WHat is the Worlds Oldest Religion, still in Practice?

[Kemosave]

Haha. I'm not saying your are wrong on that point formally. Like I said, several scholar friends of mine agree with you. At this time, I just hold an alternative view as to when Judiasm began based on my research. I take a more liberal view at this time.

[Mraka]

The Coptic
church (there since pyramides) or longer or shorter

but Ultimatvely long!!

[paperinacup]

Well its hard to explain but I'm Jewish and black. As far as I can remember judiasm is as far back as it goes. I havent studied or anything though.

[SiemprePalante]

EASY....... withcraft... the way of the wise........

oldest known religion or "way of life'.

and i'm talkin' before any other. alot of u guys are right too. nature. yes, i am a witchcraft practictioner. have been from birth. and my family from the andes mountains of south america.

witchcraft was everywhere, from africa acroos the globe.

now let's not allow ignorance or emotions destroy this discussion. we're talkin' facts. i know most have a negative, (and false) view of my religion . but lets look at it objectively.

first man worshipped only that witch he could see.....sun , moon, earth. he new all life came from this and returned to this at death. he used nature to solve every problem he had. medical(herbs), mental(meditation...), health( hunting and gathering).. the list goes on and on...

this practice became known as witchcraft, the way of the wise.

[Lonewolf]

So what does in general WITCHCRAFT worship? NATURAL HERBS?
STARS? DEVIL? Who or what?
Is it even a religion?

[SiemprePalante]

a legally recognized, organized, and fastest growing religion all over the world. my coven has over 200 members. and thats just one of hundreds in the tri-state area.
there are all kinds of witches. black, white, brown,proffessional, students, law enforcements, u name it.

we do not believe the devil even exists. we believe only in what we see. the forces of nature. no magical bullSH*T. HOLLYWOOD GAVE US THAT NEGATIVE IMAGE.

our crede is "'an it harm none do what thou wilt"..........


dont let ignorance rule ur brain......do some real research.....look it up under "wicca"..............u'll see

[Lonewolf]

So is there different kinds of PRACTICES?

Is there a difference between witchcraft of old & witchcraft of new times?

So in essence one is free to do as ones sees fit?

Or in accordance with nature?

If so, how do you derive as to what is nature & natural, and what's not?

[SiemprePalante]

first off, i want to say that i respect the fact that ur asking intelligent questions when most just attack that which they know nothing about.

well.......we do what we see fit, yes, but only if that which we choose to do hurts no one. not intentionally. to us "nature" is an extention of us. we live by the law of nature, meaning we follow our natural instincts.
like people of all faiths we love sex, partying, and dancing, and laughing, looking good, and fantasizing, and dreaming, and wanting, the only difference is that we don't lie to ourselves about it.
it's all ok as long as we don't hurt one another or ourselves.

to us all religions have truth in them but only in the form of symbolism. meaning we take the message, but not that the stories used to convey the message are literal.

you name any one people from anywhere in this world and i will tell you how they practiced witchcraft.

[Lonewolf]

first off, i want to say that i respect the fact that ur asking intelligent questions when most just attack that which they know nothing about.

you name any one people from anywhere in this world and i will tell you how they practiced witchcraft.

I return the compliment to you sir, you will find that I can agree to disagree yet will always try to learn WITH YOU as opposed to attacking what I haven't lived.

I am taking up your challenge out of great curiosity, and my choice of persons is ERNESTO "CHE" GUEVARA because this man according to everything I have comed to learn, had a great passion for the plight of the underclass of this world in its entirety.

[Kemosave]

Hmm.. just found the continuance of this thread. I think I may have to enlighten the readers by bringing some knowledge here . This thread looks due for it.

Let's start by defining the context of reality regarding the planet.

Radiometric clocks operate on the principle of half-life decay. Radioactive isotopes disintegrate through time; that is they decay into lighter elements. The lack of naturally occurring plutonium -239 anywhere in the earth’s crust shows the earth must be older than 361,650 years as an example.

Just as thermometers, barometers, and radar all have specific applications and limits, so too do the more than 40 different radiometric decay dating methods. The closer a rock sample’s age to the radiometric half-life of the isotope being measured, the better. Accurate dates can be determined only for samples that are no younger than about one-sixth the half-life (of the isotope) and no older than about six times it’s half-life (unless one has a very large sample). Most of the misinformation surrounding radiometric dating methods can be traced to the wrong dating method being used and purity not be factored correctly. This is human error when it happens. I can go deep into this if anyone wants to discuss it further.

Earth’s crust is devoid of all short lived radio nuclides, except for the few that result from decal of long lived radio nuclides or from local or cosmic radiation. Geologists and geophysicist find no neptunium-237, no aluminium-26, no calcium-41, and no plutonium-244. The lack of these isotopes in Earth, on the sun, or in meteorites persuades scientists that earth and the solar system must be older than a billion years.

Because the earth is cooling off you can date the rocks. Keep in mind that for many rock samples, a variety of radiometric tools can be used to determine their ages. When different methods using different decay processes, half-lives, isotope ratios, and isochrones are applied to a particular sample and all produce the same age, they calibrate one another, removing ambiguity or uncertainty to the extent that the methods can be considered assumption free. My point: The earth is about 4.58 billion years old. It has a beginning and as shown in other posts of mine, if nothing changes the laws of physics of the universe, it will also have an end. So the earth and life on it are finite. Now within this framework we can begin to discuss which religion still practiced is the oldest. I'm going to state my position very simply (this should get all you history buffs going) and eventually, time permitting, will show you how it is the accurate one. Here it is:

Christ, being the Son of God and God the Son, is eternal, which means He has no beginning. It is Christ Who predates all religions (John 8:56-58; Col. 1: 15-17; 1 Pet. 1:19-20; Rev. 1:17).

[Mraka]

what about HINDUISM?!

[kenni]

Muslims? lol

[Kemosave]

The universe is not oscillating so scientifically Hinduism is not possible. Islam is a latter day false religious system and that is provable.

[hitonme]

The universe is not oscillating so scientifically Hinduism is not possible. Islam is a latter day false religious system and that is provable.

From an athiest point of view, Christianity is also the false religious system and any other religion out there.

[Kemosave]

But atheism rests on laws of probability that are beyond reason. Your false comparison of where the totality of scientific empirical evidence points to (especially your false attempt at a relationship to a false religious system) is false. Perhaps you forgot you are speaking to a seriously educated person who knows the difference. I suggest you either bring some information so your error can be "brought to the light" or desist and admit your words are not worthy of a legitimate response.

[Sentenza]

Islam sees itself as a further developement and improved version of christianity....
In the same way christianity thinks that of itself concerning Judaism.
I think you cant use the word false or correct concerning religions because theres no person alive that really knows.

[Kemosave]

It's not what you think it is but rather what it really is and what you can prove. In that context, let's take a brief look.

One out of every five persons on earth is a Muslim. These are people who are diametrically opposed to Christianity's most central belief -- that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead. Historically and theologically, many Muslims have been committed to the annihilation of unbelievers which includes most of us in the Western world.

Muslims believe Christians have committed the unpardonable sin of attributing "partners" to Allah, namely belief in the Trinity(1). As has been shown already on this site. Muhammad did not understand the Trinity properly. In Saudi Arabia they recently cut somebody's head off for blaspheming the prophet Muhammad, which other world religions do each time they bring scholarly emperical and historical evidence proving errancy in Islam. As a result, Islam is a serious threat to believers of other world religions.

For example, Muslims say Muhammad was a prophet. And Muhammad in the Qur'an said Jesus Christ was a prophet. Assuming that prophets do not speak error, wouldn't this present a logical problem for Muslims? After all, according to John 14:6, Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." So, Jesus the "prophet," being one-hundred percent correct, refutes Muhammad and all of Islam.

Now what Muslims say to that line of reasoning is that while they believ e in the Christian Gospels, which represent Christ, they've been corrupted down through the centuries. And so Christians answer that allegation by showing that they have manuscripts of the New Testament that go back hundreds of years _prior_ to the time of Muhammad all the way back to the first century. Now, keep in mind that Muhammad referred to the New Testament Gospels _of his day_ -- and indicated their reliability. After all, he said to Christians: "Go and look in your own Gospels."

Well, if the Gospels of his day (A.D. 600) were accurate and we've got manuscripts that go back even to the first century when the authors were alive then they're in a pretty tough dilemma to explain why you shouldn't follow the logic you suggested above: Jesus is a prophet; He always teaches the truth; and if He taught He was the _only way_ to God, then how can Christianity not be true?

It's strange that while Muslims think Jesus was only a man -- a prophet superseded by Muhammad -- at the same time the Qur'an teaches that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the Word of God, a speaker of truth, a sign unto men of mercy from God. It teaches that Jesus was virgin born, sinless, performed supernatural miracles (including raising people from the dead), and bodily ascended into heaven. All of this is affirmed of Jesus Christ in the Qur'an. The crucial thing Muslims _don't_ believe is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead.

One must emphasize to the Muslim that the Jesus of the New Testament claimed to be God, not just a prophet. We have a whole chapter in our book on the deity of Christ. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). In John 8:58 Jesus said to some Jews, "Before Abraham was, I am," thereby claiming to be God (cf. Exod.3:14). He received worship on many different occasions. One of His disciples bowed before Him and said, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), acknowledging His full deity. Jesus forgave sins, which only God can do (Mark 2:5-7). Jesus resurrected people from the dead, which only God has the power to do (John 11:38-44). So Jesus in many different ways is shown to be God, not just a prophet. The Bible and the Qur'an are irreconcilable on these ideas.

Nowhere in the Qur'an does it record Muhammad performing any supernatural feats of nature. In fact, he disavowed such an ability. When asked, "Why don't you perform miracles like the other prophets did?" he responded: "_This_ is my miracle, the Qur'an." The Qur'an is said to be the _only_ miracle of Muhammad.

Now as I understand it there are 99 names for God in Islam. Out of the 99, there is no mention of "Father." And the reason for that is that Muslims are rigid monotheists. They believe that being a Father implies that he has a son, and that is considered blasphemous. God has no partners.

Understand that the Islamic God is very remote, very transcendent (but not in the sense of resolving the dimensional problems such as we find in extradimensionality.. well I'll save that for another time). He is not immanent; he's not personally involved with his creatures. The main thing in Islam is not fellowship with God, but service and allegiance to God. There is no fatherly concept of God at all. It's very different from the concept of God found in the Christian Bible. In Christianity, believers are adopted into God's family (Eph. 1:5) and can personally address God as Father (Rom.8:15). It's a relationship of great intimacy. Not so in Islam.

There's a big difference between the two systems. The answer to the question of truth is of eternal importance. If there's a substantial difference between the two systems -- and if your eternal soul depends on a correct choice of one system or the other -- then it behooves everyone to examine seriously all the evidence and make a truly informed decision.

We can't just say, "Well, I believe it, I was taught it, I was reared that way." The question is, _Which one is true?_ If Islam is true, Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

Remember what Jesus Christ said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6). If Islam is right, then _Jesus Christ was lying_ when He said that. Muslims say Jesus was a prophet, and prophets can't lie. So they're in a real dilemma here.

Hopes this help put it into perspective for you. Peace.

-----------------

(1) Monotheism is the belief that there is one God. Jews and Christians are monotheistic. But Muslims are the most rigid monotheists in the world. They believe there's not only one God but that there's only _one person_ in God (i.e., God doesn't have a son). They confuse unity and singularity. Any other persons associated with God is considered blasphemy. It's the great sin. God has no partners, Muslims say.

[Sentenza]

I se you have vast knowledge of it. And i can follow your argumentation and agree with many points since its logic.
but thats the problem, you cant approach religion in a logical way.
There are many controversies in every religion like for example the celibacy in chrtistianity.
Jesus was supposed to be a Rabbin before he converted.....As far as i know, as long as the Jewish religion exists Rabbins have to fullfill a few preconditions. They have to be married and they have to have children.
So the celibacy is a lie. there are many more examples where the bible is mistaken.
As well as there are many passages where the Quran is wrong for sure.
Well i dont know if i can make my point clear, but what i am trying to say is, that all holy books have their mistakes in it because they were written by humans and as we all know "Errare humanum est"(making mistakes is human).
I do believe in god, even though my way in believing in it may seem strange to you, but i believe that all three monotheistic religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are in the same tradition and are based on the same books, and therefore believe in the same god.
They just disagree in the way how to do it.
I belive that god has a bigger picture of it and therefore gives a damn about those narrow minded disputes we all have with each others.
Historically Islam has not been more dangerous to any monotheistic religion than all of the others.
In fact religions of the book possess a special status in Islam and they have always been protected in the Islamic hemisphere.(i can give you lots of examples if you want)
things are changing today and Islamic hardheads abuse religion for their political purposes. We had a lot of that in christianity too.
You have as many hardliners in Christianity as in Judaism and in Christianity.
Just because those hardliners cause the most trouble and are the loudest of all doesnt mean that the majority is violent.
Look at the KKK or IRA....would you say all christians are violent beyond any means just because they exist?
The same applies for the Taliban etc. in Islam.
I know lots of Muslims which are honourable and worth defending against all of the propaganda, cause they practice religion in a positive way
and are honest.
Hope i pointed that one a bit out somehow.

[Mraka]

But isn`t Hinduism the oldest religion?
Which year Islam is counting?

[Sentenza]

if i am not wrong islam counts the year 1426.
hinduism dates back to the same time as Buddhism cause it was connected in some way i cant remember right now....
so its got to be like 600-700 b.c.

[Kemosave]

You went all over the place Sentenza. I mean you went ALL over the place. So I will just say that of course you can use logic when studying world religions. In fact if you don't, you might come to the wrong conclusions. Peace.

[russian_kavkazi]

oldest still practised is judisim

[AMAR420]

Hinduism no doubt

[Panik]

check the beginnings and middle of this thread. It is either Judaism or Zaroastrianism. No other candidates. And those two started within just a hundred or two hundred years apart, they predate all others.

[AMAR420]

check the beginnings and middle of this thread. It is either Judaism or Zaroastrianism. No other candidates. And those two started within just a hundred or two hundred years apart, they predate all others.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi/HSCatYORK/a3.html

Hinduism no doubt

[Panik]

in your own link it says that the hindu scriptures weren't written until 300bc. That's about 1,000 years after Judaism or Zaroastrianism. Nice try.

[AMAR420]

Vedic = Hindu

[Panik]

Vedic = Hindu

no dickk,
vedic = of or relating to the Vedas or to the ancient Sanskrit in which they were written

The vedas are the hindu scriptures. And while some hindus claim that they were written in 1500, there is no archeological or historical proof to this theory. The earliest book of the vedas didn't show up until, like I said, bnetween 500 and 300 bc.

you're wrong.

[AMAR420]

Vedic = Hindu

no dickk,
vedic = of or relating to the Vedas or to the ancient Sanskrit in which they were written

The vedas are the hindu scriptures. And while some hindus claim that they were written in 1500, there is no archeological or historical proof to this theory. The earliest book of the vedas didn't show up until, like I said, bnetween 500 and 300 bc.

you're wrong.

dont worry

ur the one thats wrong

[Kearney]

I´m pretty sure it´s hinduism.

Ancient Hinduism is believed to have started about 6.500 BC.