0
   

Question about Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim.

 
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 01:34 pm
How old are each of these religions?

I'm sorry if I spelled the Jewish religion wrong.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,519 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
QKid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 01:58 pm
Islam is a bit over 1,400 yrs old.
Christianity we all know started around when Jesus Christ lived.
Judaism I think was like either 2,000 BC or 4,000 BC.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 02:10 pm
In the Jewish Calendar, it is the year 5,764.

Link to Jewish Calendar

The Muslim calendar dates from the year 622 a.d.- 1482 years.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/muslimcal.html
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 03:03 pm
Thanks!

Now what about Buddhism?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 03:21 pm
Looks like 2547.

http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/2004cal.pdf
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 06:13 pm
Thank you, but I'm still confused. What year is it in the Jewish calendar?

Is the Buddhism year 2547 ad?
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 06:28 pm
We use the Birth of Christ (b.c. , a.d.) to mark our years. The Jewish, Buddhist (varies on where the buddhism is - Japanese used to / some still mark years by Emperor.) and arab calander mark years differently.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 06:30 pm
In the Jewish calendar, it's 5764. We had a Y5K problem a while back :wink:
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 06:36 pm
Alright, so which one is the oldest religion?
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 06:40 pm
zoroastrianism (if you are talking about the root of abrahamic faiths.)
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 07:39 pm
Almost certainly the oldest religion practiced by our ancestors was Shamanism. Shamanism is typified by a reverance for the power of nature. The Shaman is an intermediary between the needs and fears of the group, and primal forces. Taboos define proper behavior, the violation of which may throw the balance between Man and Nature's forces out of whack. Often primal forces are "named" as gods, but not in every case. Rituals, visions and sympathetic magic are utilized to mediate between the mundane world and the mysterious forces that so often hold the balance between group and individual survival and destruction.

This sort of religion comes in a number of varieties, some of which are quite sophisticated. Shinto is a good example of how subtle and persistent Shamanism can be. AmerIndians of the American Southwest also maintain strong ancient traditions that are Shamanistic. A number of anthropological studies have been done in "primitive" societies where Shamanism was still very strong as late as the second half of the 20th century.

Remnants of Shamanism can be found in all of the major religions. The Shamanistic roots of Hinduism are quite clear. The Taoist focus on being in balance with Nature is another sophisticated utilization of the basic concepts of Shamanism. Followers of the Abrahamic religions will strenuously deny any similarities with "primitive" religion. I don't want to get into a nasty discussion with those folks, but many are convinced that such ties do exist. How is Abrahamic sacrifice really any different than a Shamanistic sacrifice? Both are attempting to please and placate forces that, if not properly worshiped, can destroy the group. In both cases, a priest/shaman acts as an intermediary with the forces that control an individual/groups destiny. What is a "sin" if not a "taboo"? Oh well, I suppose I'll be hearing some outrage over the next few days.
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 07:54 pm
Portal Star wrote:
zoroastrianism (if you are talking about the root of abrahamic faiths.)


This is true... I just found it http://religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm This is a great site!
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2004 09:00 pm
There's a real problem in asking which religion is the oldest. For example Judaism antedates the formation of the world in theory. So does Christianity. If you count the jedi as organized religion, then my best estimate is "long ago." You should be specific. Are you wanting a religious point of view on which religion is oldest? That's a dangerous question.
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 06:27 am
No I wasn't asking for a religious point of view, necessarily... but I found my answer anyway. Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 06:30 am
Ash, i'm personally outraged, but can't for the life of me recall why . . .
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 06:32 pm
truth
Asherman, I have some familiarity with the anthropological literature on primitive/shamanistic religion, and I find nothing in your account that is not very sound. Let them be outraged.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 07:02 pm
I vote with Ash also but I am more inclined to think that the basic similarities between religions in general are an indication that basic human hopes, fears, and insecurities haven't changed much over the aeons of human existence.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 09:11 pm
If we haven't changed much, what does that tell you about the probability of the following: War ends with perpetual peace; Chauvinism ceases to exist among humans; Self-interest is replaced by self-sacrifice; Long-term goals become more important than immediacy; rationality replaces superstition and irrationality, and the list goes on.

What aught to be is a shining star toward which we steer, but only the foolish believe that perfection is attainable. True Utopias are not possible, but the idea of a Utopia and the hope that it gives us is useful. All of the wonderful things that are available to the human species at the beginning of the 21st century would have made our great-grandparents think that Utopia had arrived. Has it? The human heart has not changed much in thousands of years, and it probably won't change in the next fifty years either.

I have to go eat now while my supper is hot. That's the bottom-line, isn't it? About change? Poco y poco.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2004 01:25 pm
Asherman wrote:
If we haven't changed much, what does that tell you about the probability of the following: War ends with perpetual peace; Chauvinism ceases to exist among humans; Self-interest is replaced by self-sacrifice; Long-term goals become more important than immediacy; rationality replaces superstition and irrationality, and the list goes on.

What aught to be is a shining star toward which we steer, but only the foolish believe that perfection is attainable. True Utopias are not possible, but the idea of a Utopia and the hope that it gives us is useful. All of the wonderful things that are available to the human species at the beginning of the 21st century would have made our great-grandparents think that Utopia had arrived. Has it? The human heart has not changed much in thousands of years, and it probably won't change in the next fifty years either.

I have to go eat now while my supper is hot. That's the bottom-line, isn't it? About change? Poco y poco.


Perfection would be imperfect. It wouldn't allow for any kind of adaptablility or competition, both of which breeds strength. Perfection implies homogeneity, we need imperfection to be, well, perfect.

I think the first paragraph is probably a direct result of the fact that our lives are longer, and much easier than they used to be. Cruelty and subservience can have their uses in competition and reproduction, but so can kind methods of social interaction - mutual social relationships. I think us having more time leads to kindness. We take a long time to raise our children, we take our leisure with mates.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2004 06:29 pm
Portal,

I'm not too sure that life is easier than it used to be. It perhaps is just different. Most people work about as hard as they have to.

I also have a sneaky suspicion that although modern society has more "things" they extract a certain price from us as "standards of perfection" change.

Although my house is far superior (in our modern opinion) to a cave or a yurt or a tepee we have less time to spend in it relaxing or thinking or enjoying our spouses and children.

Quality of life may not be synonomous with standard of living.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Question about Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim.
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2022 at 10:17:17