Not the ideal for family raising. This was thousands of years ago where the population was much lower, especially in rural areas. Also they had STIs without the right treatment so sex with one person of the opposite sex was best for that time.
Did anyone care about keeping the population thriving though? If there was so much concern, why all the wars and murders? Ah, but it still didn't stop the people from having premarital sex or cheating on their significant others. Still doesn't explain why it's seen as a sin instead of explained with "danger to health" though.
I guess it's because it's supposed to be unnatural since god created one of each sex to procreate. Although incest was also natural back then so the adam and steve argument doesn't really hold much weight. Anyway the church kinda treats homosexuality like a disease these days.
Remember this?
I swear that video kills me every time haha.
And about premarital sex, something the christian community back home always used to say was 'your body is the temple of god', so I guess fornicating is supposed to be defiling god's temple or something.
However, there are reports of animals having sex with the same gender, and even the Greek men have laid with other men/boys, if I recall correctly, so what made homosexuality be seen as a bad thing?
How is fornicating after marriage different from before marriage?
Did anyone care about keeping the population thriving though? If there was so much concern, why all the wars and murders? Ah, but it still didn't stop the people from having premarital sex or cheating on their significant others. Still doesn't explain why it's seen as a sin instead of explained with "danger to health" though.
However, there are reports of animals having sex with the same gender, and even the Greek men have laid with other men/boys, if I recall correctly, so what made homosexuality be seen as a bad thing?
How is fornicating after marriage different from before marriage?
Wars were going on because their leader wanted to conquer or needed to defend themselves.
Yes there was still infidelity going on but that lead to unwanted children or single mothers. It’s not like nowadays where single mothers have support and birth control is efficient. Their methods weren’t really the best and could lead to infections. People also got married at 16 and died at 30 and didn’t have the lengthy job training/education we had.
Also children = wealth of a nation because that means your population could me more than your enemies and a better chance at surivial. It’s not like now a days a homosexual couple could have children. If one thinks of how they lived in those ages rather than how we think in our age, it would be easier to understand. One may not believe in religion because everyone has an opinion but to not understand the reasoning from a historical perspective can cause confusion and creates presentism.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I would also like to add that saying homosexuality isn't a bad thing it just wasn't ideal for children.
Throughout history there were people who were homosexual or bisexual, etc it just wasn't out in the open because everyone's focus was in survival whether it were plegues or diseases, enemies, etc. In the last 60 years with advances in science, people are living longer and children aren't dying as often. The focus shifted towards social rights and having an even playing field for the LGBT and rightfully so. Today there is no logical reason to view homosexuality negatively or not ideal for our survival.
There are religion leaders who stand for LGBT rights because the core of religion should always be love. In Christianity, God loves his creation that he had Jesus die for our sins and Jesus said the most important commandment was to love thy neighbour. If one doesn't love someone who it's heterosexual that would go against the very doctrine s/he believes in. Also, if two men love each other, how is that a sin? That leads me to believe that there were those that didn't view homosexuality negative throughout history who were religious. I'd have to do more research but I do know throughout the ages survival was much different than today and in a sense, we are much freer than our ancestors.
Well for more of an in-depth view on the "Judaeo Christian" God or God the concept, in general as well.
I would recommend this free book, Its in a pdf format by Mauro Biglino, titled "The book that will forever change our ideas about the bible".
A brief bio about the author - he was a Vatican translator tasked to translate the original Hebrew text of the bible without adding interpretation to the translation for the Vatican. He published his findings in that book, so this may add some insight into your inquires as well as raise some questions, no doubt.
Well for more of an in-depth view on the "Judaeo Christian" God or God the concept, in general as well.
I would recommend this free book, Its in a pdf format by Mauro Biglino, titled "The book that will forever change our ideas about the bible".
A brief bio about the author - he was a Vatican translator tasked to translate the original Hebrew text of the bible without adding interpretation to the translation for the Vatican. He published his findings in that book, so this may add some insight into your inquires as well as raise some questions, no doubt.
I appreciate it. How would you describe him, in your own words, though? It can be paraphrasing what that author said , but I was more or less looking for an explanation and how each person would articulate it.
I appreciate it. How would you describe him, in your own words, though? It can be paraphrasing what that author said , but I was more or less looking for an explanation and how each person would articulate it.
The author givers an unbiased view on God, or the Gods based on original scripts, text that he had access to from the Vatican.
From those texts, he said in some interviews that the rabbis (behind the scene) had long known the fact, when he asked them about God. The things he discovered from the original text were more infact true. However the people at the Vatican and the rabbis cannot come out into the public and say that.
For example the names EA-Enki ( title lord of earth, but we know as the serpent) , En-lil Yahweh (title lord of command / God of the highest rank) were known to the officials. The word used for God often being the term Elohim, which was a plural word but often translated as a singular God.
I can digress but if you have time check out the book.
Huh? I read a few pages of that book but it seems to be about how the bible is actually about aliens visiting earth. And how does any of that help anyone come up with a definition of god?
Also, am I missing something regarding the " What are best explanations/definitions of God or higher power(s) that you've heard or can come up with? " question? Do agnostics even take issue with the definition of god? Agnostics to my understanding simply make the point that they can't know whether god does or not exist. What's wrong with your standard dictionary definition of god?
Huh? I read a few pages of that book but it seems to be about how the bible is actually about aliens visiting earth. And how does any of that help anyone come up with a definition of god?
Also, am I missing something regarding the " What are best explanations/definitions of God or higher power(s) that you've heard or can come up with? " question? Do agnostics even take issue with the definition of god? Agnostics to my understanding simply make the point that they can't know whether god does or not exist. What's wrong with your standard dictionary definition of god?
The nature of the Judeo Christian, belief is explained more throughly in the book. The one God as often mentioned was never one to begin with.
The many stories of Elohim /God being many to begin with often translated to be of the one God in the stories were attributed or taken from many deities and complied to one.
Hence the nature of God being a loving God at some moments versus wrathful in other parts is able to be understood since they were different entities to begin with.
And yes more or less you can say in the book they allude to the extraterrestrial nature of the Elohim.
Making us after their image and their resemblance.
Reuturing to the source of God as most know it to the Sumerian culture.
Regarding the agnostic pov, I'd leave that to the original poster or anyone else to answer.
I've read materials on the same sort of idea. That the Abrahamic God came from many and was only made "one" later by those that compiled and edited the Pentateuch... but I have no idea what to make of the alien explanation as it has nothing to do with the former.
Yeah, the entire point of the agnostic stance is that the definition of God isn't really relevant, unless it somehow takes on a falsifiable nature.
That's easy: a being made up by people centuries ago because they had no idea how things worked and needed an explanation, like what created the sun or why moon comes out every night. Changed as to what the time/era demanded, like kings being anointed by gods or chosen by gods.
The nature of the Judeo Christian, belief is explained more throughly in the book. The one God as often mentioned was never one to begin with.
The many stories of Elohim /God being many to begin with often translated to be of the one God in the stories were attributed or taken from many deities and complied to one.
Hence the nature of God being a loving God at some moments versus wrathful in other parts is able to be understood since they were different entities to begin with.
And yes more or less you can say in the book they allude to the extraterrestrial nature of the Elohim.
Making us after their image and their resemblance.
Reuturing to the source of God as most know it to the Sumerian culture.
Regarding the agnostic pov, I'd leave that to the original poster or anyone else to answer.
Christianity having taken aspects of other religions or being rooted in other religions along with there being intentional or unintentional translation issues is not exactly a novel concept though. It's how academia tends to look at and understands religions anyways. I do take issue with the inclusion of aliens there when it comes to taking this seriously. Sure, interpret everything as if aliens exist but..... it's all no more than a fun thought exercise unless you find actual evidence that aliens are a thing. Without that it's all more aliens nonsense.
Add to that, none of this has absolutely anything to do with what was asked earlier.
Huh? I read a few pages of that book but it seems to be about how the bible is actually about aliens visiting earth. And how does any of that help anyone come up with a definition of god?
Also, am I missing something regarding the " What are best explanations/definitions of God or higher power(s) that you've heard or can come up with? " question? Do agnostics even take issue with the definition of god? Agnostics to my understanding simply make the point that they can't know whether god does or not exist. What's wrong with your standard dictionary definition of god?
The standard definitions or descriptions I hear of God are pretty low resolution and non-commital or dogmatic (in a nonsecular manner or otherwise) in one way or another.
A modern, low-resolution Christian example: "He is everything good. He is the creator, the truth and the light." Ok, cool. Now, what the hell does any of that actually mean?
Whether the person is dogmatic or not, believes in a god or are strongly against religion, the chances of anyone knowing absoluting nothing I don't already is incredibly low. That's why I want to hear and discuss a variety of people's thoughts and views; to develop my own.
Christianity having taken aspects of other religions or being rooted in other religions along with there being intentional or unintentional translation issues is not exactly a novel concept though. It's how academia tends to look at and understands religions anyways. I do take issue with the inclusion of aliens there when it comes to taking this seriously. Sure, interpret everything as if aliens exist but..... it's all no more than a fun thought exercise unless you find actual evidence that aliens are a thing. Without that it's all more aliens nonsense.
Add to that, none of this has absolutely anything to do with what was asked earlier.
I may have went off on a tangent trying to explain the concept of god from the Sumerian documents or what Mauro Biglino discovered / translated via the Vatican original texts. Basically God or the deities more correctly were from another world, started civilization here, used genetic engineering to form man after the likeness or resemblance. The Judeaic Christian concept of god, it clearly originates from the Sumerian works.
I've read materials on the same sort of idea. That the Abrahamic God came from many and was only made "one" later by those that compiled and edited the Pentateuch... but I have no idea what to make of the alien explanation as it has nothing to do with the former.
Yeah, the entire point of the agnostic stance is that the definition of God isn't really relevant, unless it somehow takes on a falsifiable nature.
The alien connection was formed when the old testament texts were known to be a dervitve of the Sumerian texts. Which leads to more of the ancient aliens theory more or less. Where god came from, what planet, who made god, what god is or was, why we were made, etc.
The standard definitions or descriptions I hear of God are pretty low resolution and non-commital or dogmatic (in a nonsecular manner or otherwise) in one way or another.
A modern, low-resolution Christian example: "He is everything good. He is the creator, the truth and the light." Ok, cool. Now, what the hell does any of that actually mean?
Whether the person is dogmatic or not, believes in a god or are strongly against religion, the chances of anyone knowing absoluting nothing I don't already is incredibly low. That's why I want to hear and discuss a variety of people's thoughts and views; to develop my own.
Well my take on the definition of god, based on my own catholic upbringing of course (though I can't say I am too religious these days), would be something like " An omnipotent and omniscient being that transcends time and space who created everything". Of course, I can't actually fathom omniscience, omnipotence, or transcending anything and my ability to explain any of those would be limited to their dictionary definition. Now, if you want something extremely personal or anything like that then I won't have much of an answer because the bulk of this has stopped making sense to me over time and I don't feel particularly connected to it.
The alien connection was formed when the old testament texts were known to be a dervitve of the Sumerian texts. Which leads to more of the ancient aliens theory more or less. Where god came from, what planet, who made god, what god is or was, why we were made, etc.
I'm not sure I can believe that the Pentateuch was wholesale a derivative of Sumerian texts. Certain stories or motifs existed in older stories, sure (the flood story for example). There's more than enough evidence that the Biblical stories came from a time when the religions in the Levant were also polytheistic, like they were in Sumer. So there may me links between some of the deities, sure. But then the leap has to be made with the types of things Sitchin and von Däniken wrote about, and that's a pretty MASSIVE one to me.
The standard definitions or descriptions I hear of God are pretty low resolution and non-commital or dogmatic (in a nonsecular manner or otherwise) in one way or another.
A modern, low-resolution Christian example: "He is everything good. He is the creator, the truth and the light." Ok, cool. Now, what the hell does any of that actually mean?
Whether the person is dogmatic or not, believes in a god or are strongly against religion, the chances of anyone knowing absoluting nothing I don't already is incredibly low. That's why I want to hear and discuss a variety of people's thoughts and views; to develop my own.
Well again going from the Sumerian account of what I am familiar with, god or these beings were a flawed, war raging people. Not to say there were not people of their race that didn't want peace. They married, had kids, had wars over territories, had a monarchy based ruling system . Did cruel things to their own kind when fighting for rights, let alone ours, caused a lot of wars, diseases, killings. There were times when some were pricks, times were some were "good and nice" to the humans. At the same time, just like us, they also had times where they were kind and peaceful as well.
Also sometimes they refer to a "creator of all" who apparently lives in the highest plane or space. Who interacted with them on some occasions. Now this guy, seems to be the one who started the "matrix" if you will. But about that guys records, his likes or not likes, there seems to be almost no record of. Other than the Sumerian gods mentioning here a few times.
So in short, there is no just "good god" or just bad god, there is no fluffy imaginary being that loves us all. God in this sense was a people of intelligence, science, had rules and had a space faring society. Started a dumbed down version of themselves here with limited lifespan compared to theirs. And they "god" can dies as well.
I'm not sure I can believe that the Pentateuch was wholesale a derivative of Sumerian texts. Certain stories or motifs existed in older stories, sure (the flood story for example). There's more than enough evidence that the Biblical stories came from a time when the religions in the Levant were also polytheistic, like they were in Sumer. So there may me links between some of the deities, sure. But then the leap has to be made with the types of things Sitchin and von Däniken wrote about, and that's a pretty MASSIVE one to me.
Well it doesn't help the fact the Israelite were kept in Babylon for such a long time.
And borrowed many of the Sumerian stories from there. There are plenty non Sitchin or Von Daniken related materials that goes into these same subjects. I believe the Oxford University offers some of the translated Sumerian text that match the old biblical narratives to a rather striking parallel.
Well it doesn't help the fact the Israelite were kept in Babylon for such a long time.
And borrowed many of the Sumerian stories from there. There are plenty non Sitchin or Von Daniken realted materials that goes into these same sjubects. I believe the Ofxord Universerty offers some of the translsted sumerian text that match the old blivlical narritives to a rather striking parallel.
Sure, about the links between the two societies and their religions, but that doesn't really speak to any ancient astronauts theory... You would first have to believe that about Ancient Sumeria for it to apply to anything else, and such theories are pseudoscience more than anything.
I think this is how for the most part how the being they refer to as the creator of all, by the gods in sumer text operates. Lives in some kind of ball o f light deminsion or something. Doesn't really interact with the creations after things were set in motion.
Sure, about the links between the two societies and their religions, but that doesn't really speak to any ancient astronauts theory... You would first have to believe that about Ancient Sumeria for it to apply to anything else, and such theories are pseudoscience more than anything.
Yeah you have some points there. Can't really prove anything to a fault but its something to think about i guess.
And I guess we can only go by documents that have been translated in that case as a base for reference.
For me, however, going from a Pentecostal religious background as a kid , the connections of these accounts are quite striking. It has me leading to think the connections have to be more than coincidences.
So not to go off tangent once more - in regards to the original post.
God as we know it, or the concept - some kind of all love being, can see everything, has no mistakes. Does not exist.
