One God, Many Religions

Joined Jun 2012
1,781 Posts | 6+
chandigarh
actualy you are almost right hindus actually believe in one god or its more appropriate to say oneness of god, like in bhagwat gita he is eternal, he is cause of all causes.
 
Joined Mar 2010
5,417 Posts | 8+
USA
Jesus [pbuh] didn't really preached for a new religion, his mission was to reform Judaism. At least, that's my understanding.

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-20
 
Joined Aug 2009
21,072 Posts | 10+
Minnesnowta
I think the biggest problem with the OP is that it supposes an ancient form of monotheism; "Allah sent his message to people throughout time."

What it does is gloss over 50,000 + years of religious practice as "distortions". However, how does it explain the progression of religious belief?

Archeological, sociological, and comparative religious studies have shown that the history of religious development can be broken down into the following broad categories of religious world views.

1. Animistic; ancestor worship, totemic worship, shamanism

2. Polytheistic; pantheon of gods, henotheism

3. Monotheism; dualism, monism

So why do we see that animism is the root religious belief for religions around the world? Traces of animistic belief can be found on all continents that humans reside. Why does the root of monotheism only show up in the Middle East?

The scholarly explanation for the progression of religious belief makes much more sense than: "God revealed truth to ancient man, everyone got it wrong for 50,000 years, then my religion got it right."
 
Joined Nov 2010
6,237 Posts | 20+
Indiana
I think the biggest problem with the OP is that it supposes an ancient form of monotheism; "Allah sent his message to people throughout time."

What it does is gloss over 50,000 + years of religious practice as "distortions". However, how does it explain the progression of religious belief?

Archeological, sociological, and comparative religious studies have shown that the history of religious development can be broken down into the following broad categories of religious world views.

1. Animistic; ancestor worship, totemic worship, shamanism

2. Polytheistic; pantheon of gods, henotheism

3. Monotheism; dualism, monism

So why do we see that animism is the root religious belief for religions around the world? Traces of animistic belief can be found on all continents that humans reside. Why does the root of monotheism only show up in the Middle East?

The scholarly explanation for the progression of religious belief makes much more sense than: "God revealed truth to ancient man, everyone got it wrong for 50,000 years, then my religion got it right."
I remember a story of a conversation between an Americaqn Indian and a missionary. The Indian ask, is your God in the trees, the animals, the ground and the sky? The missionary said yes. Then the Indian said what is the difference between worshiping God in his many forms separately or as one. The missionary couldn't answer.
 
Joined Mar 2010
5,417 Posts | 8+
USA
I remember a story of a conversation between an Americaqn Indian and a missionary. The Indian ask, is your God in the trees, the animals, the ground and the sky? The missionary said yes. Then the Indian said what is the difference between worshiping God in his many forms separately or as one. The missionary couldn't answer.
Well I can only speculate that St. Thomas Aquinas's answer to such a question would that all truth comes from the Holy Spirit, so thus while there are different forms to God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit to give one example) there's still one divine essence.
 
Joined Aug 2009
21,072 Posts | 10+
Minnesnowta
Well I can only speculate that St. Thomas Aquinas's answer to such a question would that all truth comes from the Holy Spirit, so thus while there are different forms to God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit to give one example) there's still one divine essence.

I wonder how Thomas Aquinas would respond to why only a select few individuals in the history of mankind have been able to correctly decipher the will of the "holy spirit". Presumably, Roman bureaucrats were the best at this?

His chosen people didn't even know there were three of him.
 
Joined Mar 2010
5,417 Posts | 8+
USA
I wonder how Thomas Aquinas would respond to why only a select few individuals in the history of mankind have been able to correctly decipher the will of the "holy spirit".
Because that's often the character of esoteric teachings, it's usually for a smaller number of people within a faith, although that doesn't negate the wider truths of the exoteric aspects of religion. Not all Orthodox Christians are called to Hesychesm, not all Muslims are called to be Sufis, not all Hindus to Yoga, etc. Mysticism is a branch of religion, not the whole of religion in of itself. Plus there are various forms of spiritual types, not just mystics.
 
Joined Aug 2009
21,072 Posts | 10+
Minnesnowta
Because that's often the character of esoteric teachings, it's usually for a smaller number of people within a faith, although that doesn't negate the wider truths of the exoteric aspects of religion. Not all Orthodox Christians are called to Hesychesm, not all Muslims are called to be Sufis, not all Hindus to Yoga, etc. Mysticism is a branch of religion, not the whole of religion in of itself. Plus there are various forms of spiritual types, not just mystics.

But monotheism only pops up in the middle east . . . some 40,000 + years after the development of religion.

Right, so if we view all of the religions that have existed in the existence of man as interpretations of the holy spirit, then we are forced to conclude that many interpreted:

"Hmmm. I guess that means I should worship my dead grandpa."

Another concluded;

"Alright, I guess this means my ancestor was the eagle, so I should put feathers in my hair as badges of honor in battle."

Another concluded;

"Indeed, therefore we shall sacrifice humans to ensure that the sun continues to rise."

Only a small fraction concluded;

"I guess that means there is only one."

Even a smaller fraction concluded;

"So one, well three . . . but still one."

How do we account for this?
 
Joined Mar 2010
5,417 Posts | 8+
USA
But monotheism only pops up in the middle east . . . some 40,000 + years after the development of religion.

Right, so if we view all of the religions that have existed in the existence of man as interpretations of the holy spirit, then we are forced to conclude that many interpreted:

"Hmmm. I guess that means I should worship my dead grandpa."

Another concluded;

"Alright, I guess this means my ancestor was the eagle, so I should put feathers in my hair as badges of honor in battle."

Another concluded;

"Indeed, therefore we shall sacrifice humans to ensure that the sun continues to rise."

Only a small fraction concluded;

"I guess that means there is only one."

Even a smaller fraction concluded;

"So one, well three . . . but still one."

How do we account for this?

I think I already addressed the issue of one divine essence taking numerous forms. Each religion has its own understanding of how this works, Christians call it the Holy Spirit at work, Hindus will call it Brahmin, but they all converge at key points.
 
Joined Aug 2009
21,072 Posts | 10+
Minnesnowta
I think I already addressed the issue of one divine essence taking numerous forms. Each religion has its own understanding of how this works, Christians call it the Holy Spirit at work, Hindus will call it Brahmin, but they all converge at key points.

Ah, I see now what you mean, I think. So culturally relative?
 
Joined Mar 2010
5,417 Posts | 8+
USA
Ah, I see now what you mean, I think. So culturally relative?
In a way yes. Plenty of nuance is involved here. This is often referred to as "the transcendent unity of religions".

A short summary of the concept:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vvEb3MZJCc]The Transcendent Unity of Religions, James Cutsinger - YouTube[/ame]
 
Joined Mar 2011
3,403 Posts | 0+
just sitting here


Zoroastrianism

---------------------
It is the earliest 'recorded' monotheism. Considering the period, monotheism was highly unnatural. Nature-worshipping was more in order. The true followers of the divine message must had a hard time defining Divinity without form in those days. People tend to disbelieve what is unseen, which is true even today. The later generations of believers had to come up with something symbolic to describe SomeOne Who is free of form. So, some 'genius' got the idea of 'fire'. Thus, a monotheistic belief degraded into fire-worshiping, over time.

Zoroastrianism came from a reformation of the Magian religion which stated there were two first causes, the one was light and good , and the other was dark and evil, that these two forces are in an eternal struggle, and that all things good and bad come out of that eternal struggle.

The zoroastrian reform was that he held there was an original God who created both light and dark and out of these two , then came all other things,he created them so that all dark and light would be good, but because of competition and jealousies each one started to do evil things to each other , and as man multiplied so both good and evil multiplied.

This struggle is set to continue until the end of earths alloted time, when there will be a judgement, all those judged on balance to be either good or bad will be seperated and sent on to a new world, the evil with the evil , and the good with the good.Those that started to do bad things had exactly the same start as those that did good but through free will they chose to be bad, and at the end will have to struggle in a world inhabited only by other evil people.

It was said Zoroaster got his teaching by being taken up , where God spoke to him out of the midst of a divine fire(Shekinah) and back on earth , he directed his followers always to pray facing the sun, they called the sun Mithra, he was said to have been given some of the divine fire to bring back to earth with him , and this fire had followers dedicated to never let it go out, all Temples had fires lit from the original divine fire, and if one should
ever go out it was only to be re-lit from the nearest Temples divine fire.
 
Joined Feb 2012
5,955 Posts | 681+
Nowhere
Religions are not supposed to be unified. Better to live one and understand all the others.
 
Joined Jul 2010
6,851 Posts | 10+
Not sure what it is
I think I already addressed the issue of one divine essence taking numerous forms. Each religion has its own understanding of how this works, Christians call it the Holy Spirit at work, Hindus will call it Brahmin, but they all converge at key points.

Brahmin refers to the top priest class individuals of the Indian caste system. Brahman is the Supreme Self. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman]Brahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Joined Mar 2012
18,030 Posts | 10+
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Christians also depict the Holy Father as a bearded old man [e.g. 'Creation of Man' by Michelangelo] , much like Zeus in that pic. But I don't think Christians actually consider him to be a bearded old man, do they?
As Catholic, pursuant to the truism of the Holy Trinity, God is the Alpha and the Omega, and It even became fire that descended upon the followers of Jesus when He ascended to heaven. Thus, the painting of Michelangelo, is not the concept of the Holy Father.

This symbol of the One God is not about a bearded man.
 
Joined Jul 2010
6,851 Posts | 10+
Not sure what it is
As Catholic, pursuant to the truism of the Holy Trinity, God is the Alpha and the Omega, and It even became fire that descended upon the followers of Jesus when He ascended to heaven. Thus, the painting of Michelangelo, is not the concept of the Holy Father.

This symbol of the One God is not about a bearded man.

The Godhead that descended upon Jesus' followers was God the Spirit (Holy Spirit), not God the Father.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top