People have researched the origin of particular religions for more than 2000 years. That sort of scholarship isn’t anything new. It is wrong to conflate their separate histories for that does lead to the construction of neo-modern myths in replacement for sound scholarship.
The origin of Manichaenism differs from that of Zoroastrianism and Islam. Many haven’t even read a basic scholarly text like Berhof’s Introduction to The New Testament. I have a free summary to save the cost of buying that public domain book published in 1915.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/garrison-clifford-gibson/a-commentary-on-berkhofs-intro-to-the-new-testament/ebook/product-1qn8ydk5.html
One may read the history of Asian religions and the origin of Hinduism and Buddhism and the way it traveled Eastward as the Mahayana and Hinayana, proliferated and differentiated into Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Soka Gakkai and other forms
It is a mistake to conflate Taoism and Shintoism or Roman and Nordic paganism with several varieties of aboriginal American ideas of belief in a great spirit.
One may believe that Middle Eastern and fertile crescent religious practices and beliefs had a common origin yet they did not. Marduk, Enlil and the tale of Gilgamesh didn’t have the same origin as Osiris or middle African religious complexes.
It is important to differentiate and learn in depth and detail the several systems independently and with understanding so far as possible, as it is with numerous philosophical and cosmological systems rather than glossing over and making summary judgments that are dismissive or in some cases, affirmative. Good scholarship leads to deeper understanding and may reaffirm faith in the one true God or not as the case may be. A path to God is probably made by God for an individual if that is what the spirit wills.
One should have enough respect for scholarship and investment of life's work that has been invested in research, as well as oneself, to development a sober understanding of field studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment