2 of 3
2
Philosophical Timeline Through Art
Posted: 12 January 2008 12:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24
Celsus - 12 January 2008 02:25 PM
Yahun - 12 January 2008 03:08 AM
Celsus - 12 January 2008 12:18 AM

Right, merchants were moving lions into Europe 15,000 years ago, or roughly about the time Alphabetic script was being developed in Mesopotamia. Sure they were.

You have proof that there were lions in Europe 15,000 years ago? I would love to see that proof. Could you provide a link, please?

Well,I thought I had, but OK. To start, this article contains a passage from the Greek writer of travelouges, Pausanias:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B01E4DF1E3DE433A2575BC0A9679D94649ED7CF

Here are a couple of articles on lions in Europe:
http://www.abc.net.au/beasts/factfiles/factfiles/european_lion.htm
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_087.html

On the Asiatic lion, (Panthera leopersica), which, you’ll note, still exist in the wild in Inda. (I suppose you’ll try to claim that they are african lions that were imported there along some prehistoric version of the silk road, and then proceeded to excape into the wild and form sustainable breed ing populations)
http://www.asiatic-lion.org/distrib.html
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0106/feature3/
http://wildlywise.com/asiatic_lions.htm
http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/asiatic-lions-pc.cfm

Just because lions are extinct in Europe, Palestine, and much of North Africa today, doesn’t mean that they never lived there.

Okay, you are right. Lions were everywhere. Yay Lions!

Unfortunately that was not the purpose of this thread. This thread isn’t about Lions or even about the story of Samson who killed a thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey (not 999 or 1001, but exactly 1,000 and there was a man with him counting).

The point of this thread is the connection between the philosophies of all the major “prophets”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19
Yahun - 12 January 2008 05:27 PM

Okay, you are right.

I appreciate just how difficult that must have been for you to type.

As for the rest, when I have a little more free time, perhaps I shall see what else I can demolish.

 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24
Celsus - 12 January 2008 05:35 PM
Yahun - 12 January 2008 05:27 PM

Okay, you are right.

I appreciate just how difficult that must have been for you to type.

Not really.

As for the rest, when I have a little more free time, perhaps I shall see what else I can demolish.

Looking forward to it. Since you are treating this seriously I will set down my games and be serious with you on this subject. Let’s start from the original post and work down to where we currently are. Is there anything in the first thread that you do not agree with? If so, why? Please provide what you consider evidence against it with your reply. Then I will do the same and we will discuss each post until we have thoroughly resolved it and then we’ll move on to the next.

Sound good?

[ Edited: 12 January 2008 12:58 PM by Yahun]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19

That wasn’t “cherry picking”, I was just a responding to the most easily refutable notion that you have expressed.

It’s also to point out that if you could be wrong about something that is, historically speaking, as plain as the nose on your face, what else might you be mistaken about? 

Edit: I know others have pointed out the same issue, but it is really annoying how you change large portions of your post whilst others may be responding to them. To edit for the purpose of spelling, grammer, punctuation or sytax is fine and dandy, but if you feel the need to change the entire notion of what you have expressed, perhaps you should just consider placing it in a new post.

[ Edited: 12 January 2008 01:07 PM by Celsus]
 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24
Celsus - 12 January 2008 06:01 PM

That wasn’t “cherry picking”, I was just a responding to the most easily refutable notion that you have expressed.

It’s also to point out that if you could be wrong about something that is, historically speaking, as plain as the nose on your face, what else might you be mistaken about? 

Edit: I know others have pointed out the same issue, but it is really annoying how you change large portions of your post whilst others may be responding to them. To edit for the purpose of spelling, grammer, punctuation or sytax is fine and dandy, but if you feel the need to change the entire notion of what you have expressed, perhaps you should just consider placing it in a new post.

If I make a new post then people will complain about the number of posts; if I edit my post people complain that I don’t make another post. If I post as Yahun people call me Yahsene; if I post as Yahsene people call me Yahun. If I say that the identity is an illusion people claim that the identity is authentic; if I say that the identity is authentic people say that the identity is not authentic and that I have constructed it to feel superior.

Do you see the pattern? Probably not. I have argued one side and had people line up on this site to refute it. Then I flipped it and argued the side they were previously arguing and now they are refuting it. You people are disturbed. That is why I find it funny, because you think that I am disturbed. It is the ultimate irony.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24

Whatever I say you will find people who will disagree with it on here, no matter what it is.

Let us start over from here . . . forget everything in this thread and let us begin from the very beginning and go step by step with my (the speaker) actual views and we shall see how far we get. I know that you are much more intelligent than Aaron, Unbeliever and that old man. Perhaps you will prove me wrong.

I will make a simple statement and ask whether you agree or disagree and we will see.


Statement 1: Ikhenaten and Nefertiti were the first Monists that we know about historically. Do you agree or disagree?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 01:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19

Perhaps you should define your notion of monism in this sense. Are you saying their faith is monistic in the sense that they believed that there is a unifying principle that constitutes the ground of reality?  Or are you postulating that it is monistic in the sense that they coalesced all processes, structures, concepts, etc, of the Egyptian religion into one unifying theory based on an underling principle, which would still leave it very much an Egyptian mythology, but with more monthiestic overtones? Perhaps you are indicating that it is monistic because you see their faith as the one determining factor in history, and from thus has grown all other ideals of social interaction?

Before I agree or disagree with anything, I’d like to know just what I am agreeing or disagreeing with.

Perhaps you’d be willing to refresh my memory a bit. My readings of Egyptian mythology were long ago, and weren’t actively pursued because I frankly find the Egyptians morbid. I much prefer the more rambunctious myths of the Norsemen, the Celts, and the Greeks to those of the Egyptians.

 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24
Celsus - 12 January 2008 06:53 PM

Perhaps you should define your notion of monism in this sense. Are you saying their faith is monistic in the sense that they believed that there is a unifying principle that constitutes the ground of reality?  Or are you postulating that it is monistic in the sense that they coalesced all processes, structures, concepts, etc, of the Egyptian religion into one unifying theory based on an underling principle, which would still leave it very much an Egyptian mythology, but with more monthiestic overtones? Perhaps you are indicating that it is monistic because you see their faith as the one determining factor in history, and from thus has grown all other ideals of social interaction?

Before I agree or disagree with anything, I’d like to know just what I am agreeing or disagreeing with.

Perhaps you’d be willing to refresh my memory a bit. My readings of Egyptian mythology were long ago, and weren’t actively pursued because I frankly find the Egyptians morbid. I much prefer the more rambunctious myths of the Norsemen, the Celts, and the Greeks to those of the Egyptians.

What I am saying is that Ikhenaten and Nefertiti were the world’s first known monists. Monist by this definition:

“Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one and a unified set of laws underlie nature.”

They clearly acknowledged that divisions exist in the material world so they were not naive to the material realm, but he wrote in his poems that “all is one on earth and in the heavens beyond”.

Do you agree with this or do you disagree with this?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 02:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24

I really wish Egyptologists would publish everything they know, but of course they don’t because then they are no longer a scientific authority. The Cairo museum and that scmuck who controls all Egyptian artifacts is extremely annoying. They are suppressing facts for the sake of Islam.

There is a good reason to believe that there is one of the world’s largest hidden wealths buried beneath the Sphinx and there is quite a bit of evidence supporting that there are hidden chambers beneath it but the morons in Egypt make money off of people coming to visit the Sphinx so they will not allow for archeologists to dig beneath its surface. People are so obsessed with preserving the past that they are missing out on one of the world’s greatest discoveris. That annoys me tremendously.

[ Edited: 12 January 2008 02:55 PM by Yahun]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  892
Joined  2007-12-04
Yahun - 12 January 2008 07:48 PM

If I make a new post then people will complain about the number of posts; if I edit my post people complain that I don’t make another post.

Here’s a thought. Why don’t you THINK trough what you want said before you post and write one coherent post that you won’t have to change 5 seconds after your press submit.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24
Unbeliever - 12 January 2008 07:53 PM
Yahun - 12 January 2008 07:48 PM

If I make a new post then people will complain about the number of posts; if I edit my post people complain that I don’t make another post.

Here’s a thought. Why don’t you THINK trough what you want said before you post and write one coherent post that you won’t have to change 5 seconds after your press submit.

Why is it that you attempt to troll every thread I make off subject once it begins to take form? You will be ignored until this conversation is finished. You and anybody who does what you are doing. I would like a moderator to note what you are doing. I’ve pointed it out several times. You are the reason why I stopped taking threads seriously on this site. Why should I take them seriously when every conversation is intentionally steered off subject and the mods don’t ban the people who do it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24

When a person cherry picks one sentence out of a reply (every single time) and only responds to that, out of context, then it is very clear what they are doing.

If we were in person I would backhand you and tell you to go away.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19
Yahun - 12 January 2008 07:48 PM

What I am saying is that Ikhenaten and Nefertiti were the world’s first known monists. Monist by this definition:

“Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one and a unified set of laws underlie nature.”

They clearly acknowledged that divisions exist in the material world so they were not naive to the material realm, but he wrote in his poems that “all is one on earth and in the heavens beyond”.

Do you agree with this or do you disagree with this?

Well, I guess I must disagree with your statement.

Part of the problem here, as I refresh my memory on Egyptian religions and history, is that what Akhenaten instituted wasn’t so much a revolution as a suppression. Much of what seems to be contained in his solar theology isn’t new with him, as seen in the Hymn to the Sun God, written by priest during the reign of his father, contained a lacunae on the Aten, or solar disc:

“Self-made you fashioned your body,
Creator uncreated.
Sole one, unique one, who traverses eternity.
Remote one, with millions under his care ;
your splendor is like heaven’s splendor,
your color brighter than its hues.
When you cross the sky all faces see you,
When you set you are hidden from their sight ;
Daily you give yourself at dawn,
Safe is your sailing under your majesty.
In a brief day you race a course,
Hundred thousands, millions of miles ;
A moment is each day to you,
It has passed when you go down. (...)
When you set in the western mountain,
They sleep as in the state of death.”

This seems to foreshadow much of Akhenaten’s ideas, and such notions of the Aten continued to evolve after his reforms had been repealed. It would seem, to me so far, that what he did was to suppress the worship of Amun-Re, which would be the personification of the sun, with the worship of the actual disc, the Aten, or the visible sun. This would mean that his major innovation lay in not in the how of worship, but rather in the what. It would seem that some are arguing that what we see here is less of a monotheistic revolution, but rather an almost rationalistic revolution, albeit with certain mystical overtones. The Aten being worshiped, not in the notion of a divine intelligence, but as a source of the light of life, without which all would be cold, dark, and lifeless.

If there is a monistic notion here, it is that Akhenaten felt that he, himself, was homoiousia, or of the same substance, as the Aten. The Aten was a replacement for the whole notion of the divine, and Akhenaten was one with his divine father, the sun. But this does not seem to possess the universalistic notions that you seem to be expressing, as that Akhenaten didn’t seem to believe that his participation in the divine was accessible to others (even if he gave a nearly divine status to his wife) The divine was represented in him, and he was a representation of the divine. This seemed to provide little hope for his subjects;

“Say to the king, my lord, my Sun, my god :
‘Message of Zitriyara, your servant,
the dirt under your feet, and the mire you tread on.
It fall at the feet of the king, my lord, my Sun, my god.’
7 times and 7 times, both on the stomach and on the back.”

While this has clear implications as a foreshadowing of the same-substance/ similar substance arguments that went on for centuries within Christianity, it would seem that the simple remoteness of the ideas would have kept the one from influence by the other.

Indeed, I would be hesitant on the idea of his monotheism being a direct forbearer of Judaism. The monotheistic ideas of Akhenaten seem to be far to narcissistic to have been a direct influence on the more universal implications of the Jewish faith. I would not discount them as an indirect Influence, as that Palestine was under the control of Egypt for many years before the supposed time of the exodus. It is not unlikely that his notions of a singular deity may have influence the worshipers of Adonai to abandon their polytheistic faith in favor of the elevation of the highest member of their pantheon. I fail to see how a follower of Akhenaten (and how could it have been a priest? It would seem that Akhenaten believed that he alone communed with the Aten, therefore, he would be his own priest.) would be able to convince others to adopt this small minded mysticism, in which god was only god for one. For his religion to morph into Judaism, it would seem that the promoter would have to be an apostate, and would be reforming the faith almost as much as Akhenaten had done.

Indeed, if we are to believe in any of the history that is presented in the Hebrew bible, the Hebrew faith was originally a priestly one, wherein all earthly authority came from the priest. According to legend, it was only at the instigation of the people that a kingdom was instituted. This would seem to run counter to Akhenaten’s reforms, which suppressed the priestly caste and consolidated all religious and political power in the Pharaoh.

So in the sense that Akhenaten saw himself as one with his god, the sun, it could be called monistic. But, from what I can see, much of the delving into Akhenaten’s theology is still in it’s infancy, and there is still much to puzzle out. Far too much, for my taste, to jump to any too concrete conclusions.

Of course, this is just how I see it.

 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 08:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24
Celsus - 13 January 2008 12:31 AM
Yahun - 12 January 2008 07:48 PM

What I am saying is that Ikhenaten and Nefertiti were the world’s first known monists. Monist by this definition:

“Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one and a unified set of laws underlie nature.”

They clearly acknowledged that divisions exist in the material world so they were not naive to the material realm, but he wrote in his poems that “all is one on earth and in the heavens beyond”.

Do you agree with this or do you disagree with this?

Well, I guess I must disagree with your statement.

Part of the problem here, as I refresh my memory on Egyptian religions and history, is that what Akhenaten instituted wasn’t so much a revolution as a suppression. Much of what seems to be contained in his solar theology isn’t new with him, as seen in the Hymn to the Sun God, written by priest during the reign of his father, contained a lacunae on the Aten, or solar disc:

“Self-made you fashioned your body,
Creator uncreated.
Sole one, unique one, who traverses eternity.
Remote one, with millions under his care ;
your splendor is like heaven’s splendor,
your color brighter than its hues.
When you cross the sky all faces see you,
When you set you are hidden from their sight ;
Daily you give yourself at dawn,
Safe is your sailing under your majesty.
In a brief day you race a course,
Hundred thousands, millions of miles ;
A moment is each day to you,
It has passed when you go down. (...)
When you set in the western mountain,
They sleep as in the state of death.”

This seems to foreshadow much of Akhenaten’s ideas, and such notions of the Aten continued to evolve after his reforms had been repealed. It would seem, to me so far, that what he did was to suppress the worship of Amun-Re, which would be the personification of the sun, with the worship of the actual disc, the Aten, or the visible sun. This would mean that his major innovation lay in not in the how of worship, but rather in the what. It would seem that some are arguing that what we see here is less of a monotheistic revolution, but rather an almost rationalistic revolution, albeit with certain mystical overtones. The Aten being worshiped, not in the notion of a divine intelligence, but as a source of the light of life, without which all would be cold, dark, and lifeless.

If there is a monistic notion here, it is that Akhenaten felt that he, himself, was homoiousia, or of the same substance, as the Aten. The Aten was a replacement for the whole notion of the divine, and Akhenaten was one with his divine father, the sun. But this does not seem to possess the universalistic notions that you seem to be expressing, as that Akhenaten didn’t seem to believe that his participation in the divine was accessible to others (even if he gave a nearly divine status to his wife) The divine was represented in him, and he was a representation of the divine. This seemed to provide little hope for his subjects;

“Say to the king, my lord, my Sun, my god :
‘Message of Zitriyara, your servant,
the dirt under your feet, and the mire you tread on.
It fall at the feet of the king, my lord, my Sun, my god.’
7 times and 7 times, both on the stomach and on the back.”

While this has clear implications as a foreshadowing of the same-substance/ similar substance arguments that went on for centuries within Christianity, it would seem that the simple remoteness of the ideas would have kept the one from influence by the other.

Indeed, I would be hesitant on the idea of his monotheism being a direct forbearer of Judaism. The monotheistic ideas of Akhenaten seem to be far to narcissistic to have been a direct influence on the more universal implications of the Jewish faith. I would not discount them as an indirect Influence, as that Palestine was under the control of Egypt for many years before the supposed time of the exodus. It is not unlikely that his notions of a singular deity may have influence the worshipers of Adonai to abandon their polytheistic faith in favor of the elevation of the highest member of their pantheon. I fail to see how a follower of Akhenaten (and how could it have been a priest? It would seem that Akhenaten believed that he alone communed with the Aten, therefore, he would be his own priest.) would be able to convince others to adopt this small minded mysticism, in which god was only god for one. For his religion to morph into Judaism, it would seem that the promoter would have to be an apostate, and would be reforming the faith almost as much as Akhenaten had done.

Indeed, if we are to believe in any of the history that is presented in the Hebrew bible, the Hebrew faith was originally a priestly one, wherein all earthly authority came from the priest. According to legend, it was only at the instigation of the people that a kingdom was instituted. This would seem to run counter to Akhenaten’s reforms, which suppressed the priestly caste and consolidated all religious and political power in the Pharaoh.

So in the sense that Akhenaten saw himself as one with his god, the sun, it could be called monistic. But, from what I can see, much of the delving into Akhenaten’s theology is still in it’s infancy, and there is still much to puzzle out. Far too much, for my taste, to jump to any too concrete conclusions.

Of course, this is just how I see it.

Actually Re/Ra had previously been associated with being the God who caused the Sun to rise. Ikhenaten’s Father and Grandfather had been working up to changing everything over to Aten, but they did not have enough influence nor courage to take it on. Ikhenaten decided that it could be no other way. If Amen-Ra and Aten were the same then Ikhenaten would not have went to the trouble he went to in destroying his ties to Amen-Ra (changing his name from Amenhotep IV to Ikhenaten).

We must ask why he made this change. You make an excellect point that his views were moving toward more rational (natural) explanations than that there was an invisible god carrying the Sun named Amen-Ra. We scoff the idea today that the sun could be praised (why praise it when it is just a giant ball of gas), but they could not look directly at the sun then. In fact, all they knew of it was that it was bright as shit during the day (in the desert) and a red ball as it moved beyond the horizon. Observing it was not a simple feat with the eyes.

There is no doubt that Ikhenaten felt a connection to the Sun and claimed a connection to the Aten (which was not the sun but the whole to which the sun was its greatest manifestion for us on earth). But, to say that he felt he was the only one who could be connected is a fallacy as he made his wife Nefertiti a coregent and equal on the throne (which had never been done in Egyptian history before him). If he was one with Aten and she was his equal, then she was one with Aten.

The question is why he said in his poems: “all is one upon the earth and in the heavens beyond.”

That is a very odd statement for a Pharaoh to make. It is easy to accuse this man of being arrogant and vain, but he was born a Pharaoh during Egypts peak of power. He was in control of all of Egypt and had great influence on Babylon and Assyria. Yet there he was, making a woman his equal and giving gold to citizens of his city (when gold had only previously been for royalty and people who achieved great things). He was giving it freely to all of his people. Why? For a Pharoah to refuse going to wars and to portray himself as more deformed than he actually was (and his wife and children as deformed when they were not) is an odd thing. He also portrayed them all nude . . . this is very odd for an arrogant man. His portraits are of him and Nefertiti kissing and loving their children and playing with them, not doing grandiose things. We must ask why. How does the Pharaoh of the greatest empire on earth at that time come off as so absolutely humble? It’s very easy to say that he felt one with Aten and thus he was arrogant and vain, but all of his other actions contradict that view. Perhaps he is misunderstood by modern scholars?

In regards to what you said about it not being a revolution but a suppression, that is actually incorrect. The Pharaohs were originally the law, but over time the cult priests had become much more powerful than the Pharaohs and were using their influence (much as religions are today in America and around the world to influence affairs beyond their churches). A revolution is a suppression of those who hold the power. Has there ever been a revolution that did not require a suppression of a particular elite group and their tools of power?

Atheists today wish to do away with the cults of today (Christianity, Islam, Judaism and there countless branches). Will this revolution not require a suppression of their nonsense in schools and government?

There is no question about the connection between Ikhenaten and Mosis, but we’ll get to that in a little bit. Right now let’s focus on establishing or throwing out the monism. I will provide proof for the Mosis-Ikhenaten connection when we get to it.

[ Edited: 12 January 2008 08:47 PM by Yahun]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2008 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  528
Joined  2007-10-24

There is a very significant meaning in this symbology. The ankh represents life. Ikhenaten, the first known in history, had identified the Sun as the source of all life on earth, displaying life coming down as ankhs from the sun’s rays.

Is this not a scientific discovery on his part?
http://www.kenseamedia.com/egyptian_gods/images/aten_02.jpg
http://www.kenseamedia.com/egyptian_gods/images/aten_01.jpg

And if you look at the following hieroglyph you will find in front of Tut’s wife a sun with two knots, one on each side. This is a hieroglyph meaning “bound around the sun”.
http://www.egyptgiftshop.com/images/papyrus/paintings/king_tut_and_his_wife1large.jpg

[Note, if you go back to the first link to Ikhenaten and Nefertiti you will find the same “bound around the sun” symbol.

[ Edited: 12 January 2008 08:57 PM by Yahun]
Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
‹‹ Mental Slavery      New Approach To Life ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed