Tom Cruise Is At It Again...Thetans Are Amoung Us!

[FluffyMcDeath]

Furthermore we are the only creatures that anthropomorphize. No other creature imagines other creatures or inanimate objects or natural phenomena are in the least human-like.

Certainly they do. Dogs think -- isn't it great this god (that's me) provides for my lowly self daily - thank you god. Cats likely think -- isn't it great this being (that's me) tithes to my Godness by giving me food daily - thanks for the offering be back tomorrow at promptly the same time.

I was consciously and deliberately cheating when I referred to anthropomorphism.

But beyond that, I don't imagine that other animals would view the universe in quite the same way, though I cannot say how they would see it. A dog likely views its humans as its pack and the food bringing behaviour of the humans as the food bringing behaviour of canine parents.

Humans are special in their level of political socialisation. That it to say that they practice a highly complex verbal negotiation of the social hierarchy. They petition their "superiors" and are petitioned by their "inferiors". They make deals and bargains, they plead and they are aware of and attempt to manipulate the emotional states of others.

In a ferocious storm they may feel fear as other animals do but, interpreting the storm as the sky's anger may try to plead with the sky, as why, ask for forgiveness, etc. Animistic beliefs anthropomorphise everything such that trees have spirits, rocks have spirits, rivers, the sky, the sun, etc and each can be appealed to in the same way as humans can be. Modern monotheism is virtually the same except with only one grand god instead of the many spirits.

In a way, the uber god is a surrogate parent in that, as children we are dependent on our parents and it is a child's instinct to try to please the parent and fear their anger. There is also much comfort from the protection and sustenance that comes from the parent. Once we outgrow our parents or when they die we become exposed to the world as it is and have to provide for our own protection and sustenance. It is understandable that the instinct of the child is not erased simply by adulthood (and in fact, socialise humans are to a certain extent infantilised by that socialisation). So an adult will look for a surrogate parent, someone to replace the human parents that he is now equal to or has outlived to recapture that feeling of being cared for and looked after even though he will have to deal with the anguish of that parents disappointment and anger from time to time. God provides that parent and the metaphor is actively promoted in religious thought. When things go wrong, the act of pleading with the "parent" gives us a sense of useful action where in reality any useful action may be impossible. Even atheists partake in these sorts of self comforting rituals even though they don't believe that there is a god that will answer. The instinct to treat all problems as if they are human political/interpersonal problems is very powerful.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Furthermore we are the only creatures that anthropomorphize. No other creature imagines other creatures or inanimate objects or natural phenomena are in the least human-like.

Certainly they do. Dogs think -- isn't it great this god (that's me) provides for my lowly self daily - thank you god. Cats likely think -- isn't it great this being (that's me) tithes to my Godness by giving me food daily - thanks for the offering be back tomorrow at promptly the same time.

I was consciously and deliberately cheating when I referred to anthropomorphism.

But beyond that, I don't imagine that other animals would view the universe in quite the same way, though I cannot say how they would see it. A dog likely views its humans as its pack and the food bringing behaviour of the humans as the food bringing behaviour of canine parents.

Humans are special in their level of political socialisation. That it to say that they practice a highly complex verbal negotiation of the social hierarchy. They petition their "superiors" and are petitioned by their "inferiors". They make deals and bargains, they plead and they are aware of and attempt to manipulate the emotional states of others.

In a ferocious storm they may feel fear as other animals do but, interpreting the storm as the sky's anger may try to plead with the sky, as why, ask for forgiveness, etc. Animistic beliefs anthropomorphise everything such that trees have spirits, rocks have spirits, rivers, the sky, the sun, etc and each can be appealed to in the same way as humans can be. Modern monotheism is virtually the same except with only one grand god instead of the many spirits.

In a way, the uber god is a surrogate parent in that, as children we are dependent on our parents and it is a child's instinct to try to please the parent and fear their anger. There is also much comfort from the protection and sustenance that comes from the parent. Once we outgrow our parents or when they die we become exposed to the world as it is and have to provide for our own protection and sustenance. It is understandable that the instinct of the child is not erased simply by adulthood (and in fact, socialise humans are to a certain extent infantilised by that socialisation). So an adult will look for a surrogate parent, someone to replace the human parents that he is now equal to or has outlived to recapture that feeling of being cared for and looked after even though he will have to deal with the anguish of that parents disappointment and anger from time to time. God provides that parent and the metaphor is actively promoted in religious thought. When things go wrong, the act of pleading with the "parent" gives us a sense of useful action where in reality any useful action may be impossible. Even atheists partake in these sorts of self comforting rituals even though they don't believe that there is a god that will answer. The instinct to treat all problems as if they are human political/interpersonal problems is very powerful.

 

[faethor]

A dog likely views its humans as its pack and the food bringing behaviour of the humans as the food bringing behaviour of canine parents.

See your concept of the parental god-head makes prefect sense for the dog.

 

[faethor]

A dog likely views its humans as its pack and the food bringing behaviour of the humans as the food bringing behaviour of canine parents.

See your concept of the parental god-head makes prefect sense for the dog.

 

[faethor]

A dog likely views its humans as its pack and the food bringing behaviour of the humans as the food bringing behaviour of canine parents.

See your concept of the parental god-head makes prefect sense for the dog.

 

[faethor]

A dog likely views its humans as its pack and the food bringing behaviour of the humans as the food bringing behaviour of canine parents.

See your concept of the parental god-head makes prefect sense for the dog.

 

[faethor]

A dog likely views its humans as its pack and the food bringing behaviour of the humans as the food bringing behaviour of canine parents.

See your concept of the parental god-head makes prefect sense for the dog.

 

[faethor]

A dog likely views its humans as its pack and the food bringing behaviour of the humans as the food bringing behaviour of canine parents.

See your concept of the parental god-head makes prefect sense for the dog.

 

[minator]

I've been reading a bit about the history of the Bible and Christianity in general recently and it's very interesting. Even at the very beginning there were very different ideas of who exactly Jesus was, what happened after death and other areas.

The Bible itself is made up of many books but there were many others which could have been added but weren't. Some of these have been known about in the past others completely unknown. They were meant to be destroyed but several survived by being hidden away underground, in caves etc. and have only been discovered in the last century.

It appears the bible may have been manipulated to fit the common beliefs at the time and this seems to have played a part in the selection of which books made up the new testament.
It also appears to have been modified along the way to enforce certain beliefs and make people go to a certain church. A church can become a great deal more powerful if people believe you have to go through them and can't have a relationship directly with God.
This of course makes it incompatible with other churches and eventually, in time has lead to wars. Religion itself is not the cause of wars, it's the manipulation of a religion into something else which leads there.

Several other common beliefs were only added later and it appears others were removed. Some early Christians believed in reincarnation and were quite happy with women as priests.

At the beginning there were quite a few different Christian sects with often different or even opposing views. They were decidedly undecided about exactly what Jesus was. The current common belief is he is God in the shape of man (i.e. both divine and and a man), but others have believed he was just a very special man. Another belief was that Jesus was an apparition of some form, only appearing to be a man but not actually one.

Much of what is believed is really interpretation and to me this backs up my view that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, there's no way to know exactly what the author originally meant so there's no point arguing about details.

 

[minator]

I've been reading a bit about the history of the Bible and Christianity in general recently and it's very interesting. Even at the very beginning there were very different ideas of who exactly Jesus was, what happened after death and other areas.

The Bible itself is made up of many books but there were many others which could have been added but weren't. Some of these have been known about in the past others completely unknown. They were meant to be destroyed but several survived by being hidden away underground, in caves etc. and have only been discovered in the last century.

It appears the bible may have been manipulated to fit the common beliefs at the time and this seems to have played a part in the selection of which books made up the new testament.
It also appears to have been modified along the way to enforce certain beliefs and make people go to a certain church. A church can become a great deal more powerful if people believe you have to go through them and can't have a relationship directly with God.
This of course makes it incompatible with other churches and eventually, in time has lead to wars. Religion itself is not the cause of wars, it's the manipulation of a religion into something else which leads there.

Several other common beliefs were only added later and it appears others were removed. Some early Christians believed in reincarnation and were quite happy with women as priests.

At the beginning there were quite a few different Christian sects with often different or even opposing views. They were decidedly undecided about exactly what Jesus was. The current common belief is he is God in the shape of man (i.e. both divine and and a man), but others have believed he was just a very special man. Another belief was that Jesus was an apparition of some form, only appearing to be a man but not actually one.

Much of what is believed is really interpretation and to me this backs up my view that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, there's no way to know exactly what the author originally meant so there's no point arguing about details.

 

[minator]

I've been reading a bit about the history of the Bible and Christianity in general recently and it's very interesting. Even at the very beginning there were very different ideas of who exactly Jesus was, what happened after death and other areas.

The Bible itself is made up of many books but there were many others which could have been added but weren't. Some of these have been known about in the past others completely unknown. They were meant to be destroyed but several survived by being hidden away underground, in caves etc. and have only been discovered in the last century.

It appears the bible may have been manipulated to fit the common beliefs at the time and this seems to have played a part in the selection of which books made up the new testament.
It also appears to have been modified along the way to enforce certain beliefs and make people go to a certain church. A church can become a great deal more powerful if people believe you have to go through them and can't have a relationship directly with God.
This of course makes it incompatible with other churches and eventually, in time has lead to wars. Religion itself is not the cause of wars, it's the manipulation of a religion into something else which leads there.

Several other common beliefs were only added later and it appears others were removed. Some early Christians believed in reincarnation and were quite happy with women as priests.

At the beginning there were quite a few different Christian sects with often different or even opposing views. They were decidedly undecided about exactly what Jesus was. The current common belief is he is God in the shape of man (i.e. both divine and and a man), but others have believed he was just a very special man. Another belief was that Jesus was an apparition of some form, only appearing to be a man but not actually one.

Much of what is believed is really interpretation and to me this backs up my view that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, there's no way to know exactly what the author originally meant so there's no point arguing about details.

 

[minator]

I've been reading a bit about the history of the Bible and Christianity in general recently and it's very interesting. Even at the very beginning there were very different ideas of who exactly Jesus was, what happened after death and other areas.

The Bible itself is made up of many books but there were many others which could have been added but weren't. Some of these have been known about in the past others completely unknown. They were meant to be destroyed but several survived by being hidden away underground, in caves etc. and have only been discovered in the last century.

It appears the bible may have been manipulated to fit the common beliefs at the time and this seems to have played a part in the selection of which books made up the new testament.
It also appears to have been modified along the way to enforce certain beliefs and make people go to a certain church. A church can become a great deal more powerful if people believe you have to go through them and can't have a relationship directly with God.
This of course makes it incompatible with other churches and eventually, in time has lead to wars. Religion itself is not the cause of wars, it's the manipulation of a religion into something else which leads there.

Several other common beliefs were only added later and it appears others were removed. Some early Christians believed in reincarnation and were quite happy with women as priests.

At the beginning there were quite a few different Christian sects with often different or even opposing views. They were decidedly undecided about exactly what Jesus was. The current common belief is he is God in the shape of man (i.e. both divine and and a man), but others have believed he was just a very special man. Another belief was that Jesus was an apparition of some form, only appearing to be a man but not actually one.

Much of what is believed is really interpretation and to me this backs up my view that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, there's no way to know exactly what the author originally meant so there's no point arguing about details.

 

[minator]

I've been reading a bit about the history of the Bible and Christianity in general recently and it's very interesting. Even at the very beginning there were very different ideas of who exactly Jesus was, what happened after death and other areas.

The Bible itself is made up of many books but there were many others which could have been added but weren't. Some of these have been known about in the past others completely unknown. They were meant to be destroyed but several survived by being hidden away underground, in caves etc. and have only been discovered in the last century.

It appears the bible may have been manipulated to fit the common beliefs at the time and this seems to have played a part in the selection of which books made up the new testament.
It also appears to have been modified along the way to enforce certain beliefs and make people go to a certain church. A church can become a great deal more powerful if people believe you have to go through them and can't have a relationship directly with God.
This of course makes it incompatible with other churches and eventually, in time has lead to wars. Religion itself is not the cause of wars, it's the manipulation of a religion into something else which leads there.

Several other common beliefs were only added later and it appears others were removed. Some early Christians believed in reincarnation and were quite happy with women as priests.

At the beginning there were quite a few different Christian sects with often different or even opposing views. They were decidedly undecided about exactly what Jesus was. The current common belief is he is God in the shape of man (i.e. both divine and and a man), but others have believed he was just a very special man. Another belief was that Jesus was an apparition of some form, only appearing to be a man but not actually one.

Much of what is believed is really interpretation and to me this backs up my view that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, there's no way to know exactly what the author originally meant so there's no point arguing about details.

 

[minator]

I've been reading a bit about the history of the Bible and Christianity in general recently and it's very interesting. Even at the very beginning there were very different ideas of who exactly Jesus was, what happened after death and other areas.

The Bible itself is made up of many books but there were many others which could have been added but weren't. Some of these have been known about in the past others completely unknown. They were meant to be destroyed but several survived by being hidden away underground, in caves etc. and have only been discovered in the last century.

It appears the bible may have been manipulated to fit the common beliefs at the time and this seems to have played a part in the selection of which books made up the new testament.
It also appears to have been modified along the way to enforce certain beliefs and make people go to a certain church. A church can become a great deal more powerful if people believe you have to go through them and can't have a relationship directly with God.
This of course makes it incompatible with other churches and eventually, in time has lead to wars. Religion itself is not the cause of wars, it's the manipulation of a religion into something else which leads there.

Several other common beliefs were only added later and it appears others were removed. Some early Christians believed in reincarnation and were quite happy with women as priests.

At the beginning there were quite a few different Christian sects with often different or even opposing views. They were decidedly undecided about exactly what Jesus was. The current common belief is he is God in the shape of man (i.e. both divine and and a man), but others have believed he was just a very special man. Another belief was that Jesus was an apparition of some form, only appearing to be a man but not actually one.

Much of what is believed is really interpretation and to me this backs up my view that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, there's no way to know exactly what the author originally meant so there's no point arguing about details.