Old religion

[EternalFlourish]

I have a question for Christians about the age of the religion itself (and including Judaism since it's a part of Christian history). Abrahamic religions, such as Christianity, traces back to about 1800 BCE. Whereas what is considered the oldest organized religion still in practice, Hinduism, can be traced back to 2600 BC (sometimes older). Obviously, this is a significant difference. However, it can be argued that Abrahamic religion is older since it makes a claim of the creation of our universe (which would, of course, be the beginning of time).

So my question is: how do you deal with this time difference? Did not God establish his governance before 1800 BCE? And what of the different regions? God started the old covenant in Israel, right?

Now, there are other organized religions which are no longer in practice but after much research I found that the oldest religion is Proto-Indo-European religion. This religion dates back anywhere from 3000 - 5000 BCE. But this dating is primarily based on archaeology, linguistic analysis, and sheer guesswork and thus accurate dating can really be made. Generally, Proto-Indo-European religion is considered religion before 3000 BCE since it seems to be a predecessor of today's religions. Many of the concepts in this religion are shown in most all religions today. One of those concepts is the "Golden Rule" principle, or as Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". You can see that it's practically in every religion on Wikipedia's article "The Golden Rule". (I can't link yet, sorry).

Okay, so with that said, what do you make of this? You can find our more on the Proto-Indo-Europeans at ceisiwrserith.com/pier or on Google, your good ol' friend.

Thank you for your responses.

 

[Oberon]

I have a question for Christians about the age of the religion itself (and including Judaism since it's a part of Christian history). Abrahamic religions, such as Christianity, traces back to about 1800 BCE. Whereas what is considered the oldest organized religion still in practice, Hinduism, can be traced back to 2600 BC (sometimes older). Obviously, this is a significant difference. However, it can be argued that Abrahamic religion is older since it makes a claim of the creation of our universe (which would, of course, be the beginning of time).

So my question is: how do you deal with this time difference? Did not God establish his governance before 1800 BCE? And what of the different regions? God started the old covenant in Israel, right?

Now, there are other organized religions which are no longer in practice but after much research I found that the oldest religion is Proto-Indo-European religion. This religion dates back anywhere from 3000 - 5000 BCE. But this dating is primarily based on archaeology, linguistic analysis, and sheer guesswork and thus accurate dating can really be made. Generally, Proto-Indo-European religion is considered religion before 3000 BCE since it seems to be a predecessor of today's religions. Many of the concepts in this religion are shown in most all religions today. One of those concepts is the "Golden Rule" principle, or as Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". You can see that it's practically in every religion on Wikipedia's article "The Golden Rule". (I can't link yet, sorry).

Okay, so with that said, what do you make of this? You can find our more on the Proto-Indo-Europeans at ceisiwrserith.com/pier or on Google, your good ol' friend.

Thank you for your responses.

PIE is a reconstructed language, and there isn't even general agreement on where the people who spoke it are from, much less how they practiced religion. And the golden rule is not unique to christianity, but it isn't in "practically every religion." There are several good textbooks on PIE which take a cultural view as well, e.g. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans by Gamkredlidze and Ivanovan (2 volumes), Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction by Clackson, or The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World by Mallory and Adams. Of course, now there is significant scholarship on the reconstruction of Pre-IE (e.g. Pre-Indo-European by W. P. Lehmann). Basically, we can't really reconstruct PIE religion.

 

[EternalFlourish]

PIE is a reconstructed language, and there isn't even general agreement on where the people who spoke it are from, much less how they practiced religion. And the golden rule is not unique to christianity, but it isn't in "practically every religion." There are several good textbooks on PIE which take a cultural view as well, e.g. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans by Gamkredlidze and Ivanovan (2 volumes), Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction by Clackson, or The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World by Mallory and Adams. Of course, now there is significant scholarship on the reconstruction of Pre-IE (e.g. Pre-Indo-European by W. P. Lehmann). Basically, we can't really reconstruct PIE religion.

True, we can't entirely reconstruct it. However, we can establish some basic principles of it. In fact, even various deities have been established. The central deity being Dyé:s Pté:r which translates as "The shining sky father". If you do some research, you'll find that the reconstructed language is quite advance now. This has been accepted by scholars for over a century. While the region of where these people lived is disputed among three places, it is still established that these people did exist. And yes, the golden rule is practically in every religion. There are exceptions but the majority adhere to this rule.

 

[Oberon]

True, we can't entirely reconstruct it. However, we can establish some basic principles of it.

Like what?

In fact, even various deities have been established. The central deity being Dyé:s Pté:r which translates as "The shining sky father".

We don't even know that. We can reconstruct the word *deiwos, but this appears to simply be a reconstruction for the basic word for god. We know next to nothing about any characteristics of any god. The word in some IE languages means demons, in others sky, and in others day. Of course, this isn't the only word which can be reconstructed for god, as other languauges (e.g. Gothic and other early germanic IE languages) have a totally different root. The idea of a central "father god" is hardly capable of being reconstructed based on historical linguistics, and neither is the PIE religion.

 

[EternalFlourish]

Here, check out the Wikipedia entry on it and look through the sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

 

[Oberon]

Here, check out the Wikipedia entry on it and look through the sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion

I don't need to check out wikipedia. In addition to actually being able to a few ancient IE languauges, I've read a great deal of scholarship (I cited a few examples) on the subject. There is a fair deal of agreement on aspects of the reconstructed language, but even here there are disagreements among experts. As for socio-cultural aspects of the speakers of PIE, again, there isn't even general agreement on where the speakers of PIE were from, let alone their religious practices. The word you cite as a reconstruction of "god" means everything from sky to demon in various languages. It can't reasonably be used as a basis for anything but a linguistic/lexical understanding of PIE "religion" and it really doesn't have anything to do with your OP.

 

[EternalFlourish]

I don't need to check out wikipedia. In addition to actually being able to a few ancient IE languauges, I've read a great deal of scholarship (I cited a few examples) on the subject. There is a fair deal of agreement on aspects of the reconstructed language, but even here there are disagreements among experts. As for socio-cultural aspects of the speakers of PIE, again, there isn't even general agreement on where the speakers of PIE were from, let alone their religious practices. The word you cite as a reconstruction of "god" means everything from sky to demon in various languages. It can't reasonably be used as a basis for anything but a linguistic/lexical understanding of PIE "religion" and it really doesn't have anything to do with your OP.

Well ok, I'll accept that. But there is still the problem of these people not being under the covenant of God.