RE: Open Origin Religions?
April 2, 2015 at 7:31 am
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2015 at 7:37 am by Brian37.)
Way to miss the point once again. That is a dishonest tactic. Not because Jews are bad, but because humans have flawed perceptions.
The point is it still remains that Hebrews were NOT the first religion, they still are merely a result of splitting off prior polytheism.
Same stupid argument Christians make trying to claim to be the one true religion arguing the new character of Jesus in the NT, admitting he was a Jew himself, but move the goal posts when you point out that would make Christianity not original.
The point is there is NO SUCH THING as an "original" religion. All of them stem from surrounding and or prior traditions. and are only successful through marketing and or force.
Arguing that a religion was the first is like arguing which soda was the first beverage, knowing damned well that water existed before any soda.
Religion competes just like Coke vs Pepsi. Pepsi comes out with a cherry soda, Coke looks at it, creates it's own version, gives it a different name incorporates the flavor, changes the color of the can. But it still is soda.
Arguing a religion was the first or original is like Coke arguing it was the first beverage because it's can is red. Meaningless and bullshit again, because water would still be prior to soda. Polytheism came before Hebrew monotheism and that means Hebrews merely were tired of the old ways and decided to market a new club by incorporating old ideas and characters of the prior religions.
The point is it still remains that Hebrews were NOT the first religion, they still are merely a result of splitting off prior polytheism.
Same stupid argument Christians make trying to claim to be the one true religion arguing the new character of Jesus in the NT, admitting he was a Jew himself, but move the goal posts when you point out that would make Christianity not original.
The point is there is NO SUCH THING as an "original" religion. All of them stem from surrounding and or prior traditions. and are only successful through marketing and or force.
Arguing that a religion was the first is like arguing which soda was the first beverage, knowing damned well that water existed before any soda.
Religion competes just like Coke vs Pepsi. Pepsi comes out with a cherry soda, Coke looks at it, creates it's own version, gives it a different name incorporates the flavor, changes the color of the can. But it still is soda.
Arguing a religion was the first or original is like Coke arguing it was the first beverage because it's can is red. Meaningless and bullshit again, because water would still be prior to soda. Polytheism came before Hebrew monotheism and that means Hebrews merely were tired of the old ways and decided to market a new club by incorporating old ideas and characters of the prior religions.
