“Recent work on tools and human remains found at [Kibish], at Omo River (Ethiopia), previously thought by Richard Leakey to date to about 130,000 years ago, on the basis of careful re-examination of potassium-argon dating at Omo 1, is now thought to date to 195,000 years ago, making it a good candidate to be a site type for anatomically modern humans (AMH) ancestors.” (Ref: wikipedia)
Given the well-established scientific fact that human existence has been around for more than 195,000 years, the emergence of “modern”, “civilized”, religion is a rather new phenomena that make up only 1% of the time that humans have inhabited the earth.
2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham
1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder
560 BC. Buddhism- Gautama Buddha
550 BC. Taoism - Lao Tzu
599 BC. Jainism, Mahavira
30 AD. Christianity –Jesus Christ
50-100 AD. Gnosticism-
590 AD.-Roman Catholicism- Developed after Constantine; Pope Gregory?
610 AD.- Islam- Mohammed
(2,085 BC to 610 AD = 2,695 yr), (195,000 yr. / 2,695 yr = 1%)
If we were to liken the emergence of “organized” religions named above in terms of a space/time relationship of walking around the circumference of the Earth (40,075 km or 24,901 miles) beginning at Naukan, Siberia and walking westward completely around the world to the near-starting point of Prince of Wales Cape, Alaska, you would have to imagine taking nearly 195,000 years to walk some 131,477,280 steps; or 657.3 steps per year for 195,000 years. During your time of crossing the entire earth, you would not encounter a single Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim in all your travels around the globe until the last 1% of your journey. Yet, for the vast majority of human existence, human beings have flourished and nourished their sense of spirituality without the control of prophets, demigods, and popes.
For nearly 190,000 years, humankind did not kill each other over the “true” god-perfect religion – as we do today. For millennia after millennia, men and women have had the ability to live deeply spiritual lives, reaching the deepest sense of inner fulfillment and connectedness to their divine creator through nature and all the manifest forms of creation. Many times, the complete and perfect union (unhampered by the yet un-thought of prophets, demigods, and popes) was expressed through animism or pantheism – to name a few media through which spirituality was and can be expressed.
Today many of Earth’s global citizens are rejecting “modern-day” self-appointed prophets and demigods as unnecessary “brokers” between deity and their own personal relationship with their creator. Many are returning to what we know best and what has always worked for human since the beginning of time. Some call this “New Age Religion”. Many feel that we do not need yet another “new” religion. We only need to continue doing what humankind has been doing for 195,000 years – that many “souls” cannot be wrong nor can humanity just ignore that they once existed, nor can we simply dismiss them as “damned to hell” because they never knew the controlling dogma of self-appointed prophets and demigods.
If I am wrong on this point, I am in the best of company with nearly 195,000 years worth of other earnest souls. The divinity that loves, unconditionally, the larger part of humanity (i.e., 195,000 years worth of humanity), is a creator who is worthy of devotion.
I thought hinduism was older than judaism by 600 years. I've read that in 2 different books from teology I have.
| Mamsaac wrote: |
| I thought hinduism was older than judaism by 600 years. I've read that in 2 different books from teology I have. |
I also think so. Some form of Hinduism was present in "Indus Valley Civilisation", which falls back to 3300 BC. | Mamsaac wrote: |
| I thought hinduism was older than judaism by 600 years. I've read that in 2 different books from teology I have. |
Some references:
“Hinduism differs from Christianity and other Western religions in that it does not have a single founder, a specific theological system, a single system of morality, or a central religious organization. It consists of "thousands of different religious groups that have evolved in India since 1500 BCE." 1
(Ref: David Levinson, "Religion: A cross-cultural dictionary," Oxford University Press, (1998)
“The roots of Hinduism date from around 1500–1300 BCE, though the beliefs and practices of this era are more accurately termed, "Vedism." Fully-formed Hinduism did not emerge until these Vedic traditions interacted with the shramanical movements of Buddhism and Jainism. The synthesis of Vedic ritual and pantheon with the non-violent and gnostic traditions of the shramanas yielded the complex we know today as "Hinduism."
“From the perspective of a believing Hindu, however, the Sanātana Dharma propounds eternal and universal principles with no beginning or end. The Purāṇas place Lord Kṛiṣhṇa’s birth at around 3100 BCE. Kṛiṣhṇa’s incarnation was preceded by Lord Rāma’s, sometimes dated at over 5–6000 BCE, or even more than a million years ago in the Tretā Yuga according to the Rāmāyaṇa Epic. Many Hindus believe that their religious tradition was fully formed by the time of Lord Rāma, the seventh incarnation of Lord Viṣhṇu. Modern Indology dates the roots of Hinduism to about 1500-1300 BCE, based on linguistic and literary data from the Rig Veda, believed to be composed around a similar period, though it is accepted that they were transmitted orally from at least 1800-1500 BCE.”
(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Origins_of_Hinduism)the oldest religion is polygamie. Unfortunately early mankind wanted to be "modern" and completely replaced the old religion with "modern" varieties.
Now we are narrowminded catholics, narrowminderder muslims, emptyminded sectarians or whatever... too bad, evolution is not always a good thing
| Quote: |
| he oldest religion is polygamie. |
You mean polytheism, polygamy means having more than one spouse.
That s true, polytheism existed long before monotheism. In fact throughout history, monotheism only represents a small fraction of religious beliefs. | nam_siddharth wrote: |
| Mamsaac wrote: | | I thought hinduism was older than judaism by 600 years. I've read that in 2 different books from teology I have. |
I also think so. Some form of Hinduism was present in "Indus Valley Civilisation", which falls back to 3300 BC. |
I think the same too.. because.. it has been proved that the great war "mahabharatha" occured somewhat 5000+ years ago from now.. it is said that because.. in mahabharatha describes about the positioning of the stars and planets during the war.. and scientist have done studies on it.. and came to a conclusion that comparing to the positon of stars and planets today.. the positions that was said in mahabharatha might have been in some 5000+ years back from now.. I think you got what Iam trying to say.. | the666bbq wrote: |
| Now we are narrowminded catholics, narrowminderder muslims, emptyminded sectarians or whatever... too bad, evolution is not always a good thing |
Narrowminded? That's a foolish comment. You'd be surprised at how liberal the Churches are becoming, and how open-minded many people are.
All it takes is one counter-example to prove you wrong. I'm Catholic. I may appear narrow-minded, because I do come from a strictly conservative home and Church, but I am very open-minded, if you take the chance to actually talk to me... and not take everything at face value.
But, I am inclined to agree with you in a way. There are many Christians (not only Catholics) that have the narrow minded attitude, and really truly put themselves above everyone else. They act all holy and pretend, but in truth, they aren't amounting to much in regards to Christianity. | silliman wrote: |
2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham
1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder
560 BC. Buddhism- Gautama Buddha
550 BC. Taoism - Lao Tzu
599 BC. Jainism, Mahavira
30 AD. Christianity –Jesus Christ
50-100 AD. Gnosticism-
590 AD.-Roman Catholicism- Developed after Constantine; Pope Gregory?
610 AD.- Islam- Mohammed |
Your list has a lot of problems. One of the minor problems is that you don't take into account the uncertainty of the dating of the earliest religions. But the major problem is your inconsistency in the criteria for dating.
For example, you date Judaism by Abraham (incorrectly, in my opinion, but I'll get to that later), who is the founder of the religion, but Judaism as we know it today didn't actually come into being for many hundreds of years after that. Yet you date Hinduism by the writing of Rigveda when Hinduism took the form that it pretty much has today, ignoring any earlier oral traditions or the founder(s).
If you want to date by the founder, then Judaism would probably be more correctly dated at around 1900BCE, if you believe what Judaism claims about Abraham. Hinduism would be closer to 1800BCE at the absolute latest, but if you believe what Hinduism claims about Krishna, it could be as far back as 3000BCE. If you want to date them by the first religious writings, that puts Hinduism at about 1500BCE with the Rigveda, and Judaism at around 1500BCE with the book of Job. If you want to date by the foundation of the principles as we recognize them today, then Hinduism still clocks in at around 1500BCE-1300BCE, because little has fundamentally changed since then, and Judaism comes in at around 200-300CE, with the writing of the Talmud formalizing and standardizing various oral traditions.
Anyway you want to do it, your logic is flawed with respect to your dating. First, the problem of the date for the first men. 195,000 years ago is the date of the first anatomically modern humans. That doesn't mean the first intelligent humans - they could have been dumb as bricks. Brain capacity could have evolved and increased later. The first evidence we have of writing is around 3500BCE - we can date the first civilizations, like Sumeria, to around 5000BCE - and we can date the roots of things like farming and pottery to around 10,000BCE. Either way, it's a far cry from 195,000 years, and religion would have been useless if the people were too dumb to comprehend and/or communicate it.
The other problem is that most religions already account for that in various ways. Abrahamic religions simply don't accept the 195,000 number, putting the creation of the world at around 4000BCE. Hinduism simply says it's really damn old, spanning back to at least 9000BCE, and back as far as it has to go to have always been there.
You can't accept some of the claims of a religion and not others. If you accept that there is a God according to Abraham's description, then you accept all of the claims of Judaism (et al). Likewise, if you accept the claims of Hinduism, then you accept its claims that it has always been. You can't claim that people before either religion are damned according to that religion, when according to that religion there were no people before.
It is also incorrect to claim that there was no religious violence prior to modern monotheistic religions. People have been killing each other forever, if not for various gods that we don't even know the names of anymore, then simply for the hell of it.
Of course, all this doesn't even begin to touch on your fundamental assumption, which is just that - an assumption - and one that not everyone shares. Who says there is a creator - or a divinity if you prefer that term - and who says anyone should be devoted to it if there is one?If Islam and Judaism spawn off of similar branches, how could 1 religion be the oldest, while the other the newest?
Not just that, but having taken college classes on religion, I cannot remember which one, but the first two books of Genesis predate Judaism,
and the second two are during. I cannot remember the name of the culture that enslaved the Jews during that part of existence, but the Jewish culture had spawned off of another when breaking from that culture.
From what I remember reading, yes, the Jews were at the bottom of another cuture's caste system (like the opposite of Brahman in Hinduism, which also I cannot remember).
Sorry, I remember studying this stuff, and I find the conversation intriguing. And I am a devote Jew. 
I always heard that Zoroastracism was one of the oldest religions. There's a difference between religion in general and religions that are STILL around. You should specify.
| Aless wrote: |
| I always heard that Zoroastracism was one of the oldest religions. |
Yeah i agree. Judaism evolved from zoroastracism. The latter was the first monoteistic religion ever. I could be wrong but it is thought to have origins at least 2500 years ago. | silliman wrote: |
“
2,085 BC. Judaism-Abraham
1,500 BC. Hinduism- no specific founder
560 BC. Buddhism- Gautama Buddha
550 BC. Taoism - Lao Tzu
599 BC. Jainism, Mahavira
30 AD. Christianity –Jesus Christ
50-100 AD. Gnosticism-
590 AD.-Roman Catholicism- Developed after Constantine; Pope Gregory?
610 AD.- Islam- Mohammed
(2,085 BC to 610 AD = 2,695 yr), (195,000 yr. / 2,695 yr = 1%)
|
I agree with the general concensus, you need to broaden your scope. The religion I subscribe too is dated to at least 4000 B.C.E. Also the classic Greek Religion must date to at least 3000 B.C.E. or earlier. But Zoaroastrianism, like others have said, I believe is the oldes organized religion.I think most of you are missing the point of the original point. So what if the oldest religion was started in 5000 BC? His point was that for at least 190,000 years before that, there were no religions in the current sense, meaning that religion has only existed for a very small partion of human history... And then he draws some conclusions from that which I do have my doubts over but I'm too tired to explain.
| schudder wrote: |
| I think most of you are missing the point of the original point. So what if the oldest religion was started in 5000 BC? His point was that for at least 190,000 years before that, there were no religions in the current sense, meaning that religion has only existed for a very small partion of human history... And then he draws some conclusions from that which I do have my doubts over but I'm too tired to explain. |
You are incorrect. You say "there were no religions in the current sense", then you say "religion has only existed for a very small partion of human history". There are many things wrong with those assertions.
First, it's not true that there were no religions in the current sense. It is true that the today's religions did not exist then, but there were definitely beliefs and practices that we would call religious using the current sense of the word. Just because the religions of the time have been lost doesn't mean they were not valid religions.
Second, you're making a huge leap when you say "religion has only existed for a very small partion of human history". That's simply not true. Today's religions are young, yes. But who's to say that religion didn't exist in some form or another before even fire was harnessed?
The original poster's arguments are similarly off base. There seems to be a general shortcoming of understanding around the concept that just because today's religions didn't exist for more than a small percentage of human history, that must mean that no religion existed before that. That's simply nonsense. Further, assumptions like there were no religious wars or religions with prophets and dogma before recorded history are little more than baseless leaps.
And furthermore, there's the point I was trying to make above. Arguing to a believer of religion X that their religion is somehow inferior to "old" religions - spirituality via animism and/or pantheism - because those things were around longer is idiotic. If they believe religion X, they probably already have established beliefs that trace the foundations of their religion back to creation (or just back, in the case of religions that have no creation myth). Take Christianity, for example - the original poster would claim that animism is superior to Christianity because Christianity is only a couple thousand years young. Fine. Logical. But then the Christian would turn around and say that (assuming this is a progressive Christian who accepts scientific knowledge and doesn't believe things like that the universe is only three thousand years old) God was there before even animism, because he created the universe and the people that later come to believe in animism, and he would probably have some rationalization to explain what happened to the people that came before Christianity. Thus Christianity is superior to animism, because Christianity goes back to creation. You see? What you end up with is not a debate on anything meaningful - just religious bickering.Hindo isn't the oldest, but is it far older than Judaism or anyother monotheistic belif. the first religion that said there is only one god wasn't judaism as well... it was presented by ZARATUSTRA almost 300 years before Abraham in Mesopotomy.
| Mamsaac wrote: |
| I thought hinduism was older than judaism by 600 years. I've read that in 2 different books from teology I have. |
[quote="nam_siddharth"] | Mamsaac wrote: |
| I thought hinduism was older than judaism by 600 years. I've read that in 2 different books from teology I have. |
[quote="swapnalokam"][quote="nam_siddharth"] | Mamsaac wrote: |
| I thought hinduism was older than judaism by 600 years. I've read that in 2 different books from teology I have. |
[quote="richie6963"]If Islam and Judaism spawn off of similar branches, how could 1 religion be the oldest, while the other the newest?
| Aless wrote: |
| I always heard that Zoroastracism was one of the oldest religions. There's a difference between religion in general and religions that are STILL around. You should specify. |
| naamawaisel wrote: |
| Hindo isn't the oldest, but is it far older than Judaism or anyother monotheistic belif. the first religion that said there is only one god wasn't judaism as well... it was presented by ZARATUSTRA almost 300 years before Abraham in Mesopotomy. |
Hello Mamsaac, nam_siddharth, swapnalokam, richie6963, Aless, and naamawaisel:
You all have missed my point. My point was to observe the fact that ‘emergence of “organized” religions’ [quote from my original text above] makes up only 1% of the total time humankind have been on earth. The vast entirety of the remainder of that time (99%), humankind expressed deep values of “spirituality” WITHOUT the control of organizations and institutions we’ve known in organized religions of “modern” day.
POINT: Shouldn’t we give a serious look at what humankind may have been doing right for the first 99% of time of our existence?
P.S. Schudder, Thank you for being the only one who can see the forest.
| schudder wrote: |
| I think most of you are missing the point of the original point. So what if the oldest religion was started in 5000 BC? His point was that for at least 190,000 years before that, there were no religions in the current sense, meaning that religion has only existed for a very small partion of human history... And then he draws some conclusions from that which I do have my doubts over but I'm too tired to explain. |
Hello Mamsaac, nam_siddharth, swapnalokam, richie6963, Aless, and naamawaisel:
As the great philosopher Bruce Lee once said, “It is like a finger pointing to the moon... don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory...."
While you spend your time quibbling about the exact second, minute, hour, day, month and year that your modern day organized religion came into being, you are missing the “the heavenly glory” that threads (or strings, if you understand ‘string theory’ in quantum physics) its way through all of human spirituality for 195,000 years.
Said another way: Why can’t see the forest for the trees?
An idiomatic expression meaning: To discern an overall pattern from a mass of detail; to see the bigger picture, or the broader, more general situation. [/u]
Albert Einstein spent his entire life trying to demonstrate that all fundamental forces and interactions between elementary particles in physics can be conceptualized through a single theoretical framework known at “the unified field theory”.
It is regrettable that modern, institutionalized / organized religions have indoctrinated a world-wide religion practice that teaches its practitioners to discriminate against members of other religions based on differences – differences in how we worship, religious practice, doctrine, scripture, etc., etc.
It is regrettable that within the last few millennia (1% referenced above), organized / institutionalized religions have directly or indirectly promulgated the mass murder of millions and millions of people through genocide, holocaust, persecution, “holy” wars and now terrorism – all in the name of “differences.” When leaders of organized religion can show differences, they can position themselves to show their blind followers why their brand of dogma is bigger, better, holier or more “pure” and thereby incite “justifiable” murder.
When will a level of human spirit evolve that endeavors to find and see what unifies and brings us together rather than what tears us apart (literally and figuratively)?
| silliman wrote: |
| You all have missed my point. My point was to observe the fact that ‘emergence of “organized” religions’ [quote from my original text above] makes up only 1% of the total time humankind have been on earth. The vast entirety of the remainder of that time (99%), humankind expressed deep values of “spirituality” WITHOUT the control of organizations and institutions we’ve known in organized religions of “modern” day. |
Yes, well, you've missed my point. You are basing your numbers on the emergence of "organized" religions that exist today. You're not listing the oldest "organized" religions, you're listing the oldest living "organized" religions.
Based on that mistake, you've made further assumptions and conclusions. But since the root of your idea is flawed, the rest of it is all questionable. The number you use to date the oldest human is also questionable, because there is no evidence and no reason to believe that humans that long ago were even intellectually capable of being "spiritual" at all. Their cognitive processes may not have been any more evolved than "want food... see animal... kill animal... eat". So your date for the dawn of organized religion is questionable, and your date for the beginning of humanity (considering the context) is questionable. To put it bluntly, your entire argument is flawed.
Let's ignore the number problems for the moment, and concentrate on your underlying thesis. What evidence do you have that there was ever a period in human history where humans were "spiritual" but not organized into religions? Why is it not possible that the very idea of spirituality came from the first shamans and priests of ancient stone age religions, who then taught their people that there was a spiritual aspect to the world? Perhaps the very idea of a spiritual world was devised by those ancient shamans to assert control over their people - they could claim to have an "in" on what was going on in the other world and thus were privvy to information that the average Gorok, Fook and Targ were not... and then only later did Gorok, Fook and Targ realize that they could access that other layer of existence themselves, without relying on the shaman. Thus, spirituality would have been born out of organized religion.
You're going to have to back up your argument with far more evidence than you have so far. So far, all you've managed to show is that humanity did well for a long time without the current crop of religions, which is hardly breaking news. But you haven't shown that spirituality existed for the whole period, or that it existed before organized religion (at least for organized religions that do not exist today).indi, you are clearly well-read on this subject.
Silliman,
if you want to relate Catholicism to Constantine, he's fourth century, not sixth, but why you would chose to identify one Christian denomination as a separate religion I do not know.
was mohammed the very start of islam? I thought it started before that....
"want food... see animal... kill animal... eat".
lol even monkeys passed that stage ;o) so I doubt humans were like that, they were likely a lot more advanced than you think, maybe organised religeons actually hold us back by encouraging us to not question and think for ourselves.
| druidbloke wrote: |
"want food... see animal... kill animal... eat".
maybe organised religeons actually hold us back by encouraging us to not question and think for ourselves. |
Hi Druid,
You've made an excellent point. Sometimes when we are told not to examine other religions (as commonly dictated in the Islamic world) for comparative purposes or when Catholics are "told" not to watch the Da Vinci Code movie, etc., one wonders why religious leaders dissuade followers from thinking for themselves. Perhaps those leaders fear that thinking for ourselves might lead to the realization that we have as much a direct link to the Divine Creator as they do and that we might not need a “middle man” brokering “deals” with god on our behalf.
Anyway, see what you’ve done, Druid. You’ve got me actively searching, growing, thinking, and searching for truth. Had you not made this statement, I would have just continued coasting, not thinking and letting others think for me.
Lots of guess work and supposition here.
First off, I really get annoyed when someone points to new research that refers to remains "thought to date to 195,000 years ago, making it a good candidate to be a site type for anatomically modern humans (AMH) ancestors." and in the next paragraph they twist it to say "well-established scientific fact that human existence has been around for more than 195,000 years". Is there a subtle difference in these two statements? It's the sort of distortion and slippery language that were the hallmarks of great books like "Chariots of the Gods" and "Morning of the Magicians".
It may or may not be found to be true, but by doing it, the writers are trying to paint their thesis with scientific validity.
That said, I would like to restate Indi's point about what the intellectual capabilities of this early men. We have know idea what cognitive and emotional capacities they had and to assume they were equal to recent man is simply that, an assumption.
As far as I'm aware, virtually every group of ancient man has been found with artifacts that relate to religions of varying sorts. It seems to be a trait of man to create a mythos to explain his world.
This all seems like a lot of guess work to back up an idea that could be made in a more direct way.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
Lots of guess work and supposition here.
It may or may not be found to be true, but by doing it, the writers are trying to paint their thesis with scientific validity. |
Hi HoboPelican,
Though the carbon dating may not be as exact as we would like it to be (hence the words “thought to date”) the discovery does in fact represent tangible evidence that humankind has been on earth much longer than what was previously considered.
That being said, if you had read my assertion completely, you would have seen that the main point I was making was not to validate the “exact year” at which humankind emerged or their relative IQ at the time, but rather to note that humankind has been around much longer than the emergence of modern-day, “organized” religion.
Let’s say I am wrong in my presentation (above) and that humankind has NOT been around for 195,000 years, and let’s say I am wrong and that these early forms of humankind were NOT as intelligent as modern man. Conceding these two points, my main point still remains valid. My claim was that the existence of modern-day, “organized” religion would make up only an infinitesimal percentage of time (1%) when compared to the total time humankind has inhabited the earth.
So I am wrong. Let’s adjust the numbers. Let’s say modern-day, “organized” religion has only been controlling and manipulating the masses for 5% of the time, or 20% of the time. Whatever the margin or degree of variance there is a scientific validity that humankind has been around for a much longer period of time than the timeframe of organized religion. Hence, my main point remains valid.
Main Point: Intelligent human beings (and there have been billions and billions of them who have come and gone since the inception of humankind) were “human,” possessed spiritual awareness, and moreover, expressed their deep devotion and spirituality without the “help” of those who represent “organized” religion today.
Perhaps a conversation in this forum about what our predecessors may have done right might prove instructive in relation to what “modern” day religion is doing wrong (i.e., holocaust, religious genocide, ethnic cleansing, religious-based cultural revolutions, jihad, holy wars and crusades). | silliman wrote: |
| ... That being said, if you had read my assertion completely, you would have seen that the main point I was making was not to validate the “exact year” at which humankind emerged or their relative IQ at the time, but rather to note that humankind has been around much longer than the emergence of modern-day, “organized” religion. |
No, actually I did read the whole thing. That first paragraph of mine was about how some people tend to cloak supposition in the trappings of science. The whole intro was wasted space, trying to make it sound scientific. as you just pointed out, it really isn't important to your thesis. Why even mention it, except to make it sound more scientific.
On to your "main point.
| Quote: |
| Main Point: Intelligent human beings (and there have been billions and billions of them who have come and gone since the inception of humankind) were “human,” possessed spiritual awareness, and moreover, expressed their deep devotion and spirituality without the “help” of those who represent “organized” religion today. |
Again, why do you assume these early men had the same capacities as modern man. Aren't you making assumptions about their day to day lives? You are positing a whole spiritual live and then further supposing there was no "institution" guiding them. This is a pretty big assumption.
What is your reasoning for these assumptions?
It's an interesting idea, but I've always gotten suspicious when people precede guesswork with scientific references in such a way as to make the whole argument seem more valid.
Upshot - Tell us more about why you assume ancient man had an active spritual life and had no "religious leader" guiding and using him.
[/quote] | Mamsaac wrote: |
| I thought hinduism was older than judaism by 600 years. I've read that in 2 different books from teology I have. |
me too! 
| Wikipedia wrote: |
From a Hindu perspective, Sanatana Dharma is composed of eternal principles and had no beginning and will have no end. There are two contemporary streams of thought regardings its origins:
Current archeaological and literary evidence suggests that Hinduism was formed somewhere between 1500-1300 BCE, based on the composing of the Rig Veda.
Astronomical evidence gives an earlier date of approximately 3102 BCE. It comes from close examination of the Mahabharata, where the exact positions of the stars were noted at Sri Krishna's birth. Hindus believe Krishna was born 5000 years ago, and using the star locations in the Mahabharata, the exact year was 3102 BCE. Sri Rama, according to the Ramayana, lived around 5000-6000 BCE. These dates are seen as being unlikely by secular historians.
The writers of the Vedas, the earliest piece of written Hindu work and the bedrock of the religion, are believed to be different spiritually realized people. Hindus consider these Vedas as Shruti, that which is heard (and written down). |
I'm not sure how old Judaism is but I doubt it was around 1500-1300 bce and I know it wasn't around 3000bce.I belive the first religion became known when someone inveneted a word to descibe the strange beliefs and rituals that people obsesed were true, 
its a really "smarty pants" answer but very true, before there was a word to describe it it wasent a "thing" more of a life........ 
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| The whole intro was wasted space, trying to make it sound scientific. as you just pointed out, it really isn't important to your thesis. Why even mention it, except to make it sound more scientific. |
Hi HoboPelican,
I think you’re right about my reference to the discovery of bones that push back the earlier notion of when humankind first emerged. In retrospect, that portion could have been eliminated or tightened up a bit. I was surfing around one day and came upon it and I was struck by the notion of how long we humans have inhabited the earth and how relatively brief modern-day, organized religion has been in existence relative to the genesis of humankind. From that realization came the question: Is there any validity to how our ancestors may have expressed their spirituality that is not fairly represented in modern-day, organized religion.
| Quote: |
| Again, why do you assume these early men had the same capacities as modern man. |
Related to the “supposition” made by some of the readers that modern-day humans are somehow smarter or more intelligent than people… say, 25,000 years ago… Well, we all can only speculate. I personally am quite impressed with some of recorded history’s all time greats (e.g., Patañjali, Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, Eratosthenes, Euclid, etc.) and further challenge the notion that “IQ” or intelligence is correlated to spirituality (or consciousness, if you will). In all likelihood, early human had sufficient intellectual and spiritual capacity.
I also believe that the size of your cranium is not directly proportional to your spiritual capacity. I tend to “believe” (not substantiated by scientific facts) that all realms and levels of manifest nature are imbued with some degree of spiritual (call it life force) awareness. Hence, my statements do reflect a supposition that early forms of humankind likely possessed some capacity for introspection, consciousness, and awareness.
| Quote: |
You are positing a whole spiritual live and then further supposing there was no "institution" guiding them. This is a pretty big assumption.
What is your reasoning for these assumptions? |
Recorded history has not documented any institutionalized or organized religion during the time periods of 25,000, 50,000, 100,000 or 150,000 years ago that can match the degree of sophistication, organization and scale reflected in many of modern day religions. Hence, I feel that I have made a reasonable assumption, not a scientific claim.
| Quote: |
Upshot - Tell us more about why you assume ancient man had an active spritual life and had no "religious leader" guiding and using him.
|
[/quote]
I suspect that in all likelihood there were shamans, etc. and loose-knit institutions; notwithstanding, those institutions could not have the capacity or scale to conduct wholesale genocide evidenced by contemporary organized religion. There also seems to be ample archeological aritfacts showing that our ancestors did possess objects of worships and spirituality – an indication that our ancestors were not spiritually deprived.
That being said, the intent to write the first article was not to sustain a diatribe on who is write and who is wrong and to knit pick the the accuracy of ideas, but rather to share “opinions,” “beliefs,” and/or ideas that stimulate the intellect and push our thinking beyond contemporary stigmas, dogmas, and cultural biases.Thanks, that pretty much addresses all my issues with the original post.
I guess I wasn't making much of a distinction between shamans/priests and the current institutions of religion. My thought (and only that, thought) is that man tends to create explanations for what he doesn't understand. Couple that with mans tendency to allow themselves to be "led" by a charisamtic leader, I wouldn't be surprised if man has constantly be led into evil in such a way, although on a much smaller scale. A case might even be made for neandethal man being wiped out in a "spritual cleansing" (total, unsabstantiated imagination here).
(now I'll shut up and let things proceed. ) Hi HoboPelican,
Many thanks for sharing your thoughts and for the insightful criticism. Unless our thoughts are challenged in constructive ways (and yours were constructive), our own thoughts become myopic and it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to reach the next tear of understanding. In short, I appreciate your keen intellect.
I agree with your closing statement related to humankind’s propensity to be "led" by a charismatic leader. I wish there were a way out of the cycle of what so commonly become endless spiritual and intellectual domination by those clever enough to manipulate the people who want to be led.
I’m not a psychologist; that being said, my unqualified observation is that perhaps there is a certain degree of satisfaction and security that comes through surrendering one’s own personal responsibility for spiritual growth to shamans, priests, imams, rabbis, or whatever. Perhaps the “led” and the “leader” represent a symbiotic relationship. I could live with that reality if only I didn’t have to fear (figuratively speaking) losing my head, being burned at the stake or being forced to drink poison (e.g., Socrates) for voicing dissent.
I wonder if the “ancients” found a way around this dilemma, or whether it got lost in the dust of time or “squashed” by power mongers and religious zealots.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Now I will also be quiet for a spell to listen and learn from what other may want to say.
I consider Catholicism as the first religion for christianity, as jesus said to peter:
Mt 16:18 - "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
and Peter is the first Pope of the Catholic Church*--I am proud to be a Catholic!! 
* - doubt it? Consult any kind of Book of Knowledge (i.e Encyclopedia). I am uninterested in the oldness of a religion. It is frankly unimportant. What is important is the livingness of your faith and your personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I express my faith in God and love for Jesus Christ in ways unlike those performed by anyone else. It is rigt for me and all humans to seek a personal relationship with God coz we were made to be God's companions.
I would put more excellence in the fervor and dedication and slinkiness in malleability to God of the faithful.
Hinduism is the oldest religion still praticed today. Juadism is almost as old as Hinduism. We can traced it root back to Abraham who lived around 1,800 BCE. But the beginning of Judaism is considered to be at the time when Moses recorded the Torah which is 1,400 BCE.
For me, I don't mind if my religion is old or new. I don't even mind my religion. I was giving importance to the way I live in this world and how I value my creator.
| Burritovision wrote: |
| I am uninterested in the oldness of a religion. It is frankly unimportant. What is important is the livingness of your faith and your personal relationship with ... |
Hi Burritovision,
I kind of feel the same way. Sometimes we humans get lost in the trappings and rituals of religion such that we "can't see the forest through the trees." Prior to the existance of most of modern religions, humankind probably behaved much the way we see modern humankind behave; that is, the fascination with form, rituals and the tangible manifestation of religion -- perhaps at the expense of not cultivating the form-less, intangible and spirital connections that make up a deeply fulfilling personal relationship with our Creator.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Burritovision.The oldest religion is agnosticism. It dates back to whatever date you can classify living creatures practicing religion. Before people cared about how the universe was created, people needed to worry about more important, practical things... like staying alive and stuff.
| the666bbq wrote: |
the oldest religion is polygamie. Unfortunately early mankind wanted to be "modern" and completely replaced the old religion with "modern" varieties.
Now we are narrowminded catholics, narrowminderder muslims, emptyminded sectarians or whatever... too bad, evolution is not always a good thing |
Don't cha think we Muslims are embracing modern ways. I am willing to explore but I am not willing to change my religion even if I get all the wealth in the whole wide world. | Tac-Tics wrote: |
| The oldest religion is agnosticism. It dates back to whatever date you can classify living creatures practicing religion. Before people cared about how the universe was created, people needed to worry about more important, practical things... like staying alive and stuff. |
Don't you mean atheism? You need to have the concept of a god before you can question whether or not it can be known factually that he exists. Agnosticism is probably one of the youngest "religions", if you want to consider it a religion.
On the other hand, if there was a time before humankind had the concept of a god, then atheism would be the oldest "religion" (if it were a religion). Remember, dogs, trees and rocks are atheists, since assumedly they don't believe in a god. Therefore, protohumans would have been atheist too, until they first came up with the idea of a god. | Indi wrote: |
....
On the other hand, if there was a time before humankind had the concept of a god, then atheism would be the oldest "religion" (if it were a religion). Remember, dogs, trees and rocks are atheists, since assumedly they don't believe in a god. Therefore, protohumans would have been atheist too, until they first came up with the idea of a god. |
Hmmm, I'm thinking that a case could be made for dogs thinking that WE are gods. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | ....
On the other hand, if there was a time before humankind had the concept of a god, then atheism would be the oldest "religion" (if it were a religion). Remember, dogs, trees and rocks are atheists, since assumedly they don't believe in a god. Therefore, protohumans would have been atheist too, until they first came up with the idea of a god. |
Hmmm, I'm thinking that a case could be made for dogs thinking that WE are gods. |
Gods that scoop up the shit they leave behind on the sidewalk? ^_^The oldest religion is certainly Hinduism. No doubts about it. Infact Hinduism is a way of living.
May be it is a matter of finding the oldest culture / civilization, and we would find their religion. For example Egyptians 5000 B.C.
In some cases if we don’t find a specific denomination for that religion it is because it was in deep relation with other areas of their social organizations (Politics/arts…).
The oldest civilization I know about is the one mentioned before – The Egyptians, or maybe Hindus (Until more is discovered about Atlantis 
).
Some clarification:
There is a difference between an organized religion and the consciousness of the sacred. The fist one appears with a certain development in social organization the second with mankind.
There is a difference between a religion and characteristics of a religion for example polytheistic - monotheistic) | ivanegues wrote: |
Some clarification:
There is a difference between an organized religion and the consciousness of the sacred. The fist one appears with a certain development in social organization the second with mankind. |
You’ve made a good point here, Ivanegues. I might add that not only does the consciousness of the sacred reside with mankind, but consciousness is also the stuff (i.e., call it god, The Source, Mother Nature, Creative Force, Unified Field, Strings, etc.) that is omnipresent, omniscient, ubiquitous, timeless, bounded and unbounded, finite and infinite, form and formless.
That being said, consciousness resides with man kind, mosquitoes, cockroaches, dung beetles, plants and animals of every sort. The expression of consciousness stems from a single source and is an intimate part of what we are – albeit the consciousness expressed from an ant is recognizably different (not better or worse), than the consciousness expressed by a human.
It is regrettable that the pride and arrogance of the human race sees itself as “superior” and generally fails to understand that humans are just one part of the whole of manifest consciousness. When humans have successfully destroyed the rain forests and many of the animals and fishes of the earth, we will see that we were a part of “them.” Having destroyed “them,” we will have successfully destroyed ourselves. | Indi wrote: |
First, it's not true that there were no religions in the current sense. It is true that the today's religions did not exist then, but there were definitely beliefs and practices that we would call religious using the current sense of the word. Just because the religions of the time have been lost doesn't mean they were not valid religions. |
Very good point, I give Ancient Egyptian as an example. They had very strict practices, clergy and had it not been for outside 'persuasion' the religeon would probably have stood the test of time | indi wrote: |
| Therefore, protohumans would have been atheist too, until they first came up with the idea of a god. |
Protohumans? Are you mad? Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were athiest?
What your describing is religion which came as a byproduct of psychological development which is basicly just that people tried to understand the world around them.
There is another theory which suggests that religeon was used as a way to control people through fear of the devine. | breebree wrote: |
| indi wrote: | | Therefore, protohumans would have been atheist too, until they first came up with the idea of a god. |
Protohumans? Are you mad? Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were athiest? |
No. Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were real?
| breebree wrote: |
| What your describing is religion which came as a byproduct of psychological development which is basicly just that people tried to understand the world around them. |
No. What i described is not a religion at all. It is the absence of a religion until someone dreamt one up.
It's right there in what you wrote, too: "...religion which came as a byproduct of psychological development which is basicly just that people tried to understand the world around them." If religion was created to explain the world, then there must have been a point where there were people capable of understanding/creating the explanation but the explanation did not yet exist. At that point, until the explanation was created, they would have been atheists. | Indi wrote: |
| breebree wrote: | | indi wrote: | | Therefore, protohumans would have been atheist too, until they first came up with the idea of a god. |
Protohumans? Are you mad? Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were athiest? |
No. Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were real? |
No, I was being sarcastic, even a child could tell you they were'nt real 
| indi wrote: |
| No. What i described is not a religion at all. It is the absence of a religion until someone dreamt one up. |
Sorry I misinterpreted what you said. Yeah what your saying is true but it's not like they made the decision to be athiest as there was no religeon to disbelieve, I suppose its just natural for animals to be athiest.
