Printable View
Well Chsh i guess I just can't argue with the fact that the Tora is Older than the Bible ect...
cause honestly I don't know for sure. I try not to talk about things I dont know about. I am sure you can respect that.
But I do know that all these books state that "God" created the universe, so I am using all three interpretations. I am not talking about 'who' God is, I am talking about God Creating The Universe. Which god you say that is is up to you.
Jainism is actually the oldest of religions, taoism only became a religion during the classical age.
The oldest religion, that we have information of, is the NeoLithic Goddess religion. Dating and archeological excavation have dated a lot of the information in the area of 10,000 BC. There is an excavation of a whole city dedicated to the ancient worship of the goddess. The goddess religions held sway until the War-Based Patriarchal invasions. The evidence points to the fact that the godess religions were mostly peaceful. Not completely but mostly. Marja Gimbutas, an archeologist, has written several books. As well as Barbara Walker.
Eglaelin
Aren't we sort of slipping away from the thread here. Of course there are enourmous amounts of religions older than christianity, islam or whatever.
Personaly, I would say that man created god, not the other way around. It is in our nature to try to comprehend our existence. Why we exist and how we got created in the first place. To give absolute answers to these kind of questions we need something metaphysical. A God that is so great that we cant/don't need to comprehend it/him.
What I don't understand is why it is so hard to use the same view on sciences such as physics. There are alot of stuff we don't understand and it doesn't have to be the work of a god. Why just not accept that there is stuff we don't know?
Anyway, I'm backing out of this thread now I think. Great posts. Thanks for an interesting debate.
Cheers,
*Copys All replys
All philosophy is dogma.
You can only decide which dogma you subscribeto.
To be "objective" or "undogmatic" is the negation of thought.
Everyone starts somewhere, with some basic assumptions, or dogma.
:cool:
More comments on this topic can be found in
This Thread
:cool:
Hey celfie, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, he’s the dude with the cat… right? Sounds interesting.
In the ancient herbew mystical teachings like ‘the book of creation’ and the cabbala, which are based on even earlier teaching from Babylonia and Assyria, creation has a very strong correlation to astrophysics.
They speak of ‘the first utterance’, later stated, as ‘in the beginning was the word’ which can be compared to ‘the big bang’. Existence coming into being.
Very simply put, upon coming into being it becomes expansion, then contraction (while still expanding). Out of this comes order, which leads to law…. All on its way to becoming the matter we all know and love.
Its some fascinating stuff.
The ancients seem to possess a truth that science is just discovering. The ancients had no way of discovering these things, no hubels or electron microscopes. No chambers or particle accelerators. So where did this knowledge come from.
I'm going to jump in here since, I'm bored anyway, and I'm finding some of this interesting.
a few points - Neg, why can't we have human reasoning and God? I do not find the two mutually exclusive. I operate just fine with both relevant. Also from what I read, jainism or the mother goddess religion is not the oldest. The forerunner of AMORC is said to be more than 30,000 years old. Now watch someone come up with an older one, and, that's fine.
Also - I think man did in fact create religion, but not God.
The Rosicrucian's link their history to the reign of Pharao Tutmosis III, who ruled over Egypt from 1500 to 1447 B.C. I have no information that predates that on the Rosicrucian's. The idea that the AMORC has it roots in some society around 28000 BC is the same as the Wiccan's claiming to be a passed down religion from times of the godess worshippers.Quote:
Originally posted here by gold eagle
I'm going to jump in here since, I'm bored anyway, and I'm finding some of this interesting.
a few points - Neg, why can't we have human reasoning and God? I do not find the two mutually exclusive. I operate just fine with both relevant. Also from what I read, jainism or the mother goddess religion is not the oldest. The forerunner of AMORC is said to be more than 30,000 years old. Now watch someone come up with an older one, and, that's fine.
Also - I think man did in fact create religion, but not God.
The information that I gave on the Goddess religion is the result of Archeological excavations and dating methods. If you have some reliable information on the birth of the AMORC to the time period indicated I would appreciate it.
Read the book. Fascinating readQuote:
Originally posted here by celfie
If i may suggest a book to you negative, check out The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is interesting because he holds a PhD in earth sciences and nuclear physics and is also a jewish Rabbi. This book discusses direct links between the book of genesis and modern astrophysics theories. It provides exactly what you are claiming to not be possible.
Okies, I ordered my copy of that book (couldn't find it anywhere here)...Quote:
Originally posted by Celfie
If i may suggest a book to you negative, check out The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is interesting because he holds a PhD in earth sciences and nuclear physics and is also a jewish Rabbi. This book discusses direct links between the book of genesis and modern astrophysics theories. It provides exactly what you are claiming to not be possible.
Allow me to make some remarks already though: it maybe so that there are direct links between the book of genesis and modern astrophysics theories, but that doesn't change my point of view: modern astrophysics did not get this knowledge from 'a higher source'; all of this knowledge came directly from the human mind. It may even be so that the findings of modern astrophysics match exactly what is described in the book of genesis. The result may be the same, the way you came to that result isn't. So, my point still stands...
I also need something metaphysical to 'answer' these kind of questions... My 'answer' would be 'a force' rather than 'a God' though, and I'm pretty sure science will, one day, fill those gasps.Quote:
Originally posted by Mankan
To give absolute answers to these kind of questions we need something metaphysical. A God that is so great that we cant/don't need to comprehend it/him.
True, very true...Quote:
Originally posted by RCGreen
All philosophy is dogma.
You can only decide which dogma you subscribeto.
To be "objective" or "undogmatic" is the negation of thought.
Everyone starts somewhere, with some basic assumptions, or dogma.
If you take your point of view, we all are making basic assumptions here. Some of us believe in scientific assumptions, some of us believe in God. For me, God is just too big of an assumption to start with...
Gold Eagle, I hope this also answered your question on my point of view...