My theory on Temples and Sacrifice is purged everywhere!

[Scott Mayers]

I had an original thread, originally from another forum that spoke on my theory regarding the origins of temples and sacrifice that has literally been purged everywhere! What the fuck?!!

I even wrote one here that disappeared! The only reference I found is to this discussion but the link is disabled: viewtopic.php?p=400233#p400233

I DO have some indirect references to them but where they existed, the links disappeared.

HOW is this possible without someone being able to successfully get into all my prior posts from all the other sites to delete them?

[Scott Mayers]

I'm discovering that I also have some other material I value removed too! I guess that I'm forced to stop contributing content of any value online!

[attofishpi]

I'm afraid we decided the content was unacceptable.

[Scott Mayers]

I'm afraid we decided the content was unacceptable.

Who's "we"?

There is no doubt that the religious can't handle the truth. But I am finding that I cannot find it even on forums that are not so friendly to religion (my own skeptic community) and it may suggest that I have some security issue. I might have to take some time off to address this. I can see it can affect some countries' political justification for existence though, especially those dependent upon religious claims for their authority to rule, like ALL the Middle East!!

I'm hoping I made some trivial mistake. But if not, it will only make me think that it has more significant threat value than I originally thought. I'll have to look back on my own records to see what I wrote that seems so threatening.

The other possibility is that someone likes it and wants to co-opt it as their own. But again, how could this be done without violating some security issue, right?

[Belinda]

Is your theory that Abraham fully intended to sacrifice Isaac because of the old ritual tradition of sacrificing the priest -king so as to install a new younger one?

The justification for this ritual is the natural cycle of death and renewal which the ancients believed had to be perpetuated.

God, as we know intervened and a sheep was sacrificed instead. The story is aimed at showing how God improved the old custom of human sacrifice by substituting animal sacrifice. Thus the story illustrates part of the history of God as told in The Bible.

The theme of human sacrifice is still active until the Christian interpretation of the human sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth, which is why he is called Lamb of God.

Modern Christians are divided in their approaches to the theme of human sacrifice. Some modern Christians believe the literal killing of Jesus (and his subsequent resurrection)is the theme and truth of the story. Other modern Christians believe the sacrifice made voluntarily by Jesus of Nazareth was the paradigm case for all good men to sacrifice their own interests for the good of others. Human sacrifice is still a main theme that has evolved to be symbolic of selflessness.

[Scott Mayers]

Is your theory that Abraham fully intended to sacrifice Isaac because of the old ritual tradition of sacrificing the priest -king so as to install a new younger one?

The justification for this ritual is the natural cycle of death and renewal which the ancients believed had to be perpetuated.

God, as we know intervened and a sheep was sacrificed instead. The story is aimed at showing how God improved the old custom of human sacrifice by substituting animal sacrifice. Thus the story illustrates part of the history of God as told in The Bible.

The theme of human sacrifice is still active until the Christian interpretation of the human sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth, which is why he is called Lamb of God.

Modern Christians are divided in their approaches to the theme of human sacrifice. Some modern Christians believe the literal killing of Jesus (and his subsequent resurrection)is the theme and truth of the story. Other modern Christians believe the sacrifice made voluntarily by Jesus of Nazareth was the paradigm case for all good men to sacrifice their own interests for the good of others. Human sacrifice is still a main theme that has evolved to be symbolic of selflessness.

Although that story relates to the change, my theory proposed that sacrifice was a necessary function for the evolution of civilization because it was literally the only way people could assure contractual agreements.

Sacrifice has to come from BOTH (or all) members negotiating some agreement or treaty. Given no one had shared means to enforce anything, the best way to secure such agreements is to 'prove' your sincerity by giving up something of value of each other. This can be cheapened in strength by one or the other parties if it was done in modern type negotiations. For instance, imagine a very wealthy person who gives up $1 to a poor person's $1. This is not a fair 'sacrifice' on the part of the more powerful person. To make this 'fair' then would require each party to negotiate value of THE OTHER tribes' sacrifice. And neither can ever receive a benefit for it, such as what might be the case if one asked for a daughter to be given as a sacrifice in mere heart. [Of course if the contract were ABOUT one wanting to choose a daughter of the other tribe, the sacrifice would not be the daughter because that would be self defeating.]

The negotiating members would decide what the other values most and ask that to be literally destroyed so that NO ONE could benefit from them. As such, the 'offering' is of what is demanded of the other and both have to sacrifice. Once this is done, it surely PROVES the sincerity of the contract since the invested loss of each other would be meaningless without.

This doesn't always require people. Animal sacrifice is also of value except if one or both tribes have many of these at hand in good times.

This is similar to what gangs do on the streets. You get the initating member to commit to a 'contract' by, say, getting the other to commit a crime. This is only similar in that usually only the initiating member is proving something. But usually under such conditions, the initiate would (should) know of the gang's actual reputation of being criminals by default.

That is the jist of it on the part of sacrifice. Temples would have been a secondary or co-evolution that eventually included doing sacrifices in a shared spot. But I think the temples were literally 'temporary' meeting places initially and represented places where each tribe had a representative, originally as the symbols in stone and later included a human who represented the tribe...the 'priest' (not necessarily a religious person but one of whom the tribe trusts to represent them.

This was required as tribes slowly evolved to claim lands during 'temporary' times of the year, most specifically land plots where a tribe would plant seed in the spring, leave for their hunting and gathering and return by fall for harvest. They needed some means to assure which plots belonged to which tribe. And the best way to do this would be to create IDOLS, literal figurines that represent the tribe with matching official markings in stone at the temples (and eventually the priests since eventually these monuments of identity would likely be defaced. Each tribe would require an official to guard the monuments representing their signature. Prior forms of tribal proof would be things like the chief's ring as a signature until those became less trustworthy for being potentially counterfeited.

The temples then would NOT be religious places initially and only represent a kind of formal court of 'proof' for contracts and ownership claims. This is in general my temple and sacrifice theory. I expanded upon what I said in the original lost threads that I am referring to. It is not like this 'theory' should be unique to me but because the eventual religious takeover of these 'institutes' in time would be most interested in 'burying' this. I actually learned about the clay envelopes from mathematical archeology and there is extensive evidence of more than I mentioned on that. But I combined what I know of this and other areas to define this theory.

What do you think of it on just this much? Can you see how this too would help rationalize the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice? While people likely were still 'religious' minded, there had to be secular reasons for the FORMAL religious use of temples and sacrifice. The latter conflicts regarding temples, like Jesus' or other Jews going against the use of temples as places of sacreligious interpretation were novel and antirational beyond any economic and educational deficits of the poor who didn't understand these origins.

EDIT addition: Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son would be appropriate until other less extreme means could be as effective. But I also think that this was relatively premature but emotionally distasteful for those who had compassion of others being sacrificed. And if you were one of the poor members or rejects of the family, you'd likely end up being 'scapegoated' and represents a kind of cheat for a sacrifice. It would be skillful of most to likely find scapegoats who seemed legitimate as sacrifices when they may have only represented a kind of 'counterfeit' offer by the side pretending they were giving up something valuable to the other. Note that this problem exists today

(Think of those who offer their own race as owning a debt rather than themselves in particular, like those who assert White privilege who are white as a justification for offering unfair reparations to other non-whites pretending to be compassionately willing to pay the debts that gave them their inherent fortunes. By extending their guilt to the whole race rather than to themselves, they don't have to actually give away anything by scapegoating the debts they own onto those vulnerable poor whites who are relatively 'innocent' but can do nothing about it. It's a fraud. And thus I think the Abrahamic story was demonstrating a recognition of a need for change in how they do contracts.)

[Scott Mayers]

Okay, in light of recognizing what I had just said about using the modern issues of "white privilege" as an example, I can see why also my own 'skeptic' community's rift between the more extreme liberals who may find what I say to be politically insulting for them. So this too may be why all the sites may have found possible reason to dislike what I say. There is something for everyone to dislike about it! But why hide our heads in the sand?

[Walker]

I had an original thread, originally from another forum that spoke on my theory regarding the origins of temples and sacrifice that has literally been purged everywhere! What the fuck?!!

What’s the fundamental principle of the theory, in thirty words or less?

If humans have designed some self-teaching machine that is erasing the conceptual content of human thought, it seems like the philosophical question is, why is the machine erasing that particular content?

[Scott Mayers]

I had an original thread, originally from another forum that spoke on my theory regarding the origins of temples and sacrifice that has literally been purged everywhere! What the fuck?!!

What’s the fundamental principle of the theory, in thirty words or less?

If humans have designed some self-teaching machine that is erasing the conceptual content of human thought, it seems like the philosophical question is, why is the machine erasing that particular content?

I did not assert the problem as due to bots. (Or are you a confused bot thinking that humans must be like you? )

See the last post above in response to Belinda for the overview of the theory.

[Walker]

I had an original thread, originally from another forum that spoke on my theory regarding the origins of temples and sacrifice that has literally been purged everywhere! What the fuck?!!

What’s the fundamental principle of the theory, in thirty words or less?

If humans have designed some self-teaching machine that is erasing the conceptual content of human thought, it seems like the philosophical question is, why is the machine erasing that particular content?

I did not assert the problem as due to bots. (Or are you a confused bot thinking that humans must be like you? )

See the last post above in response to Belinda for the overview of the theory.

If you can't state it in thirty words or less, your theory is not clear, and not all humans are as muddled as you, hee haw.

Remember, e equals mc squared, not mc hammered.

If machines are not censoring based on human guidelines, then why would humans be erasing the particular content of your theory?

After all, that is the philosophical question.

[Scott Mayers]

What’s the fundamental principle of the theory, in thirty words or less?

If humans have designed some self-teaching machine that is erasing the conceptual content of human thought, it seems like the philosophical question is, why is the machine erasing that particular content?

I did not assert the problem as due to bots. (Or are you a confused bot thinking that humans must be like you? )

See the last post above in response to Belinda for the overview of the theory.

If you can't state it in thirty words or less, you are not clear.

If machines are not censoring based on human guidelines, then why would humans be erasing the particular content of your theory?

If you can waste the time to count the letters (or words) in what I wrote but didn't bother to read it, I don't think I'd have any value in what intelligence you might have to contribute!

And your odd question is only further proof of your incapacity to interpret what I might have said even if I wrote it sufficiently succinct for you! This is not twitter.

[Belinda]

Is your theory that Abraham fully intended to sacrifice Isaac because of the old ritual tradition of sacrificing the priest -king so as to install a new younger one?

The justification for this ritual is the natural cycle of death and renewal which the ancients believed had to be perpetuated.

God, as we know intervened and a sheep was sacrificed instead. The story is aimed at showing how God improved the old custom of human sacrifice by substituting animal sacrifice. Thus the story illustrates part of the history of God as told in The Bible.

The theme of human sacrifice is still active until the Christian interpretation of the human sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth, which is why he is called Lamb of God.

Modern Christians are divided in their approaches to the theme of human sacrifice. Some modern Christians believe the literal killing of Jesus (and his subsequent resurrection)is the theme and truth of the story. Other modern Christians believe the sacrifice made voluntarily by Jesus of Nazareth was the paradigm case for all good men to sacrifice their own interests for the good of others. Human sacrifice is still a main theme that has evolved to be symbolic of selflessness.

Although that story relates to the change, my theory proposed that sacrifice was a necessary function for the evolution of civilization because it was literally the only way people could assure contractual agreements.

Sacrifice has to come from BOTH (or all) members negotiating some agreement or treaty. Given no one had shared means to enforce anything, the best way to secure such agreements is to 'prove' your sincerity by giving up something of value of each other. This can be cheapened in strength by one or the other parties if it was done in modern type negotiations. For instance, imagine a very wealthy person who gives up $1 to a poor person's $1. This is not a fair 'sacrifice' on the part of the more powerful person. To make this 'fair' then would require each party to negotiate value of THE OTHER tribes' sacrifice. And neither can ever receive a benefit for it, such as what might be the case if one asked for a daughter to be given as a sacrifice in mere heart. [Of course if the contract were ABOUT one wanting to choose a daughter of the other tribe, the sacrifice would not be the daughter because that would be self defeating.]

The negotiating members would decide what the other values most and ask that to be literally destroyed so that NO ONE could benefit from them. As such, the 'offering' is of what is demanded of the other and both have to sacrifice. Once this is done, it surely PROVES the sincerity of the contract since the invested loss of each other would be meaningless without.

This doesn't always require people. Animal sacrifice is also of value except if one or both tribes have many of these at hand in good times.

This is similar to what gangs do on the streets. You get the initating member to commit to a 'contract' by, say, getting the other to commit a crime. This is only similar in that usually only the initiating member is proving something. But usually under such conditions, the initiate would (should) know of the gang's actual reputation of being criminals by default.

That is the jist of it on the part of sacrifice. Temples would have been a secondary or co-evolution that eventually included doing sacrifices in a shared spot. But I think the temples were literally 'temporary' meeting places initially and represented places where each tribe had a representative, originally as the symbols in stone and later included a human who represented the tribe...the 'priest' (not necessarily a religious person but one of whom the tribe trusts to represent them.

This was required as tribes slowly evolved to claim lands during 'temporary' times of the year, most specifically land plots where a tribe would plant seed in the spring, leave for their hunting and gathering and return by fall for harvest. They needed some means to assure which plots belonged to which tribe. And the best way to do this would be to create IDOLS, literal figurines that represent the tribe with matching official markings in stone at the temples (and eventually the priests since eventually these monuments of identity would likely be defaced. Each tribe would require an official to guard the monuments representing their signature. Prior forms of tribal proof would be things like the chief's ring as a signature until those became less trustworthy for being potentially counterfeited.

The temples then would NOT be religious places initially and only represent a kind of formal court of 'proof' for contracts and ownership claims. This is in general my temple and sacrifice theory. I expanded upon what I said in the original lost threads that I am referring to. It is not like this 'theory' should be unique to me but because the eventual religious takeover of these 'institutes' in time would be most interested in 'burying' this. I actually learned about the clay envelopes from mathematical archeology and there is extensive evidence of more than I mentioned on that. But I combined what I know of this and other areas to define this theory.

What do you think of it on just this much? Can you see how this too would help rationalize the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice? While people likely were still 'religious' minded, there had to be secular reasons for the FORMAL religious use of temples and sacrifice. The latter conflicts regarding temples, like Jesus' or other Jews going against the use of temples as places of sacreligious interpretation were novel and antirational beyond any economic and educational deficits of the poor who didn't understand these origins.

EDIT addition: Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son would be appropriate until other less extreme means could be as effective. But I also think that this was relatively premature but emotionally distasteful for those who had compassion of others being sacrificed. And if you were one of the poor members or rejects of the family, you'd likely end up being 'scapegoated' and represents a kind of cheat for a sacrifice. It would be skillful of most to likely find scapegoats who seemed legitimate as sacrifices when they may have only represented a kind of 'counterfeit' offer by the side pretending they were giving up something valuable to the other. Note that this problem exists today

(Think of those who offer their own race as owning a debt rather than themselves in particular, like those who assert White privilege who are white as a justification for offering unfair reparations to other non-whites pretending to be compassionately willing to pay the debts that gave them their inherent fortunes. By extending their guilt to the whole race rather than to themselves, they don't have to actually give away anything by scapegoating the debts they own onto those vulnerable poor whites who are relatively 'innocent' but can do nothing about it. It's a fraud. And thus I think the Abrahamic story was demonstrating a recognition of a need for change in how they do contracts.)

Your theory of sacrifice fits nicely with my potted history of sacrifice. Isaac was an item of greatest possible value, and Abraham aimed to force God to provide benefits by that huge sacrifice. Forcing the gods is magical thinking. The A and I story shows the transition from magical thinking to faith. God's intervention showed Abraham that that magical thinking is not necessary, and what God wants is a token sacrifice, plus good intention on the part of the man making the sacrifice.

The themes of token sacrifice, plus good intention on the part of the sacrificer is taken up in the story of Jesus as a willing sacrifice to pay that enormous debt in return for God's mercy. The role of the priest-king is combined with the roles of Abraham, and the sheep itself.I'd have told the story with a ewe, not a ram. A ewe would be a better symbol of docility.

During his life and teaching, Jesus of Nazareth had covered the bit about imbalance of power. The parable of the Widow's Mite is part of the novel advance in ethics that Jesus of Nazareth is credited with.

PS I particularly like your explanation of idols i.e gods of place . Jahweh was gunning for them too because the wandering tribe needed a portable deity.

[Scott Mayers]

Your theory of sacrifice fits nicely with my potted history of sacrifice. Isaac was an item of greatest possible value, and Abraham aimed to force God to provide benefits by that huge sacrifice. Forcing the gods is magical thinking. The A and I story shows the transition from magical thinking to faith. God's intervention showed Abraham that that magical thinking is not necessary, and what God wants is a token sacrifice, plus good intention on the part of the man making the sacrifice.

The themes of token sacrifice, plus good intention on the part of the sacrificer is taken up in the story of Jesus as a willing sacrifice to pay that enormous debt in return for God's mercy. The role of the priest-king is combined with the roles of Abraham, and the sheep itself.I'd have told the story with a ewe, not a ram. A ewe would be a better symbol of docility.

During his life and teaching, Jesus of Nazareth had covered the bit about imbalance of power. The parable of the Widow's Mite is part of the novel advance in ethics that Jesus of Nazareth is credited with.

PS I particularly like your explanation of idols i.e gods of place . Jahweh was gunning for them too because the wandering tribe needed a portable deity.

Thank you. I'm glad you like it and can use it with your own theories too.

Of course this is just an outline and I expand upon it in more detail. Politics (and the religions used with it) has in time eroded most of the original source evidence just as we tear down statues and create taboos to using certain words. But I hold that the original 'religious' sources came from normal everday rational thinking of the day and was not strictly of any 'religion'. "God" can be translated to "(Goodness) of Nature" or just something like a variable meaning 'the unknown source' that science, math, or logic we use today when trying to make sense of reality.

[Belinda]

Your theory of sacrifice fits nicely with my potted history of sacrifice. Isaac was an item of greatest possible value, and Abraham aimed to force God to provide benefits by that huge sacrifice. Forcing the gods is magical thinking. The A and I story shows the transition from magical thinking to faith. God's intervention showed Abraham that that magical thinking is not necessary, and what God wants is a token sacrifice, plus good intention on the part of the man making the sacrifice.

The themes of token sacrifice, plus good intention on the part of the sacrificer is taken up in the story of Jesus as a willing sacrifice to pay that enormous debt in return for God's mercy. The role of the priest-king is combined with the roles of Abraham, and the sheep itself.I'd have told the story with a ewe, not a ram. A ewe would be a better symbol of docility.

During his life and teaching, Jesus of Nazareth had covered the bit about imbalance of power. The parable of the Widow's Mite is part of the novel advance in ethics that Jesus of Nazareth is credited with.

PS I particularly like your explanation of idols i.e gods of place . Jahweh was gunning for them too because the wandering tribe needed a portable deity.

Thank you. I'm glad you like it and can use it with your own theories too.

Of course this is just an outline and I expand upon it in more detail. Politics (and the religions used with it) has in time eroded most of the original source evidence just as we tear down statues and create taboos to using certain words. But I hold that the original 'religious' sources came from normal everday rational thinking of the day and was not strictly of any 'religion'. "God" can be translated to "(Goodness) of Nature" or just something like a variable meaning 'the unknown source' that science, math, or logic we use today when trying to make sense of reality.

You wrote:

The negotiating members would decide what the other values most and ask that to be literally destroyed so that NO ONE could benefit from them. As such, the 'offering' is of what is demanded of the other and both have to sacrifice. Once this is done, it surely PROVES the sincerity of the contract since the invested loss of each other would be meaningless without.

In connection with the sacrificial death of Jesus , the above scenario fits with the reputed ancestry of Jesus as descendant and scion of King David. It fits well with the story of Jesus as first born to a virgin: primogeniture. Jesus would then be the priest-king who was to be sacrificed to ensure the well being of his tribe. Xianity is said to be syncretic in character , and these old magical ideas possibly still had a hold on the popular imagination.