Religions as a scam

[DrewJMore]

I've been drawn in by the provocative title of this thread, and am interested in the foregoing discussion which led to the lengthy initial diatribe. With luck I'll find the 'Torah vs Talmud' thread later.



Nevertheless, the coupled-pittance which I offer follows:



Religion provides a/the framework of control-- social, political and otherwise. It represents an appeal to a power higher than "might makes right." The existence of that higher power is worthy of debate. However, once established, those to whom the levers of control are bequeathed invariably continue to build "moral" and "legal" structures based upon the stipulated will of God. The generally familiar stories of the Torah are interwoven with divine decree regarding the priesthood, the temple and the proper respect thereof. Indeed Adam is the first "priest." Later in the saga, kings are crowned and given "divine guidance."



The word "scam" implies ill-will. Any harm that followed from the coalescence of the Hebrew religion/people is moot. It is understood that individuals with only their own interests at heart inevitably come into conflict. A group, family or tribe convinced to act with a single purpose (such as the usurpation of land) can be shown to be an overwhelming historical motivator. In the end, might still makes right.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DrewJMore, welcome to CR!

Religion provides a/the framework of control-- social, political and otherwise. It represents an appeal to a power higher than "might makes right." The existence of that higher power is worthy of debate. However, once established, those to whom the levers of control are bequeathed invariably continue to build "moral" and "legal" structures based upon the stipulated will of God. The generally familiar stories of the Torah are interwoven with divine decree regarding the priesthood, the temple and the proper respect thereof. Indeed Adam is the first "priest." Later in the saga, kings are crowned and given "divine guidance."

Ummm, yeah but... You see, this is not only true of christianity or judaism, but of all religions that date to that period of time, and really all that have come since. If Adam was the first priest, as you suggest, then he was a shaman at least 25 thousand years ago.

The word "scam" implies ill-will. Any harm that followed from the coalescence of the Hebrew religion/people is moot. It is understood that individuals with only their own interests at heart inevitably come into conflict. A group, family or tribe convinced to act with a single purpose (such as the usurpation of land) can be shown to be an overwhelming historical motivator. In the end, might still makes right.

Yeah, the political/religious structure upon which society was built. Not just any society, every society. So? This was the norm from long before Adam until 225 odd years ago when america instituted the separation of church and state.

[DrewJMore]

Your affirmation is appreciated. Refer to Genesis 4:26, where it is during the lifetime of Seth that people begin to worship the Lord. I'll need to look over my apocryphia to find the actual text that calls Adam the first priest.

As for America, I'm not certain that you can prove your case for a separation between church & state here. Establishment & free exercise are protected, but I'm not familiar with any part of the U.S. code that enforces a separation. In fact the Declaration of Independence, as the first premise for it's argument, appeals to God for legitimacy. Even Rousseau demands a basic faith amongst his subjects. Apologies for the digression.

Perhaps you've taken me for a biblical literalist with whom you'd like to argue.
Make no mistake, and see my post on the "Ultimate Question," I am a student of faithful people, but claim no faith or knowledge of the truth for myself.

[Bandit]

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There is no law on re____. That is why so many re___s are allowed in the USA.


understood as separation of church and state for 225 years.
So lets hear the 225 new interpretations for the 1st ammendment.

If Adam was the first priest would that make Eve the first wife of the first priest?

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by Bandit

The first amendment reads...understood as separation of church and state...

The first 10 amendments to the US constitution are the Bill of Rights. These refer to rights of the people upon which the gov't cannot infringe.

However, I have just confirmed that Article VI (that is: 6) Clause 3 states, "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " I must admit that this sounds like an argument for separation. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Bandit

If Adam was the first priest would that make Eve the first wife of the first priest?

Adam was made of clay, and so was his first wife Lillith. Eve, his second wife, was made from his rib. We could get hopelessly caught up in the so-called facts and details of Adam's so-called life.
Fortunately, my original point was (and is) that the Levite priesthood leveraged their position as the interpreters of the will of Y-w-h to direct the campaign of terror unleashed on the middle-east by the Israelites post-exodus. Draw your own conclusions as to the actual source of such 'divine' will.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

The first 10 amendments to the US constitution are the Bill of Rights. These refer to rights of the people upon which the gov't cannot infringe.

However, I have just confirmed that Article VI (that is: 6) Clause 3 states, "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " I must admit that this sounds like an argument for separation. I stand corrected.


Adam was made of clay, and so was his first wife Lillith. Eve, his second wife, was made from his rib. We could get hopelessly caught up in the so-called facts and details of Adam's so-called life.
Fortunately, my original point was (and is) that the Levite priesthood leveraged their position as the interpreters of the will of Y-w-h to direct the campaign of terror unleashed on the middle-east by the Israelites post-exodus. Draw your own conclusions as to the actual source of such 'divine' will.

Lilith is a myth, unless it can be proven otherwise. Adam and Eve are a myth as well, unless they can be proven otherwise. Your arguement could be considered mute, using Lilith as a point of fact, when Adam and Eve can not.

I do not understand where you think the US government is looking for a test of religion, for qualification for any office?

Please expound on this thought.

v/r

Q

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

...I do not understand...
Q

The United States Constitution. Article 6, Clause 3. (See text above) The US Gov't is not "looking for a test of religion."

Also, I thought that it was taboo (or rude) to cast other religions as "myths" in this forum.

Mute means unable to speak. There is another word for irrelevant arguments.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

The United States Constitution. Article 6, Clause 3. (See text above) The US Gov't is not "looking for a test of religion."

Also, I thought that it was taboo (or rude) to cast other religions as "myths" in this forum.

Mute means unable to speak. There is another word for irrelevant arguments.

"Moot", means irrelevant, "mute" means silent, and "rude" depends upon the attitude of the utterer. Alot of things can be considered rude depending upon how the words are written, and what the intent is behind those words. Forgive me for spelling moot wrong, and I'll forgive your all knowing attitude.

Who said, one person's truth could not be brought under scrutiny by another's concept of myth? We do it here all the time. It isn't rude, but rather curiosity.

If the concept of "Lilith" is in fact your religious belief, then by all means enlighten me with the "scripture" you abide by, to come to your conclusions. I'm certain there are a great many here who would be very interested in this.

But please, leave the chip on your shoulder, at the front door.

I personally have no trouble with the "myths" that I believe in, and am happy to express them in an educational way to anyone who wants to read about them. That means from time to time, someone is going to "question" my beliefs. That isn't rude, not here, and not by a long shot.

As far as religion, or a test of such for taking office in the US government, you are in error, or perhaps you used the wrong word. Perhaps "faith" should be the word as opposed to "religion". One must have faith (at least faith in these Unitied States), or else one does not get elected, or does not stay elected for long. Faith implies attempting to live in accordance with what one believes in, though faith has no grounds in hard evidence. Those persons who do not abide by the faith they profess, soon find themselves out of office. That my friend, is an historical fact (notice, an, is used when uttering a word that starts with an H).

I really am a nice guy, when greeted in a semi-decent manner.


v/r

Q

p.s. You might want to consider reading the "Federalist Papers", which would I think, provide some insight into our forefathers' thinking on faith, religion, and the US Government, as well as other issues of import.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

The United States Constitution. Article 6, Clause 3. (See text above) The US Gov't is not "looking for a test of religion."

Also, I thought that it was taboo (or rude) to cast other religions as "myths" in this forum.

Mute means unable to speak. There is another word for irrelevant arguments.

That is correct Drew. From what I have seen, no one is allowed to criticise or cast out another person in this forum for a belief. If someone believes it happened and another believes it is only a myth, they are allowed to discuss it as a belief or as a myth.
Most boards are formed on a specific belief and do not allow this. In the real world there are many beliefs. Some based on hard evidence and some based on myth and others based on tradition.
And some kind of hang there and flip flop back and forth because they are not sure.

Adam was made of clay, and so was his first wife Lillith. Eve, his second wife, was made from his rib. We could get hopelessly caught up in the so-called facts and details of Adam's so-called life.
Fortunately, my original point was (and is) that the Levite priesthood leveraged their position as the interpreters of the will of Y-w-h to direct the campaign of terror unleashed on the middle-east by the Israelites post-exodus. Draw your own conclusions as to the actual source of such 'divine' will.

I have never heard of Lillith before. But since I base my eternal beliefs on the God of creation in the bible, both old and new testaments I believe Adam and Eve were created by God as the first, as modern man as we know it.

A lot of people believe the bible but believe Adam is a myth.
Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth- I believe all of that. I believe it because there is more than two witnesses that speak of them in the bible.

If you would show me the source where Lillith started? Is it Torah?

Fortunately, my original point was (and is) that the Levite priesthood leveraged their position as the interpreters of the will of Y-w-h to direct the campaign of terror unleashed on the middle-east by the Israelites post-exodus. Draw your own conclusions as to the actual source of such 'divine' will.

I think I am seeing the basic idea here the same as you do. Except the levitical priesthood system started with Moses rather than Adam.

For all we know, it could be possible the U.S. and the world is looking for some kind of one world religion to help bring peace to the world. I say this because political powers do a lot of things that are not right, but they may be seeing no other alternative.
I say this also because Revelations tells us the second beast (religious power) gives up its power to the first beast (political power) to bring a false sense of peace into the world.

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by Bandit

If you would show me the source where Lillith started? Is it Torah?

I've looked through the Apocryphal creation section of my favorite compendium, and not found any direct quotes relating Adam to the priesthood. I feel that I could still defend the assertion logically based on Genesis, if we care to travel that road.

Question A for Quahom1: If Genesis is a myth, and therefore untrue, which Biblical stories can be considered true?

Question 2 for same: I know nothing of the founding of the United States that I didn't learn in 6th grade social studies. What conclusion is drawn in the federalist papers regarding admixture of church & state, and how does it differ from Article 6?

Bandit,
This link leads to a fascinating treatment of the Lilith issue:
http://paracleteforum.org/archive/em.../dialogue.html
I am unqualified to comment further, and raised the topic originally to draw attention to non-canonical proto-christian beliefs in a deadpan response to your (jesting?) question.

If we could return to the point of this thread, we could discuss why Genesis was included in the Bible, but not, for example, Jubilees. (Hint: Levites)

[Quahom1]

Hello Drew,

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

Question A for Quahom1: If Genesis is a myth, and therefore untrue, which Biblical stories can be considered true?

Thoughts on question #1:

A myth is a traditional story whose author is unknown. It has its roots in the primitive folk-beliefs of cultures and uses the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain a culture's view of the universe and the nature of humanity.

a. One characteristic of a myth is that it "uses the supernatural." Supernatural means, "above the forces of nature."

b. Another characteristic of a myth is that it "interprets natural events."

c. A third characteristic of a myth is that it explains, "the nature of humanity." This means that myths try to show what people are really like. They often show human weaknesses and teach lessons or give warnings.

Just because a story is considered mythical, does not mean it is untrue. It simply means there is no apparent hard evidence to prove it to be either true or false.

If on the other hand evidence, regarless of how slight or "focused" it may be on a particular part of a myth is brought to bear, then the "myth" begins to take on (at least in part), historical fact. Genisis for example, may in fact be true (at least in part), due to the possible discovery of large wooden vessel located very deep within a glacier of ice on Mount Ararat, between Turkey, Georgia, Romania and Iran. Though no further exploration is being allowed by the sovereign nation owning that land, there is now the potential to prove that an "Ark" may have been built as stated in Genisis.

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

Question 2 for same: I know nothing of the founding of the United States that I didn't learn in 6th grade social studies. What conclusion is drawn in the federalist papers regarding admixture of church & state, and how does it differ from Article 6?)

Article 6:


All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Paragraph three of this Article/clause re-enforced the fact that the federal body (government) could not legally "load" the dice, towards one religion or another, and a person could not be denied public office due to religious beliefs.

The Federalist Papers describe religious parties as being as vulnerable as political parties, where the potential for power abuse was concerned, and both must be kept from usurping the authority of the people.

Now, my question:
Where is the separation of church and state? It’s not in the Constitution…

The phrase is not in the constitution. It came from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, who wrote him about their worry that religious liberty might one day be usurped by government. In his letter back to them, Jefferson assured them that this would never happen because the First Amendment provided a wall of separation between church and state prohibiting the government from meddling with the church. In Jefferson’s mind, the wall of separation protected the church from government.

Again, the object was to prevent the government from establishing a state religion, as was the case in England and the Anglican church.

However, historical statistics show that the "people" who voted for their political representitives, tended to vote for those with a declared faith of some sort, usually similar to their own.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Hello Bandit,

According to Encarta Encylopedia:

Lilith
Lilith, in Jewish folklore, is a demon that is an enemy of newborn children. The name Lilith is etymologically related to the Sumerian word lil (wind), not to the Hebrew word laylah (night), as was long supposed. Like the Sumerian wind demon and its later Babylonian counterpart, Lilith was regarded as a succubus, or female version of the incubus. In the popular imagination, Lilith eventually became confused with Lamashtu, the Babylonian child-slaying demon. The only biblical reference to Lilith is in Isaiah 34:14, in which she is depicted as a demon of the desert.
In postbiblical Jewish literature, Lilith came to be identified as Adam's first wife. The first fully developed account of her mythology is found in the Alphabet of Ben Sira, written between the 7th and 10th centuries. According to the Alphabet, when God decided to create a female companion for Adam, he created the first woman out of earth in the same way as he had created the first man. The pair immediately began to quarrel because Lilith refused to submit to Adam. Lilith fled, and in response to Adam's request, God sent three angels to bring her back. The angels told her that if she refused, one of her demon-children would die every day. Lilith refused to return to Adam and vowed that she would harm male infants up to the eighth day after birth and female infants up to the 20th day.

In traditional European Jewish communities, belief in Lilith persisted into the 19th century, and protective amulets were frequently placed near the bed of a woman about to give birth. Since the mid-1970s, Lilith has returned to Jewish poetry and fiction. In particular, she has been adopted by American Jewish feminists as a symbol of women's strength and independence. The Jewish feminist journal Lilith first appeared in 1976, and Jewish feminist theologians have worked to reinterpret the biblical story of Adam and Eve in light of Lilith's myth.

I find this fascinating, in light of the fact that the Bible (old testament), actually identifies such a being. Unfortunately it does not really expound on the issue, much.

I'm also not certain how much "slant" the encyclopedia may or may not have on this subject. Perhaps Bananabrain could lend us some insight on this...he's pretty up on Zoroastrian religion and Jewish folklore.

v/r

Q

[DrewJMore]

Ovations to Quahom1, and my apologies for any emotional tension brought about by my attitude. It seems that our ideas regarding 'separation' are on paths which cross, but have not met before now. I concede that you are entirely correct. The nature and goal of the 'separation of church and state' is commonly misunderstood and I have been enlightened by your treatment of the subject.



In addition, I must applaud your position on myth. However, there remains a significant gulf between us, as I would not rely on any kernel of fact in the early books of the bible. That there is 'something' rather than 'nothing' cannot be rationally disputed; to some this may warrant an explanation. That ships were built in the pre-historic era seems certain; that all of humanity descends from Noah, certainly not. My faith is in what can be demonstrated, if not proven. Your faith, I presume, is in the traditions of your religion, which I gladly respect but do not consider authoritative.





On the topic of Lilith, I have read an intertestamental (i.e. dated between the old and new testaments) source referred to by an editor ( bibliographical information here tomorrow ) as "Haggadah." It condenses Hebrew law and history and reflects the oral traditions with which Jesus and his contemporaries were likely to have been familiar. Lilith merits a brief mention which mirrors (with minor deviations, and less detail) your 'Alphabet' source. Further, the link that I supplied above argues that her existence is implied in the OT, beginning Gen. 1:27 (the creation of man & woman), with Eve created separately in chapter 2. The details of such mythology are inconsequential to me, but I understand that they tend to distort main-line theologies.




I also acknowledge your restraint in ignoring questions enumerated 'A' & '2'.

[dauer]

This is a very complete article from Jewishencyclopedia.com, more specifically: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=421&letter=L

Female demon. Of the three Assyrian demons Lilu, Lilit, and Ardat Lilit, the second is referred to in Isa. xxxiv. 14. Schrader ("Jahrb. für Protestantische Theologie," i. 128)takes Lilith to be a goddess of the night; she is said to have been worshiped by the Jewish exiles in Babylon (Levy, in "Z. D. M. G." ix. 470, 484). Sayce ("Hibbert Lectures," pp. 145 et seq.), Fossey ("La Magie Assyrienne," pp. 37 et seq.), and others think that "Lilith" is not connected with the Hebrew "layil" (night), but that it is the name of a demon of the storm, and this view is supported by the cuneiform inscriptions quoted by them. It must, however, be assumed that the resemblance to the Semitic "layil" materially changed the conception of Lilith among the Semites, and especially among the Jews. No definite conclusions can be drawn from the passage in Isaiah, where it is said of the devastated palaces of Edom that wild animals shall dwell in them "and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech-owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest" (Isa. xxxiv. 14; see Cheyne's note ad loc.). Baudissin connects Lilith with Zech. v. 9.

In Talmud and Midrash.

Lilith is more fully described in post-Biblical literature, where she appears as a demon of the night, as suggested by her Hebrew name. Three classes of demons are mentioned: spirits, devils, and "lilin" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxxii. 24; Targ. Sheni to Esth. i. 3; passim). The first have neither body nor form; the second appear in complete human shape; the third in human shape, but with wings (Rashi to Sanh. 109a). Adam procreated all the spirits while he was under a spell (Gen. R. xx. 11; 'Er. 18b). Similarly, Eve bore demons to male spirits for the space of 130 years. This corresponds to the view that the demons are half human (?ag. 16a). Hence an abortion which has the shape of Lilith may be a child, though it has wings (Nid. 24b). Lilith is a seductive woman with long hair ('Er. 100b); she is the Queen of Zemargad (Targ. Job i. 15; comp. Bacher and Kohut [see bibliography]); Ahriman is her son (B. B. 73a). She goes about at night, fastening herself upon any one sleeping alone in a room (Shab. 151b). "The Lord will protect thee" (Num. vi. 24) means, according to Targ. Yer., ". . . from lilin." The meteor-stone is her arrow and is a remedy against disease (Gi?. 69b). Kohut's assumption that Agrat bat Ma?lat ("daughter of the dancer"), who roams at night with myriads of demons (Pes. 112b, bottom), is the queen of the lilin, is not verified. King Solomon, who commanded all spirits, had the lilin dance before him (Targ. Sheni Esth. i. 3).

Middle Ages and Modern Times.

Kohut identifies Lilith with the Parsee Bushyansta, and the Arabic translators render the word in Isa. xxxiv. 14 by "ghul," which is identical with the "lamia" of the Vulgate. In the Talmud, however, there is nothing to indicate that Lilith is a vampire. The Arabians, on the contrary, are said to regard Lilith, under the form of Lalla, as a "holy dame" (Schwab, "Les Coupes Magiques et l'Hydromancie dans l'Antiquité Orientale," p. 11). The name "Lilith" is found also on amulets with terra-cotta figures (idem, "Coupes à Inscriptions Magiques," p. 62). In the later Middle Ages the mystics systematically amplified demonology on the basis of the traditions and the current European superstitions, and they also assigned a more definite form to Lilith (see the quotations in Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum," ii. 417 et seq.). The superstitions regarding her and her nefarious doings were, with other superstitions, disseminated more and more among the mass of the Jewish people. She becomes a nocturnal demon, flying about in the form of a night-owl and stealing children. She is permitted to kill all children which have been sinfully begotten, even from a lawful wife. If a child smiles during the night of the Sabbath or the New Moon, it is a sign that Lilith is playing with it. One should then strike the nose of the child three times and drive Lilith away by the prescribed rough words (Joseph Cohen, "'Eme? ha-Melek," p. 84b; comp. Grunwald, "Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Jüdische Volkskunde," v. 62). Lilith likewise appears to men in their dreams; she is the bride of Samael (Schwab, "Angélologie"; comp. Zohar ii. 267b). It is said in a Judæo-German book ("Hanhagat ha-?asidim") printed at Frankfort-on-the-Main in the beginning of the eighteenth century that Lilith deceives men and has children by them; infant mortality is regarded as a consequence of this miscegenation (comp. Grunwald, l.c. v. 10, 62). In a certain legend she appears as the Queen of Sheba, who in the guise of a beautiful woman seduced a poor Jew of Worms (Grunwald, l.c. ii. 30 et seq.). As she was eager to seize new-born infants, mother and child were provided with amulets, which since early times were regarded as an efficient protection against magic and demons; Lilith is the chief figure on the "childbirth tablets" still hung on the walls of the lying-in room in the East and in eastern Europe (see Amulets). The name "Lilith" occurs also in non-Jewish superstitions (Lammert, "Volksmedicin," p. 170; Grunwald, l.c. vii., col. 2, n. 4). The conception that she was Adam's first wife (comp. Gen. R. xxiv.; Yer. 'Er. 18b) appears to have been spread through Buxtorf's "Lexicon Talmudicum," s.v. Lilith is a clear instance of the persistence of popular superstitious beliefs.

Bibliography: W. M. Menzies Alexander, Demoniac Possession in the N. T. pp. 15-16, 26, 44, 55, Edinburgh, 1902;
Bacher, Lilith, Königin von Smargad, in Monatsschrift, 1870, xix. 187-189;
W. W. Baudissin, Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgesch, i. 128, Leipsic, 1876;
Bar Bahlul's Syrisches Wörterb.;
G. Brecher, Das Transcendentale, etc., pp. 47, 50, 54, Vienna, 1850;
Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, ii. 413 et seq.;
C. Fossey, La Magie Assyrienne, pp. 26, 37 et seq., Paris, 1902;
M. Grunwald, Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Jüdische Volkskunde, ii. 68, 74; v. 10, 62; vii. 104;
F. Hommel, Vorsemitische Kultur, p. 367;
idem, Die Semiten, etc., p. 368, Leipsic, 1881;
A. Kohut, Ueber die Jüdische Angelologie und Dämonologie, pp. 86-89, ib. 1866;
M. Schwab, Vocabulaire de l'Angelologie, p. 162, Paris, 1897;
idem, Les Coupes Magiques et l'Hydromancie dans l'Antiquité Orientale, in Tr. Soc. Bibl. Arch. April, 1890;
idem, Coupes d Inscriptions Magiques, ib. June, 1891.

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

( bibliographical information here tomorrow )

Barnstone, Willis (editor), "The Other Bible," Harper-Collins, 1984. ppg 30-31.