Religious Tradition, of God or of Man?

That sounds entirely appropriate from an Islamic standpoint. From our view, there isn't supposed to be any. If his message is complete and his designated path established, what more does he need to say? And if he has already sent his FINAL messenger, who would he amend his word with? I undersand Baha'is believe in another Prophet, (please correct me if I'm wrong Arthra) but for the most part Mouhammed (PBUH) was the last prophet to have shown up in the case of all major religions (obviously neglecting the living prophetic beliefs of some Christian and Jewish denominations).

Unless of course you count the clouds, pancakes, rocks, wet spots, etc. that are photographed daily that supposedly resemble Jesus (PBUH). Not really sure why Jesus (PBUH) looks like Jared Leto though.

You are correct "Big Joe" we Baha'is believe the Baha'u'llah was latest Prophet for this day... Each Prophet in the past provided a Message for His day. Baha'is believe God will continue to send His Messsengers in the future... But as to traditions probably each religion has some traditions and lore built up over time... In Islam you have Hadiths and these traditions have been used to establish various laws and perspectives...What is considered Sunnah...and so on. For Baha'is... we have what are called "pilgrim notes"... what people recall what was said by Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha or the Guardian...while these may be of interest they are not used as authority by us. Only the Writings have authenticity for us.
 
Deist actually.
my apologies if I offended you, it is my understanding from how you described a deist as very close to agnostic (hence the ish).

Sumeria is probably the oldest and first group to move from hunter/gatherers to an agrarian society.
Sumeria is no longer considered the oldest, by several civilizations. But that really isn't that important

There is no mention of Abrahamic beliefs in their theology. Many other pre-Abrahamic civilizations as well. So my question stands. If what JC had to say was to important to mankind, why did he let thousands of years of civilization pass before he chose to come down and set them straight?
While I understand your argument, and could agree from a physical evidence only way of thinking, I have to disagree with the idea. There are probably 1000s of possibilities for these ideas. 1 being pre-flood Noah (PBUH) the righteous and believers were much fewer. To the extent of 1 family for many generations. There wouldn't have been a society talking about God during this time. (Biblically this was 1000s of years, with possibilities of much longer in reality) after that point the Abrahamic believing people (obviously not Abrahamic at this point as Abraham (PBUH) hadn't been born yet) still were not a large group. Sure it talks of some towns here and there, but these were probably 2-3 families (maybe 30-40 people), and beliefs were probably scattered even in these groups. These were brought back in line when Abraham (PBUH) began his Prophethood. (about the time we see recognizable symbolism in historical records) Everything here is still oral traditions, and writing wouldn't have been a likely source without proper instruments and medium. It is said a few generations later that Moses (PBUH) began recording these traditions and was revealed the Law (Torah). (This is still a smaller community, but the size is growing to where we can start recognizing it more readily).

As I stated, this is only 1 option, and you are correct that statistically speaking, it is very possible we are wrong. I have no qualms with that assessment, I have faith, based on what I have read and witnessed and what I read and confirmed.

And while I am at it, here's another conundrum I have. If the Abrahamic traditions are really that important, why did they only give the scoop in the Middle East? Why ignore the ancient Americans. Or the Far Eastern cultures. Or the Oceanic ones. If it was a message for all mankind seems to me it should have been given to all mankind!
This is a perfectly reasonable question. Of course I would have to give you the Islamic perspective as that is what I believe. We see the same principles pop up in most world cultures over time. Teachings of Buddha closely resemble the teachings found in Bible in many points. The Ideas of Hinduism are mostly congruent to those in Islam, to the point that some believe in 1 God (I am told it says this in vedas that the other "gods" are just different forms of the 1 God). Most religions of the world agree on a large portion of Abrahamic laws and beliefs (each different in their own way). From Islam we attribute this likeness to the source of each of these religions being a Prophet of Allah. And their teachings were the same as the Abrahamic prophets, but corrupted over the years. Their societies didn't spiral into chaos like those of the Middle East (center of the world at the time in terms of trade locations etc.) There are evidences of Judaism in some Native American cultures to the point that they referred to themselves as Jews and had rough copies of Torahical texts.

As for the last comment, it had to be delivered to someone. Torah states that it had to be from the Abrahamic line. Could he have sent the Quran to multiple people at once, probably. But as we believe that in the end of days all will be flocking to Islam, it wouldn't have allowed as many souls to find their way to Heaven (Jannah, Paradise, etc)

Only the Writings have authenticity for us.
I would say there is a large movement in Islam that is going this route with Quran. They use Hadiths as more suggestion than rule.
 
my apologies if I offended you

No offense taken.

Sumeria is no longer considered the oldest

Technically true. The point being that many ancient civilizations predated the first Abrahamic faiths, by which we mean the Jewish faith of course. That faith seems to have started some time around 2000 BCE. Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Egyptian, all in the Indus Valley region all predated that by some 1500 years. Plus we now tend to believe that the first civilizations happened independently of each other the world over from roughly 5000 to 3000 BCE. Such as the peoples who built the megaliths in Britain which apparently started around 3500 BCE.

The Flood story you mentioned is a good example of the Abrahamics borrowing a story from earlier civilizations. As I understand it the first Flood story is to be found in Mesopotamia, likely dating from around 5000 BCE. It is difficult for me to accept that the Abrahamic religions originated anything before they themselves first started.
 
Always seems to happen sooner or later, doesn't it? Let me see if I can steer the ship back on course.
So much for trying to steer the ship back on course. :rolleyes: Nice try though.
In conclusion, even the most sacred of religious traditions can be done for the glorification of man rather than the glorification of God. It all depends on motive.
I very much agree.
 
Technically true. The point being that many ancient civilizations predated the first Abrahamic faiths, by which we mean the Jewish faith of course. That faith seems to have started some time around 2000 BCE. Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Egyptian, all in the Indus Valley region all predated that by some 1500 years. Plus we now tend to believe that the first civilizations happened independently of each other the world over from roughly 5000 to 3000 BCE. Such as the peoples who built the megaliths in Britain which apparently started around 3500 BCE.

The Flood story you mentioned is a good example of the Abrahamics borrowing a story from earlier civilizations. As I understand it the first Flood story is to be found in Mesopotamia, likely dating from around 5000 BCE. It is difficult for me to accept that the Abrahamic religions originated anything before they themselves first started.
To correct a minor error in your analysis, there is no evidence that Judaism STARTED around 2000 BCE, but rather evidences that it was a religion started showing up at this time. It is entirely possible for it to have been practiced for thousands of years before, orally. It is also possible that the flood story of Mesopotamia could have been derived from early Noahidic (pre-Abraham) occurances. The flood could easily have predated all of these civilizations. Egyptian records show a people that didn't adhere to its Gods long before the Mosaic accounts. I'm not saying it was a huge civilization of thousands of people, nor that the Bible's lineages are correct. From an Islamic perspective we know this to not be true. One Hadith I've heard references a man coming to the Prophet Mouhammed (PBUH) and started to decree his lineage back to Ismail (PBUH). After 7 generations, he commanded the man to stop as there was no way to prove lineages beyond that. Of course that hasn't stopped people from trying and a great many Arabic historians think they know the lineage. It is a point that can basically not be proven though straight analysis, nor records. What I've always found interesting is the claim that all these civilizations started independently yet evidence has shown links of trade, and some traditions similar amongst all. They all have their own flavor of course, but there are likenesses to each. Once again I know none of these theories can be proven. Similar to we cannot prove the Young Earthers' claim that these civilizations and pre human creatures are some test of faith as a complete negative.

On the topic however, it seems those who don't adhere to a formal religion seem to think all tradition is born of man. While most of us who do follow a formal religion agree that some traditions are decreed by a deity.
 
Every religion has various rituals and ceremonies associated with it. Are these traditions of God or of man? Why?
From my personal experience, I have no doubt that the answer is man.
Why? I have practised two religions in my life;which have opposing concepts of God.
Judaism, which is monotheistic and makes no man God.
Guru-devotee, where I believed my guru was God-incarnate.

The rituals in each religion were very different in most ways; however they did both provide feelings of 'inner satisfaction'.
The rituals and ceremonies were made by the clergy of each religion.

Jews believe that (THE one and only)God gave them the Torah and that is their contract.
Whereas the Jewish religion with all it's practises were clearly written by men(not women! :>)). They justify this by claiming that all these laws and practises provide a 'fence' to the Torah.

Guru-devotees vary. Some believe that their Guru tells them their path to God, others (like I was) believe the Guru is God manifest. The various rituals were prescribed by the Guru (H)imself..and since he is God.
What more can a person ask that getting God Himself in person, to how to live your life!(I took me 23 years to wake up and leave).
 
Sooo, apparently most people who have responded believe traditions and ceremonies are made by man. Which is an interesting outcome don't you think?
I believe most believers of the traditions and ceremonies believe them to be ordained by G!d.....non believers of the traditions and ceremonies believe them to be created by man.... Not so interesting an outcome....fairly predictable don't you think?
 
Not so interesting an outcome....fairly predictable don't you think?
That's because, it's almost always the same people responding to the threads and the same people creating them. Just not a lot of new ideas to work with.
 
I am a strong atheist and a Hindu, but I believe in tradition and rituals. They by men and for men (include women too, RigVeda has 31 female hearers). They are psychological help (just like meditation), though science may not have quantified their effect.
 
The idea behind religious tradition is to honor God. So those traditions are of God or at least about God, but how best to honor God is subject to the interpretations of man, as traditions vary quite a bit even within a specific religion.

In Christianity a great deal of our tradition is Pagan related, Christianity when it assimilated paganism into it changed it's symbolism from Earth to God. If we were really celebrating Christmas as to directly relate to the birth of Christ ( Anniversary ) speaking, then we would have a choice to play with. Indications in different writings place His birth in March, July and September. Most probable is September. Now if we were to examine these dates loosely we could compare the Solstices and Equinox. Those are Pagan festival times. The events that our Holy days and festivals ie; Advent, Lent, Epiphany. Pentecost etc, to me mostly revolve around His death and resurrection. The events happened in the New Testament revolved more around the acts of Man so the traditions therefore do as well. that being said, they are as you said Aussie, in reverence to Christ. The Old Testament.. Now that is Camel of a different color.....
 
In Christianity a great deal of our tradition is Pagan related, Christianity when it assimilated paganism into it changed it's symbolism from Earth to God. If we were really celebrating Christmas as to directly relate to the birth of Christ ( Anniversary ) speaking, then we would have a choice to play with. Indications in different writings place His birth in March, July and September. Most probable is September. Now if we were to examine these dates loosely we could compare the Solstices and Equinox. Those are Pagan festival times. The events that our Holy days and festivals ie; Advent, Lent, Epiphany. Pentecost etc, to me mostly revolve around His death and resurrection. The events happened in the New Testament revolved more around the acts of Man so the traditions therefore do as well. that being said, they are as you said Aussie, in reverence to Christ. The Old Testament.. Now that is Camel of a different color.....
Quick addition to your birth theory of Jesus (PBUH). The Jews of the time used a Lunar Calendar much like the one us Muslims use. It is possible that his birthday fell on a lunar calendarical day that happened to fall on December 25th when the Solar calendar was adopted. Also, the solstice changes year to year, so even the theory that it is entirely pagan origin is sketchy. More than likely they chose a day. And have stuck to that since as a day to recognize the birth of Jesus (PBUH).
 
Quick addition to your birth theory of Jesus (PBUH). The Jews of the time used a Lunar Calendar much like the one us Muslims use. It is possible that his birthday fell on a lunar calendarical day that happened to fall on December 25th when the Solar calendar was adopted. Also, the solstice changes year to year, so even the theory that it is entirely pagan origin is sketchy. More than likely they chose a day. And have stuck to that since as a day to recognize the birth of Jesus (PBUH).

The solstice does change indeed, However since there is no verified recorded day we may never know for sure.
 
The solstice does change indeed, However since there is no verified recorded day we may never know for sure.
That is not correct. The Vedas have been changing the beginning of the year since at least the last 6,000 years. And the year has advanced by three months in this period. They were well aware of precession of exquinoxes. At one time, the year began with the rising of sun in the asterism of Orion (Mrigashiras, Antelope's head) two thousand years later it was changed to Pleiades (Krittikass, the six sisters), and then to β and γ Arietis (Ashwini, Horses' head). We are already due for a change since the sun now rises in the asterism of Pisces (Revati, ζ Piscium) on the day of vernal equinox. The change is known to the last minute (of course, it is not that regular, there are bumps). The correct value is 25,772 years for a full circle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Effects, http://www.crystalinks.com/precession.html).

The phenomena caused abandonment of the worship of the creator God Prajapati/Brahma (why did he allow the sun to change course!), but that is another story.
 
Last edited:
Quick addition to your birth theory of Jesus (PBUH). The Jews of the time used a Lunar Calendar much like the one us Muslims use. It is possible that his birthday fell on a lunar calendarical day that happened to fall on December 25th when the Solar calendar was adopted. Also, the solstice changes year to year, so even the theory that it is entirely pagan origin is sketchy. More than likely they chose a day. And have stuck to that since as a day to recognize the birth of Jesus (PBUH).
No, we know that day is not biblical, and wasn't made up till centuries later...
 
Back
Top