Is the basic foundation of christianity based upon....

[HereticHulk]

fertility cults and psychedelic drug use?

Jan Irving and Andrew Rutajit's research is suggesting that to be the case. I watched this movie and was looking for rational discussion of the claims presented. This movie was put up for free viewing and scholarly review.

"Thousands of years ago, in the pre monarchic era, sacred plants and other entheogenic substances where politically correct and highly respected for their ability to bring forth the divine, Yahweh, God, The Great Spirit, etc., by the many cultures who used them. Often the entire tribe or community would partake in the entheogenic rites and rituals. These rites were often used in initiation into adulthood, for healing, to help guide the community in the decision process, and to bring the direct religious experience to anyone seeking it.

In the pre literate world, the knowledge of psychedelic sacraments, as well as fertility rites and astronomical knowledge surrounding the sun, stars, and zodiac, known as astrotheology, were anthropomorphized into a character or a deity; consequently, their stories and practices could easily be passed down for generations. Weather changes over millenniums caused environmental changes that altered the available foods and plant sacraments available in the local vicinity. If a tribe lost its shamanic El-der (El - God), all of the tribe's knowledge of their plant sacraments as well as astronomical knowledge would be lost. The Church’s inquisitions extracted this sacred knowledge from the local Shamans who were then exterminated…It is time to recognize the fact that this Pharmacratic Inquisition is still intact and destroy it."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8700041490363244845

http://www.gnosticmedia.com

[Fnord]

Cute theory, but no more provable than the existance of God.

Show me verifiable evidence, not just some videos that even Erich Anton Paul von Däniken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Daniken) would be embarrassed to claim as his own.

[HereticHulk]

Cute theory, but no more provable than the existance of God.

Show me verifiable evidence, not just some videos that even Erich Anton Paul von Däniken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Daniken) would be embarrassed to claim as his own.

Wow, that was fast. You watched a 112 min. movie in 10 min.! That's gonna be hard to prove as well!:rolleyes:

[thesyntaxera]

Cute theory, but no more provable than the existance of God.

Show me verifiable evidence, not just some videos that even Erich Anton Paul von Däniken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Daniken) would be embarrassed to claim as his own.

It's about as logical as evolution if you think about it. Old world shamanistic practices evolving over time into institutional belief systems....

If you don't think the profound effects of psychedelics had a spiritual impact on history...well...I am very sorry. Perhaps it's too simple of an explanation.

If you don't think that people evolved over millions of years and wondered why the sun(son?) is so significant...to the point of deifying it..again...it must be too simple of an explanation for you.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's about as logical as evolution if you think about it. Old world shamanistic practices evolving over time into institutional belief systems....

If you don't think the profound effects of psychedelics had a spiritual impact on history...well...I am very sorry. Perhaps it's too simple of an explanation.

If you don't think that people evolved over millions of years and wondered why the sun(son?) is so significant...to the point of deifying it..again...it must be too simple of an explanation for you.

The fact that Christianity started as a Jewish sect casts a small shadow of doubt on this theory, however.

[thesyntaxera]

The fact that Christianity started as a Jewish sect casts a small shadow of doubt on this theory, however.

Are you missing the whole evolution thing that I mentioned? It doesn't cast any doubt at all...in fact it is part of it and reinforces it...how can you miss that?

[plumjam]

I would have thought that the basic foundation of Christianity is the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.
But really, what do I know?

[thesyntaxera]

I would have thought that the basic foundation of Christianity is the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.
But really, what do I know?


Yes what do you know? I am curious.

[HereticHulk]

I would have thought that the basic foundation of Christianity is the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.
But really, what do I know?

:jaw-dropp :D

[Achán hiNidráne]

But really, what do I know?

After everything you ever said on this forum, do you really want us to answer that question?

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you missing the whole evolution thing that I mentioned? It doesn't cast any doubt at all...in fact it is part of it and reinforces it...how can you miss that?

Just find some evidence to back that up, and we'll get Will Durant working on a revised history book for ya.

[DevilsAdvocate]

[fertility cults and psychedelic drug use?I'd rather not waste time watching a long video. Can you explain how this relates to Christianity? Your quote describes some common characteristics of early developing religions. How does that generalization get attributed to the foundation of Christianity? It is like saying the New York Stock Exchange is founded on murder and rape because in some ancient primitive cultures a man’s wealth would be based on the ability to kill and defeat enemies and produce as many offspring as possible.

Fertility and drug-inspired sensations are core components of almost every ancient religion. So what?

[plumjam]

Yes what do you know? I am curious.

Well, a 250 word OP inquiring as to what the basic foundation of Christianity is.
And no mention of Jesus Christ.
I was thinking that some of you "skeptics" might have pointed out a clear shortcoming here, but nothing, so I had to do it myself.
Go figure, huh?

[Tumblehome]

Jesus who?

[Foster Zygote]

Well, a 250 word OP inquiring as to what the basic foundation of Christianity is.
And no mention of Jesus Christ.
I was thinking that some of you "skeptics" might have pointed out a clear shortcoming here, but nothing, so I had to do it myself.
Go figure, huh?

You mean like in the post immediately preceding yours?

[Foster Zygote]

I would have thought that the basic foundation of Christianity is the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.
But really, what do I know?

Sure, but what would those teachings be? All we have are conflicting accounts written decades later by people who never met a man who may or may not have existed. Some of the conflict regarding Jesus' actual teachings has been artificially erased due to the fact that Christianity eventually became large enough to have a centralized authority able to declare which scriptures would become canon and which would be declared apocryphal. But the fact remains that no one can say with certainty what Jesus, assuming he was real and not an invention, actually said.

[Darat]

And even more so what he meant by what he said.

[Geek Goddess]

I would have thought that the basic foundation of Christianity is the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.
But really, what do I know?

No, the basic foundation was Bronze Age Judaism. It morphed over the first few centuries, led by such thinkers as Eusebius, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius and Arius, into what became the Roman church, mostly after the votes at the Council of Nicea. Don't you know anything about your own religion?

[thesyntaxera]

No, the basic foundation was Bronze Age Judaism. It morphed over the first few centuries, led by such thinkers as Eusebius, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius and Arius, into what became the Roman church, mostly after the votes at the Council of Nicea. Don't you know anything about your own religion?

And where did bronze age judaism come from?

[thesyntaxera]

Fertility and drug-inspired sensations are core components of almost every ancient religion. So what?

So...most people don't know that...thats what.

[thesyntaxera]

Just find some evidence to back that up, and we'll get Will Durant working on a revised history book for ya.

That is a pretty basic historical view of it. No rewriting needed. All things evolve over time...accept it...you will feel better. How regional religious beliefs affected each other over time is a process of evolution...how much more clearly can I spell it out?

[drkitten]

All things evolve over time...accept it...you will feel better.

yes, but that doesn't believe that any two random things are related to each other via evolution.

Human beings evolved.... but not from frogs.

How regional religious beliefs affected each other over time is a process of evolution...how much more clearly can I spell it out?

You can spell out the actual connection you propose between fertility cults, psychotropic drugs, and bronze age Judaism. For a start, which Judaic practices do you think were derived from fertility rituals -- and which rituals? Which other cults in the area practiced those rituals? Which drugs are supposed to have influenced Judaic thought, and how? What aspects of Judaic theology are supposed to be drug-related?

Come back when you have specific connections you wish to draw, and we will be happy to inspect the anthropological arguments. But simply writing gibberish about "the profound effects of psychedelics had a spiritual impact on history" doesn't help. Yes, perhaps psychedelics have affected some things (although I strongly suspect that you overestimate their influence). But if you are going to tell me about influence on any specific thing --- how did psychedelics cause the First World War? How did they influence the development of movable-type printing? What role did peyote play in the assassination of Julius Caesar? How did psychedelics influence Dewey's loss in the 1948 US presidential election? -- you need to draw a tighter circle than that.

[triadboy]

The fact that Christianity started as a Jewish sect casts a small shadow of doubt on this theory, however.

Of course, there is the thought that Xianity sprang from Jewish Gnosticism. (Paul - The Great Gnostic)

[ImaginalDisc]

That is a pretty basic historical view of it. No rewriting needed. All things evolve over time...accept it...you will feel better. How regional religious beliefs affected each other over time is a process of evolution...how much more clearly can I spell it out?

You could be substantially more clear. Try finding citations supporting your claims. Period documents showing the links you claim would be a great start.

[thesyntaxera]

Reading this fellows works might be a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marco_Allegro


You can spell out the actual connection you propose between fertility cults, psychotropic drugs, and bronze age Judaism. For a start, which Judaic practices do you think were derived from fertility rituals -- and which rituals? Which other cults in the area practiced those rituals? Which drugs are supposed to have influenced Judaic thought, and how? What aspects of Judaic theology are supposed to be drug-related?

It's not a matter of direct connections, it's a matter of evolution to repeat myself. You can say humans didn't evolve from frogs, and I would agree, but I would counter by saying that all life evolved from algae that was growing under sea ice millions of years ago.

The analogy is the same. All religions are derived from older previous sources...animism/shamanism> onward which means you have to include the influence of psychedelic drugs into the evolution of religion and it's subsequent variations...not to mention that the use of psychedelics by the various mystery schools in the region of the middle east and the mediterranean, and also the use of "soma" by hindu's...even plato had his ambrosia. Do you own research into this perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen#Entheogen-using_cultures

I would suggest reading it closely.

[Hokulele]

All religions are derived from older previous sources...animism/shamanism> onward which means you have to include the influence of psychedelic drugs into the evolution of religion and it's subsequent variations...not to mention that the use of psychedelics by the various mystery schools in the region of the middle east and the mediterranean, and also the use of "soma" by hindu's...even plato had his ambrosia. Do you own research into this perhaps?


Not true (http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/religion/taoism/history.htm).

[thesyntaxera]

Not true (http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/religion/taoism/history.htm).

hmm....possibly...or quite possibly there is no way to know for sure. I guess I could have specified abrahamic religions, or mediterranean religions. I would maybe suggest the possiblity that since there were entheogen using religious groups in asia, and that since it is likely that Taoism evolved out of these that it is also likely that entheogens influenced Taoism as well...unless of course it was created out of thin air with no influence from any other source...which is doubtful.

[Hokulele]

hmm....possibly...or quite possibly there is no way to know for sure. I guess I could have specified abrahamic religions, or mediterranean religions. I would maybe suggest the possiblity that since there were entheogen using religious groups in asia, and that since it is likely that Taoism evolved out of these that it is also likely that entheogens influenced Taoism as well...unless of course it was created out of thin air with no influence from any other source...which is doubtful.


I was referring to the point of having roots in animism/shamanism more so than the use of hallucinogens, as pretty much any human culture will experiment with all sorts of substances. However, I would argue that the influence of hallucinogens would be no greater on Taoism than the influence of something like rice, as a common experience rather than as something restricted to the religion.

In addition, if you are going to use sweeping statements such as "All religions . . .", following up with "there is no way to know for sure" simply undermines your point. As has been mentioned in this thread, you would be much better off picking specific points and proving the connections rather than dealing with generalities that cannot be supported when the facts are examined.

[plumjam]

No, the basic foundation was Bronze Age Judaism. It morphed over the first few centuries, led by such thinkers as Eusebius, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius and Arius, into what became the Roman church, mostly after the votes at the Council of Nicea. Don't you know anything about your own religion?

It isn't my own religion. But I know enough to be sure that Christianity was founded on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
A 6 year old kid could see that much.
If there had been no Jesus Christ, no life and teachings, there'd have been no Council of Nicea. And Eusebius, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius, and Arius would likely have lived very different lives.

When people start coming up with spurious theories about fertility cults and psychedelic drugs providing Christianity's foundation you "skeptics" seem to sit back and say nothing.
Does Christianity approve the taking of psychedelic drugs? No, it doesn't.
Does Christianity propagate "fertility cults"? No, it doesn't.

My point is that when a thread is pro-religion the skepticism gets switched on. When a thread is anti-religion the skepticism gets conveniently switched off.

Ho-hum.

[ponderingturtle]

It's not a matter of direct connections, it's a matter of evolution to repeat myself. You can say humans didn't evolve from frogs, and I would agree, but I would counter by saying that all life evolved from algae that was growing under sea ice millions of years ago.

And you would still be wrong.

The analogy is the same. All religions are derived from older previous sources...animism/shamanism> onward which means you have to include the influence of psychedelic drugs into the evolution of religion and it's subsequent variations...not to mention that the use of psychedelics by the various mystery schools in the region of the middle east and the mediterranean, and also the use of "soma" by hindu's...even plato had his ambrosia. Do you own research into this perhaps?

One social organizations do not need to have precursors in such a dirrect fashion. If that is true what was the true orrigional sport that all modern sports evolved from?

[Foster Zygote]

It isn't my own religion. But I know enough to be sure that Christianity was founded on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
A 6 year old kid could see that much.
Which life and which teachings? As has already been pointed out, there were numerous Christian cults in the first couple of centuries of Christianity. There were very wide variations in their doctrine as well. We aren't talking Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholic/Protestant sorts of differences either. We're talking about religions that would be unrecognizable to modern Christians.

If there had been no Jesus Christ, no life and teachings, there'd have been no Council of Nicea. And Eusebius, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius, and Arius would likely have lived very different lives.
And yet no one can prove that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. Most objective historians think that if he did exist that he had little to do with the legendary Jesus presented by later writers. And, given the aforementioned varieties of Christian cults, had a different group of Christians gained prominence instead of those who came to establish Christian orthodoxy then there likely would have been no council of Nicea and the lives of Origen, Augustine, Athanasius and Arius would have been very different even if Jesus had existed.

When people start coming up with spurious theories about fertility cults and psychedelic drugs providing Christianity's foundation you "skeptics" seem to sit back and say nothing.
I realize that you take great pleasure in your broad brush, but as has been pointed out to you already, DevilsAdvocate addressed this very issue 35 minutes prior to your smug admonition.

My point is that when a thread is pro-religion the skepticism gets switched on. When a thread is anti-religion the skepticism gets conveniently switched off.

Ho-hum.
Really? Are you sure you aren't revealing your bias? I've seen plenty of arguments critical of religion that have been picked apart by skeptics on this forum. Even atheists have dismantled poorly reasoned arguments and emotional diatribes attacking religion. And as to the immediate issue: There's a post above written by DevilsAdvocate that you should probably read before you continue to declare that you were the first to wonder what the OP had to do with Christianity.

[triadboy]

But I know enough to be sure that Christianity was founded on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

I'm skeptical about how much of the 'life' of an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua is actually represented in the NT as the life of Jesus.

I believe the stories about his birth, childhood and resurrection are totally made up. So now we are left with the Gospel of Mark. (ending at 16:8)

I think Mark had access to Q and wove a story around the words.

So SOME of the words - may be actual Jesus words.

So out of the entire NT - 5% may be 'real'. Is that any reason to ruin Sundays?

[Darat]

Just be thankful they changed it from a Saturday!

[plumjam]

I'm skeptical about how much of the 'life' of an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua is actually represented in the NT as the life of Jesus.

I believe the stories about his birth, childhood and resurrection are totally made up. So now we are left with the Gospel of Mark. (ending at 16:8)

I think Mark had access to Q and wove a story around the words.

So SOME of the words - may be actual Jesus words.

So out of the entire NT - 5% may be 'real'. Is that any reason to ruin Sundays?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Jesus Christ never actually existed in real life, and his "life and teachings" were, for some unknown reason made up by some unknown person.
It would remain completely true that Christianity was founded on these "life and teachings", rather than some daft theory about psychedelics and fertility cults.

So some of you are just barking up the wrong tree.

[drkitten]

The analogy is the same. All religions are derived from older previous sources

Good. You've sharpened your claim enough that it's now demonstrably false. Counterexample : Raelianism and/or Scientology.

[drkitten]

hmm....possibly...or quite possibly there is no way to know for sure.

Argument from ignorance.

I guess I could have specified abrahamic religions, or mediterranean religions.

You could have, but that would have simply raised the question about what evidence you have that abrahamic religion is somehow special.

I would maybe suggest the possiblity that since there were entheogen using religious groups in asia, and that since it is likely that Taoism evolved out of these that it is also likely that entheogens influenced Taoism as well.

Yes. That's called making (rule 10) up and it's generally frowned upon as a method of anthropological discourse.


..unless of course it was created out of thin air with no influence from any other source...which is doubtful.

Those are the only choices? Either something originated in psychedelic drugs or it was created out of thin air? So the transistor, for example, which is generally considered to have originated in the theory of semiconductors which originated from quantum physics, which originated from a study of the photoelectric effect.... that history is completely wrong, and Bardeen was simply tripping that day at Murray Hill?

[Foster Zygote]

So some of you are just barking up the wrong tree.

Have you begun to put people on ignore? I ask because prior to your post claiming that only you had questioned the veracity of the claim that Christianity is based on psychedelic drugs and fertility cults Fnord, ImaginalDisc, and DevilsAdvocate all expressed doubt regarding the claim. In fact only one person in this thread has defended the idea so far.

[plumjam]

Have you begun to put people on ignore? I ask because prior to your post claiming that only you had questioned the veracity of the claim that Christianity is based on psychedelic drugs and fertility cults Fnord, ImaginalDisc, and DevilsAdvocate all expressed doubt regarding the claim. In fact only one person in this thread has defended the idea so far.

I have no one on ignore.
Indeed I was the first person to introduce the shocking notion that Jesus Christ may be the foundation of Christianity. I found it strange that no one else had.

[ponderingturtle]

I have no one on ignore.
Indeed I was the first person to introduce the shocking notion that Jesus Christ may be the foundation of Christianity. I found it strange that no one else had.

Because what teaching such a person may or may not have made could be shown to likely have little effect on the current shape of christian belief.

[plumjam]

Because what teaching such a person may or may not have made could be shown to likely have little effect on the current shape of christian belief.

I don't see your point.
We're talking about what the foundations of Christianity. Not 'the current shape of Christian belief'.

[joobz]

I have no one on ignore.
Indeed I was the first person to introduce the shocking notion that Jesus Christ may be the foundation of Christianity. I found it strange that no one else had.Both Fnord and Imaginal Disc challenged the claim of the OP. You weren't the first.


The OP is claiming that christianity sprang up out of such cults and is not talking about the particulars of the christian faith, which as you clearly put, are based upon the assumed teachings and life of christ.

Sure, you can make a semantic arguement about how the word foundation is being used...but don't be so mundane. It is obvious what the context of the OP is.

[Foster Zygote]

I have no one on ignore.
Indeed I was the first person to introduce the shocking notion that Jesus Christ may be the foundation of Christianity. I found it strange that no one else had.

I gave you too much credit then. I'd thought you were addressing the fact that the quote in the OP made no mention of Christianity at all.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see your point.
We're talking about what the foundations of Christianity. Not 'the current shape of Christian belief'.

And the point is that we have very little idea of what Jesus would have taught. Between all the fracturing and time between the story being written down, there is an unlimited amount of changes that can happen.

So saying that the modern Christan church is based on what Christ said is very much about the modern shape of Christian belief. If what the believe Christ said, and what he actually said have nothing in common what does that mean for the foundations of Christianity?

[triadboy]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Jesus Christ never actually existed ...

It would remain completely true that Christianity was founded on these "life and teachings", rather than some daft theory about psychedelics and fertility cults.

In this case, Xianity would be founded on a fictional, possibly daft life and fictional, possibly daft teachings. You just can't get away from it - it's all daft.

[plumjam]

And the point is that we have very little idea of what Jesus would have taught. Between all the fracturing and time between the story being written down, there is an unlimited amount of changes that can happen.

So saying that the modern Christan church is based on what Christ said is very much about the modern shape of Christian belief. If what the believe Christ said, and what he actually said have nothing in common what does that mean for the foundations of Christianity?

unless you have some access to what Christ "actually said" your whole point is redundant.

[plumjam]

I wonder if Foster and Joobz are vying for the Pedant Of The Month prize. ;)
Guys, how about writing something interesting, instead of the nitpicking?

[ponderingturtle]

unless you have some access to what Christ "actually said" your whole point is redundant.

Nope, and as you don't either, you can not claim modern christianity has anything to do with what he said.

YOu see, there is no reason to think that 1950 years ago people would use christianity and religion in general to promote their own objectives. So anything we have is at the minimal filtered through their objectives and the objectives of others until at least the council of mycenia and their objectives as they decided on what was valid vs not.

So your orrigional claim that christianity is based on what christ said is thus false.

[plumjam]

Nope, and as you don't either, you can not claim modern christianity has anything to do with what he said.

YOu see, there is no reason to think that 1950 years ago people would use christianity and religion in general to promote their own objectives. So anything we have is at the minimal filtered through their objectives and the objectives of others until at least the council of mycenia and their objectives as they decided on what was valid vs not.

So your orrigional claim that christianity is based on what christ said is thus false.

You're probably right. Christianity is almost certainly based on what my Auntie Gretel said to her chiropractor the other day, rather than the life and teachings of Jesus Christ or anything silly like that.

[triadboy]

... Christianity was founded on these "life and teachings",...


Jesus' life was probably unremarkable.

He taught nothing new.

Chriatianity is founded on the resurrection.

If xians knew the resurrection never happened, there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[ponderingturtle]

You're probably right. Christianity is almost certainly based on what my Auntie Gretel said to her chiropractor the other day, rather than the life and teachings of Jesus Christ or anything silly like that.

That is why all Christians have always agreed as to those teachings, and never had one Iota of disagreement.

[Foster Zygote]

You're probably right. Christianity is almost certainly based on what my Auntie Gretel said to her chiropractor the other day, rather than the life and teachings of Jesus Christ or anything silly like that.

So what were the teachings of Jesus Christ? There were so many different sects in the first century of Christianity, all with widely differing accounts of who Jesus was and what his message was. Which one was the one true message of Jesus?

[joobz]

I wonder if Foster and Joobz are vying for the Pedant Of The Month prize. ;)
Guys, how about writing something interesting, instead of the nitpicking?
Silly me... And here I thought accuracy and honesty were valued traits.

But, by all means, continue posting unsupported and easily refuted assertions. It's very educational.

[joobz]

You're probably right. Christianity is almost certainly based on what my Auntie Gretel said to her chiropractor the other day, rather than the life and teachings of Jesus Christ or anything silly like that.
Well, that's unlikely becuase we know the bible hasn't changed all that much for 1000 years. However, when we go back far enough to the time of when christ was arround, things get a little more uncertain.

There are christ like myths that are much older than jesus. Do you think that is a mere chance, that the christ story is based on these myths, or that god just so happened to like the story of Hercules, Mithras, Horus that he'd base Jesus off of them?

[Darth Rotor]

Basic Foundations of Christianity

This question keeps coming up, and I think a lot of folks miss its elegance and simplicity. No, it's not the bottom layer of a certain kind of make up. :cool:

Beyond "The Greatest Commandment" admonition to love God and to love one's neighbor as one's self, Jesus advised his disciples directly to take three discrete actions.

1. Eat Bread
2. Drink Wine
3. Remember me

As it worked out, that night in the tavern, they got tanked after they ate all of the bread, and awoke in the morning with hangovers and splitting headaches. A number of them had recalled somewhat the conversation the previous evening, so they went looking for him to see if he would clarify what he meant by

Eat Bread
Drink Wine
Remember Me

A core problem was that a number of them recalled the words as

Remember the Bread (shekels to pay the waiter)
Drink Wine (to wash down the dinner)
Eat me (He was pissed at Judas for something)

Peter in particular was terribly hung over to the point of still being drunk. Staggering at random into the street, he came upon a crowd and tried to see what was happening. Various citizens asked if he knew this man the Pharisees were upset with, and his vision was so blurred he could not recognize the face of the man they were pointing to. He kept repeating "I don't know him" until a rooster crowed. This noise caused Peter a further trauma on top of the headache, and he passed out from the pain.

The rest eventually found themselves out and about, having been thrown out of the tavern, looking for one another to see if they could compare notes and remember what Jesus was talking about before they all passed out. One by one they came into Peter's company, now supported by Mary Magdalene, and gathered into a small crowd. They followed a local parade, as it seemed to be the event of the day, They had missed the weekly thief flogging (which they missed through oversleeping) and figured to have some light entertainment for the day. Only James noticed the absence of Judas, who he thought looked a bit green at the gills when he first awoke.

As it turns out, they left town and watched, in horror, as the one guy who could answer their questions was nailed to a cross (OUCH!) and left to die.

Then it rained, and they all scurried off to a cheaper tavern in order to consult with one another, and to make sense of the whole "guidelines" thing.

On the way there they found Judas dead, horribly disfigured, with the stench of rotten oysters, strong enough to keep the flies away, hovering like a cloud over the corpse. It was at this point that Simon Peter recalled that Judas snuck some oysters into the dinner the night before, and the interchange where Jesus upbraiding him for detraying him. (Detraying is an idiomatic Aramaic term for bogarting the whole tray full of food (oysters) and not sharing as was the usual custom.)

They drank some more wine at the tavern, of course, as that was the one consistent message point common to both versions of Jesus' guidance to them. They were frustrated. Here they had had the guy who could have answered their questions and they missed him due to being hung over, and oversleeping. (Who hasn't had that happen, eh?)

Interpreting the Words and Guidance of Jesus has been an uphill battle ever since. All they seemed to agree on was

Love the Lord Thy God
Love thy Nighbor as thyself
Eat Bread
Drink Wine
Remember Me
Lay off the shellfish

There's your basic foundation of Christianity, the recently unearthed Sithian Sea Scrolls version. ;) The rest seems to be a subject for lively dispute between hundreds of sects and libraries full of scholars, who replicate the efforts, the head scratching struggle, of the original Disciples to make simple sense of the Word.

In Vino Veritas may be true, but In Vino Confundum is likewise true.

DR

[triadboy]

There are christ like myths that are much older than jesus. Do you think that is a mere chance, that the christ story is based on these myths, or that god just so happened to like the story of Hercules, Mithras, Horus that he'd base Jesus off of them?

http://www.funygroup.org/articles/JesusMysteries.html

Bishop Eusebius is known as the "father of Church history," since only his account of early Christianity survived antquity. He subsequently became Constantine's personal biographer, downplaying Constantine's atrocities. Eusebius openly states that "lying for the good of the cause" is a virtue (as expressed by Plato in the Republic, and as a distortion of the Mystery Religions). Eusebius (like others before him) also maintained that the similarities between the Christ myth and the many different Pagan godmen myths are the work of the Devil. They maintained that the Devil (through "diabolical mimicry") had created those stories before the coming of Christ in order to lead the gullible astray!

Satan created those other gods, so when the real one finally came along, no one would believe it.

[Foster Zygote]

In Vino Veritas may be true, but In Vino Confundum is likewise true.

Dude! Where's my grail?:D

[thesyntaxera]

I was referring to the point of having roots in animism/shamanism more so than the use of hallucinogens, as pretty much any human culture will experiment with all sorts of substances. However, I would argue that the influence of hallucinogens would be no greater on Taoism than the influence of something like rice, as a common experience rather than as something restricted to the religion.

And what are the hallmarks of Shamanism/Animism? Entheogen use for one. You can argue that, but considering that most recent experimental data into hallucinogens has the research participants labeling it "substantially meaningful" I would wonder what wide spread use of it ages ago would have done to persons spiritual perceptions.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf

At 2 months, the volunteers rated the psilocybin
experience as having substantial personal meaning and
spiritual significance and attributed to the experience sustained
positive changes in attitudes and behavior consistent
with changes rated by community observers.

In addition, if you are going to use sweeping statements such as "All religions . . .", following up with "there is no way to know for sure" simply undermines your point.

Do you believe that all humans migrated out of Africa some 150,000 years ago? And that those original humans diversifying across the globe might have had some influence on one another early on? What I am suggesting is that if you go back far enough to where the original seed was planted...that original seed is going to affect the rest of the population in some way...hence all religions...

And you would still be wrong.
http://www2.earthsky.org/faq/dna-animals-plants?q=printme
There are pretty obvious differences between plants and animals, but—at the chemical level—the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape—the famous “double helix” that looks like a twisted ladder. What’s more, all DNA molecules—in both plants and animals—are made from the same four chemical building blocks—called nucleotides.

So whats the oldest known form of life on the planet? Your being too specific or I am being too general, in either case the way I am attempting to describe it in relation to my point is that it all goes back to the same source, and that something affected the DNA long ago to form a lineage that ultimately led to humans. In this instance entheogen use long ago created the frame work for which all subjective religious experiences would be derived.

Good. You've sharpened your claim enough that it's now demonstrably false. Counterexample : Raelianism and/or Scientology.

Actually both have christian symbolism/references in them, and if you think New Age religions are some how immune to the influence of other frames of thought such as the monoliths of religion preceding them then I would say that you are mistaken.

Yes. That's called making (rule 10) up and it's generally frowned upon as a method of anthropological discourse.

I am not making anything up by suggesting something. As well, the use of entheogens in times of antiquity is WELL documented and has been demonstrated here. So as one thing leads into another, how is the effect of entheogen use not felt? I am not saying all religions were founded based on psychedelics...I am saying psychedelics have influenced all other religions in some way due to their predominance early on in the development of human spiritual experience.

[kmortis]

Silly me... And here I thought accuracy and honesty were valued traits.

But, by all means, continue posting unsupported and easily refuted assertions. It's very educational.
I do believe that people who do that are called "Straight Men". Think Martin to Lewis or Reiner to Brooks.

[HereticHulk]

It isn't my own religion. But I know enough to be sure that Christianity was founded on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
A 6 year old kid could see that much.
If there had been no Jesus Christ, no life and teachings, there'd have been no Council of Nicea. And Eusebius, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius, and Arius would likely have lived very different lives.

When people start coming up with spurious theories about fertility cults and psychedelic drugs providing Christianity's foundation you "skeptics" seem to sit back and say nothing.
Does Christianity approve the taking of psychedelic drugs? No, it doesn't.
Does Christianity propagate "fertility cults"? No, it doesn't.

My point is that when a thread is pro-religion the skepticism gets switched on. When a thread is anti-religion the skepticism gets conveniently switched off.

Ho-hum.


Jesus Christ literally translates into: annointed with semen! That is directly related to fertility.

[drkitten]

I am saying psychedelics have influenced all other religions in some way due to their predominance early on in the development of human spiritual experience.

Yes. And you're compeltely off-base, unsupported, and wrong.

... and "making (rule 10) up."

[Hokulele]

And what are the hallmarks of Shamanism/Animism? Entheogen use for one. You can argue that, but considering that most recent experimental data into hallucinogens has the research participants labeling it "substantially meaningful" I would wonder what wide spread use of it ages ago would have done to persons spiritual perceptions.


Animism/shamanism is roughly based on the dualistic notion of a soul as separate from a body. Generally, the soul will survive death, or precede life. The sources texts for Taoism do not promote a dualistic philosophy/religion (at least in the sense of Descartes), and therefor its origin and development have nothing to do with animism/shamanism.

I am not making anything up by suggesting something. As well, the use of entheogens in times of antiquity is WELL documented and has been demonstrated here. So as one thing leads into another, how is the effect of entheogen use not felt? I am not saying all religions were founded based on psychedelics...I am saying psychedelics have influenced all other religions in some way due to their predominance early on in the development of human spiritual experience.


Based on the sentences leading up to it, the bolded statement is pointless. There are many common experiences in human history, agriculture, war, child-rearing, and the Chicago Cubs not making the World Series. Stating that psychedelics are any more important to the development of religion than any of the things I have listed would require far more proof than you have offered so far.

[thesyntaxera]

Yes. And you're compeltely off-base, unsupported, and wrong.

... and "making (rule 10) up."

Are you not reading any of the basic information provided here? Allow me for a moment would you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

...though there are well documented uses of safrole and safrole extractions similar to MDMA, documented in ancient Indian texts dating as far back as 8,000 B.C.

The best-known entheogen-using culture of Africa is the Bwitists, who used a preparation of the root bark of Iboga (Tabernanthe iboga).[2] A famous entheogen of ancient Egypt is the blue lotus (Nymphaea caerulea). There is evidence for the use of entheogenic mushrooms in Côte d'Ivoire (Samorini 1995).

The indigenous peoples of Siberia (from whom the term shaman was appropriated) have used the fly agaric mushroom (Amanita muscaria) as an entheogen.

The ancient inebriant Soma, mentioned often in the Vedas, may have been an entheogen. (In his 1967 book, Wasson argues that Soma was fly agaric. The active ingredient of Soma is presumed by some to be ephedrine, an alkaloid with stimulant and (somewhat debatable) entheogenic properties derived from the soma plant, identified as Ephedra pachyclada.) However, there are also arguments to suggest that Soma could have also been Syrian Rue, Cannabis, or some combination of any of the above plants.

An early entheogen in Aegean civilization, predating the introduction of wine, which was the more familiar entheogen of the reborn Dionysus and the maenads, was fermented honey, known in Northern Europe as mead; its cult uses in the Aegean world are bound up with the mythology of the bee.

The imposition of Roman Christianity also saw the end of the two-thousand-year-old tradition of the Eleusinian Mysteries, the initiation ceremony for the cult of Demeter and Persephone involving the use of a possibly entheogenic substance known as kykeon. Similarly, there is evidence that nitrous oxide or ethylene may have been in part responsible for the visions of the equally long-lived Delphic oracle (Hale et al., 2003).

In ancient Germanic culture cannabis was associated with the Germanic love goddess Freya. The harvesting of the plant was connected with an erotic high festival. It was believed that Freya lived as a fertile force in the plant's feminine flowers and by ingesting them one became influenced by this divine force. Similarly, fly agaric was consecrated to Odin, the god of ecstasy, while henbane stood under the dominion of the thunder god - Thor in Germanic mythology - and Jupiter among the Romans (Rätsch 2003).

In modern-era Christianity, at least, the Eucharist plays a symbolic role in religious tradition that has occasionally attracted the label of "entheogen" or "placebo entheogen", even though the modern-era mainstream Eucharistic practice does not conform to the definition of entheogenic as a vision-inducing substance.

The entheogenic use of substances, particularly hashish. Its use by the "Hashshashin" to stupefy and recruit new initiates was widely reported during the Crusades. However, the drug used by the Hashshashin was likely wine, opium, henbane, or some combination of these, and, in any event, the use of this drug was for stupefaction rather than for entheogenic use. It has been suggested that the ritual use of small amounts of Syrian Rue is an artifact of its ancient use in higher doses as an entheogen.


Philologist John Marco Allegro has argued in his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross that early Jewish and Christian cultic practice was based on the use of Amanita muscaria which was later forgotten by its adherents, though this hypothesis has not received much consideration or become widely accepted. Allegro's hypothesis that Amanita use was forgotten after primitive Christianity seems contradicted by his own view that the chapel in Plaincourault shows evidence of Christian Amanita use in the 1200s.


There have been several examples of the use of entheogens in the archaeological record. Many of these researchers, like R. Gordon Wasson or Giorgio Samorini[5][6], have recently produced a plethora of evidence, which has not yet received consideration within academia. The first direct evidence of entheogen use comes from Tassili, Algeria, with a cave painting of a mushroom-man, dating to 8000 BP. Hemp seeds discovered by archaeologists at Pazyryk suggest early ceremonial practices by the Scythians occurred during the 5th to 2nd century BC, confirming previous historical reports by Herodotus.


...it has also been suggested that entheogens played an important role in ancient Indo-European culture, for example by inclusion in the ritual preparations of the Soma, the "pressed juice" that is the subject of Book 9 of the Rig Veda. Soma was ritually prepared and drunk by priests and initiates and elicited a paean in the Rig Veda that embodies the nature of an entheogen

The Kykeon that preceded initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries is another entheogen, which was investigated (before the word was coined) by Carl Kerenyí, in Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter. Other entheogens in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean include the poppy, Datura, the unidentified "lotus" eaten by the Lotus-Eaters in the Odyssey and Narkissos.

According to Ruck, Eyan, and Staples, the familiar shamanic entheogen that the Indo-Europeans brought with them was knowledge of the wild Amanita mushroom. It could not be cultivated; thus it had to be found, which suited it to a nomadic lifestyle. When they reached the world of the Caucasus and the Aegean, the Indo-Europeans encountered wine, the entheogen of Dionysus, who brought it with him from his birthplace in the mythical Nysa, when he returned to claim his Olympian birthright. The Indo-European proto-Greeks "recognized it as the entheogen of Zeus, and their own traditions of shamanism, the Amanita and the 'pressed juice' of Soma — but better since no longer unpredictable and wild, the way it was found among the Hyperboreans: as befit their own assimilation of agrarian modes of life, the entheogen was now cultivable" (Ruck and Staples). Robert Graves, in his foreword to The Greek Myths, argues that the ambrosia of various pre-Hellenic tribes were amanita and possibly panaeolus mushrooms.

The entheogen is believed to offer godlike powers in many traditional tales, including immortality. The failure of Gilgamesh in retrieving the plant of immortality from beneath the waters teaches that the blissful state cannot be taken by force or guile: when Gilgamesh lay on the bank, exhausted from his heroic effort, the serpent came and ate the plant.


According to some scholars,[7] cannabis was an ingredient of holy anointing oil mentioned in various sacred Hebrew texts. The herb of interest is most commonly known as kaneh-bosm (Hebrew: קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם). This is mentioned several times in the Old Testament as a bartering material, incense, and an ingredient in holy anointing oil used by the high priest of the temple. Although Chris Bennett's research in this area focuses on cannabis, he mentions evidence suggesting use of additional visionary plants such as henbane, as well[8].

The Septuagint translates kaneh-bosm as calamus, and this translation has been propagated unchanged to most later translations of the old testament. However, Polish anthropologist Sula Benet published etymological arguments that the Aramaic word for hemp can be read as kannabos and appears to be a cognate to the modern word 'cannabis',[9] with the root kan meaning reed or hemp and bosm meaning fragrant. Both cannabis and calamus are fragrant, reedlike plants containing psychotropic compounds.

Allegro's book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, relates the development of language to the development of myths, religions and cultic practices in world cultures. Allegro believed he could prove, through etymology, that the roots of Christianity, as of many other religions, lay in fertility cults; and that cultic practices, such as ingesting visionary plants (or "hallucinogenic drugs") to perceive the mind of god, persisted into the early Christian era, and to some unspecified extent into the 1200s, as he argues based on interpreting the Plaincourault chapel's fresco as depicting the use of Amanita.

But...I'm just making it up right?


Animism/shamanism is roughly based on the dualistic notion of a soul as separate from a body. Generally, the soul will survive death, or precede life. The sources texts for Taoism do not promote a dualistic philosophy/religion (at least in the sense of Descartes), and therefor its origin and development have nothing to do with animism/shamanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism


Shamanistic practices are sometimes claimed to predate all organized religions, dating back to the Paleolithic and certainly to the Neolithic period

Aspects of shamanism are encountered in later, organized religions, generally in their mystic and symbolic practices. Greek paganism was influenced by shamanism, as reflected in the stories of Tantalus, Prometheus, Medea, and Calypso among others, as well as in the Eleusinian Mysteries, and other mysteries. Some of the shamanic practices of the Greek religion later merged into the Roman religion.

The shamanic practices of many cultures were marginalized with the spread of monotheism in Europe and the Middle East. In Europe, starting around 400, institutional Christianity was instrumental in the collapse of the Greek and Roman religions. Temples were systematically destroyed and key ceremonies were outlawed or appropriated. The Early Modern witch trials may have further eliminated lingering remnants of European shamanism (if in fact "shamanism" can even be used to accurately describe the beliefs and practices of those cultures).


Some peoples, which used to live in Siberia, have wandered to their present locations since then. For example, many Uralic peoples live now outside Siberia. The original location of the Proto-Uralic peoples (and its extent) is debated. Combined phytogeographical and linguistic considerations (distribution of various tree species and the presence of their names in various Uralic languages) suggest that this area was north of Central Ural Mountains and on lower and middle parts of Ob River.[41] The ancestors of Hungarian people or Madyars have wandered from their ancestral proto-Uralic area to the Pannonian Basin. Shamanism is no more a living practice among Hungarians, but some remnants have been reserved as fragments of folklore, in folktales, customs.[42]


The Korean shamans' use of the Amanita Muscaria in traditional practice is thought to have been suppressed as early as the Choseon dynasty.

There is a strong shamanistic influence in the Bön religion of some Central Asians, and in Tibetan Buddhism. Buddhism became popular with shamanic peoples such as the Tibetans, Mongols, and Manchu beginning in the eighth century. Forms of shamanistic ritual combined with Tibetan Buddhism became institutionalized as the state religion under the Mongolian Yuan dynasty and the Manchurian Qing dynasty. However, in the shamanic cultures still practiced by various ethnic groups in areas such as Nepal and northern India, shamans are not necessarily considered enlightened, and often are even feared for their ability to use their power to carry out malicious intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
Most traditional Chinese Taoists are polytheistic. Nature and ancestor spirits are also common in popular Taoism. Organized Taoism distinguishes its ritual activity from that of the folk religion, which some professional Taoists (Daoshi) view as debased. This sort of shamanism is eschewed for an emphasis on internal alchemy among the "elite" Taoists.

Now why is it so hard to entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, there is something to this idea? I am arguing that in the course of human migration these idea's have become enfolded into various cultures as the evolution of history has played out. It is demonstrated above for you, and in all kinds of independent literature. The only controversial thing about it is that beyond knowing that entheogens were used, the intimate practices and how they ultimately become enfolded are unknown and only traceable through cultural symbology which can be tedious.

[Hokulele]

Now why is it so hard to entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, there is something to this idea? I am arguing that in the course of human migration these idea's have become enfolded into various cultures as the evolution of history has played out. It is demonstrated above for you, and in all kinds of independent literature. The only controversial thing about it is that beyond knowing that entheogens were used, the intimate practices and how they ultimately become enfolded are unknown and only traceable through cultural symbology which can be tedious.


Wrong. Regarding your Wiki link on Taoism, two points.

First, the paragraph you quoted is discussing modern Taoism, not the roots of the religion. Note that the very last sentence you quoted indicates that most scholars (Daoshi) agree that this is a divergence from the traditions. In addition, nowhere in either of the primary or secondary source texts for Taoism is the use of hallucinogenic drugs mentioned. There is much discussion of correct diet, the use of herbs and spices medicinally, but nothing on "spiritual" usage. In all my reading on Taoism and Chinese history, I have only seen one, very obscure, reference to marijuana. Face it, your pet theory just does not apply to Taoism. For crying out loud, study history rather than relying on Wikipedia before you try and discuss these types of topics.

Second, note this paragraph from further down the very link you provided.

While a number of immortals or other mysterious figures appear in the Zhuangzi, and to a lesser extent in the Tao Te Ching, these have generally not become the objects of worship. Traditional conceptions of Tao are not to be confused with the Western concepts of theism and monotheism. Being one with the Tao does not indicate a union with an eternal spirit in the Hindu sense, but rather living in accordance with nature

When your own sources show you how Taoism differs from even other local religions, you may want to consider either reading those sources completely, or finding other sources to support your premise of the commonality of religion.

Anyway, did you read my point about the banality of including common activities and giving drug use preeminence? What are your thoughts (not the Wiki clips) on that?

[thesyntaxera]

Wrong. Regarding your Wiki link on Taoism, two points.

First, the paragraph you quoted is discussing modern Taoism, not the roots of the religion. Note that the very last sentence you quoted indicates that most scholars (Daoshi) agree that this is a divergence from the traditions. In addition, nowhere in either of the primary or secondary source texts for Taoism is the use of hallucinogenic drugs mentioned. There is much discussion of correct diet, the use of herbs and spices medicinally, but nothing on "spiritual" usage. In all my reading on Taoism and Chinese history, I have only seen one, very obscure, reference to marijuana. Face it, your pet theory just does not apply to Taoism. For crying out loud, study history rather than relying on Wikipedia before you try and discuss these types of topics.

Second, note this paragraph from further down the very link you provided.



When your own sources show you how Taoism differs from even other local religions, you may want to consider either reading those sources completely, or finding other sources to support your premise of the commonality of religion.

Anyway, did you read my point about the banality of including common activities and giving drug use preeminence? What are your thoughts (not the Wiki clips) on that?

Listen...do you believe in the path of human migration as it is believed to be...you know out of africa..etc? The only way Taoism could be completely unique is if some alien race came to earth while china was being settled and circumvented the development of shamanistic cultures there and implanted the Taoist philosophy directly....otherwise it is derived from previous sources such as the shamanic practices of all the surrounding areas as well as in china itself.

I am not saying that Taoism was developed after some dude tripped out all night. What I am saying is that it emerged out of a culture of shamanism, and as it developed and refined itself over time it became what it is.

As far as criticizing wiki...wiki is inconsequential to the historical fact that all religions have roots traceable to shamanism and entheogenic use. Link up one source that says shamanism wasn't the widespread form of spirituality pre-civilization...link up one source that says there was no shamanism or that it wasn't widespread in Asia before adn during the development of Taoism.

i'm waiting.

My thoughts on your last question...equating entheogens with everyday activities is pointless. It's shows that you have little if any knowledge regarding the history of their use or the impact they had on developing mythologies/philosophies despite the fact that it has been demonstrated for you that entheogen using cultures are everywhere. Saying that rice is the same has a intense psychedelic state is ridiculous. Sure rice is important if your hungry....I fail to see how it connect to religious experience though.

[Hokulele]

I am not suggesting that shamanism and drug-use did not occur in Asia, I am saying that it had no role in the origin and development of Taoism. None. Nada. You are the one claiming it did, so the burden of proof is upon you to show some evidence that there is a link. Please indicate where the Tao Te Ching or the Zhuagzhi texts or traditional rituals are influenced by these oh-so-prevalent drugs. As I indicated previously, I have only found one reference in all of the texts I have read on the subject, and that was obscure, and related to marijuana specifically (look up Joseph Needham).

And to the second point, connecting every-day experiences with religion, ignoring rice (and the Chicago Cubs) for the time being, would you agree that war has an impact on religious experience? How about politics? I would argue that either of these has a far greater impact on the development and spread of religions world-wide than either mushrooms or astrology. Look at the spread and inter-relations of the indigenous religions in Micronesia, Polynesia, Atearoa, and Melanesia. Please note, the only widely distributed drug in the region is kava, which, although it was used during religious ceremonies, was used for all social activities. It's role in the religion is no more pre-eminent (or influential) than alcohol in most other cultures. However, the role of warfare and warrior culture is extremely pronounced.

Look, if you want to restrict your arguments to Abrahamaic religions in the Mediterranean and play volley-ball with drkitten and/or ChristineR, fine. If you want to try and apply your beliefs to all religions, you had better be prepared to show some solid evidence beyond "don't you agree that we are all human".

[Piggy]

If the OP wants to propose a connection b/t fertility cults, psychotropics, and the current manifestation of Xianity in Western/Anglo culture specifically, then OK, let's get on w/ it.

But, for reasons already stated, any general claims linking Xianity per se with fertility cults and psychedelic experience -- well, that's just a whole lotta bull.

[thesyntaxera]

I am not suggesting that shamanism and drug-use did not occur in Asia, I am saying that it had no role in the origin and development of Taoism.

Seriously...how could you or anyone know that for sure? Did you invent it? What we do know is that there was widespread shamanism in every region that humans occupied...even china, that entheogenic compounds are key in inducing trance states in the performance of rituals along with drumming, singing, dancing...or whatever, depending on the local tradition, that there are many entheogen using cultures in Asia that could have and most likely interacted with other groups of humans in Asia...like the chinese...It is no stretch of the imagination to think that perhaps these practices had a hand in shaping what the Taoist philosophy ultimately became.

Then we have to consider how religions have evolved from shamanisitic practices in tandem with society..ie as the society grows in complexity so does the religion...

I fail to see how Taoism is immune from this same type of progression. I never stated that entheogens were key in the creation of Taoism, I said they are part of it's history..just like the whole history of asia is part of it's origin....

http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Songs-Study-Shamanism-Ancient/dp/0872860752

Arthur Waley does a superb job covering the role of the wu, or shaman, in ancient China. Similar to the traditional shaman of Siberia, Central Asia and the Arctic, the wu enters into a trance state in performing ceremonies. However, unlike his northern counterparts, the Chinese shaman enters into a fleeting love relationship with the God (or Goddess). Although references to shaman abound in China, actual descriptions of the practice and beliefs of the wu are rare. Waley takes what is known about them, comparing it occaisonally to other Asian beliefs, and makes a wonderful introduction to Chinese shamanism.

That might be a good book to read perhaps?

In reference to your idea about religious experience do you mean personal ecstatic states...or the experience of and development of state religions which Taoism ultimately was?

Comparing the states of mind attained via psychedelics to the use of alcohol in western cultures isn't even a remotely realistic postion to maintain...especially when you consider what a entheogenic experience is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_experience
Total loss of visual connection with reality. The senses cease to function in the normal way. Total loss of ego. Feelings of merging with space, other objects or the universe. Feelings of reaching to the beginning or the end of space and time. The loss of reality becomes so extreme that it defies explanation. Dream or movie like states, people have been reported seeing themselves in entirely different settings than their original setting. Earlier levels are relatively easy to describe in terms of measurable changes in perception and thought patterns. The only thing still reported to be working at a recognizable level, is the mind's voice of thought. Much is unknown about what a person actually experiences during this period, because most people actually come back explaining the experience as "unexplainable" or "uncommunicable".

[thesyntaxera]

If the OP wants to propose a connection b/t fertility cults, psychotropics, and the current manifestation of Xianity in Western/Anglo culture specifically, then OK, let's get on w/ it.

But, for reasons already stated, any general claims linking Xianity per se with fertility cults and psychedelic experience -- well, that's just a whole lotta bull.

...are you just glancing over the information laid bare or just making random comments for the hell of it?

[kmortis]

thesyntaxera,
Are you trying to suggest that because "there was widespread shamanism in every region that humans occupied" that all shamans used psychotropic chemicals, and that these events eventually led to the formation of modern day religions?

I can see a direct link claim being made for Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Discordianism, and some of the tribal religions of North America, Africa and Australia. The more "refined" religions (e.g. Christianity, Taoism and Buddhism) are too removed from any shamanistic culture for it to have played a big role in their development. It would be like saying that ammonites are the basis of human kind because they predate us. Sure, we can trace to a common ancestor, and probably find a true genetic link, but it's a stretch to call it a basis.

[Hokulele]

Seriously...how could you or anyone know that for sure? Did you invent it?


No, but I have read the primary and secondary source texts that the religion is based on. Are you suggesting that these works do not offer insight into the development of the religion? Are you suggesting that your wild guess-work does. Evidence please.

What we do know is that there was widespread shamanism in every region that humans occupied...even china, that entheogenic compounds are key in inducing trance states in the performance of rituals along with drumming, singing, dancing...or whatever, depending on the local tradition, that there are many entheogen using cultures in Asia that could have and most likely interacted with other groups of humans in Asia...like the chinese...It is no stretch of the imagination to think that perhaps these practices had a hand in shaping what the Taoist philosophy ultimately became.


It is a huge stretch of the imagination. Show me just one example of Taoist texts referencing a "trance state", and I will show you several hundred referencing war and politics. Which do you think had more influence on the religion?

Then we have to consider how religions have evolved from shamanisitic practices in tandem with society..ie as the society grows in complexity so does the religion...

I fail to see how Taoism is immune from this same type of progression. I never stated that entheogens were key in the creation of Taoism, I said they are part of it's history..just like the whole history of asia is part of it's origin....


And so is rice. We are back to that again. Just for fun, do a search on "trance state" in the Tao Te Ching. Then do a search on "rice". See which gets more hits.

http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Songs-Study-Shamanism-Ancient/dp/0872860752



That might be a good book to read perhaps?


I am not sure how a poetry book from 1955 really supports your case, but I have enjoyed his translations of other works, so will probably give it a read. Have you read this, or was this the only reference on Chinese shamanism you could find on Google?

In reference to your idea about religious experience do you mean personal ecstatic states...or the experience of and development of state religions which Taoism ultimately was?


I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Comparing the states of mind attained via psychedelics to the use of alcohol in western cultures isn't even a remotely realistic postion to maintain...especially when you consider what a entheogenic experience is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_experience


I have no idea what you are talking about here either.

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera,
Are you trying to suggest that because "there was widespread shamanism in every region that humans occupied" that all shamans used psychotropic chemicals, and that these events eventually led to the formation of modern day religions?

What I am saying is basically this:

Looking into the history of religion, you can trace in most cases how shamanistic practice and mythology influenced the creation of more institutional religions. It's practically in tandem with the evolution of various societies as they grew from tribal groups to chiefdom's and so forth. They didn't cause anything...they were merely the precursor of it.

Are you suggesting that these works do not offer insight into the development of the religion? Are you suggesting that your wild guess-work does. Evidence please.

Where's the wild guess work...I am quoting history to you, that's all. It is common knowledge that the precursors to every major religious movement is grounded in shamanism/animism...to assume otherwise is to deny history and those who take great pains to sort it out.

It is a huge stretch of the imagination. Show me just one example of Taoist texts referencing a "trance state", and I will show you several hundred referencing war and politics. Which do you think had more influence on the religion?

What came before your beloved Taoist texts and how did that shape those texts? Seriously, pay attention to what this debate is about, instead meandering it in whatever direction you chose.

I am not sure how a poetry book from 1955 really supports your case, but I have enjoyed his translations of other works, so will probably give it a read. Have you read this, or was this the only reference on Chinese shamanism you could find on Google?

There is a book of poetry by this name, and then there is the book I was talking about by Arthur Waley, the difference is that in the Waley edition he uses the poetry to aid in his description and expostion of chinese shamanism.


I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Big ***** surprise!

I have no idea what you are talking about here either.

That because you don't even remember what this thread is about anymore...

[Hokulele]

What came before your beloved Taoist texts and how did that shape those texts? Seriously, pay attention to what this debate is about, instead meandering it in whatever direction you chose.


You are the historian, you tell me what came before and how it relates to shamanism and psychedelics. (Hint, it starts with a "C".)

There is a book of poetry by this name, and then there is the book I was talking about by Arthur Waley, the difference is that in the Waley edition he uses the poetry to aid in his description and expostion of chinese shamanism.


Umm, no. No surprise you have gotten this wrong, as you have not read the book, and probably haven't read any of Waley's other works. I am guessing you are basing your opinion on a review from someone who is not the author posted to Amazon.com. What you quoted in your enthusiastic recommendation of this work is someone's opinion, not a formal review, nor an actual outtake from the book. For example, here is a passage from a book review written and published in the Journal of Asian Studies when The Nine Songs was first published.

(Link from JSTOR (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-373X(195701)16%3A1%3C69%3ATNSASO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R). You will need to have formal access to read the review, although you should be able to read excerpts if you hunt around a bit.)

In the introduction and commentaries appended to each poem, Mr. Waley discusses the subject of shamanism in early China, and the deities to which the songs were addressed. Much of his material is drawn from the treatises on religious affairs of the Shih chi and Han shu. For the most part his treatment is sketchy and his attempts to identify and describe the deities inconclusive. Although he states in his Preface that this little work is intended mainly for the students of shamanism, I doubt they will find much satisfaction in it.


The review then goes on to discuss why this book does not aid in making a case for shamanism in ancient China, mostly due to the fact that the poems translated are coming from a outlying fringe district of China, and do not represent mainstream views.

That because you don't even remember what this thread is about anymore...


Then why don't you go back to discussing Abrahamic traditions (which you profess to know), and stay out of Asian and Polynesian cultures, which you apparently know nothing about.

[Big Les]

thesyntaxera,
It would be like saying that ammonites are the basis of human kind because they predate us.

:eek: Attack of the killer ammonites!

Did anybody else see this guy claim that Jesus Christ translates into "annointed with semen"?????

[kmortis]

:eek: Attack of the killer ammonites!

Did anybody else see this guy claim that Jesus Christ translates into "annointed with semen"?????

Well, he did travel around with 11 other guys. Very few texts mention any female compaionship of JC's.


Don't laugh at the ammonites, they're Cthulhu's ancestor too.

[Piggy]

...are you just glancing over the information laid bare or just making random comments for the hell of it?

No.

The "information laid bare" is worthy of a Hal Lindsey movie or an episode of "In Search Of".

[drkitten]

Are you not reading any of the basic information provided here?

Yes, I'm reading it. There's little relevant "information."



But...I'm just making it up right?

Yes.


Now why is it so hard to entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, there is something to this idea?

It's not hard. Nor is it hard to entertain the notion that Superman is actually an alien from the planet Krypton. But when you "entertain notions" like that, you're writing fiction.

For an actual argument, you need evidence, not wild speculation

I am arguing that in the course of human migration these idea's have become enfolded into various cultures as the evolution of history has played out.

No. You're making (rule 10) up. I'm still waiting for a single piece of evidence that would turn it into an argument.

[Slayhamlet]

Jesus Christ literally translates into: annointed with semen! That is directly related to fertility.

Is that like being bukkaked with stupid?

[thesyntaxera]

You are the historian, you tell me what came before and how it relates to shamanism and psychedelics...

This is getting rather ouroboric...but anyway...

If shamanism is the worlds oldest recorded manifestation of religion as it has been variously found through out the world, and since it is found in all cultures pre-history, how is it again that psychedelic using shamanistic practices didn't have some impact on the evolution of religion throughout the world in every culture?

I have listed all of the available references that were easy to point out earlier in this thread. Do you disagree with those findings? Why? Be specific.

Have you pointed out why these things didn't influence the development of religions? No.

Have you made any specific counter claims? No. The only refutation I have seen so far amounts to "Your wrong, I am right.." which for some reason I am not willing to blindly accept, especially in light of all the information listed previously.

So instead of trying to feign wit in your posts, try attacking the specific claims, refute the theory that according to you has no foundation or weight what so ever.

In reference to Taoism, and the above request...prove that the shamanistic prehistory of china didn't have some influence on eastern thought with some solid examples and we can discuss...if this is so easy to refute then do so.

[Hokulele]

If shamanism is the worlds oldest recorded manifestation of religion as it has been variously found through out the world, and since it is found in all cultures pre-history, how is it again that psychedelic using shamanistic practices didn't have some impact on the evolution of religion throughout the world in every culture?


But it isn't. See kmortis' post as well as my comments on Polynesia.

I have listed all of the available references that were easy to point out earlier in this thread. Do you disagree with those findings? Why? Be specific.


Yes. Some of those findings of yours were proven not to support your point (see Arthur Waley).

Have you pointed out why these things didn't influence the development of religions? No.


Have you proven that they did influence all religions? No.

Have you made any specific counter claims? No. The only refutation I have seen so far amounts to "Your wrong, I am right.." which for some reason I am not willing to blindly accept, especially in light of all the information listed previously.


Yes, many counter claims. The role of politics on religion, the role of warfare on religion, the lack of psychedelic drugs in Polynesia, etc. These points were far more specific than "You are wrong, I am right", and you haven't addressed any of them.

So instead of trying to feign wit in your posts, try attacking the specific claims, refute the theory that according to you has no foundation or weight what so ever.


I have tackled the "all religions" claim repeatedly, using Taoism as a specific example.

In reference to Taoism, and the above request...prove that the shamanistic prehistory of china didn't have some influence on eastern thought with some solid examples and we can discuss...if this is so easy to refute then do so.


"Proof of a negative" fallacy. Provide just one piece of evidence that shamanism/animism did influence Taoism. Just one.

[drkitten]

If shamanism is the worlds oldest recorded manifestation of religion as it has been variously found through out the world, and since it is found in all cultures pre-history, how is it again that psychedelic using shamanistic practices didn't have some impact on the evolution of religion throughout the world in every culture?

Because not everything impacts everything else.



I have listed all of the available references that were easy to point out earlier in this thread. Do you disagree with those findings?

With the findings? No. With your interpretations? Yes.

Why? Be specific.

Because the findings in no way support the conclusion you wish to draw. You are drawing conclusions without evidentiary support.


Have you made any specific counter claims?

Yes. I have specifically claimed that you are making (rule 10) up.


In reference to Taoism, and the above request...prove that the shamanistic prehistory of china didn't have some influence on eastern thought with some solid examples and we can discuss...if this is so easy to refute then do so.

And then prove that the Freemasons didn't start the First World War. It's your ill-thought-out and largely bogus claim, you find a shred of evidence in its favor.

[ponderingturtle]

No.

The "information laid bare" is worthy of a Hal Lindsey movie or an episode of "In Search Of".

But if you can't trust Spock who can you trust?

[thesyntaxera]

Because not everything impacts everything else.

Wow. Thats about as rock solid rebuttal as one is ever going to find. You are partly right, not everything impacts everything else. But we are talking about theories of religious development over thousands of years. Due to the nature of prehistoric religions(shamanism) and their employment of entheogens to manifest a religious experience in the individual shaman, as well as the subsequent development of mythos surrounding the entheogens themselves it is difficult to say with any certainty that they didn't play some role in the development of religion. In fact, it is downright historical dishonesty to downplay the effect this might have by negating the existence all together of such connections in spite the wealth of research done since the mid 60's by various scholars whose findings have been quoted in the very thread.

With the findings? No. With your interpretations? Yes.
Thats funny, because if you knew anything about the research referenced in this thread, you would know that the findings exist in support of the interpretation, and have been argued vehemently by others in academic circles since the 1960's. The findings suggest that there is a connection between entheogens and the development of religion, where scholars disagree is to what degree, and where, and how much...etc.

Because the findings in no way support the conclusion you wish to draw. You are drawing conclusions without evidentiary support.

I have drawn no conclusion other than the one supported by the evidence that you have ignored: That entheogens played a role in the development of religion, and that by virtue of the nature of memetic evolution the effects of this early influence on developing human cultures is felt everywhere. To what degree, who knows?


Yes. I have specifically claimed that you are making (rule 10) up.

Just because you specifically claim something doesn't make it a counter claim, especially when there was no counter claim refuting the theory in your statements with supporting evidence, there was merely your blanket dismissal of the concept entirely out of ignorance of the subject matter despite being provided with the most basic introductory information, which if you were interested in seriously debunking this concept you would have investigated...which I gather you didn't.

And then prove that the Freemasons didn't start the First World War. It's your ill-thought-out and largely bogus claim, you find a shred of evidence in its favor.



Perhaps some other time. Again to restate, your claim that there is no evidence betrays ignorance on your part, because there is a plethora of it available for your examination if you had taken the time to seek it out. Brandishing all of it in this pointless cyclical debate would take weeks of time and effort that I am not really willing to expend especially in light of the over the top dismissals of well established historical fact presented in this thread by the so-called skeptics.


If you are genuinely interested in the subject matter, the OP offers a video that provides a basic introduction to the arguments in question. If watching a video is too laborious for you then here is a link that outlines the history of the arguments for and against with an accompanying analysis. As I understand it this is an upcoming article for the publication "The Journal of Higher Criticism"...

http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm


Unless your going to supply something other than weak logical arguments based in ignorance of the subject matter to debunk this theory I am going to refrain from commenting further...much to your satisfaction I would only assume.

I'll let you get back to chastising this with your oh so original trademark skeptic banter that has made these forums a pleasure to read.

[drkitten]

Due to the nature of prehistoric religions(shamanism) and their employment of entheogens to manifest a religious experience in the individual shaman, as well as the subsequent development of mythos surrounding the entheogens themselves it is difficult to say with any certainty that they didn't play some role in the development of religion.

That's called "Argument from Ignorance."

It's also called "making (rule 10) up."

In fact, it is downright historical dishonesty to downplay the effect this might have by negating the existence all together of such connections in spite the wealth of research done since the mid 60's by various scholars whose findings have been quoted in the very thread.

"Might have had." More arguments from ignorance.




I have drawn no conclusion other than the one supported by the evidence that you have ignored:

You have no evidence for me to ignore.

That entheogens played a role in the development of religion, and that by virtue of the nature of memetic evolution the effects of this early influence on developing human cultures is felt everywhere. To what degree, who knows?



if you were interested in seriously debunking this concept you would have investigated...which I gather you didn't.

You're right, for once. I am not seriously interested in debunking it, as there is nothing to debunk. I'm not going to pressure-wash a soup cracker. I'm especially not going to pressure-wash an imaginary soup cracker.



Again to restate, your claim that there is no evidence betrays ignorance on your part, because there is a plethora of it available for your examination

Then show me some. So far, you've not.

Brandishing all of it in this pointless cyclical debate would take weeks of time and effort that I am not really willing to expend

Ah, yes; the old "there's so much evidence out there that I can't find a single sentence" ploy as beloved by quacks everywhere.

As I understand it this is an upcoming article for the publication "The Journal of Higher Criticism"...

http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm

Read it. It's tripe and the journal is self-admitted cat-box liner that is more interested in politics than in accuracy.



Unless your going to supply something other than weak logical arguments based in ignorance of the subject matter to debunk this theory I am going to refrain from commenting further...much to your satisfaction I would only assume.

I'll let you get back to chastising this with your oh so original trademark skeptic banter that has made these forums a pleasure to read.

Please do. Come back when you're ready to talk to the grown-ups.

[Hokulele]

Unless your going to supply something other than weak logical arguments based in ignorance of the subject matter to debunk this theory I am going to refrain from commenting further...much to your satisfaction I would only assume.


Why does that sound so famliar?

[thesyntaxera]

That's called "Argument from Ignorance."
It's also called....vain attempt at having the last word....
Please do. Come back when you're ready to talk to the grown-ups.

If your behavior is indicative of what you refer to as grown up, then I might possibly have a new found fear for the fate of the human race.


Your response isn't too surprising though. Claiming something doesn't exist, when it does, and then offering nothing substantial to back your history denial other then supercilious rhetoric that is designed to do what exactly...prove your rightness...?.....by virtue of what?

We may never know.... In the mean time go on feeling good about yourself, as you apparently have overturned findings in both enthnobotany, and comparative religion that until just now(thanks to your display of wit and cunning) were considered accurate.

:)

[drkitten]

In the mean time go on feeling good about yourself, as you apparently have overturned findings in both enthnobotany, and comparative religion that until just now(thanks to your display of wit and cunning) were considered accurate.

Yes, I'm sure they were considered accurate -- but by whom? So far, you've apparently cited yourself and the little man you find floating in your bong water as fellow-travellers. And even the man in your bong water gives you less than wholehearted support....

[thesyntaxera]

Yes, I'm sure they were considered accurate -- but by whom? So far, you've apparently cited yourself and the little man you find floating in your bong water as fellow-travellers. And even the man in your bong water gives you less than wholehearted support....

I cited myself naught. I pointed you to the scholarly debates on this topic, but by all means continue your debasement if it so pleases you, which I am sure it does at this point.:p

[DevilsAdvocate]

What I am saying is basically this:

Looking into the history of religion, you can trace in most cases how shamanistic practice and mythology influenced the creation of more institutional religions. It's practically in tandem with the evolution of various societies as they grew from tribal groups to chiefdom's and so forth.I’ll agree with that. In fact I would even go so far to say that current Christianity IS basically shamanism and mythology. The Old Testament certainly has that stuff all over the place. But so what?

All you are saying is

1) Many early religions were based on shamanism and mythology (and mind-altering substances and fertility).
2) Early religions evolved into later religions.

I won’t argue with you there. I think most people know those things.

That is not what the original post was about. The premise of the original post was:

The basic foundation of Christianity was based upon fertility cults and psychedelic drug use.

It went on to say that:

It is time to recognize the fact that this Pharmacratic Inquisition is still intact and destroy it.

The premise seems to imply that Christianity itself was based upon fertility cults and psychedelic drug use. Of course, it specifically says the “basic foundation of Christianity”, which is where we get into semantics. I would assume the “basic foundation of Christianity” is meant to mean the basic religious beliefs of Christians, or possibly the events that led to the original creation of the Christian faith. Fertility worship and psychedelic drug use have nothing to do with that “basic foundation of Christianity”. However, it appears that the premise takes advantage of our immediate commonplace assumption (perhaps to elicit excitement and misdirection) and is actually referring to a more obscure meaning of “basic foundation of Christianity”.

If the “basic foundation of Christianity” is meant to mean “the very early religions that eventually over time transformed and evolved into what became Christianity” then the statement is probably true because many early religions were based on fertility and drug use.

So the premise really is:

Many early religions were based on fertility and drug use, which may include various early religions that evolved into Judaism, which provided a foundation for Christianity.

That’s a far cry from what one would assume is meant by, “The basic foundation of Christianity was based on fertility and drug use.” Don’t you agree?

And once you realize the misdirection and understand what the premise really is, then you can see that the claim that a “Pharmacratic Inquisition is still intact” is simply a horrendous leap of logic. When you talk about the “foundation of Christianity” you can’t one on hand use it to mean very early religious beliefs and then on the other hand use it to mean current Christian beliefs and then simply exchange meanings whenever you want.

And even if fertility cults and psychedelic drug use actually were the basis for the very early pre-Judaic religions, it doesn’t matter unless you can at least describe remnants of those traits in Christianity. And then trace those remnants back to prove a connection and then explain the relevance of the connection.

It is like saying the basic foundation of Slayer was based upon trumpets and banjos. Slayer is a thrash metal band. Thrash metal is a type of heavy metal, which is a type of rock and roll, which was based on boogie-woogie, which was based on jazz, which was based on several styles such as Dixieland, which commonly focused on trumpets and banjos. So, the basic foundation of Slayer was based on trumpets and banjos. Which is ridiculous.

If you make those leaps of logic, you can get anything.

The basic foundation of aluminum siding was based on leaves.
The basic foundation of laser printers was based on blueberries.
The basic foundation of cell phones was based on logs.
The basic foundation of Microsoft was based on pebbles.
The basic foundation of the U.S. constitution was based on throwing rocks.
The basic foundation of aircraft carriers was based on sticks.

All of those statements are as equally valid as the original premise. But it sounds kind of silly when put in this format, don’t you think?

[thesyntaxera]

And even if fertility cults and psychedelic drug use actually were the basis for the very early pre-Judaic religions, it doesn’t matter unless you can at least describe remnants of those traits in Christianity. And then trace those remnants back to prove a connection and then explain the relevance of the connection.

I don't have the whole video memorized, but isn't that the purpose of it?