Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 07-09-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Roger: you used that phrase yourself earlier. Look at my previous post and all will be revealed to the capable reader. Perhaps you can manage that.

What is the point of insulting your opponent with every post? Is there something you wish to accomplish with this approach?

deadman_932 · 07-09-2007, 07:14 AM

I didn't consider that an insult, Dave. Do you? Odd that you didn't complain when Roger Pearse was using similarly curt language. As to your previous question, you gave no citation to the Burmese , Chinese or Ceylonese claims you listed. I had also asked if you had actually read this work you're using.

deadman_932 · 07-09-2007, 07:16 AM

Oh, and I don't insult with every post, Dave. I consider that an insult for you to suggest it.

Lucretius · 07-09-2007, 07:19 AM

Dave the term you say you were unfamilar with in the work you cited is

Title Asiatic Researches, or Transactions of the Society. Calcutta
Abbreviation Asiat. Res.
Publication dates Vols. 1-20, 1788-1839.

Oddly Harvard University has this stored in their "Herbaria" index of Botanical books

By the way the other "cryptic " reference you mentioned
Horat. Carm. lib. i. od. 3" is quite simple Horat = Horatius = Horace
Carm= Carmen Saeculorum = The Odes
and lib. i.od.3 is Book 1 Ode 3

Dean Anderson · 07-09-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirley knott

And Dave, dearie, here's a bit of a conundrum, based soley on historical documents and your assertions.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I buy your flood story and extended human age story without reservation. And that I am firmly committed, as you claim to be, to evaluation of the documentary artifacts, the texts, left from past ages.
Now I see a huge problem.
How do you account for the documentary evidence of the Egyptian pantheon, many and varied, and syncretic, as it was? How do you account for the children and grandchildren of Noah, during Noah's lifetime, creating one of the most vast and elaborate polytheims known to humanity, with no faintest trace of Yahweh, a world-encomassing flood, demonstrable recent experience of the wrath of god, and with no mention of monotheism, Yahweh, or even a rejection of 'the god of our father(s)'?
How is this non-trivial discrepancy to be handled?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Some scholars, apparently including Petrie regarding Egypt, believe that Monotheism is the oldest form of theology. See this link http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm

As usual, you imply that Petrie agrees with you when his quotes that you link to show the complete opposite.

Petrie's claim is that we get the following sequence:

1) Each isolated tribe - except those who stick with simple animism - invents its own 'god' to be in charge of things.

2) As tribes interact with each other, we get the system known as Henotheism, where each tribe has its own patron, although the gods of other tribes are acknowledged as existing (although inferior to their own, of course).

3) As tribes merge and become nations, they don't cease to believe in their own gods, they merely join them together to form national pantheons.

4) As time goes on, these multiple gods are sometimes merged - and seen as differing aspects of (or even simply different stories about) the same God, rather than separate gods.

This - that people started with belief in lots of gods and eventually end up with belief in one God - is the very opposite of what you want us to believe; which is that originally everyone in the world worshipped the same God but then their children and grandchildren suddenly developed sophisticated systems of Polytheism whilst their parents were still alive and worshiping the "true" God.

Interestingly, this system of Henotheism and merging of gods is exactly what the older parts of the Bible show, as the various Canaanite tribes started with their own gods, and then they formed a henotheistic pantheon - and stories of El and Yaw and Baal and Yah(weh) and Ashtoreth (and there are some of these stories still left the Bible, although later editors and translators do their best to hide their polytheism) started getting merged until you end up with the monotheistic tradition of the Hebrews as evident in the later parts of the Hebrew Bible.

deadman_932 · 07-09-2007, 07:25 AM

Lucretius: I found that as "1788-1839 Asiatick Researches, or, Transactions of the Society instituted in Bengal. "
"Asiatick" has that nice archaic look

Chili · 07-09-2007, 07:41 AM

What afdave really means to say, I think, is that the old age of the ancients is their way of expressing the extent to which they lived in the Thousand Year Reign. This ocean of knowledge exists in the mind of man but is available to only to raised (or enlightened) humans in a rational way as opposed to being the source for inspiration before enlightenment. This would be where Buddhinsm has Nairatmya (soullessness) and we have the New Heaven and New Earth now without the sea (Rev.21:1).

The Evil One · 07-09-2007, 07:43 AM

No, afdave really means to say that they literally lived literal ~1,000 year lives, Chili. Just because you interpret the entire Bible as one long mystical metaphor doesn't mean everyone else does.

deadman_932 · 07-09-2007, 07:51 AM

The odd thing to me is that Chili's interpretation would make more sense to me than Dave's. Now I'm just scared.

Dave Hawkins · 07-09-2007, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Some scholars, apparently including Petrie regarding Egypt, believe that Monotheism is the oldest form of theology. See this link http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm

As usual, you imply that Petrie agrees with you when his quotes that you link to show the complete opposite.

Petrie's claim is that we get the following sequence:

1) Each isolated tribe - except those who stick with simple animism - invents its own 'god' to be in charge of things.

2) As tribes interact with each other, we get the system known as Henotheism, where each tribe has its own patron, although the gods of other tribes are acknowledged as existing (although inferior to their own, of course).

3) As tribes merge and become nations, they don't cease to believe in their own gods, they merely join them together to form national pantheons.

4) As time goes on, these multiple gods are sometimes merged - and seen as differing aspects of (or even simply different stories about) the same God, rather than separate gods.

This - that people started with belief in lots of gods and eventually end up with belief in one God - is the very opposite of what you want us to believe; which is that originally everyone in the world worshipped the same God but then their children and grandchildren suddenly developed sophisticated systems of Polytheism whilst their parents were still alive and worshiping the "true" God.

Interestingly, this system of Henotheism and merging of gods is exactly what the older parts of the Bible show, as the various Canaanite tribes started with their own gods, and then they formed a henotheistic pantheon - and stories of El and Yaw and Baal and Yah(weh) and Ashtoreth (and there are some of these stories still left the Bible, although later editors and translators do their best to hide their polytheism) started getting merged until you end up with the monotheistic tradition of the Hebrews as evident in the later parts of the Hebrew Bible.

No, Dean. You missed this part from Petrie ...

Quote:

"Were the conception of a god only an evolution from such spirit worship, we should find the worship of many gods preceding the worship of one god ... What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first stage traceable in theology ...

Keep reading in that link and you find this ...

Quote:

Stephen Langdon believed that monotheism preceded polytheism. He made his point very clearly: "In my opinion the history of the oldest civilisation of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits. It is in a very true sense the history of the fall of man." Stephen Langdon continued to hold that view, five years later,in The Scotsman, November 18, 1936:

"The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of photographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2007, 07:14 AM	#292
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	I didn't consider that an insult, Dave. Do you? Odd that you didn't complain when Roger Pearse was using similarly curt language. As to your previous question, you gave no citation to the Burmese , Chinese or Ceylonese claims you listed. I had also asked if you had actually read this work you're using.

07-09-2007, 07:16 AM	#293
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	Oh, and I don't insult with every post, Dave. I consider that an insult for you to suggest it.

07-09-2007, 07:19 AM	#294
Lucretius Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: . Posts: 1,014	Dave the term you say you were unfamilar with in the work you cited is Title Asiatic Researches, or Transactions of the Society. Calcutta Abbreviation Asiat. Res. Publication dates Vols. 1-20, 1788-1839. Oddly Harvard University has this stored in their "Herbaria" index of Botanical books By the way the other "cryptic " reference you mentioned Horat. Carm. lib. i. od. 3" is quite simple Horat = Horatius = Horace Carm= Carmen Saeculorum = The Odes and lib. i.od.3 is Book 1 Ode 3

07-09-2007, 07:25 AM	#296
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	Lucretius: I found that as "1788-1839 Asiatick Researches, or, Transactions of the Society instituted in Bengal. " "Asiatick" has that nice archaic look

07-09-2007, 07:41 AM	#297
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	What afdave really means to say, I think, is that the old age of the ancients is their way of expressing the extent to which they lived in the Thousand Year Reign. This ocean of knowledge exists in the mind of man but is available to only to raised (or enlightened) humans in a rational way as opposed to being the source for inspiration before enlightenment. This would be where Buddhinsm has Nairatmya (soullessness) and we have the New Heaven and New Earth now without the sea (Rev.21:1).

07-09-2007, 07:43 AM	#298
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	No, afdave really means to say that they literally lived literal ~1,000 year lives, Chili. Just because you interpret the entire Bible as one long mystical metaphor doesn't mean everyone else does.

07-09-2007, 07:51 AM	#299
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	The odd thing to me is that Chili's interpretation would make more sense to me than Dave's. Now I'm just scared.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.