Sparks of the same fire

[The Evelyonian]

It seems that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a great deal in common with regard to their belief system.

Is it possible that these three religions (along with several others) all came from the same source?

-The Evelyonian

~*It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine*~

 

[mis-t-highs]

of course you only have to study a little ancient mythology. to find that out.
see this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40933
and then use the link in the first post,

 

[SnakeLord]

It seems that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a great deal in common with regard to their belief system.

Is it possible that these three religions (along with several others) all came from the same source?

They did.

 

[SkinWalker]

The first five books of the Christian Bible are called the Pentateuch. These are the Torah of Judaic belief. The Jewish religion is an historical version of the more evolved religion of Christianity. Islam is yet another evolution of the Jewish religion and has its beginnings after Christianity, though not by much.

All three cults are splintered and divided into sub-cults, though, as might be predicted, not as extensively in Judaism as with Christianity and Islam. Christianity is the most divided of the three cults.

Earlier cults of the Near East have direct correlates to these three, though I'm not as familiar with Islam as I am the Judeo-Christian examples. The Canaanite pantheon of gods can be found in Judeo-Christian literature, though not mentioned as gods but mortals or demons; some Egyptian stories have found their way into the "truth" of christian religion; the Noachian Flood myth has its roots in Sumerian mythology, perhaps in earlier oral traditions.... etc.

Even New Testament mythology has its roots in Buddhist mythology and the Buddhist 8-fold path appears to be imitated in the so-called teachings of Christ.


The common factor: people and their cognitive capacity for belief in specific motifs of the supernatural.

 

[ellion]

the qur'an is a good read too.

 

[duendy]

The first five books of the Christian Bible are called the Pentateuch. These are the Torah of Judaic belief. The Jewish religion is an historical version of the more evolved religion of Christianity. Islam is yet another evolution of the Jewish religion and has its beginnings after Christianity, though not by much.

All three cults are splintered and divided into sub-cults, though, as might be predicted, not as extensively in Judaism as with Christianity and Islam. Christianity is the most divided of the three cults.

Earlier cults of the Near East have direct correlates to these three, though I'm not as familiar with Islam as I am the Judeo-Christian examples. The Canaanite pantheon of gods can be found in Judeo-Christian literature, though not mentioned as gods but mortals or demons; some Egyptian stories have found their way into the "truth" of christian religion; the Noachian Flood myth has its roots in Sumerian mythology, perhaps in earlier oral traditions.... etc.

Even New Testament mythology has its roots in Buddhist mythology and the Buddhist 8-fold path appears to be imitated in the so-called teachings of Christ.


The common factor: people and their cognitive capacity for belief in specific motifs of the supernatural.

It is interesting to look closer at what 'supernatural' means. From my learnings the concept of 'SUPER'-natural' originates with Indian metaphysicians. Who posited a 'One'. I.e the origins of mysticism. a 'higher' reality than 'mudane' Nature, the 'Many'

Contrary to that belief in a supernatrual is the more ancinet Earth religious udnderstanding, which many Indigenous peoples share.
For example, th concept of an individual 'soul' --as in Christianity. In Indigenous tradition and primal animist insights, soul was not cut off, or transcendent, beyond or above Nature. Rather soul was permeated through Nature

Now--getting to know your views, skinwalker--i assume you will yet still believe a sense of this interconnectedness . a Deeper experience is also merely 'cognitive'. I.e., can't be measured via your scientific method'.

 

[SkinWalker]

For "supernatural," I'm referring to that which is outside of nature.

A. adj.

1. That is above nature; belonging to a higher realm or system than that of nature; transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature.

1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 190 Fayth is a super~naturall lyght, & therfore it is indiuysyble, as all graces supernaturall be. 1555 BRADFORD in Foxe A. & M. (1570) III. 1822/1 If a woman that is natural, can not finally forget the child of her wombe,..God which is a father super~naturall,..wyll not forget you. 1561 T. NORTON Calvin's Inst. II. 73 Of nature is giltinesse, and sanctification is of supernaturall grace. 1594 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. I. xi. §3 Those supernaturall passions of ioy, peace, and delight. 1601 SHAKES. All's Well II. iii. 3 They say miracles are past, and we haue our Philosophicall persons, to make moderne and familiar things supernaturall and causelesse. a1619 M. FOTHERBY Atheom. II. v. §3. (1622) 240 Hee flyeth aboue those inferior and naturall concauses, vnto the supreme and supernaturall Cause. 1646 SIR T. BROWNE Pseud. Ep. I. xi. 44 Thus hath he also made the ignorant sort beleeve that naturall effects..proceed from supernaturall powers. 1749 HARTLEY Observ. Man I. iii. §7 412 Inspiration..termed supernatural properly, in Contradistinction to all Knowledge resulting from the common Laws of Nature. 1772 PRIESTLEY Inst. Relig. (1782) I. 319 Testimony..declared in supernatural voices from heaven. 1865 LECKY Ration. I. i. 77 The pestilences which desolated nations were deemed supernatural. 1866 LIDDON Bampton Lect. vi. (1875) 296 Christianity is a supernatural religion. 1892 J. TAIT Mind in Matter (ed. 3) 308 The Apostles considered supernatural power as something resident in Jesus. 1907 J. R. ILLINGWORTH Doctr. Trinity ii. 39 When the Word was made Flesh, a supernatural Being entered what we call the order of nature.

As to my "views," if there were any worldview that I would buy, it would be far closer to that of what you refer to as "pre-patriarchal" worldviews, though the true delineation of gender in society during prehistoric times is a very subjective concept and no clear data can fully vindicate the hypothesis that matriarchal societies existed or that androgynic societies were in existance. I tend to think they did, though not universially.

I say that might worldview would take this form because of the reverence for nature that prehistoric/primative man (I use the term "man" in the gender-neutral, biological sense) had. All things were holy and interconnected. There existed no "super"-natural as everything was a part of nature, including whatever gods or forces man envisioned at the time. Sky Father and Earth Mother were concepts that took various form in various cultures, but there was a universal acceptance that a duality had to exist to bring forth life.

I don't bow down to gods and goddesses, but I recognize that this is the essence of science. Everything exists in nature, even if we fail to understand it. That doesn't mean it is unknowable, it only means that it might take longer for man to learn.

The universe is knowable. It has a common point of origin and cyclic characteristics (chemical reactions, reductions, etc.). Everything is connected... the atoms of hydrogen that exist in my body may have existed in your own at some point in time.

There is much awe in what can be measured and greater awe in what we have yet to measure or to figure out how to measure.

We don't need supernatural explanations for that which is natural just because we don't know the nature of what we observe or experience.

 

[Yorda]

There are 3 leading world religions, two forms (East and West), but only one source: God (the higher self). I come to think of Religions as colors. There are 3 main colors, then there are many transitions (like Catholism, Taoism, Shitoism etc.), and in reality there are no colors, only one light. A religion is the body of God, a container of HIS wisdom. The outer body must always die and then be born again, the inner self never changes, it's already perfect.

The Canaanite pantheon of gods can be found in Judeo-Christian literature, though not mentioned as gods but mortals or demons; some Egyptian stories have found their way into the "truth" of christian religion; the Noachian Flood myth has its roots in Sumerian mythology, perhaps in earlier oral traditions.... etc.

Because the flood was global, it's not strange that other cultures also wrote about it.
What happened in, what we now call "Sahara", about 5000 years ago, was the cause of the flood.

Even New Testament mythology has its roots in Buddhist mythology and the Buddhist 8-fold path appears to be imitated in the so-called teachings of Christ.

If Buddha and Jesus wouldn't have teached the same things, then one of them would have been a liar. There is only one God and one truth.
He who is no longer affected by the body will clearly see this reality, and speak of it. Wise people can recognize the same truth in all religions.

For "supernatural," I'm referring to that which is outside of nature.

There is no outside nature, it's only (temporarly) outside our understanding.

 

[SkinWalker]

A religion is the body of God, a container of HIS wisdom.

A religion is merely the superstitious manifestations of ignorance by man. I don't use "ignorance" in the colloquial sense that you probably are thinking, however. I'm referring to the lack of knowlege and understanding, generally by refusal to educate one's self.

Because the flood was global, it's not strange that other cultures also wrote about it.

The only thing "global" about a flood motif is that ancient man was bound to flood-prone regions for survival. Floods are evident in the geologic record but to suggest that a global flood has ever occured in 150,000 to 200,000 years that H. sapiens has existed on the planet as a distinct primate species is superstitious rubbish. This is the sort of ignorance to which I'm referring to with religion.

What happened in, what we now call "Sahara", about 5000 years ago, was the cause of the flood.

Where's the phyisical evidence for this? Never mind, I realize that it exists only in your head....

If Buddha and Jesus wouldn't have teached the same things, then one of them would have been a liar. There is only one God and one truth.

Buddhism teaches that there are no gods (for those that care, I'm speaking of Theravada).

He who is no longer affected by the body will clearly see this reality, and speak of it.

Ironically, this is exactly the teaching of Buddha. Enlightenment will come for those that can give up the material things of life.

Wise people can recognize the same truth in all religions.

And the wisest of these will also see the lies in all religions, for both truth and lies are ever-present in modern religion. Though I've yet to see a provable lie in Theravada Buddhism... not that I'm Buddhist, I just haven't seen it.

There is no outside nature, it's only (temporarly) outside our understanding.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[Yorda]

Floods are evident in the geologic record but to suggest that a global flood has ever occured in 150,000 to 200,000 years that H. sapiens has existed on the planet as a distinct primate species is superstitious rubbish. This is the sort of ignorance to which I'm referring to with religion.

One day an accident happened, for a "black magician" directed a power which destroys matter (converts it into another form of energy) to his own body. When this process has once started there is no stopping it, the matter which has formed into energy works as a destroying power until everything has been dematerialized.

The whole land (Sahara) transformed into radiation energy, which first ascended to the outmost atmosphere and then came back in all kinds of substances. In constant processes of change this gigantic mass fell down as endless water- mud- and sand rain (even insects and animals). In the place where this fallout met with great mountains, the waters of the oceans 'united' (even above great mountains). The 'other side' of the earth's continents 'separated' from each other and parted further away until they reached balance, until they reached about the point where the continents are today. The 'partly' destroyed continent is now a great desert. 'Nothing sounds here but the wind. Nothing moves here but the sand.'

Where's the phyisical evidence for this? Never mind, I realize that it exists only in your head....

It's known that Sahara suddenly got "extremely dry" 5000 years ago, which is the year of the flood.

Buddhism teaches that there are no gods (for those that care, I'm speaking of Theravada).

Yeah, there is only the "self" (which also is the same as "God", but you don't know what I mean with "God") The self can take all kinds of forms, that's why gods were created, they're only aspects of the self, like red and blue are aspects of light.

And the wisest of these will also see the lies in all religions, for both truth and lies are ever-present in modern religion.

It's natural, religions are _written_ by man.

 

[SkinWalker]

One day an accident happened, for a "black magician" directed a power which destroys matter (converts it into another form of energy) to his own body. When this process has once started there is no stopping it, the matter which has formed into energy works as a destroying power until everything has been dematerialized.

The whole land (Sahara) transformed into radiation energy, which first ascended to the outmost atmosphere and then came back in all kinds of substances. In constant processes of change this gigantic mass fell down as endless water- mud- and sand rain (even insects and animals). In the place where this fallout met with great mountains, the waters of the oceans 'united' (even above great mountains). The 'other side' of the earth's continents 'separated' from each other and parted further away until they reached balance, until they reached about the point where the continents are today. The 'partly' destroyed continent is now a great desert. 'Nothing sounds here but the wind. Nothing moves here but the sand.'

What the fuck are you talking about? Indeed, the rapid change from "green Sahara" to desert conditions began at around 3750 BCE, but these are linked to the Younger Dryas (12,900 - 11,500 yBP) period and then formation of the North Atlantic Deep Water mechanism that affected climate change by creating dryer conditions in the region.

Just out of curiosity, where did you obtain this other valuable information in geologic history? How do you account for the clear presence of human activity in the archaeological record well past 11,000 years BP in the Near East? The Natufian culture of present day Palestine/Jordan is considered to be one of the first cultures to domesticate wheat somewhere between 10,500 and 7000 BCE... how does the evidence of this culture fit your worldview? Do you deny it actually exists?

It's known that Sahara suddenly got "extremely dry" 5000 years ago, which is the year of the flood.

Its interesting how the human mind works, it truly is. You see, 5000 years BP was about 3050 BCE (I know what you're thinking, but the baseline of "present" in "Before Present" is 1950). It was around this time that writing was introduced. Simple symbols on clay bullae containing "tokens" started at around 3500 BCE in Uruk... followed by rudimentary signs & symbols on clay tablets around 3200 BCE, then full blown cuneiform script by the end of the 4th millenium beginning of the 3rd (3000 BCE). I'm pulling dates out of my head, so I might be off by a hundred years or so.

Writing is also considered by many to be the beginning of "history" since this is when history was finally able to be recorded. Its no wonder that the ethnocentric Judeo-Christian records cling to this as the "new beginning" following the flood. Coincidently, it was around this time that the Deluge, the Atrahasis, and the Gilgamesh epics were introduced (probably over a thousand years, in that order, and beginning with oral tradition until writing was accessable).

but you don't know what I mean with "God"

You got that right, bubba. Was he that black magician guy?

 

[duendy]

For "supernatural," I'm referring to that which is outside of nature.

d__so we both seem to agree with that then?

As to my "views," if there were any worldview that I would buy, it would be far closer to that of what you refer to as "pre-patriarchal" worldviews, though the true delineation of gender in society during prehistoric times is a very subjective concept and no clear data can fully vindicate the hypothesis that matriarchal societies existed or that androgynic societies were in existance. I ltend to think they did, though not universially.

d__ok. you are saying the evidence is hard to find. i am saying this is due to the general patriarchal oppression, and suprresion of a Goddess oriented culture. one has to then read between the lines--wrti BY the patriarchy, and at IMAGERY, which is a central part of the Goddess country

I say that might worldview would take this form because of the reverence for nature that prehistoric/primative man (I use the term "man" in the gender-neutral, biological sense) had. All things were holy and interconnected. There existed no "super"-natural as everything was a part of nature, including whatever gods or forces man envisioned at the time. Sky Father and Earth Mother were concepts that took various form in various cultures, but there was a universal acceptance that a duality had to exist to bring forth life.

d__'duality' in the meanng of complimentarity of opposites, not the patriarchal concept of duality that had the opposites in conglift with one another.
As for th introduction of a 'sky god'. Ward Rutherford, in his book 'Shamanism: The Foundations of Magic', claims that where we see cultures where a sky god mates with Goddess and/or Mother Earth is the indication of Goddess culture undergoing oppression from invading forces who worship a sky god. I.e., first the have 'him' 'marry' her and then we see a dismantling of her power

I don't bow down to gods and goddesses, but I recognize that this is the essence of science. Everything exists in nature, even if we fail to understand it. That doesn't mean it is unknowable, it only means that it might take longer for man to learn.

I am seeingg it rather there is the known, and what can be known, in a scientific sense, but also an UNknown. what simply cant be KNOWN. and i dont mean by this how the patriarchal theists dogmatize this by claiming only an elite can show you 'God' (you know having middle men btween the believer and 'God')...i am meaning there is a mystery, an amniguity about Nature that cannot be known by reason. because it is the SOURCE of reason. SUB-reason (am sure i'll have to xplain this more..heh_


The universe is knowable. It has a common point of origin and cyclic characteristics (chemical reactions, reductions, etc.). Everything is connected... the atoms of hydrogen that exist in my body may have existed in your own at some point in time.

d__yes, but that is its obJECTICE face. there is the SUBJECTIVE interelational experience which is unknowable, and can't be grasped by a scientific method. cant be utilized in a mechanical way!

There is much awe in what can be measured and greater awe in what we have yet to measure or to figure out how to measure.

of COURSe there is. this life, and death , and Nature ,a nd universe, and spiral galaxy, etc etc etc, is utterly profound, and fathomless. but understanding that why cant you understand the SUBJECTIVE experiential connection to this profoundness. in ACTUAL experience?
example. you can analyze a dance, and that is good. but to actually DO the dance.......?

We don't need supernatural explanations for that which is natural just because we don't know the nature of what we observe or experience.

well, i feel we have agreed about 'supernatural'. our impasse now is your interpreation of 'knowing nature' via science, and mine -accepting that-but also accepting a deeper plunging into experiencing reality, away from the textbooks, 'reason', and microscope--ie., the scientific method

 

[Yorda]

Just out of curiosity, where did you obtain this other valuable information in geologic history?

Where do you think? Where did Socrates, Newton, Jesus and Buddha get their knowledge from? Where do You get your knowledge from? If you get it from reading books, where did the authors get their knowledge from? That's right, they get it from themselves, from the "self", from "God", by observing, by thinking... The self knows everything. Humans can't see the self because they're too much in love with the body.

How do you account for the clear presence of human activity in the archaeological record well past 11,000 years BP in the Near East?

What about it?

You see, 5000 years BP was about 3050 BCE (I know what you're thinking, but the baseline of "present" in "Before Present" is 1950). It was around this time that writing was introduced. Simple symbols on clay bullae containing "tokens" started at around 3500 BCE in Uruk...

Funny. Have you heard that they have found archeological evidence for small hobbit like humans? Myths tell us about giants and hobbits, but because You are so Proud, you won't believe in them! Don't you believe that we will become taller and greater in size as we evolve? Maybe we'll all be 2 metres tall in some centuries, just like the human generation before us were giants, so will we also be. "Like it was in the days before Noah, so it will be on the day of the coming of the son of man." Haven't you seen Egyptian paintings, which paint people will long great heads ("anak"), or high hats? These were Anak, or the descendants of Anak. The Egyptian writing...

I tell you, the place were Sahara is, that was the Home of the "giants", the "Anak", the "sons of God". But as the flood was coming, the sons of God had already died out long ago because they no longer had reasons to live on earth. But because they had children with the "smaller", primitive humans at that time (Genesis 6:4), it was, and IS, still possible that One SON of God could be born (Moses, Jesus, Ptah-hotep). He will be born... in different places, in different times, in different cultures, and in some cultures he will be treated as a God or half God, and in other cultures, they will make fun of him, mock him and kill him. We humans are the Anakim, the descendants of the Greater humans before us.

You got that right, bubba. Was he that black magician guy?

No. But if you want to be simple, you could just say that "God got angry and drowned the humans". Black "magic" means to use one's abilities in a wrong manner. If only a few people could talk, people might consider talking as something "magical". Now, if they would use words to do evil, or gain something for themselves at the expense of others, they would be "black magicians".

 

[SkinWalker]

Where do you think? [...] If you get it from reading books, where did the authors get their knowledge from? That's right, they get it from themselves, from the "self", from "God", by observing, by thinking... The self knows everything. Humans can't see the self because they're too much in love with the body.

Right... as long as we've established that you're making it all up. While we're on the subject, this is why the christian cult has so little credibility: people are so willing to make shit up and call it truth.

What about it? [human activity consistently present in the archaeological record since the last ice age]

It kind of disproves any "global flood," since only localized flooding is evident in a few places. Expected localized flooding, I might add.

Funny. Have you heard that they have found archeological evidence for small hobbit like humans?

It's ironic that you're willing to believe that. Because at every point of the global flood deception archaeology and geology are their to disprove it. But enter one "hobbit story" and suddenly it's acceptable. There's no indication that the so-called Flores Man, these "hobbits" you refer to, are any sort of new species of human. The tools found in association with the skeletons were of the size you would expect of normal size H. sapiens. It could be that their size was an environmental product, pygmied in the same process that created the pygmy elephants they hunted.

Whatever we find by more investigation, I'm amazed that you even accept the find as valid. It is discovered by the very sciences which disprove all the other nonsense you're talking about.

 

[duendy]

According to Allegro's investigation of etymological sources in mythology, as described in his The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, 'Giants' and 'sons of god' were the psychdelic shrooms!

i dont know why people believe in the literalism of myth. it is myth. IF people were giants, guess what, even MORE reources would be needed to sustian a person, right? so it wouldn't be really good for the whole ecosphere. and if they DId live to 999 years...jeeez there'd be no nuthin left. look what happened to the Dinosaurs

so the first explnation makes for more sense to me. more plausible

 

[Yorda]

It kind of disproves any "global flood," since only localized flooding is evident in a few places. Expected localized flooding, I might add.

I don't think it disproves anything.

Whatever we find by more investigation, I'm amazed that you even accept the find as valid. It is discovered by the very sciences which disprove all the other nonsense you're talking about.

I only accept the Truth. No science disproves what I know. You might be able to understand what I know if I would explain it better.
But I don't care... I'm not supposed to care. Everyone will know what I know... after a few thousand years.

 

[SkinWalker]

Your self-aggrandizing behavior notwithstanding, the "truth" is the last concept you have understanding of. You appear to wrapped up in the mythology of antiquity to even be in a position to recognize truth.

"I don't think it disproves anything."

It certainly disproves the flood claim of the christian cult, as well as the "young Earth" nonsense that the sub-cult of creationism clings to.

 

[Yorda]

SkinWalker...

When you think "I" sound self-aggrandizing, I'm only lifting up the higher self (not the personal self coming from the body) in me, the only "God" which lives in me aswell as in you.

It certainly disproves the flood claim of the christian cult, as well as the "young Earth" nonsense that the sub-cult of creationism clings to.

I don't know enough of the Bible to know why you think it disproves the flood. I only know the truth about the flood.

It says nowhere in the Bible that the physical earth is only a few thousand years old. The 7 days creation mentioned in the Bible represents the levels of life/consciousness: matter, plants, animals, humans, prophets, god-men. On the seventh "day" (ie. light, consciousness) I work not, but I rest in myself (self-awareness). The positive and negative pole are in perfect balance, there is no creation. If one could attain this in his consciousness, it would mean the death of the body.

 

[SkinWalker]

"I don't know enough of the Bible to know why you think it disproves the flood. I only know the truth about the flood."

How do you "know" this "truth?" Obviously not from the text you say you "don't know enough about."

No where in the geologic record is there any evidence of a global flood since the Cambrian Explosion. In many places of this text you know so little about there are literary indications of unoriginal idea and purely mythical thought. There are "truths" in the bible, but they tell us nothing about geology. The creation myth is obviously not meant to be the literal method of man's conception and, if read with a literary interpretation, the book of Genesis is clear about that.

If one looks at the geneologies presented in the bible, a date of about 6000 years ago would mark the beginning of man's reign on the Earth. Archbishop James Usher "computed" this in 1650 and came up with a date of 4004 BCE.

This cannot possibly be true based on the evidence present in the archaeological record. The prehistoric village of Çatalhöyük dates as far back as 9000 BCE. It thrived in 7000 BCE. The cave at Shanidar has evidence of human habitation as far back as 34,000 BCE and another layer below this that was inhabited by Neanderthal Man long before this.

 

[Yorda]

How do you "know" this "truth?" Obviously not from the text you say you "don't know enough about."

Those who come from the truth, recognizes the truth. The truth comes to everyone who knows themselves.
The universe is in me, and I fill the whole universe.

If one looks at the geneologies presented in the bible, a date of about 6000 years ago would mark the beginning of man's reign on the Earth. Archbishop James Usher "computed" this in 1650 and came up with a date of 4004 BCE.

The Holy scriptures (the Bible and Quran at least) mentions "giants" who were on earth long ago (probably back to 100000 years ago at least). These were loveful and all-knowing people worthy the name 'Sons of God'. They were also called 'Anak', which means long neck. Several skulls has been found.

At the time when these giants were still on earth, at the 'end times' (maybe about 30000 years ago), there were also another kind of "humans" on earth, early primitive humans who were spiritually weak and were also physically smaller ('neanderthals'?). Now, a few male giants made children with these primitive humans so that they also, after aeons, would attain salvation. This cross-breeding made various kinds of humans, since some of descendants inherited the wisdom and love from their fathers side, or only the physical size and then inherited the egoistic primitive nature from their mother's side. Then there were also those who inherited both the "magical" knowledge and abilities and the egoistic nature.

The new human generation was born about 6000 years ago. I would mark the flood as the "new beginning".