Is Akhenaton the founder of monotheism?

quote:

---

They are much different environments, you would expect the codes to be different.

---

The environments are not all that different. The distances are relatively small and due to the size and reach of the empires of Sumer, Babylon, and Egypt and the resultant cross-fertilization of ideas, we'd not expect the codes to be very different. They are not very different.

quote:

---

Agriculture started out in The Levant with the Natufians, not in Mesopotamia.

---

Now you have crossed the line into the ridiculous. The levant is in mesopotamia, otherwise know as the fertile crescent! Bloody hell! Technically, 'mesopotamia' refers to the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. If you insist on this limited usage, say so up front. Otherwise it is convenient to call the whole region mesopotamia. It is fairly common usage and whining about it is just nit-picking anyway. The exact location of the first farming villages makes no difference, being six thousand and more years prior to the time under discussion. No webpage found at provided URL: http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/images/dlottmesomap.gif

quote:

---

As I've said, the Hebrews appear to have a culture more reliant on pastoralism and the code is consistant with this.

---

You haven't said this before, much less made a case for it. How are the codes different? What indicates pastorialism? What indicates agriculture? Please, please, please make a complete argument.

quote:

---

How do these nutrients get replenished? Spontaneous generation? Cow Poop? River silt? Water is the limiting nutrient in most of the cases anyway.

---

You don't understand fallowing? Or agriculture in general? Wow... Food crops deplete particular minerals. In fallow years wild plants grow in the fields altering the chemistry of the soil. Minerals in the soil are always decomposing. During fallow years these minerals have time to accumulate. Sometimes particular plants, like nitrogen fixating plants, are introduced. Crop parasites and diseases are also starved during fallow years and so their numbers are reduced. Livestock, if present, are often allowed to graze the fallow fields. Yes, they do poop in the fields. River silt? Perhaps, if the farmers take the effort to transport it.Water is a big limiting factor in agriculture in general, and fallowing helps increase soil moisture, but it is not the main reason for letting a field lie fallow. Irrigated fields are useless if other nutrients are depleted.

quote:

---

As for shellfish, you are wrong about their safety. Eating something that is safe most of the time is not good enough when a trip to the hospital is not an option.

---

We have been eating shellfish for 300,000 years. How much of that time was a trip to a hospital an option? The benefits outway the risks. That is what counts. That is all that counts.Fungus on corn and wheat can kill. Livestock carry parasites and other diseases. Fish can kill. Food can spoil. Food poisoning is a risk with anything. Shellfish are not a special case.

quote:

---

Israel is not a large tract of land either, it is much less than 100 miles from any point in it to the sea.

---

Why are you talking about Israel? Israel did not exist until 1947 AD. We are talking about 1400 BC.

quote:

---

An example of thousands of years of trial and error succeeding somewhere else.

---

What about the many many more cultures without the shellfish taboo? Why do you think that two taboos against shellfish outway hundreds of cultures without those taboos? See, if eating shellfish is such a bad idea, a taboo against it would be the rule not the exception. I am sure there are reasons for the taboo, but safety isn't it.

quote:

---

I've seen this tactic before where any evidence presented is declared non-evidence since it doesn't support the claim someone want to believe.

---

I'm sure you have. In fact, you see it every time you type.Insisting that you do not redefine the terms is not an unreasonable claim. Asking that you present a monotheistic religion outside of the big three that resembles the big three is a damned reasonable request. But you can't do that, and so you present a 'monotheism' that does not resemble Judaism, Christianity or Islam. It isn't valid, like it or not. When presenting an example of a religion that is like the big three, you must present an example that is LIKE the big three. I don't know why that is hard to understand.

quote:

---

What makes anyone think that a belief system would go from a complex pantheon to a less complex monotheism?

---

What makes you think it wouldn't or couldn't? I don't think there is a strong drive either way, but monotheism did arise in one family of religions.

quote:

---

I think people would be bothered if someone were to say that life started out as a multicellular organism and then went through some retrograde evolution into single celled organisms. We see societies become more complex and then somehow expect the belief systems to go through a retrograde evolution and end up being monotheistic after starting out with complex polytheisms.

---

From complex to less complex is retrograde? Were you not complaining about social darwinism? Well, this is social darwinism. Why are you arguing its premises? Is this why you claim social darwinism is not dead? Is it because you are a social darwinist?Complexity is the side effect. Cultures do tend to get more complicated. This is a side effect of intensification, usually.

quote:

---

That to me sounds a hell of a lot like the Allah of the Muslims and the Yahweh of the Jews.

---

It doesn't sound much different from any other creation myth to me. You have a creator, but not a single god in the pantheon. If you read the whole myth you'll notice that "No longer could any see Creator in its own form but only in the New Fire which continued to speak well into the First Night." You loose the monotheism right there. You've got a pantheon. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.tfn.net/Museum/tales/creation.htmlIt isn't all that hard to find example of single creator gods. But that isn't a demonstration of monotheism.

quote:

---

Neither of these cultures have anything like the anthropomorphic God that is often portrayed in pop culture.

---

Guy with a beard? Sitting on a cloud? No? Really?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The environments are not all that different. The distances are relatively small and due to the size and reach of the empires of Sumer, Babylon, and Egypt and the resultant cross-fertilization of ideas, we'd not expect the codes to be very different. They are not very different.

---

The annual Nile floods are not part of the enviroment in Israel. Climate can change rapidly in hilly terrain with adiabatic cooling affecting soil moisture a great deal. The climate is significantly different in Israel that Egypt never could exert long term control over the region despite its relativly close proximity.There's a lot of differences too in the culture, foremost is the lack of brother-sister marriages anywhere but Egypt.

quote:

---

Now you have crossed the line into the ridiculous. The levant is in mesopotamia, otherwise know as the fertile crescent! Bloody hell!

​

Tell Abu Hureyra ("tell" is arabic for "mound") was a site of an ancient settlement in the northern Levant or western Mesopotamia.
Tell Abu Hureyra - Wikipedia

​

Technically, 'mesopotamia' refers to the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. If you insist on this limited usage, say so up front. Otherwise it is convenient to call the whole region mesopotamia. It is fairly common usage and whining about it is just nit-picking anyway. The exact location of the first farming villages makes no difference, being six thousand and more years prior to the time under discussion.

---

Humpty Dumpty said:

quote:

---

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

---

Then we have John saying:

quote:

---

Insisting that you do not redefine the terms is not an unreasonable claim. Asking that you present a monotheistic religion outside of the big three that resembles the big three is a damned reasonable request. But you can't do that, and so you present a 'monotheism' that does not resemble Judaism, Christianity or Islam. It isn't valid, like it or not. When presenting an example of a religion that is like the big three, you must present an example that is LIKE the big three. I don't know why that is hard to understand.

---

By the constraints given here, Atonism isn't monotheism either.[This message has been edited by Speel-yi, 10-03-2003]

quote:

---

The annual Nile floods are not part of the enviroment in Israel.

---

The Israelites in question didn't live in Israel. Israel did not exist until 1947. The Isrealites wandered all over the middle east.

quote:

---

The climate is significantly different in Israel that Egypt never could exert long term control over the region despite its relativly close proximity.

---

Are you joking? Egypt had garrisons all over the area. The other major empires, in their time, had the same influence. Look it up.

quote:

---

Humpty Dumpty said:

---

Don't be an idiot. I didn't make up the word, or the definition. If I had other people wouldn't be using it. I gave you maps and examples. That you can't accept being wrong is your problem, not mine.

quote:

---

By the constraints given here, Atonism isn't monotheism either.

---

In what way? Akhenaton attempted to crush faith in every God but his own, believing Aton to be the only god.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 10-03-2003]

quote:

---

The Israelites in question didn't live in Israel. Israel did not exist until 1947. The Isrealites wandered all over the middle east.

---

I suppose I could use the word Judea to denote the area. But it wasn't called Judea until Roman times. There was a political entity known as Israel long before 1947.

quote:

---

In what way? Akhenaton attempted to crush faith in every God but his own, believing Aton to be the only god.

---

Aton was borrowed from an existing pantheon, the term for this might be henotheism. The Egyptian pantheon still existed, but worship was limited to Aton. Repression of other religions is not necessarily requisite of monotheism.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

quote:

---

I suppose I could use the word Judea to denote the area.

---

Judea doesn't get it either, and the problem is not the terminology, as you seem to think. The problem is the size of the area to which you refer. The place names in the Bible put the Isrealites over a much broader area than is covered by either Israel or Judea. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/images/canaan.gifIf you recall, you introduced Israel while making the claim that it is one hundred miles from anywhere in Israel to the sea. This was to support the idea that shellfish could have been a source of food if not for the taboo. By referencing a tract of land much smaller than that which the nomadic Israelites actually covered, you biased things in your favor. This is not good argument. It is standard in your posts, however. I cannot decide if you do it intentionally, or if you are truly as confused as you appear. You certainly think you have a handle on things, but every post is full of very basic and very blatant errors.

quote:

---

There was a political entity known as Israel long before 1947.

---

It really does not matter. You introduced the term to denote a geographic location.

quote:

---

Aton was borrowed from an existing pantheon...

---

... as was the god of the old testament. The opening chapters of Genesis is evidence of this. "Let us make them in our image."

quote:

---

the term for this might be henotheism.

---

You might notice that in the OT the worship of other gods is forbidden but those gods still appear to be regarded as gods. Somewhere along the line this attitude changed. By the time of Christ, these gods have been dethroned. If I am not mistaken, Islam is critical of Christianity for not doing so thoroughly enough.

quote:

---

The Egyptian pantheon still existed, but worship was limited to Aton.

---

This is not accurate. Akhenaton set out to destroy the pantheon. His was a religion of one god and one alone.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

You might notice that in the OT the worship of other gods is forbidden but those gods still appear to be regarded as gods. Somewhere along the line this attitude changed. By the time of Christ, these gods have been dethroned. If I am not mistaken, Islam is critical of Christianity for not doing so thoroughly enough.

---

Acknowledging that other god exist is by definition henotheism.Muslims are critical of Christians for polytheism and idolatry.

quote:

---

... as was the god of the old testament. The opening chapters of Genesis is evidence of this. "Let us make them in our image."

---

You've just made a strong argument for the non-existence of monotheism.[This message has been edited by Speel-yi, 10-03-2003]

quote:

---

Acknowledging that other god exist is by definition henotheism.

---

Note your objections to the Akhenaton/Judaism link. You've basically been arguing that the two cultures/faiths are much too different for there to have been a connection. We've now arrived at the conclusion that both faiths, in there early stages, acknowledged other gods. Akhenaton did not immediately push a strong monotheism, though he very quickly got there. The cult of Aton, of course, predated Akhenaton and wasn't quite monotheistic. The Torah hints at the existence of other gods, though the references are few and far between-- exactly what you'd expect of a monotheistic priesthood trying to excise its past.

quote:

---

You've just made a strong argument for the non-existence of monotheism.

---

No. I've made a case for the polytheistic roots of Judaism. This is not the same thing. Another one of your objections dissolves.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

So if I cite a culture that has a diety much like early Judaism; what's the problem there?If Aton was worshipped by anyone predating Akhenaton, then he obviously didn't found monotheism either and it is further evidence for a primative monotheism predating polytheism.You also might consider that Sumerians each had a god for each city-state with each having a temple and priesthood devoted to that specific god. Not exactly polytheism either.

quote:

---

So if I cite a culture that has a diety much like early Judaism; what's the problem there?

---

The problem is that you are, or were, arguing that monotheism is common to foragers and even that monotheism is the default religious sentiment for humans. You have not argued that a diety is like that of early Judaism, but that Judaism is monotheistic and hence is like the religions of foraging peoples. Pointing to a culture that is like early Judaism does not support your point if you concede that early Judaism wasn't monotheistic.

quote:

---

If Aton was worshipped by anyone predating Akhenaton, then he obviously didn't found monotheism...

---

This is ridiculous. People constantly revise concepts of old gods. Aton was a God in a pantheon. Akhenaton elevated Aton to the position of supreme and sole diety. What is hard to understand? Yahweh was a storm god in a pantheon. At some point his followers began to consider him the sole diety. What was the case, does not change what another group of people at another time consider to be the case. You can't mix and match times and places.

quote:

---

... it is further evidence for a primative monotheism predating polytheism.

---

No, it doesn't. It does not follow.1) Aton was part of pantheon
2) Akhenaton elevated Aton to supreme diety
3) Akhenaton wasn't a monotheist or didn't invent monotheism ( contradicts #2 and what we know of history )
4) Therefore, there was a monotheism which predates Akhenaton???? This is nonsense. I dare you to make a valid argument from that.

quote:

---

You also might consider that Sumerians each had a god for each city-state with each having a temple and priesthood devoted to that specific god. Not exactly polytheism either.

---

What? This is nonsense as well. The ancient Greeks were polytheistic, yes? Well, certain cities were devoted to particular gods. This doesn't make them monotheists. If they were they wouldn't have traveled to various temples to ask for favors or offer sacrifice.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Just be consistant with your definitions. Don't apply one for Atonism, another for The Big Three and yet another for the ones you wish to exclude.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

Boy, you are a grab bag of distasteful tactics! Failing to have substantial argument, you've resorted to accusing me of your crimes. You've been equivocating from the get-go, and I am not the first to notice it.I've used the same definitions throughout the debate. You've attempted to equate monotheism with animism-- a move that few monotheists of any flavor would accept, just ask one. You made the bizarre claim that Sumerian religion was not polytheistic because city-states were sacred to particular gods. The same was true of Egyptian religion, Greek, Roman... I guess none of those were polytheistic either? You argued that Hinduism was monotheistic because it accepts only one supreme God with many aspects ( some of which are worshipped as Gods ). Then you argue that Atonism wasn't monotheistic because Aton used to be part of a pantheon. So, we have a monotheistic faith with a pantheon, and a polytheistic faith with only one god? And you have the nerve to tell me to keep my definitions consistent?What you fail to realize is that time is a factor. For example, Atonism prior to Akhenaton would not have been monotheistic. However, this does not change the fact that the faith changed with Akhenaton. The religion became monotheistic. It shouldn't be all that hard to grasp. We are only talking about human conceptions, not solid objects-- not lead into gold.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Israel and Judah(as im sure you know, were two kingdoms.) Hence the name israel A.K.A. Ephraim.As to Genesis 1 where it says let us make man in our image, God may of also been speaking to the other heavenly hosts (Angels).I was always taught that Abraham was the founder of monotheism.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awmike/ac2/Actsofgod.html
This site talks about why Akhenaton was not the founder of Monotheism.Also, waht about Baalism, weren't there those in Canaan who just worshipped Baal?

Monotheism appears to be somewhat more of a slippery topic than what anyone might think. The link you provide is interesting and reminded me of a book I read years ago about the impact of the Thera (Santorini) eruption on the cultures of the Mediterranian. It was a work of fiction, but it linked Atlantis/Thera and Stonehenge in an interesting way.For more on Thera, check this site out:http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Thera.html------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

quote:

---

Israel and Judah(as im sure you know, were two kingdoms.) Hence the name israel A.K.A. Ephraim.

---

Ok. But what is the point?

quote:

---

As to Genesis 1 where it says let us make man in our image, God may of also been speaking to the other heavenly hosts (Angels).

---

The Angels, then, are like God? That doesn't seem to get you out of any theological difficulties. If the Angels were like God, we might as well consider them Gods, yes?

quote:

---

I was always taught that Abraham was the founder of monotheism.

---

The first major difficulty with this is that there is no good reason to think Abraham ever existed at all. He is a mythological founder, many cultures have them. Rome had Romulus and Remus, for example. Along the same lines, the first records of Abraham show up about a thousand years after he was supposed to have lived. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abraham.htmlThe second problem is that Akhenaton's Atonism is the first monotheism on record.

quote:

---

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awmike/ac2/Actsofgod.html

---

Did you read that link? It is a review of a book described several times as pseudo-history. And the author of the review spends most of the article cutting the legs out from under the theory.

quote:

---

Also, waht about Baalism, weren't there those in Canaan who just worshipped Baal?

---

Baal is a very old semitic word and means something like the English 'Lord.' CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baal, Baalim------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I suggest you refer to the book Genesis of the Grail Kings by Laurence Gardner, published in the UK by Bantam Press. The author is keen to promote the legacy of the Old Testament patriarchs from the 3 sons of Adam via Noah and Abraham to Christ and the royal houses of Europe. This is because of his relationship with Freemasonry and he is therefore seeking to make the point that the various states and the early Church usurped the teaching of Jesus Christ in order to exert power over ill-educated common people.Some of his logic is open to question and he tends to be selective in his use of archaeological material. (He asserts that Akhenaten and Moses are the same individual and Smenkhare and Aaron are also one and the same.)However his etymology seems convincing in many cases. He suggests (page 221) that the Lord's prayer as written in St Matthew's gospel was a re-working of an Egyptian prayer to the state god 'Amen, Amen who art in heaven'.If one adds the word Amen after the sentences of the Lord's prayer, it makes sense as a prayer to Amen. eg. Hallowed be thy name, Amen. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, Amen. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, Amen.I do not know if this is actually true but it seems plausible.Was Ahkenaten the founder of monotheism? Not the founder, in my opinion, but without question a significant contributor to the development of monotheism.