TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religion Explained...
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Religion Explained...

Target Audience

How do you explain to a 6 year old that long term planning and effort has value?

Do you tell them about the three little pigs... or do you tell them about the cricket and the ant. You don't say "aggregate gains are multiplied through prudent financial planning with an emphasis on dividend based returns"

Simple stories that the child can easily digest mentally but which establish symbolic logic within the child's mind. I.e. the storyteller selects a story appropriate to his audience.

***
How does god explain the divine to man? He provides him with a cannon of stories, just like the three little pigs, but which have the depth to be mined for centuries.

Divine truth can be found in the Bible, and the Qur'an and the Upanishads and the Torah etc.

***

The problem arises when people want to limit these truths to a past ages conception of reality. Saying the world was created in 6 days is okay to someone living in the year 204 AD. But to someone in 2004 they revolt and say "that's stupid"

but they've missed the point. Just as the "wolf" hunting the pigs is "stupid" in a literal sense, the genius is that the wolf can be translated into a reality that is just as real today for someone in a metropolis as it was for a farmer a thousand years ago.
***
We are a mature species. We have science, we have psychology we have many things. It's safe and appropriate and expected that you can take the truths found in any of these texts and translate them into a modern context that has relevance and meaning.

For instance "turn the other cheek" wasn't fully understood until 1986 when Rene Girard after man years of study and research finally understood its true depths in his groundbreaking work Scapegoat (Johns Hopkins Univ Pr, 1986). Yet, the logic of that simple phrase still has value for anyone who hasn't read his book.
***
Lastly if you want to understand the 6+1 day universe in today's terms... i'll give you a clue... we haven't made it to Sunday yet...

You should've wrote a few more paragraphs you had a good thought going there.

This needs development. I don't know what religion exactly is in question here. Pick a religion and try to make sense out of it. I don't see where you're going. If I was to guess I would say you were trying to express the need for a real religion full of truth with no room for error. Again, I didn't get it...

Your reasoning falls flat on its face because any deity powerful enough to create the world would almost certainly have the foresight to realize that society and culture will vary over time and from place to place and thus, so will interpretations of non-literal statements in any religious text.

Even in the same region at the same time you have pacifists and suicide bombers basing their philosophies on the same Qur'an. Subjective, interpretive literature is far too inherently flawed a method for the communication of something as serious as a divine will.

No all-knowing "God" would be stupid enough to employ such a methodology. The true creators of religion - humans - on the other hand, would definitely be stupid enough (as evidenced by this thread). So there's the genuine explanation for religion and it's the only one you'll ever need: it's the product of human stupidity.

Re: Religion Explained...

quote:

The problem arises when people want to limit these truths to a past ages conception of reality. Saying the world was created in 6 days is okay to someone living in the year 204 AD. But to someone in 2004 they revolt and say "that's stupid"

No we haven't missed the point it IS stupid its just that we have millions of evangelists who say that it is true and not mataphorical...

Can't be arsed to have my lettuce-coloured fonts in this post I'll try to speak as clearly as possible:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Your reasoning falls flat on its face because any deity powerful enough to create the world would almost certainly have the foresight to realize that society and culture will vary over time and from place to place and thus, so will interpretations of non-literal statements in any religious text.

That's because the deities portrayed by these religions should not be taken literally either. God, as shown in the bible, for example, is quite illogical - first people claim He's all love, but then he destroyed those two cities out of anger (I know them as Somoda e Gomorra, but these are the Portuguese names). Simply because he's not a physical or spiritual being.

It makes more sense to see the Christian God as "consequence", for example (I'll stick with Christianity as I've grown in a Catholic environment and I know its philosophy quite well). If you behave, you'll be in heaven, which is quite true. If you're kind to others, you won't face as much hostility as a rude person would. If you don't kill/steal/... people, chances of having someone killing/stealing/... you out of revenge are lower. This is quite similar to most other Middle Eastern religions, that were influenced by similar values in other early religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism (the Greek society took these values to the Middle East back in the time when they expanded its borders till India). As in "God" created the Earth - well, our consciousness creates the Earth, so even in this sense "God" would means "consequence": They're a reaction from our organs to what is surround us. First the world around us is without form and void, then you slowly create things and, in the end of it all, you rest (Sunday). There are loads and loads of different ways of dealing with it - Subey seems to have another, but this is true to every story with metaphors.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Even in the same region at the same time you have pacifists and suicide bombers basing their philosophies on the same Qur'an. Subjective, interpretive literature is far too inherently flawed a method for the communication of something as serious as a divine will.

That's because, like I said, those "divine" figures are most likely metaphors. Take the Nihilist maxim, for example, that the world and human existence is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. This goes completely against the human need of creation and imagination - living in such meaningless world would get most people depressed during harsh times, and would soon lead to our very own apocalypse, as most people wouldn't find much reason on living. These stories are as important as science, because they're complementary. That's how human nature operates, and why there's art (which can be compared to religion). Every culture has a different "creation of the world", different "Gods" and different values. Secular people have their values, Gods and even creation of the world (backed up by science, which plays a divine status in this culture).

Why? Simply because there needs to be some organisation. Religion, such as other forms of art, can provide this. Not all people can be bothered to read a code of laws, but they'd instantly read the story about noble men doing the right thing by saving the world from demons. That's the problem with extremism both from religious and non-religious people - they all take things too literally. It's entertaining though, I remember I love to hear my adventist friend claim that the world is going to end every couple of months (which seems to be a way of dealing with death).

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter No all-knowing "God" would be stupid enough to employ such a methodology. The true creators of religion - humans - on the other hand, would definitely be stupid enough (as evidenced by this thread). So there's the genuine explanation for religion and it's the only one you'll ever need: it's the product of human stupidity.

On the contrary, it's the product of talent. If the stories were mediocre, for instance, do you really think they'd have lasted all these centuries? They're written in such passionate manner, they sound so magical... have you ever heard (seriously) good gospel music? It's touching. They sing as if they were saving their lives by doing it. Human despair and hope combined. These individuals were touched by these stories, and it's had a major impact in their existence.

Pretty much like everything else, there are downsides. Nothing is neutral, so it was bound to happen. The same way forks and knives can be used to kill, it can be used to help people eat (no, chopsticks don't replace them - knives are still necessary for chopping meat, for example). Here are comments on Christianity (I won't dare talking about religions other than Chrsitianity, Taoism and Buddhism simply because these are the religions I have a better understanding):

• The Christian Trinity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Like any all other metaphors, it can be understood differently be each one of us, so I'll give just one example, out of the many things that could be said about the trinity
  
  Father would be God as we know him, which I've already compared to the concept of "consequence" - we make our own world by our actions, so God would be the consequence, the "creator of the world". The Son, Jesus, would be the moral standards - the essential code of laws brought within Christianity, and which may lead us to a better "consequence". It even comes with a person that incorporates it all, which makes understanding easier (we all like heroes). As for the Holy Ghost, the ability of knowing the truth and becoming a Christian would be the will of following these rules. God's been humanised because of human fear, and there's nothing wrong with that.
  
  It reminds me of the 3 Hinduist Gods that create, destroy and organise.
  
  
• Sins: This, Arbiter, would be a personal favourite of yours, I suppose. In its original meaning, a "sin" would be any wrong doing, which would be punished by its consequences. Then you might argue that we need a system with a loose code of laws, which could be extended by individuals without any segregation just because people have different opinions. That's why sins can be forgiven - if a person's done something wrong, (s)he can be forgiven. The harsher attitude from religious people are actually a sign of weakness (as they need to strongly punish transgressors to keep them far from doing it), pride (as they are "the correct ones", and need someone to look down) and ignorance (as the bible itself talks about forgiveness).
  
  
• Apocalypse and Genesis: This is culturally necessary. It's a nice story. The amount of metaphors in the apocalypse is artistically amazing - thousands of different interpretations may come out of it. Besides, it's fun to read.
  
  
• Heaven and hell: If you're nice to others, you'll feel good (i.e. in heaven). If you're mean, probably people won't be as friendly with you as you'd want them to be, so that would be a living hell. No actual need of having flames and angels playing harps.
  
  
• Noah's Arch and other stories of the bible: They might stress some rules in the code of laws or they can be just stories. No need to be picky about it (or take things literally, for that matter).
  
  
• Baptism, marriage and other rituals: Every culture has rituals as well. Baptism would mean the gateway to becoming part of the group, and strengthens the concept of community. Marriage is formalisation of family - the breeding couple would now dedicate their lives to the goal of contributing to society. In this sense, gay marriage wouldn't bring much trouble - there are loads of orphans in this world, they could take care of them and contribute to society. It would be weird to have two fathers or two mothers but I reckon it would be better than having nothing at all.
  
  
• Abortion (Religious pro-life instance): This is a tricky one. Morally and individually, this is wrong, although it would be necessary (hence right) for the community. Wrong individually because a child's life doesn't belong to the mother (I can't speak on behalf of the lot of you, but I'm not part of my mother) and killing is an invasion (your liberty affects someone else's ability to live). However, due to the weakness, pride and ignorance forementioned, society is not prepared to openly accept the child of a mistress, for instance, not to mention the economic trouble a pregnant teen brings.
  
  Following religion then, at the same time abortion is wrong (as it involves death), it's happened either because of someone's irrational behaviour (of not thinking about the consequences) or abuse, and forgiveness could play a role in accepting that (both whether abortion is chosen or not).
  

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Your reasoning falls flat on its face because any deity powerful enough to create the world would almost certainly have the foresight to realize that society and culture will vary over time and from place to place and thus, so will interpretations of non-literal statements in any religious text. Even in the same region at the same time you have pacifists and suicide bombers basing their philosophies on the same Qur'an. Subjective, interpretive literature is far too inherently flawed a method for the communication of something as serious as a divine will. No all-knowing "God" would be stupid enough to employ such a methodology. The true creators of religion - humans - on the other hand, would definitely be stupid enough (as evidenced by this thread). So there's the genuine explanation for religion and it's the only one you'll ever need: it's the product of human stupidity.

I think you kinda missed the point a bit. It is not god himself who created these stories and metaphores, it was the ruling class of priests and clergy who created these stories to explain moral values and the way world works to stupid and uneducated people. Unfortunately, those people often cling too hard to those stories which causes them to effectively miss their point, as well as it causes them to fail to notice that some of those stories are no longer applicable to the modern world.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra You should've wrote a few more paragraphs you had a good thought going there.

Perhaps you could write them for me

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium This needs development. I don't know what religion exactly is in question here. Pick a religion and try to make sense out of it. I don't see where you're going. If I was to guess I would say you were trying to express the need for a real religion full of truth with no room for error. Again, I didn't get it...

I will try to clarify some of your confusion.

I am trying to move the discussion of religion forward. There are people on the religious side who say "The text is literal yesterday, today and forever", and there are those who respond to that and say "But that's moronic because of x, y, z"

People have been arguing that conversation for a long time. My point is that its a moronic debate to still be engaged in. If you spend a minute of your life arguing for either side, then you are wasting time.

The problem that was then observed by Lira and Arbiter, is that a NON Literal divine text is open to multiple interpretations. Lira sees this as an opportunity for man to exercise his own intelligence, imagination and spirit in working out what these interpretations might be. While

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Subjective, interpretive literature is far too inherently flawed a method for the communication of something as serious as a divine will.

doesn't understand that it isn't flawed because it forces us to expand our intelligence, imagination, and spirit.

And what Arbiter really doesn't understand, is that studying Atheism serves the exact same purpose, and that a person who studies it is as important to human development as someone who studies The Bible.

im staying out of all religion threads.

1. Everybody thinks, no, "knows" they're right, and niether side is ever going to believe the other.

2. Becomes very long and drawn out, christmas breaks over, i no longer have 2 hours to type and research for one post.

3. Nobody can prove or disprove anything. its all based on theory and beliefs on both sides.

**im throwing this in

scientific laws are not always right 100% of the time. if any of u know anything about quantum physics, and other fields, laws can be broken, and broken repeatedly. and string theory, which is a sub-catagory of quantum physics, read up on it in the other thread.

therefore, events such as miracles cannot be said to be against scientific laws, because just as in civil/government law, the rules can be broken.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: im staying out of all religion threads. 1. Everybody thinks, no, "knows" they're right, and niether side is ever going to believe the other. 2. Becomes very long and drawn out, christmas breaks over, i no longer have 2 hours to type and research for one post. 3. Nobody can prove or disprove anything. its all based on theory and beliefs on both sides. **im throwing this in scientific laws are not always right 100% of the time. if any of u know anything about quantum physics, and other fields, laws can be broken, and broken repeatedly. and string theory, which is a sub-catagory of quantum physics, read up on it in the other thread. therefore, events such as miracles cannot be said to be against scientific laws, because just as in civil/government law, the rules can be broken.

Yes scientific laws are not allways correct as you have pointed out,there will allways be situations where these scientific laws and theorys etc will be proven wrong but that is the nature of science.
Science by its very name is involved with the physical universe and the physical universe as we all know has many flaws.

if something is thought to be supernatural this is beyond something that is considered to be normal.
It is thought to be beyond the laws of human nature or understanding,and miracles as we understand them would come into this catergory as well.

But that does not rule out that sometime in the future what we consider to supernatural now,will be just considered ordinary science in say fifty or one hundred years time.

I got one simple question or whatever you want to call it.
Let's go back in time to the ancienct Hebrews. Now it was their belief there was only one God and not dozens like Egyptians for example. Now how exectly did it involve into organized religion while others didn't? I mean the Hebrews had no more proof of their God than anyone else y'know?

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra I got one simple question or whatever you want to call it. Let's go back in time to the ancienct Hebrews. Now it was their belief there was only one God and not dozens like Egyptians for example. Now how exectly did it involve into organized religion while others didn't? I mean the Hebrews had no more proof of their God than anyone else y'know?

I'm guessin it was probably because they were the true people of God (as there is only one God and they worshiped him correctly, unlike the Egyptians etc) so they were rewarded for that and survived to the modern day...am I right??

I don't think you know what I'm getting at. They believed in something before any sort of proof whatsoever. Before Moses or Jacob or Isaac, yet however when God came before Moses in a form of a burning bush, he said I am the God of the Hebrews and your ancestors. How is it they knew this before he actually turned any of them? You dig? Kind of hard to explain what I mean.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra I don't think you know what I'm getting at. They believed in something before any sort of proof whatsoever. Before Moses or Jacob or Isaac, yet however when God came before Moses in a form of a burning bush, he said I am the God of the Hebrews and your ancestors. How is it they knew this before he actually turned any of them? You dig? Kind of hard to explain what I mean.

Er not really, they made it up themselves, therefore they knew about 'God' before he 'showed up' in the 'burining bush' to 'Moses' (if that really happened which is highly unlikely as, correct me if I am wrong, but the burning bush episode occured in the Sinai right? But the Jews never crossed the Sinai)

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra I don't think you know what I'm getting at. They believed in something before any sort of proof whatsoever. Before Moses or Jacob or Isaac, yet however when God came before Moses in a form of a burning bush, he said I am the God of the Hebrews and your ancestors. How is it they knew this before he actually turned any of them? You dig? Kind of hard to explain what I mean.

In fact, I have an even bigger mystery!!!

How DID JK Rowling know what was gonna happen in the first Harry Potter film BEFORE she saw the film eh? Kinda hard to explain no?

Good post Lira, but I'm going to have to take you to task on a couple of things:

quote:

Originally posted by Lira That's because the deities portrayed by these religions should not be taken literally either.

The trouble is that you're opening up a Pandora's box by claiming that certain aspects of the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically (i.e. the nature of God) where others should be taken more literally (i.e. moral instruction). If the nature of God is not consistent with the God presented in the Bible (given that the God of the Bible - as you pointed out - isn't even presented consistently by the Biblical authors to begin with) then it begs the question, "why was God portrayed in this way to begin with"? If God is as you have described him and the God described in the Bible is metaphorical, then why were the authors of the Bible so obfuscatory? If God isn't actually omnibenevolent and omnipotent (willing and capable of preventing suffrage), then why did they paint him in that light?

Furthermore, if you argue that this aspect of the Bible is metaphorical, then where do you draw the line? How to you decide which aspects of the Bible are meant to be interpreted literally and which are meant to be interpreted as metaphors? How can one obtain any truth from this book if the lines between fact and fiction are so indistinguishably blurred?

quote:

Take the Nihilist maxim, for example, that the world and human existence is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. This goes completely against the human need of creation and imagination - living in such meaningless world would get most people depressed during harsh times, and would soon lead to our very own apocalypse, as most people wouldn't find much reason on living.

Nihilism needn't be interpreted so pesimistically though. All this philosophy actually states is that the concepts you mentioned ("meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value") are not absolute and that an "authentic" exploration of these concepts begin from the starting point of absolute rejection of all pertinent and pre-existing doctrines. Thus, the nihilistic doctrine states that any authentic "meaning, purpose, truth or value" must be based on the assumption that every "meaning, purpose, truth or value" every previously ellucidated is either false or unverifiable. It's essentially Cartesian skepticism, in these terms at least, but less metaphysical or ontological in scope.

Now - and this is the point that most people fail to understand about Nihilism - this doesn't mean that concepts like "meaning, purpose, truth or value" cannot exist, or that the nihilist must live without them, it just means that they can only ever be authentically explored subjectively. You can't form an authentic value, for instance, if you begin from the starting point that murder is wrong. You must first presume it isn't and then proceed from there (which may of course lead you to the same conclusion, but at least it's a conclusion you've arrived at rationally and subjectively, rather than just unquestioningly inheriting a pre-existing mantra from elsewhere). Thus, one's own value system is created ex nihilo - from nothing or, to put it another way, from nihilism.

Now, if you're familiar with the doctrine of existentialism, you can begin to see how a nihilistic philosophy actually takes shape. Existentialism begins from the starting point that human existence has no inherent "meaning, purpose, truth or value" but from this beginning - for me at least - the most "optimistic" of all philosophies can be created.

From Sartre's "Existentialism as a Humanism":

quote:

[W]e can begin by saying that existentialism, in our sense of the word, is a doctrine that does render human life possible; a doctrine, also, which affirms that every truth and every action imply both an environment and a human subjectivity. The essential charge laid against us is, of course, that of over-emphasis upon the evil side of human life. [...] It is, however, the people who are forever mouthing these dismal proverbs and, whenever they are told of some more or less repulsive action, say �How like human nature!� � it is these very people, always harping upon realism, who complain that existentialism is too gloomy a view of things. Indeed their excessive protests make me suspect that what is annoying them is not so much our pessimism, but, much more likely, our optimism. For at bottom, what is alarming in the doctrine that I am about to try to explain to you is � is it not? � that it confronts man with a possibility of choice. [...] Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its intention is not in the least that of plunging men into despair. And if by despair one means as the Christians do � any attitude of unbelief, the despair of the existentialists is something different. Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope.

(The full text can be found here. I recommend it as an excellent read if you have an hour or two free.)

So, to put it bluntly, I disagree with your apocolyptic conclusions about nihilism. Human existence may be inherently meaningless, but that is not say that it is lived without meaning.

quote:

Why? Simply because there needs to be some organisation.

Why religious organisation, though? Don't our secular societies demonstrate that order can be maintained beyond the confines of organised religion?

quote:

Religion, such as other forms of art, can provide this. Not all people can be bothered to read a code of laws, but they'd instantly read the story about noble men doing the right thing by saving the world from demons.

I think you're being too harsh on mankind. Even if they can't be bothered reading a code of laws (and let's face it - who actually has read a code of laws in their life?), I'd like to think that most people - on a most general level at least - have a fundamental understanding of what is wrong or right. A man with an empathetic capacity will never feel comfortable knowingly injuring another man without cause for instance. I don't think that the removal of religion (or even possibly the removal of laws) would result in quite so clear a moral decline. From your perspective, at least, would the destruction of religious codes cause you to start acting immorally because you knew that you could do so without any form of divine judgement?

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra I don't think you know what I'm getting at. They believed in something before any sort of proof whatsoever. Before Moses or Jacob or Isaac, yet however when God came before Moses in a form of a burning bush, he said I am the God of the Hebrews and your ancestors. How is it they knew this before he actually turned any of them? You dig? Kind of hard to explain what I mean.

And they continue to believe without proof. When was the last time anyone saw a burning bush?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And they continue to believe without proof. When was the last time anyone saw a burning bush?

I saw loads a few years ago, but that was only cosmy younger brother set the fieldon fire

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And they continue to believe without proof. When was the last time anyone saw a burning bush?

dude this is literally the dumbest post i've seen in any religious discussion. When was the last time you saw a hippie walk on water in that case ?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: scientific laws are not always right 100% of the time. if any of u know anything about quantum physics, and other fields, laws can be broken, and broken repeatedly. and string theory, which is a sub-catagory of quantum physics, read up on it in the other thread. therefore, events such as miracles cannot be said to be against scientific laws, because just as in civil/government law, the rules can be broken.

No, quantum physics don't break any physical laws. Macro-scale physical laws are just approximations of quantum-scale occurances. When you start to move towards subatomic particles, they become less and less accurate approximations because you're asking for more and more precision.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra I got one simple question or whatever you want to call it. Let's go back in time to the ancienct Hebrews. Now it was their belief there was only one God and not dozens like Egyptians for example. Now how exectly did it involve into organized religion while others didn't? I mean the Hebrews had no more proof of their God than anyone else y'know?

Maybe a good answer to that question is the fact that judaism is not the only organized religion existing in the world?

Read thoroughly next time and understand why i chose judeasism because it's the basis for all the other religions. And that's completely besides the point, though I get what you're saying that had nothing to do with my question.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra I got one simple question or whatever you want to call it. Let's go back in time to the ancienct Hebrews. Now it was their belief there was only one God and not dozens like Egyptians for example. Now how exectly did it involve into organized religion while others didn't? I mean the Hebrews had no more proof of their God than anyone else y'know?

If my answer is not satisfying I will reword it. I'm a big fan of analogies

I'll answer in two parts.

Why Judaism is different:

Imagine you have 7 people. You need food. You know about agriculture but its going to take 10 years for 1 person to clear enough forest to grow food. So in the meantime you send 6 people off to hunt because if you dont' you will starve, but you know that agriculture is a better way to feed yourself so you leave 1 person behind to clear the forest.

10 years go by. The forest is clear. You can now convert to an agriculture based society thanks to the 1 person who had been working on it all that time (the jew), but you still like hunting cause its fun and you like a VARIETY of food so 2 people stay hunters (a Hindu and a Wiccan), everyone else , converts to agriculture.

***
Why do people see different version of God:

Imagine that mankind has two aspects. A spritual self and a physical self. The physical self is confined to the earth, while the spiritual self exists in a different environment.

The spiritual self is locked in a room. The walls of that room are covered in drawings that depict the story of God. So the Muslim is in one room. And the Jew is in another. And everyone discusses what the meaning of their pictures (archetypes) are.

So a Christian can argue all day with a Muslim and try and convince him to "see" what the writing on the wall says.. but you will never convince each other, because you are all looking at different walls, and hence different writing. It's like seeing different sides of a coin. How can you convince me its "heads" if I see the "tails" side and vice versa.

Hence the problem with all religious debate. People have to stop fearing what it says in other people's rooms. And instead come together and discuss what it means as a whole.

Imagine each religion is a different coloured light. Christianity is Blue, and Islam is Red etc. You have to turn your mind into a prism and combine all these different lights to form white light. Then all the shadows will go away...

quote:

Originally posted by Sevas Stra Read thoroughly next time and understand why i chose judeasism because it's the basis for all the other religions.

Yes, like buddhism or hinduism?

quote:

And that's completely besides the point, though I get what you're saying that had nothing to do with my question.

Your question implies that judaism was the only organized religion of the time which is simply not the case. The reason why all the western religions have a single source is because there was a time when the whole of western world was united in a single country (the Roman empire) and therefore the religion adopted by the state was imposed on its citizens. The difference between christianity and islam on one side, and judaism on other is that the first two had implemented in their doctrine the struggle to convert every living person to their faith, while judaism was a nationalistic religion that only focused on a small tribe of "god's people". That's why judaism and other religions of the time didn't succeed. The pre-christian religion of the Roman Empire was pretty much indifferent towards human suffering and worldly affairs, and therefore poor and opressed masses were all too happy when a religion arrived that preached how they'll go to heaven because of that and that their previous opressors will burn in hell. Regardless of that, although crhistianity was spawned from judaism, it really doesn't share much of its philosophy and doctrine.

What I also think is relevant to this discussion is that there is not such a great difference between monotheistic and polytheistic religions as you seem to imply. Every polytheistic religion has a major god which rules over every other gods, and every polytheistic religion has god's assistants (angels, cherubim). Christianity is basically bitheistic (ha, a new word!) religion, since it has a good god sitting in heaven and an evil almost-god sitting in hell.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.