlightened and understand the universal truths of God.

I can understand that belief. However, it continues to concern me because it is the sort of opinion that can divide humanity and create conflict, and a lot of pain. But also because it can act as a sort of self-justification for acts, since it is presented as the right thing, even if people who hold different opinions disagree.

This is no harm for positive things, but where people are affected by it (i.e discriminated because of their beliefs, upbringing, orientation, race/ethnicity, personal opinions, etc) it worries me, because I see no end to it when this frame of mind is applied to these things, and because the power and force of God is behind them (not just as a rhetorical defence, but as an actual belief that what is done is the right thing).

He is, however, behind various other people holding other opinions, and just as various other gods are behind various other people, or in ancient times had been behind various other people. A man can surely be forgiven today for wondering which person who professes to know God’s (or the gods’) will is the truth, and therefore which to open his heart to himself and seek it for himself.

If we imagine this in terms of there being many rays emanating from the sun, and each one is a concept of God (or a god/s), and an opinion regarding him, and these rays fall upon different points in a field occupied by a flock of sheep. Some sheep go to pens where different rays of light fall, and some are led by each other into particular pens. Some sheep fight each other over which pen they should go to. Other sheep are left scattered in the open to be eaten by wolves, and others are simply packed up and taken to be slaughtered. All of these sheep are from the same flock (as humans, we are the same), although they might have their individual differences, and many have moved into different areas (or for us, since our ancestors did, we happened to be born into different places and environments). What distinguishes sheep from sheep? Likewise, would God truly dislike humans who do not follow the particular ray of light that is Christianity, or a particular form of Christianity, or even an interpretation of particular regarding Christianity? Since it is not man’s fault for being in a different part of the field of Earth where a different ray of light shines, or where local circumstances have revealed access to a particular ray of light / religious belief.
I respect that that was most probably a terrible metaphor, and perhaps that should be discarded entirely if my point wasn’t clear. But I guess I’m just expressing my concern when it comes to people relating to one another. Though this is not just with religion at all, and sometimes atheism can be just as bad regarding dividing and driving the flock of mankind into aggressively paranoid, rival pens.

I'd prefer us all to graze together and admire the sun in all its glory. But perhaps I'm a silly man.

I'm aware of Constantine's conquests and the Arabic regimes inspired by Mohammed, the thing to know about both is that Islam was pretty much inevitable. It postdates Christianity by several hundred years and with little in the way of it other then Christianity.
But while Constantine may be credited with making Christianity a mighty religion, he only simply sped up the inevitable. Just like Islam.
Early Christians had a mighty, mighty fortitude because it was the champion belief among the poor. And martyrdom only made them more and more pervasive until it spread to the more wealthy.

It's one of the great, prestigious aspects of Christianity- it is very capable of permeating a society. I mean, that is what made Constantine make such a political stand on it. He had both motive and little choice; in other words, what he wanted also happened to be something he didn't have too much ambiguity with anyway.

How history might have played out without the Roman carrying of Christianity would be interesting to see, but if Christianity was to spread regardless, it would have at least have been a much bumpier ride. We would be looking at a very different Late Antiquity and Early Medieval period, and beyond, and the knock-on effects of this (a weaker Christianity, and more widespread continuation of polytheistic cults in some form) may have provided for a very different future when Islam formed. Who knows. It’s one of those key moments.

Christianity spread as it did largely because the people with power spread it. It is true, however, that the religion also provided power somewhat, and that real action and change could be enforced. It was quite clever.

As a side note, Kronos is colloquially Father Time, and serves as a very good template for God in every metaphysical and philosophical sense.

Also interesting is that there was another set of myths regarding Kronos for the Greeks, in which he wasn’t necessarily as monstrous as he was in the more famous child-eating Kronos story, but could also be praised as wise and just while he had been the king of the Titans (or Old Gods) during the ‘Golden Age’ of mankind, before he was usurped. Kronos’ usurpation was sometimes presented as more graceful than the more famous story of Zeus confronting and punishing him, and sometimes was conceived as a retirement of sorts (though less often – and may just be a poetic thought). After his loss of power to the Olympians, Kronos became one of the figures sometimes presented as having resided over Elysium or the Islands of the Blessed, the best afterlife reserved for heroes, the virtuous, etc. (Or sometimes, all stories were combined, and after his punishment to Tartaros he eventually ‘retired’ and was set up on the Islands of the Blessed – as a concept it wasn’t necessarily an enforced canon).

And in Roman times, their counterpart to Kronos, Saturn, would draw on this principle. The Saturnalia festival (itself influenced by the Greek Kronia festival) was a return to the ‘Golden Age’, an idyllic simpler and purer time without socially constructed boundaries, and fewer concerns. Of both the Kronia and the Saturnalia people have written that even slaves were supposed to be allowed some freedom on that day, and to talk freely (whether they did or not, since the dawn of a new day might see them whipped for certain ‘free’ remarks the day prior is an interesting point to consider, however… ). And incidentally, the Saturnalia was one of these ancient festivals celebrated at a similar time of year to Christmas, and is thought to have had an influence on it.

So in a way, these associations are particularly relevant both to conceptions of God, but also Christian festivals. And it can be seen how various concepts could be carried across and Christianised. And this is the sort of thing that I meant, also.

 

[Ultimaja]

So people would need to have been reached (by having faith and letting God into their lives, etc) in order to be enlightened and understand the universal truths of God.

I can understand that belief. However, it continues to concern me because it is the sort of opinion that can divide humanity and create conflict, and a lot of pain. But also because it can act as a sort of self-justification for acts, since it is presented as the right thing, even if people who hold different opinions disagree.

This is no harm for positive things, but where people are affected by it (i.e discriminated because of their beliefs, upbringing, orientation, race/ethnicity, personal opinions, etc) it worries me, because I see no end to it when this frame of mind is applied to these things, and because the power and force of God is behind them (not just as a rhetorical defence, but as an actual belief that what is done is the right thing).

He is, however, behind various other people holding other opinions, and just as various other gods are behind various other people, or in ancient times had been behind various other people. A man can surely be forgiven today for wondering which person who professes to know God’s (or the gods’) will is the truth, and therefore which to open his heart to himself and seek it for himself.

If we imagine this in terms of there being many rays emanating from the sun, and each one is a concept of God (or a god/s), and an opinion regarding him, and these rays fall upon different points in a field occupied by a flock of sheep. Some sheep go to pens where different rays of light fall, and some are led by each other into particular pens. Some sheep fight each other over which pen they should go to. Other sheep are left scattered in the open to be eaten by wolves, and others are simply packed up and taken to be slaughtered. All of these sheep are from the same flock (as humans, we are the same), although they might have their individual differences, and many have moved into different areas (or for us, since our ancestors did, we happened to be born into different places and environments). What distinguishes sheep from sheep? Likewise, would God truly dislike humans who do not follow the particular ray of light that is Christianity, or a particular form of Christianity, or even an interpretation of particular regarding Christianity? Since it is not man’s fault for being in a different part of the field of Earth where a different ray of light shines, or where local circumstances have revealed access to a particular ray of light / religious belief.
I respect that that was most probably a terrible metaphor, and perhaps that should be discarded entirely if my point wasn’t clear. But I guess I’m just expressing my concern when it comes to people relating to one another. Though this is not just with religion at all, and sometimes atheism can be just as bad regarding dividing and driving the flock of mankind into aggressively paranoid, rival pens.

I'd prefer us all to graze together and admire the sun in all its glory. But perhaps I'm a silly man.

The point to be had is in going back to what I said about us having an essential connection to God, and how interestingly human it is. Going to God is like going to the origins of our souls, extracting the purity of our being.

You say that we should graze together and admire the sun in all it's glory- if you recall the story of Adam, that's basically what God desires. Adam was God's masterpiece, the finality of all creation, and he was meant to be a celebrant- one who takes part in a ritual; in his case, to be enthralled by his creator and existence and enjoy the gift of sentience.
Fundamentally, this is what pleases God. So you can see how others dishing out a notion that He is a tyrant sort of disrupts believers, because it's not how He is supposed to be viewed.

What doesn't please God, is the obstruction of that purity. And as a perfect God, He cannot possibly forsake what is pure. The rejection of God is an instrument of death, and this is seen even in our time, every day.

The key thing that harms mankind is his vanity. Vanity is ultimately what brought Adam and Eve to their fall, wanting to be like God (which they already were, you see- 'in God's image and likeness') even though their peace was given and absolute. You will notice that every sin and cardinal vice falls on vanity, it's even what brought Satan- among the most prestigious of the angels, to what he is now (In fact, the only other angel that seems to have matched him is Micheal. And Micheal is badass, so it's easy to reference the power and steed of the Devil).
Case in point, Michael the Archangel: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Guido_Reni_031.jpg


The Bible, particularly the parables of the Christ, use sheep as an analogy of men. So I don't find your perception silly at all, it's actually quite good- it illustrates mankind in an intriguing way.
Jesus is the shepherd, and St. Peter is the fisher of men. The Church is an apostolic succession of Peter himself- the first pope of the Roman Church. It's easy to see the system of gambits there.

More importantly, it gives insight to the issue of guidance among people. The core notion of evangelizing is gaining others' will toward truth, so that they aren't led into falsehoods and deceptions. The Bible outright expounds on all of that, in the Old Testament- which is considered holy by all three of the core Abrahamic religions.

So in a way, these associations are particularly relevant both to conceptions of God, but also Christian festivals. And it can be seen how various concepts could be carried across and Christianised. And this is the sort of thing that I meant, also.

Simply put, they were Christianized to make the universal notions absolute. The aim was to complete the image of God- to make it complete and final. There's a politically permeating side of Christianity, historically, but then there is simply it's completeness that prevails as well. Each one drives the other.

 

[Dionysos]

The point to be had is in going back to what I said about us having an essential connection to God, and how interestingly human it is. Going to God is like going to the origins of our souls, extracting the purity of our being.

I’d agree that Christianity can be a very philosophical religion in that sense. And there is quite a bit of Orphic and Platonic influence / agreement in the expression of some of these concepts, particularly regarding the soul, and purity, and sentience, etc. Greek Orphic religion was perhaps much closer to Christianity than many of the main aspects of the ‘popular’ Greek religion, though scholarly knowledge of the practiced particulars of the Orphics is comparatively minute.

As for the connection with God, outside of that mainly being a personal response which many people may feel for their own beliefs, this sort of bond can be a good and positive bond on a personal level, and can fill a greater sense of purpose once found.

This is one of the positive elements of religious belief. It has therapeutic benefits to one’s sense of self, one’s sense of belonging and place in the world, a sense of purpose sometimes, and sometimes a healthy moral framework (though sometimes some of the particulars regarding this becomes unhealthy), also amongst other benefits. And sometimes a philosophical system of beliefs is enough to suffice for some of this. But there are many paths to the same end here. Which path people tread is partly chance and luck, due to whichever path the people around them have been treading, or whichever path they chanced upon when they took a turn that the people around them don’t usually take.

You say that we should graze together and admire the sun in all it's glory- if you recall the story of Adam, that's basically what God desires. Adam was God's masterpiece, the finality of all creation, and he was meant to be a celebrant- one who takes part in a ritual; in his case, to be enthralled by his creator and existence and enjoy the gift of sentience.
Fundamentally, this is what pleases God. So you can see how others dishing out a notion that He is a tyrant sort of disrupts believers, because it's not how He is supposed to be viewed.

But if some say God wants this, and that God is true, and others say God wants something else based on something else, and some say another god is true, unless all of us address the way we relate to each other and respond to alternative views, we are never going to ever get close to sharing that field of Earth under the sun.

If we want to get along, we need to accept that we all think differently, have different beliefs due to our own personal life histories, and that is (unless harm is the result) okay and true. For people who argue that this might be boring, as if you can only possibly be entertained if you are fighting or angry, that is a shame, but learning from people and thinking about how they think can be more interesting and rewarding at times, and people can learn more.

People call God a tyrant based on negative things that they see sometimes with people lashing out at various beliefs and people, and people may wish to blame him (but really the usage of him) for a lot, but also there are people who would bring in the Old Testament version of God and various passages where he seems bit harsh. I did throw the label of tyrant out here myself here in this thread, but I was merely testing and running with the concept to attempt to demonstrate the harm that can be caused. It is perhaps more truly the man who uses God who becomes the tyrant. I’m assuming this is the case, otherwise that flock is surely never going to graze in peace, if it is indeed true that God himself is the tyrant.

The Bible, particularly the parables of the Christ, use sheep as an analogy of men. So I don't find your perception silly at all, it's actually quite good- it illustrates mankind in an intriguing way.
Jesus is the shepherd, and St. Peter is the fisher of men. The Church is an apostolic succession of Peter himself- the first pope of the Roman Church. It's easy to see the system of gambits there.

More importantly, it gives insight to the issue of guidance among people. The core notion of evangelizing is gaining others' will toward truth, so that they aren't led into falsehoods and deceptions. The Bible outright expounds on all of that, in the Old Testament- which is considered holy by all three of the core Abrahamic religions.

People being compared to sheep with Christ as the shepherd is a powerful metaphor in Christianity, and it does work well. I did draw from that in my mind when I compiled my metaphor in the previous post.

My issue remains that different sheep (people) are being led into different pens by different shepherds (people claiming to know the will of gods), each potentially purporting their own pen to be correct or superior (though not necessarily all, and it needn't be that way).

Yeah, I agree that the guidance issue is an important part of the metaphor. And I can understand evangelists and missionary groups who set about to spread the word of God and convert people, and part of that may be the intention of uniting all humans under one flock, and in that way perhaps it had been quite admirable. But the world is more complicated than that, and there are other strong religions, and deep-rooted differences regarding beliefs, and many individual differences in people. And the world, despite its terrors, is quite beautiful – or has that potential. I truly feel that an alteration to our outlook regarding relating to each other and respecting personal differences is a better approach than trying to enforce one belief over all of mankind. It would be both impossible to enforce, and it would also be cruel. Who amongst us alive can truly claim to the truth? If we were born under different circumstances, in a different country, with different parents, different friends, different schools, different religions, and different life events happened to us, and we learned different things, we would probably think entirely differently. That is quite incredible, and more is to be gained by learning from people who have lived different lives, than by fearing, criticising unnecessarily, or condemning them.

To attain one flock we do not need to clone one sheep and create a field of Dollies, but instead we should perhaps open up all pens, and just simply step back out into the field, wearing all of our differences in our wool(?), feel a lesser need to make enemies of each other, and live free.

Keep our individual faiths, perhaps, as these can be personally fulfilling and people are entitled to belief… But we need not take it the step too far and attempt to force our judgement onto others simply for who they are if they do no true harm to the world. Appreciate earth’s variety instead, perhaps. But perspectives are always going to differ on this.

I can see my dream for a flock of united (but individually unique) sheep evaporate before my eyes, and now the sheep are becoming clouds in the sky. I am, after all, aware once more that I have fluttered up to Cloud Cuckoo Land. It is perhaps an unattainable dream. It is also just one opinion, my opinion, which is just a speck, and is inaudible on a planet of 7 billion. Especially when a lot of the population do hate one another quite aggressively for some reason or another.

But back to the issue of vanity, perhaps the truer way to be humbled is to appreciate the complexity and variety of human belief, and that people are going to be thinking and behaving according to their own individual environments and life experiences. There is a contradiction amongst some Christians (not all) that hold themselves to be greater and higher than non-Christians, and that other people are impure or misguided and pitiful. This comes across as vanity also, although for justification they push God forward as the defence, therefore protecting themselves from having to own up to that vanity since it is presented as endorsed by God. When this is combined with negative remarks regarding people of particular opinions, beliefs, circumstances, etc, or even with anger projected at certain peoples who are seen as an insult to one’s personal conception of God’s vision of purity and perfection, then it is understandable that a lot of people cannot stand this sort of attitude.

So, there are issues and disagreements between people that are unnecessary and could be ironed out if people were open-minded and respected the individuality of a particular person, within realms of reason and the law and with the absence of obvious or intentional harm.




-
EDIT -
On an immediate glance this might all seem like a huge digression off-topic. However, the issues underlying the current direction of the thread are I believe part of the core of the issue at hand.