Following two primary paths of Judaism and Zoroastrianism, the apparent original sources of monotheism.
The roots of both are in deep antiquity but it's thought Zoroaster was about two thousand years before the birth of Christ but there's not a solid history. It's similar with Judaism as the ancient history is not clear and the focus comes with the building of the Second Temple at about five hundred years as it did with Zoroastrianism as both, seemingly, went to written text in rough parallel with each other.
These formative paths appear to be the primary sources of Christianity and subsequently Islam. Judaism you know already and Zoroastrianism still has an estimated 2.6 million adherents, mostly in India and possibly Pakistan. They have a history of persecution by Muslims which continues to this day so estimations of numbers are difficult.
(Ed: so what?)
That's the reason for looking. It would be good to resolve a so what out of it. The only thing coming all that clear is the common acceptance of the Ten Commandments. Of all that which is written, these things are regarded as true or valid in all of them.
The first says 'thou shalt take no God before me' and there isn't complete agreement as some scholars of Judaism believe the religious texts argue there was no God. It's not their purpose to deny the history but rather to understand what it says.
Note: the above is probably not perfectly stated but hopefully it's an acceptable summary of some of the theological inquiry which takes place.
Beyond that theological research, the Ten Commandments are accepted and believed, if not in precisely that wording, by all of the monotheistic religions. The interest here is not where they differ but rather where they are the same since this connects us immediately with an extraordinary percentage of the living, breathing human race.
If you say to any man, cheating on your wife sucks then he will probably nod his head and agree, yep, that's a shitty thing to do. It doesn't matter which culture as the reaction is similar.
Living within the Commandments is not difficult since more than half of them tell you not to do things you know already you shouldn't be doing. Don't steal things. Well, that's a hard one, isn't it.
The remarkable thing about all of this is it seems to come to focus on what I believe is legitimately described as a focal point of Western civilization in the carving of those stones. For all the myriad differences in religions, that event in human history has drawn a singular attention and, even more incredibly, acceptance.
The spiritual aspect is exploring what does that mean and we will leave that to you as the marvel here at the Rockhouse is that it ever happened. There is additional spirituality in exploring how it happened and we extend the same invitation to explore on your own.
The one event is the carving of those stones and the actual mechanics of how the rocks got carved is more spiritual inquiry but the fact of a stone with carving is generally agreed. Maybe Moses is another Prophet and he invented it all. He goes up to the mountain, eats some peyote, and then next thing is the revelation to start carving rocks. Anything is possible because no-one knows.
It's not exceptional that one, seemingly small, event should have a global consequence but it's remarkable it should be this one. The world did not focus on the moment at the time but has come to do so over time.
That event plus the general hypotheses of Zoroastrianism and Judaism are the core of all religions insofar as there is only one God, there's the duality of good versus evil, and the thinking doing good things is best and may bring good things back to you.
These things sound simplistic but they have to be to cover what the majority of humans believe.
From all of that blather, I take the differences between the religions are much less important than the commonalities and the more the focus on the latter, the more likely whichever line of thinking will adhere to it.
An example of an extreme is the snake-handling branch of American Christianity in which they are so focused on the differences promoted within their sects they accept the risk of being sometimes or only once bitten by highly-venomous snakes. Another can be seen with fundamentalist Muslims hitting themselves with chains and chanting.
Updated to add the following segment
The following appears to be the interpretation of 'thou shalt not kill' in the Koran (i.e. Qu'ran):
Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.
This, possibly more importantly than anything else, highlights the importance of the differences in religions. From the original source which is a specific ban against killing, this extends the proscription only insofar as it is in accordance with human law.
Possibly this seems like theological nitpicking but there may be merit to the review of capital punishment in this context. Where Christians regard the Ten Commandments as holy and sacred, they regard loopholes provided through the New Testament to justify capital punishment. Here at the Rockhouse, we see this as substantively different from altering the Ten Commandments at the root to accomplish essentially the same thing.
Whether that results in any quantitative difference is tough to tell. Texas and Saudi Arabia execute people with just about the same abandon so there's not much to say whether Christianity or Islam is more willing to invoke capital punishment. If there isn't a difference in behavior then the differences in the texts are not important but it's tough to validate.
The extremes are fascinating in their twisted weirdness but they don't add anything particularly useful and it's odd to find myself pursuing moderation. It's a shame I couldn't think up a religion with spaceships. That would have been much better.
The roots of both are in deep antiquity but it's thought Zoroaster was about two thousand years before the birth of Christ but there's not a solid history. It's similar with Judaism as the ancient history is not clear and the focus comes with the building of the Second Temple at about five hundred years as it did with Zoroastrianism as both, seemingly, went to written text in rough parallel with each other.
These formative paths appear to be the primary sources of Christianity and subsequently Islam. Judaism you know already and Zoroastrianism still has an estimated 2.6 million adherents, mostly in India and possibly Pakistan. They have a history of persecution by Muslims which continues to this day so estimations of numbers are difficult.
(Ed: so what?)
That's the reason for looking. It would be good to resolve a so what out of it. The only thing coming all that clear is the common acceptance of the Ten Commandments. Of all that which is written, these things are regarded as true or valid in all of them.
The first says 'thou shalt take no God before me' and there isn't complete agreement as some scholars of Judaism believe the religious texts argue there was no God. It's not their purpose to deny the history but rather to understand what it says.
Note: the above is probably not perfectly stated but hopefully it's an acceptable summary of some of the theological inquiry which takes place.
Beyond that theological research, the Ten Commandments are accepted and believed, if not in precisely that wording, by all of the monotheistic religions. The interest here is not where they differ but rather where they are the same since this connects us immediately with an extraordinary percentage of the living, breathing human race.
If you say to any man, cheating on your wife sucks then he will probably nod his head and agree, yep, that's a shitty thing to do. It doesn't matter which culture as the reaction is similar.
Living within the Commandments is not difficult since more than half of them tell you not to do things you know already you shouldn't be doing. Don't steal things. Well, that's a hard one, isn't it.
The remarkable thing about all of this is it seems to come to focus on what I believe is legitimately described as a focal point of Western civilization in the carving of those stones. For all the myriad differences in religions, that event in human history has drawn a singular attention and, even more incredibly, acceptance.
The spiritual aspect is exploring what does that mean and we will leave that to you as the marvel here at the Rockhouse is that it ever happened. There is additional spirituality in exploring how it happened and we extend the same invitation to explore on your own.
The one event is the carving of those stones and the actual mechanics of how the rocks got carved is more spiritual inquiry but the fact of a stone with carving is generally agreed. Maybe Moses is another Prophet and he invented it all. He goes up to the mountain, eats some peyote, and then next thing is the revelation to start carving rocks. Anything is possible because no-one knows.
It's not exceptional that one, seemingly small, event should have a global consequence but it's remarkable it should be this one. The world did not focus on the moment at the time but has come to do so over time.
That event plus the general hypotheses of Zoroastrianism and Judaism are the core of all religions insofar as there is only one God, there's the duality of good versus evil, and the thinking doing good things is best and may bring good things back to you.
These things sound simplistic but they have to be to cover what the majority of humans believe.
From all of that blather, I take the differences between the religions are much less important than the commonalities and the more the focus on the latter, the more likely whichever line of thinking will adhere to it.
An example of an extreme is the snake-handling branch of American Christianity in which they are so focused on the differences promoted within their sects they accept the risk of being sometimes or only once bitten by highly-venomous snakes. Another can be seen with fundamentalist Muslims hitting themselves with chains and chanting.
Updated to add the following segment
The following appears to be the interpretation of 'thou shalt not kill' in the Koran (i.e. Qu'ran):
Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.
This, possibly more importantly than anything else, highlights the importance of the differences in religions. From the original source which is a specific ban against killing, this extends the proscription only insofar as it is in accordance with human law.
Possibly this seems like theological nitpicking but there may be merit to the review of capital punishment in this context. Where Christians regard the Ten Commandments as holy and sacred, they regard loopholes provided through the New Testament to justify capital punishment. Here at the Rockhouse, we see this as substantively different from altering the Ten Commandments at the root to accomplish essentially the same thing.
Whether that results in any quantitative difference is tough to tell. Texas and Saudi Arabia execute people with just about the same abandon so there's not much to say whether Christianity or Islam is more willing to invoke capital punishment. If there isn't a difference in behavior then the differences in the texts are not important but it's tough to validate.
The extremes are fascinating in their twisted weirdness but they don't add anything particularly useful and it's odd to find myself pursuing moderation. It's a shame I couldn't think up a religion with spaceships. That would have been much better.
No comments:
Post a Comment