Is needing or wanting to worshiping a God a human defect or benefit?

[Staidhup]

One God, not a God. So when everything is imploding around you and you have nothing left, Baal has deserted you, humanism has left you all alone in misery, who do you turn to, and what will give you the strength to overcome and prevail? When you choose not to live by the laws handed down by Moses you will suffer, society will suffer. When you embrace sin you are doomed to perish. God simply provides the strength and wisdom to prevail, prosper, live in peace, and yet all he asks in return is obedience to his laws, and only believe in one God.

 

[Staidhup]

Being born again does not negate that you will use Jesys as your scapegoat redeemer...

You already posted the same crap. Doing it twice does not make it true. Master Christianity and then we can discuss your preposterous ideas/thoughts. Sheesh...

I will let deluded fools master fantasy, miracles and magic.

Enjoy your delusions and follow your genocidal son murdering God.
He will lead you straight to hell.

Regards
DL

So how can there be a hell if there is not a God? Do you profess that Satan exists and yet not the antithesis, God? Is not one the belief in the Angel of sin exiled from heaven and the other the son of God?

 

[Surfer]

...Enjoy your delusions and follow your genocidal son murdering God...

No delusions: just fact. Remember this as you fry in Hell for eternity screaming in agony with unquenchable thirst and scorching flesh. Too bad. So sad...

 

[daws101]

...Enjoy your delusions and follow your genocidal son murdering God...

No delusions: just fact. Remember this as you fry in Hell for eternity screaming in agony with unquenchable thirst and scorching flesh. Too bad. So sad...

and they say christianity makes no threats ....

 

[Surfer]

and they say christianity makes no threats ....

No threat: just facts...

 

[hobelim]

...Enjoy your delusions and follow your genocidal son murdering God...

No delusions: just fact. Remember this as you fry in Hell for eternity screaming in agony with unquenchable thirst and scorching flesh. Too bad. So sad...

and they say christianity makes no threats ....

He is just trying to save you from what he fears..

Just think!

If you would only disable your rational mind and just believe that God impregnated a virgin to father himself so he could become fully human without a human father only to performed some magic tricks, teach the exact opposite of what was revealed through the law and the prophets and then turn himself into a cracker and floated up into the sky after he was tortured and killed because he loved the world so much you too can become a gibbering idiot while you are alive who won't have to worry about fire or being thirsty after you are dead.

 

[GreatestIam]

You already posted the same crap. Doing it twice does not make it true. Master Christianity and then we can discuss your preposterous ideas/thoughts. Sheesh...

I will let deluded fools master fantasy, miracles and magic.

Enjoy your delusions and follow your genocidal son murdering God.
He will lead you straight to hell.

Regards
DL

Why type of person anyway would find the specious promise that they could escape the consequences for their own actions as long as they were OK with Jesus being tortured and killed instead morally acceptable or even tempting?

If Jesus ever actually shows up I'm sure he will be extremely impressed by their love for him.......

The type that Jesus would condemn to hell.

Check the numbers. The large number represents Christians who would pass the nails to the Romans to insure their savior saves them.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKOjV-wtpPc]South Park Kenny goes to Hell - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

You won't be able to keep your flesh from dying according to our Creator's plan.

Who need flesh after death. Go away fool and stop following me all over the place.

Regards
DL

The only way we can experience information is by having a body with a processor to process information into information we can understand, which is happening in this world. The body contains a brain (processor, which is also made up of information) to process other information to give us defined worlds to experience. Information without being processed into understandable information cannot be experienced. Just ask any 0's and 1's in a binary computer code.

Good. Your non-corporeal God cannot think as he has nothing to think with.
Go away stalker.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

One God, not a God. So when everything is imploding around you and you have nothing left, Baal has deserted you, humanism has left you all alone in misery, who do you turn to, and what will give you the strength to overcome and prevail? When you choose not to live by the laws handed down by Moses you will suffer, society will suffer. When you embrace sin you are doomed to perish. God simply provides the strength and wisdom to prevail, prosper, live in peace, and yet all he asks in return is obedience to his laws, and only believe in one God.

He does not ask. He commands like all good genocidal son murdering tyrants.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

You already posted the same crap. Doing it twice does not make it true. Master Christianity and then we can discuss your preposterous ideas/thoughts. Sheesh...

I will let deluded fools master fantasy, miracles and magic.

Enjoy your delusions and follow your genocidal son murdering God.
He will lead you straight to hell.

Regards
DL

So how can there be a hell if there is not a God? Do you profess that Satan exists and yet not the antithesis, God? Is not one the belief in the Angel of sin exiled from heaven and the other the son of God?

Who said there was no God?
Get the quote.

Does Satan exist?

You exist. Do you have an antithesis?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc]'Hell' as an invention of the church - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

...Enjoy your delusions and follow your genocidal son murdering God...

No delusions: just fact. Remember this as you fry in Hell for eternity screaming in agony with unquenchable thirst and scorching flesh. Too bad. So sad...

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity in heaven watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.

Only a sick mind like you have shown yours to be would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone or gain pleasure from it. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.

If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.

You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct. Lose your barbaric tribal mentality. We are in 2013, not 113.

Regards
DL

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Re: the OP:

Defect or benefit, it is part of the human condition. Carl Jung held that to attempt to dislocate the spiritual drive means human beings must replace it with something else that is revered with similar adoration. For atheists, this usually (but not always) comes in the form of adoration for the state or for science. He lived in Europe during a time when adoration of the state was like an illness.

Many things are part of the human condition: fear, love, compassion, cruelty, faith, exaggeration, and so on. While all of these may not necessarily serve us well all the time, they all stem from something that is inherent and has a purpose. As much as some atheists may want to erase religion from the face of the earth, the need to have faith or to believe in something greater than oneself cannot be erased and will continue to manifest itself in one form or another.

Defect or benefit, it doesn't matter. It's there. Fear does not always manifest itself in useful ways, but it is there for a reason and is necessary. The same goes for the need referenced in the OP. While it may manifest itself in negative ways, it is a necessary part of our being. As such, I try not to dislocate it.

 

[oldfart]

Re: the OP:

The OP? You mean the thread has gotten off topic? Say it isn't so! [remove tongue from cheek]

Seriously, it's a good topic and deserves thoughtful discussion. Thank you for returning the thread to it!

Defect or benefit, it is part of the human condition. Carl Jung held that to attempt to dislocate the spiritual drive means human beings must replace it with something else that is revered with similar adoration. For atheists, this usually (but not always) comes in the form of adoration for the state or for science. He lived in Europe during a time when adoration of the state was like an illness.

I approach most of these type of questions (questions of meaning) from a different starting point, and one of the great challenges is to translate the various "Christian" theologies into that frame of reference, and the process of that frame of reference into something "Christians" can recognize and evaluate. I think that Jung is fundamentally mistaken here. He observes a "spiritual drive" or impulse and decides that it is innate rather than a result of socialization. Therefore this impulse must find an outlet somewhere; if not religion, then state-worship or some kind of "movement" greater than the member. But is the premise true? Is there an innate impulse to worship something?

Personally I believe there is not. This is a learned behavior. I do not see it in small children, it develops around ages 3--5 as part of the socialization by parents. Now if this socialization is not present, regardless of source, do we see a need to "worship" or adore some concept? In infancy there is a bonding with caregiving parents which reflects the infant's absolute dependence for all things necessary for life. When this attachment wanes and the child develops independence, the follow-on is a wider circle of human attachments, not an abstract concept.

Now this does not mean I believe that "atheists" are any less prone to a need for belief. I just think that this is a result of socialization. What kicks in is self-awareness. With self-awareness comes a concern about purpose and meaning. This I think IS an innate drive that develops from biology and neural development independent of socialization. All humans to one degree or another struggle with their place in the world at about the same stage in development. Socialization ("rites of passage") are intended to ease this process, but they do not create the need for it.

Many things are part of the human condition: fear, love, compassion, cruelty, faith, exaggeration, and so on. While all of these may not necessarily serve us well all the time, they all stem from something that is inherent and has a purpose. As much as some atheists may want to erase religion from the face of the earth, the need to have faith or to believe in something greater than oneself cannot be erased and will continue to manifest itself in one form or another.

I agree with the first part. I would agree that the second part might be true of many or most as a result of socialization. But I think there is another possibility. It may hinge on what you regard as "religion". If you use a functional definition ("religion" is what we create to deal with the problems of death, suffering, and injustice, for example) then, since these are universal problems everyone will encounter in life, some form of religion is probably universal. But people usually mean more than this when they refer to "religion". Usually they imply an additional set of beliefs based on what the socialization they have undergone holds true.

For example, the Abrahamic religions posit a personified deity that is immortal, involved in human history, and accessible by individual human beings. This being has the personality characteristics you mentioned earlier and exhibits behavior consistent with it. The concept of a personified deity, however, is rejected by some other faith traditions (notably philosophical Taoism). These individuals regard themselves as atheists with respect to all personified deities, and are generally regarded as atheists by adherents of personified deities. So what, exactly, to they have in impulse to worship? And do they worship?

Peace all, Jamie

 

[Steven_R]

No delusions: just fact. Remember this as you fry in Hell for eternity screaming in agony with unquenchable thirst and scorching flesh. Too bad. So sad...

This is what I don't get about God. He loves us so much that he'll torture us for eternity if we don't love him back. He'll send us his son so we can atone for sins, sins that were made possible by giving humans free will (and that doesn't even take into account the whole I'm paying the price for Adam and Eve's poor decisions thing). He'll scatter humanity to the four corners of the Earth, but not give everyone the same religion to ensure we are all covered by the right one, meaning a whole lot of people will burn because God didn't tell them what to do in the first place.

It's almost like an abusive husband. "Baby, I love you. Why do you make me hit you?"

 

[dblack]

No delusions: just fact. Remember this as you fry in Hell for eternity screaming in agony with unquenchable thirst and scorching flesh. Too bad. So sad...

This is what I don't get about God. He loves us so much that he'll torture us for eternity if we don't love him back. He'll send us his son so we can atone for sins, sins that were made possible by giving humans free will (and that doesn't even take into account the whole I'm paying the price for Adam and Eve's poor decisions thing). He'll scatter humanity to the four corners of the Earth, but not give everyone the same religion to ensure we are all covered by the right one, meaning a whole lot of people will burn because God didn't tell them what to do in the first place.

It's almost like an abusive husband. "Baby, I love you. Why do you make me hit you?"

To be fair, that's one conception of one god. It doesn't really tell us much about the value of religion in general - though I suppose it can serve as evidence of potential problems with the institution.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Re: the OP:

The OP? You mean the thread has gotten off topic? Say it isn't so! [remove tongue from cheek]

Seriously, it's a good topic and deserves thoughtful discussion. Thank you for returning the thread to it!

Defect or benefit, it is part of the human condition. Carl Jung held that to attempt to dislocate the spiritual drive means human beings must replace it with something else that is revered with similar adoration. For atheists, this usually (but not always) comes in the form of adoration for the state or for science. He lived in Europe during a time when adoration of the state was like an illness.

I approach most of these type of questions (questions of meaning) from a different starting point, and one of the great challenges is to translate the various "Christian" theologies into that frame of reference, and the process of that frame of reference into something "Christians" can recognize and evaluate. I think that Jung is fundamentally mistaken here. He observes a "spiritual drive" or impulse and decides that it is innate rather than a result of socialization. Therefore this impulse must find an outlet somewhere; if not religion, then state-worship or some kind of "movement" greater than the member. But is the premise true? Is there an innate impulse to worship something?

Personally I believe there is not. This is a learned behavior. I do not see it in small children, it develops around ages 3--5 as part of the socialization by parents. Now if this socialization is not present, regardless of source, do we see a need to "worship" or adore some concept? In infancy there is a bonding with caregiving parents which reflects the infant's absolute dependence for all things necessary for life. When this attachment wanes and the child develops independence, the follow-on is a wider circle of human attachments, not an abstract concept.

Now this does not mean I believe that "atheists" are any less prone to a need for belief. I just think that this is a result of socialization. What kicks in is self-awareness. With self-awareness comes a concern about purpose and meaning. This I think IS an innate drive that develops from biology and neural development independent of socialization. All humans to one degree or another struggle with their place in the world at about the same stage in development. Socialization ("rites of passage") are intended to ease this process, but they do not create the need for it.

Many things are part of the human condition: fear, love, compassion, cruelty, faith, exaggeration, and so on. While all of these may not necessarily serve us well all the time, they all stem from something that is inherent and has a purpose. As much as some atheists may want to erase religion from the face of the earth, the need to have faith or to believe in something greater than oneself cannot be erased and will continue to manifest itself in one form or another.

I agree with the first part. I would agree that the second part might be true of many or most as a result of socialization. But I think there is another possibility. It may hinge on what you regard as "religion". If you use a functional definition ("religion" is what we create to deal with the problems of death, suffering, and injustice, for example) then, since these are universal problems everyone will encounter in life, some form of religion is probably universal. But people usually mean more than this when they refer to "religion". Usually they imply an additional set of beliefs based on what the socialization they have undergone holds true.

For example, the Abrahamic religions posit a personified deity that is immortal, involved in human history, and accessible by individual human beings. This being has the personality characteristics you mentioned earlier and exhibits behavior consistent with it. The concept of a personified deity, however, is rejected by some other faith traditions (notably philosophical Taoism). These individuals regard themselves as atheists with respect to all personified deities, and are generally regarded as atheists by adherents of personified deities. So what, exactly, to they have in impulse to worship? And do they worship?

Peace all, Jamie

We disagree on Jung's premise. That's fair.

Ultimately we cannot prove outright that the spiritual drive is an inherent part of the human condition or the result of socialization. Our best tool in this case is conjecture. But conjecture can be done well or bungled horribly. I don't think either of us are guilty of the latter.

Consider this. Belief in deities or higher powers predates recorded history. The discovery of Gobekli Tepe, the oldest archeological discovery yet made, demonstrates this very ancient tendency very well. While this still proves neither inherency nor socialization, it does establish that this tendency has been with us for a very, very long time. Gobekli Tepe does not establish religious tendency as primal, but to me it certainly suggests it.

Consider this as well. Perhaps religious belief is symptomatic of the inherent need to socialize. I am open to this idea. Be that as it may, whether the spiritual drive is as primal as fear or the result of socialization, it is very, very ancient, and I don't know that something has to be inherent or primal to necessarily be an integral part of the human condition. Simply having been a defining part of humanity since before antiquity might be enough.

 

[GreatestIam]

Re: the OP:

Defect or benefit, it is part of the human condition. Carl Jung held that to attempt to dislocate the spiritual drive means human beings must replace it with something else that is revered with similar adoration. For atheists, this usually (but not always) comes in the form of adoration for the state or for science. He lived in Europe during a time when adoration of the state was like an illness.

Many things are part of the human condition: fear, love, compassion, cruelty, faith, exaggeration, and so on. While all of these may not necessarily serve us well all the time, they all stem from something that is inherent and has a purpose. As much as some atheists may want to erase religion from the face of the earth, the need to have faith or to believe in something greater than oneself cannot be erased and will continue to manifest itself in one form or another.

Defect or benefit, it doesn't matter. It's there. Fear does not always manifest itself in useful ways, but it is there for a reason and is necessary. The same goes for the need referenced in the OP. While it may manifest itself in negative ways, it is a necessary part of our being. As such, I try not to dislocate it.

Understood and well thought out and put.

I recognize that we all have a spiritual side. Here we agree.

The thing is, my spiritual side says that God want to be recognized, not adored. God has no need for it. He is what he is, so to speak, and does not crave something he did not earn by acts or deeds.

Jesus said that we would recognize his people by their deeds and he did recognizable deeds, at least in scriptures, I do not believe in miracles, but God, being our purported leader would also lead by example. He would not want us to desire adoration for our deeds so would also not want it for his.

If we adore him then, it is strictly a sel=serving adoration.

Regards
DL

 

[daws101]

No delusions: just fact. Remember this as you fry in Hell for eternity screaming in agony with unquenchable thirst and scorching flesh. Too bad. So sad...

and they say christianity makes no threats ....

He is just trying to save you from what he fears..

Just think!

If you would only disable your rational mind and just believe that God impregnated a virgin to father himself so he could become fully human without a human father only to performed some magic tricks, teach the exact opposite of what was revealed through the law and the prophets and then turn himself into a cracker and floated up into the sky after he was tortured and killed because he loved the world so much you too can become a gibbering idiot while you are alive who won't have to worry about fire or being thirsty after you are dead.

I get that alot ...mostly from people who have trouble with reality.

 

[GreatestIam]

Re: the OP:

The OP? You mean the thread has gotten off topic? Say it isn't so! [remove tongue from cheek]

Seriously, it's a good topic and deserves thoughtful discussion. Thank you for returning the thread to it!



I approach most of these type of questions (questions of meaning) from a different starting point, and one of the great challenges is to translate the various "Christian" theologies into that frame of reference, and the process of that frame of reference into something "Christians" can recognize and evaluate. I think that Jung is fundamentally mistaken here. He observes a "spiritual drive" or impulse and decides that it is innate rather than a result of socialization. Therefore this impulse must find an outlet somewhere; if not religion, then state-worship or some kind of "movement" greater than the member. But is the premise true? Is there an innate impulse to worship something?

Personally I believe there is not. This is a learned behavior. I do not see it in small children, it develops around ages 3--5 as part of the socialization by parents. Now if this socialization is not present, regardless of source, do we see a need to "worship" or adore some concept? In infancy there is a bonding with caregiving parents which reflects the infant's absolute dependence for all things necessary for life. When this attachment wanes and the child develops independence, the follow-on is a wider circle of human attachments, not an abstract concept.

Now this does not mean I believe that "atheists" are any less prone to a need for belief. I just think that this is a result of socialization. What kicks in is self-awareness. With self-awareness comes a concern about purpose and meaning. This I think IS an innate drive that develops from biology and neural development independent of socialization. All humans to one degree or another struggle with their place in the world at about the same stage in development. Socialization ("rites of passage") are intended to ease this process, but they do not create the need for it.

Many things are part of the human condition: fear, love, compassion, cruelty, faith, exaggeration, and so on. While all of these may not necessarily serve us well all the time, they all stem from something that is inherent and has a purpose. As much as some atheists may want to erase religion from the face of the earth, the need to have faith or to believe in something greater than oneself cannot be erased and will continue to manifest itself in one form or another.

I agree with the first part. I would agree that the second part might be true of many or most as a result of socialization. But I think there is another possibility. It may hinge on what you regard as "religion". If you use a functional definition ("religion" is what we create to deal with the problems of death, suffering, and injustice, for example) then, since these are universal problems everyone will encounter in life, some form of religion is probably universal. But people usually mean more than this when they refer to "religion". Usually they imply an additional set of beliefs based on what the socialization they have undergone holds true.

For example, the Abrahamic religions posit a personified deity that is immortal, involved in human history, and accessible by individual human beings. This being has the personality characteristics you mentioned earlier and exhibits behavior consistent with it. The concept of a personified deity, however, is rejected by some other faith traditions (notably philosophical Taoism). These individuals regard themselves as atheists with respect to all personified deities, and are generally regarded as atheists by adherents of personified deities. So what, exactly, to they have in impulse to worship? And do they worship?

Peace all, Jamie

We disagree on Jung's premise. That's fair.

Ultimately we cannot prove outright that the spiritual drive is an inherent part of the human condition or the result of socialization. Our best tool in this case is conjecture. But conjecture can be done well or bungled horribly. I don't think either of us are guilty of the latter.

Consider this. Belief in deities or higher powers predates recorded history. The discovery of Gobekli Tepe, the oldest archeological discovery yet made, demonstrates this very ancient tendency very well. While this still proves neither inherency nor socialization, it does establish that this tendency has been with us for a very, very long time. Gobekli Tepe does not establish religious tendency as primal, but to me it certainly suggests it.

Consider this as well. Perhaps religious belief is symptomatic of the inherent need to socialize. I am open to this idea. Be that as it may, whether the spiritual drive is as primal as fear or the result of socialization, it is very, very ancient, and I don't know that something has to be inherent or primal to necessarily be an integral part of the human condition. Simply having been a defining part of humanity since before antiquity might be enough.

Not to interfere with your discussion, and I thank you both for doing what I create O Ps for,--- to see good minds debate and discuss, ---- but reverence and Goddess worship goes further back than Gobekli Tepe.

Mother goddess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not know if we can say that they adored in the way we use it today but they certainly had reverence for life.

This is long and she is hard to listen to in one sitting but I found this scholar interesting.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU1bEmq_pf0]The World of the Goddess - Marija Gimbutas - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The OP? You mean the thread has gotten off topic? Say it isn't so! [remove tongue from cheek]

Seriously, it's a good topic and deserves thoughtful discussion. Thank you for returning the thread to it!



I approach most of these type of questions (questions of meaning) from a different starting point, and one of the great challenges is to translate the various "Christian" theologies into that frame of reference, and the process of that frame of reference into something "Christians" can recognize and evaluate. I think that Jung is fundamentally mistaken here. He observes a "spiritual drive" or impulse and decides that it is innate rather than a result of socialization. Therefore this impulse must find an outlet somewhere; if not religion, then state-worship or some kind of "movement" greater than the member. But is the premise true? Is there an innate impulse to worship something?

Personally I believe there is not. This is a learned behavior. I do not see it in small children, it develops around ages 3--5 as part of the socialization by parents. Now if this socialization is not present, regardless of source, do we see a need to "worship" or adore some concept? In infancy there is a bonding with caregiving parents which reflects the infant's absolute dependence for all things necessary for life. When this attachment wanes and the child develops independence, the follow-on is a wider circle of human attachments, not an abstract concept.

Now this does not mean I believe that "atheists" are any less prone to a need for belief. I just think that this is a result of socialization. What kicks in is self-awareness. With self-awareness comes a concern about purpose and meaning. This I think IS an innate drive that develops from biology and neural development independent of socialization. All humans to one degree or another struggle with their place in the world at about the same stage in development. Socialization ("rites of passage") are intended to ease this process, but they do not create the need for it.



I agree with the first part. I would agree that the second part might be true of many or most as a result of socialization. But I think there is another possibility. It may hinge on what you regard as "religion". If you use a functional definition ("religion" is what we create to deal with the problems of death, suffering, and injustice, for example) then, since these are universal problems everyone will encounter in life, some form of religion is probably universal. But people usually mean more than this when they refer to "religion". Usually they imply an additional set of beliefs based on what the socialization they have undergone holds true.

For example, the Abrahamic religions posit a personified deity that is immortal, involved in human history, and accessible by individual human beings. This being has the personality characteristics you mentioned earlier and exhibits behavior consistent with it. The concept of a personified deity, however, is rejected by some other faith traditions (notably philosophical Taoism). These individuals regard themselves as atheists with respect to all personified deities, and are generally regarded as atheists by adherents of personified deities. So what, exactly, to they have in impulse to worship? And do they worship?

Peace all, Jamie

We disagree on Jung's premise. That's fair.

Ultimately we cannot prove outright that the spiritual drive is an inherent part of the human condition or the result of socialization. Our best tool in this case is conjecture. But conjecture can be done well or bungled horribly. I don't think either of us are guilty of the latter.

Consider this. Belief in deities or higher powers predates recorded history. The discovery of Gobekli Tepe, the oldest archeological discovery yet made, demonstrates this very ancient tendency very well. While this still proves neither inherency nor socialization, it does establish that this tendency has been with us for a very, very long time. Gobekli Tepe does not establish religious tendency as primal, but to me it certainly suggests it.

Consider this as well. Perhaps religious belief is symptomatic of the inherent need to socialize. I am open to this idea. Be that as it may, whether the spiritual drive is as primal as fear or the result of socialization, it is very, very ancient, and I don't know that something has to be inherent or primal to necessarily be an integral part of the human condition. Simply having been a defining part of humanity since before antiquity might be enough.

Not to interfere with your discussion, and I thank you both for doing what I create O Ps for,--- to see good minds debate and discuss, ---- but reverence and Goddess worship goes further back than Gobekli Tepe.

Mother goddess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not know if we can say that they adored in the way we use it today but they certainly had reverence for life.

This is long and she is hard to listen to in one sitting but I found this scholar interesting.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU1bEmq_pf0]The World of the Goddess - Marija Gimbutas - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

How could you intrude when you started the thread?

Anyway, I was simply using Gobekli Tepe as an illustrating example. I am always open to alternate or better examples. I just thought it was a good one.