'11-12-04, 01:22 Destroyer	Re: Akhenaten Oldskeptic wrote: In the story of Job what is Satan other than another God that opposes Yahweh? What are the Angels in the story of Lot other than demi-gods? Who were Gabriel and Michael other that lessor gods obedient to a more powerful god? I propose that there are/were very few if any truly monotheistic religions, and this includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If they have angels and demons or ascended saints then they have a plethora of gods. What happened in Judaism is that one particular god was promoted to the top position, but still he/it is not all powerful; just the most powerful. There is no such thing as monotheism (One god), just gods of different strengths and abilities. Even Akhenaten didn't deny other gods existed, only that his god was the most powerful and that other gods should not be worshiped. According to the Old Testament Yahweh describes himself as a jealous god that does not want other gods worshiped. This does not imply that this god is the only god. In fact it implies that there are other gods, but this would not stop a priestly class from trying to promote their god as the ultimate god. There is nothing profound or enlightening in "monotheism" especially considering that it doesn't actually exist. "I really don't think that it matters much how anyone interprets ancient history and beliefs. There will always be room for interpretations that suit one's own bias. We just go with the flow that suits us; and if there is no Arbiter/God who can conclusively demonstrate what actually happened, then we simply continue to go with our separate convictions."
'11-12-04, 03:16 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten smudge wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Akhenaten, then, shows that power can precede theology—and that monotheism doesn't necessarily do much for your power, either. To insist on only one god is to put all your money on one horse, and that makes your "power trip" a high-stakes gamble. It might not be something you'd want to devise. (My bold.) Indeed. As Akhenaten's reign ended in total disaster it rather scuppers the concept of anyone imitating the 'one God' gamble based on his example don't you think? Akhenaten lost the 'gamble'. His people payed the price. This would be the memory of his monotheism. Not a road down which others would be in a hurry to follow. Not if the Hebrews had no awareness of Akhenaten's failure (spin claims that it was more or less a closeted affair among the Egyptian elite). And not if the fledgling early Hebrew religion consisted of an uninspiring creed in the 14th century BC. Given these things, the arrival of a charismatic magician with strange & lofty new ideas might've seemed somewhat intriguing. Novelty has its charms. smudge wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Nonsense, Madame. The Jewish high priests indeed aggregated to themselves a good deal of power, but to contend that they ever exceeded the Catholic Church is absurd. It matters not a jot who was nastier, who abused power most, who was more violent or which 'holy men' did best from pedalling superstition. The point is that Catholicism was built on the back of previous Biblical bullshit, power abuse, violence, manipulation and superstition. The details of which were worse in any given situation or time period would be dictated by circumstance. The motivations and essential flaws and moral failings are/were similarly reprehensible. The comparison was made to illustrate the difference between an obvious power grab and a theological reconsideration. If the Hebrew's move to monotheism was strictly about power, then we should expect it to markedly benefit those instituting the change. The Christian shift, for example, from Judaism's propitiatory sacrifices to the Church's dispensation of sacraments is a demonstrably advantageous change for the Christian priesthood. However, the alleged Hebrew shift from "henotheism" to monotheism in the exilic period doesn't really give the priest any more power than he would've had previously—because what difference does it make if he sacrifices in order to appease one god or a dozen? Why go ballistic if the people are worshiping a multiplicity of idols? Just take up the idols. You're supposed to diversify your portfolio: any huckster worth his salt knows that there is no god in the first place, and he pedestalizes Yahweh at the risk of losing it all in that single investment. This is why Judaism is such a pitiful, masochistic strain of religion: whenever anything goes wrong, it's another angry chastisement from the only God there is, and you just have to roll with the punches, even if it means being an oppressed and wandering minority for centuries & centuries. Not a recipe for power. The success of the post-exilic Jews (and their priesthood) owed more to the munificence of Cyrus the Great than it did their queer preference for monotheism. Catholicism was indeed built on the back of "previous biblical bullshit," but this "matters a jot" since we're trying to distinguish between the will to power and organic theological developments (both of which have been known to occur in religion). We can appreciate that Catholicism was objectively more savvy than Judaism because it jettisoned the notion that your blessings should be expected in this lifetime. If you were suffering, it was because suffering was redemptive. The Jews, contrariwise, continued to see suffering as a failure on their own part (and the part of the rabbis as well, since everyone was in it together). Christianity turned the collective notion into an individualized quest: when it came to the fate of your immortal soul, you were basically on your own, and the only earthly assistance you could get was from the clergy, from whom (and only from whom) could you be given the graces for salvation. This is the kind of evidence that betrays a power-mad design. Desperate pleas for proper numerical worship, on the other hand, not so much.
'11-12-04, 06:37 Agrippina	Re: Akhenaten My argument about "monotheism" is exactly that. Monotheism is worshipping a single god and not acknowledging the existence of the power of any other gods. You cannot deny they exist because other religions are a fact. But if you claim to worship only one god, then you can't have angels and trinities and saints etc etc. And doesn't putting the pope up there as a god's earthly representative, make the pope into some sort of deity.
'11-12-04, 11:49 smudge	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: smudge wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Akhenaten, then, shows that power can precede theology—and that monotheism doesn't necessarily do much for your power, either. To insist on only one god is to put all your money on one horse, and that makes your "power trip" a high-stakes gamble. It might not be something you'd want to devise. (My bold.) Indeed. As Akhenaten's reign ended in total disaster it rather scuppers the concept of anyone imitating the 'one God' gamble based on his example don't you think? Akhenaten lost the 'gamble'. His people payed the price. This would be the memory of his monotheism. Not a road down which others would be in a hurry to follow. Not if the Hebrews had no awareness of Akhenaten's failure (spin claims that it was more or less a closeted affair among the Egyptian elite). And not if the fledgling early Hebrew religion consisted of an uninspiring creed in the 14th century BC. Given these things, the arrival of a charismatic magician with strange & lofty new ideas might've seemed somewhat intriguing. Novelty has its charms. It does. But it seems you want it both ways! If they didn't hear about the 'failure' chances are they didn't hear about the whole failed monotheistic experiment! I really think you are stretching to hold on to an idea you 'like'.... Sorry. Moses de la Montagne wrote: smudge wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Nonsense, Madame. The Jewish high priests indeed aggregated to themselves a good deal of power, but to contend that they ever exceeded the Catholic Church is absurd. It matters not a jot who was nastier, who abused power most, who was more violent or which 'holy men' did best from pedalling superstition. The point is that Catholicism was built on the back of previous Biblical bullshit, power abuse, violence, manipulation and superstition. The details of which were worse in any given situation or time period would be dictated by circumstance. The motivations and essential flaws and moral failings are/were similarly reprehensible. The comparison was made to illustrate the difference between an obvious power grab and a theological reconsideration. The point is that these can go hand in hand. Moses de la Montagne wrote: If the Hebrew's move to monotheism was strictly about power, then we should expect it to markedly benefit those instituting the change. Psychology tells us that we often conveniently come to believe what it is beneficial, personally pleasing, advantageous for us to believe. The tendency to shift belief subtly to avoid dissonance is well understood. I suspect this, along with greed, desire to retain power/control, motivated changes in hebrew religion.
'11-12-04, 12:26 smudge	Re: Akhenaten Agrippina wrote: My argument about "monotheism" is exactly that. Monotheism is worshipping a single god and not acknowledging the existence of the power of any other gods. You cannot deny they exist because other religions are a fact. But if you claim to worship only one god, then you can't have angels and trinities and saints etc etc. And doesn't putting the pope up there as a god's earthly representative, make the pope into some sort of deity. This is the thing with 'monotheism'. If we define it as 'one' supernatural power and 'one only', has monotheism EVER existed? Once you accept the existence of the trinity or 'lesser' powers/demons/spirits/angels, it opens a whole new range of religions which we can squeeze into the definition.....
'11-12-04, 14:53 spin	Vain hope Here's a challenge for Moses de la Montagne, seeing that he is still on the Akhenaten-source-for-monotheism-in-Judaism kick: try to find one inscription in the millennium after the time Tutankhaten changed his name that indicates a worship of Aten. The failure to find any should show just how fleeting the worship of Aten was. He's dead, Jim.
'11-12-05, 00:21 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten Agrippina wrote: My argument about "monotheism" is exactly that. Monotheism is worshipping a single god and not acknowledging the existence of the power of any other gods. You cannot deny they exist because other religions are a fact. But if you claim to worship only one god, then you can't have angels and trinities and saints etc etc. And doesn't putting the pope up there as a god's earthly representative, make the pope into some sort of deity. Well, I'm not too concerned with whether Christianity is purely monotheistic or not—the doctrine of the trinity, at best, renders its monotheism paradoxical. And indeed, the notion of the pope as God's viceroy props him up as the infallible oracle. And that's actually what I'm concerned with: fine examples of a reach for power within a religion. I don't find the supposed Jewish shift to monotheism to be a particularly good one.
'11-12-05, 00:24 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten smudge wrote: But it seems you want it both ways! If they didn't hear about the 'failure' chances are they didn't hear about the whole failed monotheistic experiment! I really think you are stretching to hold on to an idea you 'like'.... Sorry. I've been theorizing all along, though, that the Hebrews didn't get it from Akhenaten himself, but from an itinerant Atenist expatriate who left the capital after the resoration under Tutankhamen. That does let me have it both ways. smudge wrote: Agrippina wrote: My argument about "monotheism" is exactly that. Monotheism is worshipping a single god and not acknowledging the existence of the power of any other gods. You cannot deny they exist because other religions are a fact. But if you claim to worship only one god, then you can't have angels and trinities and saints etc etc. And doesn't putting the pope up there as a god's earthly representative, make the pope into some sort of deity. This is the thing with 'monotheism'. If we define it as 'one' supernatural power and 'one only', has monotheism EVER existed? Once you accept the existence of the trinity or 'lesser' powers/demons/spirits/angels, it opens a whole new range of religions which we can squeeze into the definition..... We're probably getting off topic, but I don't see how a religion having saints or angels or genies necessarily ruins its claim to monotheism, as these creatures are posited as separate from god, and are not worshiped or acknowledged as gods. Do you, Agrippina and smudge, find Islam to be not monotheistic? This may require a different thread.
'11-12-05, 00:36 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten spin wrote: Here's a challenge for Moses de la Montagne, seeing that he is still on the Akhenaten-source-for-monotheism-in-Judaism kick: try to find one inscription in the millennium after the time Tutankhaten changed his name that indicates a worship of Aten. The failure to find any should show just how fleeting the worship of Aten was. He's dead, Jim. That challenge would've been answered in the OP had it been possible. You may've missed the many times where I referred to the Akhenaten source as a theory, and not an indisputable fact. I happen, of course, to find it more compelling than this unpersuasive "power grab after the exile" business, but to each their own. As you've well pointed out, the earliest texts we have for these books are in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars are divided on points we each consider crucial, like the dating of Hosea and the accounts of Josiah's reformation. So there are two (if not more) paths to go by. Take your pick. I can only second what Destroyer said: Destroyer wrote: I really don't think that it matters much how anyone interprets ancient history and beliefs. There will always be room for interpretations that suit one's own bias. We just go with the flow that suits us; and if there is no Arbiter/God who can conclusively demonstrate what actually happened, then we simply continue to go with our separate convictions.
'11-12-05, 01:03 Oldskeptic	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: smudge wrote: But it seems you want it both ways! If they didn't hear about the 'failure' chances are they didn't hear about the whole failed monotheistic experiment! I really think you are stretching to hold on to an idea you 'like'.... Sorry. I've been theorizing all along, though, that the Hebrews didn't get it from Akhenaten himself, but from an itinerant Atenist expatriate who left the capital after the resoration under Tutankhamen. That does let me have it both ways. smudge wrote: Agrippina wrote: My argument about "monotheism" is exactly that. Monotheism is worshipping a single god and not acknowledging the existence of the power of any other gods. You cannot deny they exist because other religions are a fact. But if you claim to worship only one god, then you can't have angels and trinities and saints etc etc. And doesn't putting the pope up there as a god's earthly representative, make the pope into some sort of deity. This is the thing with 'monotheism'. If we define it as 'one' supernatural power and 'one only', has monotheism EVER existed? Once you accept the existence of the trinity or 'lesser' powers/demons/spirits/angels, it opens a whole new range of religions which we can squeeze into the definition..... We're probably getting off topic, but I don't see how a religion having saints or angels or genies necessarily ruins its claim to monotheism, as these creatures are posited as separate from god, and are not worshiped or acknowledged as gods. Do you, Agrippina and smudge, find Islam to be not monotheistic? This may require a different thread. You forgot me. The point is that neither Atenism or early Judaism were monotheistic. Neither denied the existence of other gods. They just promoted their god as the most powerful god. There is no need for Judaism to have been influenced by Atenism because "monotheism" just naturally flows from thinking that your god is the biggest and best god. All it does is put your god at the head of the line. Further more there is no evidence that Judaism was influenced by Atenism. Aten was a sun god providing for Egypt. Yahweh was a war god demanding worship and sacrifice from Hebrews.
'11-12-05, 06:10 spin	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: Here's a challenge for Moses de la Montagne, seeing that he is still on the Akhenaten-source-for-monotheism-in-Judaism kick: try to find one inscription in the millennium after the time Tutankhaten changed his name that indicates a worship of Aten. The failure to find any should show just how fleeting the worship of Aten was. He's dead, Jim. That challenge would've been answered in the OP had it been possible. You may've missed the many times where I referred to the Akhenaten source as a theory, and not an indisputable fact. You still haven't grasped the process here. Theories require at least some evidence. You may be adept in 2011 at abstracting an idea that has been publicized under the wanky name of monotheism from the private religion of an ephemeral ruler who lived many centuries before the emergence of a Jewish self-awareness, but you imagine ancient goatherders or their precursors abstracting the bones from the beast and having them in storage for several hundred years before it, umm, percolates into Jahwism, which reaches the level of so highly unlikely that you just seem to be retrojecting your desires onto the past. And as a nice idea to pin on one's desktop and speculate about, well, it's already been done, led to Freudian fantasy, and died stillborn only to come back to us in zombie form. It is passe' and you only have so many braincells... which I'm sure would appreciate more meaningful use or abuse. The evidence for Atenism surviving after the counterrevolution under Tutankhamen is a necessity for the extrapolation of the notion of monotheism. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum and religious ideas need a cultural imperative. They don't just arise because someone struck on a nifty abstraction. Abstractions need vehicles or they don't get anywhere. You might like to rehash the possibilities of monotheism from Akhenaten for your own diversion, but as there is no way to develop a serious trajectory, all you seem to be doing is engaging in vain speculation. I happen, of course, to find it more compelling than this unpersuasive "power grab after the exile" business, but to each their own. As you've well pointed out, the earliest texts we have for these books are in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars are divided on points we each consider crucial, like the dating of Hosea and the accounts of Josiah's reformation. So there are two (if not more) paths to go by. But in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on.
'11-12-05, 10:44 Agrippina	Re: Akhenaten My answer to Islam being monotheistic is no, they worship Mohammed and Allah. Although they deny it. If Mohammed is merely his messenger but they do the how PBUH business about Mo, why not about the Ayatollahs as well? So no, in my opinion, there is no such thing as monotheism. The only monotheism would be if people would start worshipping me, and they can do that by sending me money!
'11-12-05, 19:39 smudge	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: smudge wrote: This is the thing with 'monotheism'. If we define it as 'one' supernatural power and 'one only', has monotheism EVER existed? Once you accept the existence of the trinity or 'lesser' powers/demons/spirits/angels, it opens a whole new range of religions which we can squeeze into the definition..... We're probably getting off topic, but I don't see how a religion having saints or angels or genies necessarily ruins its claim to monotheism, as these creatures are posited as separate from god, and are not worshiped or acknowledged as gods. Do you, Agrippina and smudge, find Islam to be not monotheistic? This may require a different thread. All I was getting at was that it depends on exactly how 'monotheism' and 'god' are defined as to which religions fall into the category. These definitions often seem rather wooly. As with many things regarding supernatural belief, believers like to bend the rules to suit themselves.
'11-12-05, 19:44 smudge	Re: Akhenaten Agrippina wrote: The only monotheism would be if people would start worshipping me, and they can do that by sending me money! Hmm... unless you can perform some miracles and guarantee me some pleasing but seemingly impossible (post or pre death) rewards, I'll keep my money! Thanks anyway Agrippina!
'11-12-06, 00:41 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten spin wrote: You still haven't grasped the process here. Theories require at least some evidence. You may be adept in 2011 at abstracting an idea that has been publicized under the wanky name of monotheism from the private religion of an ephemeral ruler who lived many centuries before the emergence of a Jewish self-awareness, but you imagine ancient goatherders or their precursors abstracting the bones from the beast and having them in storage for several hundred years before it, umm, percolates into Jahwism, which reaches the level of so highly unlikely that you just seem to be retrojecting your desires onto the past. This has already been answered. As there exists no definitive date for the Hebrews settling in Canaan, the "storage for several hundred years" problem is resolved by accepting the Hebrews as a quasi-nomadic people (with an oral tradition) before they finally put down roots. You don't want to do this, and that's your prerogative, but your "evidence" to the contrary (their sedentary festivals) comes from the bible, which you seem to trust selectively depending on when it suits your case. You've admitted that they pilfered certain mythologies from the pagans among whom they moved (as in Genesis), so it's no less possible that they borrowed aspects of their religious calendars as well. My evidence is in the same place yours is: the bible. After disparate datings and different readings, results are bound to vary.
'11-12-06, 00:43 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten Agrippina wrote: My answer to Islam being monotheistic is no, they worship Mohammed and Allah. Although they deny it. Well, you worship Mohammed, too. Although you deny it. See how it works? There is a difference between reverence for a human prophet and the worship of a single absolute god. It's pretty weird to just override this distinction by complaining that Muslims deny what you've decided to ascribe to them. Agrippina wrote: If Mohammed is merely his messenger but they do the how PBUH business about Mo, why not about the Ayatollahs as well? Because they make a distinction between a prophet and an ayatollah? One would imagine.
'11-12-06, 05:36 spin	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: spin wrote: You still haven't grasped the process here. Theories require at least some evidence. You may be adept in 2011 at abstracting an idea that has been publicized under the wanky name of monotheism from the private religion of an ephemeral ruler who lived many centuries before the emergence of a Jewish self-awareness, but you imagine ancient goatherders or their precursors abstracting the bones from the beast and having them in storage for several hundred years before it, umm, percolates into Jahwism, which reaches the level of so highly unlikely that you just seem to be retrojecting your desires onto the past. This has already been answered. Rubbish. As there exists no definitive date for the Hebrews settling in Canaan, the "storage for several hundred years" problem is resolved by accepting the Hebrews as a quasi-nomadic people (with an oral tradition) before they finally put down roots. Again, rubbish. The archaeology has already been referred to that shows that the same people living in the bronze age villages were living there in the early iron age. The continuity of settlement excludes the quasi-nomadic propaganda. Thousands of settlements have been surveyed. You don't want to do this, and that's your prerogative, but your "evidence" to the contrary (their sedentary festivals) comes from the bible, which you seem to trust selectively depending on when it suits your case. This is funny. Institutions the Hebrews project into a fictitious wandering past show them to have actually been sedentary and now you're playing the anti-literalist card, preferring the stories of the biblical traditions rather than their institutions.. You've admitted that they pilfered certain mythologies from the pagans among whom they moved (as in Genesis), so it's no less possible that they borrowed aspects of their religious calendars as well. The joke is that the stories assume the institutions. My evidence is in the same place yours is: the bible. After disparate datings and different readings, results are bound to vary. No, it's not in the same "place". You're looking at the fins and taillights. The car is better understood by looking at the engine. The archaeology and institutions are consistent.
'11-12-06, 06:51 Agrippina	Re: Akhenaten Moses de la Montagne wrote: Agrippina wrote: My answer to Islam being monotheistic is no, they worship Mohammed and Allah. Although they deny it. Well, you worship Mohammed, too. Although you deny it. See how it works? There is a difference between reverence for a human prophet and the worship of a single absolute god. It's pretty weird to just override this distinction by complaining that Muslims deny what you've decided to ascribe to them. Huh??? I worship chocolate, but very little else. Agrippina wrote: If Mohammed is merely his messenger but they do the how PBUH business about Mo, why not about the Ayatollahs as well? Because they make a distinction between a prophet and an ayatollah? One would imagine. That's the same excuse that Christians make about Jesus. Which is why they invented a "Trinity." smudge wrote: Agrippina wrote: The only monotheism would be if people would start worshipping me, and they can do that by sending me money! Hmm... unless you can perform some miracles and guarantee me some pleasing but seemingly impossible (post or pre death) rewards, I'll keep my money! Thanks anyway Agrippina! The post-death one I can do that. But you have to give me money first. The miracles, they happen all the time, you're just not looking in the right place. (OK enough of this nonsense, I'll have to inspire someone to write a book about me first).
'11-12-07, 02:01 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: As there exists no definitive date for the Hebrews settling in Canaan, the "storage for several hundred years" problem is resolved by accepting the Hebrews as a quasi-nomadic people (with an oral tradition) before they finally put down roots. Again, rubbish. The archaeology has already been referred to that shows that the same people living in the bronze age villages were living there in the early iron age. The continuity of settlement excludes the quasi-nomadic propaganda. Thousands of settlements have been surveyed. I'm sure the settlements have been adequately surveyed, spin, but the Bronze Agers and Iron Agers of Palestine could just as well've been the so-called Canaanites. If the Hebrews were a nomadic Shasu people having limited interminglings with the Canaanites, then I'm not sure what you'd expect to find. In their Genesis myth, the Hebrews are emphatically not the Canaanites—"cursed be Canaan!" If this was indeed their oral tradition, then they weren't the original inhabitants of Palestine, and settled there later, in the first millenium BC. spin wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: You don't want to do this, and that's your prerogative, but your "evidence" to the contrary (their sedentary festivals) comes from the bible, which you seem to trust selectively depending on when it suits your case. This is funny. Institutions the Hebrews project into a fictitious wandering past show them to have actually been sedentary and now you're playing the anti-literalist card, preferring the stories of the biblical traditions rather than their institutions.. What's funny (well, not really) is that you're still willing to draw out this chicken-or-egg question. If you concede that they borrowed myths from their neighbors, why deny that they borrowed calendrical themes? spin wrote: The joke is that the stories assume the institutions. They also assume the historical truth of the exodus. Read what you want from them.
'11-12-07, 02:06 Moses de la Montagne	Re: Akhenaten Agrippina wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Agrippina wrote: My answer to Islam being monotheistic is no, they worship Mohammed and Allah. Although they deny it. Well, you worship Mohammed, too. Although you deny it. See how it works? There is a difference between reverence for a human prophet and the worship of a single absolute god. It's pretty weird to just override this distinction by complaining that Muslims deny what you've decided to ascribe to them. Huh??? I worship chocolate, but very little else. You worship Mohammed. Although you deny it. Since you worship chocolate as well, this makes you a polytheist. (Actually, I was trying to see how you liked it if the tables were turned on you, but I guess it went past you. The point is that Muslims do not worship Muhammad as a god. They simply revere him as the final and ultimate prophet. Believing that someone is an infallible and perfect human being does not necessarily equate with believing that he is a god. It's an important distinction in a discussion of their monotheism). Agrippina wrote: Moses de la Montagne wrote: Agrippina wrote: If Mohammed is merely his messenger but they do the how PBUH business about Mo, why not about the Ayatollahs as well? Because they make a distinction between a prophet and an ayatollah? One would imagine. That's the same excuse that Christians make about Jesus. Which is why they invented a "Trinity." Your ignorance is really showing here. Neither a prophet nor an ayatollah is considered a god in the Muslim religion. Muhammad is not said to be consubstantial with Allah, as Jesus is with the Father in Christianity. Muhammad is not said to be a god. Muslims are monotheists.