Morality of Religions- Discussion thread

[rpant_gabba]

This thread is to discuss the morality of various belief systems

examples: some interpretations of manu dharma suggest that reincarnation/rebirth is necessary to move up social hierarchy

Ten commandments and mosaic law has silly things like prohibition of eating shrimp, all the while condone and encourage slavery.

eg. Exodus 21

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New International Version

“These are the laws you are to set before them: Hebrew Servants - “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with...

www.biblegateway.com

Than you have Xtiatiy claiming teaching os moses don't apply becos.. "insert your fav excuse here"

even though jesus said I've come to enforce laws of moses

>>>Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).<<

and of course there is more that follows this

state you case!

 

[ElRaja]

morality is a construct of sociological evolution, cultures which did not believe in core tenets of the sanctity of individual life and property descended into chaos or did not develop enough to compete against those that did. religions evolved to ensure that societal norms were codified in times before governments or the idea of a social contract, they further reduced chaos by standardising legal codes. this evolution is quite interesting, as initially it was seen as a contract between a local population and a local god to maintain the survival of a tribe, eventually, these concepts grew into the religions of today.

no religion has a unique core morality, as any morality that deviates from the core tenets of universal morality leads to chaotic societies, this is why satanism, the occult, and other alternative moralities can never have more than a few hundred local adherents, or a few thousand if dispersed among the general populace. the main difference in religions isnt the core morality, but the method of enacting it, i.e. via divine redemption, via karma, via divine mission, spiritual enlightenment, etc.

i think you should be a bit more specific in the question your looking to ask.

 

[rpant_gabba]

morality is a construct of sociological evolution, cultures which did not believe in core tenets of the sanctity of individual life and property descended into chaos or did not develop enough to compete against those that did. religions evolved to ensure that societal norms were codified in times before governments or the idea of a social contract, they further reduced chaos by standardising legal codes. this evolution is quite interesting, as initially it was seen as a contract between a local population and a local god to maintain the survival of a tribe, eventually, these concepts grew into the religions of today.

no religion has a unique core morality, as any morality that deviates from the core tenets of universal morality leads to chaotic societies, this is why satanism, the occult, and other alternative moralities can never have more than a few hundred local adherents, or a few thousand if dispersed among the general populace. the main difference in religions isnt the core morality, but the method of enacting it, i.e. via divine redemption, via karma, via divine mission, spiritual enlightenment, etc.

i think you should be a bit more specific in the question your looking to ask.

great post.

so what are you thoughts on

"objective morality is divinely ordained"

 

[ElRaja]

great post.

so what are you thoughts on

"objective morality is divinely ordained"

dont believe it, i dont have a problem with people believing in something beyond the observable universe, however if we are to define the divine as the zenith of all existance, both observable and beyond observation, i do not see that entity having any logical reason to be concerned with the minutiae of human social interaction.

even if we are to assume that some likelihood that may be true, especially the "common general" morality, then only in the sense that the divine set up "the rules of the game" in such a way that those central tenets of morality were a prerequisite to a functioning society, in that context there is no merit to any flavour of morality, nor anything special about divine morality, it's just a means to survive in the conditions we find ourselves in.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Not touching, not touching this thread !

 

[rpant_gabba]

I mean who doesn't see the parallels of some of the current world events to this.

read and enjoy the tap dancing here

The Amalekite genocide

One of the standard ways that the New Atheists attack Christianity is by using some of the Old Testament war passages to argue that God is violent and petty. One of the favourite passages for this …

thebriefing.com.au

 

[RexRex]

This thread is to discuss the morality of various belief systems

examples: some interpretations of manu dharma suggest that reincarnation/rebirth is necessary to move up social hierarchy

Ten commandments and mosaic law has silly things like prohibition of eating shrimp, all the while condone and encourage slavery.

eg. Exodus 21

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New International Version

“These are the laws you are to set before them: Hebrew Servants - “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with...

www.biblegateway.com

Than you have Xtiatiy claiming teaching os moses don't apply becos.. "insert your fav excuse here"

even though jesus said I've come to enforce laws of moses

>>>Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).<<

and of course there is more that follows this

state you case!

Nice thread.

By the way, I remember debating this very topic - 'objective morality' about 12 years ago on this forum with posters like James, Roberts, Momo and some others. How time flies! .. now i have to deal with a new generation of angry Dawkins apprentices

 

[rpant_gabba]

Nice thread.

By the way, I remember debating this very topic - objective morality - about 12 years ago on this forum with posters like James, Roberts, Momo and some others. How time flies! .. now i have to deal with a new generation of angry Dawkins apprentices

I remember James when he was big harvey.

that should give you a hint.

anyway, stay on topic. don't get distracted.

 

[KingKhanWC]

All religions have morality & logic issues, apart from Islam as it has divine , protected words of God himself .

 

[RexRex]

anyway. as I said, don't get distracted

since you have debated all this, should be easy one for you.

This clip is for you

 

[rpant_gabba]

This clip is for you

congratulations on your consistency.

anything on topic?

 

[rpant_gabba]

All religions have morality & logic issues, apart from Islam as it has divine , protected words of God himself .

help me understand.

is the islamic god the same is judeo christian god?

I think muslims consider jesus a prophet. how about moses?

 

[ElRaja]

help me understand.

is the islamic god the same is judeo christian god?

I think muslims consider jesus a prophet. how about moses?

islamic god is same as the god of judaism, and unitary Christians, not of non-unitary Christians. afaik.

 

[Stewie]

help me understand.

is the islamic god the same is judeo christian god?

I think muslims consider jesus a prophet. how about moses?

You don’t even know this basic concept of Islam or Abraham’s faiths and yet you go around passing judgment on religion Willy nilly.

I suggest you educate yourself on the basic tenets of the Abrahamic faiths, the commonalities and differences between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions before you go around debating with us. It’s an utter waste of time and a mockery the way you are trying to hold a philosophical debate about something you barely know or understand.

 

[rpant_gabba]

You don’t even know this basic concept of Islam or Abraham’s faiths and yet you go around passing judgment on religion Willy nilly.

I suggest you educate yourself on the basic tenets of the Abrahamic faiths, the commonalities and differences between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions before you go around debating with us. It’s an utter waste of time and a mockery the way you are trying to hold a philosophical debate about something you barely know or understand.

I get the sense all you are good for editorials. Don't want to derail the thread.

 

[Stewie]

I get the sense all you are good for editorials. Don't want to derail the thread.

And there is a reason why you are getting the editorial. You are not educated enough to jump the chapters to the end of the book and start having a decent debate on the topic.

First educate yourself on the status of Ibrahim, Musa, Daood Isa Alaassalam, their status in Islam, how we hold them all and their holy books and how they are basic tenets of our faith. Who are they and their books to us, if you don’t have that basic knowledge, are you selling pakoray here or what?

 

[rpant_gabba]

And there is a reason why you are getting the editorial. You are not educated enough to jump the chapters to the end of the book and start having a decent debate on the topic.

First educate yourself on the status of Ibrahim, Musa, Daood Isa Alaassalam, their status in Islam, how we hold them all and their holy books and how they are basic tenets of our faith. Who are they and their books to us, if you don’t have that basic knowledge, are you selling pakoray here or what?

Anyway, do share your thoughts on the morality of exodus 21, all loving god playing favorites, endorsing genocide, if old testament is irrelevant to xtians

my guess i you haven't thought about these issues or not happy with the implications.

try be on point for a change

 

[CricketCartoons]

islamic god is same as the god of judaism, and unitary Christians, not of non-unitary Christians. afaik.

How would you rate the acceptance of this thought among muslims, christians and jews in that order.

 

[CricketCartoons]

First educate yourself on the status of Ibrahim, Musa, Daood Isa Alaassalam, their status in Islam, how we hold them all and their holy books and how they are basic tenets of our faith. Who are they and their books to us, if you don’t have that basic knowledge, are you selling pakoray here or what?

Regarding Jesus, I have never seen muslims insult him. So there is truth that they consider him a prophet in the chain of prophets culminating in Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

However, I don't also see muslims ever protesting against mockery, insult, or cartoons of Jesus.

So fair to say Muslims have respect for Jesus, but are not emotional about him and see it as a Christian ownership of Jesus?

 

[Stewie]

Anyway, do share your thoughts on the morality of exodus 21, all loving god playing favorites, endorsing genocide, if old testament is irrelevant to xtians

my guess i you haven't thought about these issues or not happy with the implications.

try be on point for a change

Since I have to educate you, this will be a long post for someone with your attention span so hang on:

The Muslim tradition states that the previous books before the Quran (Torah, Zaboor and Injeel) have lost their true message and have been tainted and modified by man to suit their purpose over the ages. So we believe the books and what they say but we cannot speak to the authenticity of these books in their modern day day form. So as a Muslim, I can’t put much stock in it.
I can speak to the matter discussed in Exodus 21 from the Muslim perspective though which is derived from a Hadith (a quote of our Holy Prophet, verified through the ages) and its rough translation is that no man has superiority over another man whether he is an Arab or otherwise, except when the standard of piety is used.
Which means he has to have better “taqwa”, you can look up that word for more details.

secondly in Islam there is no concept of slavery and man is born free. Due to the common practices of slavery in those days, Muslim traders traded with slave owners and dealt with slaves and the Islamic law is very clear on how to treat them. The slavery as discussed in Islamic school of thought is not the sort of life of bondage that Africans have been subjected to till the abolishment in the USA around the civil war era. It’s more of a condition of service and slaves are accorded rights. There is no mention of taking Jews or Christians as slaves as mentioned in Exodus nor a mention of a max or min term to the best of my knowledge.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Since I have to educate you, this will be a long post for someone with your attention span so hang on:

The Muslim tradition states that the previous books before the Quran (Torah, Zaboor and Injeel) have lost their true message and have been tainted and modified by man to suit their purpose over the ages. So we believe the books and what they say but we cannot speak to the authenticity of these books in their modern day day form. So as a Muslim, I can’t put much stock in it.
I can speak to the matter discussed in Exodus 21 from the Muslim perspective though which is derived from a Hadith (a quote of our Holy Prophet, verified through the ages) and its rough translation is that no man has superiority over another man whether he is an Arab or otherwise, except when the standard of piety is used.
Which means he has to have better “taqwa”, you can look up that word for more details.

secondly in Islam there is no concept of slavery and man is born free. Due to the common practices of slavery in those days, Muslim traders traded with slave owners and dealt with slaves and the Islamic law is very clear on how to treat them. The slavery as discussed in Islamic school of thought is not the sort of life of bondage that Africans have been subjected to till the abolishment in the USA around the civil war era. It’s more of a condition of service and slaves are accorded rights. There is no mention of taking Jews or Christians as slaves as mentioned in Exodus nor a mention of a max or min term to the best of my knowledge.

Exodus mentioning xtians? I'm no expert but I think timeline might be an issue there.

what is your take on the morality of "good book" prescribing slavery and providing tricks to own a slave and his children forever

are those passages divinely inspired?

 

[Stewie]

Exodus mentioning xtians? I'm no expert but I think timeline might be an issue there.

what is your take on the morality of "good book" prescribing slavery and providing tricks to own a slave and his children forever

are those passages divinely inspired?

I meant in Quran, there is no mention. And Islam does not preach any tricks to own a slave so any teachings contrary to our beliefs mentioned in the books of Judaism and Christianity are not considered a divine word of God. Those are the man made additions in those books according to Islamic traditions

 

[rpant_gabba]

I meant in Quran, there is no mention.

fair.

And Islam does not preach any tricks to own a slave so any teachings contrary to our beliefs mentioned in the books of Judaism and Christianity are not considered a divine word of God. Those are the man made additions in those books according to Islamic traditions

ok. how does one differentiate between manmade additions and divinely inspired?

% wise, how much is manmade IYO.

 

[Stewie]

fair.

ok. how does one differentiate between manmade additions and divinely inspired?

% wise, how much is manmade IYO.

I am nowhere educated enough to speak on that subject.

If you want the accurate or precise answer from Islam’s perspective you have to be a scholar of all four books to be able to identify the teachings of the other three books that go against the teachings of the Quran to make that determination. Only a muslim
Scholar of comparative religion can give you a definitive answer. There might be studies out there on the subject but off hand I have absolutely zero idea.

From what I have personally read there are commonalities such as the ancient biblical stories of Adam, and other holy men through the ages who are all prophets in the Islamic tradition and they are all very similar across the books with some variances.

Islam recognizes that God sent 124,000 prophets on mankind including Muhammed PBUH and they are not all identified in the Quran. The more well known ones are of course Adam, Ibrahim, youssef, younis, yaqub, Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), Lut, Nuh (Noah), Idris, ismail, ishaq, daoud (David), Salman and their stories across books are very similar with some differences.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Morality's origin is not divine. It is a product of the cultural norms of its times, and even then it is not homogenous and differs from culture to culture.

In the past religion shaped culture, so in a way it also influenced morality, but as societies evolved, secular frameworks evolved and influence of religion diminished, morality has been decoupled from religion.

Slavery was ok few centuries ago.

Who knows in a century people would judge our times for having domestic help whom we pay pittance with no job security.

 

[Red-Indian]

This thread is to discuss the morality of various belief systems

examples: some interpretations of manu dharma suggest that reincarnation/rebirth is necessary to move up social hierarchy

Ten commandments and mosaic law has silly things like prohibition of eating shrimp, all the while condone and encourage slavery.

eg. Exodus 21

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New International Version

“These are the laws you are to set before them: Hebrew Servants - “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with...

www.biblegateway.com

Than you have Xtiatiy claiming teaching os moses don't apply becos.. "insert your fav excuse here"

even though jesus said I've come to enforce laws of moses

>>>Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).<<

and of course there is more that follows this

state you case!

I struggle with the concept of a self evident morality or divine morality. I believe that morality is just the core instinct of all life to survive and propagate codified into rules/guidelines for human society.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I am nowhere educated enough to speak on that subject.

If you want the accurate or precise answer from Islam’s perspective you have to be a scholar of all four books to be able to identify the teachings of the other three books that go against the teachings of the Quran to make that determination. Only a muslim
Scholar of comparative religion can give you a definitive answer. There might be studies out there on the subject but off hand I have absolutely zero idea.

From what I have personally read there are commonalities such as the ancient biblical stories of Adam, and other holy men through the ages who are all prophets in the Islamic tradition and they are all very similar across the books with some variances.

Islam recognizes that God sent 124,000 prophets on mankind including Muhammed PBUH and they are not all identified in the Quran. The more well known ones are of course Adam, Ibrahim, youssef, younis, yaqub, Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), Lut, Nuh (Noah), Idris, ismail, ishaq, daoud (David), Salman and their stories across books are very similar with some differences.

so why is there some deference to people of "the book" in islamic traditions even though there is quite a bit of vile crap in "the book" with no objective way to decipher waht was divine and what was manmade in "the book"

I could be wrong about he deference part, it as something @KingKhanWC mentioned in the past

 

[DeadlyVenom]

How would you rate the acceptance of this thought among muslims, christians and jews in that order.

97% acceptance rate amongst Muslims
93% acceptance amongst Jews
47% amongst Christians.

 

[ElRaja]

How would you rate the acceptance of this thought among muslims, christians and jews in that order.

learned muslims id say would unanimously accept this, however less learned Muslims assume that the non-unitarian god is the same too.

christians im not sure, because i havnt ever really studied the theology, but given non-unitarian denominations are the majority id assume they believe that given jews and Muslims dont believe in Jesus as god they are not worshipping the same entity.

learned jews accept this view, they see Muslims as the "ishmalite" branch of judaism, whereas they are the "isralite" branch, however given both uncle and nephew prayed to the same god, essentially both religions worship the same god.

 

[Stewie]

so why is there some deference to people of "the book" in islamic traditions even though there is quite a bit of vile crap in "the book" with no objective way to decipher waht was divine and what was manmade in "the book"

I could be wrong about he deference part, it as something @KingKhanWC mentioned in the past

Because they are still people of the book and not pagans or polytheists would be my guess.

Islam is considered the continuation of God’s religion that continued with Judaism and Christianity so while there are some deviations and differences, they are branches of the same faith and hence our association.

 

[Stewie]

islamic god is same as the god of judaism, and unitary Christians, not of non-unitary Christians. afaik.

My perception is it is the same God. Because the message has been diluted and changed form over the years, does not mean it’s a different God. Yeah they brought in the concept of the trinity and all that but it doesn’t change the God they worship.

 

[ElRaja]

My perception is it is the same God. Because the message has been diluted and changed form over the years, does not mean it’s a different God. Yeah they brought in the concept of the trinity and all that but it doesn’t change the God they worship.

im no expert in christian theology, but afaik they worship all three, the father, the son and the holy ghost individually and as one. there can be an argument that the father of the trinity is the god of the jews and the Muslims, however when the creed explicitly states that the god head is a trinity, and that you cannot separate one from the other, and that jesus is god, then I dont think you can explicitly say they are worshipping the same god as the jews or muslims within the framework of their creed.

jews and Muslims on the other hand, despite all their differences, explicitly agree that they worship an omnipotent, omniscient entity, the god of Abraham, singular, without any son, or human avatar. what i speak is purely my opinion though, im no expert on the matter.

 

[Stewie]

im no expert in christian theology, but afaik they worship all three, the father, the son and the holy ghost individually and as one. there can be an argument that the father of the trinity is the god of the jews and the Muslims, however when the creed explicitly states that the god head is a trinity, and that you cannot separate one from the other, and that jesus is god, then I dont think you can explicitly say they are worshipping the same god as the jews or muslims within the framework of their creed.

jews and Muslims on the other hand, despite all their differences, explicitly agree that they worship an omnipotent, omniscient entity, the god of Abraham, singular, without any son, or human avatar. what i speak is purely my opinion though, im no expert on the matter.

Well I think that’s why they are Christians and then Jews and Muslims or else we will all be the same. Christians do commit “shirk” when they include Isa with God but that does not change the fact the entity they are worshipping as “God” is the one God Muslims and Jews worship

 

[rpant_gabba]

Because they are still people of the book and not pagans or polytheists would be my guess.

Islam is considered the continuation of God’s religion that continued with Judaism and Christianity so while there are some deviations and differences, they are branches of the same faith and hence our association.

bit of an interesting take on things.

the people of the book believed god encouraged genocide, slavery and more, while banning eating shrimp. What aspects of paganism and polytheism in the 7th century was worse than that?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Because they are still people of the book and not pagans or polytheists would be my guess.

Islam is considered the continuation of God’s religion that continued with Judaism and Christianity so while there are some deviations and differences, they are branches of the same faith and hence our association.

Jews and Christian Gods is El or Yahweh.

Muslims worship Allah. So not the same God.

They all claim to be monotheistic and follow Abrahamic traditions. Outside of worshipping one God, there is very less similarity between all the three.

The biggest difference is that Muslims don’t worship Yahweh. There ends the story.

 

[Bhaijaan]

True Sanatanis have always been truth seekers and not blind believers. This is why intellectually speaking we have always been class apart from other religion who were formed ages later in the basis of force and blind worshiping.

 

[Stewie]

bit of an interesting take on things.

the people of the book believed god encouraged genocide, slavery and more, while banning eating shrimp. What aspects of paganism and polytheism in the 7th century was worse than that?

That’s conjecture at best. Maybe provide some evidence of what you are stating. What makes you believe people of the book encouraged those evils and other religions promoted better values?

 

[Stewie]

Jews and Christian Gods is El or Yahweh.

Muslims worship Allah. So not the same God.

They all claim to be monotheistic and follow Abrahamic traditions. Outside of worshipping one God, there is very less similarity between all the three.

The biggest difference is that Muslims don’t worship Yahweh. There ends the story.

Categorically false. You need to study scholarly articles on the matter. The names and their origins don’t matter. Yahweh, El, Allah, Jehovah they all have their own etymology but widely accepted to be the same God, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob AS preached His word that was carried forward by Isa AS and Muhammed PBUH

 

[Red-Indian]

bit of an interesting take on things.

the people of the book believed god encouraged genocide, slavery and more, while banning eating shrimp. What aspects of paganism and polytheism in the 7th century was worse than that?

From what I can see, according to the monotheistic religions, the main crime of paganism and polytheism was worshipping many gods and essentially a different god. Every religion's imagined god first and foremost tries to secure their primacy. The first commandment, the main Muslim catechism (La illaha...) are all oriented towards that. Since the religions mainly wanted to solidify their base, all other crimes were relatively smaller. They could always find excuses for slavery, murder etc. as long you were willing to give up all the other gods.

 

[RexRex]

All religions have morality & logic issues, apart from Islam as it has divine , protected words of God himself .

Incorrect.

 

[RexRex]

Jews and Christian Gods is El or Yahweh.

Muslims worship Allah. So not the same God.

They all claim to be monotheistic and follow Abrahamic traditions. Outside of worshipping one God, there is very less similarity between all the three.

The biggest difference is that Muslims don’t worship Yahweh. There ends the story.

Like you said, the only real similiarity between the 3 religions is they all believe in montheism i.e the concept of one God.

> Christians and Jews think Prophet Mohammed read the bible and based on that made up his own religion.
> Jews think that Jesus Christ was just an ordinary man, not the son of God like Christians claim.

Speculating whether it's all the same God is pointless.

 

[RexRex]

I believe that morality is just the core instinct of all life to survive and propagate codified into rules/guidelines for human society.

The logical extension of believing that is Darwinism - survival of the fittest. We might as well get rid of all the eldery and disabled people in the world who will be nothing but a burden to the more stronger of the species. They serve no purpose in world driven by subjective morality.

 

[Red-Indian]

The logical extension of believing that is Darwinism - survival of the fittest. We might as well get rid of all the eldery and disabled people in the world who will be nothing but a burden to the more stronger of the species. They serve no purpose in world driven by subjective morality.

That's a pretty childish interpretation of Darwinism. I'm guessing you're still a young guy and haven't thought this stuff through.

There's plenty of reading material on how biology has driven the development of human (and to be fair, animal) morality. I hate to throw out a book whose author triggers a lot of religious folks but 'The Selfish Gene' when I first read it in 1999 was the simplest and clearest exploration of this theory. There's much more detailed elucidation available and of course, there's still plenty left to explore and explain even today but it's pretty brilliant book for beginners.

 

[RexRex]

I'm guessing you're still a young guy and haven't thought this stuff through.

Thanks for the condescension lol. I'm in my late 30s so not exactly young.

I know about his books. I've seen countless debates of Dawkins when he burst into real fame with his book 'The God Delusion'. He is actually one of the worst representatives of athiesm out there, his reasoning is poor and he argues emotionally rather than with a cool head.

Anyway, you've ignored my question about the eldery and disabled. Another example would be the Nazis. How would you disagree with the Holocaust if you don't believe in objective morality ? You can't, it wouldn't make any sense because the Nazis certainly thought what they were doing was moral.

 

[Red-Indian]

Thanks for the condescension lol. I'm in my late 30s so not exactly young.

I know about his books. I've seen countless debates of Dawkins when he burst into real fame with his book 'The God Delusion'. He is actually one of the worst representatives of athiesm out there, his reasoning is poor and he argues emotionally rather than with a cool head.

Anyway, you've ignored my question about the eldery and disabled. Another example would be the Nazis. How would you disagree with the Holocaust if you don't believe in objective morality ? You can't, it wouldn't make any sense because the Nazis certainly thought what they were doing was moral.

Sorry if you felt condescended to. As I approach fifty in age and eighty in cynicism, all of you fervent, passionate guys seem young to me.

I was the same as you (just coming from the other side) in my twenties and thirties where I was convinced that in every debate, I had the one incredible question/argument that would stump the other side and force them to concede the debate.

I think the question you're asking is how to derive ethics and altruism out of the survival instinct. If you don't want to read the books, I'll try to put it in my own imperfect words. Human (and animal) survival instinct has evolved (I mean that term scientifically) over the millions of years to reflect survival of the species or the gene line. Several animals demonstrate learnings from this.
The matriarch elephant guards and guides the whole herd including the aged but especially the young even they they are just her own.
Vampire bats share blood with sick roost companions

Humans have been able to take this one step further in most cases realising that survival of the species can best be guaranteed by establishing a culture that takes care of even the weakest in it where possible (though of course the weakest are always sacrificed first in a crisis). All religions have done is copied and codified this realisation.

 

[Stewie]

From what I can see, according to the monotheistic religions, the main crime of paganism and polytheism was worshipping many gods and essentially a different god. Every religion's imagined god first and foremost tries to secure their primacy. The first commandment, the main Muslim catechism (La illaha...) are all oriented towards that. Since the religions mainly wanted to solidify their base, all other crimes were relatively smaller. They could always find excuses for slavery, murder etc. as long you were willing to give up all the other gods.

Yes and no, you have provided a very oversimplification. Give me time and I will write an answer that I hope you will understand and agree with

 

[Stewie]

From what I can see, according to the monotheistic religions, the main crime of paganism and polytheism was worshipping many gods and essentially a different god. Every religion's imagined god first and foremost tries to secure their primacy. The first commandment, the main Muslim catechism (La illaha...) are all oriented towards that. Since the religions mainly wanted to solidify their base, all other crimes were relatively smaller. They could always find excuses for slavery, murder etc. as long you were willing to give up all the other gods.

So let us tackle this question from a purely academic angle and not from any religious or non-reigious bias. Once again, this post will require some patience from those who don't have strong and long attention spans. I will try to connect the dots for you without trying to portray one religion as the absolute truth over the rest, and hopefully, even tackle it from the athiest's angle.

But more importantly, I would like to keep matters in perspective here because this thread definitely 100 percent positively has an agenda. I don't want us to lose sight of why these questions are being asked (you need only see who started this thread and the line of questions that has been raised), so here goes:

The morality of religion will always be questioned. Humankind has evolved over thousands of years regardless of what some people believe to be true about our origins, history and past. The definitions of what was considered righteous or normal have also changed over the years and so have the virtues of morality and ethics. I will always defend the point that religion has been at the forefront of setting the standards for morality and ethics and humankind has needed that guiding hand, whether you believe any religion to be divinely ordained or not is not the point in my argument. Its inconsquential. With the modern day "evolved" humanity, its easy to walk into the trap of arguing "Well, I know very well its not ok to lie and steal and kill, I never needed religion in my life for me to know how to live my life and to decide right from wrong".
But let us not confuse that mankind in the past never had that "evolved" thinking. There was no modern governance and law and order. Whether you believe there is a higher power sitting up there who decided to send us guidance from time to time or not, you simply cannot deny a guiding hand was needed. Now it does not matter to me if you think these holy men or messengers in the history of mankind were simply men thinking they can come up with this stuff like cult figures of today to spread their message for the betterment of mankind or not, that they used the deception of God to spread their message and convince people...... what I want to prove to you is that it was needed.

So the larger point is: Mankind will always need a structure and guiding hand to lead it through the ages and it struggled and would have crumbled in the absence of any such structure. I believe there was a debate here on the separation of church and state in the US and I argued the point that most US laws are still derived from religion and I think in light of my comments so far, you will probably start to see what exactly I have meant by that.

Now let us go back to the question of paganism/polytheism vs monotheistic or Abrahamic religions. What were the flaws or aspects of the former is the question raised by @rpant_gabba and how was the answer found in Abrahamic faiths?

Paganism or polotheism brought various deities to the table. People picked a diety and worshipped it either based on their preference, needs, profession, insert whatever reason here. There is a god of fertility, agriculture, sea, revenge, and etc, etc, etc. They are all disparate, sometimes disconnected and provided conflicting messages. Not exactly the sort of stuff if you want a structure and organization to humanity and society. Monotheistic religions tended to bring everyone to the same table and standardized a lot of this stuff... once agains its irrelevant if you believe that to be a divine move or human machination. So this fundamental difference in theeology is just one point in the debate which I believe is more important than the rest of the divergence.

Now, if I were to speak about other flaws of a paganistic society, I will point to the situation in the Arab world prior to Islam because thats where I am most read. The pre-Isalmic Arab society was in disarray. Women had no rights. Infanticide was normal. Then there are other attributes which have evolved over time and are probably not looked down upon by humanity anymore, such as drunkeness, engaging in drugs, polyamory, homosexuality, prostitution, etc which created other challenges in those days that can probably not be a big deal now. I would say spread of STDs, questions of paternity, protection of women, are only a few such examples that probably are no longer viewed as challenges today.

Other challenges included the lack of a central government or little to no framework of law. For reference, I am going to use a completely neutral source here that describes some of these conditions: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...r/culture-and-religion-in-pre-islamic-arabia/ ... hoping this will protect my against allegations of pro Islam bias here. But if you are interested you can research and I am sure find all my claims regarding pre-Islamic arabia to be justified through independent and neutral sources.

In short, I would say the flexibility in views we have today and in this modern age was never the case in human society through the ages and what you might consider ok such as homosexuality, polyamory, etc resulted in societal challenges that monotheistic religions tried to counter with their well defined framework.

If you believe Abrahamic faiths to be divinely ordained, you can argue the guidance was adjusted by the Almighty based on the changing norms of humanity and were sent on humanity to assist in its evolution and not to get them to transform overnight. So the message was sent gradually, addressing the political and social zeitgeist and conditions of the era with a goal to providing structure.

I am sure the Indian posters here will argue that the Hindu society operated without these challenges and did not need the monotheistic guidance. But its one of those debates that I personally cannot counter since I don't have much knowledge of Hindusm except what I have read here and there. One issue I do see is the caste system based on profession and how that did not truly provide for any equal rights for all within a society. One can argue that has changed over time though. But what did I know? I just tried to make sense of the question in light of what I know as a Muslim and a human being and tried to rationalize to the best of my ability. Hopefully this is not taken as a slight on polytheism or atheism.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

True Sanatanis have always been truth seekers and not blind believers. This is why intellectually speaking we have always been class apart from other religion who were formed ages later in the basis of force and blind worshiping.

Describe true sanatanis.

 

[Stewie]

Describe true sanatanis.

They only listen to Carlos Santana

 

[Champ_Pal]

Like you said, the only real similiarity between the 3 religions is they all believe in montheism i.e the concept of one God.

> Christians and Jews think Prophet Mohammed read the bible and based on that made up his own religion.
> Jews think that Jesus Christ was just an ordinary man, not the son of God like Christians claim.

Speculating whether it's all the same God is pointless.

All 3 are monotheistic but accuse each other of Polytheism. They also cannot agree up on who the actual God is and what his attributes are.

If you have some time, please read about the original Cananite religion and its God "EL". They were Polytheists.

The God El had a wife Ashara. They had two sons, Yahweh and Ba'al. At some point, Jews made the storm God Yahweh as the only God. They made El and Yahweh the same. Ba'al worship was banned.

From Polytheistic cult of EL, it became Monotheistic cult of Yahweh.

This is why just saying they are monotheistic is pointless. Even Sikhism and Zoroastrianism are Monotheistic. That does not mean they are Abrahamic.

 

[Stewie]

All 3 are monotheistic but accuse each other of Polytheism. They also cannot agree up on who the actual God is and what his attributes are.

If you have some time, please read about the original Cananite religion and its God "EL". They were Polytheists.

The God El had a wife Ashara. They had two sons, Yahweh and Ba'al. At some point, Jews made the storm God Yahweh as the only God. They made El and Yahweh the same. Ba'al worship was banned.

From Polytheistic cult of EL, it became Monotheistic cult of Yahweh.

This is why just saying they are monotheistic is pointless. Even Sikhism and Zoroastrianism are Monotheistic. That does not mean they are Abrahamic.

Can you provide me some reference where Jews and Muslims are accusing each other of polytheism? As far as I can tell there is zero truth in that statement.

 

[sweep_shot]

All 3 are monotheistic but accuse each other of Polytheism. They also cannot agree up on who the actual God is and what his attributes are.

If you have some time, please read about the original Cananite religion and its God "EL". They were Polytheists.

The God El had a wife Ashara. They had two sons, Yahweh and Ba'al. At some point, Jews made the storm God Yahweh as the only God. They made El and Yahweh the same. Ba'al worship was banned.

From Polytheistic cult of EL, it became Monotheistic cult of Yahweh.

This is why just saying they are monotheistic is pointless. Even Sikhism and Zoroastrianism are Monotheistic. That does not mean they are Abrahamic.

Not sure where you got all these from. These are not true.

 

[Red-Indian]

So let us tackle this question from a purely academic angle and not from any religious or non-reigious bias. Once again, this post will require some patience from those who don't have strong and long attention spans. I will try to connect the dots for you without trying to portray one religion as the absolute truth over the rest, and hopefully, even tackle it from the athiest's angle.

But more importantly, I would like to keep matters in perspective here because this thread definitely 100 percent positively has an agenda. I don't want us to lose sight of why these questions are being asked (you need only see who started this thread and the line of questions that has been raised), so here goes:

The morality of religion will always be questioned. Humankind has evolved over thousands of years regardless of what some people believe to be true about our origins, history and past. The definitions of what was considered righteous or normal have also changed over the years and so have the virtues of morality and ethics. I will always defend the point that religion has been at the forefront of setting the standards for morality and ethics and humankind has needed that guiding hand, whether you believe any religion to be divinely ordained or not is not the point in my argument. Its inconsquential. With the modern day "evolved" humanity, its easy to walk into the trap of arguing "Well, I know very well its not ok to lie and steal and kill, I never needed religion in my life for me to know how to live my life and to decide right from wrong".
But let us not confuse that mankind in the past never had that "evolved" thinking. There was no modern governance and law and order. Whether you believe there is a higher power sitting up there who decided to send us guidance from time to time or not, you simply cannot deny a guiding hand was needed. Now it does not matter to me if you think these holy men or messengers in the history of mankind were simply men thinking they can come up with this stuff like cult figures of today to spread their message for the betterment of mankind or not, that they used the deception of God to spread their message and convince people...... what I want to prove to you is that it was needed.

So the larger point is: Mankind will always need a structure and guiding hand to lead it through the ages and it struggled and would have crumbled in the absence of any such structure. I believe there was a debate here on the separation of church and state in the US and I argued the point that most US laws are still derived from religion and I think in light of my comments so far, you will probably start to see what exactly I have meant by that.

Now let us go back to the question of paganism/polytheism vs monotheistic or Abrahamic religions. What were the flaws or aspects of the former is the question raised by @rpant_gabba and how was the answer found in Abrahamic faiths?

Paganism or polotheism brought various deities to the table. People picked a diety and worshipped it either based on their preference, needs, profession, insert whatever reason here. There is a god of fertility, agriculture, sea, revenge, and etc, etc, etc. They are all disparate, sometimes disconnected and provided conflicting messages. Not exactly the sort of stuff if you want a structure and organization to humanity and society. Monotheistic religions tended to bring everyone to the same table and standardized a lot of this stuff... once agains its irrelevant if you believe that to be a divine move or human machination. So this fundamental difference in theeology is just one point in the debate which I believe is more important than the rest of the divergence.

Now, if I were to speak about other flaws of a paganistic society, I will point to the situation in the Arab world prior to Islam because thats where I am most read. The pre-Isalmic Arab society was in disarray. Women had no rights. Infanticide was normal. Then there are other attributes which have evolved over time and are probably not looked down upon by humanity anymore, such as drunkeness, engaging in drugs, polyamory, homosexuality, prostitution, etc which created other challenges in those days that can probably not be a big deal now. I would say spread of STDs, questions of paternity, protection of women, are only a few such examples that probably are no longer viewed as challenges today.

Other challenges included the lack of a central government or little to no framework of law. For reference, I am going to use a completely neutral source here that describes some of these conditions: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...r/culture-and-religion-in-pre-islamic-arabia/ ... hoping this will protect my against allegations of pro Islam bias here. But if you are interested you can research and I am sure find all my claims regarding pre-Islamic arabia to be justified through independent and neutral sources.

In short, I would say the flexibility in views we have today and in this modern age was never the case in human society through the ages and what you might consider ok such as homosexuality, polyamory, etc resulted in societal challenges that monotheistic religions tried to counter with their well defined framework.

If you believe Abrahamic faiths to be divinely ordained, you can argue the guidance was adjusted by the Almighty based on the changing norms of humanity and were sent on humanity to assist in its evolution and not to get them to transform overnight. So the message was sent gradually, addressing the political and social zeitgeist and conditions of the era with a goal to providing structure.

I am sure the Indian posters here will argue that the Hindu society operated without these challenges and did not need the monotheistic guidance. But its one of those debates that I personally cannot counter since I don't have much knowledge of Hindusm except what I have read here and there. One issue I do see is the caste system based on profession and how that did not truly provide for any equal rights for all within a society. One can argue that has changed over time though. But what did I know? I just tried to make sense of the question in light of what I know as a Muslim and a human being and tried to rationalize to the best of my ability. Hopefully this is not taken as a slight on polytheism or atheism.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm going to take the time later in my day to write a thoughtful response and (part) rebuttal.

I do have to point out though that you didn't contradict my main point in any way. The primary moral principle of every monotheistic religious is belief in their particular god. All other morality - whether do not steal, do not kill etc. is secondary. This is because while a secondary objective is to advance morality, the primary objective is to solidify and propagate the religion itself.

 

[Red-Indian]

MoSo let us tackle this question from a purely academic angle and not from any religious or non-reigious bias. Once again, this post will require some patience from those who don't have strong and long attention spans. I will try to connect the dots for you without trying to portray one religion as the absolute truth over the rest, and hopefully, even tackle it from the athiest's angle.

But more importantly, I would like to keep matters in perspective here because this thread definitely 100 percent positively has an agenda. I don't want us to lose sight of why these questions are being asked (you need only see who started this thread and the line of questions that has been raised), so here goes:

The morality of religion will always be questioned. Humankind has evolved over thousands of years regardless of what some people believe to be true about our origins, history and past. The definitions of what was considered righteous or normal have also changed over the years and so have the virtues of morality and ethics. I will always defend the point that religion has been at the forefront of setting the standards for morality and ethics and humankind has needed that guiding hand, whether you believe any religion to be divinely ordained or not is not the point in my argument. Its inconsquential. With the modern day "evolved" humanity, its easy to walk into the trap of arguing "Well, I know very well its not ok to lie and steal and kill, I never needed religion in my life for me to know how to live my life and to decide right from wrong".
But let us not confuse that mankind in the past never had that "evolved" thinking. There was no modern governance and law and order. Whether you believe there is a higher power sitting up there who decided to send us guidance from time to time or not, you simply cannot deny a guiding hand was needed. Now it does not matter to me if you think these holy men or messengers in the history of mankind were simply men thinking they can come up with this stuff like cult figures of today to spread their message for the betterment of mankind or not, that they used the deception of God to spread their message and convince people...... what I want to prove to you is that it was needed.

So the larger point is: Mankind will always need a structure and guiding hand to lead it through the ages and it struggled and would have crumbled in the absence of any such structure. I believe there was a debate here on the separation of church and state in the US and I argued the point that most US laws are still derived from religion and I think in light of my comments so far, you will probably start to see what exactly I have meant by that.

Now let us go back to the question of paganism/polytheism vs monotheistic or Abrahamic religions. What were the flaws or aspects of the former is the question raised by @rpant_gabba and how was the answer found in Abrahamic faiths?

Paganism or polotheism brought various deities to the table. People picked a diety and worshipped it either based on their preference, needs, profession, insert whatever reason here. There is a god of fertility, agriculture, sea, revenge, and etc, etc, etc. They are all disparate, sometimes disconnected and provided conflicting messages. Not exactly the sort of stuff if you want a structure and organization to humanity and society. Monotheistic religions tended to bring everyone to the same table and standardized a lot of this stuff... once agains its irrelevant if you believe that to be a divine move or human machination. So this fundamental difference in theeology is just one point in the debate which I believe is more important than the rest of the divergence.

Now, if I were to speak about other flaws of a paganistic society, I will point to the situation in the Arab world prior to Islam because thats where I am most read. The pre-Isalmic Arab society was in disarray. Women had no rights. Infanticide was normal. Then there are other attributes which have evolved over time and are probably not looked down upon by humanity anymore, such as drunkeness, engaging in drugs, polyamory, homosexuality, prostitution, etc which created other challenges in those days that can probably not be a big deal now. I would say spread of STDs, questions of paternity, protection of women, are only a few such examples that probably are no longer viewed as challenges today.

Other challenges included the lack of a central government or little to no framework of law. For reference, I am going to use a completely neutral source here that describes some of these conditions: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...r/culture-and-religion-in-pre-islamic-arabia/ ... hoping this will protect my against allegations of pro Islam bias here. But if you are interested you can research and I am sure find all my claims regarding pre-Islamic arabia to be justified through independent and neutral sources.

In short, I would say the flexibility in views we have today and in this modern age was never the case in human society through the ages and what you might consider ok such as homosexuality, polyamory, etc resulted in societal challenges that monotheistic religions tried to counter with their well defined framework.

If you believe Abrahamic faiths to be divinely ordained, you can argue the guidance was adjusted by the Almighty based on the changing norms of humanity and were sent on humanity to assist in its evolution and not to get them to transform overnight. So the message was sent gradually, addressing the political and social zeitgeist and conditions of the era with a goal to providing structure.

I am sure the Indian posters here will argue that the Hindu society operated without these challenges and did not need the monotheistic guidance. But its one of those debates that I personally cannot counter since I don't have much knowledge of Hindusm except what I have read here and there. One issue I do see is the caste system based on profession and how that did not truly provide for any equal rights for all within a society. One can argue that has changed over time though. But what did I know? I just tried to make sense of the question in light of what I know as a Muslim and a human being and tried to rationalize to the best of my ability. Hopefully this is not taken as a slight on polytheism or atheism.

Let me start by saying I agree with most of what you postulate...the sky guy benevolently guiding us excluded of course.

As I've grown older and less fervent in my atheism, I've come to realise that while religions have certainly impeded human progress and held humanity back, they've also contributed structure, order and guardrails to human society.

The best religions in my opinion (and I consider Islam one of the better ones) essentially take accepted wisdom among the 'enlightened' of their time - simplify and codify it, add a god of their choice and take it to the masses. For example, if treating women and slaves badly was prevalent at the time, a good religion would say 'treat them well. Don't beat them unless they really deserve it.' Of course, as you say, religions can't run too far ahead of accepted social norms of the time. They're not going to say 'it's completely unethical to own slaves.' After all, gaining popularity and influence is the primary goal of any religion. Improving social conditions and public morality is a nice side-effect at best.

Of course the corollary of religion being a nice way to convey and enforce contemporaneous morality standards is that they eventually fall behind them and start actually holding back developments in moral thought. A religion that was cutting edge for it's time becomes outdated. Yes they often have reform movements - Protestantism in Christianity, Bhakti movement in Hinduism etc. but they're unpredictable and often happen way after the need arises.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say polytheist religions aren't as viable as tools any more. The 'god of the gaps' needed today works better when you have a fuzzy, indefinable, all-powerful god rather than a god of lightning, wind etc....all of which natural phenomenon have been demystified by science. It may interest you to know that modern interpretations of Hinduism are trending monotheistic - all the various smaller gods as manifestations of the one supreme 'Brahman' though that's neither here nor there.

All this is to say religions whether polytheistic or monotheistic have been useful tools and probably are still useful today though less than you think. Atheists haven't run off to start stealing and fornicating in the open just because they don't have the fear of eternal damnation hanging over them. The largest atheist nation in history - China has done a solid job (in my opinion, too solid) of enforcing a moral and philosophical societal structure without the supporting crutch of religion. Common sense and logic is substituting just fine.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Not sure where you got all these from. These are not true.

It is Canaanite religion that Jews took. Read up on that.

 

[Stewie]

It is Canaanite religion that Jews took. Read up on that.

categorically false. If you make a claim, use some credible references to prove your point or else they are just whimsical claims.

Just to shed some light on where I suspect you are coming from: The word for God in English is "God", in Urdu it is "Khuda", in Hindi it is "Bhagwan", in Arabic its "Allah" but these are simply names for the same concept of a higher power.

If I understand correctly even in Hinduism, all the dieties derive their power from a singular Almighty Power, who can be referred to as Bhagwan. But these are just names. If I mention God, I am not referring to a different Almight than Allah.

So let us not confuse this concept. In ancient Hebrew, El OR in Arabic Allat, are names for God. But if you really want to drill down to the origins you will discover the ABRAHAMIC FAITHS have the same "God" regardless of the terms historically used and when you ask why, I will point you to the books of all these faiths and the stories therein, which in the western world are referred to as the Biblical stories. They all accept Adam as the first man and father of mankind., Eve or Hawa as the mother. They all believe in the holy men with more or less the same stories.

So stop spreading oversimplifications based on the terms used for God, their origins are very distinctive, just like a Hindu saying "Bahgwan" or a Muslim saying "Bhagwan" may not mean the same thing.

 

[Stewie]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm going to take the time later in my day to write a thoughtful response and (part) rebuttal.

I do have to point out though that you didn't contradict my main point in any way. The primary moral principle of every monotheistic religious is belief in their particular god. All other morality - whether do not steal, do not kill etc. is secondary. This is because while a secondary objective is to advance morality, the primary objective is to solidify and propagate the religion itself.

I think if you read carefully, I alluded to the primary concepts and considerations behind at least the Abrahamic faiths and they are not just "belief in the singular God or Abraham's God", the concept was to provide a codified structure. For instance the ten commandments, or the scripture it gave the most well defined structure in all the various faiths and religions humans have had, and it tried to actually justify or reason the message and commandments of God. You can look at ancient Greek, Roman, Norse, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist and all the various mythologies and religions and you wont find that common thread of structure, reason, practical application in any of those.

It is like the concept of franchise or following a certain standard. You may feel its restrictive and rigid but it gives a set of standards to humanity to work off. To me that is the primary principle. If it claims you have to "believe in our particular God, it gives you the justification and reasoning for it as well".

At least that is my view and you may feel it comes with a tingle or truckload of bias.. upto you but there it is.

 

[Champ_Pal]

categorically false. If you make a claim, use some credible references to prove your point or else they are just whimsical claims.

Just to shed some light on where I suspect you are coming from: The word for God in English is "God", in Urdu it is "Khuda", in Hindi it is "Bhagwan", in Arabic its "Allah" but these are simply names for the same concept of a higher power.

If I understand correctly even in Hinduism, all the dieties derive their power from a singular Almighty Power, who can be referred to as Bhagwan. But these are just names. If I mention God, I am not referring to a different Almight than Allah.

So let us not confuse this concept. In ancient Hebrew, El OR in Arabic Allat, are names for God. But if you really want to drill down to the origins you will discover the ABRAHAMIC FAITHS have the same "God" regardless of the terms historically used and when you ask why, I will point you to the books of all these faiths and the stories therein, which in the western world are referred to as the Biblical stories. They all accept Adam as the first man and father of mankind., Eve or Hawa as the mother. They all believe in the holy men with more or less the same stories.

So stop spreading oversimplifications based on the terms used for God, their origins are very distinctive, just like a Hindu saying "Bahgwan" or a Muslim saying "Bhagwan" may not mean the same thing.

You are parroting what you are taught by your religion.

I am talking about the original Canaanite religion that Jews took their God El aka Yahweh from.

I am not talking about what God or Bhagwan or Khuda means. Its irrelevant to what I posted.

Islam is very new to this Canaanite religion. It added its own twist like how Christians did 600 years prior and Jews did a thousand years prior to the arrival of Islam.

 

[Stewie]

Let me start by saying I agree with most of what you postulate...the sky guy benevolently guiding us excluded of course.

As I've grown older and less fervent in my atheism, I've come to realise that while religions have certainly impeded human progress and held humanity back, they've also contributed structure, order and guardrails to human society.

The best religions in my opinion (and I consider Islam one of the better ones) essentially take accepted wisdom among the 'enlightened' of their time - simplify and codify it, add a god of their choice and take it to the masses. For example, if treating women and slaves badly was prevalent at the time, a good religion would say 'treat them well. Don't beat them unless they really deserve it.' Of course, as you say, religions can't run too far ahead of accepted social norms of the time. They're not going to say 'it's completely unethical to own slaves.' After all, gaining popularity and influence is the primary goal of any religion. Improving social conditions and public morality is a nice side-effect at best.

Of course the corollary of religion being a nice way to convey and enforce contemporaneous morality standards is that they eventually fall behind them and start actually holding back developments in moral thought. A religion that was cutting edge for it's time becomes outdated. Yes they often have reform movements - Protestantism in Christianity, Bhakti movement in Hinduism etc. but they're unpredictable and often happen way after the need arises.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say polytheist religions aren't as viable as tools any more. The 'god of the gaps' needed today works better when you have a fuzzy, indefinable, all-powerful god rather than a god of lightning, wind etc....all of which natural phenomenon have been demystified by science. It may interest you to know that modern interpretations of Hinduism are trending monotheistic - all the various smaller gods as manifestations of the one supreme 'Brahman' though that's neither here nor there.

All this is to say religions whether polytheistic or monotheistic have been useful tools and probably are still useful today though less than you think. Atheists haven't run off to start stealing and fornicating in the open just because they don't have the fear of eternal damnation hanging over them. The largest atheist nation in history - China has done a solid job (in my opinion, too solid) of enforcing a moral and philosophical societal structure without the supporting crutch of religion. Common sense and logic is substituting just fine.

I may offend people on both sides of the aisle here when I say this but I actually firmly believe the holy men in the history of man kind associated with non Abrahamic faiths may have been from the 124,000 prophets mentioned in the Quran. As a Muslim, I can actually state that and defend that statement by positing they all brought the message of a singular God to mankind, and it may have been lost or transformed through the various interpretations and dieties over the ages. But in a way my belief strongly resonates what you just mentioned about the recent monotheistic trends within Hinduism.

Let me cap all this by a message of peace and harmony: All religions and mankind have a lot more in common, than their differences. They all teach good values and take different paths to essentially the same destination. We love to poke holes within each other's philosophies and ideas but its important to not lose sight of the bigger picture. More we focus on that, better chance for peace.

 

[Stewie]

You are parroting what you are taught by your religion.

I am talking about the original Canaanite religion that Jews took their God El aka Yahweh from.

I am not talking about what God or Bhagwan or Khuda means. Its irrelevant to what I posted.

Islam is very new to this Canaanite religion. It added its own twist like how Christians did 600 years prior and Jews did a thousand years prior to the arrival of Islam.

Well you know talk is cheap, I can claim whatever I want, will you believe it? Probably not. Am I parroting what I am taught? Maybe.. but I am also giving you logical explanation for my point using the concept of the holy books with similar stories within all three Abrahamic faiths and their roots. Does the ancient Canaanite religion have the same roots and history? Apart from the similarity in names for the All Powerful, what other proof do you have to prove the Jews took their religion from them? Basically this is like sthrowing shade at them and saying their religion is not true as they preach because God did not sent Moses or David any message, they just used something that was laying around and changed it and slapped their own label on it.
It is quite a serious claim and it has to be backed up by proper evidence, which you refuse to provide. Is there any academic backing to this claim?

 

[Red-Indian]

I may offend people on both sides of the aisle here when I say this but I actually firmly believe the holy men in the history of man kind associated with non Abrahamic faiths may have been from the 124,000 prophets mentioned in the Quran. As a Muslim, I can actually state that and defend that statement by positing they all brought the message of a singular God to mankind, and it may have been lost or transformed through the various interpretations and dieties over the ages. But in a way my belief strongly resonates what you just mentioned about the recent monotheistic trends within Hinduism.

Let me cap all this by a message of peace and harmony: All religions and mankind have a lot more in common, than their differences. They all teach good values and take different paths to essentially the same destination. We love to poke holes within each other's philosophies and ideas but its important to not lose sight of the bigger picture. More we focus on that, better chance for peace.

Don't agree with your belief but do respect it. I do think though if we're going to continue to use religion as a tool to deliver and explain morality to the masses, we need a refresh in religious theory.
- The refresh should specifically enshrine separation of Church/Temple/Mosque and State. It should make it clear that religion is a private matter
- It should also make really clear that punishment for stuff like apostasy, blasphemy etc. should be left in the hands of god who'll deliver it on some vague judgement day. Right now, the texts are too fuzzy about it
- There should be more clear on the live and let live principle. You don't approve of the gays, lesbians etc. sure don't approve of it but don't interfere in their lives

I can think of more but currently religious texts have gotten outdated. I know you guys believe your Prophet was the last of the 124,000 prophets so if not a prophet, maybe a globally accepted (to multiple religions) charismatic religious leader who can lead the revival/refresh of religions.

By the way, I have a few kooky theories about how morality will evolve in the future and I suppose how we'll have to simplify this 'enlightened' morality and make it digestible to the masses. After all, who would've believed you a 1000 years ago if you told them it would be considered immoral in almost all cultures to marry a 14 year old girl to a 30 year old dude?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Well you know talk is cheap, I can claim whatever I want, will you believe it? Probably not. Am I parroting what I am taught? Maybe.. but I am also giving you logical explanation for my point using the concept of the holy books with similar stories within all three Abrahamic faiths and their roots. Does the ancient Canaanite religion have the same roots and history? Apart from the similarity in names for the All Powerful, what other proof do you have to prove the Jews took their religion from them? Basically this is like sthrowing shade at them and saying their religion is not true as they preach because God did not sent Moses or David any message, they just used something that was laying around and changed it and slapped their own label on it.
It is quite a serious claim and it has to be backed up by proper evidence, which you refuse to provide. Is there any academic backing to this claim?

I am not saying Islam is false or Judaism and Christianity are false. I only gave the background to the Abrahamic faiths that we see today.

Here is an interview with Biblical Scholar Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

Read about the Canaanite religion here.

Canaanite religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stewie]

Don't agree with your belief but do respect it. I do think though if we're going to continue to use religion as a tool to deliver and explain morality to the masses, we need a refresh in religious theory.
- The refresh should specifically enshrine separation of Church/Temple/Mosque and State. It should make it clear that religion is a private matter
- It should also make really clear that punishment for stuff like apostasy, blasphemy etc. should be left in the hands of god who'll deliver it on some vague judgement day. Right now, the texts are too fuzzy about it
- There should be more clear on the live and let live principle. You don't approve of the gays, lesbians etc. sure don't approve of it but don't interfere in their lives

I can think of more but currently religious texts have gotten outdated. I know you guys believe your Prophet was the last of the 124,000 prophets so if not a prophet, maybe a globally accepted (to multiple religions) charismatic religious leader who can lead the revival/refresh of religions.

By the way, I have a few kooky theories about how morality will evolve in the future and I suppose how we'll have to simplify this 'enlightened' morality and make it digestible to the masses. After all, who would've believed you a 1000 years ago if you told them it would be considered immoral in almost all cultures to marry a 14 year old girl to a 30 year old dude?

I personally prefer the separation of Church and state but I also accept and recognize that a truly Muslim state (not sure if one even exists) is unable to maintain that separation SINCE ALL LAWS NEED TO BE DERIVED from the Book. So yes you will have apostasy and blasphemy laws and you will have laws against homosexuality. They can probably handle the case of homosexuality a bit tactfully by using something similar to "Dont ask don't tell" but it is unfathomable to me they will have the same rights and status as they enjoy in European countries.

But let us take the example of Pakistan. It is not truly an Islamic state. They have taken what they want from the Sharia law and imposed it. So they need to either go all in and implement full Islamic law .... or continue with the British commonwealth laws they currently have in place but review some of their more rigid Islamic laws with sensitivity around generally accepted human rights.

But when it comes to personal space, religion should be kept a separate matter regardless of whether its a theocratic state or not. I should be free to exercise whatever faith I want. This should be universal across the board and I should not even have to say it.

The last part, was probably considered kosher around 60 or so years ago. Priscilla Presley was 14 years old hanging out with Elvis who was in his mid 20s at the time in the late 50 and 60s and going with him on foreign tours. So those are changing norms probably most divorced from religion and will continue to be that way.

 

[Stewie]

I am not saying Islam is false or Judaism and Christianity are false. I only gave the background to the Abrahamic faiths that we see today.

Here is an interview with Biblical Scholar Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

Read about the Canaanite religion here.

Canaanite religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is Canaanite religion that Jews took. Read up on that.

But you claim the Israelities took the Canaan religion and that was somehow different. I am confused as to exactly what you are claiming here then. Can you perhaps shed light on what was the Ancient Canaan religion and how was it or is it different from Judaism? And also when you claim they "took" it, it implies their claim of the divinity of their faith is false. That the word of God as they believe was not divinely sent to them via Moses or David or Abraham but it existed in another form with a different civilization and they.. as you say "took" it and made it their own.

So if you are not exactly claiming that it is false or that it does not have unique origins, then what exactly is it that you are trying to say?

P.S I am unable to sit through the 2.5 hours of this video to glean what you can simply explain here in your own words. I want to understand first what you are trying to claim here.

 

[Champ_Pal]

But you claim the Israelities took the Canaan religion and that was somehow different. I am confused as to exactly what you are claiming here then. Can you perhaps shed light on what was the Ancient Canaan religion and how was it or is it different from Judaism? And also when you claim they "took" it, it implies their claim of the divinity of their faith is false. That the word of God as they believe was not divinely sent to them via Moses or David or Abraham but it existed in another form with a different civilization and they.. as you say "took" it and made it their own.

So if you are not exactly claiming that it is false or that it does not have unique origins, then what exactly is it that you are trying to say?

P.S I am unable to sit through the 2.5 hours of this video to glean what you can simply explain here in your own words. I want to understand first what you are trying to claim here.

The original Canaanite religion is Polytheistic. They worshipped all of El, Ashara, Yahweh and Ba'al.

Ancient Israelites took over the land of Canaan. Initially they were polytheistic too. At some point, Yahweh was gaining popularity. He was the Son of El and Ashara and a storm God. I am not sure what led to Israelites abandoning Ba'al and Ashara. They proclaimed that Yahweh is the only God. Yahweh himself became El.

Moses, David, Solomon etc, I am not sure if they ever existed. I am not interested in knowing that. I don't see any of these men ever recorded in history by independent sources. It is very hard to trace them just like tracing Rama or Krishna or Arjun etc is impossible. There are stories written in religious scriptures. You can neither prove nor disprove them. Whether they received revelations or they directly spoke to God through a bush is impossible to prove or disprove. If you are a believer, you have to accept it as a fact.

All I am saying is the Monotheistic God El is not really one God that everyone is told. He was a family man just like Gods of Greek or Roman or Hindu mythologies. Religions and beliefs evolve. Judaism is no exception.

 

[Stewie]

The original Canaanite religion is Polytheistic. They worshipped all of El, Ashara, Yahweh and Ba'al.

Ancient Israelites took over the land of Canaan. Initially they were polytheistic too. At some point, Yahweh was gaining popularity. He was the Son of El and Ashara and a storm God. I am not sure what led to Israelites abandoning Ba'al and Ashara. They proclaimed that Yahweh is the only God. Yahweh himself became El.

Moses, David, Solomon etc, I am not sure if they ever existed. I am not interested in knowing that. I don't see any of these men ever recorded in history by independent sources. It is very hard to trace them just like tracing Rama or Krishna or Arjun etc is impossible. There are stories written in religious scriptures. You can neither prove nor disprove them. Whether they received revelations or they directly spoke to God through a bush is impossible to prove or disprove. If you are a believer, you have to accept it as a fact.

All I am saying is the Monotheistic God El is not really one God that everyone is told. He was a family man just like Gods of Greek or Roman or Hindu mythologies. Religions and beliefs evolve. Judaism is no exception.

You admit its difficult to put a historicity of such figures together yet you are so certain and sure that Yahweh and El were mere mortals and gained the status of gods? So how is that not questioning the credibility of the Abrahamic FAITHS and their claim to be divine and that they have distinct roots as monotheistic religion when you are claiming the Israelities borrowed an already existing faith and transformed it and the God they believe to be of not human origins is actually a man and was born of a man?

The argument or the premise you are using is a fairly common one used by those who are either Athiests or belong to some pagan faith because they have a bone to pick with the Abrahamic FAITHS and try to portray them as something that was invented or something with more of cultist tendencies.

I hear the same allegations towards Islam by those who want to discredit it by suggesting that the origin of Allah is with the pagan polytheistic dieties such as Allat, Minat and the third name escapes me at the moment.

None of such people, yourself included is able to explain if that is truly the case why is it that the scriptures of these religions provide a very detailed history even going back to the first man. i.e Adam and the traditions of all these holy men continue through the ages. In fact Yahweh, the name itself was revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. You can actually look up the etymology of Yahweh or YHWH. Once again the term invokes someone who created or brings into existence so it is possible for multiple dieties to be referred to by the same name, but it does not mean that the God was "taken" or plagiarized, which is really what you are implying here.

In fact same is true for El or Elohim and the term's Arabic derivation "Elahi". They are terms used to describe a supreme power, the creator of all.

 

[ElRaja]

Well I think that’s why they are Christians and then Jews and Muslims or else we will all be the same. Christians do commit “shirk” when they include Isa with God but that does not change the fact the entity they are worshipping as “God” is the one God Muslims and Jews worship

i think it would be shirk if they claimed jesus and the holy spirit to be exclusive seperate gods, however they dont, they claim that the one god simultaneously exists in three separate entities.

when you say god is triune, including one human, one spirit, and one higher entity then it cannot be the same as the monotheistic god, its like saying i identify this tiny triangle as a point, you can say that but its still triangle imo.

 

[Stewie]

i think it would be shirk if they claimed jesus and the holy spirit to be exclusive seperate gods, however they dont, they claim that the one god simultaneously exists in three separate entities.

when you say god is triune, including one human, one spirit, and one higher entity then it cannot be the same as the monotheistic god, its like saying i identify this tiny triangle as a point, you can say that but its still triangle imo.

I am so confused. I know we are both saying the same thing, but I am just flabbergasted as to why we are not agreeing.

The concept of God is by definition believing in an entity one cannot see. You are putting your faith in one entity that is "responsible for all creation". So one can take it into different directions and say yes, I follow the God that Moses taught me about. Another person can say I pray to the God Jesus taught me about. Then a third person can claim he prays to the God Muhammed preached about.

But how does that make them all three different Gods? In particular in this case when Jesus who the Christians are following himself was a Jew and preached about the God of the Jews, it was not a different God. And it is the same God that Muhammed continued to act as a messenger for.

People can come up with different interpretations and that's why we as Muslims claim Christianity tainted the word of God by introducing all this other stuff about the holy ghost and Jesus being the son of God, etc but how does it mean that now they are praying to a different diety altogether?

 

[ElRaja]

I am so confused. I know we are both saying the same thing, but I am just flabbergasted as to why we are not agreeing.

The concept of God is by definition believing in an entity one cannot see. You are putting your faith in one entity that is "responsible for all creation". So one can take it into different directions and say yes, I follow the God that Moses taught me about. Another person can say I pray to the God Jesus taught me about. Then a third person can claim he prays to the God Muhammed preached about.

But how does that make them all three different Gods? In particular in this case when Jesus who the Christians are following himself was a Jew and preached about the God of the Jews, it was not a different God. And it is the same God that Muhammed continued to act as a messenger for.

People can come up with different interpretations and that's why we as Muslims claim Christianity tainted the word of God by introducing all this other stuff about the holy ghost and Jesus being the son of God, etc but how does it mean that now they are praying to a different diety altogether?

ok, let me try to word it better.

i think the difference here is you are claiming (correct me if I'm wrong) that believing in a supreme entity is believing in god, and by definition that supreme entity is god, regardless of the supreme entity's defining features.

whereas im saying believing in a supreme entity which has different core features means you are believing in fundamentally different entities, both classified as gods but not the same god.

i think this is what we are not agreeing on, or maybe ive confused myself. lol

 

[Stewie]

ok, let me try to word it better.

i think the difference here is you are claiming (correct me if I'm wrong) that believing in a supreme entity is believing in god, and by definition that supreme entity is god, regardless of the supreme entity's defining features.

whereas im saying believing in a supreme entity which has different core features means you are believing in fundamentally different entities, both classified as gods but not the same god.

i think this is what we are not agreeing on, or maybe ive confused myself. lol

I think you may have nailed the issue. For the record, I don't subscribe to that belief. I have a very strong belief in that the God that Hazrat Moosa and Hazrat Isa AS preached about is the same God regardless of the distortions introduced by the human beings over the years. To me we are all people of the book and we pray to the same God albeit in different manners. There is a reason why IN Islamic school of thought you can take a Christian or Jewish woman as your wife and you do not have to convert her.

 

[Champ_Pal]

You admit its difficult to put a historicity of such figures together yet you are so certain and sure that Yahweh and El were mere mortals and gained the status of gods? So how is that not questioning the credibility of the Abrahamic FAITHS and their claim to be divine and that they have distinct roots as monotheistic religion when you are claiming the Israelities borrowed an already existing faith and transformed it and the God they believe to be of not human origins is actually a man and was born of a man?

The argument or the premise you are using is a fairly common one used by those who are either Athiests or belong to some pagan faith because they have a bone to pick with the Abrahamic FAITHS and try to portray them as something that was invented or something with more of cultist tendencies.

I hear the same allegations towards Islam by those who want to discredit it by suggesting that the origin of Allah is with the pagan polytheistic dieties such as Allat, Minat and the third name escapes me at the moment.

None of such people, yourself included is able to explain if that is truly the case why is it that the scriptures of these religions provide a very detailed history even going back to the first man. i.e Adam and the traditions of all these holy men continue through the ages. In fact Yahweh, the name itself was revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. You can actually look up the etymology of Yahweh or YHWH. Once again the term invokes someone who created or brings into existence so it is possible for multiple dieties to be referred to by the same name, but it does not mean that the God was "taken" or plagiarized, which is really what you are implying here.

In fact same is true for El or Elohim and the term's Arabic derivation "Elahi". They are terms used to describe a supreme power, the creator of all.

Did I claim that EL, Yahweh or Ashara are real people aka mortals that lived on Earth? They are Gods of Canaan people. Just like Ahura Mazda or Midas or Jupiter. All figments of human imagination.

I am talking about the historicity of Moses, Solomon etc. It does not matter whether they existed or not. They came much later than the Canaanite religion. Moses is supposed to have lived around 7th century BCE (IIRC). Canaanite Pantheon of Gods existed much before that. They were preaching what their God Yahweh told them. If you are a believer, you believe it.

You are getting very defensive. All I am saying is that Judaism and the concept of EL is not as ancient as you think. All beliefs are drawn from beliefs that existed before.

Stories are written and modified over time. Just like a movie. All fictitious characters. But when you watch it, they appear real. Not too hard.

Judaism plagiarized Canaanite God EL and Yahweh. They discarded Ba'al and Ashara and unified EL and Yahweh as one. You can see the documentary I have shared. But if it is too long for you, then I cannot help it.

I am not making up any of this by my own. I am only presenting what religious historians have shown. I don't want to get into Allat, Manat and Al Uzza here. It will divert the topic.

My post was only on the uniqueness of El and Yahweh. From Canaanite Polytheistic Pantheon to Monotheistic El AKA Yahweh.

Ba'al Hadad AKA Ba'al was removed in favor of Yahweh. Both are storm gods.

 

[Stewie]

Did I claim that EL, Yahweh or Ashara are real people aka mortals that lived on Earth? They are Gods of Canaan people. Just like Ahura Mazda or Midas or Jupiter. All figments of human imagination.

I am talking about the historicity of Moses, Solomon etc. It does not matter whether they existed or not. They came much later than the Canaanite religion. Moses is supposed to have lived around 7th century BCE (IIRC). Canaanite Pantheon of Gods existed much before that. They were preaching what their God Yahweh told them. If you are a believer, you believe it.

You are getting very defensive. All I am saying is that Judaism and the concept of EL is not as ancient as you think. All beliefs are drawn from beliefs that existed before.

Stories are written and modified over time. Just like a movie. All fictitious characters. But when you watch it, they appear real. Not too hard.

Judaism plagiarized Canaanite God EL and Yahweh. They discarded Ba'al and Ashara and unified EL and Yahweh as one. You can see the documentary I have shared. But if it is too long for you, then I cannot help it.

I am not making up any of this by my own. I am only presenting what religious historians have shown. I don't want to get into Allat, Manat and Al Uzza here. It will divert the topic.

My post was only on the uniqueness of El and Yahweh. From Canaanite Polytheistic Pantheon to Monotheistic El AKA Yahweh.

Ba'al Hadad AKA Ba'al was removed in favor of Yahweh. Both are storm gods.

So you are claiming that Jews plagiarized the religion and that’s exactly what I am stating. You are claiming what a fringe element with an agenda like to spread propaganda about. There is absolutely no truth in what you are suggesting. The source you used and the professor you cited are part of a fringe group of who I suspect to be either atheists or belong to some pagan faith and like to destroy the credibility of the Abrahamahic religions.

One only need to google YHWH to see what it means and no it does not have its origins in some polytheistic religion.

 

[Champ_Pal]

So you are claiming that Jews plagiarized the religion and that’s exactly what I am stating. You are claiming what a fringe element with an agenda like to spread propaganda about. There is absolutely no truth in what you are suggesting. The source you used and the professor you cited are part of a fringe group of who I suspect to be either atheists or belong to some pagan faith and like to destroy the credibility of the Abrahamahic religions.

One only need to google YHWH to see what it means and no it does not have its origins in some polytheistic religion.

You can call it plagiarism or adoption. Choice is yours.

Fringe element agenda? Bro, it is what experts on religions and history tells us. If you think that is a conspiracy to put down ABrahamic faiths, then I cannot help it. I have shown you enough evidence to the historicity of old Canaanite Pantheon.

You are talking about Moses which can neither be proven or disproven. There is no evidence of any Moses outside of Hebrew Bible. I am not going to go into the concept of Adam and Eve. If you think God created them in their modern form and put them on earth in Srilanka and Adam who is 90 feet tall walked all the way to Middle East, its your faith.

 

[Stewie]

You can call it plagiarism or adoption. Choice is yours.

Fringe element agenda? Bro, it is what experts on religions and history tells us. If you think that is a conspiracy to put down ABrahamic faiths, then I cannot help it. I have shown you enough evidence to the historicity of old Canaanite Pantheon.

You are talking about Moses which can neither be proven or disproven. There is no evidence of any Moses outside of Hebrew Bible. I am not going to go into the concept of Adam and Eve. If you think God created them in their modern form and put them on earth in Srilanka and Adam who is 90 feet tall walked all the way to Middle East, it’s your faith.

First of all, i have repeatedly stated on various threads that I am not “bro” of any Hindus or so called Hindu Atheists. Kindly respect my sentiment and stop referring to me as your “bro”.
Second: What experts on religion and history are you exactly referring to? You have so far provided only one link to a video. That’s right a grand total of one video link which is 2.5 hours long and who is going to sit through the thing to find evidence of what you are claiming?


Which by the way is a serious allegation which puts the entire credibility of Judaism, Christianity and Islam into question and is rather earth shattering. I find it impossible to believe that if there is consensus of academics on your ridiculous implication, it would have flown under the radar. The whole world would be in shock and uproar over it.

So far you have failed to furnish even one scholarly article or citation of a reputable academic source to back your claim.

What’s even more ridiculous is that you keep qualifying your statements with the hilarious “cannot be proven or disproven” phrase and two words later you flip and keep insisting You are right and the religion of Jews (and by implication Christianity and Islam) are plagiarized from some ancient Canaanite faith. If it cannot be proven or disproven then why do you keep insisting you are correct?

 

[Champ_Pal]

First of all, i have repeatedly stated on various threads that I am not “bro” of any Hindus or so called Hindu Atheists. Kindly respect my sentiment and stop referring to me as your “bro”.
Second: What experts on religion and history are you exactly referring to? You have so far provided only one link to a video. That’s right a grand total of one video link which is 2.5 hours long and who is going to sit through the thing to find evidence of what you are claiming?


Which by the way is a serious allegation which puts the entire credibility of Judaism, Christianity and Islam into question and is rather earth shattering. I find it impossible to believe that if there is consensus of academics on your ridiculous implication, it would have flown under the radar. The whole world would be in shock and uproar over it.

So far you have failed to furnish even one scholarly article or citation of a reputable academic source to back your claim.

What’s even more ridiculous is that you keep qualifying your statements with the hilarious “cannot be proven or disproven” phrase and two words later you flip and keep insisting You are right and the religion of Jews (and by implication Christianity and Islam) are plagiarized from some ancient Canaanite faith. If it cannot be proven or disproven then why do you keep insisting you are correct?

I was only calling you that as a brother in humanity. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

It is common knowledge among western academics about the origins of Judaism. Religious folks can ignore it as it is matter of their faith.

Here are some more links on that.

Bronze Age Religion - Canaan & Ancient Israel @ University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

https://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/canaanite-religion.pdf

Canaanite Religion | K. L. Noll

BU

people.brandonu.ca

The Gods and Goddesses of Canaan | Essay | The Metropolitan Museum of Art | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

Although there existed no single state theology, the major gods reflect local geographical concerns about the fertility of the earth and the importance of water as well as relationships to the sky and the underworld.

www.metmuseum.org

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/3209414?journalCode=biblarch

I can post more academic links on this. Almost all universities which has religious studies as a branch has papers on this.

The video link I gave you was by Francesca Stavrakopoulou. She is currently Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter, London UK. She is not a random hater trying to hate on Judaism with lies.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Any religion which segregates people on basis of believers and non-believers and treat others as different is just a brain killing and numbing virus which majority of religions are. Once you start seeing others as different from you, morality takes a back seat and this kind of religion makes one a good foot solider to expand but also makes them dumb and low IQ.

 

[Red-Indian]

You can call it plagiarism or adoption. Choice is yours.

Fringe element agenda? Bro, it is what experts on religions and history tells us. If you think that is a conspiracy to put down ABrahamic faiths, then I cannot help it. I have shown you enough evidence to the historicity of old Canaanite Pantheon.

You are talking about Moses which can neither be proven or disproven. There is no evidence of any Moses outside of Hebrew Bible. I am not going to go into the concept of Adam and Eve. If you think God created them in their modern form and put them on earth in Srilanka and Adam who is 90 feet tall walked all the way to Middle East, its your faith.

First of all, i have repeatedly stated on various threads that I am not “bro” of any Hindus or so called Hindu Atheists. Kindly respect my sentiment and stop referring to me as your “bro”.
Second: What experts on religion and history are you exactly referring to? You have so far provided only one link to a video. That’s right a grand total of one video link which is 2.5 hours long and who is going to sit through the thing to find evidence of what you are claiming?


Which by the way is a serious allegation which puts the entire credibility of Judaism, Christianity and Islam into question and is rather earth shattering. I find it impossible to believe that if there is consensus of academics on your ridiculous implication, it would have flown under the radar. The whole world would be in shock and uproar over it.

So far you have failed to furnish even one scholarly article or citation of a reputable academic source to back your claim.

What’s even more ridiculous is that you keep qualifying your statements with the hilarious “cannot be proven or disproven” phrase and two words later you flip and keep insisting You are right and the religion of Jews (and by implication Christianity and Islam) are plagiarized from some ancient Canaanite faith. If it cannot be proven or disproven then why do you keep insisting you are correct?

To be honest, I don't think your positions are that far apart. @Champ_Pal claims the Jews adopted one of the Canaanite or even pre-canaanite deities Yahweh as their monotheistic god. I don't think is a particularly earth-shattering claim. It's a common theory among academics though not as he claims consensus. A lot depends on linguistic interpretations and etymology conventions.

@Stewie states that the tens of thousands of prophets who came before Moses, Jesus and Mohammad refined polytheistic religion to eventually bring it to perfection as a monotheistic one.

It's not much of conflict. Both views can be held simultaneously with minor mental gymnastics.

 

[RahulBose]

Morality is a socio economic concept, which comes by as a social contract when a group of humans band together.
It's like a good to have, beneficial for all, set of rules.
Nothing to do with religion.

This can be clearly seen by the evolution of various moral values over the last 500 or so years.

Religion is a power hogging machine where one set of people convert these, already prevailing good practices, and add a stamp of Gods approval of top.

Religion is a legacy instrument, while it definitely helped humanity calm down our animal instincts, there are better modern philosophical tools like Absurdism to actually find meaning in life.

 

[Stewie]

To be honest, I don't think your positions are that far apart. @Champ_Pal claims the Jews adopted one of the Canaanite or even pre-canaanite deities Yahweh as their monotheistic god. I don't think is a particularly earth-shattering claim. It's a common theory among academics though not as he claims consensus. A lot depends on linguistic interpretations and etymology conventions.

@Stewie states that the tens of thousands of prophets who came before Moses, Jesus and Mohammad refined polytheistic religion to eventually bring it to perfection as a monotheistic one.

It's not much of conflict. Both views can be held simultaneously with minor mental gymnastics.

The gymnastics part here is that the usage of a word or term to describe the concept of an Almighty for two different concepts of an Almighty is being confused as the same or one being a derivative of the other. When the two are distinct and unique ideas.

 

[Stewie]

Any religion which segregates people on basis of believers and non-believers and treat others as different is just a brain killing and numbing virus which majority of religions are. Once you start seeing others as different from you, morality takes a back seat and this kind of religion makes one a good foot solider to expand but also makes them dumb and low IQ.

Any religion that splits people on the basis of a caste system based on professional or societal roles is much much worse.