I have an interesting theory which says geography of the region in which the religion took birth played a major role in shaping and defining the religion. To elaborate, take for example the three religions of the book, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These three religions took birth in the harsh climates of Middle East / Arabia amongst barren lands and nomads / bedouins, shepherds etc. This has played a very major role in shaping the governing principles / rules of these three religions. On the other hand look at Hinduism which has it's roots in the fertile Indus and Gangetic plains of the Indian sub-continent and amongst the more civilized people. The land was fertile, rivers were flowing full and vegetation aplenty. This must have influenced the people in the region to develop a softer and more tolerant mindset / mentality in general. Similarly, the harsh climatic conditions of the Middle East must have made the people in that region to become tough, aggressive etc. Comments please.
2006-09-11 08:45:45 · 13 answers · asked by venshu 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Agreeing to ramall1to's reply that Babylonia was once full of fertile lands, let us not discount the fact that Judaism took birth on Mount Sinai, Christianity in Jerusalem and Islam in the deserts of Arabia and all the three places described above are far from fertile plains. The distance from Jerusalem to Babylonia (present day Iraq) I am sure was too much to travers in those days to be of much use in influencing mindsets of the people. The tribal laws prevailing at the time of birth of these religions of Middle East (no offence meant here) must also have influenced the religious definitions in more ways than one. These tribal laws would actually have been developed based actualy on the socio-economic conditions of the people which again is a function of the Geography of the particular region.
2006-09-11 09:02:39 · update #1
Interesting..never thought of that although you should look into even more religions just to be sure.
It makes sense and here's another side idea the hard life and harsh climates may also have contributed to this idea that Christians have that the next life( Heaven) will be infinitely better then this one.
Anyways great idea
2006-09-11 08:59:07 · answer #1 · answered by GhostB 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
interesting theory but only one thing wrong with it. It is totally flawed. what do you do with the fact that the Israeli nation used to be at one time a very lush oasis that had the best crops and land there was around and even Babylon, what is now Iraq was a lush place that had all the riches of the world and lush gardens. Over the centuries different ones totally decimated the countryside by taking down all the trees in Lebanon and all the other things that caused it to be a great and lush nation. Soon it became the desert we see today. A lot of the areas you describe was not always the way it is now if you will study into your history a bit. Man has totally destroyed a lot of the lush gardens and land that was once very fruitful and plentiful with all the fruits and nuts that now only grow with a lot of troubles.
2006-09-11 15:52:58 · answer #2 · answered by ramall1to 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You think Kali is soft? Boy are you in for a big surprise!
Given your theory that the geography of a particular region influenced Christianity, Judaism and Islam, perhaps this is one of the reasons behind monotheism. In lands where food was plentiful, opening the pantheon up to gods and goddesses that oversaw specific aspects of human life and the landscape, seems plausible.
2006-09-11 15:53:23 · answer #3 · answered by gjstoryteller 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What you say could be right. However you would think that the barren lands of the Middle East would eventually be extremely fertile with all the 'BS' that gets thrown around by the three religions living there.
2006-09-11 15:53:20 · answer #4 · answered by roqofages 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the conditions in which one's lived their life would almost have to color their perception of the Divine. Certainly the conditions of desert life would have to make hospitality important, pork dangerous to eat before electricity was invented, etc. We also see that the Scandinavian Gods were very war-like and focused on hunting, as their worshippers had to be.
I think you can only account for what's around you. Nobody should be surprised if mountain tribes had no records of ocean Gods, or vice versa. I also don't believe that anyone, by definition, can be nicer than the God they worship.
2006-09-11 15:59:26 · answer #5 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know I said I was not going to answer any more "religion" questions, but here goes.
Where are the shootings in the UK ?
Moss Side, not Richmond.
Where are drugs a problem ?
Brixton, not Hampstead.
Where is violence a problem ?
Millwall, not Mill Hill
Where are terrorist's a problem ?
Afghanistan, not Switzerland.
Poor & uneducated, = purpertrators.
Rich & educated = targets.
Geography is not the reason for "tough & aggressive".
Extreme poverty & lack of education is.
2006-09-11 16:03:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You haven't explained the link fully. I do not really see the repercussions of the middle east on Christianity.
The idea has merit but it must be fully explained for anyone to give a damn.
2006-09-11 15:51:34 · answer #7 · answered by ty_rosewood 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I recall a comment made by an archaeologist working on Essene settlements around the dead sea. 'Only monotheism could develop here - there's not a grove for a nymph anywhere!'
2006-09-11 16:22:32 · answer #8 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have the right idea. Of course someone's life will affect their mental program. It is hard to remove oneself from one's everyday life.
However, I won't comment on your particular conclusions.
2006-09-11 15:51:31 · answer #9 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These are not theories. They are the foundational truth of anthropology and sociology and well established by peer-reviewed research.
2006-09-11 15:50:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋