- This topic has 7 voices and 37 replies.
-
Posts
-
Why do you think so many of the world's great religion come out of the relatively small area of the Middle East? This comes up because in my son's Social Studies class his teacher pointed out that the only Major religion without Indian or Middle Eastern origins is Buddhism. I had never considered this, but it is true. I just started to wonder why that is.
But didn't Buddha started off as a Hindu?
You may be right, I am not a religious history expert. I thought the Buddha was an animist before he founded his religion. I may need to do some more research here. I do find it curious however, that such a small region of the world has produced so many of the great religions.
Why do you think so many of the world's great religion come out of the relatively small area of the Middle East?
Because that's where mankind started. Even Hinduism was started by the Aryans (Iranians) who migrated into India and brought with them their Zoroastrianism influence. Then from Hinduism came Buddhism which went into the China, Japan, and Korea areas. As for the "newer" Far Eastern religions, I think Confuscism and Daoism can be defined more as philosophies than religions, seeing that they have no god.(at least I learned something from my recent religion class 🙂 )
That is an interesting question. But how many religions are we talking about? Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hindu? If we combine the first two – given their similarities – then we're left with about three major religions. Obviously there were plenty of other religions that came up throughout Europe, the Americas, etc., but they did not thrive. Based on this I will throw a question back at you – why did the major religions thrive whereas other religions did not? Perhaps it had something to do with the nature of their belief systems, including the need for proselytizing. Combine this with the fact that they were religions that were adopted by militarily strong and influential societies, and they were transformed from being “minor” religions to being “major” ones.Though I guess this doesn't answer why they all originated in the Middle East... :-[
I would define the major religions as ones that have more than 5 million or so adherents in the present. This puts Judaism on the ragged edge of being major even before the holocaust. My list would be Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikhism, Shintoism, and Buddhism. I agree with ski that Confucianism and Taoism are more philosophies than religions because they have no divine figure. I guess that means I should add Shintoism as a religion not emanating from the Middle East as well.Judaism, did not arise with a militarily strong society, the Jews have always been a small people. My thoughts point more towards the major religions having survived and prospered because of the profundity and relevance of their message. Of course, military strength has something to do with it, but Christianity grew because its message answered a need long before Christians were an influential people.Ski,Doesn't current science point to Africa, specifically sub-Saharan Africa as the birthplace of mankind?
Doesn't current science point to Africa, specifically sub-Saharan Africa as the birthplace of mankind?
I don't think science knows. The latest I heard was the Sub-Saharan people migrated there from the ME.
You don't think the Jews originated with a strong military? Perhaps not when compared to stronger civilizations but it was indeed a militaristic tradition within that community, dating back to Abraham. But even if we set that issue aside, I consider Judaism and Christianity together, and I consider Christianity within the strong military because of Rome's adoption of it. Without that, Christianity obviously would not be associated with this kind of power. Islam also became associated with strong armies.That said, of course you are right about the relevancy of the message they present.
You don't think the Jews originated with a strong military? Perhaps not when compared to stronger civilizations but it was indeed a militaristic tradition within that community, dating back to Abraham. But even if we set that issue aside, I consider Judaism and Christianity together, and I consider Christianity within the strong military because of Rome's adoption of it. Without that, Christianity obviously would not be associated with this kind of power. Islam also became associated with strong armies.That said, of course you are right about the relevancy of the message they present.
Consider this,The Jewish people were a small tribe to begin with. The Old Testament is full of stories about how they were subjugated and basically treated bad first by the Egyptians, then the Babylonians, and finally the Romans who were the authors of the Diaspora after their revolt in A.D. 79. While they were militaristic they were certainly not a power. The only reason we know of them is because of the strength and relevance of their religion, that is their claim to fame, as it were.Christianity had been around for almost four hundred years before its official adoption by Rome. Indeed, the Romans had systematically tried to stamp them out as being a subversive influence to the empire. Once again, Christianity survived, even flourished because of the strength of its message.The same can be said of Islam. Islam grew in strength because of its message, temporal, read military, power came second.Therefore, it seems to me that the deciding factor in a major religion is the strength of its message. All of the major religions that have stood the test of time have a redemptive message where the religions that have not flourished do not. That is my take.
I think that's a fair assessment, scout. I would probably say the Jews were a little more stronger militarily for certain times. Check out the Book of Joshua. They invaded and conquered the land quite successfully.Just curious, did you ever have to read that from a military history perspective in any of your classes? There's a lot of cool stuff in it, like spies and PSYOP.
No, I haven't had to cover it in a class. I have reviewed the Israelites campaign to conquer Canaan in that light since I started seriously studying military history. I did it more as a mental exercise though. The astonishing thing to me is that the Israelite attack on Canaan was unprovoked except by God. God basically said there is your land, but you have to take it first.Another element of biblical warfare that generally goes unremarked in contemporary circles is the savagery of both the fighting and its aftermath. In those days you didn't just defeat your enemy, you destroyed him to ensure that their grandkids would not come back to try and return the favor. Do not forget what happened to Jericho.Can you imagine the hue and cry if the US tried to do that to our enemies today? Gone are the good old days of rape and pillage, now you go to jail for that.
Therefore, it seems to me that the deciding factor in a major religion is the strength of its message. All of the major religions that have stood the test of time have a redemptive message where the religions that have not flourished do not. That is my take.
But don't you think that such a statement reasons to a necessary cause based on an effect? Does the strength of a message necessarily mean that a religion will flourish? No, I don't think that is the case since throughout history there are likely to have been other strong messages as well that didn't result in "success". Is strength of message an aspect as to why a religion might flourish? That sounds reasonable, although I can't exactly say that the Muslim message is one that is "strong". Of course, this depends on how we define "strong".In the end the problem is in the difficulty of assessing religions that have not flourished throughout history and link that to a "weakness" in the strength of the message. In the end I do think that the content of the message does likely relate to success (e.g. "Spread the Gospel"), but I guess I still consider the attachment to or within political power as a significant factor. I'm sure there are some additional reasons as well.Now, had Muslims not gained a foothold in the Middle East and North Africa would they nevertheless have survived or flourished? How about the same question in regards to Jews and Christians? Well, here is where the question is unarguable if we allow for a Divine Hand in all of this.
I think a religions success is indeed directly related to the strength of its message. By strength, I mean the degree to which the particular message resonates with its intended audience and influences them to not only follow the teaching but to also desire to spread the teachings to others.
That sounds reasonable, although I can't exactly say that the Muslim message is one that is "strong". Of course, this depends on how we define "strong". In the end the problem is in the difficulty of assessing religions that have not flourished throughout history and link that to a "weakness" in the strength of the message. In the end I do think that the content of the message does likely relate to success (e.g. "Spread the Gospel"), but I guess I still consider the attachment to or within political power as a significant factor. I'm sure there are some additional reasons as well.Now, had Muslims not gained a foothold in the Middle East and North Africa would they nevertheless have survived or flourished?
Is it surprising that Christians don't find the Muslim message "strong"? For the most part Muslim theology and cultutral attitudes are diametrically opposed to traditional Christian tenets. Muslims do not preach tolerance, respect, and love for others the way that Christians do. It is obvious though, that there must be some appeal. Islam was extremely dynamic at it's beginning. They had spread all over the Middle East and North Africa within 150 years of Mohammed's death. There must have been more to their success than only conversion by the sword.
How about the same question in regards to Jews and Christians? Well, here is where the question is unarguable if we allow for a Divine Hand in all of this.
I think you have to allow for Divine Intervention, I can think of no other way to truly explain the spread of religion. But then again, I am fairly devout. I am sure the atheists would disagree and promulgate some sort of mass psychosis theory or point to an innate need for something better in human psychology.Even given a Divine Hand, how does that explain the multiplicity of religions? They obviosly cannot all be legitimate can they? I would say not, some religions must by definition be false, the question then becomes, which religion is false. I have my own answer for this but it probably belongs in a different forum.
Did you ever wonder about the origin of prayers with the palms touching one another ? It is absent in Jewish traditions. But very common in Asian traditions.
