You can’t prove religions empirically. Imagine you have a time machine and could go back and have full video and audio of Jesus.
None of that could prove that the things he said were objectively true.
This desire to have religious claims proven like science can prove the boiling point of water is 100°c (at STP) is a fool’s errand.
Same goes for philosophical claims. You might find Kant’s categorical imperative compelling but you can’t prove it concretely.
True, but I do believe through rational thinking we can come to a consensus on what’s happened. I’m not saying that everything we have historically can or is concrete. But I do believe that we can come about a rational idea of what’s happened, only then can we build belief on the true or false. Though we’d normally need concrete evidence to do such, when talking of religion or mystical history it’s almost if not impossible.
You can no more come to a consensus about philosophy or religion than you could have a consensus on aesthetic questions.
Do you think you could find one food or one movie or one painting that you could get everyone to agree was the best?
Abandon this idea that rationality necessarily leads to one conclusion. You could present honest, earnest, intelligent, thoughtful, good natured, and educated people the same set of facts and they can arrive at different conclusions each logically coherent and consistent with evidence.
Take ethics, or morality. Even if you could get people to agree that there are better or worse actions to take in a given scenario, they can disagree about what the best course of action would be and why. Utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc are all ethics systems. They may evaluate different actions completely differently. Proving one system is the correct one and the others are invalid is not possible.
Wow, no yeah you make very good point. But I feel like this would be said for a perspective of a overall general view, but through the view of some one who’s believed in a religion and complete faith in said religion, only to learn that the god they worshiped has a whole different origin. It’s like, how do you then rationalize your faith in a being that you thought you knew. It would seem thier whole belief system is destroyed due to this fact, how can one continue to believe in a god that isn’t even the god you knew? I see your agnostic, or so you name implies, so I can see how you can see if from that perspective. But for a religious person, I feel it’d be different.
Rigid beliefs can be shattered it’s true. But that’s not all beliefs.
Check out the [Stages of Faith](https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/wholeness/workshop2/handout1-stages-faith-development), a developmental approach to religious faith developed by theologian James Fowler. Like Kohlberg’s theory of moral development it suggests that people’s understanding of their faiths change as they mature.
Most people do not hold a literalistic approach to their faith. It’s far more subtle and nuanced.
“Greater maturity is gained by rejecting some parts of their faith while affirming other parts. In the end, the person starts to take greater ownership of their own faith journey.”
But the whole idea of a literalistic belief is a basis of Abrahamic faith, you can’t pick and choose on what parts of a religion you believe in, or I should say I don’t believe you can. The Abrahamic God makes it clear he has a set line of rules and regulations to follow, you can cherry pick what you want to believe in, he’s set concrete guidelines for humans to go by.
I’m not a Christian, but I think you’re wrong that a literalistic belief is foundational.
I think most Christians do not take Genesis as literally true. I think they take the Song of Songs as a poem, filled with metaphor and analogy. There are many examples of poetry, analogy, metaphor, rhetorical flourish, etc that cannot be read literally without destroying their meaning.
The story of Judaism (which Christians see a continuity with) is one of change and a deepening understanding of god and faith and worship. The bible describes a group of people changing from polytheism, to henotheism, to monotheism. Religious practice that was centred around sacrifice at the temple became one where worship could be conducted anywhere, even at home.
Besides, the overwhelming number of people don’t become religious because they heard some literal idea of god and were convinced. They grew up with it. So stories and rituals and celebrations and language are just woven into their lives. So “debunking” something you see as foundation might just be shrugged off as irrelevant. My dad self describes as a Christian atheist! There are plenty of atheist Jews who still find Judaism an important part of their lives.
It’s just more complicated than you’re assuming.
No your right, and I didn’t mean I take everything literally, my apologies. I meant that rules, and parts of a religion that effect the self aren’t ones you can cherry pick. Christianity for one is a religion many people have diluted down, but that’s not the point. I just don’t understand how a religion can reasonably be built off another and then change to suit a belief so far from its origin, and still continue to believe in it after learning of its origin!
Change isn’t cherry picking.
Let’s say you’re an NFL football fan. You love the sport, the competition, the athleticism, maybe you’re a passionate fan of a team and wear a jersey, and have a bunch of traditions around it, etc.
Do you think if you went in a time machine back to 1890 and watched a gridiron football match you’d recognize the game being played? Or 1930? Or even 1960? The game has changed and evolved over time. Every year there are rule changes.
Does that mean what’s played now isn’t football? Or it is, but only now not 10, 20, 100 years ago?
Or if you’d like another analogy you used to be a baby who couldn’t walk, talk, or even control your bowels. Was that you? I mean you’re barely recognizable as that little baby. But could it be not you? If not, who was it? When did you become you?
It’s just complicated. It doesn’t make it stupid, or willfully blind. Just different from what you think it is.
Your right, I don’t deny your claims. But for the Abrahamic religions, there are things that are set in stone, traditions and practices can be changed, evolved into something different so yes the religion we may practice now could be gradually different than it was practiced then. The New Testament is an example of change in the original Abrahamic faith, into what is now Christianity. But this change was made by God himself not by man’s needing of change. No authority can change a religion other than the god of that religion ( this case the Abrahamic religion) the way we may worship can change but the fundamental truths that makes Christian, Christian and Jewish, Jewish can not change, should not change!
You're basically saying you don't understand how people can (continue to) believe in a religion after learning of its historical origins.
This mistakenly assumes everyone thinks like *you* think.
A lot of religions ascribe some form of divine origin to their sacred texts, which in itself goes against your idea that any given religious person will look at the scientific evidence and go, "Oops, guess this is false."
I think you are missing the massive, massive point that *being a member of a religion is not logical*, any more than being a fan of a sports team or any fandom is logical.
Why do you support Team X? Why can't you just look at how many players from other areas join your "local" team, and stop being a fan? Anyone would do that, right? It's just cherry picking to support a team from the place where you grew up.
See how that works?
No I agree, and your right not everyone see or thinks the way I see or think. But this is a reason I made this post, I want to see! I want to understand how people see it! I mean that dosent mean ima just take thier personal opinion as fact, I wanna challenge it against my opinion. Not in malicious intent, simply for fun and to learn.
Now back to the matter, yes many religions do have a text that are of divine origin, and that more than anything can override any other beliefs for a person. Because thier belief is that it’s undeniable and the truth of god. Now some religions base themselves off that said text, such as the Abrahamic religions. While others don’t, I see your Hindu, so you’re probably well versed in Hindu religious text, the Vedas and such. The cool thing is the Vedas doesn’t have an exact point of origin from any other religion. The Vedas were the Vedic peoples text. Some can maybe assume it might’ve been influenced by other Mesopotamic religions. But nothing concrete. ( I’m using my own knowledge from a independent study a while back into Hinduism, and I found that Hinduism is very fascinating) but going back to the Abrahamic religions, there text are purely based off of religious history, I mean for Christian’s the old testament is just a very big book of history. Thus the religions core is reliant on this history. now with our advances and discovery of new information and archaeological discoveries, we know that this text has been altered through the years, maybe not majorly, but through translation things can get jumbled. So for us to find historical evidence that something is not as told in the Bible, then should not the Bible or at least a piece of text is redundant and brings into question the entire thing?
If you take a look at histories of war, each side will have a substantially different version. Bias is always there. The further back you go, the likelihood of distortion increases.
All religions are man-made systems influenced by the religions, cultures, and philosophies that preceded them. The history makes that fact inescapable.
A lot of the memes on this topic are bad history making false claims, but there are truer statements about the pagan origins of Christianity. For example, much of Christian morality is Roman morality. The Christian notion of Hell is strongly influenced by the Greek underworld. Your discussion of El, Baal, and Yahwah's origins are also generally accepted, though there's a bit of debate on that topic. A lot of the history we need to know these things for certain isn't written down, so we muddle around trying to figure out the history.
Religions represent humans muddling around trying to figure out the divine.
Just as history certainly existed and careful methodology can help us uncover it, the phenomenological roots of religion (gods and mysticism) certainly exist in some form, whether that form is neurological in origin or something more akin to the traditional understanding.
And there's a surprisingly good case for the traditional understanding; mysticism and magick allow us to do things that ought to be impossible and know things we have absolutely no business knowing. Some say it also facilitates far more miraculous ends than that, but my cynicism holds me back here. Don't let it hold you back; our ancestors knew quite a bit, and we're periodically shocked by how much they knew and how right they were. Especially when it comes to religious matters.
One of the few religious practices that's been rigorously studied at this point is meditation, and study after study shows us the good it can do. Other religious practices and teachings having some validity isn't just possible, but expected.
Mysticism, the practice of communicating with gods and them giving us information in return, is one practice that may be shown to bear good fruit. If you trust the mysticism and wisdom of your forebears, you must understand that them having trusted the mysticism and wisdom of their forebears, even forebears who followed older and different religions, is similarly valid.
We all learn from each other. Even when it comes to gods and metaphysics. Learning from each other doesn't make us less likely to have accurate opinions.
A Thelmic! ( I don’t know what you call yourself) I do enjoy the thelemic belief, I also love esoteric and occult knowledge. It’s cool seeing you giving insight, I don’t often get to see people of thelemic belief anywhere.
Ah thank you! I’ve met a thelemite before, though not a very friendly interaction, I won’t allow that to convince me that all are the same. I even looked into the belief, and read books on Alister Crowley. I even own a couple of books on ritual thelemic magick! ( not to brag ) I just had my own dive into occult beliefs and came across thelema and dig my own small study into it.
Thelema tends to attract nerds. In my opinion, that's a good thing, but not all of us have the best social graces.
If this was online, in particular, you likely ran into a nerd who has trouble working with others, and therefore integrating well with their local community. That combined with some of our teachings, arguably misinterpreted, can lead to ickiness.
If they do the work and learn to get past their ego and any damage it may have sustained, that'll improve. But not all do.
Everyone I've met in person has been pretty awesome—some, myself included, still had significant work to do, but we're generally willing and eager to do that work.
Online has been a lot patchier.
Anywho, Crowley influenced a *lot* of what came after him, so learning a little bit about him and Thelema makes sense for anyone with interest in the occult. It's really not as bad as the horror movies would lead us to believe!
> If we can prove that the Abrahamic god found its origin in a pantheon before Judaism then can’t that just knock the basis of any Abrahamic religion?
Why would this challenge your faith at all? This is more or less exactly what the Bible says happened. All throughout the history presented in Kings and Chronicles you can see Israelites worshiping YHWH alongside a wide variety of other deities. The text essentially says directly that YHWH was included in a polytheistic pantheon... much to the dismay of the prophets!
True! But this also knocks the religious belief in Yahweh being the father of all of creation, he would’ve been just a god who rose in popularity into becoming the head god. Which then in the future these other gods are demonized and are called false gods, or are turned into demons.
I'm not sure how it would change anything about whether or not YHWH created the world.
Clearly the prophets of the Bible believed that YHWH created the world while also knowing full well that YHWH was worshipped by polytheists.
Yes I agree, but I suppose it’s true that history or in this case religion is written by the victors. But for the victors to portray the winning side as something that wasn’t previously believed, it just doesn’t make sense to believe in something that the prophets made us believe through manipulation of previous religions belief.
> But for the victors to portray the winning side as something that wasn’t previously believed
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The "victors" portray the Israelites as polytheists and idolators... which seems to be entirely historically accurate.
No your right, but I say victors as those who’s beliefs won over another’s, through conquest or just natural compaction of an already small pantheon of gods. Now we can talk about how Yahwehism rose to power or popularity and how it came about the creation of monotheism, but it’s not particularly the part I wanna focus on. I’m not trying to debunk history. I’m just wondering how a religion who claims to be the true faith and have the true god, came from a pantheon of gods. Which that said god isn’t a creator god, head god, or even a rather important god. Sure we could say Yahweh was a cannanite god that rose to power and claimed the throne of head god. But then the result in a cult that then believes in this new head god, then proclaims that this newly risen god is the creator and true god. It just blows off the basis of any religion that follows after it.
> I’m just wondering how a religion who claims to be the true faith and have the true god, came from a pantheon of gods. Which that said god isn’t a creator god, head god, or even a rather important god.
So it sounds like you're taking the Canaanite claims about YHWH at face value while disbelieving the Biblical claims about YHWH. Now that's obviously a perfectly fine position to take if you'd like... but I don't see why you would do it.
One side claims that YHWH is just one of many deities and was not responsible for creating the world. The other side claims that YHWH is the only deity and is responsible for creating the world.
Both of these groups existed historically - something that we know mostly because of the Biblical texts themselves.
> Sure we could say Yahweh was a cannanite god that rose to power and claimed the throne of head god.
I mean, a religious Christian, Jew or Muslim would probably say that didn't happen. Why do you believe that it did? There is certainly no *historical* text that says that this happened.
I’m not wagering that God or even Yahweh dosent exist, just more on how we can trust the Abrahamic belief if it had previous origins in another religion that contradict newer beliefs.
Religions which don't claim to worship the single correct God, and who don't claim that their religious teachings are objective world history, have less of an issue with this.
I mean I don’t think you can conclusively prove religions or philosophies right in the sense that you can prove 2+2=4 for example. But like you said with the development of ideas around YHWH and El and other conclusions from archaeology and biblical scholarship can provide evidence against at least more literalist interpretations of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. On the other hand history could potentially provide evidence in favor of one of them being true. Like Jesus and Muhammad existing as historical figures provides at least some evidence in favor of Christianity and or Islam for example.
Evidence isn’t a zero sum game like a lot of people seem to think. I’m an atheist for example, while I believe there’s isn’t a god, we don’t know that in same way we know basic mathematics to be true. There is evidence for god in the form of arguments for his existence that, although I don’t find them as convincing as the arguments that counter them, provide evidence against my position in that they at least make it more likely that there is one compared to having no arguments for his existence.
I think history as evidence for and against a religion’s truth can be viewed in the same way. Historical findings can either make some of their claims more or less likely to be true but won’t offer “proof” one way or the other. At the same time, regardless of whether or not, historians think Jesus claimed equal divine status with God, doesn't necessarily mean that he is not God, but to my mind it's certainly evidence against that view. Obviously some religions aren’t concerned with being “correct” in the same way that many interpretations of Islam and Christianity so if somebody things historical truths and religious truths don’t intersect, then this conversation doesn’t really concern them too much.
History is one of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity any more but I have my own biases and preferences in terms of which sources of information I trust over others. I also held to Christianity in such a way that some level of historical accuracy mattered a lot to me. I didn't believe in creationism or anything like that but things like the development of the Israelite God, the wildness of early Christianity, and the evidence against Jesus' claim to be equal to capital "G" god in earliest Christianity were convincing to me. The findings of these scholars might not convince others or others may have ways of interpreting these findings that jive with their understanding of Christianity which is fine too. Historians disagree about findings sometimes and they aren't on a mission to prove Jesus isn't God or anything, they're on a mission to find what we can know using the historical method.
All historical religions come from what we call proto-religions.
Proto-religions are reconstructed belief systems and practices of early human societies. These early spiritual practices often centered around natural phenomena, ancestor worship, rituals related to fertility and hunting, and explanations for the mysteries of life and death. The practice of reconstructing proto-religions is akin to reconstructing proto-languages.
Over time, proto-religions evolved and diversified as human societies developed agriculture, complex social structures, and centralized governance.
Proto-religions provided the basis for the emergence of organized religions with codified beliefs, rituals, moral codes, priesthoods, and sacred texts.
During the Neolithic and Paleolithic periods, early humans practiced rituals related to hunting, fertility, and burial rites. Examples include cave paintings depicting hunting scenes, figurines representing fertility goddesses, and burial sites with grave goods indicating beliefs in an afterlife.
In Mesopotamia and Egypt, proto-religions evolved into polytheistic systems with gods and goddesses associated with natural forces (e.g., Sun god, fertility goddesses) and city-state patron deities (e.g., Ishtar in Mesopotamia, Ra in Egypt).
Indigenous cultures around the world maintain proto-religious practices rooted in local landscapes, spirits, and ancestral traditions. These traditions often blend animistic beliefs with reverence for nature and communal rituals.
I don’t know how or why proving anything matters.
I know how my denomination started. I have my own perspectives beliefs and interpretations on it based on the history. It doesn’t change my convictions or beliefs
More history can come to light, though. Suppose, for example, there was a first draft of the Book of Mormon uncovered, or conversely some document discovered somewhere in the Americas written in something identifiably in a reformed Egyptian script
Sure, I suppose new discoveries are possible. We do have just about every paper available as been published in the Joseph smith papers project. One reason we know his polygamy wasn’t sexual based is a new discovery in the last year or two
The [Joseph smith papers project](https://www.josephsmithpapers.org)? It’s just about ever paper ever even mentioning Joseph smith that historians could find.
A rough draft of the Book of Mormon with different stories and plot points? Maybe. I mean, we did lose of the first drafts, so maybe it’s still out there some where. If you know, I know an org that would be willing to buy it for lots of money.
I believe it matters, cause with such a large religion that has a lot of holes in it, I feel like we need a solid grown to them build upon a cannon. They way things have gone in history we’ve built a cannon on unstable grounds that, that said grounds belonged to a whole other religion! Fix the ground and then work out the holes from there. Wandering around in blind faith can prove to be very unwise. Though I have my respects for those who have blind faith in a god, complete blind faith is just ignorant. ( not saying this in a harsh way just couldn’t think of a word to use )
>can’t that just knock the basis of any Abrahamic religion?
Histography doesn't necessarily reflect history, even though it clarifies it the most.
Just because the earliest archaeological evidence for the G-d of Israel is tainted by polytheism still doesn't mean that there was no history before that, and Judaism, in any case, doesn't disavow the polytheistic era in its history.
No that’s true, but then what is thier reason and explanation of worshiping a pagan god who previously was a storm warrior god? Then claim that minor warrior god is the true creator and master of the universe?
Whose reasons? we? we don't believe that He was basically an idolatrous deity. We believe that the origin of the G-d of Israel is monotheistic, even if other nations and some of us later have worshiped Him in a polytheistic manner.
Sorry I said thier not explaining who I’m even talking about, I meant anyone of the Abrahamic faith, my bad. But the god Yahweh never appeared ( from what we know ) before the cannanite religion, and If God was worshiped in such way along with others, why would allow that? If he’s an all powerful deity and creator of all, then why did he sit as a minor deity, an and that a storm warrior god?
i agree with most of these people that it’s impossible but in a different way.
I’m a high honor roll junior in highschool. and if there’s one thing i learned in history, it’s that the bible and other religious pieces are made up of lies agreed upon by powerful people to keep power. there were multiple different bibles written by different people and eventually they took parts from each one and made it one story.
What specific things they took i don’t know and i wont pretend i do. even if we still know what they took that could be lies too.
So trying to prove god is real through bible events is a waste of time. even if some of these events have been “discovered” (like noah’s arc/garden of eden) those can also be lies or similar events that christian’s used as “evidence” or even a true event that occurred differently then described (for example if noah’s arc really was discovered, Jesus christ may not have made the flood)
Religion started off as a concept of hope. whether anything told truly happened or not it should stay that way but humanity has a long history of using it to their advantage, which also makes it sound made up to me if you look into it. (Like the church starting to charge for less time in purgatory) So even if it WAS real i’m sure the corrupt religious leaders threw in plenty of white lies if the other possibilities didn’t happen.
There’s so many “ifs” in my information that it’s almost pointless trying to use it to solidify my point. But the same applies to trying to prove god is/was real. Jesus was a real human and that’s all i am willing to say with confidence, the rest is just a lot of assumptions on both sides of the battlefield. Believe what you want and stay faithful to it, that’s what religion was for. Don’t let vlonelarenzo and other people on reddit tell you what to believe because we’ve already spent hundreds of years arguing and fighting over what’s real and what’s not, so just follow your own morals.
(p.s this is all from what i’ve learned/remembered and i personally do not study or believe in christianity and god, i apologize if any of this information is inaccurate)
I appreciate your insight, as a Christian this doesn’t make me question my faith, maybe the history of the faith before mine, but I ask this general vague question as a way to understand religion a as whole. But I will say I did seek an answer for the Abrahamic religions. My faith is based on Christ alone, and I do have my reasons to believe that Jesus is the son of God. I only wonder and ponder these ideas cause Jesus was Jewish and claimed to be the son of the Abrahamic God. Which is the god I’m bringing into question. There’s a hole in my faith as well. Which I’m using this post to try and rationalize a patch for that hole.
You can’t prove religions empirically. Imagine you have a time machine and could go back and have full video and audio of Jesus. None of that could prove that the things he said were objectively true. This desire to have religious claims proven like science can prove the boiling point of water is 100°c (at STP) is a fool’s errand. Same goes for philosophical claims. You might find Kant’s categorical imperative compelling but you can’t prove it concretely.
True, but I do believe through rational thinking we can come to a consensus on what’s happened. I’m not saying that everything we have historically can or is concrete. But I do believe that we can come about a rational idea of what’s happened, only then can we build belief on the true or false. Though we’d normally need concrete evidence to do such, when talking of religion or mystical history it’s almost if not impossible.
You can no more come to a consensus about philosophy or religion than you could have a consensus on aesthetic questions. Do you think you could find one food or one movie or one painting that you could get everyone to agree was the best? Abandon this idea that rationality necessarily leads to one conclusion. You could present honest, earnest, intelligent, thoughtful, good natured, and educated people the same set of facts and they can arrive at different conclusions each logically coherent and consistent with evidence. Take ethics, or morality. Even if you could get people to agree that there are better or worse actions to take in a given scenario, they can disagree about what the best course of action would be and why. Utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc are all ethics systems. They may evaluate different actions completely differently. Proving one system is the correct one and the others are invalid is not possible.
Wow, no yeah you make very good point. But I feel like this would be said for a perspective of a overall general view, but through the view of some one who’s believed in a religion and complete faith in said religion, only to learn that the god they worshiped has a whole different origin. It’s like, how do you then rationalize your faith in a being that you thought you knew. It would seem thier whole belief system is destroyed due to this fact, how can one continue to believe in a god that isn’t even the god you knew? I see your agnostic, or so you name implies, so I can see how you can see if from that perspective. But for a religious person, I feel it’d be different.
Rigid beliefs can be shattered it’s true. But that’s not all beliefs. Check out the [Stages of Faith](https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/wholeness/workshop2/handout1-stages-faith-development), a developmental approach to religious faith developed by theologian James Fowler. Like Kohlberg’s theory of moral development it suggests that people’s understanding of their faiths change as they mature. Most people do not hold a literalistic approach to their faith. It’s far more subtle and nuanced.
“Greater maturity is gained by rejecting some parts of their faith while affirming other parts. In the end, the person starts to take greater ownership of their own faith journey.” But the whole idea of a literalistic belief is a basis of Abrahamic faith, you can’t pick and choose on what parts of a religion you believe in, or I should say I don’t believe you can. The Abrahamic God makes it clear he has a set line of rules and regulations to follow, you can cherry pick what you want to believe in, he’s set concrete guidelines for humans to go by.
I’m not a Christian, but I think you’re wrong that a literalistic belief is foundational. I think most Christians do not take Genesis as literally true. I think they take the Song of Songs as a poem, filled with metaphor and analogy. There are many examples of poetry, analogy, metaphor, rhetorical flourish, etc that cannot be read literally without destroying their meaning. The story of Judaism (which Christians see a continuity with) is one of change and a deepening understanding of god and faith and worship. The bible describes a group of people changing from polytheism, to henotheism, to monotheism. Religious practice that was centred around sacrifice at the temple became one where worship could be conducted anywhere, even at home. Besides, the overwhelming number of people don’t become religious because they heard some literal idea of god and were convinced. They grew up with it. So stories and rituals and celebrations and language are just woven into their lives. So “debunking” something you see as foundation might just be shrugged off as irrelevant. My dad self describes as a Christian atheist! There are plenty of atheist Jews who still find Judaism an important part of their lives. It’s just more complicated than you’re assuming.
No your right, and I didn’t mean I take everything literally, my apologies. I meant that rules, and parts of a religion that effect the self aren’t ones you can cherry pick. Christianity for one is a religion many people have diluted down, but that’s not the point. I just don’t understand how a religion can reasonably be built off another and then change to suit a belief so far from its origin, and still continue to believe in it after learning of its origin!
Change isn’t cherry picking. Let’s say you’re an NFL football fan. You love the sport, the competition, the athleticism, maybe you’re a passionate fan of a team and wear a jersey, and have a bunch of traditions around it, etc. Do you think if you went in a time machine back to 1890 and watched a gridiron football match you’d recognize the game being played? Or 1930? Or even 1960? The game has changed and evolved over time. Every year there are rule changes. Does that mean what’s played now isn’t football? Or it is, but only now not 10, 20, 100 years ago? Or if you’d like another analogy you used to be a baby who couldn’t walk, talk, or even control your bowels. Was that you? I mean you’re barely recognizable as that little baby. But could it be not you? If not, who was it? When did you become you? It’s just complicated. It doesn’t make it stupid, or willfully blind. Just different from what you think it is.
Your right, I don’t deny your claims. But for the Abrahamic religions, there are things that are set in stone, traditions and practices can be changed, evolved into something different so yes the religion we may practice now could be gradually different than it was practiced then. The New Testament is an example of change in the original Abrahamic faith, into what is now Christianity. But this change was made by God himself not by man’s needing of change. No authority can change a religion other than the god of that religion ( this case the Abrahamic religion) the way we may worship can change but the fundamental truths that makes Christian, Christian and Jewish, Jewish can not change, should not change!
You're basically saying you don't understand how people can (continue to) believe in a religion after learning of its historical origins. This mistakenly assumes everyone thinks like *you* think. A lot of religions ascribe some form of divine origin to their sacred texts, which in itself goes against your idea that any given religious person will look at the scientific evidence and go, "Oops, guess this is false." I think you are missing the massive, massive point that *being a member of a religion is not logical*, any more than being a fan of a sports team or any fandom is logical. Why do you support Team X? Why can't you just look at how many players from other areas join your "local" team, and stop being a fan? Anyone would do that, right? It's just cherry picking to support a team from the place where you grew up. See how that works?
No I agree, and your right not everyone see or thinks the way I see or think. But this is a reason I made this post, I want to see! I want to understand how people see it! I mean that dosent mean ima just take thier personal opinion as fact, I wanna challenge it against my opinion. Not in malicious intent, simply for fun and to learn. Now back to the matter, yes many religions do have a text that are of divine origin, and that more than anything can override any other beliefs for a person. Because thier belief is that it’s undeniable and the truth of god. Now some religions base themselves off that said text, such as the Abrahamic religions. While others don’t, I see your Hindu, so you’re probably well versed in Hindu religious text, the Vedas and such. The cool thing is the Vedas doesn’t have an exact point of origin from any other religion. The Vedas were the Vedic peoples text. Some can maybe assume it might’ve been influenced by other Mesopotamic religions. But nothing concrete. ( I’m using my own knowledge from a independent study a while back into Hinduism, and I found that Hinduism is very fascinating) but going back to the Abrahamic religions, there text are purely based off of religious history, I mean for Christian’s the old testament is just a very big book of history. Thus the religions core is reliant on this history. now with our advances and discovery of new information and archaeological discoveries, we know that this text has been altered through the years, maybe not majorly, but through translation things can get jumbled. So for us to find historical evidence that something is not as told in the Bible, then should not the Bible or at least a piece of text is redundant and brings into question the entire thing?
But you’re right, not all religions have a rigid faith system.
If you take a look at histories of war, each side will have a substantially different version. Bias is always there. The further back you go, the likelihood of distortion increases.
All religions are man-made systems influenced by the religions, cultures, and philosophies that preceded them. The history makes that fact inescapable. A lot of the memes on this topic are bad history making false claims, but there are truer statements about the pagan origins of Christianity. For example, much of Christian morality is Roman morality. The Christian notion of Hell is strongly influenced by the Greek underworld. Your discussion of El, Baal, and Yahwah's origins are also generally accepted, though there's a bit of debate on that topic. A lot of the history we need to know these things for certain isn't written down, so we muddle around trying to figure out the history. Religions represent humans muddling around trying to figure out the divine. Just as history certainly existed and careful methodology can help us uncover it, the phenomenological roots of religion (gods and mysticism) certainly exist in some form, whether that form is neurological in origin or something more akin to the traditional understanding. And there's a surprisingly good case for the traditional understanding; mysticism and magick allow us to do things that ought to be impossible and know things we have absolutely no business knowing. Some say it also facilitates far more miraculous ends than that, but my cynicism holds me back here. Don't let it hold you back; our ancestors knew quite a bit, and we're periodically shocked by how much they knew and how right they were. Especially when it comes to religious matters. One of the few religious practices that's been rigorously studied at this point is meditation, and study after study shows us the good it can do. Other religious practices and teachings having some validity isn't just possible, but expected. Mysticism, the practice of communicating with gods and them giving us information in return, is one practice that may be shown to bear good fruit. If you trust the mysticism and wisdom of your forebears, you must understand that them having trusted the mysticism and wisdom of their forebears, even forebears who followed older and different religions, is similarly valid. We all learn from each other. Even when it comes to gods and metaphysics. Learning from each other doesn't make us less likely to have accurate opinions.
A Thelmic! ( I don’t know what you call yourself) I do enjoy the thelemic belief, I also love esoteric and occult knowledge. It’s cool seeing you giving insight, I don’t often get to see people of thelemic belief anywhere.
Thelemite. That's the word. :) We tend to be pretty quiet, yeah.
Ah thank you! I’ve met a thelemite before, though not a very friendly interaction, I won’t allow that to convince me that all are the same. I even looked into the belief, and read books on Alister Crowley. I even own a couple of books on ritual thelemic magick! ( not to brag ) I just had my own dive into occult beliefs and came across thelema and dig my own small study into it.
Thelema tends to attract nerds. In my opinion, that's a good thing, but not all of us have the best social graces. If this was online, in particular, you likely ran into a nerd who has trouble working with others, and therefore integrating well with their local community. That combined with some of our teachings, arguably misinterpreted, can lead to ickiness. If they do the work and learn to get past their ego and any damage it may have sustained, that'll improve. But not all do. Everyone I've met in person has been pretty awesome—some, myself included, still had significant work to do, but we're generally willing and eager to do that work. Online has been a lot patchier. Anywho, Crowley influenced a *lot* of what came after him, so learning a little bit about him and Thelema makes sense for anyone with interest in the occult. It's really not as bad as the horror movies would lead us to believe!
> If we can prove that the Abrahamic god found its origin in a pantheon before Judaism then can’t that just knock the basis of any Abrahamic religion? Why would this challenge your faith at all? This is more or less exactly what the Bible says happened. All throughout the history presented in Kings and Chronicles you can see Israelites worshiping YHWH alongside a wide variety of other deities. The text essentially says directly that YHWH was included in a polytheistic pantheon... much to the dismay of the prophets!
True! But this also knocks the religious belief in Yahweh being the father of all of creation, he would’ve been just a god who rose in popularity into becoming the head god. Which then in the future these other gods are demonized and are called false gods, or are turned into demons.
I'm not sure how it would change anything about whether or not YHWH created the world. Clearly the prophets of the Bible believed that YHWH created the world while also knowing full well that YHWH was worshipped by polytheists.
Yes I agree, but I suppose it’s true that history or in this case religion is written by the victors. But for the victors to portray the winning side as something that wasn’t previously believed, it just doesn’t make sense to believe in something that the prophets made us believe through manipulation of previous religions belief.
> But for the victors to portray the winning side as something that wasn’t previously believed I'm not sure what you mean by that. The "victors" portray the Israelites as polytheists and idolators... which seems to be entirely historically accurate.
No your right, but I say victors as those who’s beliefs won over another’s, through conquest or just natural compaction of an already small pantheon of gods. Now we can talk about how Yahwehism rose to power or popularity and how it came about the creation of monotheism, but it’s not particularly the part I wanna focus on. I’m not trying to debunk history. I’m just wondering how a religion who claims to be the true faith and have the true god, came from a pantheon of gods. Which that said god isn’t a creator god, head god, or even a rather important god. Sure we could say Yahweh was a cannanite god that rose to power and claimed the throne of head god. But then the result in a cult that then believes in this new head god, then proclaims that this newly risen god is the creator and true god. It just blows off the basis of any religion that follows after it.
> I’m just wondering how a religion who claims to be the true faith and have the true god, came from a pantheon of gods. Which that said god isn’t a creator god, head god, or even a rather important god. So it sounds like you're taking the Canaanite claims about YHWH at face value while disbelieving the Biblical claims about YHWH. Now that's obviously a perfectly fine position to take if you'd like... but I don't see why you would do it. One side claims that YHWH is just one of many deities and was not responsible for creating the world. The other side claims that YHWH is the only deity and is responsible for creating the world. Both of these groups existed historically - something that we know mostly because of the Biblical texts themselves. > Sure we could say Yahweh was a cannanite god that rose to power and claimed the throne of head god. I mean, a religious Christian, Jew or Muslim would probably say that didn't happen. Why do you believe that it did? There is certainly no *historical* text that says that this happened.
For many people objective evidence can not disprove faith. That's not only limited to religious beliefs.
Can you even prove to us that you yourself exist ? I would wager you cannot.
I’m not wagering that God or even Yahweh dosent exist, just more on how we can trust the Abrahamic belief if it had previous origins in another religion that contradict newer beliefs.
Religions which don't claim to worship the single correct God, and who don't claim that their religious teachings are objective world history, have less of an issue with this.
I mean I don’t think you can conclusively prove religions or philosophies right in the sense that you can prove 2+2=4 for example. But like you said with the development of ideas around YHWH and El and other conclusions from archaeology and biblical scholarship can provide evidence against at least more literalist interpretations of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. On the other hand history could potentially provide evidence in favor of one of them being true. Like Jesus and Muhammad existing as historical figures provides at least some evidence in favor of Christianity and or Islam for example. Evidence isn’t a zero sum game like a lot of people seem to think. I’m an atheist for example, while I believe there’s isn’t a god, we don’t know that in same way we know basic mathematics to be true. There is evidence for god in the form of arguments for his existence that, although I don’t find them as convincing as the arguments that counter them, provide evidence against my position in that they at least make it more likely that there is one compared to having no arguments for his existence. I think history as evidence for and against a religion’s truth can be viewed in the same way. Historical findings can either make some of their claims more or less likely to be true but won’t offer “proof” one way or the other. At the same time, regardless of whether or not, historians think Jesus claimed equal divine status with God, doesn't necessarily mean that he is not God, but to my mind it's certainly evidence against that view. Obviously some religions aren’t concerned with being “correct” in the same way that many interpretations of Islam and Christianity so if somebody things historical truths and religious truths don’t intersect, then this conversation doesn’t really concern them too much. History is one of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity any more but I have my own biases and preferences in terms of which sources of information I trust over others. I also held to Christianity in such a way that some level of historical accuracy mattered a lot to me. I didn't believe in creationism or anything like that but things like the development of the Israelite God, the wildness of early Christianity, and the evidence against Jesus' claim to be equal to capital "G" god in earliest Christianity were convincing to me. The findings of these scholars might not convince others or others may have ways of interpreting these findings that jive with their understanding of Christianity which is fine too. Historians disagree about findings sometimes and they aren't on a mission to prove Jesus isn't God or anything, they're on a mission to find what we can know using the historical method.
All historical religions come from what we call proto-religions. Proto-religions are reconstructed belief systems and practices of early human societies. These early spiritual practices often centered around natural phenomena, ancestor worship, rituals related to fertility and hunting, and explanations for the mysteries of life and death. The practice of reconstructing proto-religions is akin to reconstructing proto-languages. Over time, proto-religions evolved and diversified as human societies developed agriculture, complex social structures, and centralized governance. Proto-religions provided the basis for the emergence of organized religions with codified beliefs, rituals, moral codes, priesthoods, and sacred texts. During the Neolithic and Paleolithic periods, early humans practiced rituals related to hunting, fertility, and burial rites. Examples include cave paintings depicting hunting scenes, figurines representing fertility goddesses, and burial sites with grave goods indicating beliefs in an afterlife. In Mesopotamia and Egypt, proto-religions evolved into polytheistic systems with gods and goddesses associated with natural forces (e.g., Sun god, fertility goddesses) and city-state patron deities (e.g., Ishtar in Mesopotamia, Ra in Egypt). Indigenous cultures around the world maintain proto-religious practices rooted in local landscapes, spirits, and ancestral traditions. These traditions often blend animistic beliefs with reverence for nature and communal rituals.
[удалено]
I don’t know how or why proving anything matters. I know how my denomination started. I have my own perspectives beliefs and interpretations on it based on the history. It doesn’t change my convictions or beliefs
More history can come to light, though. Suppose, for example, there was a first draft of the Book of Mormon uncovered, or conversely some document discovered somewhere in the Americas written in something identifiably in a reformed Egyptian script
Sure, I suppose new discoveries are possible. We do have just about every paper available as been published in the Joseph smith papers project. One reason we know his polygamy wasn’t sexual based is a new discovery in the last year or two
I take it even if we had a clear first draft with different plot points wouldn't change much for you. What are these new papers though? I'm curious
The [Joseph smith papers project](https://www.josephsmithpapers.org)? It’s just about ever paper ever even mentioning Joseph smith that historians could find. A rough draft of the Book of Mormon with different stories and plot points? Maybe. I mean, we did lose of the first drafts, so maybe it’s still out there some where. If you know, I know an org that would be willing to buy it for lots of money.
I mean, what specifically makes it clear plural marriage wasn't a sexual thing?
Oh! Don Bradley is the historian who found it. Here’s a [video](https://youtu.be/5FsNhsv3pJ0?si=YjfLT6pG0U838P4r) of him explaining his findings.
I believe it matters, cause with such a large religion that has a lot of holes in it, I feel like we need a solid grown to them build upon a cannon. They way things have gone in history we’ve built a cannon on unstable grounds that, that said grounds belonged to a whole other religion! Fix the ground and then work out the holes from there. Wandering around in blind faith can prove to be very unwise. Though I have my respects for those who have blind faith in a god, complete blind faith is just ignorant. ( not saying this in a harsh way just couldn’t think of a word to use )
>can’t that just knock the basis of any Abrahamic religion? Histography doesn't necessarily reflect history, even though it clarifies it the most. Just because the earliest archaeological evidence for the G-d of Israel is tainted by polytheism still doesn't mean that there was no history before that, and Judaism, in any case, doesn't disavow the polytheistic era in its history.
No that’s true, but then what is thier reason and explanation of worshiping a pagan god who previously was a storm warrior god? Then claim that minor warrior god is the true creator and master of the universe?
Whose reasons? we? we don't believe that He was basically an idolatrous deity. We believe that the origin of the G-d of Israel is monotheistic, even if other nations and some of us later have worshiped Him in a polytheistic manner.
Sorry I said thier not explaining who I’m even talking about, I meant anyone of the Abrahamic faith, my bad. But the god Yahweh never appeared ( from what we know ) before the cannanite religion, and If God was worshiped in such way along with others, why would allow that? If he’s an all powerful deity and creator of all, then why did he sit as a minor deity, an and that a storm warrior god?
To me it’s sounds of Yahweh was a underdog god who rose to power and made everyone believe him to be their creator and the only one true god.
i agree with most of these people that it’s impossible but in a different way. I’m a high honor roll junior in highschool. and if there’s one thing i learned in history, it’s that the bible and other religious pieces are made up of lies agreed upon by powerful people to keep power. there were multiple different bibles written by different people and eventually they took parts from each one and made it one story. What specific things they took i don’t know and i wont pretend i do. even if we still know what they took that could be lies too. So trying to prove god is real through bible events is a waste of time. even if some of these events have been “discovered” (like noah’s arc/garden of eden) those can also be lies or similar events that christian’s used as “evidence” or even a true event that occurred differently then described (for example if noah’s arc really was discovered, Jesus christ may not have made the flood) Religion started off as a concept of hope. whether anything told truly happened or not it should stay that way but humanity has a long history of using it to their advantage, which also makes it sound made up to me if you look into it. (Like the church starting to charge for less time in purgatory) So even if it WAS real i’m sure the corrupt religious leaders threw in plenty of white lies if the other possibilities didn’t happen. There’s so many “ifs” in my information that it’s almost pointless trying to use it to solidify my point. But the same applies to trying to prove god is/was real. Jesus was a real human and that’s all i am willing to say with confidence, the rest is just a lot of assumptions on both sides of the battlefield. Believe what you want and stay faithful to it, that’s what religion was for. Don’t let vlonelarenzo and other people on reddit tell you what to believe because we’ve already spent hundreds of years arguing and fighting over what’s real and what’s not, so just follow your own morals. (p.s this is all from what i’ve learned/remembered and i personally do not study or believe in christianity and god, i apologize if any of this information is inaccurate)
I appreciate your insight, as a Christian this doesn’t make me question my faith, maybe the history of the faith before mine, but I ask this general vague question as a way to understand religion a as whole. But I will say I did seek an answer for the Abrahamic religions. My faith is based on Christ alone, and I do have my reasons to believe that Jesus is the son of God. I only wonder and ponder these ideas cause Jesus was Jewish and claimed to be the son of the Abrahamic God. Which is the god I’m bringing into question. There’s a hole in my faith as well. Which I’m using this post to try and rationalize a patch for that hole.