Is Akhenaton the founder of monotheism?

Guys, there are a few personal comments creeping into the posts, I am not singling anyone out, but try to focus on the argument and not on the person.This is a very good thread, lets not waste it by lowering the standards. If you do not agree with someone, you will not change their opinion with insults.AdminBrian

Thanks Rei, thanks Holmes!
I just did not have enough energy to reply to Speel-vi's post. As Holmes wrote: This was so false I did not know where to begin.... I think that your posts are more than sufficient while Speel's last post is about something completely different, so please, Speel, if you are interested in religious development of foragers, I think you can create a separate thread about it. This one is about Akhenaton and his possible influence to Judaism. So once again: Is Akhenaton the founder of monotheism?------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.[This message has been edited by Raha, 09-22-2003]

What are you talking about? Did you read your own link? The Aka believe in two types of spirits - personalized, and nameless. The named spirits include their family spirits. Some spirits are bad, some are good. You yourself listed two "gods" that they believe in. How on earth do you get that this is monotheistic? It's patently animist. It's all about forest spirits, ancestral spirits, etc.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-22-2003]

"A social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers"The Aka do not fit this definition at all. They live in loose bands with nothing resembling a central authority. No chiefs, no slaves etc etc.Yes, they are animists and most animists have the idea of a Creator within their culture. Bembe made all living things. Looks pretty cut and dried to me.

quote:

---

There is no reason to assume that the next "stage of development" for the Aka will be to build temples and worship many gods.

---

They already worship many gods. They already worship several deities. That makes them polytheistic. What is your point? I would have rplied to your more recent post to rei, but that post post makes less sense than this one.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Must disagree for the same reason Christians have angels and demons. These are spirits and they are not worshipped. Angels may be revered, but they are not worshipped as gods. Dzengi the forest spirit is not worshipped either. (If you like, you can distinguish between ghosts, spirits and gods.) Bembe is an indifferent god and is not really worshipped in the sense that a polytheistic god might be. But he is the Creator all the same.So did Akhenaton start monotheism? Most likely he did not since it is assumed that humans have the same mind and can come up with the same solution to the same problem. Examples of this are the Mayan and Egyptian pyramids, agriculture having multiple origins in the Nile, Indus, Mesopotamia, Meso-America, The Andes and China. Then you have Darwin and Wallace simultaneously thinking up evolution and Leibniz and Newton for calculus. These are examples of parallel evolution involving the human mind. It is not necessary for people to be in direct communication in order for them to achieve the same idea. (Regardless of what Von Daniken may think )The problem I see it as is one of, "How did all this come to be?" as in what a human could think of while observing his environment. The answer to that question would be that some entity had to have made it. We see the same type of legends from Tierra Del Fuego to the Arctic. Humans will solve the same problem with the same idea no matter what it is.Now if you decide that you want specific type of monotheism that is represented by the Judeo-Christian type, then no, he couldn't do that either since his religion was heavily into a specific symbol, the Sun.In Judiaism, the very name of God was not to be spoken. He was never referred to as Jehovah and instead was referred to as Elohim or Adonai. While Aton was spoken of constantly. With Judaism, there was never a symbol to represent Him and it was a bottom up religion rather than the top down structure of Akhenaton. The two religions may have some similarities, but the ethics of Judaism seperate it from all others. It truly lacked class distinction from the very beginning, this is very unlike any religion nearby.

Prohetic dreams and visions are the basis of monotheism, but there is material proof.
The most basic principle of old mechanical physics is that for every thing that is occuring there must have been a cause. This is the basis of the scientific method, math, and mythology. One day, many thousands of years ago, while thinking about the origin of such an important thing as, for example, the sun it must have occured to a man that whatever put the sun there must have had a creator, that air must have been created, that time itself, the essence of our existence, must have been created.
This is the material proof of God. God is the force behind the creation of existence, and therefore the cause of everthing.---------------------------------------------------------Now had something that people could not have been made, been made that would be an incredible feat. The creation of time and space however is something our minds cannot even comprehend, this is something truly worthy of awe. In ancient times men were usually the ones in charge of building things, so this is why God is often portrayed as a man (according to the Holy Bible god lives forever, is and is both masculine and feminine) Now let us stop to reflect on that.---------------------------------------------------------The idea of such a powerful being is perfect for controlling peole. God can do anything he wants to punish or reward you, and if only the priests can speak to God then the priests can tell the people exactly what to do. If you have a large empire, that's hard to rule teaching monotheism will keep the people orderly. An after life that includes Punishment is also very sensible, because relieves the governement of law enforcement duties.---------------------------------------------------------So you can now see how monotheism arose, and why it was distorted. It does not need a single source.------------------
"That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die."

Cool we are back on track... I have already mentioned this interesting phenomenon in Judaism which actually HELPS the theory that Akhenaton was its founder.His religion was smashed in a wave of iconoclasm, and its adherents pressed into slavery. That put a bunch of monotheists into slavery in Egypt before Judaism has officially appeared as a religion in Egypt.Furthermore after the wave of iconoclasm any adherents (now slaves) that would want to continue in secret would find it very convenient to stop using icons. Also, so that one could not be accused of practicing the banished religion, the God stops being referred to by a name. It prevents others from gaining power over that God by being able to identify it by a name.This would be a wonderful survival tactic for a religion under intense scrutiny and persecution. It made it all that much stronger.Wouldn't this explain Judaism's particularly interesting tenets of an unknown creator God that hates icons, even of himself.This tactic served Judaism and then Xtianity under following repressive regimes.And it all appears after a huge crush of a particular monotheistic religion in Egypt? This is not definitive, but pretty nice circumstantial evidence.------------------
holmes

If your definition of monotheism is that there is a creator (whether or not they're the most powerful or the only one), that's a pretty darn weird definition of monotheism. MonoTheism = One God. PolyTheism = Many Gods. Please name a religion that you would consider by polytheistic by your incredibly odd definition. Even the Greeks and Romans - the stereotypical polytheistic society - only have one creator - chaos. Chaos gave birth to the earth (Gaea), who gave birth to the sky (Uranus). In Egyptian mythology, the sun (Atum) was the creator, who created Shu and Tefnut, who then give birth to Geb and Nut.I think perhaps you're using the wrong terms in your argument. Perhaps you mean to argue that belief in a creator is inherent, and priests try to take it away? But if that is your argument, how do you get that priests try and take away belief in a creator?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I'm am aware of the meaning of poly and mono. Hinduism would be polytheistic. So would the religions of the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians since they conveniently placed the ruler right up there with all the other gods. It's a tough thing to do with monotheism.The gods you speak of are anthropomorphic, they are created in the image of man. They give birth, have afairs and generally behave capriciously, like civilized humans do.Cultures do not go through stages to achieve and end result that looks like Western/Cosmopolitan culture. There are many routes to take to get to a number of destinations with monotheism being only one of those destinations.Morgan's premise is that societies go through Savagry, Barbarism and finally through to Civilization. It has been an excuse to oppress people for many years and we still have the idea with Developed/Developing countries rather than Exploiting/Exploited countries.But we know that cultures develop along lines that may not end in the result of a civilization. Thus forager cultures are not merely arrested groups of humans that need help to achieve the ultimate goal of becoming civilized.The linearity of animism to polytheism to monotheism is along those lines and it is not necessarily true. Another problem that holmes faces is the idea of diffusion (or memes exchanging places) between populations. This is not always so.My "obsession" with foraging is why any culture would adopt agriculture in the first place when foraging should have been sufficient to meet peoples needs.

Very interesting point Holmes! Yes, it makes perfect sense and I am dumb I did not think about it myself. Even if it is not true, it will make very good story! ------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

I agree with that - animism need not to lead to polytheism and polytheism in fact very rarely led to monotheism, but - we know that every monotheistic culture was once polytheistic and every polytheistic culture was animistic, totemistic or so.
(I speak about natural development only - I do not count cultures that were forcibly christianized or islamized). I already expressed my opinion about this: ------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

So, you consider Hinduism, as well as Greek and Roman, and Egyptian mythology to be polytheistic? I already showed that Greek and Roman and Egyptian mythologies have a single "creator", so then you switch to "putting their leaders up as Gods". Yet, the Greeks didn't do that - that was considered sacrilege. The Romans only did that through part of their history. The Hindus didn't do that - and yet they have just one creator, Lord Brahma. The three prime entities are Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver), and Shiva (destroyer). In fact, all Gods in Hinduism are seen as one aspect of a supreme being, but that's probably irrelevant to you. The Hindus, also, did not elevate their leaders to be seen as Gods. And where on earth did you get this *new* definition for polytheism? If your complaint is about cultures which elevated their leaders to be seen as Gods, your complaint should be about that, not about polytheism. You may well have a valid complaint about such cultures and oppression, although I think you may have a hard time defending it concerning most (not all) of the Egyptian dynasties (many of which even had laws that guaranteed women equal pay as men for doing the same task, amongst others; some even provided workers with medical benefits and gave ample vacation time - one record even shows a worker requesting (and being granted) permission for time off so that he could brew beer. Of course, some Egyptian dynasties were not nearly so kind.).

quote:

---

The gods you speak of are anthropomorphic, they are created in the image of man

---

So are the Gods of virtually all tribes that I listed. And, BTW, you may want to rescind that remark, seing as..."Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image...'" (Gen 1:26)
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Gen 9:16).
"Toward evening they heard the LORD God walking about in the garden, so they hid themselves among the trees. The LORD God called to Adam, "Where are you?" He replied, "I heeard you, so I hid. I was afraid because I was naked." Who told you that you were naked?" the LORD God asked. "Have you eaten the fruit I commanded you not to eat?" "Yes," Adam admitted, but it was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit, and I ate it." Then the LORD God asked the woman, "How could you do such a thing?" .... (Gen 3:8-13)

quote:

---

They give birth, have affairs, and generally behave capriciously, like civilized humans do.

---

Like the Gods in most tribal societies do, as well. And again, you may wish to rescind that, at least the capricious, humanlike behavior part. The reasons God gives for the devestation on Egypt - including innocent children, are: to show that he is Lord. To show that there is none like him in all the earth. To show his great power. To cause his name to be declared throughout the earth. To give the Israelites something to talk about with their children. To show that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt. On the way back, God has Joshua mow down Amalek and all of his people. He then says that a slave may be beaten to death as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly. He gives orders like "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor". He then has them kill 3000 men. By the way, I'm only up to Exodus here...Yes, you can argue, "But they were evil!". And I'm sure supporters of Athena viewed the people she killed as evil, and followers of Apollo the people that he killed evil, etc. The point is, God is behaving like a human. He killed his foes as mercilessly - and even his own people - as Apollo. He even killed the innocents among his own people at times, just to show his people who's in charge. But, once again...This Has Nothing To Do With Polytheism/Monotheism. The Only Thing That Is Relevant To Them Is Whether There Is One Or Many Gods.Your discussions of exploitation are irrelevant to the point - the fact remains that most simple tribal cultures are *polytheistic* (and especially animist), and most major civilizations are more toward monotheism. It isn't universal, but it's a clear cut statistical trend. Your attempts to redefine monotheism in various odd ways don't change facts. Most small civilizations (i.e., tribes) that haven't been exposed to missionaries worship multiple gods and/or animal spirits. Most major civilizations - Hinduism being the only major exception, and it has become far more monotheistic than its ancient roots - are monotheistic. It's something that you need to deal with.To your only relevant point in the discussion (i.e., one that doesn't require completely redefining terms to fit your world view on oppression):

quote:

---

My "obsession" with foraging is why any culture would adopt agriculture in the first place when foraging should have been sufficient to meet people's needs.

---

Actually, a very astute remark. In fact, if you look at the fossil record, there is a very dramatic decline in the health of civilizations that switch from foraging to early agriculture. Most early foraging tribes had surprisingly little incidence of bone disease, joint problems, etc. When they switch to agriculture, all of the sudden clear signs of disease pop up everywhere. Both diseases due to malnutrition, sanitation, and overpopulation are rampant. Why switch?Well, the simple fact is that wilderness cannot support very large numbers of people on its own. Societies that switch to agriculture gain one major advantage: Numbers. Agriculture allows for a much greater population, and thus, much greater military strength. Even though the individual is generally much worse-off in an early agricultural society, the societies that switched to agriculture were the societies that survived better, and gave rise to the major early civilizations.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hindism is syncretistic and in fact the actual worship of dieties is one way to worship the central diety. The distinction for simple societies is that they do not worship spirits in the way you would worship a god.You might also wish to consider that foragers did not have civilizations, rather they have culture. They are two distinct concepts.But back to Raha's premise...The argument here is whether the idea of monotheism is a homologous or an analogous evolutionary lineage. If we could see it as homologous, we then would expect to see structures within the lineages to be similar. Holmes suggests that what we now see with Judaism is that the religion went underground to avoid persecution by hiding features such as the name or image of the object of worship. The confounding problem here as I see it, is that the worshippers made no secret of their religion and that they feared divine retribution more than the temporal punishments meted out by the ruling class. They may not have called their god by name, but they resisted the worship of earthly rulers time and again. This got them into trouble with the Pharoah as well as later with the Ceasars.If it were an analogous idea having popped up multiple times, then you would see it with different structures underlying the main idea. With Judaism you have an extremely egalitarian structure and the Mosaic Law unique to the area of the time. In fact I do believe that it gave the Hebrews a competitive advantage over other cultures in the area.The egalitarian nature of Judaism is very reminiscent of forager cultures.

Hi Rei, It would seem to me that people who consider Hinduism polytheistic would also have to consider Christianity the same. If they claim Christianity to be monotheistic then wouldn't they also have to say that Hinduism is also?------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato