Oldest religion in the world

[1purple_panda]

Yea its true on some cases to try to understand something before rejecting it. . But mostly its wise to stick to the truth. .

So in this case, the truth that the Bible says is accurate and above all understanding. .

There are always going to be things that are beyond our understanding. . So it's best to just accept it that God knows best and trust in Him that it will be revealed to us in His time what He feels is best. .

Such as some people could have been reading through the Bible so many times and still see something new that they havent seen before and didnt realize another part of information was there. . For that it is with Holy Spirit to help us understand as we grow more in the Lord and give up control of every part of us. . Giving God more control on our lives as we trust in Him. .

Same as you see with a child they automatically trust their parents to provide them the basic needs and in the future instructions will be given to them as they get older. .

We dont need to understand something 100% to decide if its true or false. . Just a conviction from the Holy Spirit that is within us to warn us if its wrong or right as we absorb all the knowledge that has been open to us through reading the Scriptures. .

 

[MorriganTait]

So in this case, the truth that the Bible says is accurate and above all understanding. .

There are always going to be things that are beyond our understanding.

We dont need to understand something 100% to decide if its true or false.

1. The Bible is not, and was never intended to be, a science text. It's truths are spiritual truths - not scientific proofs. The problem is when we think that science is disagreeing with the Bible - when the Bible isn't even talking about science to begin with.

2. Yes, but those things that ARE in our understanding need not continually be denied to support a false sense of security in a text we are attemptng to missuse.

3. Possibly, but I find that on one side of this debate, many people neither understand the science they are rejecting, nor the Bible they are attempting to defend.

 

[Reba]

Oldest religion in the world

Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they worshipped the same God that was later worshipped by Jews and Christians. Since they were the first humans, obviously there was no other religion prior to that.

 

[Beowulf]

Oldest religion in the world

Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they worshipped the same God that was later worshipped by Jews and Christians. Since they were the first humans, obviously there was no other religion prior to that.

Oh baloney.
There was always love.

 

[Teresh]

Oldest religion in the world

Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they worshipped the same God that was later worshipped by Jews and Christians. Since they were the first humans, obviously there was no other religion prior to that.

Well, did Adam and Eve identify as Jewish? If not, then other religions predate it.

That said, you're making the assumption that Adam and Eve existed and, if they did, that they were ther first humans. Try answering the thread's original question rather than subverting the topic in an attempt to propogate your own religous beliefs.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Teresh, would you not agree that there had to be two first humans, a male and a female, to attain sentience in order to begin the human race? That is, two who were distinct from any prior (non-sentient) ancestors...

 

[Teresh]

Teresh, would you not agree that there had to be two first humans, a male and a female, to attain sentience in order to begin the human race? That is, two who were distinct from any prior (non-sentient) ancestors...

That depends on your definition of "human". Typically, species start with only one member (male or female) which then propogates its DNA through reproduction. The children that inherit the superior characteristics ultimately outcompete the ones who do not, and the ones who do not die.

The theory of evolution dictates that the modern human race (homo sapiens sapien) started with one person, not two.

 

[Reba]

Well, did Adam and Eve identify as Jewish? If not, then other religions predate it.

They were not "Jewish". Their "religion" didn't have a name. It wasn't necessary for identification at that time because it was the only religion.

That said, you're making the assumption that Adam and Eve existed and, if they did, that they were ther first humans. Try answering the thread's original question rather than subverting the topic in an attempt to propogate your own religous beliefs.

I did answer it. There was no other religion predating the worship of God by Adam and Eve.

 

[Teresh]

They were not "Jewish". Their "religion" didn't have a name. It wasn't necessary for identification at that time because it was the only religion.

Genesis states otherwise. Ever heard of Lilith?

I did answer it. There was no other religion predating the worship of God by Adam and Eve.

When did Adam and Eve walk the earth? Give me a rough estimate, to the nearest millennium.

 

[Reba]

Genesis states otherwise. Ever heard of Lilith?

I thought you wanted to stick with the original question?

Yes, I know the Lilith story. What does that have to do with anything?

When did Adam and Eve walk the earth? Give me a rough estimate, to the nearest millennium.

What's the point? You already know my answer, and you just want to drag me into another evolution v. creationism debate. Aren't the current threads on that enough?

Whether I say 6,000 years (as I believe) or 6 gazillion years, Adam and Eve were still the first human worshippers of God, so that is my answer to this thread's question. There were no other people prior to them, so no other religions prior to them.

 

[Teresh]

I thought you wanted to stick with the original question?

Calling your bluff is not deviating from that.

Yes, I know the Lilith story. What does that have to do with anything?

If Lilith existed prior to Eve, then Adam and Eve were not the first humans, Adam and Lilith were, and, indeed, there were other religions.

What's the point? You already know my answer, and you just want to drag me into another evolution v. creationism debate. Aren't the current threads on that enough?

No, I don't know your answer, which is why I asked. You assume too much about my motivations for responding to your posts. Whether you believe it or not, I'm not out to get you. Am I not allowed to inquire when I am not fully aware of your view?

Whether I say 6,000 years (as I believe) or 6 gazillion years, Adam and Eve were still the first human worshippers of God, so that is my answer to this thread's question. There were no other people prior to them, so no other religions prior to them.

Fair enough. You've explained your response, regardless of how valid or invalid I may perceive it to be. Good work.

 

[MorriganTait]

The theory of evolution dictates that the modern human race (homo sapiens sapien) started with one person, not two.

Please restate that as "A theory of human evolution..."

There is not one "theory of evolution". Evolution is a fact, and the modes of evolution of different species involve many theories as well as many known facts. Thank you. Now back to our program...

 

[MorriganTait]

Adam and Eve were still the first human worshippers of God.

You know, I might agree if someone just simply said "Adam and Eve were the first identified Jews" and leave it at that. I wish we didn't have this need to confuse the origin of one religion with the origins of all biology.

 

[Rose Immortal]

That depends on your definition of "human". Typically, species start with only one member (male or female) which then propogates its DNA through reproduction. The children that inherit the superior characteristics ultimately outcompete the ones who do not, and the ones who do not die.

The theory of evolution dictates that the modern human race (homo sapiens sapien) started with one person, not two.

That makes sense for non-sentient species, but humans are a little less logical.

I'm almost not sure that the first sentient human (Adam) would've been able to cope psychologically unless he had one like him, who could relate to his thoughts and his way of communicating. Sentience in isolation could actually be a maladaptive trait that would kill the one who had it (due to depression, withdrawal from the non-sentient ancestors, and other psychological problems coming from being totally, completely alone). Heck, Genesis can be seen as hinting at this problem--that Adam did start to experience that depression until he was joined by Eve. So I would suspect the human race didn't really get off to a start until there were two who shared self-awareness, male and female.

 

[Endymion]

That makes sense for non-sentient species, but humans are a little less logical.

I'm almost not sure that the first sentient human (Adam) would've been able to cope psychologically unless he had one like him, who could relate to his thoughts and his way of communicating. Sentience in isolation could actually be a maladaptive trait that would kill the one who had it (due to depression, withdrawal from the non-sentient ancestors, and other psychological problems coming from being totally, completely alone). Heck, Genesis can be seen as hinting at this problem--that Adam did start to experience that depression until he was joined by Eve. So I would suspect the human race didn't really get off to a start until there were two who shared self-awareness, male and female.

My interpretation of that "one human" thing has always been that if there is a line, a demarcation in evolution between one species, there has to be at least one creature that crossed the demarcation into the next species. In fact, there could be ten of them that crossed the line at the exact same picosecond, but the minimum is one (it is very frequently one, as well).

For example, the fruit fly Drosophila Melanogaster is a popular species for evolutionary experimentation. Let's say, for example, that a biologist wants to perform an experiment through many, many generations of D. Melanogaster by placing them in a constricted environment where they cannot easily fly (and must be able to fly to feed). The end result is that you've got a new fly with stronger wings.

Let's oversimplify this for the sake of analogy and say that we now have a new species: D. Wingus.

For D. Melanogaster and D. Wingus, we're looking at a black and white demarcation between the two. Either a particular fly is a member of one or the other. At one point, you have your first "fly that broke the camel's back" genetic mutation, creating the first D. Wingus fly. There are no other D. M. Wingus members, but are still plenty of D. Melanogaster creatures who are almost about to make the transition as well.

Additionally, you can have another scientist perform the same experiment in London, and the other in Reykjavik. These biologists record the results all at the same time; it so turns out that you have three members of D. Wingus that appear relatively close to each other.

I've terribly oversimplified all of this. In reality, it's a bit more complex. You see where that's going, though? (I can imagine philosophical issues with drawing lines and the quantitative aspect of all this, however)

Also, sentience predates the hominids by far.

 

[Beowulf]

What I respect about the older religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) is that through meditation, their practitioners can ahieve Samadhi, the state of being aware of one's Existence without thinking, a state of undifferentiated "Beingness." It is a feeling of pure unadulaterated joy and it is my understanding that while indescribable, it puts orgasms to shame.

 

[Rose Immortal]

My interpretation of that "one human" thing has always been that if there is a line, a demarcation in evolution between one species, there has to be at least one creature that crossed the demarcation into the next species. In fact, there could be ten of them that crossed the line at the exact same picosecond, but the minimum is one (it is very frequently one, as well).

[snip]

Additionally, you can have another scientist perform the same experiment in London, and the other in Reykjavik. These biologists record the results all at the same time; it so turns out that you have three members of D. Wingus that appear relatively close to each other.

I've terribly oversimplified all of this. In reality, it's a bit more complex. You see where that's going, though? (I can imagine philosophical issues with drawing lines and the quantitative aspect of all this, however)

That seems to leave open the possibility of more than one member of the species crossing the line to humanity at or near the same time...if I'm reading you right, anyway.

Also, sentience predates the hominids by far.

Full self-awareness with the kind of ideas and emotions on the level of humanity? Where are you getting that?

 

[Beowulf]

That seems to leave open the possibility of more than one member of the species crossing the line to humanity at or near the same time...if I'm reading you right, anyway.



Full self-awareness with the kind of ideas and emotions on the level of humanity? Where are you getting that?

And why not? It would be arrogant thinking on the part of mankind to assume it has the monopoly on Awareness. There are spiritual masters aplenty who KNOW we are immersed in energy, and they know the foolishness of pointing to one part and saying That part has more sentience/awareness than that part. It sounds like even a pebble has sentience and we simply are not evolved enough to be aware of it.

 

[Endymion]

That seems to leave open the possibility of more than one member of the species crossing the line to humanity at or near the same time...if I'm reading you right, anyway.

Yep. Though pretty much not statistically likely in the social environment and timeframe of one particular living hominid. But still possible, and still reconcilable with most religious outlooks.

Additionally, you could also say that the human race evolved several times. What I'm thinking of is this: Bob N. Humanus, resident of Pangaea and chronic nose-picker is the first human. As it turns out, Bob has an unfortunate encounter with a large-footed animal. Fortunately for humanity, Corinne B. Lucky crosses the evolutionary line (wherever this line is is highly subjective) and lives long enough to pop out Jake B. Lucky and Sarah B. Lucky, humans extraordinare. Unfortunately, all three become lunch three weeks later. And so on . . .

I wonder how that could reconcile with your belief. An interesting intellectual excercise, maybe.

Full self-awareness with the kind of ideas and emotions on the level of humanity? Where are you getting that?

I misread you. My bad. Sentience has long predated humanity, but I'm thinking of crab-like sentience or big beastly monster with few brain cells sentience (also known as "the inconsiderate oaf who sits next to me on the plane who happens to be the source of loud, funny sounds").

Though I suspect that since we shared many common features, and following my previous post's logic with "first to cross the line, many just behind" we come to a different conclusion. The differences between brain capacity of the last of one species and the next are remarkably small. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many of our ancestors shared many similar emotions and feelings (but were not raised in environments that allowed for cultural sophistry--Dear Hungry Predator, sir. Could you be as kind to please digest my cave neighbor's left Gastrocnemius with slightly less noise? Thank you, you're such a gentleman).

I think of it in terms of speech. If I remember right, our ancestors certainly had the tools to make the sounds we humans do. What says they didn't have the ability to feel as well? I ask that especially since we were already social creatures long before we were human.

Then there's the craniometry of human evolution. Our nearest ancestors had skull sizes that didn't differ that much from ours. But that's really very circumstantial and the way I presented it doesn't do much justice.

 

[Boult]

Did you all ever think about religions practiced by Egyptians? They have been around for long time before someone heard about Adam and Eve hmm...

Africa is the cradle of the birth of human race. not somewhere in middle east like Iraq where Garden of Eve is portrayed to be in.

However, in today's society, we can go down to amazon and find a extremely isolated tribe that haven't met or seen outsider at all will be shocked to see a outsider thinking that the outsider has fallen from sky to greet them and they will start worshipping you for no reason. like those people who worshipped the volcano thinking volcano were mad when it trembled.

of course there were no religion ever named before the 3 such major religion (Muslim, Judaism, Christian) ever formed. They write their own belief and custom to shape their life we are today. Those "no named" religions goes thousands centuries before Jesus were born. they were also known as custom or rituals like those tribes who worshipped sun or moon or whatever.

So how can you put your trust in the bible or koran or whatever the book that tells words of supreme being when they were not there when tribe actually worshipped the volcano or sun. I know about "tablets" I mean way before.

Indians didn't need such things like that. they worshipped spirits. all indians tribes have different rituals and customs.

That's why I look at everything.. and I goes.. yeah right.. there were no religions to begin with when human ever walked just worshipping that's it.

When humans found out that volcanos died they moved on realizing it was not their "god" because it was not living. it was just shift of earth's molten rocks. *shrugs*

anyway, I am guessing you all wants the religion timeline...
so here it is;
http://atheism.about.com/library/chronologies/blchron_index.htm
goes from near 9,000 BCE to 2000 CE

Have fun