Religion vs. Philosophy

[maikeru]

When you say it outdates monotheism, how do you determine this?

 

The first books of the Bible make claim they were written (first edition) more than 3000 years ago. Furthermore, they are believed to be based on some other historical books that no longer exist and definitely cover history hundreds if not thousands of years before the time of their writing.

 

A lot of the material in the Old Testament is clearly oral in origin and transmission, not written. They precede the written word. They cannot be based on books which never existed. These oral traditions, literature, and poetry were probably recorded at later times. Similar to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey or the Ramayana and Mahabharata, as I understand it. I'm not trying to criticize, but I've been doing a lot of reading, especially in the last several months, about oral literature (which has become a new-found passion), and it seems fairly clear that passages dealing with Adam and Eve, the Fall of the Nephilim, Noah's Ark, etc. come from oral traditions of the early Israelites (and share a common background with the stories or oral traditions of other Semitic peoples, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh suggests). See Alfred Bates Lord's The Singer of Tales for an introduction to the study and concept of oral literature, including its making and practice.

 

In the case of the Vedas, read the first paragraph from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

 

It says that "The Vedanta and Mimamsa schools of Hindu philosophy assert that the Vedas are apaurusheya ("unauthored"), that is, they have neither human nor divine origin, and are eternal in nature." Thus, while the information in the writings is considered godly wisdom, the writings themselves have no attributed author, neither supernatural nor human. I don't mean to make light of it, but if neither authored the book then how do they exist?

 

I think the Vedas are commonly thought to originate from about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, though. I wish I could answer this better, but my knowledge of the Vedas is vanishingly small, and only consists of some familiarity with them from skimming translated selections and reading about the history of religions in Mircea Eliade's A History of Religious Ideas. I have more familiarity with Buddhism and Christianity.

[cwes99_03]

What prophecies? Is there any proof these happened because they were prophecies instead of being simply coincidental? Imagine for example that I prophecize that it will rain next Tuesday and it does. According to Occam's Razor do you think the simplest explanation is coincidence or that it rained because I said it would? Prophecies don't have much holding as scientific evidence with me. Good evidence is testable and repeatable using the scientific method.

 

It would not be prophesy but prediction, and would most likely be based on meteorological data from the past 100 years substituting some effects from various years to make your prediction. The farmer's almanac does that quite well.

 

As to which prophesies, that gets a bit off subject, but they have been posted on hypography by various people. The prophecies about the world powers 2000 years before their appearance in some cases, prophecies about Jesus existence made hundreds of years prior to his appearance, prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Babylon to Cyrus, and Jerusalem again to the Romans all made between 200 and 40 years before their occurences. There are more but this should be enough.

 

As for a second reason on why you might not choose the Vedas over the Bible, I'm not saying that every religion does not have a right to call itself a religion. I have not disallowed for their to be different gods. The Hindus and Christians do not claim to worship the same god. Both allow for their to be many gods, but the Bible claims that these other gods are false gods. Either way, my definition above does not say that a Hindu does not worship their own god in a way that is prescribed in the Vedas. The Egyptians believed that their pharoahs became gods, or in some cases were gods while they were men. I don't know if they had a holy book, but I'm sure they had an oral tradition as stout as the Hebrews and that they were likely to kill (make wars) in the name of their gods.

 

What I was suggesting, to bring this back towards the topic, is that within a religion there exists many philosophies on how that religion should be worshipped. You suggested they might all be valid, or maybe the newest one is valid and the old ways are not. I suggested this would mean that the god is fickle and impossible to worship in any one way because he/she keeps changing their mind on how they want to be worshipped. I also said that at least as far as christians go, the majority believe that God is unchanging, and that his scriptures describe him and his ways. However, as far as christians are concerned, they also seem to think that they can do whatever they want and still call themselves christians. I've stated here that this is a contradiction in terms. If you act in an un-christian way, and you do so regularly and without remorse, then why are you attempting to call yourself a christian?

Furthermore the original question asked about the US government and the protection of religion, how does it protect a religion when religion and philosophy are not easily recognized and differentiated. After all, many religions today preach you can do anything you want, but there are also philosophies that teach the same thing. So if I call my philosophy a religion, is it not then protected under the constitution?

[cwes99_03]

A lot of the material in the Old Testament is clearly oral in origin and transmission, not written. They precede the written word. They cannot be based on books which never existed. These oral traditions, literature, and poetry were probably recorded at later times. Similar to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey or the Ramayana and Mahabharata, as I understand it. I'm not trying to criticize, but I've been doing a lot of reading, especially in the last several months, about oral literature (which has become a new-found passion), and it seems fairly clear that passages dealing with Adam and Eve, the Fall of the Nephilim, Noah's Ark, etc. come from oral traditions of the early Israelites (and share a common background with the stories or oral traditions of other Semitic peoples, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh suggests). See Alfred Bates Lord's The Singer of Tales for an introduction to the study and concept of oral literature, including its making and practice.

 

To this, my evidence is actually a biblical passage. I've heard it said, and I'll have to check my source to see if they cited any more passages, that Genesis 5:1 suggests that there were earlier writings about Adam and his family line, and that these were incorporated into the book of Genesis (at the request of God?). If I do remember correctly, this suggestion did not say it was absolutely true, but a possibility.

 

A History of Religious Ideas[/i]. I have more familiarity with Buddhism and Christianity.

 

As far as the Vedas, I too am lacking a lot of knowledge on them. However, there are articles out there that suggest 5000. Based on what? Based on dating of the Aryan invasion of that area. Others have claimed that the books were produced in 20,000 BC because it describes a cold climate (like a cold climate couldn't have existed in the mountains surrounding that area.) I am far from an expert on these texts and renew my request for others with some expertise in these areas to comment here, but to stay on topic of why their religion should be considered a religion and not a philosophy.

[InfiniteNow]

As to which prophesies, that gets a bit off subject, but they have been posted on hypography by various people.

How about some links to some?

 

 

However, as far as christians are concerned, they also seem to think that they can do whatever they want and still call themselves christians. I've stated here that this is a contradiction in terms.

Are you the one true interpreter? Thus spaketh cwes? Arrogance, self-righteoiusness, and misguideness permeates this comment, and you can do better.

 

 

After all, many religions today preach you can do anything you want,

How many? A list would prove useful here of which one's to which you're referring so I may explore the point further.

 

... but there are also philosophies that teach the same thing.

Ditto, my comment above.

 

So if I call my philosophy a religion, is it not then protected under the constitution?

I'm not sure the answer to that one, but it is an interesting and complicated question.

 

 

Cheers. :hihi:

[hallenrm]

I am far from an expert on these texts and renew my request for others with some expertise in these areas to comment here, but to stay on topic of why their religion should be considered a religion and not a philosophy.

 

Well I am from India, and by birth a Hindu! :hihi: But let me say outright I am not an expert in Vedas, as my education was primarily limited to science. But the fifty odd years of my life has given me some knowledge about Hindu Dharma Which is often translated as Hinduism a religion. The Dharma so far as I understand is not a sect, nether does it require belief in the God, it is a belief system to lead a harmonious moral life. In fact if one were to go through Hindu mythology, it has as many gods as there may be people in Athens today, all with distinct characters having good qualities as well as evil, as may be found in any living person. The Vedas are essentially thoughts of sages who immersed themselves into the world of thoughts, much more than myself. They are the like the philosophies propounds my many philosophers, very akin to the philosophies of western philosophers in the past couple of centuries.

 

Having said that, much of the Hinduism as it is evident in modern India is a result of western influence largely during the colonial era (India was a British Colony for about a century), which brought the educated elite in contact with the Christian clergy, and thus many aspects of the Christian religion got assimilated into the Hindu psyche. The organized Hindu religion that we see today is perhaps a product of the modern Indian trying to come up to the standards of the affluent Christians whom they have learned to be jealous and envious during their brief contact with them. The life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is an example.

 

So let me sum up my thoughts by saying that Hinduism for me is not like Christianity for a Christian (as I can perceive foam many posts I have read in the past few months on this forum), it is more like a philosophy! :eek:

[cwes99_03]

That was my point, though I did not have the background to say as much about Hinduism. Would you thus recommend (on the definition put forth in this thread) that people stop referring to Hindu Dharma as religion and refer to it like they do the work of Plato, Socrates, and Rousseau? I'm not saying all Hindu beliefs are not religious, just like I'm not saying all Christian beliefs are not biblical. I'm just saying that if they don't originate from the holy writings (or oral tradition which is founded like a holy writing, such as the Jews had before the OT was written) then they should not be referred to as religious beliefs.

[cwes99_03]

How about some links to some?

 

Are you the one true interpreter? Thus spaketh cwes? Arrogance, self-righteoiusness, and misguideness permeates this comment, and you can do better.

 

How many? A list would prove useful here of which one's to which you're referring so I may explore the point further.

 

Ditto, my comment above.

 

I'm not sure the answer to that one, but it is an interesting and complicated question.

 

Cheers. :girl_hug:

 

I can find some links if you like, an advanced search of the site I'm sure will help you find them. Give me a bit of time, as I've got a few things to do today other than spend time on hypography.

 

Here's a recent one.

http://hypography.com/forums/145524-post89.html

 

As to whether I am the one true interpreter, I've stated already on this thread and the religion vs religion thread that I am not. I've said it takes study and hard work to do your own verification of facts and scriptural interpretation. You have to weigh and measure each person who teaches to see if they base their teachings off of scripture or human philosophy. (Does someone say, I believe it means, or do they show you a couple of scriptures/holy writings and show you a couple of passages and ask does this mean?) Additionally, critical analysis of any translation out of the original language must be done.

Does this sound like an arrogant "I am the only one who knows the truth and you must hear it from me" answer? If I felt that way then I wouldn't post questions, I would be like the others who come on this site and get banned a few days later for expounding theology, not questioning it.

I question my understanding of scriptures all the time. I've subjected myself to the questioning of various people on this thread. Some have caught me in miststatements, misunderstandings, etc. I'm not perfect. I do not pretend to be. I strive towards that goal, however.

 

As to a list of religions that teach do what you want. I will site any ecumenical church. Ask TBD about people who create churches (religions) where people of all faiths can come and share their beliefs and be considered as equals. Call it the church of hypography if you wish.

As for philosophies that state the same, is it hard to find. Many on this site have espoused the philosophy that we should all learn to get along and accept anyone regardless of their ideas. Check out the religion vs religion thread again.

 

Thanks for the compliment on asking the hard question. Perhaps you will come up with an answer that is similar or perhaps completely different than the one I propose here (which in and of itself is not my original idea really.)

[InfiniteNow]

I understand needing time to search, but I also don't see how the link you provided responds to:

 

C1ay:

Prophecies don't have much holding as scientific evidence with me. Good evidence is testable and repeatable using the scientific method.

cwes:

It would not be prophesy but prediction, and would most likely be based on meteorological data from the past 100 years substituting some effects from various years to make your prediction. The farmer's almanac does that quite well.

 

As to which prophesies, that gets a bit off subject, but they have been posted on hypography by various people

iNow:

How about some links to some?

 

Clarify.

 

Also, I'd like real religions and prophecies to support your comments, not "church of Hypo" comments. If you were speaking abstractly, at the least you could state that and say that there are no such lists...

 

 

Cheers. :girl_hug:

[Erasmus00]

Maybe this gets at the heart of the matter:

 

The bible postulates a creation story very much at odds with modern scientific understanding.

 

The bible postulates an authorship/time period often at odds with the authorship claimed within the book itself.

 

If we have a holy book that contradicts modern scholarly research, do we default to the scholarly research, or do we take the book(and by extension, the author of the book) to be infallible?

-Will

[cwes99_03]

I understand needing time to search, but I also don't see how the link you provided responds to:

 

C1ay: Quote:

Prophecies don't have much holding as scientific evidence with me. Good evidence is testable and repeatable using the scientific method.

 

cwes:

Quote:

It would not be prophesy but prediction, and would most likely be based on meteorological data from the past 100 years substituting some effects from various years to make your prediction. The farmer's almanac does that quite well.

 

As to which prophesies, that gets a bit off subject, but they have been posted on hypography by various people

 

iNow:

Quote:

How about some links to some?

 

 

Clarify.

 

Also, I'd like real religions and prophecies to support your comments, not "church of Hypo" comments. If you were speaking abstractly, at the least you could state that and say that there are no such lists...

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

 

 

Looking just at those quotes I'm a bit confused too. I was responding to Clay's post and your request to mention some prophecies that do not seem coincidental.

 

What prophecies? Is there any proof these happened because they were prophecies instead of being simply coincidental?

 

Southtown's post enumerated some of those prophecies without going into the Bible to demonstrate that they were written hundreds of years before and that they were all fulfilled in Jesus.

If you would like me to, I can do much better, but I don't want to step on the rules and sound like I am expounding Christianity in this forum.

 

EDIT:

Sorry about the religions. I can't give you a whole lot of names. They pop up everywhere. Check out this post by TBD. In it he describes the action of his father creating his own church.

Thus I gave you the term ecumenical. It describes the modern movement I mentioned earlier of anything goes in the name of christ, or as Ghandi suggested, in the name of any and all religions. Ghandi himself studied various religions, and thought that all people should study and respect all of their beliefs and worship as one group.

[cwes99_03]

Maybe this gets at the heart of the matter:

 

The bible postulates a creation story very much at odds with modern scientific understanding.

 

The bible postulates an authorship/time period often at odds with the authorship claimed within the book itself.

 

If we have a holy book that contradicts modern scholarly research, do we default to the scholarly research, or do we take the book(and by extension, the author of the book) to be infallible?

-Will

 

 

Without sounding too authoritative, I would like to say that I disagree. As I have been studying these things for over 15 years of my life fairly in depth, I can see that one who hasn't read what I have read would be skeptical. I could ask you to take my word for it. I have already discussed creation in part on the America doesn't believe in Evolution thread and I was simply laughed at.

Attempting to dive in on one small part of a huge study is pretty hard. You wouldn't expect socrates to understand nuclear physics would you? Socrates was a bright man, but he wouldn't have enough background to start at that point. Thus if you were to explain to him that these little particles called atoms existed and could be split into smaller parts and that such tiny little particles could contain such enormous energy, he would likewise laugh at you.

To go into such an explanation is off subject, so I will just simply ask that we steer this back.

 

Haven't heard from Crescent in a while. Hope he returns to this thread.

[cwes99_03]

Note to all readers. This thread is not a thread discussing whether or not a religion has founding. This thread is discussing whether some "religions" are founded on religion or human philosophy.

[Freddy]

To this, my evidence is actually a biblical passage. I've heard it said, and I'll have to check my source to see if they cited any more passages, that Genesis 5:1 suggests that there were earlier writings about Adam and his family line, and that these were incorporated into the book of Genesis (at the request of God?). If I do remember correctly, this suggestion did not say it was absolutely true, but a possibility.

This is what Genesis 5:1 says,"This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;". I do not see any suggestion of an earlier book or writings here.

[C1ay]

I must be out of focus. Could someone point out the testable, repeatable evidence, I seem to be missing it.....

 

BTW, I prophesize that the sun will rise in the east for all of the days of 2007....

[hallenrm]

Would you thus recommend (on the definition put forth in this thread) that people stop referring to Hindu Dharma as religion and refer to it like they do the work of Plato, Socrates, and Rousseau? I'm not saying all Hindu beliefs are not religious, just like I'm not saying all Christian beliefs are not biblical.

 

I would, but my voice will be lost in the cacophony of the presnt day Hindu fundamentalists, just as most sane islamic voices are lost in the battle cries of jehadis etc. I therefore, would only talk with sane people 'born' to parents of any 'religion' whatsoever to the effect that the best course for a peaceful, harmonious and productive life is to believe in sound moral beleifs that can be distilled from the wisdoms of all the ancient religions, and not to be a cult follower of any cult whatsoever, even if its professed philosophy appears most attractive. I prefer to be a lone ranger! ;)

[maikeru]

To this, my evidence is actually a biblical passage. I've heard it said, and I'll have to check my source to see if they cited any more passages, that Genesis 5:1 suggests that there were earlier writings about Adam and his family line, and that these were incorporated into the book of Genesis (at the request of God?). If I do remember correctly, this suggestion did not say it was absolutely true, but a possibility.

 

I think Genesis 5:1 doesn't support your claim. I found two versions of Genesis 5:1 in my collection of Bibles.

 

The New American Bible: "This is the record of the descendants of Adam." An oral record works just as well as a written record. A record doesn't have to be written. It can be memorized, just as most information can.

 

King James Version (KJV) Bible: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." It refers to *this book*, the list of names of Adam's descendants, not books of the past.

 

I don't see any evidence here that excludes the possibility of an oral tradition. However, some quick searches on Google bring up a strong tie between oral traditions and the Bible.

 

Here is a website that details oral tradition as relates to the Torah (which makes up much of the Old Testament): http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Oral_Tradition.asp

 

The Oral Torah [Mishnah] was handed down by word of mouth from Moses to Joshua, then to the Elders, the Prophets, and the Great Assembly. The Great Assembly was the Sanhedrin led by Ezra, at the beginning of the time of the Second Temple, which undertook to enact legislation that would make Judaism viable in the diaspora.

 

In Judaism, the written Torah and the Oral Torah (Mishnah, part of the Talmud) are important and exist side by side. There are also two other oral traditions that are important in Judaism, although I will not list them here.

 

Also, for the New Testament, here's another insightful bit:

 

Unlike the Jews and Muslims, Christians generally do not consider a single version of their Bible as holy to the exclusion of the others, and accept good translations and re-translations as being just as valid, in principle, as the original. They recognize that the Gospels were passed on by oral tradition only to be set to paper decades after the death of Jesus, and that the extant versions are only copies of those originals.

 

The bolding is mine. This quote comes from Wikipedia's article on Abrahamic religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion

 

For example, one cannot deny that there are striking similiarities between the stories of Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh and the story of Noah. Gilgamesh is epic oral poetry, the earliest example we have, and clearly a product of an oral tradition. An oral tradition preserves and expresses the history, culture, ideas, values, and more of a people. The earliest dates are 2100 BC for Sumerian versions of the poem. And Gilgamesh is believed to have lived in about 2500 BC.

 

Here's a website that compares the flood story from six different Near Eastern accounts:

 

http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/parallels.htm

 

I suggest not that the Bible "stole" the flood story from other accounts, as some other scholars or critics have claimed, but that it originates from a shared history, a shared origin, of various Semitic peoples, somewhere in the distant past. This is preserved in a slightly different form through the oral traditions of the early Israelite people.

 

A similar example can be see with various Asian peoples concerning some ancient stories of a "heavenly bird goddess" who is captured and marries a prince or feathered/winged serpents or dragons and also among some Native Americans of the Americas. East Asians, including Asiatic Siberian peoples, and Native Americans of the Americas are genetically related. No surprise then that some of their religions and mythologies bear strong resemblances. No surprise then that many of them share shamanism or nature-oriented religions. Even with a split of 25,000-20,000 years separating all these peoples, the uncanny resemblances are still there. I'm part Taiwanese, and I have a thing for reading mythology and literature. I've seen these ur-myths or ur-stories (prototypical or archetypal stories) pop up in various versions of Thai and Vietnamese plays, Chinese folk tales, Japanese Noh plays (one which I saw performed at my university), etc. No one stole these prototypes from anyone else, but they came from a common source, from a common people, at some point in the distant past. They were retained in oral traditions and finally set into print or performance at a later time.

 

Remember that Abraham and many other figures in the Bible were nomadic, and even among nomads, oral traditions are strong. Almost all peoples have had diverse and ancient oral traditions, unless they have been extinguished or replaced with the rise of modernization.

 

Here's Wikipedia's article on oral tradition, in case you are interested:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition

 

That much of the Bible comes from oral traditions in no way diminishes the value of the parts or the book as a whole.

 

As far as the Vedas, I too am lacking a lot of knowledge on them. However, there are articles out there that suggest 5000. Based on what? Based on dating of the Aryan invasion of that area. Others have claimed that the books were produced in 20,000 BC because it describes a cold climate (like a cold climate couldn't have existed in the mountains surrounding that area.) I am far from an expert on these texts and renew my request for others with some expertise in these areas to comment here, but to stay on topic of why their religion should be considered a religion and not a philosophy.

 

Apparently, based on geographical and ethnological descriptions inherent in the Vedas, especially the Rig Veda, themselves. The Rig Veda is the oldest of the Vedas, and is believed to date to about 1500 BC. It could be older than that, though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rig_Veda

 

One of my Hindu friends once told me that Hinduism is more like thousands of different, though somewhat related, religions under an "umbrella" designation or name. There have been many different ages and currents of thought in Hinduism. Many works and different interpretations. And very little conformity. Villages, towns, and cities have many different gods, practices, and beliefs. I get the feeling that Chrisitianity, Judaism, and Islam are all more closely knit among their various sects than Hinduism is. Buddhism too displays a lot of differences in the major branches and dozens or hundreds of sects. Some worship Buddha(s) as a divinity and there are those who even deny the existence of divinity.

[hallenrm]

Note to all readers. This thread is not a thread discussing whether or not a religion has founding. This thread is discussing whether some "religions" are founded on religion or human philosophy.

 

I am indeed feeling, that the title of this thread should have been The philosophy and the bible, because most of the discussions veers around the Bible:(