Robittybob1

@Disarray - some part of that post sounded personal. Are you saying you believe in more than one God?

Something is surely going to surface to solve the mystery one day.

This part could be pertinent, I'm not sure if it will bring contentment. "To be the friend of God in any sense of the words is to be the friend of man. Those who lay claim to being the children of Abraham must do the works of Abraham."

From a Christian perspective the works of Abraham is to show faith. Faith in the things that God or the Gods (monotheistic or polytheistic) have revealed to you. [Just hope you are not asked to offer a burnt sacrifice to the Lord.]

What are the works of Abraham from a Jewish or Muslim perspective?

We see this in history.

Antiquity was more advanced than the next 1500 years. Then Renaissance came, antiquity rediscovered and civilization back on the road. I suggest that these kind of effects have also taken place in prehistory throughout humanity.

Think of today's Talibans destroying ancient monuments they are incapable of creating. Think of iconoclasts, think even about early christians destroying antique sculptures. It has happen numerous times in recorded historical times. Why not earlier in unrecorded times?

Fair enough. Wars, floods, fire, earthquakes, plagues and internal strife all could contribute to this turmoil.

I suggest that the progression of humanity from the stone age to agriculture, sedentarization, civilization until modern times is not something that looks like a smooth curve but looks like a stock exchange graph. With up and downs. With humanity going forth and back, up and down.

How did you work that out?

@Disarray - the conversation is way beyond my normal activity. Monotheism was just a question as to whether the three major Abrahamic religions were really monotheistic. I'm asking the question because I don't know, not that I have a particular view on the topic. It was spin off from the thread on Abraham.

Maybe I have had thoughts on the topic but they were very raw thoughts.

But I am definitely appreciating the discussion and every point is being cross checked by my own investigation, but truly I can't match Disarray on the knowledge around the topic.

 

 

People are very different. Some atheists believe in other irrational things and some don't.

So do you think everything can be explained rationally right back the very beginning?

 

I don't see why. Some people would believe their one god was the answer. Otherwise would believe that their many gods were the explanation. Others would say it is just an unanswered question with no need for gods.

That is the human quest for many years, we personally may never know the answer to it. But it feels like we are getting close to some sort of limit (I think that sort of sentiment has been expressed before too, only to be proven wrong later).

 

@robbity:

 

I understood your suggestion about a scientific God (e.g., of "variant indeterminacy") being like the monotheism of major religions in the first place. But the only significant similarity is in the spelling of the word “God.” The distinction can clearly be found from Webster’s definition of theism: “a belief in the existence of one[?] God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.”

 

....

 

I'll come back to your other points later, but from this definition what do you think world means? Does it go as far as being the universe or the multiverse? Forget about piddly things like the human race or the Earth go the whole hog - the universe.

Could you help me out understanding the phrase "transcends yet is immanent in the world"?

Immanent - "being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge"

transcends - "c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)"

 

Robbity:

....

If scientists ever become generally convinced that the origin of the universe can be expressed in a single equation or single effect (e.g., perturbation of the Higgs-Boson field by virtue of some variant of indeterminacy), I fail to see that such a theory could logically be labelled as a form of monotheism. Indeed, a key distinction between modern religion and modern science is the issue of whether or not a creative being(s) or power/force is conscious of its own existence, e.g., is like a person. Indeed, it is the tendency for religions to anthropomorphize/project human characteristics (such as consciousness of ones own existence, emotions, plans, etc.) onto divine beings that encourage many scientists to become skeptical about literal religious explanations about the origins of the universe.

 

You nearly understood me. If the final discovery was "perturbation of the Higgs-Boson field by virtue of some variant of indeterminacy" that caused the universe to come into existence we would be left with the God of "variant indeterminacy" whatever that means, for it was just an example that you came up with.

 

 

I think it is fairly obvious that people (not communities) have always had a tendency to believe in something mysterious and "above us".

 

 

I don't think there was a time when people (in general) were atheistic. Although, given the variety of human nature, there have probably always been atheists alongside the mystics.

I'm trying to analyse what you have just said. There seems to be the need to believe, but also some are atheistic. So do the atheists also feel they need to believe but resist this? I could see this happening. Some ancient saying within himself, "No. I will not assign this event to a God. I will find out the scientific reason for this".

This exploration has resulted into what we have today where the things to explain just seem to keep getting pushed back. Will we ever get to understand how the Universe started off in a highly ordered state? If there ever became just the one unanswered question, will this be the ultimate monotheism? No more need for tree gods, sun gods, rain gods, Moon gods, Mother goddesses etc but just one god that answers the final question.

 

@Robbity: You write “What do you reckon, could the Jews and Muslims ever accept that there never was a person called Abraham? “

 

why not include Christians in that question. And speaking of Christians, I am sure many literalists have been exposed to the arguments of progressive Christians who claim that the stories are just metaphors and even that some characters such as Abraham never really existed. So no, be it Jews, Muslims, or many Christians, they have would, I suspect, be strongly resistant to the idea, and perhaps never accept such a claim. For one thing, questioning the existence of the Patriarchs leads to questioning the existence of Jesus or Muhammed (Christians typically do not claim that Muhammed did not exist or was not a prophet or was not descended from Abraham, by the way). In short, their beliefs depend upon a literal interpretation of scripture, not a metaphorical one, particularly when it comes to questions regarding land ownership, methods to achieve salvation and a delineation of absolute morals…in short, they have a vested interest in believing that Abraham was an actual person and thus are more likely than an disinterested person to reject information that does not support the claim that he was an actual person with miraculous abilities, etc. ….This is called “confirmation bias.”

 

....

 

I would have included Christians but since starting this thread I have come to accept that Abraham may just be a myth, and when Jesus argued Abraham was pleased to see my day, that was just a reference to a myth. When St. Paul argues Christians are an adopted part of the children of Abraham that is just part of the myth.

So I needn't include Christians for one has already accepted that it may be a myth. But are we aware of the same happening among the Jews and the Muslims, for surely they must be reading/seeing the same evidence (lack of) against the reality of Abraham?

The existence of Jesus has been discussed before, and is in no way linked to the existence of Abraham.

(Even though his family tree probably claims to be derived from Abraham or beyond.)

 

 

 

Hmmm, let me think... perhaps we should probe the origins of Abrahamic religions, as per the OP.

The thread has evolved and covered a lot of aspects but the OP simply stated "Is there any truth to his existence? What did he really do to get all this respect?" I don't mind when it wanders and meanders a little. But since you brought up questions regarding prophets I was exploring your opinion on that topic.

 

 

But it's part of the thread, and should be addressed.

Your conversations were being addressed between you two or three, albeit poorly in my opinion, but it seemed to me to be largely off topic.

So what "should be addressed"?

 

 

Have you even read this thread?

I must have missed that bit then. Look, off course I read the thread except I don't go into it where the conversation was just between Disarray and yourself or others.

The question is still there and I doubt if it has been covered by the thread as yet.

"There are these 3 (main) Abrahamic religions but do we share their prophets?"

I'm thinking it was a breakthrough for human civilization to work from the constellations for that was more accurate timekeeper than the number of days in a year or the number of lunar months in a year for both of them had fractional quantities to content with.

365.25 days in a year . Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year

 

For the Gregorian calendar the average length of the calendar year (the mean year) across the complete leap cycle of 400 years is 365.2425 days.

And the Moon year is even more complicated e.g Lunar year

 

The lunar year comprises twelve full cycles of the phases of the Moon, as seen from Earth. It has a duration of approximately 354.37 days. Muslims use this for celebrating their Eids and for marking the start of the fasting month of Ramadan. A Muslim calendar year is based on the lunar cycle.

So they would be 11 plus days out every year if they based it on the Moon.

But when they used the star zodiacal constellations those fractions disappear don't they?

 

What do you base that on? (I am crossing my fingers and hoping you have a rational reason, not that it is based on the bible.)

 

There is some evidence that primates (and maybe other animals) engage in ritualistic behaviours, i.e. with no obvious external function.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-chimpanzee-behavior-may-be-evidence-of-sacred-rituals/

 

It seems almost certain to me that humans have always had a need/desire to believe in "higher powers", gods, spirits, etc.

 

As these books are written by humans (who claim, in some cases, that they have had messages from angels) I assume that people would know exactly the same amount about god, even if they hadn't invented the idea of angels.

 

Although an atheist could believe in angels in some other sense (messengers from "nature", some higher power or aliens).

So what does that mean, ancient communities had a desire to believe in higher powers?

Are you implying that although they were at the time atheistic they came to believe in angels, the messengers from these higher powers?

I think I can see how the concept began but it requires these higher powers to be there, and laws of nature (the seasons, the equinoxes, the eclipses, comets .....) must have suggested the existence of higher powers to them.

.....

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” – Mathew 5:17

 

The OT was a bible out of its time, much like the current version, he was teaching them what it was trying to convey using the NT; after all he wouldn’t need to reassure people if they didn’t think he was trying to abolish the law or the prophets......

Why do you think prophets pop up at different times rather than an occasional cluster?

 

 

The Jews had Abraham's covenant for the promise of a huge number of descendants. They had Moses' covenant for the promised land of Israel, and King David's covenant that a descendant of David would reign forever.

You can see there are some obvious reasons why they would prefer to keep what they had even if it wasn't panning out that great.

For when was the last time a King reigned who was from the House of David?

The story was causing consternation rather than contentment for the Jews for they have continually being looking for their messiah.

Do you accept that Mohammed was a prophet? There are these 3 Abrahamic religions but do we share their prophets?

What do you reckon, could the Jews and Muslims ever accept that there never was a person called Abraham?

 

Why twelve periods? More likely 12 and a third - or no real pre-ordained subdivisions till astronomy and mathematics was sufficiently advanced. There is evidence of a lunar calendar from around 8000 BC in Scotland - but then not much use for a solar calendar when it rains all the time

 

They would measure distance same way we do - take a stick and make sure it is the same length as the previous stick you used to measure distances with

In the documentaries they sort of link it to the 12 zodiacal constellations. Now that may be a Northern Hemisphere thing for I don't know about them at all as I have never tried to look for the constellations from a Southern Hemisphere perspective. I know they were found really early (Babylonians) but I personally have no other knowledge about it. (There were 12 smaller stones around their circles)

http://www.pixzul.com/

 

The zodiac is the ring of constellations that lie along the path of the Sun.

@disarray - Genesis 4:26 ....

 

Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the LORD.

Which makes me think as we evolved, humans would have been by nature atheistic, so what starts them off calling on the name of the Lord?

What I am finding is that Christians need the OT for the Christ was prophesied in the OT. But then it becomes a trap for the OT has stories in it like Adam and Eve, and Noah and Abraham, which now are treated as just fables. So the person we say is "God" didn't know the truth and was proven wrong by believing such stories.

The way I look at it now is that Jesus was raised in a culture that taught the children and adults that these were facts and he took it on trust that they were fact, and there is no sin in that. So even if it was wrong it was not a sin to believe it. But for us it doesn't mean we have to believe the fables for there is no proof of their truth upon scientific analysis.

I think Christians on the whole accept this but I'm not so sure about the other Abrahamic faiths.

Could the Jews accept that there never was a person called Abraham?

 

I think we over apply our modern interpretation of what constitutes ancient religious practices in these circumstances. ...... It appears to be what I would assume the first attempts at constructing an observatory would look like. It would allow multiple people to observe the movement of the stars between the pillars, providing a means to measure time and distance.

 

This is the area of the world where astrology would soon begin to chart the heavens and it would be reasonable to imagine it began in circumstances such as these. ....

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking this was built and used in an era before written language, a time when most things/concepts would not have the words to express them orally either. So the carvings were in themselves a form of communication. Whether it was religious or just their own attempt to explain things as best they could within their limitations, no words and no writing.

What did they use to measure time? There would have been a day, and a year and the division of that year into the twelve periods.

How would they measure distance? Did they have a standard? What distances are you talking about?

@michel123456 - a long post but what did you really say?

 

Gobekli Tepe is a fact that must make us review the concept of linear evolution of humanity.

I thought it was already known that civilization had a patchy start. What do you mean by "linear evolution" as it relates to Gobekli Tepe?

There is the carving of the headless man and the birds carrying an orb (which I take as the head of the headless man). To me that is the beginning of the concept of consciousness continuing after dead. Another statue was of a man with an erection, so one would think there was an element of the initiation ceremony going on as well.

Sun and Moon represented by the two large pillars and the twelve astrological constellations is a start. Maybe they hadn't clicked onto alignment with the stars as yet.

So it becomes a bit of a science project with them trying to understand the cosmos and life as well.

I have been questioning myself as to what category I'd actually fit. Do you know yourself?

It was interesting to read "I think that it would be contradictory by definition to say that an atheist believes, for example, that angels can reveal the existence of God to humans", for something like that could have happened at some stage in human development.

In the Genesis it mentions a situation where mankind was originally atheist and then "began calling on the name of the Lord", as if religion develops from atheism.