HOME       >>       Science and Technology

Does God Exist?


mitchellmckain

IS JESUS the topic of disscussion or not I cant say.....as I didnt start it !!

No the topic was the question, "does God exist?" What was particularly peculiar in this thread was that it was introduced in the science section rather than under religion and philosophy. But I already addressed that in my first post in this thread.

The problem is that God is a subject of religious rather than scientific thought and religion is neccessarily highly subjective. So with Eternal_Bliss we have his Hindu-influenced thoughts about God and with me we have my Open Theist-evolutionary creationist-Christian-pragmatic-existentialist-mystic-physics-influenced thoughts about God.

and I cant say what JESUS was as I am not in a position to do that...but I have my own brain and I can say that there are many religions in this world besides Chirstianity and one should stop following any religion blindly(the religion one is born with) but inquire about it, with the intellegence which GOD has given us and have our own opinion rather then bad-mouthing other's point of veiw....

You presume much to assume that anyone is following their religion blindly. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such a presumption falls most easily from the mouth of someone who is following their own religion or philosophy blindly. I, for example, was not born Christian. I was a child of the sixties generation, people who believed in no religion, marriage or government, but in free sex and the dictates of reason.

In some sense a religious discussion between people of different religious beliefs is impossible without in some manner "bad mouthing other points of view", that is why it is banned from polite conversation and public venues. It is why in the west we have this separation between the religious and the secular.

Therefore to carry on such a religious discussion between people of different religious beliefs, we must have two minds, the subjective religious mind and the objective "secular" mind. So with one mind we can express our religious point of view and with the other mind we can draw back to the secular acceptance of opposing points of view.

AND WHO KNOWS PPL MIGHT HAVE TWISTED THE FACTS TO SHOW TO OTHERS THAT SOMEONE IS THEIR ONLY TRUE SAIVOR..

See. this is a good example of what I was saying. Eternal_Bliss is offended by the words attributed to Jesus saying "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except by Me", just as I am offended by the ideas of the reincarnation and maya. In Eternal_Bliss' mind those words of Jesus could only be the product of fraud just as in my mind the ideas of reincarnation and maya sound like the ideas of demons. In all likelihood, our ideas of the truth, no matter how much we think they are right, are actually all wrong, which is why it is very important that no one be able to impose their ideas on someone else, for imposing the wrong ideas on other people would very wrong indeed, wouldn't it?

Chesso

I would most certainly say so yes.It's one reason why I don't knock religion out of people and a good reason why I don't let them knock it into other people that are weak and prone to verbal bullying (of a sort).None of us have an absolute answer nor any full on proof of the existance or non-existance eh.Or we can do is discuss and speculate I suppose.But either way, whether it exists or not, I don't see the world coming to a sudden halt if people stopped believing, the world seems to turn just the same for religious or non-religious so meh >_>, what's the difference? .


Eternal_Bliss

IF U belive in the word of JESUS then there is not much option left for us as he claims he is the "only way"!!BUT hold on there.....did JESUS REALLY SAY SO.....I mean when JESUS died after that many of the gospels have been written and not every version was same and the CHURCH chose only few of them to make the New Testament. Why ???? On what basis???? Is it possible that some of the versions were simply rejected coz it didnt fit in with the image of christianity that the church wanted to project I was also astonished by the similarity between the story of JESUS and that of BUDDHA who came to the world before JESUS..for instance, like virgin birth ,the prophecy that JESUS will get born , his temptation by the satan and how he didnt give in to the temptation and the angels rejoiced over it...and many more and also to some extent to KRISHNA...like when he was born his life was in danger and so he was taken to some safer place (EGYPT in case of JESUS and DWARKA in case of KRISHNA).....could it only be a coincidence.....Who Knows?? So it is better to leave the question unanswered as we cant find it out exactly.......


mitchellmckain

IF U belive in the word of JESUS then there is not much option left for us as he claims he is the "only way"!!BUT hold on there.....did JESUS REALLY SAY SO.....I mean when JESUS died after that many of the gospels have been written and not every version was same and the CHURCH chose only few of them to make the New Testament. Why ???? On what basis????

Is it possible that some of the versions were simply rejected coz it didnt fit in with the image of christianity that the church wanted to project
I was also astonished by the similarity between the story of JESUS and that of BUDDHA who came to the world before JESUS..for instance, like virgin birth ,the prophecy that JESUS will get born , his temptation by the satan and how he didnt give in to the temptation and the angels rejoiced over it...and many more and also to some extent to KRISHNA...like when he was born his life was in danger and so he was taken to some safer place (EGYPT in case of JESUS and DWARKA in case of KRISHNA).....could it only be a coincidence.....Who Knows?? So it is better to leave the question unanswered as we cant find it out exactly.......


Interesting. I know a great deal of the story of Siddhartha Gautama and none of those things you mention are a part of it. He was born to Śuddhodana and Māyādevī (King Sudhodhana's wife), there was the prophecy at his birth that he would either be a great king or a great holy man. I think perhaps that these other things you have claimed are a distortion by your organization (Hare Krishna?) in order to make him fit into your organation's peculiar syncretism of the ideas which you have borrowed from world religions, to make both him and Jesus incarnations of your god, Krishna or Vishnu or whatever. But I prefer to listen to what both of these men (Siddhartha and Jesus) really had to say rather put words into or take words out of their mouths in order to fit them into some manufactured ideology.

Eternal_Bliss

FIRST I dont think any organisation named "Hare Krishna" exists, let alone me being a part of it. For the record I am not a part of any organisation be it Buddhist, Hindu or Christian. I am just a student in a college who is a bit curious about the world religions and to know the truth about it KRISHNA existed like thousand of years before JESUS and BUDDHA even BUDDHA existed hundreds of years before JESUS and this is clear as pure water and the similarities are (1) Krishna was miraculously conceived and born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") as a divine incarnation. (2) He was born at a time when his family had to travel to pay the yearly tax. (3) His father was a carpenter yet Krishna was born of royal descent. (4) His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gifts. (5) He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants who feared that the divine child would supplant his kingdom. (6) His father was warned by a heavenly voice to flee the tyrant who sought the death of the child. The child was then saved by friends who fled with them in the night to a distant country. When the tyrant learned that his attempt to kill the child failed, he issued a decree that all the infants in the area be put to death. Writing about Krishna in the eighteenth century, Sir William Jones stated, "In the Sanskrit dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole history of the incarnate deity, born of a virgin, and miraculously escaping in infancy from the reigning tyrant of his country." (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I, p. 273). (7) The Bible states that Jesus and family fled to Egypt afterward to escape from King Herod. According to the Christian apocryphal text "the Gospel of the Infancy," the family traveled to Maturea, Egypt. Krishna was born in Maturea, India, hundreds of years earlier. (8) He was baptized in the River Ganges. (9) The missions of Krishna and Jesus were the same - the salvation of humanity. (10) Krishna worked miracles and wonders such as raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind. (11) Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love. (12) Jesus taught his disciples about the possibility of removing a mountain by faith. According to tradition, Krishna raised Mount Goverdhen above his disciples to protect his worshipers from the wrath of Indra. (13) "He lived poor and he loved the poor." (14) Krishna washed the feet of the Brahmins and transfigured before his disciples. (15) Krishna's teachings and Jesus' teachings were very similar. The celebrated French missionary and traveler, Evarist-Regis Hucv, who made a journey of several thousand miles through China and Tibet, stated, "If we addressed a Mogul or Tibetan this question, 'Who is Krishna?' the reply was instantly 'The savior of men." According to Robert Cheyne, "All that converting the Hindoos to Christianity does for them is to change the object of their worship from Krishna to Christ." Appleton's Cyclopedia says this about the teachings of Krishna: "Its correspondence with the New Testament is indeed striking." (16) There is an extra-canonical Hindu tradition which states that Krishna was crucified. According to some traditions, Krishna died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves. (17) He descended to hell, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended to heaven which was witnessed by many. (18) Krishna is called the "shepherd god" and "lord of lords," and was considered "the redeemer, firstborn, sin bearer, liberator, universal Word." (19) He is the second person of the trinity, and proclaimed himself the "resurrection" and the "way to the Father." (20) He was considered the "beginning, the middle and the end," ("alpha and omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent


mitchellmckain

FIRST I dont think any organisation named "Hare Krishna" exists, let alone me being a part of it. For the record I am not a part of any organisation be it Buddhist, Hindu or Christian. I am just a student in a college who is a bit curious about the world religions and to know the truth about it

I am well aware of this tactic by newer religions to change their name and fragment into smaller groups, in order to avoid previous bad impressions. However in this case you are only avoiding the rather good impressions I have from visiting (over ten years ago) a rather small group here in Utah with their own broadcasting station. What you call yourself is irrelevant. The system of beliefs is still distinctive. And while I would absolutely love sharing one of your vegitarian dinners with you, our theological convictions are likely to remain at odds with each other.

KRISHNA existed like thousand of years before JESUS and BUDDHA even BUDDHA existed hundreds of years before JESUS and this is clear as pure water and the similarities are

Yes I looked up Krishna. He did not sound even remotely similar to either Jesus or Siddhartha, with his thousands of wives -- more like a petty tyrant of pre-history with delusions of godhood. No offense intended. Those are just my frank impressions, to explain why I am not interested in a theology that tries to cast Jesus in the same mold. Furthermore Krishna sounds like just the opposite of Siddhartha as well. Perhaps since you believe in reincarnation, you see the same person changing and learning over time, but I do not.

pencilpoint

I really dont think Jesus exists if you dont think he is. If you think he is real, then he exists in your mind. thats my opinion at least


Chesso

I would agree with that pencilpoint, and if they want to believe it in there heads well heck go for it lol.As long as it doesn't cut into my daily activity's i'm not too worried at all .


hasanarbab

ok lads, I'm gonna go to pretty strict talking here. I love to discuss on topic like this one. Proof of God's existance? hmmmm1. can you prove that you were born? A human can not know what he does not see. so what he does not see he accepts that by someoneone else's experience or somebody else tells him about. none of us have seen ourselves being born. even if we see the video of our birth we cannot say that it i s real, because we were not the one watching all this. we are just told that "he is dad and she is mom". we do except it because it's being planted in our brains since we even don't know, what's happening arround. Everyone of us does not know if his or her parents are their biological parents unless someone knows he was adopted. Now in modern age you can have a DNA test. Should everybody go for it?2. when you create something, does it know that who you are? unless you tell it that who you are. Like, if you create a robot, you know how will it work and you are the creator who can make this robot work whatever the way you want. you decide it to be a warrior or a sergeory robot or a mechanic robot or whatsoever. it knows only that much what you have implanted in its memory.Why dows not the same rule applies for a human? we know or can know in later times only the much whatever is inside this universe. because our creator lets us know only that much and besides he tells us by whatever the means that he is here and there and everywhere.3. the biggest proof of God's being is.......It's beenmillions of years or may be billions of years, humanity always had this discussion that if God exists or not. Do we still fight on the existance of anyone else? do we fight on Adam that he is the First human or not. do we fight on other anciant stuff???? no. it's only God. so he does exist that's why we talk about him.I'll come with some more proofs later......................


DrK3055A

ok lads, I'm gonna go to pretty strict talking here. I love to discuss on topic like this one. Proof of God's existance? hmmmm
1. can you prove that you were born? A human can not know what he does not see. so what he does not see he accepts that by someoneone else's experience or somebody else tells him about. none of us have seen ourselves being born. even if we see the video of our birth we cannot say that it i s real, because we were not the one watching all this. we are just told that "he is dad and she is mom". we do except it because it's being planted in our brains since we even don't know, what's happening arround. Everyone of us does not know if his or her parents are their biological parents unless someone knows he was adopted. Now in modern age you can have a DNA test. Should everybody go for it?

2. when you create something, does it know that who you are? unless you tell it that who you are. Like, if you create a robot, you know how will it work and you are the creator who can make this robot work whatever the way you want. you decide it to be a warrior or a sergeory robot or a mechanic robot or whatsoever. it knows only that much what you have implanted in its memory.

Why dows not the same rule applies for a human? we know or can know in later times only the much whatever is inside this universe. because our creator lets us know only that much and besides he tells us by whatever the means that he is here and there and everywhere.

3. the biggest proof of God's being is.......
It's beenmillions of years or may be billions of years, humanity always had this discussion that if God exists or not. Do we still fight on the existance of anyone else? do we fight on Adam that he is the First human or not. do we fight on other anciant stuff???? no. it's only God. so he does exist that's why we talk about him.

I'll come with some more proofs later......................


OK Hasan Arbab, I don't intend to start a flame, because all opinions deserve respectfulness, but i disagree with the 3 logical arguments you stated as proofs.

1. You can never proof anything with a 100% certainty, neither what you can see. Senses are tools that provide our cognitive system a way to obtain data from the outside (they are sensors). Muscles are actuators, that make the system interact or modify the outer environment. Everything of those consist of electrical and chemical signals that can be interfered to recreate an untrue (or less certain) model of reality. The extremal case is a situation pictured out from The Matrix film (Wachowsky brothers-1995), where there is a virtual reality created from a big computer that sends electric signals to human bodies directly to sensitive nerves. In real world, we can see the boundaries of our senses, when they can't depict a logical conclusion for some situations (illusion), or when they fail to depict the reality as it is perceived in an usual condition (allucination, psicosis). We know that we exist, because we can remember facts of our existence, extract, and sort the data in order to find relationships among items of the reality around us. And this lead us to the following point....

2. The clue for this matter is the existence of an inteligence threshold for a being to realize about how it was created and how it came to this world. We can not travel backwards in time, but we can rewind the tape to watch what happened. This is named as deductive reasoning. We can use the data adquired in our memory to learn about facts of reality and deduct what happened before, due to our inteligent stage. Also, we can have certain control of what happens to something that we created, but we can't decide for every aspect of that thing, because we understand some rules of the universe, but not all (that's impossible due to our nature of trying to quantize the infinity). Concept of "Creator" is not always the same as "omnipotent", maybe is never the same.

3. The discussion about the existance of god relies on the fact that god is not an ancient, but the most ancient, the origin, the begining of everything (as for we short sighted human that conceive the time as linear, so there must exist a begining and will exist an end of reality). There are some other discussions about ancient topics (in fact, there've been writen lots of books about ancient professors of many disciplines) . But the strongest discussion is the one that links every human to a common origin. The one that tries to give a short and pleasant answer to the trivial question "where do we come from?", the only need to accept this answer is "faith". But this "faith" has nothing to do in order to proof certainty.

Still i think that "beliefs" are good, because they impulse us to research and discover things that can lead us to some answers, but many times lead us to many more questions.

Chesso

Besides, I don't need to see myself born, iv'e seen others born and they turn out like me, proof enough me thinks.But I don't see god crawling out from under a rock..... sorry it just doesn't happen.


Eternal_Bliss

Hii Everyone, First I will like to ask everyone who is reading this post that what is their defination of GOD.Is it the same which the religious books potray, or they have their own unike view on it,First we should make it clear in our mind WHO GOD IS ? or rather WHAT GOD IS ? Is GOD like a SUPERMAN with all his/her power (Here I am saying both his and her as no one can say what is the gender of GOD, CAN ANYONE???? ) ORIs GOD the substance that is present all around us, or the laws of physics (which we all have to obey like the three laws of motion which was given by Newton ) For me GOD is the laws of the universe which we all are bound to follow rather than the someone all powerfull sitting in the heaven and waiting for us to die so that he/she can send us to Heaven/Hell depending on what are our deeds.The concept of heaven or hell was only created so that people will be good to others and the society would run smoothly........ Thanx


abartar

I have never seen any post continuously active for that long....almost 1.5 months. Isn't it amazing how we start debating endlessly on topics which we feel are not true but still we keep them alive.....Most of us have said that God does not exists but we take all the pains and do write it.Let's try to keep other technical topics alive on the forum the same way we do these topics on debatable issues....


DrK3055A

I have never seen any post continuously active for that long....almost 1.5 months. Isn't it amazing how we start debating endlessly on topics which we feel are not true but still we keep them alive.....
Most of us have said that God does not exists but we take all the pains and do write it.

Let's try to keep other technical topics alive on the forum the same way we do these topics on debatable issues....


I tried to keep alive the topic about "BrainF*ck" (Programming General->Other Languages), but i think it didn't become quite popular, not many BF programmers around this place, LOL.

paralizedfish

Does God exist?God is a concept developed to explain something unexplainable. Do I think that god is some parently diety wagging his finger at me from centuries ago, warning me not to screw the neighbors wife or keep kosher or eat before sunset on ramadan respectively. Absolutely not.Now, I'm not suggesting that "god" doesn't exist. Just not how we see him\her or it. You know that saying, "man was created in god's image"?scratch that, reverse it..."god was created in man's image"That's the truth. The bible didn't come from a beam of light descending from heaven. No religion came from any deity, it's all be WRITTEN by PEOPLE! Plain and simple fact. The oldest existing MAJOR religion (if major religion is considered Christianity, Judiasm & Muslim) is the Jewish religion. Christianity comes from Judaism (Jesus was a jew people) and the Muslim faith also. In fact, Jewish and Muslim beliefs are SO intertwined that they HAVE THE SAME HOLY LAND! Hence, all the problems we are seeing in the middle east.But that's not to say that Jews are on to something that others aren't. There's nothing particularly special about the Jewish religion, as Muslim and Christian faiths, have more or less the same pros and cons. I personally am not a massive fan of certain Christian denomentations, but, that's beside the point.The point in fact is, religion is a good metaphor. Which is what this "God" is... ...simply a metaphor.


mitchellmckain

1. can you prove that you were born?

Precious little can be proven and most of it is in mathematics, and one of those things that can be proven, ironically enough, is that we cannot prove that mathematics itself is consistent (Godel's proof). No we live by faith not by proof. Even the atheist lives by the faith that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Why dows not the same rule applies for a human?

So you are saying that IF God exists and IF God created us and IF God does not tell us directly that He exists, then God exists even though we do not know it?

3. humanity always had this discussion that if God exists or not.

Which goes to show that the question "Does God exist?" is the wrong question. The question is, when we are talking about God, what exactly are we really talking about? Is it an idea without substance or substance about which we really have no idea?

Hii Everyone, First I will like to ask everyone who is reading this post that what is their defination of GOD.

Well first of all I think there is some confusion of the questions of the definition of God and the nature of God, which is an especially important distinction when we are talking about something we know so little about. The definition of God includes the required characteristics for an identification of this being as God, while the nature of God may only be something which we speculate about.

Suppose we meet a talking cricket who claims to be God, what questions shall we ask this creature to acertain whether this claim has any truth to it, assuming that the cricket answers our questions truthfully in an absolute sense and not just according to his own knowledge and understanding? This query may help us to isolate what is actually a definition of God.

The key question it seems to me is whether the answers to our questions of this cricket leaves us looking elsewhere for God or not. Since we usually think of God in terms of origins, the question of the orgin of God himself is a troubling one. So if we ask the cricket how he came to exist, answers like "he has always existed" that leave us looking no farther will work, while answers like "I don't know" or "I came into being in a cosmic explosion", that just lead to more questions would be a bit troubling.

Some questions have to do with how we relate to God. If God is our moral compass then ambivalence and amorality on the part of this cricket would tend to leave us looking for a replacement to say the very least. If God is our explanation of our own being or the universe, then the cricket's denial of responsibility for the existence of the universe or ourselves would have us looking elsewhere.

For me GOD is the laws of the universe which we all are bound to follow rather than the someone all powerfull sitting in the heaven and waiting for us to die so that he/she can send us to Heaven/Hell depending on what are our deeds.

The laws of the universe are something I would seek to conquer with my understanding and power and therefore bears no resemblance to anything I would call God. If an explanation for everything was essential to your definition of God then I can understand your identification, but since I do not look to God for the explanation of everything then this identification does not work for me at all. As for the ultimate judge, I find no merit in this conception either for it seems to me that an autonomous natural law works far better as ultimate judge than a being who must weigh the worth of each of us individually. I cannot believe in hell as an eternal punishment for it makes no sense. Punishment is for behavior modification so an eternal punishment is an obvious failure. But as an inevitable consequence of our choices, hell is not only reasonable, but it is quite visible to me in the way some people think and choose to live their lives.

The concept of heaven or hell was only created so that people will be good to others and the society would run smoothly........

Yes! But created by who?????? Heh he heh.....

Chesso

Why would we live on faith that the sun comes up tomorrow? We see it come up and go down everyday...... (so we know it does).If it doesn't, well something up isn't it lol.


CaptainRon

mitchellmckain, you seem to believe your religion, and still name-call others... strange man... take a rest buddy.To be very frank, whatever you said about Krishna and his very little similarrity to a God, I must frankly admit, as a kid even I thought so. But with time, and with experience in reading Gita, I learned who Krishna really was. What Gita really meant. Once you are acquainted to the Gita's term of 'Moh Maya' to define this world, you will realise how 1000 wives and 'fight for right' actually fits into the picture. You will need to understand the concept of the Yugas. Just getting a 4 liner on Krishna, doesn't help in understanding him or his preachings.About getting converts, I must tell you that thousands of Americans and Europeans come to India every year to become a devotee of Lord Krishna, and if ever Hinduism had the concept of converting, they would have done so. So better get the facts straight before actually blabbing out stuff about others.I guess you are the only one who is on a thrash-match with just anyone here... so take a break and if you really believe in God, get to follow his path. Jabbering out here won't do much good.I don't know what you got taught of Hinduism, or Islam or any other religion, or if ever you got taught, you need to go home and do your homework on actually learning more about them instead of jumping around with your "I-speak-sense" attitude.And dare not insult any group or religion or name-tease one, just the way you did back here. Go chill and listen to the song called Govinda by Kula Shaker (a british band) and get a sense of Hare-krishnas.


mitchellmckain

mitchellmckain, you seem to believe your religion, and still name-call others... strange man... take a rest buddy.
I guess you are the only one who is on a thrash-match with just anyone here... so take a break and if you really believe in God, get to follow his path. Jabbering out here won't do much good.

Well, what a belated response to such an old post since this clearly has nothing to do with anything recent. It is strange since you would have had to go looking for it, ignoring the recent posts. I wonder why?

But why do you say this? Do you equate the expression of any opinion contrary to your own to name-calling and thrash matching? I have only disagreed with you and Eternal-Bliss (if you are in fact two different people). What name have I called either of you? I have no problem with other religions. I greatly enjoy them. I love and defend the diversity of mankind. I only have contempt for those who force their religion onto other people, deny religious freedom, or show intolerance of the diversity of mankind.

But as much as I love and enjoy the diversity of mankind I am not ecclectic. I have my own religious beliefs, and I am free to express them as much as anyone else.

Just getting a 4 liner on Krishna, doesn't help in understanding him or his preachings.

No, but it does help me decide whether I want to understand him or his preachings. Why should I be an expert on this guy who lived 3000 BC? You consider him significant and I do not. Why should I?

I don't know what you got taught of Hinduism, or Islam or any other religion, or if ever you got taught, you need to go home and do your homework on actually learning more about them instead of jumping around with your "I-speak-sense" attitude.

So the fact that I speak sense offends you? What can I say? Why should I fully understand Hinduism or Islam? I do know enough to see that you represent niether. Your indoctrination into your religion makes you no expert on these religions either, any more than it makes you an expert on Christianity. Your religion simply chops them up into neat little pieces so you can fit them into your religion's ideolgy. Fine. You are welcome to your point of view just as the Bahai and the Moonies are welcome to theirs. But I am not picking a fight by saying that your characterization of my religion is inaccurate anymore than you are picking a fight when you correct my charaterization of your religion. I shall honestly and whole heartedly acknowledge your authority in regards to your religion as long as you recognize my authority in regards to mine. And no I am not claiming to be THE authority on Christianity, but only a greater authority that any member of another religion. I think it is highly improper and intolerant for a member of one religion to claim, to a member of another, expertise in their religion, no matter how much they have studied it, and completely rude when they haven't studied it at all.

And dare not insult any group or religion or name-tease one, just the way you did back here. Go chill and listen to the song called Govinda by Kula Shaker (a british band) and get a sense of Hare-krishnas.

Show me where I have insulted any group or religion or name-teased and I shall apologize.

You and/or Eternal_Bliss are the representative(s) of the Hari Krishnas so you can share your sense of them all you want.

mitchellmckain

That's the truth. The bible didn't come from a beam of light descending from heaven. No religion came from any deity, it's all be WRITTEN by PEOPLE! Plain and simple fact. The oldest existing MAJOR religion (if major religion is considered Christianity, Judiasm & Muslim) is the Jewish religion. Christianity comes from Judaism (Jesus was a jew people) and the Muslim faith also. In fact, Jewish and Muslim beliefs are SO intertwined that they HAVE THE SAME HOLY LAND! Hence, all the problems we are seeing in the middle east.


But why do you not consider Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism and Sikhism to be major religions? These all have more adherents than Judaism. Is it because you wanted to call Judaism the oldest when Hinduism is 500 to 2000 years older? I have lumped Taoism, Confusionism and Chinese traditional religion under the name Taoism because before the cutural revolution, Taoism was one of the strongest institutions in China, but then its temples and clergy were destroyed and its distinctiveness was lost. But the writings and teachings of Taoism remain influential and respected throughout the world.

I, in fact, think that the oldest religions in the world are the shamanistic religions, that venerate nature and human ancestors, because it is so widespread including Chinese and Korean traditional religion, Shinto, Native American, African and Austrailan relgious belief, as well as the older pagan religions of Europe that were wiped out (and partially absorbed) by Christianity.


Pages :-

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5
Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10


VIEW DESKTOP VERSION REGISTERGET FREE HOSTING

Xisto.com offers Free Web Hosting to its Members for their participation in this Community. We moderate all content posted here but we cannot warrant full correctness of all content. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our terms of use, cookie and privacy policy. Copyright 2001-2019 by Xisto Corporation. All Rights Reserved.