Origins (rituals, Earth, tradition, Buddhism, evolve)

[Lycan]

Since alot (if not all) of modern religious traditions and practices were orginally pagan, do you think it is wrong for religions that preach whole-heartedly against paganism in any form to practice these various traditions, rituals, etc.?

[Lycan]

I smell a trap

No trap, just a question...

[Lightkeeper]

Originally Posted by Lycan

Since alot (if not all) of modern religious traditions and practices were orginally pagan, do you think it is wrong for religions that preach whole-heartedly against paganism in any form to practice these various traditions, rituals, etc.?

Could you reword this question? For some reason it's crossing my eyes. Are saying that the religions which preach against paganism still practice some of the traditions and rituals? If that is the question, then I would say yes, it would be wrong to preach against paganism, but still use some of the rituals. But, only if they worship gods other than the God of any particular religion.

[Master Vigil]

What hes saying is that religions evolve. The first religions were in fact nature based, primal, "pagan." All religions grew out of these primal, nature based religions. There are still parts of modern day religions that are pagan. So why do they condemn the religions that they came from, and are a part of?

[fromthe heart]

I have to wonder why some of what some religions adopted as religious traditions aren't just based on certian events that took place at the same time where pagan religious traditions did and were not taken from pagan tradition at all. It's true there are some things celebrated by both at or near the same time but don't you have to look at the content of the tradition it's self to see where and why?

[Master Vigil]

If you look at the history of religions, they all grow from the former. Like you grew from your parents, you are not your parents, but you have many of your parents traits. You can't condemn your parents, because you contain much of them in you, and are thus condemning much of yourself.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

If you look at the history of religions, they all grow from the former. Like you grew from your parents, you are not your parents, but you have many of your parents traits. You can't condemn your parents, because you contain much of them in you, and are thus condemning much of yourself.

Actually, that hasn't been demonstrated beyond all certainty. Not all of us accept that model of religious development .

[Master Vigil]

Do you disagree that islam sprung from christianity? And that christianity sprung from judaism? And that judaism sprung from Zoroastrianism? And that buddhism sprung from hinduism? And that the first religions were indeed earth based, primal religions? Why is it hard to understand that all religions come from the first nature based, primal religions?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by No*s

Actually, that hasn't been demonstrated beyond all certainty. Not all of us accept that model of religious development [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img].

He's right, not everyone accepts that ancient myths evolved into modern ones...just atheists, and anthropologists.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

Do you disagree that islam sprung from christianity? And that christianity sprung from judaism? And that judaism sprung from Zoroastrianism? And that buddhism sprung from hinduism? And that the first religions were indeed earth based, primal religions? Why is it hard to understand that all religions come from the first nature based, primal religions?

The model suffers from a couple of fatal flaws. First, it is far, far too simple. Judaism predates the time of its extensive contact with Zoroastrianism. Islam sprung from Judaism, Christianity, and the local religions IMO.

Next, there is a big difference between asserting things on those religions and what you are asserting on the "primal religions." On the former, there is documentation, and on the latter, there is no evidence, but only our reconstructions and models based on them. That's a lot of assuming when you say all religions come from those primal religions when we have no real evidence at all.

How do you know it wasn't ancestor worship that spread into other things? Maybe it was some other worship of supernatural spirits which in some religions became synonomous with nature and others where the spirits controlled nature. Heck, it could have been knowledge of the One God that was gradually lost and distorted over time. The point is, you have no evidence and cannot know.

The last big problem is that it is addressed to faiths that believe in divine revelation. So, you are asking me to believe that my belief that God became man and revealed Himself was simply a natural evolution of the cycle. Islam could say the same thing, and so can Judaism, and in pretty much each one of them, we believe God used cultural things and transformed culture simultaneously.

The model is simple and if you ask us to accept it you also ask us to deny any form of divine revelation. It won't fly very far with faiths based on revelation as a result. So, as you can see, I have genuine problems with that model.