Does a religion have to be ancient in order for it to be true?

[ChristineM]

Yes, we fallible humans remain fallible human regardless of which belief system we choose or inherit.

Or even if we chose any belief system

 

[shunyadragon]

But those that modify their beliefs to fit these old religions are they just reinventing the wheel?

Some following ancient religions try to modify their beliefs to make things fit and form new churches and new sects of religions.

 

[Etritonakin]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical. In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Edit: I extend the same question to non-theistic religions

If considering the primary definition of religion (the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.), a/the "true" religion would be based on an accurate knowledge of that which is as old as possible -or "eternal" (whatever that might mean). It would be true because it was literally true -a set of accurate beliefs and practices which created the best possible outcome.

Truth cannot reinvent itself any more than math or logic can reinvent themselves. Things can be created and work well if the truth is referenced -just as things can be created and work well if math and logic are referenced. Actually, "spiritual" truth is built upon math and logic, etc. -and is simply on a more complex level -because "the creation" is based on inescapable math and logic.
The truth thereof also allows for the stability of the creation.

Consider the math/logic basis of some spiritual sayings... "God is one" ...If "everything" or "the almighty" literally equals 1, then creation is by logical subdivision and arrangement of the whole. "Let your yes be yes and your no be no -all else is of of the evil one". Evil is literally illogical -and the most simple possible basis of all things logical is binary (some sort of "real" version of that which allows for virtual reality), etc., etc.

Math and logic can be made more complex -perhaps infinitely so, but only by referencing basic truths. If any basic thing changed, all would fall. As "the creation" becomes more complex -and includes many individual personalities, it becomes more important that the laws which govern that complexity reference the basic truths which allow for their continued existence, well-being, happiness, etc. -and consider the present and future state.

We have the ability to ignore or be ignorant of that which is true -and if we act contrary to the truth, we will fall.

As our existence, longevity and well-being are based on that which we struggle to reverse-engineer, having access to -and guidance from -the original personality and creativity would be of extreme benefit -though we might not immediately see the benefit due to our newness and ignorance.

 

[blü 2]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

If sheer duration is the test then Aphrodite, Ares, Demeter (sex, war and food, by whatever names called) have to be front-runners. Oh, and Dionusos.

 

[Segev Moran]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical. In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Edit: I extend the same question to non-theistic religions

"Age" has got nothing to do with it.
The Jewish religion wasn't the oldest. there were many religions before.

The Jewish religion is the first monotheistic religion. it was the first to claim that there is only one source that governs all we know.
The next religions of Christianity and Islam, are based on the Jewish religion. It is not a question of whether or not the Jewish was before, they are simply basing their beliefs on the Jewish religion.

It is said that when the Messiah will arrive, we will all discover a new way of life, a new religion if you will, that the entire world will live by. this means that religion's truth is not a question of when, rather what

 

[Etritonakin]

Continued.....

If certain religious (though not necessarily scripturally-accurate) beliefs are considered -such as some ideas about creation -science can seem far more "true" than religion (and is more true than some or aspects of some -though certain spiritual laws might cause the best outcome even if specific beliefs are in error -as true religion would be from the knowing to the presently ignorant). In any case, science and religion should be in no wise opposed -but, from our perspective, we are naturally ignorant of any sort of greater truth.

Technically, "science" is a growing set of truths which allows for certainty in decision. However, it is uncertain what percentage of what may presently be known is known -and new things can be made to be known. Also, science is from a human perspective -and we have yet to perceive the smallest components of reality, much less the "big picture".

A true religion would essentially be from the perspective of one beginning with the smallest components (perhaps developing from the most simple state of the smallest components) and aware of the big picture -having created the latter from the former after/while being/becoming able.
(If "I AM THAT AM" were taken literally as "I AM THE SUM OF ALL THAT EXISTS)

Science must also be applied from our perspective. One with all possible knowledge and ability would be able to move us out of our present situation with much greater ease than we could ourselves.
For example... It is not technically (not considering situationally) impossible for man to self-evolve to immortality -but it would be a long and messy process. However, it would not benefit any who had passed on before -and we would still be left with the problem of not adhering to the laws which would make such a state desirable. A hundred or so years of misery is one thing -an eternity is another -so we would have to also solve the problems of peace and cooperation -law and self-discipline.
One with all knowledge and power could essentially record our states and reproduce them -and change any aspect at will. Such a one -whose will it was to create individuals of the necessary mindset for immortality themselves -could also create a situation which caused us to learn and focus on the problems of peace and cooperation -law and self-discipline (through experience) before allowing us to become immortal.
No one man can address the needs of all men -or bring them to the necessary changes, but one true God could do so.
Once addressed, such a one could simply move our personality into an improved body which allowed for creativity throughout the universe.

So -a "true" religion would essentially be something we could not provide for ourselves. Both the spiritual law and physical law aspects would be from a higher source -as would the "hand up" necessary for certain things to happen.

(Interesting note: Some believe that physical laws cannot be changed -but it is only the absolutely most basic physical laws which cannot change -as evidenced by the fact that the present physical laws once did not exist and were essentially written into reality by the singularity/big bang. We cannot change the present physical laws because we cannot yet interface on the necessary level. We are presently subject to them for the most part, but have already begun to increase our ability by increased knowledge and interface)

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Do you think that if [the Christians] had said 'OK, it's not the Jewish God, but some new one we just discovered who also won't let us sacrifice to your gods' the Romans would have just gone, "OK, no problem.?

Probably not. They might have said "The Jewish god has been around for a long time and the other gods have apparently tolerated his followers. But this new god may be just some minor posturing spirit and we can't have you defying the gods and the civil authorities on his say-so." In fact the Christians were not claiming a new god, but (apparently) that the Jewish one had had a radical change of mind.

 

[Augustus]

Probably not. They might have said "The Jewish god has been around for a long time and the other gods have apparently tolerated his followers. But this new god may be just some minor posturing spirit and we can't have you defying the gods and the civil authorities on his say-so." In fact the Christians were not claiming a new god, but (apparently) that the Jewish one had had a radical change of mind.

So, as I said, the Romans had a very different attitude to ancient religions versus new religions.

 

[Shad]

is a requirement to make a religion true?

No.

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical.

That is the projection of accomplishment combined with God's Will without consideration of any other factor.

In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Yes. For example the Protestant Reformation would be the reinvention of Christianity as least by it's followers

 

[Fool]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical. In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Edit: I extend the same question to non-theistic religions

the spirit of love is constantly reproducing itself, recreating itself. whats old is new again.


And no one pours new wine into old wine skins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wine skins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wine skins."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No, but a religion formed relatively in recent memory will suffer from having a scrutiny we can't apply much to the founders of more ancient ones, even though the psychology involved was probably exactly the same.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Jewish religion is the first monotheistic religion. it was the first to claim that there is only one source that governs all we know.

I do not know if it was Judaism or Zoroastrianism.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Some following ancient religions try to modify their beliefs to make things fit and form new churches and new sects of religions.

I see.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If sheer duration is the test then Aphrodite, Ares, Demeter (sex, war and food, by whatever names called) have to be front-runners. Oh, and Dionusos.

That is possible and perhaps you can extend that to the primordial African faiths as well.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The Jewish religion is the first monotheistic religion

That is debatable. Akhenaten and Atenism would disagree.

 

[blü 2]

That is possible and perhaps you can extend that to the primordial African faiths as well.

In their primordial state, I fear we know very little about them other than some markings and artifacts that may or may not have been concerned with religion. As I understand it, our earliest evidence on reasonably firm ground is the Israel burial site where red ocher was applied to the body and animal bones interpreted as grave gifts were found, date to 100,000 ya. You may recall arguments some years ago as to whether hominin cave burials at Sima de los Huesos in Spain, dated to 400,000 ya, showed or suggested burial rituals, though I'm not aware that the notion was ultimately accepted.

 

[shunyadragon]

In their primordial state, I fear we know very little about them other than some markings and artifacts that may or may not have been concerned with religion. As I understand it, our earliest evidence on reasonably firm ground is the Israel burial site where red ocher was applied to the body and animal bones interpreted as grave gifts were found, date to 100,000 ya. You may recall arguments some years ago as to whether hominin cave burials at Sima de los Huesos in Spain, dated to 400,000 ya, showed or suggested burial rituals, though I'm not aware that the notion was ultimately accepted.

Though some may dispute it the evidence is mounting for ceremonial burial in the Middle Paleolithic (~50,000-300,000 years ago) by both Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens ancestors.Evidence includes ceremonial use of red ochre on bodies and bones, burial with wild herbs, positioning of bodies, removal of flesh, and ceremonial burial of animals like bears,

As far as Neolithic cultures there are numerous isolated cultures found around the world sharing many of the cultural traits going back to the Middle Paleolithic.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

In their primordial state, I fear we know very little about them other than some markings and artifacts that may or may not have been concerned with religion. As I understand it, our earliest evidence on reasonably firm ground is the Israel burial site where red ocher was applied to the body and animal bones interpreted as grave gifts were found, date to 100,000 ya. You may recall arguments some years ago as to whether hominin cave burials at Sima de los Huesos in Spain, dated to 400,000 ya, showed or suggested burial rituals, though I'm not aware that the notion was ultimately accepted.

Very interesting.

 

[Muffled]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical. In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Edit: I extend the same question to non-theistic religions

I believe most Christians believe in progressive revelation. On the other hand protestants today view the canon as closed. Truth comes from God. That is what He is. Anything He reveals is true but things coming from men are not likely to be true.

 

[Muffled]

The point of religions is not that they are 'true' in the sense of a scientific proposition, it is that they are useful.

I believe things that are false are not useful. I have found signs saying food this exit and then have to drive 10 miles to find it. That is a waste of my time and gas unless I am desperate.