Which religious belief systems had a son/daughter of a god?

[Ariphaos]

Just curious as to which culture (past or present) had/has a religious belief/doctrine of their God having a son (or daughter) that comes to earth to interact with humans?

This is a common Indo-European and Semetic trait. You'll be hard pressed to find a culture that didn't. Hinduism has many parallels with Judaism.

For something closer to the Christian perspective, look at the Godman myths. Christianity formed as a kind of union between the Dionysius mystery cult and Mithraism, both of which had strong godman characteristics, though there were others.

Buddhism isn't a religion? That's a very peculiarly narrow definition.

No more than Taoism is or isn't. It does touch on the supernatural so most consider it a religion more than just a philosophy. Religion is one of those words with lots of grey areas, and there are things in between.

The Chinese have flood myths, but the ones I've heard standardly involve some god being pissed over something like man not giving him half his crops and the problem being solved by the construction of the dike system to control the flood waters and foil the god in question. However, these aren't really epics.

Most of these 'flood myths' are like this one. For added fun, look up the Turkish Flood myth, which actually parallels pretty well with recent geological discoveries (The flooding of the Mamara (sp?) Sea between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean)

The Tibetans don't have a flood myth either. Big surprise, that.

[Magnetic]

Which of these religious foundations came first? Which was around before the others? Is that even answerable?

[kheegster]

Which of these religious foundations came first? Which was around before the others? Is that even answerable?

The origins of Judaism and Hinduism, is pretty much lost in time AFAIK, as for the other main religions, Buddhism dates from around about 800 BC, while Islam dates from the 7th century AD.

[Baron Scarpia]

The Persian Mithra springs most readily to mind. He was supposedly sent to earth in human form to the savior of mankind. He was begotten via immaculate conception, too. And all of this supposedly happened in the 3rd century BCE.

[Rye]

The Persian Mithra springs most readily to mind. He was supposedly sent to earth in human form to the savior of mankind. He was begotten via immaculate conception, too. And all of this supposedly happened in the 3rd century BCE.

It should be noted that persian mithraism wasn't the same as the mithraism practised in the empire at the time of jesus/gospel writers, and that jesus' mythology is garnered from jewish sources of the time, rather than pagans from afar, which is a really annoying meme among jews and atheists. Whether the jews got it from the pagans, i don't know (no religion is completely original, they all shared themes), but they are the likely source of it into christianity.

[SirNitram]

Which of these religious foundations came first? Which was around before the others? Is that even answerable?

The Eygptian view of Pharoahs is.. Well, probably six thousand years back? Maybe more?

Roman/Greek is probably low-mid hundreds BCE..

No clue on the Japanese.

It outstrips Christianity by a longshot.

[wolveraptor]

No clue on the Japanese.

The japanese didn't become significant until, well, a fucking long time after the Egyptian's first dynasty. Closer to 0 BC, I think.

[The Dark]

Comments?

The word 'lie' springs to mind. Not every culture has a flood myth. Indeed, the one culture we expect to have one.. The Eygptians.. Do not. There is a very, very logical reason why this is: The Nile floods very regularly and predictably, and thus never catches them off guard.

The Egyptian Flood Myth. It appears in funerary texts from the tombs of Tutankhamen and Seti I.

[General Zod]

No clue on the Japanese.

The japanese didn't become significant until, well, a fucking long time after the Egyptian's first dynasty. Closer to 0 BC, I think.

Most of the Japanese belief systems would have come from China's anyways. As one of the more common ideas regarding Japanese origin places them migrating to the island of Japan from China.

[Ryushikaze]

Comments?

The word 'lie' springs to mind. Not every culture has a flood myth. Indeed, the one culture we expect to have one.. The Eygptians.. Do not. There is a very, very logical reason why this is: The Nile floods very regularly and predictably, and thus never catches them off guard.

The Egyptian Flood Myth. It appears in funerary texts from the tombs of Tutankhamen and Seti I.

To be honest, that's more of a "The gods slaughtered us, by the way it was flooding at the time because of all the blood, but not signifigantly"

It would seem, however, that Red Tide was an occasional problem for the Egyptians.

[Agemegos]

Buddhism dates from around about 800 BC

The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama Sakya) lived about 640-560 BC. But I wouldn't be surprised if his ideas were influenced by Jainism, which dates back to about when you say.

[Agemegos]

Sorry, I mangled the attribution there. It was Kheegan who wrote the material I quoted.

[Surlethe]

If you're saying that Jesus was supposed to be a new, separate creation, then okay. He's a younger sibling to humanity.

Not really, since he's meant to be human, just without sin. He's also meant to be God, and claims in John somewhere that he was before all the prophets.

"I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning", IIRC, is one indicator of a slight difference from the rest of humanity.

As for the main topic, I'd be surprised if many religions didn't have demigods: humans have always made gods in their own image, and bearing and raising children is an integral part of humanity, so it only stands to reason that deities will reflect that.

[Frank Hipper]

I'd say basically. All of them it would be easier I think to tract down the religions where this DOESN'T occur.

Scientology, Taoism(I think), Wicca, Thelema, Discordianism, Church of the Sub-Genuis.

I could be wrong on all the above counts.

I don't think that you can really count Buddhism or Taoism as religions, since IIRC neither one actually has (or cares about) any deities...

Taoism adopts the entire Chinese pantheon; the Jade Emperor, et al...and the whole bit with priests, temples, devotees gathering in those temples to worship so forth and so on most definitely meet requirements for a religion.

[Magnetic]

Which of these religious foundations came first? Which was around before the others? Is that even answerable?

The Eygptian view of Pharoahs is.. Well, probably six thousand years back? Maybe more?

Roman/Greek is probably low-mid hundreds BCE..

No clue on the Japanese.

It outstrips Christianity by a longshot.

Perhaps Christianity of the New Testiment, but what about it's "upbringing", that being the Old Testiment, . . . . from where Christianity sprung from?

[SirNitram]

Which of these religious foundations came first? Which was around before the others? Is that even answerable?

The Eygptian view of Pharoahs is.. Well, probably six thousand years back? Maybe more?

Roman/Greek is probably low-mid hundreds BCE..

No clue on the Japanese.

It outstrips Christianity by a longshot.

Perhaps Christianity of the New Testiment, but what about it's "upbringing", that being the Old Testiment, . . . . from where Christianity sprung from?

Judaism has absolutely nothing about a divine son.

[Molyneux]

I'd say basically. All of them it would be easier I think to tract down the religions where this DOESN'T occur.

Scientology, Taoism(I think), Wicca, Thelema, Discordianism, Church of the Sub-Genuis.

I could be wrong on all the above counts.

I don't think that you can really count Buddhism or Taoism as religions, since IIRC neither one actually has (or cares about) any deities...

Taoism adopts the entire Chinese pantheon; the Jade Emperor, et al...and the whole bit with priests, temples, devotees gathering in those temples to worship so forth and so on most definitely meet requirements for a religion.

Ah...shows what I know.

[Magnetic]

The Eygptian view of Pharoahs is.. Well, probably six thousand years back? Maybe more?

Roman/Greek is probably low-mid hundreds BCE..

No clue on the Japanese.

It outstrips Christianity by a longshot.

Perhaps Christianity of the New Testiment, but what about it's "upbringing", that being the Old Testiment, . . . . from where Christianity sprung from?

Judaism has absolutely nothing about a divine son.

Wha..... ......doesn't it?. . . . .

[Molyneux]

Perhaps Christianity of the New Testiment, but what about it's "upbringing", that being the Old Testiment, . . . . from where Christianity sprung from?

Judaism has absolutely nothing about a divine son.

Wha..... ......doesn't it?. . . . .

As a semi-practicing Jew who went to Hebrew school for quite awhile, I can assure you that the concept of a divine Son of God is alien to Judaism. Since we're all considered to be God's children, that would be redundant; that's why I find the concept of the Trinity to be fairly puzzling.

[wolveraptor]

I'm almost positive that the Messiah was prophesized in one of the earlier OT books, and that he was supposed to be called "Immanuel".

[Molyneux]

I'm almost positive that the Messiah was prophesized in one of the earlier OT books, and that he was supposed to be called "Immanuel".

Messiah != son of God.
They're two different concepts.

[Vendetta]

The Messiah (occasionally Mashiach/Moshiach) is supposed to be a literal king of the Jews, ostensibly a descendent of David who will establish a kigdom of Israel based on the Torah, and who would be a great political and military leader.

Being of divine origin is not part of the job description, and may disqualify you for the role.

[TheBlackCat]

that's why I find the concept of the Trinity to be fairly puzzling.

Is there anyone who doesn't find it puzzling? Something being both one thing and three completely different things at the same time is a bit alien to human understanding.

[Metatwaddle]

that's why I find the concept of the Trinity to be fairly puzzling.

Is there anyone who doesn't find it puzzling? Something being both one thing and three completely different things at the same time is a bit alien to human understanding.

Actually, I always found it disarmingly simple. A lot of people like to go on about how the three-in-one is some divine paradoxical mystery, but I don't see anything so complicated. It's just one being appearing in three different guises, which happen to have slightly different personalities and attributes as well.

[haas mark]

Random note on Buddhism (specifically, Tibetan Buddhism as opposed to Indian or Chinese): There is a creation story regarding two boddhisatvas, and that one was a monkey (at the time), the other a snowwoman, whereupon they conceived humanity between the two.

While not worshipped, per se, there is a burial monument to the two, where Tibetan Buddhists make a pilgrimage to the monument (a la Mecca for Muslims).

Further, the boddhisatvas are looked upon almost as deities, of sorts, like demigods. Still, the Tibetan Buddhists regard the Dalai Lamas (and the lesser lamas) as reincarnated beings, attempting to acheive Enlightenment in order to help humanity. As well, there is the concept of karma in Tibetan Buddhism, and eight (?) schools that Buddhists of the Tibetan sect may learn from (I'd have to check on the number in the book I'm currently reading, but too lazy to do that right now).

I suppose, in a way, Tibetan Buddhism is a semi-religion, if we're giving stipulations to the idea of a 'religion,' but even so, if it is, humanity was conceived by two boddhisatvas, neither of which were human. Thus bringing us to the original post in the topic.

On the note of paganism/Wicca, I'm not familiar with Wicca much, but at least in Norse paganism, there is definitely the belief of sons and daughters of gods. In Celtic and Druidic mythoi, I can't really answer that, but I could ask a couple of friends of mine who follow those religions.