Similarities of monotheistic religions .....

Zephyr said:
What about Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Baha'ism?
Click to expand...
From the perspective of an outsider, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are merely three sects of Abrahamism. They all spring from the same source and each builds on the previous. Islam considers Moses and Jesus to be prophets. So Abrahamism is just one religion that has branched out into competing denominations.

As for Bahai, it may or may not be seen as an offshoot of Islam, but it is incontrovertibly another branch from the tree of Abrahamism.

That leaves Zoroaster, who lived so early (around 1000BCE) and so far away from Israel that he was probably not influenced by Judaism. So his monotheism cannot be said to have sprung from that of Abraham.

Still, Zoroaster lived in what became Persia. The Iranic tribes among which he lived may have been Neolithic, but he lived within the sphere of influence of Mesopotamian-Babylonian civilization, which is the source of Abrahamism.

There must be something within that culture that prompts the rise of monotheism in its people. Its binary model of the human spirit (good vs. evil, God vs. Satan) runs counter to human nature. Traditional ancient religions all recognized (if I have the figure correctly) 23 dimensions to the human spirit. They all had the same gods: the hunter, the lover, the king, the healer, the reveler, etc.

For one culture to continually generate monotheistic faiths that strongly appeal to its people--and even to many outsiders--despite their counterintuitive premise, is phenomenal.

Have any other cultures spawned monotheism, or is this strictly an artifact of the Middle East?
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
From the perspective of an outsider, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are merely three sects of Abrahamism. They all spring from the same source and each builds on the previous. Islam considers Moses and Jesus to be prophets. So Abrahamism is just one religion that has branched out into competing denominations.

As for Bahai, it may or may not be seen as an offshoot of Islam, but it is incontrovertibly another branch from the tree of Abrahamism.

That leaves Zoroaster, who lived so early (around 1000BCE) and so far away from Israel that he was probably not influenced by Judaism. So his monotheism cannot be said to have sprung from that of Abraham.

Still, Zoroaster lived in what became Persia. The Iranic tribes among which he lived may have been Neolithic, but he lived within the sphere of influence of Mesopotamian-Babylonian civilization, which is the source of Abrahamism.

There must be something within that culture that prompts the rise of monotheism in its people. Its binary model of the human spirit (good vs. evil, God vs. Satan) runs counter to human nature. Traditional ancient religions all recognized (if I have the figure correctly) 23 dimensions to the human spirit. They all had the same gods: the hunter, the lover, the king, the healer, the reveler, etc.

For one culture to continually generate monotheistic faiths that strongly appeal to its people--and even to many outsiders--despite their counterintuitive premise, is phenomenal.

Have any other cultures spawned monotheism, or is this strictly an artifact of the Middle East?
Click to expand...
unfortunately, zoroastrianism isnt truly a monotheism, it is a dualistic belief structure.

ahriman (dark) and ahura mazda (light) are brothers, and equal.

*shrug*
 
in the listing of the comandments (though there are more than just the one, this is the most often pointed to IME)

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH3/CH3_TBS.HTM

"No other god before me" can also be translated as "you shall have no Gods", though that is not a commonly accepted way of reading it. not speaking Hebrew myself, I can't claim which is more accurate, so I'd default to the most commonly used (no gods before me).


"Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara Elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
http://www.letusreason.org/Trin3.htm
 
Last edited:
fraggle..the answer to your question about elohim:

The Devil Inside on page 1 said:
generally in jewish thought however, this is not g-d speaking. it is widely considered to be the five forces of creation set forth by the g-d saying this (elohim).

islam continues this traditional thought, whereas christians clothe g-d in flesh.
an interesting dichotomy, to say the least.
Click to expand...
 
river-wind said:
in the listing of the comandments (though there are more than just the one, this is the most often pointed to IME)

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH3/CH3_TBS.HTM

"No other god before me" can also be translated as "you shall have no Gods", though that is not a commonly accepted way of reading it. not speaking Hebrew myself, I can't claim which is more accurate, so I'd default to the most commonly used (no gods before me).
Click to expand...
indeed, some jews interpret this passage this way, including myself.
it is interpreted to mean that g-d cannot be fathomed, and any depiction (even mental) would be construed as idolatry.

this is one of the major reasons for the difference in dogma between judaism and modern christianity.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
The bible also contains exactly one instance of the Hebrew word elohim, which means "gods." The plural of eloh, cognate with Arabic allah. I'm not enough of a biblical scholar to know what passage it's in or how it's customarily translated.
Click to expand...

Due to multiple levels of interpretations and translations of historical data during the centuries, the originals meanings and phrases have been messed up. Even the Torah has missing vowels and nouns as the hebrew dilect went through stages of metamorphisis branching from jews in different geographical locations.
 
Vega said:
Due to multiple levels of interpretations and translations of historical data during the centuries, the originals meanings and phrases have been messed up. Even the Torah has missing vowels and nouns as the hebrew dilect went through stages of metamorphisis branching from jews in different geographical locations.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Excellent post! I'd like to know more about this as I have found this to be true in so many cases of bible misinterpretation and contradictions. Why don't you come on over to the Religion forum. I think this is a valuable premise to discuss over there.

Thanks,

~ M*W
 
The Devil Inside said:
is there a reason you cant discuss this here?

oh wait..i forgot..moderation is practiced here.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: No reason at all. This topic would also fit in Linguistics. My point in suggesting the Religion forum is it would have more exposure over there. There were no hidden motives in my suggestion.
 
Several connections between the Sumerian version of man’s creation and the Bible are apparent. The Bible speaks of woman being created from Adam’s rib.

"The great Sumerologist, Samuel N. Kramer, pointed out near the middle of this century that the tale of Eve’s origin from Adam’s rib probably stemmed from the double meaning of the Sumerian word TI, which means both ’rib’ and ’life,’" explained Horn.

So, Eve may have received her "life" from Adam without any bone being involved, or genetic material may have been extracted from bone marrow.

the sumerian term for house of creation "SHI.IM.TI" or "the house where the wind of life is breathed in". Compare this phrase with Genesis 2:7 in which God, after forming man from "the dust of the ground" or Adam meaning earth, "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: Excellent post! I'd like to know more about this as I have found this to be true in so many cases of bible misinterpretation and contradictions. Why don't you come on over to the Religion forum. I think this is a valuable premise to discuss over there.

Thanks,

~ M*W
Click to expand...

Thankyou for your interest!
If you do have any queries that require a scientific answer on the origins of humans from a biblical point of view then I would be happy to engage in discussion!
 
So, Eve may have received her "life" from Adam without any bone being involved, or genetic material may have been extracted from bone marrow.
Click to expand...
Why do you insist on a factual/historic interpretation instead of a metaphorical?
Myths have much more common with dreams and the psychology than actual historical events.
 
Avatar said:
Why do you insist on a factual/historic interpretation instead of a metaphorical?
Myths have much more common with dreams and the psychology than actual historical events.
Click to expand...

I insist on a scientific answer rather than a mythological one!

Here consider the following myth:

Truly amazing is the fact that these ancient Sumerians, whom we are told were just developing writing, accurately described and diagrammed the planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, even though these three worlds cannot be seen without the aid of a telescope. Uranus was not known to modern man until discovered in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930.

Long considered fanciful myths, recent interpretations of Sumerian texts, particularly one entitled Enuma Elish now known as the Creation Epic, provided a most plausible explanation for the present composition of our solar system.
 
I didn't know that anthropology and psychology is not science.

Truly amazing is the fact that these ancient Sumerians, whom we are told were just developing writing, accurately described and diagrammed the planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, even though these three worlds cannot be seen without the aid of a telescope. Uranus was not known to modern man until discovered in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930.
Click to expand...
I can't comment on that because I lack any other information sources on this other than you at the moment.
 
I am appalled by the biased treatment of grantywanty and the gross misinterpretation of his first post in this thread by the moderator and others. His observations may have lead to unwelcome conclusions, but in a science forum I would expect us not to shoot the messenger, for pointing out unpalatable truths.
Yours, disgustedly
Ophiolite
 
What conclusions? Besides he seems to be concentrating on just the three semitic monotheistic religions.
 
Avatar said:
What conclusions? Besides he seems to be concentrating on just the three semitic monotheistic religions.
Click to expand...

Is that what prevented everyone from finding anything of use or interest in my posts? No one could figure out a way to bring my points into a discussion of a broader range of monotheisms? Interesting.

I noticed however that while my orginal efforts were carefully chastized, even the cleaned up efforts brought no comments. Certainly those with experience of other monotheisms could have used my posts as starting points for a broader comparison.

Of course, this happens on threads. But I found it odd and irritating, especially after making my post unpreachy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top