All religions are sprung from a misunderstanding (Edited)

Wanna get enlightened? Okay, follow me down the rabbit-hole...

At the heart of every religion we have sacrifice, that is offerings. Ppl offer food on altars: blood, animals, fruit, humans. God or the gods or the spirits "eat" these offerings. With christians, they drink the blood of their god and eat his body. It's a reversal (which brings me to say that the New Testament is really not about god forgiving us but vice versa, it's us rehabilitating Jehovah - but that's for another day), but i) in order to achieve it - Jesus had to be sacrificed, ie: fed to God; and ii) those who eat of him - will have life after death.

And that's the key here: life after death and dietary habits thereof.

But before we get to the point: vampires are dead and drink blood. Zombies are dead and eat people. Hungry ghosts drink blood/ eat people. Seems anything that comes back from the dead or is undead - wants to feed (on the living). Godzilla - neither god nor undead - just wants to break shit - go Godzilla!

Dead kings'/ queens' tombs are full of food for the afterlife. During the various Day of the Dead celebrations around the planet - ppl leave food and drink for the dearly departed.

You see where I'm going yet?

So primitive man thinks: "to live, I need food. When I'm in the afterlife (spirit-world), to live there - I will need food". God/ gods also live in the spirit-world - so therefore they must eat too - coz how can they live without food?

Thus the idea of sacrificial altars is born. Thus rituals begin. Thus rituals become ceremonies, festivals, masses.

All to feed imaginary spirit-world hungry-ghost space-vampires.

Because some guy out there once had a silly misunderstanding about eating.

(Because some guy thought seeing someone dead in a dream meant they were still alive - but in the spirit-world. Silly duffer.)

Edit: The more I think about it, the more it feels like some primitive cave-dweller had a dream of a recently deceased person they loved. Then they questioned the vividness of the dream, and how this person could still be communicating with them. "Coz they live in the afterlife." And what lives - needs food.

Schrodinger's Pants

If I walk down the street with no pants on = BAD.
If I walk down the street with pants on = GOOD.
If I walk down the street with my fly undone = BAD; yet I am wearing pants!
Thus, pants with fly undone is the same as no pants - yet there IS pants.
.: Fly undone is pants and no pants,
a.k.a.

Schrodinger's Pants.

It is not important for anyone to understand any of this.

As a sidenote: what would Schrodinger's Cat in Schrodinger's Pants be like?

(It is not important for anyone to understand any of this either.)

Some thoughts on Evolution and Creationism

(Christian) Creationists may be right. But so are Evolutionists.
No, hear me out.

"  ... God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
- Genesis 1:27

and

"...the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."
- Genesis 2:7

These are the first descriptions of God creating Man in the Christian Bible, namely that God makes Man in His own image.

What do Evolutionists say?

Man evolved from an ancestor common to apes and humans, no God involved.

Can these two "ideas" sit side by side or even be the SAME?

Yes they can: watch me pull a monkey outta my hat.

1. There are no descriptions of God in the Bible which say God resembles a human being. NONE.
2. God makes man in His own undescribed and unknown image.
3. Given that there are no descriptions of God's human features in the Bible - it's very possible God resembles an Ape or maybe even a monkey.
3a. Therefore, the first man can well be an ape/ monkey in God's image.
4. Over time, Man evolves to its current form, ie: the humanoid.

Thus, both ideas are right.

5. Whilst Christians may argue that Jesus being God's "only" son was humanoid proves God looks like a human - there are many technical loopholes to consider, chief amongst them the absolute lack of physical descriptions of Jesus. He may well have resembled an ape or a monkey - or a Raptor, as pointed out by the followers of the Raptor Jesus (for nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus was not a raptor...). 

6. Afterthought:


This is a true story...