Why all the religions have similar aspects

[h_k_s]

The most you could sink is Florida.

I don't think that would be a bad idea either.

[Sy Borg]

From Wiki:

The flood myth motif is found among many cultures as seen in the Mesopotamian flood stories, Deucalion and Pyrrha in Greek mythology, the Genesis flood narrative, Pralaya in Hinduism, the Gun-Yu in Chinese mythology, Bergelmir in Norse mythology, in the arrival of the first inhabitants of Ireland with Cessair in Irish mythology, in the lore of the K'iche' and Maya peoples in Mesoamerica, the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa tribe of Native Americans in North America, the Muisca, and Cañari Confederation, in South America, Africa, and some Aboriginal tribes in Australia.

These need not have occurred at the same time and there is no evidence that I'm aware of that they did. Logic suggests that that each of those civilisations and tribes would have at some stage experienced a flood at some stage that was worse than any other. Floods are memorable! They kill people, pets and livestock. They ruin homes and crops, and carry away clothes and keepsakes.

Logically, there will always be a worst flood, worst fire, worst storm, worst drought and, in some places, worst earthquake. These will find their way into the cautionary stories of the people.

[Mark1955]

What's to think about? Simple geography and math. Volumes. Etc.

You're presumably assuming 'geography' is constant.

[h_k_s]

I often think back to the things that history teaches us about Sargon The Great in Akkad and also to the ancient Egyptians and their first great unifying king Menes.

Surely religion and the Priesthood(s) of those religion(s) in those two separate independent regions of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. were already well established by then.

But these two great kings, Sargon and Menes, were both extremely powerful warlords. I wonder if they feared the Priesthood(s) much?

I wonder how they each dealt with them?

The ancient Priesthood(s) most likely served as a sort of check and balance on the power of the warlord anciently.

Then fast-forward to King John of England (1199 - 1216 A.D. as king) before the time of the Parliament of England. The barons of England united against John and forced him to adhere to the Magna Charta. It was the first de facto legislature since the time of the ancient Athenians.

But prior to the 13th Century A.D. in England, there were no parliaments.

So what or who served that purpose as a dampener on the power of the warlord/king? It could only have been the priesthood(s).

Thus, early on, religion before it solely became an opiate of the masses by Karl Marx's times, served a somewhat useful purpose in general.

Never thought of that before.

[alan_wattsify]

I often think back to the things that history teaches us about Sargon The Great in Akkad and also to the ancient Egyptians and their first great unifying king Menes.

Surely religion and the Priesthood(s) of those religion(s) in those two separate independent regions of the 3rd millennium B.C.E. were already well established by then.

But these two great kings, Sargon and Menes, were both extremely powerful warlords. I wonder if they feared the Priesthood(s) much?

I wonder how they each dealt with them?

The ancient Priesthood(s) most likely served as a sort of check and balance on the power of the warlord anciently.

Then fast-forward to King John of England (1199 - 1216 A.D. as king) before the time of the Parliament of England. The barons of England united against John and forced him to adhere to the Magna Charta. It was the first de facto legislature since the time of the ancient Athenians.

But prior to the 13th Century A.D. in England, there were no parliaments.

So what or who served that purpose as a dampener on the power of the warlord/king? It could only have been the priesthood(s).

Thus, early on, religion before it solely became an opiate of the masses by Karl Marx's times, served a somewhat useful purpose in general.

Never thought of that before.

Although there were benefits from priesthood, I think the existence of priesthood was in general negative. In what respect are we considering priesthood as opposition to kingship?

I don't think kingship ever feared priesthood before oppressing common people, priesthood was an opposition for owning the best lands. It might even have been better to have all the wealth and control in the kingship, rather than shared with priesthood. This would eliminate some of internal problems, which is good for common people, and I don't see any disadvantage in it.

There were kings, like Urukagina, who did reforms for common people (which are quite impressive), and his kingship didn't last long because of the opposition - priesthood wasn't happy to yield it's lands and power. I don't have any information that priesthood ever did any reforms, or anything for the good of common people.

[Repoman05]

It's really a correlation fallacy based on cooked data. Major religions have all had contact with each other off and on for for far more than a couple thousand years now. More than enough time for anything drasticly different to be crushed and left for dead by the slaves they made together. Other than that, manipulation techniques all look the same due to innate similarities between the many surviving people's.

[Repoman05]

Ji-Zeus isn't a very big change to the plot line. It's just how subjective nonsense has to grow together to keep and merge parishioners.

[Mark1955]

What's to think about? Simple geography and math. Volumes. Etc.

You're assuming geography is a static thing then.

[h_k_s]

Ji-Zeus isn't a very big change to the plot line. It's just how subjective nonsense has to grow together to keep and merge parishioners.

Ji-Zeus !!! I love this !!!

Actually Jesus is more like Heracles/Hercules than Zeus.

And in the Greek New Testament (in Greek) Jesus' Father-God is named Theos, the Greek spelling of Zeus (which is Latin).

[Repoman05]

Go tell ji-Zeus that.

[Repoman05]

Or is it G-Zeus? Pfft, who cares. April Fools!

Who asks you to believe a scam? (saydan)