Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 06:00PM

... The simplest explanation is the most logical one.

"The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building."
Occam's Razor - Principia Cybernetica Web

pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Rather than parsing what species were Eve and Adam, one must look to the source. “So God created man in his own image … male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27).

Even if the bible is a work of fiction, the assumption is that God created Adam and Eve in his image and in his image is a human likeness and form.

Since I am a believer in a monotheistic God of the bible I believe God at his word, that we are created in his image and likeness. However it is his divine omnipotence that is beyond any ability of ours to measure or comprehend, and it is not in our power or capacity to be able to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2019 06:04PM by Amyjo.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 06:18PM

There is a school of thought that allows one to simply believe that the bible was made up. How does one get more simple than that? One would then seek another source of knowledge, like...science?

There is also the notion were dogs, cats and oxen sentient, they would inevitably conceptualize their forms to be the same as their supposed creators, i.e., dog ghawd, cat ghawd, and ox ghawd.

Yes, I know I shouldn't be preaching these sacred notions, but I feel it my duty!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: HWint ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 06:43PM

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... The simplest explanation is the most logical
> one.
>

not really. an explanation can be simple, logical and yet 100% wrong.

- major premise: all green eyed humans are from Mars
- minor premise: I have green eyes
- conclusion: therefore I am from Mars

>Since I am a believer in a monotheistic God of the bible I
believe God at his word, that we are created in his image and likeness. However it is his divine omnipotence that is beyond any ability of ours to measure or comprehend, and it is not in our power or capacity to be able to.

okay, that's one hypothesis for the existence of man. Occam's razor says that when evaluating multiple explanations that the one requiring the fewest assumptions is *most likely* to be correct.

your explanation requires us to accept multiple assumptions.

(a) that a god exists;

(b) that the God of the Bible exists;

(c) that the Abrahamic god of the Bible exists to the exclusion of all other gods;

(d) that this God's power is beyond our understanding

(e) that the Bible is a reliable document at least as far as the creation of Adam and Eve are concerned

(f) that the Bible account of Adam and Eve is more reliable than other creation stories (e.g., the Hopi story that humans emerged from a hole in the earth, or the Babalonyian story that allcreation arose from the mingling of primordial gods Tiamat and Apsu)

another possible explanation is that Adam and Eve were extraterrestrials. this requires us to accept the following assumptions:

(a) extraterrestrials exist;

(b) extraterrestrials resemble humans;

(c) extraterrestrials are capable of traveling to earth...

etc

etc

etc

evolution requires us to accept one assumption:

(a) that gradual change over millions of years has led to humanity and all other life on earth

so: Occam's razor tells us that evolution is the *most likely* explanation for the existence of humanity.

but we need to keep an open mind, because Occam's razor does not make predictions with 100% accuracy. it's about making an educated guess after considering all available data. perhaps extraterrestrials will land one day and provide definitive proof that we're all from Mars. if that happens, I will gladly re-evaluate my conclusions.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 06:53PM

Ah, HWit is back to the non-Jordanian grammar and punctuation. Make up your mind, man. Make up your mind!



-------------------
> not really. an explanation can be simple, logical
> and yet 100% wrong.
>
> - major premise: all green eyed humans are from
> Mars
> - minor premise: I have green eyes
> - conclusion: therefore I am from Mars

Please, someone, enlighten Jordan as to the flaw in this risible "logic." He doesn't even see it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2019 06:53PM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: saucie ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 08:32PM

Hi Lottie... keep up the good work.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 08:57PM

Greetings, my friend. I hope our mutual friend is taking good care of you!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: saucie ( )
Date: June 26, 2019 07:32PM

He specializes in it.
I'm very lucky.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Roy G Biv ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 06:48PM

>> "Since I am a believer in a monotheistic God of the bible I believe God at his word, that we are created in his image and likeness"

OK, so if the first man and women were created from the dust of the earth and rib bone, why aren't we all? And how exactly did god do that? Or is that not for us to comprehend?

>> "However it is his divine omnipotence that is beyond any ability of ours to measure or comprehend, and it is not in our power or capacity to be able to."

You mean like creating the world and everything in it, only to destroy it and start over when his creations didn't follow along?

Some plan. I can comprehend god doesn't know what he/ she/ it is doing....other than killing many so one can sing praises for being spared. He does that often, especially in hurricane season....or did gay's cause the hurricanes?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 07:25PM

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> "Since I am a believer in a monotheistic God of
> the bible I believe God at his word, that we are
> created in his image and likeness"
>
> OK, so if the first man and women were created
> from the dust of the earth and rib bone, why
> aren't we all? And how exactly did god do that?
> Or is that not for us to comprehend?

Human beings are created from stardust. We come from the earth and we return to it when we die. How does that not include all? How did God exactly do that? That is the part even science hasn't determined yet, to our finite understanding. Yet, it would require an engineering feat to be able to design a human being, let alone a planet with living habitation that preceded human life.
>
> >> "However it is his divine omnipotence that is
> beyond any ability of ours to measure or
> comprehend, and it is not in our power or capacity
> to be able to."
>
> You mean like creating the world and everything in
> it, only to destroy it and start over when his
> creations didn't follow along?

Has God destroyed it yet? I don't believe he has to. Mankind is perfectly capable and stupid enough to self-destruct. God doesn't need to lift a finger for the banal and base among humankind to wipe out humanity. Unless the intelligentsia of the planet rises to the occasion to save itself from destruction.


>
> Some plan. I can comprehend god doesn't know what
> he/ she/ it is doing....other than killing many so
> one can sing praises for being spared. He does
> that often, especially in hurricane season....or
> did gay's cause the hurricanes?

God created the universe and all life forms. It is part of the life cycle to be born, to live, and to die. God doesn't cause people to die. It is part of the life cycle. It may be even out of God's power to do anything about. We simply do not have enough knowledge ourselves to know what authority God has or doesn't have over life itself. Other than he created it.

Deists believe God has no control over life on earth, and governs from a distance. It is enough for me to accept that we are not alone, and that there is an overseer who cares for his creation and we are his creation. If I live, I live in his care. When I die I surrender to his everlasting care. We do not control our birth or our death anymore than we can control our fate or destiny. Only God is in control of our lives ultimately. I choose not to reject him because I am in awe of his love for me. It's my faith that gives me this hope, because he's been there for me throughout my life. My faith to me is more real than anything tangible on earth seen or felt.

I believe we're created in his image based on my personal experiences with the spirit world. The spirits I've seen have all shared a human form and likeness.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Roy G Biv ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 07:34PM

And you call that "Occam's Razor"???.....you can sharpen that razor for eternity, or at least your lifetime, and it still won't cut the wet noodle you just laid out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 07:52PM

What is this doing in this thread?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 08:00PM

You're (or should I say "we're"?) just jealous that you've never had a spirit visit you. Just admit it! No spirit visitations for you! Get out of line!

And don't preach to her!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 09:26PM

“Mankind is perfectly capable and stupid enough to self-destruct. God doesn't need to lift a finger for the banal and base among humankind to wipe out humanity”

I suppose there’s always a first time. Unless the Atlanteans and Lemurians did it themselves too. But humans will always be around. Babes in the woods would have protection.

I noticed that Catholic doctrine is more in alignment with modern theories of time than Mormonism. Mormon sacrament is “in remembrance” where with Catholic sacrament Christ is simply “present” without a time element. Past, present and future are all one thing in that realm. It’s hard to imagine time being a mere formality, but your pal Einstein hinted at that.

God may be a shadow on the wall of the cave, but without light there would be no shadow. Or maybe he’s the light.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 07:10PM

You are saying "God did it" satisfies Occam's Razor?

You honestly think creating a god is an act of parsimony?
You could not postulate anything more complicated if you tried.

Never mind having to explain the entire foundation of biology is bogus with your hypothesis.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 07:30PM

Not really.

I'm saying for me it's enough that I believe in the bible. That God is true to his word in Genesis when he said that he created people male and female in his likeness, and that is not creating God. But God creating humankind.

On the premise alone based on Genesis 101. For a believer it's what it is.

You can take it or leave it. But it isn't rocket science, nor does it have to be. Even science cannot explain how we got here.

Sometimes the simplest explanations do suffice - and I also believe the human is one of the greatest engineering feats ever devised. That is no accident or freak of nature. It was designed by an intelligent creator.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lurking in ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 07:35PM

And who designed and created the "intelligent creator?"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 07:43PM

> Not really.

You forgot "Nyah Nyah, I'm right and you're wrong!"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: saucie ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 08:19PM

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Not really.
>
> You forgot "Nyah Nyah, I'm right and you're
> wrong!"


Just an oversight I'm sure.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 07:55PM

Right. Just believe a bunch of bronze age goat herders with no questions asked.

It's a shame scientists wasted all that time studying anthropology.

It's a good thing there's no confusion about what is metaphor from the Bible. It's Occam's Razor to just take it literally apparently. Good to know.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: June 24, 2019 08:49PM

I would like to consider the following from Amyjo:

> Unless the intelligentsia
> of the planet rises to the
> occasion to save itself
> from destruction.

The intelligentsia are the ones tasked with saving the world? Or if not tasked, that they have the ability? Do they know this? Has someone told them? Have they been given action plans? Are they each and everyone learning their parts and practicing their lines?

But isn't the world, according to the bible, in for a good deal of 'trauma' at the last day? John the Revelator mentioned this thing called Armaggedon, tickets on sale via TicketMaster...

Will the intelligentsia save themselves, and by extension, the rest of us, by brainpower alone? And if can't save the world from biblical predestined destruction, why bring them up?

I have read the entire bible in English and Spanish and don't recall the intelligentsia being assigned a role in ghawd's plan!

I think you pulled that right outta yer fundamentalism. Which in Spanish is "tu fundillo".

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 09:50AM

I have personally viewed the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory passed down generationally in the Jewish tradition, before there were known written texts. "The first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses and are commonly called the Pentateuch (literally “five scrolls”).

Moses lived between 1500 and 1300 BC, though he recounts events in the first eleven chapters of the Bible that occurred long before his time (such as the creation and the flood).

These earliest accounts were handed on from generation to generation in songs, narratives, and poetry.

In those early societies there was no writing as yet and people passed on these oral accounts with great detail and accuracy."
https://www.biblica.com/resources/bible-faqs/when-was-the-bible-written/

It has also been established as a genealogical record from the beginning of civilization according to the Jewish religion and belief ie, humankind began with Adam and Eve.

Most allegories do not establish genealogical timelines or accounts linking generations with histories interwoven as the bible does.

An interesting blog on this very subject begins with the very premise,
"'Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Does It Matter?'

I will never forget the first time my faith was challenged intellectually. A question was asked about the literal existence of Adam and Eve, with the implication that if you still believe that they existed historically, and that the Garden of Eden was an actual geographical place, then you are just not that smart. The reasoning went something like this: "Much like the fairy tales parents tell to their children, the creation story in the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. It's a beautiful myth that can teach us many valuable lessons about right and wrong, human nature, and how we relate to God. Only children and 'fundies' (fundamentalists) would believe Adam and Eve actually existed!"

Growing up in church and studying the Bible, I can honestly say that this thought had never occurred to me. Never once did I read the Genesis account of creation and pick up even the faintest hint of allegory. Was I foolish to believe it was historically true?

Before we can explore this question theologically, we need to discover if the Bible communicates this story as history or allegory. Then we need to consider how the answer to that question impacts our faith, if at all.

Does how the Bible relates the story of Adam and Eve communicate whether they really existed?

In Hebrew, “Adam” is a proper name, but it’s also a general term that refers to all humankind. “Eve” and “Eden” are also proper names, but can signify the concepts of “life” and “pleasure” respectively. All three names have symbolic significance in Hebrew. Grammatically, there seems to be some evidence that “Adam” may not even be used as a personal name until Genesis 4:25.(1)

Because of the symbolic quality of these names, some conclude that the events described in Genesis 1-4 are not historical, but are allegorical accounts of human origins that describe the effect of sin and evil on humanity.

I see three main problems with this view:

First, just as English poetry has a certain style and unique characteristics such as rhyme and meter, ancient Hebrew poetry has specific characteristics such as parallelism and rhythmic patterns. Distinguished Hebrew scholar Edward J. Young notes that Genesis 1 lacks two-line parallelism, a major characteristic of Hebrew poetry. Although the story is told in a poetic way, the Genesis account mainly exhibits the characteristics of narrative prose, which describes a series of events. (2)

Second, Old Testament genealogies treat Adam as a literal person, giving his exact age when his son Seth is born and his exact age when he dies. These genealogies also link Adam directly to Noah, and all the way to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. All of these figures are treated as actual historical people in the Old Testament narratives.

Third, Adam is referred to as a literal person in several places in the New Testament. Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus’ ancestry all the way back to Adam. Paul refers to Adam as historical in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 and Jude does as well in Jude 1:14. In Acts 17:26, Luke writes that God made the nations of men from one man. Jesus Himself alludes to Adam and Eve as literal people in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, (3) and in Matthew 23:35, Jesus refers to the literal murder of Abel, Adam and Eve's son.

It's clear from the Biblical texts that the genre for the Genesis account is historical narrative, and that writers in both the Old and New Testaments depicted Adam and Eve as historical figures.

Does it matter if Adam and Eve really existed?

When I began teaching apologetics, a bright teenaged boy asked, “What would it mean for salvation if Adam and Eve never existed?”

This is the key question.

In Romans 5:12-17, the Apostle Paul explains that sin entered the world through one man, Adam. He then connects this directly to salvation coming through one man, Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 45 he communicates that death came through the “first Adam,” and life has come through the “last Adam.”

It is not difficult to recognize that something is wrong with the world, and specifically, with humans. We are fallen. The Bible teaches that sin entered the world because of Adam's choice to disobey God, and that we inherited that “sin nature” from Adam.(4) If sin didn’t enter the world at a specific moment in history, the only explanation for our fallenness would be that we were all created in a sinful state, and therefore could not be held accountable for our sin. If we are not accountable for our sin, we don’t need a Savior. The truth of a literal Adam speaks to the core truths of the gospel itself. We are guilty, and we need a Savior.
`
Richard B. Gaffin Jr. wrote,

The truth of the gospel stands or falls with the historicity of Adam as the first human being
from whom all other human beings descend. What Scripture affirms about creation,
especially the origin of humanity, is central to its teaching about salvation. (5)

The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve literally existed and that their existence matters. In fact, the gospel depends on it."

https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist-does-it-matter

Even if they didn't and are part of the allegory of Jewish and now Christian learning, they were always fundamentally 'human' in origin as humans were (according to the bible,) made in the image and likeness of god/s, and Adam and Eve were very much human.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 09:54AM

OK. Glad that's working for you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 11:54AM

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have personally viewed the story of Adam and Eve
> as an allegory passed down generationally in the
> Jewish tradition, before there were known written
> texts.
>
..........
>
> It has also been established as a genealogical
> record from the beginning of civilization
> according to the Jewish religion and belief ie,
> humankind began with Adam and Eve.
>
> Most allegories do not establish genealogical
> timelines or accounts linking generations with
> histories interwoven as the bible does.
>
> An interesting blog on this very subject begins
> with the very premise,
..........

> Even if they didn't and are part of the allegory
> of Jewish and now Christian learning, they were
> always fundamentally 'human' in origin as humans
> were (according to the bible,) made in the image
> and likeness of god/s, and Adam and Eve were very
> much human.



When one strips away the internet pickings from Amyjo's latest post, one is left with the essential Amyjo, seen above.

The final sentence 'wrap up' of the last paragraph appears to be, "...and Adam and Eve were very much human." Radical, I know!


Since she retreats from the definitive last statement in her pickings, that the biblical creation story MUST be true, I can live with her lack of support for that contention, and in fact, endorse it. Not having the courage of one's convictions is very, very human.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 10:36AM

Oh, good lard. Not only was there no Adam and Eve, there was no Moses. At least not one that led Israel out of Egypt. There is no corroborating evidence that the Egyptian captivity ever happened.

Now Assyrian (Babylonian?) captivity does have some corroboration, and that was when the Hebrew written records were created.

Most of the eastern hemisphere's major religions started around 500 BCE, give or take a couple of centuries. That was also shortly after the time that writing became firmly established. Hinduism had been around before then, but their scriptures date from that period. Lao Tsu, Confucius, Zoroaster, Hebrew scripture, Buddha, and even Greek humanism all date from that period. Christianity and Islam came later, but it can be argued that they are simply versions 2.0 and 3.0 of the original Abrahamic religion. Egyptian religion predates 500 BCE, but it, like the Roman, Greek and pagan gods, kind of lost out in the Great Gods lottery.

So, religions, and particularly, their scriptures, seem to be pretty tightly correlated to the start of the iron age and the rise of literacy and complex cities. I'm not sure which caused what, or if they were all interrelated results that all bootstrapped each other.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 11:06AM

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, good lard. Not only was there no Adam and Eve,
> there was no Moses. At least not one that led
> Israel out of Egypt. There is no corroborating
> evidence that the Egyptian captivity ever
> happened.
>
> Now Assyrian (Babylonian?) captivity does have
> some corroboration, and that was when the Hebrew
> written records were created.
>
> Most of the eastern hemisphere's major religions
> started around 500 BCE, give or take a couple of
> centuries. That was also shortly after the time
> that writing became firmly established. Hinduism
> had been around before then, but their scriptures
> date from that period. Lao Tsu, Confucius,
> Zoroaster, Hebrew scripture, Buddha, and even
> Greek humanism all date from that period.
> Christianity and Islam came later, but it can be
> argued that they are simply versions 2.0 and 3.0
> of the original Abrahamic religion. Egyptian
> religion predates 500 BCE, but it, like the Roman,
> Greek and pagan gods, kind of lost out in the
> Great Gods lottery.

You need to go back earlier than 500 BC to get where Judaism began. "Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions and was founded over 3500 years ago in the Middle East.

Jews believe that God appointed the Jews to be his chosen people in order to set an example of holiness and ethical behaviour to the world."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/

>
> So, religions, and particularly, their scriptures,
> seem to be pretty tightly correlated to the start
> of the iron age and the rise of literacy and
> complex cities. I'm not sure which caused what, or
> if they were all interrelated results that all
> bootstrapped each other.

Judaism is the oldest and firstborn of the monotheistic religions. Kind of like Abraham's son, Isaac. ;o)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 12:34PM

Absolute nonsense. The Jewish religion and culture date to the Exile and the Return, just after 600 BCE. The earlier Hebrew "nation" emerged 1,000-800 BCE. There is no evidence of anything "Hebrew," let alone Jewish, before 1,000 BCE, when they were all citizens of Canaan and religiously Canaanite.

As for the notion that Judaism was the first monotheistic religion, that too is "faith" devoid of substance. Zoroastrianism was the first monothestic religion and it was from those Persians, with whom the Jewish elite socialized during the Exile, that the religious principle was adopted.

That is what the archaeology, the literature, and the history indicate. What you claim is faith, devoid of factual basis.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 01:08PM

A Bible, a Bible...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 01:46PM

> That is what the archaeology,
> the literature, and the history
> indicate. What you claim is
> faith, devoid of factual basis.

Are facts even useful in the practice of religion? Obviously not, so it is meted that they are cast aside. Out damn spot!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 02:12PM

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > That is what the archaeology,
> > the literature, and the history
> > indicate. What you claim is
> > faith, devoid of factual basis.
>
> Are facts even useful in the practice of religion?
> Obviously not, so it is meted that they are cast
> aside. Out damn spot!

This is obviously true with some religions, but it is certainly not true with others.

In present day Israel, the entire country is focused (for reasons political, scientific, and religious) on archaeology, and there is a number to call (like 911) when a potential archaeological site has been stumbled upon (probably most often in relation to building or renovation projects of some kind, but sometimes, just someone hiking, or exploring a cave).

As a result of that call, what amounts to an "archaeology squad" quickly arrives on the site to evaluate the situation and make the necessary decisions regarding what happens from there on.

Jews (in particular, in my observation) WANT to find out the scientific and historical truths, and they devote considerable time, effort, and financial resources (whether government, institutional, or personal) to determine those facts to the extent they can be determined, even at the expense of former accepted beliefs.

If those facts are in dispute with the texts, then the facts "win."

(Which usually means that, although the texts stay "the same," the UNDERSTANDING of those texts has changed--even in the situations when formerly accepted Jewish "truths" have just been invalidated.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2019 02:15PM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: June 26, 2019 02:57AM

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absolute nonsense. The Jewish religion and
> culture date to the Exile and the Return, just
> after 600 BCE. The earlier Hebrew "nation"
> emerged 1,000-800 BCE. There is no evidence of
> anything "Hebrew," let alone Jewish, before 1,000
> BCE, when they were all citizens of Canaan and
> religiously Canaanite.
>
> As for the notion that Judaism was the first
> monotheistic religion, that too is "faith" devoid
> of substance. Zoroastrianism was the first
> monothestic religion and it was from those
> Persians, with whom the Jewish elite socialized
> during the Exile, that the religious principle was
> adopted.
>
> That is what the archaeology, the literature, and
> the history indicate. What you claim is faith,
> devoid of factual basis.

Pure rubbish. What you say is taken with a grain of salt, if even that.

"Judaism is the world's oldest monotheistic religion, dating back nearly 4,000 years. Followers of Judaism believe in one God who revealed himself through ancient prophets. History is essential to understanding the Jewish faith, which is embedded in tradition, law and culture.Jan 5, 2018
Judaism - HISTORY

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/judaism

Judaism, which is 3,500 years old, is the oldest of the monotheistic religions. Jews believe that God made a covenant (known as the first covenant) with Abraham that he would be the father of a great people if he followed God's instructions.
Monotheistic Religions - Arab American National Museum

www.arabamericanmuseum.org/umages/pdfs/.../AANM-MonotheisticBooklet-web.pdf

While Zoroastrianism has been around for perhaps as long a Judaism it is by no means the first, and has been only arguably alleged to have been the first monotheistic religion because it is no older than Judaism, and is only a minority religion in the world continuing to this day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2019 03:10AM by Amyjo.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: June 26, 2019 03:47AM

Amyjo,

Did you just cite the History Channel and an Arab museum as sources on ancient Israel?

In case you are wondering, the History Channel in which you repose such trust dates the origins of Zoroastrianism to 4,000 years ago and describes it as "arguably the world’s first monotheistic faith [and] one of the oldest religions still in existence."* Quite incompatible, one would think, with the excerpt you so forcefully proffer. So I'm not sure you want to use that to substantiate your faith-based view of Hebrew origins and beliefs.

Now don't fret too much about the History Channel's overview of Zorastrianism, since it is no more accurate than its, and your, claims about ancient Israel. Zoroastrianism is more like 3,000-3,500 years old and the evolution of monotheism in that tradition was not immediate--all of which indicates the need to read real scholarship by real scholars.

Give that a try? You could start with experts who write for a lay audience like William Dever. He has penned several books on ancient Israel, the latest being the well-regarded Beyond the Texts. It's not a short book and uses some big words, but it's well within the reach of most people. There's also his Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? That is certainly on topic. Or there's his volume Did God Have a Wife?, a book that shows that Israel was polytheistic long after the inception of the YHWH cult in about 600 BCE.

Alternatively you could go with Finkelstein, some of whose earlier works were flawed but who's edited Quest for the Historical Israel is pretty good. Of course you may find him as unnerving as Dever because his authors argue over whether Israel's history can possibly be extended back past 800 BC or should more properly be dated to about 600 BCE.

Do you see the problem, Amyjo? Your views are based on popular publications that are not even internally consistent. If you want to know the facts, you should peruse some serious work by serious people.

The truth is out there--if you want it.



*https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: June 26, 2019 03:56AM

Hah! I see you went back to see what the History Channel had to say about Zoroastrianism. An excellent edit!

Sadly, you are still way out of your depth.


-----------------------
> While Zoroastrianism has been around for perhaps
> as long a Judaism...

False. As I explain above*, Zoroastrianism dates to 1,000-1,500 BCE at the latest whereas Israel dates to 600-900 BCE at the earliest.


---------------
> [Zoroastrianism] is by no means the first, and
> has been only arguably alleged to have been the
> first monotheistic religion because it is no older
> than Judaism,

What? Do you have any sources for ANY of that? I mean, the History Channel, whose accounts I have read, don't say anything like that. I therefore get the sneaking suspicion that we are dealing with Amyjo 101.


----------------
> and is only a minority religion in
> the world continuing to this day.

Ironic, isn't it, that Zoroastrianism's contribution to world religion--monotheism as transmitted to the priestly Jewish class during the Exile--lives on today in the form of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.




ETA: "above" instead of "below."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2019 03:57AM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 10:37AM

Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogblogger ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 10:41AM

how else would they know to make and eat toretllini?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: June 25, 2019 10:45AM

Is God a hermaphrodite? Androgynous?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: June 26, 2019 04:09AM

Let's just say She wouldn't be allowed to serve in the US military.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Berry ( )
Date: June 26, 2019 11:23AM

Touché.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
       **  ********  **      **   *******         ** 
       **     **     **  **  **  **     **        ** 
       **     **     **  **  **  **               ** 
       **     **     **  **  **  ********         ** 
 **    **     **     **  **  **  **     **  **    ** 
 **    **     **     **  **  **  **     **  **    ** 
  ******      **      ***  ***    *******    ******