Religion educator / author / commentator Stephen Prothero is featured in a recent short interview about why all religions are not fundamentally the same, and why it's important to acknowledge that.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religi...e-not-the-same/6266/

He also has a short religion literacy quiz he administered to his students, with the results from 2006 and 2007.
http://pewforum.org/newassets/protheroquiz.pdf
--
Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
Religion educator / author / commentator Stephen Prothero is featured in a recent short interview about why all religions are not fundamentally the same, and why it's important to acknowledge that.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religi...e-not-the-same/6266/

He also has a short religion literacy quiz he administered to his students, with the results from 2006 and 2007.
http://pewforum.org/newassets/protheroquiz.pdf
--
Stephen

Stephen,

In Wikipedia, Stephen (very popular name ) Prothero defines himself as a "confused Christian".

I can understand why. He obviously is not aware that the only true God is the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Sela

Missie Sela,

Why do you continue to use Father. Why not Mother ? It seems to me, only mothers can reproduce !

quote:

Originally posted by William:
Missie Sela,

Why do you continue to use Father. Why not Mother ? It seems to me, only mothers can reproduce !

William,

I assume by that you mean human mothers.

You raise a good question, though, because if you break down and analyze some of the biblical writings, you will find the name of God has variations throughout the Bible.

In monotheist religions, God is called the Father and Creator of the world because this is how He revealed Himself to the prophets and how He manifested Himself to Christ. Christ said that he of himself could do nothing, nor did he seek his own will, but the will of the Father which sent him.

However, taking up the message that God's name has variations, such as 'Yahweh' which is the primary Hebrew name of God in the Bible; and going back to the very beginning of creation, the Hebrew name for God is 'Elohim' which, linguistically, is plural. I have said this before and quoted Genesis 1:26 which reads:

quote:

Then God [Elohim] said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...."

Many Christian churches interpret this as saying that the "Us" is the Divine Trinity. However, in Christian theology, the "Paraclete" (Holy Ghost) is identified as the creator of new life in the believer and the unifying force by which God in Christ is "building together" the Christians into the body of Christ.

Theologians point to a gradual development of the doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture. In the Old Testament, the Spirit was at work in the creation of the world (Gen. 1) and in prophecy (Isa. 61:1). In the New Testament, the Spirit was present in the life and works of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:12) and continues to be present as the Paraclete (advocate) in the Christian community (John 14:26).

There are some who regard the Holy Spirit as implying a feminine divine presence; and when understood and experienced in that 'three-dimensional awareness', we all would see things in a different way, and realize that God is both male and female!

That is the point of all my writings!

Sela

quote:

He obviously is not aware that the only true God is the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You know, Sela, you're almost an atheist. You discard all religions that precede the New Testament and many that are after. (Jews don't feel God is the Triune God, for example, so by your own words all Jews are worshiping a false God.)

Norse Gods? Nonsense to you. Greek Gods? Nonsense to you. Pagan Gods and Goddesses? Nonsense to you. Egyptian book of the dead? Nonsense. Scientology? Nonsense. Hindi Gods? Nonsense. Native American Gods? Nonsense.

We agree completely on all of those.

Now you have only one more step to take.

Triune God? Nonsense.

Join with me, Sela....

Jeff

CompGuy,

It is well known that there are people who deliberately misinterpret other people's words to fit their own agenda. Your posts are a classic example of this kind of manipulation. But there is always the possibility that you fall under the class of people who do not understand things on "three-dimensional awareness" (as communicated in that same post), so what else can we expect from atheists who only see things on a "one-dimensional awareness" platform?

I have defined and argued the meaning of the Holy Trinity many times on these forums, including Prodigy; but not once did I ever infer that other religions are nonsense! Only YOU inferred that, which shows that arguing with you would be like arguing with this creature.

Sela

quote:

However, taking up the message that God's name has variations, such as 'Yahweh' which is the primary Hebrew name of God in the Bible; and going back to the very beginning of creation, the Hebrew name for God is 'Elohim' which, linguistically, is plural. I have said this before and quoted Genesis 1:26 which reads:

quote:

Then God [Elohim] said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...."

Many Christian churches interpret this as saying that the "Us" is the Divine Trinity.

Sela,

Different names were used for God by different writers, the most important ones being Elohim and YHVH as you said. Elohim is the name used in Genesis--you're also right about that. But given the time in which it was written, and the fact that it most likely draws on an earlier source, it should probably be read as a straight-up plural, meaning "gods." Orthdox Jews would froth at the mouth if they heard me say that, but I have never found their pious rationalizations very convincing. I don't believe Judaism was monotheistic at the time Genesis was written--not the earliest versions of it anyway.

Christian theologians can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. There is NO trinity concept in Judaism analogous to the Christian trinity. I'm not saying it's a totally worthless idea in itself, but it just isn't a Jewish idea, and to try and read it into the OT is flat-out revisionism. It simply isn't there!

quote:

Theologians point to a gradual development of the doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture. In the Old Testament, the Spirit was at work in the creation of the world (Gen. 1) and in prophecy (Isa. 61:1).

Right, the ruach elohim, grammatically feminine like the Greek pneuma. Can be equated with the Holy Spirit or the Shekhina (the Divine Presence). God the King and the Shekhina are the masculine and feminine aspects of God in Judaism. Unless you've read The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai you don't realize how much overtly sexual symbolism existed in Judaism during the First and Second Temple periods--it was a real eye-opener for me! It was very similar to Hindu Tantra. But 1+1=2. That still doesn't add up to a trinity.

--Linda

Linda,

The concept of "Trinity" is something we have discussed before many times, going as far back as the old Prodigy forums. The message I just posted to Donald on the "White Horses" topic covers part of it and would like to continue it here as to your ruach elohim reference; but my husband is home today and just said to get ready to leave since we have some things to take care of today.

Will respond to your post later.

Sela

quote:

Originally posted by Raksha:
But 1+1=2. That still doesn't add up to a trinity.

Linda,

The reason it still doesn't add up to a trinity is because the Jews are still looking for their Messiah.

Hmmm, seems to me I posted this before and got clobbered for it.

Sela

quote:

The concept of "Trinity" is something we have discussed before many times, going as far back as the old Prodigy forums.

Sela,

Yup, that we have. And we never agreed about it then either! I can remember telling you there are several trinity models that make sense to me, among them the kabbalistic trinity and the Hindu trinity, but the one that makes the least sense is the Christian trinity. I just cannot wrap my mind around "three persons in one God." Three ASPECTS of one God, but not three PERSONS. It makes somewhat more sense if the Holy Spirit is female because she then equates with the Mother. That makes it more natural and easier to understand.

But you know...there is one person missing. The Daughter is missing. There have even been a few very daring Christian theologians (okay, maybe not official theologians) who have suggested this. The Trinity should really be a Quaternity.

So where the hell is Bluelamp when I need him? I have a feeling he'd have something to say about this.

--Linda

quote:

Originally posted by Raksha:
I don't believe Judaism was monotheistic at the time Genesis was written--not the earliest versions of it anyway.

Yep seems Goddesses (Triple Goddesses) were gradually wiped out beginning around 5000 BC.

"And, here again, we have an interesting "track." Suddenly, at a certain point, 5000 years ago, serpents are associated with the goddess, where before, they were apparently not! What happened to bring about this association? We will be getting to that soon, so patience!

By 4000 B.C., Goddess figures appeared at Ur and Uruk, both on the southern end of the Euphrates river, not far from the Persian Gulf. At about this same period, the Neolithic Badarian and Amaratian cultures of Egypt first appeared. It is at these sites that agriculture first emerged in Egypt; and once again, goddess figurines were discovered.

From that point on, with the invention of writing, history as we know it, emerged in both Sumer and Egypt - about 3000 B.C. (5000 years ago!) In every area of the Near and Middle East, the Goddess was known in historic times. It is pretty clear that many changes must have taken place in both the forms and modes of worship, but, in various ways, the worship of the Female Goddess survived into classical Greece and Rome. It was not totally suppressed until the time of the Christian emperors of Rome and Byzantium, who closed the last Goddess Temples about 500 A.D.

It appears that the Goddess ruled alone in the beginning. At some point she acquired a son or brother who was also her lover and consort. He is generally assumed to have been part of the female religion in much earlier times.

It was this youth who was symbolized by the male role in the annual sexual union with the Goddess. He was known in various languages as Damuzi, Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, Osiris or Baal. This consort died in his youth causing an annual period of grief and lamentation among those who paid homage to the Goddess. Wherever we find symbolism and rituals of the young god, we can recognize the presence of the religion of the Goddess.

The people of the early Neolithic cultures of the Near and Middle East may have come down from Europe, possibly the descendants of the Gravettian-Aurignacian cultures. Later, waves of more Northern people descended on both Europe and the Near East. There has been some conjecture that these were the descendants of the Mesolithic (15000 - 8000 B.C.) Maglemosian and Kunda cultures of Northern Europe. But, their arrival was NOT a gradual assimilation - it was wave after wave of aggressive invasion.

These northern invaders, generally known as Indo-Europeans, brought their own religion with them: the worship of a young warrior god and a supreme father god. Their arrival in the Near East is attested to by 2400 B.C., but there may have been several earlier invasions.

After these invasions, the worship of the Mother Goddess fluctuated from city to city. As the invaders gained more and more territory over the next two thousand years, the male began to appear as the dominant husband or even the murderer of the Goddess!

Up to this point in time, writing seems to have been primarily used for the business accounts of the temples. The arriving Northern groups adopted this writing and used it for their own purposes.

"Professor Chiera comments: 'It is strange to notice that practically all the existing literature was put down in written form a century or two after 2000 B.C.' Whether this suggests that written language was never considered as a medium for myths and legends before that ime or that existing tablets were destroyed and rewritten at that time remains an open question." [Stone, 1976]

Over and over again in the studies of the ancient religions it is noted that, in place after place, the goddess was debased and replaced by a male deity after the coming of the Northern Peoples. The transition was accomplished by brutally violent massacres and territorial acquisition throughout the Near and Middle East.

The Northern Invaders left neither tablets nor temples to explain why or how they came to choose a male deity. These "Sons of the North Wind, Aeolus" - these Nordics - are referred to variously as Indo-Europeans, Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryans, or simply Aryans. There seems to be a complete lack of evidence of their culture in the Northern areas of Russia and the Caucasus. It is thought that maybe they were just illiterate nomads - hunting and fishing groups or just shepherds. But, in the opinion of the present writer, this idea is not supported by their culture, which they imposed on so many conquered peoples, as we will see further on.

Nevertheless, their existence, once they burst upon the historical scene, is described as aggressive warriors riding two abreast in horse-drawn war chariots; or as big sailors who navigated the rivers and coastlines of Europe and the Near East. Jaquetta Hawkes writes:

"On no subject have authorities differed so completely or with greater lack of objectivity than on the origins of these cultures. The reason for this partisanship lies in the one thing the authorities are agreed upon - that the BATTLE AXE cultures represent the roots of the Indo-European speaking peoples. ...What can be said with some certainty is that the battle axe people had a large ethnic, social and cultural inheritance from the hunter-fishers of the forest cultures such as the Maglemosian and Kunda. ...Though it may not always or everywhere have been so, this character came in time to be dominantly pastoral, patriarchal, warlike and expansive." [quoted by Stone, 1976]

These Maglemosian and Kunda people of Mesolithic times (15000 - 8000 B.C.) were generally located in the forest and coastal areas of northern Europe, especially in Denmark. Their sites were generally much further north than those of the earlier Gravettian-Aurignacian groups.

The invasions of the Aryans took place in waves over a period of up to three thousand years according to standard archaeology. The invasions of the historical period are attested to by literature and artifacts, and are agreed upon by scholars. Those of prehistoric times are suggested by speculative etymological connections.

What is most significant in the historic records is that these Northern invaders viewed themselves as a very superior people. They were aggressive and continually in conflict with not only the peoples they conquered, but among themselves as well. Their coming revolutionized the art of war. They introduced the horse-drawn chariot, and the charioteer became a new aristocracy.

Historical, mythological and archaeological evidence suggests that it was these northern people who brought with them the concepts of light as good and dark as evil and of a supreme male deity. The arrival of the Aryans, the presentation of their male deities as superior to female deities, and the subsequent interweaving of the two theologies are recorded mythologically in each culture. It is in these myths that we can discover the attitude that led to the destruction of the Goddess.

The Aryan male god, unlike the son-lover of the Goddess, was frequently depicted as a storm god, high on a mountain, blazing with the light of fire or lightning. (Haven't we heard this before?!) In many of these myths, the goddess is depicted as a serpent or dragon, associated with darkness and evil. Sometimes the dragon is neuter or even male, but in such cases, is closely associated with the goddess, usually as her son.

The Goddess religion seems to have assimilated the male deities into the older forms of worship, and survived as the popular religion of the people for thousands of years after the initial Aryan invasions. But her position had been greately lowered and continued to decline. It was the assaults of the Hebrews and eventually the Christians that finally suppressed the religion.

Strangely, it is in the accounts of the Aryans that we find the original religious ideas of the Hebrews. There is the mountain-top god who blazes with light; there is the duality between light and darkness symbolized as good and evil; there is the myth of the male deity defeating the serpent; and there is the supreme leadership of a ruling class: the priestly Levites. All of these are to be found in both the Indo-European and Hebrew religious concepts and politics! The Indo-European patterns were either adopted by the Hebrews, or the Hebrews were Indo-Europeans from the start. But, the end result was that the same ideas and attitudes were later adopted by Christianity.

In India there is clear evidence of the Aryan invasions and the conquest of the Goddess worshippers. The books known as the Vedas were a record of the Aryans in India. They were written between 1500 and 1200 B.C. in Sanskrit using scripts possibly borrowed from the Akkadians. Professor E.O. James writes:

"It appears that the sky gods in the ancient Vedic pantheon were already established among the Aryan tribes when they began their migrations in the second millenium B.C. On their arrival in India they found ...not a primitive aboriginal population but a highly developed urban civilization superior to their own relatively simple way of life as depicted in the Rg Veda." [Stone, 1976]

quote:

Originally posted by Sela Juneau:

quote:

Originally posted by Raksha:
But 1+1=2. That still doesn't add up to a trinity.

Linda,

The reason it still doesn't add up to a trinity is because the Jews are still looking for their Messiah.

Hmmm, seems to me I posted this before and got clobbered for it.

Sela

Sela,

The vast majority of Jews are NOT "still looking for their Messiah." I have said many times before that while I don't totally rule out the possibility of a personal Messiah, I consider it extremely unlikely. However, I do believe in the coming of a Messianic Age, or as Christians call it the Kingdom. Christian Gnostics, following the teaching of Jesus, called it the same thing. However, they believed that it already exists on the inner plane, and "the coming of the Kingdom" will be when it manifests outwardly in the world. Which had better happen pretty soon, BTW, or we're all screwed.

"But the Kingdom is within you and it is without you." This line from the Gospel of Thomas was apparently the inspiration for a Beatles song of the same name, "Within You Without You." And yes, you could also call it the Heavenly Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem. I lurked on your posts about the New Jerusalem, but didn't reply because I couldn't find a foothold anywhere. But I was gritting my teeth the whole time, thinking to myself, "You just DO NOT get it!"

But that's from a different tradition already pretty far removed from Judaism. Not unimportant or invalid--just not Jewish. I did take a quick look at your link. I can see already that there is so much nonsense and distortion and flat-out revisionism on that page it's positively breathtaking. From a Jewish POV, of course. But when the subject being discussed *IS* Judaism, the Jewish POV is the authoritative one. After all, we're on our home turf here. If I were a rabbi or just someone who could read biblical Hebrew, I'm sure I'd find even more absurdities.

When are Christians going to realize that when it comes to subjects like the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy and so on, they can't possibly win a "disputation" with a Jew who knows anything at all? To quote Stephen Prothero in the subject line, "All religions are not the same." I guess it counts as progress if they can't start killing us when they lose the argument. That hasn't always been the case.

--Linda

quote:

The Goddess religion seems to have assimilated the male deities into the older forms of worship, and survived as the popular religion of the people for thousands of years after the initial Aryan invasions. But her position had been greately lowered and continued to decline. It was the assaults of the Hebrews and eventually the Christians that finally suppressed the religion.

Strangely, it is in the accounts of the Aryans that we find the original religious ideas of the Hebrews. There is the mountain-top god who blazes with light; there is the duality between light and darkness symbolized as good and evil; there is the myth of the male deity defeating the serpent; and there is the supreme leadership of a ruling class: the priestly Levites. All of these are to be found in both the Indo-European and Hebrew religious concepts and politics! The Indo-European patterns were either adopted by the Hebrews, or the Hebrews were Indo-Europeans from the start. But, the end result was that the same ideas and attitudes were later adopted by Christianity.

Bluelamp,

THANK YOU!!! I knew you wouldn't let me down.

Somewhere in the middle of all that, or maybe towards the beginning, I thought to myself, "Damn, that sure sounds a lot like Merlin Stone..." and sure enough, when I got to the end and read your reference, it turns out it *IS* Merlin Stone! I was looking for a link since I knew you didn't write it yourself. I just hope you found a source for it online so you could copy and paste it. That would be a lot of typing if you had to copy it all out word-for-word from the book.

To bring everyone else up to speed here, the source for Bluelamp's long quote about how the Aryan invaders disrupted and eventually suppressed the ancient and universal worship of the Mother Goddess is from Merlin Stone's classic work of modern feminist scholarship, When God Was a Woman, first published in 1976.

I have to go out for a while, but hopefully I'll be able to comment more extensively later on. Very synchronistic though that you should focus on the Indo-Europeans aka Aryans, who I had occasion to mention in a recent e-mail conversation. But maybe I should save that for later, since I really don't have time to get sidetracked at the moment, as tempting as it is.

Love and Light,
Linda

Linda, I got it from the middle of Laura's Grail Quest series where she was referencing Merlin Stone.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/grail_5.htm

-- John G.

quote:

not once did I ever infer that other religions are nonsense!

The religions I mentioned don't have Triune Gods. So aren't they false religions to you? Or are you now saying that you accept the truth of Norse gods, Greek Gods, etc.?

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:

quote:

not once did I ever infer that other religions are nonsense!

The religions I mentioned don't have Triune Gods. So aren't they false religions to you? Or are you now saying that you accept the truth of Norse gods, Greek Gods, etc.?

Jeff

That question is non-sequitur since both Norway and Greece have been Christianized for millennia. Interestingly enough, the Norse people gave up their pagan gods starting in 1000 AD, about the time Leif Ericson discovered America. Quite coincidently, today, October 9, is Leif Ericson Day, but the only Vikings we hear about in these final days are those who play football.

Greece has been Christianized since the great Roman Emperor, Constantine,
saw a vision of the cross in the skies, which became a turning-point in the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

Eventually, the Gospel of the Cross spread throughout the entire world, and became a witness to all the nations of the earth. And, as prophesied by Christ, when this happens, then the end would come.

It's time for atheists to put away their false god of unbelief! Unfortunately, according to the prophecies of Revelation there is no time left for that because this is the time of the Great White Throne Judgment, which was debated earlier on these forums; and as said, God never sends anyone to sheol. People do that themselves.

Sela