just how plagiarised is judaism

Merry Andrew wrote:

Borrowing from other sources isn't quite the same things as plagiarism.

borrowing is but an euphemism for plagiarism.

Everyone comes here for their morning bowel movements ? ! ? ! ?

What a disgusting thread ! ! !

brahmin wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:

Borrowing from other sources isn't quite the same things as plagiarism.

borrowing is but an euphemism for plagiarism.

"Plagiarism" refers very specifically to the written word. I doubt very much that the unknown authors of the Book of Genesis copied the tale of Noah's ark directly (or indirectly) from a scroll copy of the Book of Gilgamesh, to use just one example. The tale of a great hero who saves humannkind from a universal flood was, no doubt, current among many Semitic peoples long before anyone wrote it down. Creation myths and myths of early heroes are often shared by cultures which have come into contact with each other during early stages of their development. According to Biblical tradition, the ancestors of the Hebrews lived among other folk in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) before emigrating to the land of Canaan (later-day Palestine) and claiming it as their own. It is not unfair to assume that they would have shared much of the same folklore. The stories of Gilgamesh and of Noah are not copies of each other. They are, rather, two different versions of the same folklore which existed as an oral tradition long before anyone wrote down either version. In the long years of retelling these tales at different hearths and different campfires, the names of the heroes and some of the details of the tale had inevitably changed.

This ain't plagiarism. It's just two different retellings of the same story. The story itself was already in the public domain.

brahmin wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:

Borrowing from other sources isn't quite the same things as plagiarism.

borrowing is but an euphemism for plagiarism.

"Plagiarism" refers very specifically to the written word. I doubt very much that the unknown authors of the Book of Genesis copied the tale of Noah's ark directly (or indirectly) from a scroll copy of the Book of Gilgamesh, to use just one example. The tale of a great hero who saves humannkind from a universal flood was, no doubt, current among many Semitic peoples long before anyone wrote it down. Creation myths and myths of early heroes are often shared by cultures which have come into contact with each other during early stages of their development. According to Biblical tradition, the ancestors of the Hebrews lived among other folk in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) before emigrating to the land of Canaan (later-day Palestine) and claiming it as their own. It is not unfair to assume that they would have shared much of the same folklore. The stories of Gilgamesh and of Noah are not copies of each other. They are, rather, two different versions of the same folklore which existed as an oral tradition long before anyone wrote down either version. In the long years of retelling these tales at different hearths and different campfires, the names of the heroes and some of the details of the tale had inevitably changed.

This ain't plagiarism. It's just two different retellings of the same story. The story itself was already in the public domain.

even if its true, fact remains that important parts of Jewish literature were not original in nature. rather jews/hebrews borrowed heavily from cultures they successively came in contact with.

If you believe that Judaism is plagerized. What would you say about Christianity a religion whose base is Judaism. .

however judaism claims to be the first religion to be monotheistic, the original delivered religion etc etc. you cant be "the" religion when important parts of your religious literature are clearly plagiarized form other cultures you came in contact with.

au1929 wrote:

If you believe that Judaism is plagerized. What would you say about Christianity a religion whose base is Judaism. .

secondary religions like christianity and islam make no claims about being original - they admit being the daughter religions of judaism. similarly secondary religions like buddhism and jainism make no claims about being original - they admit being daughter religions of hinduism.

however judaism claims to be the first religion to be monotheistic, the original delivered religion etc etc. you cant be "the" religion when important parts of your religious literature are clearly plagiarized form other cultures you came in contact with.

brahmin wrote:

however judaism claims to be the first religion to be monotheistic, the original delivered religion etc etc. you cant be "the" religion when important parts of your religious literature are clearly plagiarized form other cultures you came in contact with.

Oh, horseshit. Did you speak to "Judaism" and she told you this? Did you hear "Judaism" make such a claim at a press conference?

It sounds to me as though you have a distinct prejudice against Judaism.

brahmin wrote:

au1929 wrote:

If you believe that Judaism is plagerized. What would you say about Christianity a religion whose base is Judaism. .

secondary religions like christianity and islam make no claims about being original - they admit being the daughter religions of judaism. similarly secondary religions like buddhism and jainism make no claims about being original - they admit being daughter religions of hinduism.

however judaism claims to be the first religion to be monotheistic, the original delivered religion etc etc. you cant be "the" religion when important parts of your religious literature are clearly plagiarized form other cultures you came in contact with.

In contrast to western religions, there is no concept of God in Buddhism. The word religion is generally understood as belief in a higher power. If this is so, Buddhism cannot be described as a religion at all. It is better described as a philosophy of life.

Shakyamuni, the first historically recorded Buddha, lived roughly three thousand years ago in India. His concepts grew and changed and early followers departed and spread his earlier teachings. This is why there are so many different forms of Buddhism today. The teachings were added to, or modified, according to the culture and understanding of the people as it spread.

Buddhism came from Hinduism??

Sglass wrote:

brahmin wrote:

au1929 wrote:

If you believe that Judaism is plagerized. What would you say about Christianity a religion whose base is Judaism. .

secondary religions like christianity and islam make no claims about being original - they admit being the daughter religions of judaism. similarly secondary religions like buddhism and jainism make no claims about being original - they admit being daughter religions of hinduism.

however judaism claims to be the first religion to be monotheistic, the original delivered religion etc etc. you cant be "the" religion when important parts of your religious literature are clearly plagiarized form other cultures you came in contact with.

In contrast to western religions, there is no concept of God in Buddhism. The word religion is generally understood as belief in a higher power. If this is so, Buddhism cannot be described as a religion at all. It is better described as a philosophy of life.

Shakyamuni, the first historically recorded Buddha, lived roughly three thousand years ago in India. His concepts grew and changed and early followers departed and spread his earlier teachings. This is why there are so many different forms of Buddhism today. The teachings were added to, or modified, according to the culture and understanding of the people as it spread.

less than 3 thousand is what we in india are taught.

buddhism is indeed a philosophy of life first and a doctrine-nated religion later.

Would you care to share with us who Shakyamuni's higher power was?