United With God

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Luce NDs said:
You mean with a good bit of Taurus? Golden bouel ... bow elle? Perhaps fore castle as ante mound!
Click to expand...
The Days of and Nights of Brahma have nothing to do with Brahman cattle. It's rather a Hindu concept describing the cyclic Active and Quiescence periods of the Universe. In Hindu mythology these days are also called "Kalpas", a unit of time that measures into the billions of years. But scholars apparently insist that these values shouldn't be taken literally because the same language can be use for both major, Maha-Kalpas, and minor cycles.

Reading the Book of Genesis in a literal sense leads to a huge conflict in logic. I believe it's because it's not describing the initial creation but rather one of these cycles, or maybe a mix of major and minor cycles. And since each cycle is preceded by a quiescence or sleeping period then the wording of a new cycle could be considered like a new creation. It shouldn't therefore be read literally.
 
Neo said:
The Days of and Nights of Brahma have nothing to do with Brahman cattle. It's rather a Hindu concept describing the cyclic Active and Quiescence periods of the Universe. In Hindu mythology these days are also called "Kalpas", a unit of time that measures into the billions of years. But scholars apparently insist that these values shouldn't be taken literally because the same language can be use for both major, Maha-Kalpas, and minor cycles.

Reading the Book of Genesis in a literal sense leads to a huge conflict in logic. I believe it's because it's not describing the initial creation but rather one of these cycles, or maybe a mix of major and minor cycles. And since each cycle is preceded by a quiescence or sleeping period then the wording of a new cycle could be considered like a new creation. It shouldn't therefore be read literally.
Click to expand...


Like colossal hoards rumbling thro' the heavens? There are a multitudes of metaphors ... including one from Burl Ives on cattle going round in Circles ... cos Mus stir! Goes on in silence as mortals aspire ... or dream!

In science this is an eddy as Wahl effect ... turbulence as hinted at by the word Eris ... and so it goes ... there are even eddy effects in tran-sisters ... deil ec tricks? Much dependant on phonetics in the oral story ... about shocking beginnings ...

Leaves my po' denied psyche in a swirl ... you did know many stoic in religion would like to eliminate the other's mind ... avarice in the thoughtless field ... self destructive ... and thus the god stated m'n must die ... and then delight ... a theory on UV light in Greek visions ...
 
Neo said:
Reading the Book of Genesis in a literal sense leads to a huge conflict in logic. I believe it's because it's not describing the initial creation but rather one of these cycles, or maybe a mix of major and minor cycles. And since each cycle is preceded by a quiescence or sleeping period then the wording of a new cycle could be considered like a new creation. It shouldn't therefore be read literally.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's a Jewish creation myth about their belief that God is fundamental to bringing existence into being. Still not literal but interprets it in it's cultural context rather than dragging in ideas from another culture.
 
And although a Jewish creation myth, if it's got an influence on its development, they are more likely to be Sumerian than Indian.
 
I find it hard to believe that any religion stands in isolation from the influences of the other religions that preceded them.
 
Neo said:
I find it hard to believe that any religion stands in isolation from the influences of the other religions that preceded them.
Click to expand...

Sort of fits in with eclectic cross connections ... in which our spots are related ... as in the parallel of the stars above ... kind 'a random scatter ... with luck we get a flash of insight!

Like in the fatty acids of the brain ... there are ups and downs in the charge ... di electric affects!
 
Correction (thanks Neo); cursory research identifies that Judaism and Hinduism have a history of trading relationships dating back to 1000 B.C.E., so yes, another influence. I've been much influenced by a recent DVD series by Dom Crossan (based on a recent book of his) that I'm leading that stresses the relationship of Jewish stories, Cain and Abel for instance, to early Sumerian mythology.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Correction (thanks Neo); cursory research identifies that Judaism and Hinduism have a history of trading relationships dating back to 1000 B.C.E., so yes, another influence. I've been much influenced by a recent DVD series by Dom Crossan (based on a recent book of his) that I'm leading that stresses the relationship of Jewish stories, Cain and Abel for instance, to early Sumerian mythology.
Click to expand...

Hinduism as we know it did not exist in 1000BCE. The Upanisads didn't even exist yet, let alone the epics like the Mahabharata (from which the Bhagavad Gita comes). Hinduism as practiced today begins around the same time as Buddhism in the 6th or so century BCE. In 1000 BCE, you were dealing with the early Vedic religion so any influence on Judaism would come from that tradition, not from more recent Hindu beliefs and practices.

Sumerian mythology, by contrast, originated in the same region as the Hebrew people and the story of Abraham ties the origin of the Hebrews to Ur a Sumerian city, suggesting a very ancient connection. And there are clear parallels between Sumerian stories from sources like Gilgamesh and Hebrew ones, with the Flood being the most obvious.

So a Sumerian origin for Genesis makes sense and is even supportable from evidence. Trying to interpret Genesis in terms of Hindu beliefs is stretching and likely pure conjecture. Trading relationships do not automatically lead to cultural influences, though they can.
 
Mendalla said:
Hinduism as we know it did not exist in 1000BCE. The Upanisads didn't even exist yet, let alone the epics like the Mahabharata (from which the Bhagavad Gita comes). Hinduism as practiced today begins around the same time as Buddhism in the 6th or so century BCE. In 1000 BCE, you were dealing with the early Vedic religion so any influence on Judaism would come from that tradition, not from more recent Hindu beliefs and practices.

Sumerian mythology, by contrast, originated in the same region as the Hebrew people and the story of Abraham ties the origin of the Hebrews to Ur a Sumerian city, suggesting a very ancient connection. And there are clear parallels between Sumerian stories from sources like Gilgamesh and Hebrew ones, with the Flood being the most obvious.

So a Sumerian origin for Genesis makes sense and is even supportable from evidence. Trying to interpret Genesis in terms of Hindu beliefs is stretching and likely pure conjecture. Trading relationships do not automatically lead to cultural influences, though they can.
Click to expand...
Ancient Hinduism is said to be one of the oldest religions on Earth Mendalla.
 
Neo said:
Ancient Hinduism is said to be one of the oldest religions on Earth Mendalla.
Click to expand...

Except you have to look at the actual development of the religion. It's an evolving faith, not the modern religion existing that whole time. You can't base your understanding of the Hinduism of 1000BCE on what they practice and believe today. It has actually changed over the last 3000 odd years. The Upanisads, for instance, date to the 9th century BCE at the oldest and many are more recent. Without those, Hinduism becomes a very different thing. Given how much Christianity has evolved and changed in just 2000 years, why would you expect Hinduism to remain static over a much longer time.

(I don't like playing the authority game, but I do have a semester course on Hinduism under my belt taught by a wonderful English RS prof who lived in India).
 
The new writings were based on the old myths and the old religions, just as so many of our scriptures were written after the fact. With the possible exception of the 10 Commandments, it looks like the rest of the 39 books of the Old Testament were written in 500 BC! Did I read that wrong?
 
If such things were philosophy (on epistemology) would they relate to rheo'd, a rheo being a plastic stone and similar to a rheID as a stone that creeps and changed ... a scheme (or conspiracy) denied by absolute mind ... those that are shore the common shouldn't know ... thus the sans of time and sands 've beaches ignored as too gravelly ... hoers voices in the dark ... Anna's nerves ... then there are plumes over the point of penne as gripes are laid out about peoples that can't learn efficiently ... moral majority as fixated?

It is said I shouldn't say such things ... causes chaos with authority ... they cannot find convention in congress .. thus broken peoples ...
 
Neo, no consensus. I'm deep in the middle of a long 'dating' thread with a large Jewish presence. It appears that the usual situation of Jewish discussion is well underway. There's about 12 voices, and about 16 opinions...
 
This thread has taken an interesting turn. And it speaks directly to an essential component of the United With God campaign. That is, that while folks in this United Church of ours may differ on the nature of God, we come together as a loving community to celebrate the existence of God.
 
I wonder what it was about Christianity that got it so fixed on dogma? Considering the very non-dogmaticness of its mother religion, Judaism, it seems curious to me. (Well, actually, and cynically, it doesn't; I date it to exactly the date when the State supported it, thus inviting the possibility of a tool for control.)
 
Dave Henderson said:
This thread has taken an interesting turn. And it speaks directly to an essential component of the United With God campaign. That is, that while folks in this United Church of ours may differ on the nature of God, we come together as a loving community to celebrate the existence of God.
Click to expand...

"This United Church of ours?" :confused::LOL:
 
Neo said:
The new writings were based on the old myths and the old religions, just as so many of our scriptures were written after the fact. With the possible exception of the 10 Commandments, it looks like the rest of the 39 books of the Old Testament were written in 500 BC! Did I read that wrong?
Click to expand...

You're still missing my point. The actual beliefs and doctrines change over time. The actual myths change over time. And there weren't all written at once either, but were written individually over a period of time. The Upanisads aren't recording Hindu thought as it was at the beginning, they are recording Hindu thought as it existed between (roughly) 800BCE and 1BCE, the period when they were written. Ditto the Gita.

As for the Jewish scriptures, Britannica suggests a range of 1200 BCE to 100 BCE with the final form not appearing until the c 2nd century CE. So, no, they were not written all at once in 500 BCE but evolved over time just like the Hindu scriptures.

Religions do not leap into existence fully formed, even ones like Christianity and Islam that have a founder. They develop over time. I honestly doubt that either Jesus or Paul anticipated the existence of things like Calvinism or Methodism or postmodern theologies and yet all are part of Christianity that developed later as an evolution of how Christians understood their teachings. Religions like Judaism and Hinduism that lack a single founder tend to be even more evolutionary, with new ideas and writings appearing over centuries as the people have new experiences and think about them in light of the existing faith.

Even my own, which is very young relatively speaking, has developed into a form that early Unitarians and Universalists would probably be shocked at (esp. the absence of God from many UU's beliefs).
 
BetteTheRed said:
I wonder what it was about Christianity that got it so fixed on dogma? Considering the very non-dogmaticness of its mother religion, Judaism, it seems curious to me. (Well, actually, and cynically, it doesn't; I date it to exactly the date when the State supported it, thus inviting the possibility of a tool for control.)
Click to expand...

I suspect Judaism has gone through periods like that, too. It certainly looks like there was some degree of dogmatism going on in Jesus' time given his tussles with the temple officials and other religious types. Any religion that becomes "established" seems to develop a need to stabilize the beliefs, leading to at least a degree of dogmatism. Some faiths may be more prone to it than others. For instance, I would suggest that Christianity and Islam, which focus very strongly on a single, fairly small, body of scripture MAY be vulnerable to it because there is simply less diversity in the root documents. Whereas Hinduism and Buddhism offer a diversity of thought systems even in their root documents so it's harder to pin down a single dogma as being THE one way to be Hindu or Buddhist. That said, some sects of both can be very dogmatic.

Hell, I've met "dogmatic" UUs, though their dogmatism was not so much UU dogma as secular humanist dogma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top