- This topic has 7 voices and 37 replies.
-
Posts
-
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.
What about when Christ entered Jerusalem to the waving of palms?
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.
I don't think this teacher was well informed. Buddhism begins with Gautama who was born in the town now know as Nepal. His family belonged to the Kahatriya cast, the second highest in Indian society. Tao is one of the oldest Chinese religions. Buddhism entered China from India and competed with Taoism. I am not sure why we do not consider native American spirituality religion, but I do know the religions this teacher had to be thinking about, all came from the same region because these people shared ideas and gave them new interpretations. At least 5 biblical stories were Sumerian stories translated by Hebrews in Ur. And Christianity has much Egyptian mythology mixed in it and Persian ideas as well, and of course much Hellism. We should not ignore how Rome used the Law of Nature, to create Christianity- one religion out of many. We all know Rome carried Christianity and destroyed all other believes wherever it went. Here and there, around the world, indigenous people have retained some of their former religious practices and adopted Christianity. This adaptation of Christianity is possible because there is a common mythology around the world, as is explained by Joseph Campbell. Jung was the first who realized humanity shares a common mythology, and Joseph Campbell made a study of them.
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.
What is so great about people stealing each others stories and adding their own twist to them?
We all know Rome carried Christianity and destroyed all other believes wherever it went. Here and there, around the world, indigenous people have retained some of their former religious practices and adopted Christianity. This adaptation of Christianity is possible because there is a common mythology around the world, as is explained by Joseph Campbell. Jung was the first who realized humanity shares a common mythology, and Joseph Campbell made a study of them.
I would agree that there were certain individual Christian practices, festivals, and iconography which took from pagan sources. This was done consciously to some degree as it made it easier for pagans to make the transition from their way of life to the Christian way of life. However, I think it is a huge mistake to make a subsequent leap to a statement which asserts that all of Christianity taken from prior belief systems. I think such a leap is unfounded.
I would not consider any of the Native American religions major world religions.
I am late to the party and reopening an old thread, I know, but this is a topic of great interest to me. Take a look at a different ranking:http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.htmlThey lump "primal-indigenous" together as a single item and it definitely qualifies. You may cry foul because they aren't a single religion organized under some umbrella organization. I would argue that they never have been and never will be because that is one of the many attributes that defines it. In many (most?) of the cultures, they don't disbelieve in the gods of other tribes or cultures. It is often a form of "inclusive polytheism" where they worship one or more gods of their own while respecting the gods of their allies and fearing the gods of their enemies.Joseph Campbell was mentioned earlier. "Myths To Live By" is a very interesting read. Tremendous similarities in the religious stories of disconnected societies.
I would not consider any of the Native American religions major world religions.
I am late to the party and reopening an old thread, I know, but this is a topic of great interest to me. Take a look at a different ranking:http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.htmlThey lump "primal-indigenous" together as a single item and it definitely qualifies. You may cry foul because they aren't a single religion organized under some umbrella organization. I would argue that they never have been and never will be because that is one of the many attributes that defines it. In many (most?) of the cultures, they don't disbelieve in the gods of other tribes or cultures. It is often a form of "inclusive polytheism" where they worship one or more gods of their own while respecting the gods of their allies and fearing the gods of their enemies.Joseph Campbell was mentioned earlier. "Myths To Live By" is a very interesting read. Tremendous similarities in the religious stories of disconnected societies.
So is the argument then inclusion by amalgamation? They aren't quite the same but we will fake it and then claim that native religions are major?BTW, welcome to the forum and if I seem caustic sometimes don't hesitate to call me on it. I get fervent sometimes when defending an opinion but try very hard to not get personal.
I would not consider any of the Native American religions major world religions.
I am late to the party and reopening an old thread, I know, but this is a topic of great interest to me. Take a look at a different ranking:http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.htmlThey lump "primal-indigenous" together as a single item and it definitely qualifies. You may cry foul because they aren't a single religion organized under some umbrella organization. I would argue that they never have been and never will be because that is one of the many attributes that defines it. In many (most?) of the cultures, they don't disbelieve in the gods of other tribes or cultures. It is often a form of "inclusive polytheism" where they worship one or more gods of their own while respecting the gods of their allies and fearing the gods of their enemies.Joseph Campbell was mentioned earlier. "Myths To Live By" is a very interesting read. Tremendous similarities in the religious stories of disconnected societies.
So is the argument then inclusion by amalgamation? They aren't quite the same but we will fake it and then claim that native religions are major?BTW, welcome to the forum and if I seem caustic sometimes don't hesitate to call me on it. I get fervent sometimes when defending an opinion but try very hard to not get personal.
Thanks. I don't take much personally when discussing topics like this. I have accidentally offended people by questioning what assumptions they are bringing into theological discussions on a few occasions but also don't intentionally get personal (can't claim 100% compliance, but mostly level headed debating).Inclusion by amalgamation? Hmmm... an interesting side effect of that notion is that you might lump Islam, Christianity and Judaism together along with any other monotheists whose "one true God" is compatible with their theology.There was a question buried in my earlier post I guess - does a belief system have to be organized to be considered a religion?Perhaps the realization that organizing religions could have benefits was not universal.There is an old story about the devil and God walking down a path when God spotted a bright object and picked it up to admire it - "Ah, truth". "Let me see that" said the devil, "I'll organize it." ;D
In answer to your question about organization and religion. I would go so far as to say that some structure, even doctrine would seem to be a requirement. Otherwise, any fool who decides to worship a stick out of his backyard could lay claim to founding a religion. If you want 2 or more people to agree on something organization is necessary is it not?Lumping monotheistic religions or any other similar systems together tends to ignore the differences in favor of their similarities, that leads back to my guy and stick analogy. The key word when talking about religion or indeed, any ideology or belief system is the differences and not the similarities for it is the differences that set them apart; make them what they are as it were. I think it is arguable that monotheistic religions should not be lumped together even when different faith's claim to worship the same god. They can't all be right in my opinion, somebody is bound to be wrong and be facing brimstone rather than clouds and fat, singing, babies with wings. That is a further argument for considering them in isolation.Another difficulty is that debates or even discussions about religion tend to get very acrimonious very fast when one party or another feels that their beliefs are under attack. Luckily I don't have that problem because I just accept that everyone who does not share my faith is an unredeemed heathen and let them seek their fate in their own way. It makes avoiding fights about religion easier for me. It does tend to really irritate the heathens, but that is the breaks I guess. ;D
Yes, this is probably one of the top 3 discussion topics that often generate more heat than light (who you worship, who you vote for, who you sleep with)…A few points...If we are going to talk origins, I think it might be very appropriate to lump together the "big 3" mono-theologies as they do share origins. Using the adjectives "organized" and/or "recognized" in front of the word "religion" is not redundant. Neither is inherent. Stick guy has religion and if his neighbors start praying the the stick, so do they even if there is no doctrine.Now I will venture into dangerous territory and say it seems possible that the monotheists could all be right or at least close enough to receive the promised reward. The only place in the Bible where Jesus very explicitly explains what judgement day is like in in the "Sheep and the Goats" passage in Matthew 25. It says nothing about what you believe or who you worship. It's all about how you treat your fellow man.And now going full circle if the geography of the origin defines religions for his discussion, then I would have to agree that the primitive religions don't have a single place of origin. But the really fascinating thing about them is how similar the stories of these religions are, even when they had no contact between the people who started different ones.
It says nothing about what you believe or who you worship.
What about all those passages in the Gospel of John? "I am the way...no man comes to the Father except through me"Seems pretty clear that Jesus was saying who to worship and also clear on what happens to those who don't.
It says nothing about what you believe or who you worship.
What about all those passages in the Gospel of John? "I am the way...no man comes to the Father except through me"Seems pretty clear that Jesus was saying who to worship and also clear on what happens to those who don't.
I probably should have know better than to wade in, but...That often quoted passage was in response to a question from Thomas about how they would find Jesus after he left. If you look at the conversation instead of lifting the single response (which wasn't even the first response) out of context, the meaning seems to be that the disciples should seek God and they will find Jesus there. IMO, translation and lifting out of context make that sound like a proclamation when it really wasn't. You could even take it a step further and using the context interpret it to say that all who seek the Creator will find Jesus there.
What about the context of John 3:16? What about the context of the six other "I am" statements in John?believe in Him (Jesus) or perish.
I had a Christian upbringing and I have the greatest respect for the stories of my tradition. They teach values that I wish more of us had, myself included. But learning about the history of the Bible and being exposed to a greater world view of other cultures and traditions, I don't think truth is franchised exclusively anywhere. If you think I am wrong, you are certainly welcome to pray for my salvation. But lets not beat it to death here, please. I understand and respect your faith. Let's talk history.
