as highly developed we may be as a species...when it comes right down to it, we are still animals at the gut/instinctual level....even many animals kill/threaten/drive away other animals, even within their own species/group...to laud over the most desirable territory/feeding area/females/whatever. whatever is the envisioned 'advantage'....there was, is and probably always will be, some degree of conflict. perhaps we can at least hope, that as highly developed creatures, ever evolving...we will find better ways to even work out sharing the 'best' resources, etc...and not be motivated to harm on the baser instincts of greed, et al. so yes, iwhile religion has played a role in many a conflict, even a truly central/pivotal role...i honestly do not believe it is THE biggest reason, and even amongst 'religious' conflicts...i think oftentimes...it was merely a handy 'excuse' to use, to maks the true reasons/desires...that honestly had nothing to do with religion or god, or anything remotely spiritual in nature. merely my own beliefs on it.
Again, I agree. I also agree religion is the "excuse", or justification as we try to rationalise our base nature that is what it is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
hmm... ideas, claims and suppositions... where is it supported by historical evidence and ancient records??
in any case, pre exilic judaism may well have sprung from Aten or any other source, but there is no doubt that post exilic (the "exile" in question being the babyonian captivity) judaism, and thus judaism as it has survived today, was infleunced by the religion of the Phareesees.
"..where is it supported by historical evidence and ancient records??"
In the same places where all the other historical evidence and ancient records are kept. Check it out. It's pretty interesting stuff. Akhenaten came along and outlawed the Polytheistic religion which had been in existence for ages - he worship of many gods. He instead ordered that the people of Egypt worship one god - the Aten (or sun god) and he outlawed the old religion. He and his followers were eventually driven out into the desert where he died, and the old religious order was restored. So much about his life has parallels with the life of moses.
Again, I agree. I also agree religion is the "excuse", or justification as we try to rationalise our base nature that is what it is.
yes.
i do think it is an interesting discussion, certainly thought over many, many times..i am sure this is not a unique discussion...sure to have crossed the minds of the great philosophers/thinkers, etc. taking it a step further...even if one were to believe religion is the root of all evils in the world, considering it also has seemed to exist in some form or another probably again, since the earliest beginnings of humanity......what does one suggest? a crusade to wipe religion from the face of the earth? i guess that is one course of action..although i think that would lead to the bloodiest/ugliest war waged ever...and i don't think it would come to fruition b/c although many are divided by their religious beliefs...it seems many DO have religious beliefs, and i don't think they'd give them up easily.
so then, while it makes for an interesting debate...i don't think any solutions lie in it...except to look further and think...what do we as a human society and global culture have in common, that can unite us, instead of focusing on all that is different and divides us...and work from there. even then, the baser instincts still exist, the greed still exists...so we still have to focus on ways to NOT engage in conflict, over ANY idea/concept/resource...and find ways to balance it all out.
so whether one agrees/disagrees with the initial thread premise..it still leaves us exactly where we are, and i personally do not believe trying to get people to change their beliefs will assist, if anything i would think it would hinder...so then...we STILL need to find solutions..whether religious, non-religious, etc....how to find the balance and stop killing each other.....for whatever 'cause' one decides is worthy.
yes.
i do think it is an interesting discussion, certainly thought over many, many times..i am sure this is not a unique discussion...sure to have crossed the minds of the great philosophers/thinkers, etc. taking it a step further...even if one were to believe religion is the root of all evils in the world, considering it also has seemed to exist in some form or another probably again, since the earliest beginnings of humanity......what does one suggest? a crusade to wipe religion from the face of the earth? i guess that is one course of action..although i think that would lead to the bloodiest/ugliest war waged ever...and i don't think it would come to fruition b/c although many are divided by their religious beliefs...it seems many DO have religious beliefs, and i don't think they'd give them up easily.
so then, while it makes for an interesting debate...i don't think any solutions lie in it...except to look further and think...what do we as a human society and global culture have in common, that can unite us, instead of focusing on all that is different and divides us...and work from there. even then, the baser instincts still exist, the greed still exists...so we still have to focus on ways to NOT engage in conflict, over ANY idea/concept/resource...and find ways to balance it all out.
so whether one agrees/disagrees with the initial thread premise..it still leaves us exactly where we are, and i personally do not believe trying to get people to change their beliefs will assist, if anything i would think it would hinder...so then...we STILL need to find solutions..whether religious, non-religious, etc....how to find the balance and stop killing each other.....for whatever 'cause' one decides is worthy.
wouldn't a war to remove religion be another religious war? like the athiest debate. they are "bothered" by religious words and symbols and fight to the supreme court to get their way. i am not bothered by a cross atop a building or the star of david. freedom to believe is also the freedom not to believe. removing these words and symbols violates my freedom to believe. i believe this is one nation "under God" yet i am not allowed to express my beliefs.
just something to think about.
wouldn't a war to remove religion be another religious war? like the athiest debate. they are "bothered" by religious words and symbols and fight to the supreme court to get their way. i am not bothered by a cross atop a building or the star of david. freedom to believe is also the freedom not to believe. removing these words and symbols violates my freedom to believe. i believe this is one nation "under God" yet i am not allowed to express my beliefs.
just something to think about.
it was all hypothetical...b/c i do not think, although of course i could be wrong, anyone is suggesting ridding the world of religion. i was merely taking it to that extreme for illustrative purposes, that no matter what....even sans religion, we'd still have most of the same problems/issues/wars/death.
i consider myself an agnostic....and again, i cannot speak for true atheists...but evenso...i don't think the issue lies with 'having a problem with' religious symbols...but moreso that they have NO place within any context of our governemnt. sure, feel free to believe this is a nation under God if you desire...but if you don't believe...why should that be on our currency?...or why swear on a bible in a court of law?....etc. THAT is ALL about what our country was supposed to be about...seperation of church and state. however, a completely different debate...and i would have to agree with the idea of seperation of church and state...religion has no place in our government if we are a TRULY free society, for ALL to follow their own beliefs...seems fair imho.
it was all hypothetical...b/c i do not think, although of course i could be wrong, anyone is suggesting ridding the world of religion. i was merely taking it to that extreme for illustrative purposes, that no matter what....even sans religion, we'd still have most of the same problems/issues/wars/death.
i consider myself an agnostic....and again, i cannot speak for true atheists...but evenso...i don't think the issue lies with 'having a problem with' religious symbols...but moreso that they have NO place within any context of our governemnt. sure, feel free to believe this is a nation under God if you desire...but if you don't believe...why should that be on our currency?...or why swear on a bible in a court of law?....etc. THAT is ALL about what our country was supposed to be about...seperation of church and state. however, a completely different debate...and i would have to agree with the idea of seperation of church and state...religion has no place in our government if we are a TRULY free society, for ALL to follow their own beliefs...seems fair imho.
i know you were taking it to the extreeme. i understood that.
as to your WHY's; because 87% of the populous believe in religion. isn't it majority rule anymore?
as to your WHY's; because 87% of the populous believe in religion. isn't it majority rule anymore?
honestly, what difference does that make? we are supposed to be a country based on religious freedom, seperation of church and state. therefore, no matter what the 'majority' practices/believes in regards to faith...is of no consequence..or shouldn't be...b/c we are supposed to keep religion and government seperate.
anyhoo......hasn't the 'majority' had it's way in any case? don't we ALL have the right to vote, and thus the majority would then have the most voice/power.....and thus why there isn't much change in that regard? as far as i know, it still says 'in god we trust' on our currency, etc. majority or minority, we ALL have the right to have our opinions heard. whether it leads to change or not, depends on a whole lot else. i don't know, to me, even if one is religious i would think they could agree what they believe and what is right for the country in regards to such matters, really should be seperate.
just an aside tho...amongst the 87%...are they all christian? believe in the bible or the 10 commandments, etc? if not, even amongst the religious...there is little to no meaning to swearing on a bible let's say.....and again, even amongst the minority....government should INCLUDE everyone, not EXCLUDE...thus religious language should not be present. religion is a CHOICE, a personal choice....government and laws are or should be seperate. merely my 2 cents.
What the f++{~@ck are you on about? Or, maybe I should have said, what the f++{~@ck are you on?
i maintain. zorastrianism is the origin of monotheistic religion as we know them today. ie. post-exilic (babyonian exile that is) judaism (and consequently christianity and islam) have borrowed heavily from zorastrianism. post exilic judaism can be traced directly back to the Pharisees.
i maintain. zorastrianism is the origin of monotheistic religion as we know them today. ie. post-exilic (babyonian exile that is) judaism (and consequently christianity and islam) have borrowed heavily from zorastrianism. post exilic judaism can be traced directly back to the Pharisees.
and if you still cant understand, then maybe you could tell me what the fuck are you smoking.
To quote from the source that you provide above:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"(Exodus 20:3). The full monotheistic conception of God came later (Isaiah 43:10-13, Jer 10:1-16).The second Isaiah juxtaposes the great Persian King Cyrus with the first monotheistic declarations in the Bible."
The point is, we were debating when and where the first monotheistic religion arose. The answer to the question is that the first monotheistic religion that we know of in history arose during the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt - 1353 BC-1336 BC or 1351 BC–1334 BC. There is ample evidence that this religion of the one god - the sun god, or Aten had an influence on early Christianity, as there are many parellels in the two religions - especially the religious views of the Essenes - who were the first Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten
This isn't supposition. This is historical fact. Why do you keep arguing for the mere sake of it?
The Exodus, more fully The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, was the departure of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron as described in the biblical Book of Exodus. It forms the basis of the Jewish holiday of Passover. See also Passage of the Red Sea.
The point is, we were debating when and where the first monotheistic religion arose.
Why do you keep arguing for the mere sake of it?
the point is we were debating, which was the first of the 4 existing monotheistic religions.
atenism or whatever its called isnt existant, and did not shape post (babylonian) exilic judaism. zorastrianism did and post exilic judaism can be traced back to the phareesees, and not aten.
why do you keep arguing for the mere sake of it??
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The Exodus, more fully The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, was the departure of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron as described in the biblical Book of Exodus. It forms the basis of the Jewish holiday of Passover. See also Passage of the Red Sea.
the point is we were debating, which was the first of the 4 existing monotheistic religions.
atenism or whatever its called isnt existant, and did not shape post (babylonian) exilic judaism. zorastrianism did and post exilic judaism can be traced back to the phareesees, and not aten.
And on what evidence do you base this assertion? Why do you presume that Atenism had no influence upon Judaism?
In 'Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion' author Ahmed Osman, contends that there is a suppressed history of Christianity that can be traced back to ancient Egypt. He compares the chronology of the Old Testament and its factual content with ancient Egyptian records to show that the major characters of the Hebrew Scriptures - including Solomon, David, Moses and Joshua - are based on Egyptian historical figures. He further suggests that not only were these personalities and the stories associated with them cultivated on the banks of the Nile, but the major tenets of Christian belief - the One God, the Trinity, the hierarchy of heaven, life after death and the virgin birth - are all Egyptian in origin. He likewise provides a convincing argument that Jesus himself came out of Egypt. With the help of modern archaeological findings, Osman shows that Christianity survived as an Egyptian mystery cult until the fourth century A.D., when the Romans embarked on a mission of suppression and persecution. In A.D. 391 the Roman-appointed Bishop Theophilus led a mob into the Serapeum quarter of Alexandria and burned the Alexandrian library, destroying all records of the true Egyptian roots of Christianity. The Romans' version of Christianity, manufactured to maintain political power, claimed that Christianity originated in Judaea. In 'Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion' Osman restores Egypt to its rightful place in the history of Christianity.
And on what evidence do you base this assertion? Why do you presume that Atenism had no influence upon Judaism?
for evidence you could see the links i posted.
and when did i say atenism didnt have its share of influence. hell even the sumerians had their infludnece. (eg - the "enuma slish" story from where comes the 6 day creation concept and the "gilgamesh" story that begat the flood myth).
what i said is, judaism as it exists today/the final (post exilic) form of judaism, was shaped by the "pharisees", during the babylonian exile. thats why there is a marked difference between pre and post exilic judaism - something that even led freud to observe that there may have been 2 moses's.
and since it is this post exilic judaism from where came christianity* and islam, its fair to say that the major monotheistic religions as we know/see them, originated from the zorastrians (pharisees).
* its a diferent matter that christianity then went on to borrow from a host of sources, including, mithraism, egyptian religion, germanic religion etc etc.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
and when did i say atenism didnt have its share of influence. hell even the sumerians had their infludnece. (eg - the "enuma slish" story from where comes the 6 day creation concept and the "gilgamesh" story that begat the flood myth).
what i said is, judaism as it exists today/the final (post exilic) form of judaism, was shaped by the "pharisees", during the babylonian exile. thats why there is a marked difference between pre and post exilic judaism - something that even led freud to observe that there may have been 2 moses's.
and since it is this post exilic judaism from where came christianity* and islam, its fair to say that the major monotheistic religions as we know/see them, originated from the zorastrians (pharisees).
* its a diferent matter that christianity then went on to borrow from a host of sources, including, mithraism, egyptian religion, germanic religion etc etc.
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"..where is it supported by historical evidence and ancient records??"
In the same places where all the other historical evidence and ancient records are kept. Check it out. It's pretty interesting stuff. Akhenaten came along and outlawed the Polytheistic religion which had been in existence for ages - he worship of many gods. He instead ordered that the people of Egypt worship one god - the Aten (or sun god) and he outlawed the old religion. He and his followers were eventually driven out into the desert where he died, and the old religious order was restored. So much about his life has parallels with the life of moses.
yes.
i do think it is an interesting discussion, certainly thought over many, many times..i am sure this is not a unique discussion...sure to have crossed the minds of the great philosophers/thinkers, etc. taking it a step further...even if one were to believe religion is the root of all evils in the world, considering it also has seemed to exist in some form or another probably again, since the earliest beginnings of humanity......what does one suggest? a crusade to wipe religion from the face of the earth? i guess that is one course of action..although i think that would lead to the bloodiest/ugliest war waged ever...and i don't think it would come to fruition b/c although many are divided by their religious beliefs...it seems many DO have religious beliefs, and i don't think they'd give them up easily.
so then, while it makes for an interesting debate...i don't think any solutions lie in it...except to look further and think...what do we as a human society and global culture have in common, that can unite us, instead of focusing on all that is different and divides us...and work from there. even then, the baser instincts still exist, the greed still exists...so we still have to focus on ways to NOT engage in conflict, over ANY idea/concept/resource...and find ways to balance it all out.
so whether one agrees/disagrees with the initial thread premise..it still leaves us exactly where we are, and i personally do not believe trying to get people to change their beliefs will assist, if anything i would think it would hinder...so then...we STILL need to find solutions..whether religious, non-religious, etc....how to find the balance and stop killing each other.....for whatever 'cause' one decides is worthy.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
wouldn't a war to remove religion be another religious war? like the athiest debate. they are "bothered" by religious words and symbols and fight to the supreme court to get their way. i am not bothered by a cross atop a building or the star of david. freedom to believe is also the freedom not to believe. removing these words and symbols violates my freedom to believe. i believe this is one nation "under God" yet i am not allowed to express my beliefs.
just something to think about.
it was all hypothetical...b/c i do not think, although of course i could be wrong, anyone is suggesting ridding the world of religion. i was merely taking it to that extreme for illustrative purposes, that no matter what....even sans religion, we'd still have most of the same problems/issues/wars/death.
i consider myself an agnostic....and again, i cannot speak for true atheists...but evenso...i don't think the issue lies with 'having a problem with' religious symbols...but moreso that they have NO place within any context of our governemnt. sure, feel free to believe this is a nation under God if you desire...but if you don't believe...why should that be on our currency?...or why swear on a bible in a court of law?....etc. THAT is ALL about what our country was supposed to be about...seperation of church and state. however, a completely different debate...and i would have to agree with the idea of seperation of church and state...religion has no place in our government if we are a TRULY free society, for ALL to follow their own beliefs...seems fair imho.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i know you were taking it to the extreeme. i understood that.
as to your WHY's; because 87% of the populous believe in religion. isn't it majority rule anymore?
honestly, what difference does that make? we are supposed to be a country based on religious freedom, seperation of church and state. therefore, no matter what the 'majority' practices/believes in regards to faith...is of no consequence..or shouldn't be...b/c we are supposed to keep religion and government seperate.
anyhoo......hasn't the 'majority' had it's way in any case? don't we ALL have the right to vote, and thus the majority would then have the most voice/power.....and thus why there isn't much change in that regard? as far as i know, it still says 'in god we trust' on our currency, etc. majority or minority, we ALL have the right to have our opinions heard. whether it leads to change or not, depends on a whole lot else. i don't know, to me, even if one is religious i would think they could agree what they believe and what is right for the country in regards to such matters, really should be seperate.
just an aside tho...amongst the 87%...are they all christian? believe in the bible or the 10 commandments, etc? if not, even amongst the religious...there is little to no meaning to swearing on a bible let's say.....and again, even amongst the minority....government should INCLUDE everyone, not EXCLUDE...thus religious language should not be present. religion is a CHOICE, a personal choice....government and laws are or should be seperate. merely my 2 cents.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
What the f++{~@ck are you on about? Or, maybe I should have said, what the f++{~@ck are you on?
read this -
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/zoroastrianism_influence.htm
and if you still cant understand, then maybe you could tell me what the fuck are you smoking.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Car exhaust pipes! You should try it sometime. They give you profound insight into things of a religious nature. :eek:
To quote from the source that you provide above:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"(Exodus 20:3). The full monotheistic conception of God came later (Isaiah 43:10-13, Jer 10:1-16).The second Isaiah juxtaposes the great Persian King Cyrus with the first monotheistic declarations in the Bible."
The point is, we were debating when and where the first monotheistic religion arose. The answer to the question is that the first monotheistic religion that we know of in history arose during the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt - 1353 BC-1336 BC or 1351 BC–1334 BC. There is ample evidence that this religion of the one god - the sun god, or Aten had an influence on early Christianity, as there are many parellels in the two religions - especially the religious views of the Essenes - who were the first Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten
This isn't supposition. This is historical fact. Why do you keep arguing for the mere sake of it?
The Exodus, more fully The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, was the departure of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron as described in the biblical Book of Exodus. It forms the basis of the Jewish holiday of Passover. See also Passage of the Red Sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_exodus
the point is we were debating, which was the first of the 4 existing monotheistic religions.
atenism or whatever its called isnt existant, and did not shape post (babylonian) exilic judaism. zorastrianism did and post exilic judaism can be traced back to the phareesees, and not aten.
why do you keep arguing for the mere sake of it??
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
And on what evidence do you base this assertion? Why do you presume that Atenism had no influence upon Judaism?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1591430461/202-9530431-1508639?v=glance&n=266239
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1591430224/202-9530431-1508639?v=glance&n=266239
In 'Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion' author Ahmed Osman, contends that there is a suppressed history of Christianity that can be traced back to ancient Egypt. He compares the chronology of the Old Testament and its factual content with ancient Egyptian records to show that the major characters of the Hebrew Scriptures - including Solomon, David, Moses and Joshua - are based on Egyptian historical figures. He further suggests that not only were these personalities and the stories associated with them cultivated on the banks of the Nile, but the major tenets of Christian belief - the One God, the Trinity, the hierarchy of heaven, life after death and the virgin birth - are all Egyptian in origin. He likewise provides a convincing argument that Jesus himself came out of Egypt. With the help of modern archaeological findings, Osman shows that Christianity survived as an Egyptian mystery cult until the fourth century A.D., when the Romans embarked on a mission of suppression and persecution. In A.D. 391 the Roman-appointed Bishop Theophilus led a mob into the Serapeum quarter of Alexandria and burned the Alexandrian library, destroying all records of the true Egyptian roots of Christianity. The Romans' version of Christianity, manufactured to maintain political power, claimed that Christianity originated in Judaea. In 'Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion' Osman restores Egypt to its rightful place in the history of Christianity.
for evidence you could see the links i posted.
and when did i say atenism didnt have its share of influence. hell even the sumerians had their infludnece. (eg - the "enuma slish" story from where comes the 6 day creation concept and the "gilgamesh" story that begat the flood myth).
what i said is, judaism as it exists today/the final (post exilic) form of judaism, was shaped by the "pharisees", during the babylonian exile. thats why there is a marked difference between pre and post exilic judaism - something that even led freud to observe that there may have been 2 moses's.
and since it is this post exilic judaism from where came christianity* and islam, its fair to say that the major monotheistic religions as we know/see them, originated from the zorastrians (pharisees).
* its a diferent matter that christianity then went on to borrow from a host of sources, including, mithraism, egyptian religion, germanic religion etc etc.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
You need to smoke car exhaust pipes! :eek: