If you dissect world religions/superstition/mythologies can you find the "Ur-Religion"?
Is it even possible?
Robert Graves attempted this for Europe.
He produced a religion about sex cannibalism, women murdering men, and animal totems.
His "historical method" was to get high, read poetry and make stuff up. I'm not joking.
It isn't possible.
Is it? If religion is more history than thought, like the urreligion in question would be, can it really be judged on a scale where enlightenment rather than unadulterated experience > truer understanding?
Sorry. Spanish is my first language. Okay. Attempt number two.
Is the religion thought or experience, meaning, is the relevant information of a religious study found most in the thoughts, or in the representation and in the "fact". Is the truer information regarding religion found in those with higher thought, or those who are from a time closer to the origin of man. Does that make more sense? I am sorry if not. I can try again.
Kind of like the old english "sweating sickness" in the 15th century. It isn't around now for us to look at scientifically, so we have two ways of approaching the subject. With modern thought, or with concurrent accounts. (OR, with modern thought _on_ concurrent accounts, which would unarguably be the best, but this is just about the original post.)
>why a more ancient religion is more true and authentic. That's like sticking with the pre-socratic philosophy.
The question is, is religion thought, or experience. Given the methods and clear purpose given to us by OP, we are to assume that we are looking for the root of religion. Much like the root of metallurgy, we can't approach it with thought. The best metallurgy may not have been the original, but in the search for the urmetallurgy, it is the one we seek. So in the case where we are looking for the earliest philosophy, it MUST be pre-Socratic.
So if it is experience rather than thought, that is why the older is more true, at least potentially. Assuming that the thread in most religions that creation happened before all of this, times closer to creation would naturally have better odds of experiencing raw, unadulterated truth, at least in this regard. However! The recording methods and the lower intellect of the audience can have an adverse affect/effect (This one I can never remember) on the fidelity of information of course). But, as with the sweating sickness, because it is all we have, the concurrent account must be drawn upon for this information. Does this make sense? Am I talking from my ass to you? It makes sense in my head at least, what I am saying.
I don't see what was obscure about his post.
He was saying that if religion is genuinely true and is history and divine revelation rather than abstract philosophy and theology then you can make a case the first one is the correct one.
I'm not arguing he is right btw, just saying I understood fine.
Just as old as Judaisam, if the canon of scripture is enough to assume truth even...
>Implying that because your religion says it is the oldest, it is
>Implying your religion is correct
>Implying you're correct
the Ur-religion is probably taking the opposite of correlation doesn't equal causation to the extreme.
In my opinion its mainly about forming a community based off of mutual belief, or interest in the same stories. I mean as a caveman who did you have to protect, talk to and reproduce with other than slaves, and your own flesh and blood. I think religion was something to move beyond that.
I will vanquish only those shadows which I deem necessary to vanquish for my own purpose
I was always under the impression that the first, closest thing to a first "religion" was simply just animalistic worship. I'm pretty sure there are some half animal half human statues that we aren't sure of their actual application - religious worship or something else, etc.
Not really based on any kind of study, just something I have always thought. Think Zandalari troll stuff.
So they found an old copy of new shit? Cool.
(Judaism predates Christianity which predates Islam. QED)
Really though, nice b8.
He isn't exactly promoting Sharia law. Check his DeviantArt. It gives you an idea of what he may actually believe. A lot of time of straight up heartfelt bullshit for satire, if you ask me.
>every single "israeli product" is american
Oh I am laffin.
>tfw totally addicted to Diet Coke
Good to know it's for a good cause.
This is great.
> He isn't exactly promoting Sharia law
You don't say?
What harsh opinions? I said it was great and I meant it. I have a couple of these anime saved from 4chinz but I didn't know the source.
I'm going to go on /pol/ later and indulge my occasional hobby of trolling the shit out of them with this stuff.
I don't know antyhing about Ur-Religion but I figure I'm helping OP by bumping his thread.
>Wow. Crazy fuck.
maybe you should learn about Sharia law beofre calling it crazy.
>he thinks Islam started with Muhammad (pbuh)
>not with Adam (pbuh)
No dancing, no drinking and no music.
Very good laws yesyes.
Don't be silly. Of course there are offshoots of Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, but their texts have become corrupted.
That's why Allah sent one final prophet to mankind with the correct truth.
Okay. So definitively not bate. Okay. That is fine. I am aware of the teachings. I am also aware that nothing that hasn't changed since medieval times fades out or evolves. Islam is a dying meme, kept alive by violent radicals and blind devotees.
> Islam is a dying meme
You don't say?
For the indo europeans that'd be actually bretty easy, at least if we talk about Europe and not the eastern fellows. The Greek pantheon and the Roman pantheon and the Etruscan, Germanic and Celtic ones shared many similarities, possibly because they all influenced one another because of Syncretism of religions, but meh Zeus=Giove=Wotan. We don't know much about slavic paganism but I bet it was similar as well, possibly with more iranian influence due to Scytians/Sarmatian influence.
Since Jahweh was just one of the canaaite gods, and Christianity could be described as being polytheistic in it's trinity. And since zoroastrianism is just two gods smashed Into one. Yazdanism is just worshipping one of seven mesopotanian gods. Mithras/solus invictus egalus are nuances in polytheistic religions where they worship the sun in particular, but don't deny other gods. Tell me any monotheistic religion before Islam.
>Inb4 bait, mudslime
Just trying to get discussion going :^)
I'm not him, but it sounds like you're talking about the distinction between analytic and synthetic knowledge, or rationalism and empiricsm. It seems like you're saying that like with the sweating sickness, some events are mysterious and impossible to fully understand over time. For that reason, in applying modern methods of reasoning, we should draw upon old "experience" or evidence and personal accounts. I don't quite agree, but is that what you're saying?
It is the aim of many movements : theosophists like Alice Bailey and many mystical/new age folks who have access to many traditions and scriptures.
kind of mystic relativism : there is not one true tradition, but some real sages at various times and in various cultures, there is insights of the "true world" in many places and you have to make comparisons.
Also you have to believe that we all talk about the same things,
There is also the concept of natural religion from the enlightenment, which is like a simple theism without superstitions, rites and priests.
>Christianity could be described as being polytheistic in it's trinity
I understand that it can very well be interpreted that way, but in reality christianity is a monotheistic religion. The Holy Trinity refers to the 'One' God that they're all a part of, just its extension, in a sense.
It's not possible. Our understanding of history is questionably accurate even for that which we have written records of; the further back you go the less concrete our understanding of what happened, which drops off pretty sharply after a few thousand years to nothing at all. That means whatever evidence you could find for the earliest existing religion (if you could find any) couldn't be considered accurate (unless there was some lost super advanced early-human civilization that kept detailed records) and therefore our understanding of said religion's principles couldn't be considered "true."
You can find PIER (the proto-indo-european religion).
PIER is fascinating tbqh.
>The Primal Cow Creation Myth or the Myth of how the World was made from the body of a giant bovine is one of the best represented and most widely recognized myths of the Indo-Europeans. The following versions of this myth show the range of the material, and the approximate dates indicate the time span. The elements are (1) *Yama or *Yemós, the ‘twin’ who is (2) dismembered by (3) *Mánu, his brother, and then the parts of the twin’s body are used to (4) create the world according to a specific formula “his bones are the rocks, his blood made the rivers and seas”, etc. While the substance of the formula is essentially folkloric (rocks do look like “bones of the earth”), the use of the formula in this particular context and the linguistic correspondence of the names make possible the reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-European myth, as recognized by Cox, p. 189. This myth is also described by Mallory and Adams, p. 129-130, in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture and many other modern authors including Jaan Puhvel and Bruce Lincoln, which is why it was chosen as the first example. The forms of the myth are organized here according to the language group.
Cows are important in PIER, pic related demonstrates why that might be...
One of the most popular religions today.
Socialism is a religion for people who worship the power of the state.
Like all religions it claims that it is the TRUTH and that it is not a religion.
If you examine socialism honestly you will discover that it is just as faith based as other religions.
Socialism claims to be "scientific", but it is no more scientific than Scientology.
Socialism has successfully suppressed any scientific investigation of it's core dogmas.
And like a lot of religions (many sects of Islam for example) it seeks to destroy all competing philosophies (interestingly this includes science, which socialism tries to turn into just another propaganda outlet).
>Socialism has successfully suppressed any scientific investigation of it's core dogmas
>neoliberal economics is one of the dominant schools of thought
>almost every country on the planet has some form of market economy
>Is it even possible?
One must disregard literature and even the oldest religious texts, since writing came much later in history. Symbolism is where it's at.
I really suggest to read this book
>syncretism can be recognized wherever one finds elements borrowed from different traditional forms and assembled together without any awareness that there is only one single doctrine of which these forms are so many different expressions or so many adaptations related to particular conditions related to given circumstances of time and place.
I certainly do believe in Primordial tradition when it comes to religion.
Not a religion per se, but the 'Path of Sincerity' is common to nearly all religions and can be found as a core tenant in each of them. Respecting the gods but not relying upon them is a common thread that has been around for as long as religion has.
>A certain person said, "In the Saint's mausoleum there is a poem that goes :
>"If in one's heart
>He follows the path of sincerity,
>Though he does not pray
>Will not the gods protect him?"
>What is this path of sincerity?"
>A man answered him by saying, ''You seem to like poetry. I will answer you with a poem.
>As everything in this world is but a sham, >Death is the only sincerity.
>It is said that becoming as a dead man in one's daily living is the following of the path of sincerity."
>-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, The Hagakure
>"Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm."
> —Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11
>"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
Hello. My name is Joseph Campbell. Me and my friend Karl Jung did exactly that.
"There are hundreds of Gods and I know them all"