What's the reason for a single god?

[Bishadi]

Ahkenatan left archeological evidence of changing egypt to monotheism;


what is the benefit of doing so when it tore the country apart?


http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/...akhenaton.html

Quote:

Akhenaton then went on to claim he was the only human being who could commune with Aten. He subsequently outlawed the worship of Amon, sealed the temples that had been dedicated by other ancient Egyptian pharaohs to the worship of Aten and barred the priests. Nothing seemed to be safe from the pharaoh's destruction if it had a reference to Amon on it, including his own father's cartouches. Akehnaton's actions earned him no favor with the Egyptian people. Following his death, references to the king were demolished; much as he had demolished earlier references to Amon. Unlike most ancient Egyptian pharaohs, the people of Egypt seemed to be determined to erase the memory of the ruler who had tried to force his own brand of religion

is it to be the only one to talk to god?

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Ahkenatan left archeological evidence of changing egypt to monotheism;

what is the benefit of doing so when it tore the country apart?

http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/...akhenaton.html

is it to be the only one to talk to god?

Could it possibly be that it's such a conceited, superior and totally reclusive being it can’t even get a date?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

At a guess, there are probably at least two reasons I can think of.

First off, his new religion made HIM the direct connection between the sun god and the people, not the priesthood, thus removing the need for them to exist. Given that egypt's priesthood at the time was quite powerful and likely quite rich I can easily see why a ruler would want to remove such a rival to his powers.

Secondly in the religions of the time the function of priests was to intercede with the gods, using sacrifices and prayer (for money), to make real tangible things happen. Rain, The Nile flooding, curing diseases, etc. As writing and mathematics progressed people are going to notice that the effects are as reliable as pure chance. A new religion with a supreme god that takes care of spiritual needs and the afterlife though can not be so easily disproven and thus is more likely to survive questioning.

[Fnord]

Why should any god or gods exist in the first place?

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by ynot

Could it possibly be that it's such a conceited, superior and totally reclusive being it can’t even get a date?

That would be my guess. This is a good example of hereditary rulership and the possible consequences at its worse.

[HansMustermann]

Well, it helps if you understand that both Egypt and Mesopotamia (and most other "polytheistic" systems at that) were actually henotheistic, rather than true polytheism. I.e., everyone mostly worshipped just one god for anything and everything (even bloodthirsty gods like Sekhmet or Seth had a thriving side business in healing prayers and fertility amulets and whatnot), and more or less just let everyone else worship someone else if they so choose.

Sorta like how in a civilized country nowadays you might have a Christian family living next to some Taoist Chinese immigrants and across the road from the local Wiccan, and they'd all worship their own god and leave the other guys do their own misguided thing.

And yes, judging by some henolatrous or monolatrous prayers from Mesopotamia, it seems that a heck of a lot of people really did believe that the other gods except their own are bogus or at best minor wannabes. They tolerated everyone else's gods, but they didn't really think much of them.

A good case could be made that that's the normal state for humans. Gods always were imaginary ersatz parents, and, well, nobody really needs to be the son of a thousand fathers So one god or ancient spirit and possibly his/her spouse were really what most people who ever lived worshipped.

In that aspect, to go back to Akhenaten:

1. Basically his deciding to worship only one god is nothing new. It was the norm. And making the Pharaoh's god more important was also actually very normal. In fact it was the status quo.

The only thing that's new about it is that, well, Aknenaten was the world's first a-hole about it. Much as he was progressive in other domains, when it came to religion, he was simply the first intolerant bigot in recorded history.

2. In reality, Akhenaten only really enforced the "monotheism" in relation to _Sun_ gods, and left everyone else do their own thing. If you were a worshipper of Amun, well, now you had to call him Aten, but everyone else was more or less left to their own devices. If you were a devout follower of Osiris or Bast or Ptah or Hathor or Thoth or Isis or really anyone else, Akhenaten did say his is the only real god, but otherwise pretty much ignored you.

Heck, even as the official doctrine went, Akhenaten's new religion only offed Amun, and didn't actually say all that much about other gods. It wasn't as much a real enforcement of monotheism, as mostly just unifying all the Sun gods in one.

Therefore...

3. The impact on Egypt was actually pretty minor. It didn't cause a civil war or anything. Those who worshipped Amun just got to exchange their old religious icons for new ones featuring... well, I wish I could even say "featuring Aten", but they really featured just the Sun. As in, you know, the solar disc in the sky. As that was an acceptable representation of Amun too, even those didn't grumble much.

Everyone else had even less to worry about, as their gods were left alone.

4. It also helps remember that the rest of Egypt was already used to henotheism, and were not offended by the Pharaoh's worshipping his own thing. It didn't cause the same reaction as, say, if the president of the USA were to convert to Wicca. There were no fundies to get offended by that.

The one thing that could offend would be if he started some major religious persecution, which he didn't. In fact, Akhenaten was a very passive kind of Pharaoh, and ignored even ruling at all. He even ignored real problems of the country, and focused on his books and voices in his head... err... revelations from Aten. Almost all actual ruling happens while Nefertiti was still alive, but then she disappears abruptly from history and is presumed dead, and Akhenaten pretty much starts ignoring Egypt altogether.

You'd think that that would be the perfect setup for a revolt, if Egypt were majorly pissed off by his religion, but even that doesn't actually happen.

Basically for all that anyone can tell, his religion was at best a minor irritation for most Egyptians. Well, a bigger irritation for the followers of Amun, but that's about it.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

*snip*. . .and ignored even ruling at all.
He even ignored real problems of the country, and focused on his books and
voices in his head... err... revelations from Aten. *snip*

Do you think this answers the OP's question about being the single conduit of
revelation from the supreme god (to put it in slightly different terms)?

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by ynot

Could it possibly be that it's such a conceited, superior and totally reclusive being it can’t even get a date?

ynot

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

At a guess, there are probably at least two reasons I can think of.

First off, his new religion made HIM the direct connection between the sun god and the people, not the priesthood, thus removing the need for them to exist. Given that egypt's priesthood at the time was quite powerful and likely quite rich I can easily see why a ruler would want to remove such a rival to his powers.

so wondering in the desert to create the NEW city Amarna could have been like a schism? Would you agree?

Quote:

Secondly in the religions of the time the function of priests was to intercede with the gods, .......

Could a publication of commands be given;

So what about the stones, the word of God where the 10 commandments were carved in?

In ancient Egyptian times “hieroglyphs” was their writing, which they did on stones. This was perceived as some kind of magic, since not many people understood the art of writing (no weblogs back then). Another word for these “hieroglyphs” is “the word of God”. The hebrew people took parts of the influential culture and mixed it up to have the copy of chapter 125 being carved in stone, hence “the word of god” bringing “the copy of chapter 125 / 10 commandments”.


http://edward.de.leau.net/the-10-com...-20070513.html


in a sense, to publish on stone the rules, then everyone knows them equally.

Who would need priests?

So a single god entity, gives Ahkenatan the rules and he puts them to stone, after a schism from the main egyptian beliefs. He moves to the desert (Armarna) and is writing to caanan and it is all documented in the Armana tablets. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/amarnaletters.htm

That be the synopsis of what i see. But do i believe a man talks to god? No

What is funny is the similarities to some utter belief system(s).

[Resume]

Easier to keep track of one deity.

[Gawdzilla]

Good question, I can't think of a good reason for a single god.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's more philosophically satisfying. And it tastes great.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Resume

Easier to keep track of one deity.

then what's up on the multiplying into 'trinities' and walking gods (pharoahs) or even the father/son.. stuff.

If a doctor can make a virgin prego, without intercourse (test tube babies) does that make him a 'god' too?

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

It's more philosophically satisfying. And it tastes great.

But it's less filling than a pantheon.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

is it to be the only one to talk to god?

He overreached in his attempts to consolidate power?

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Beerina

He overreached in his attempts to consolidate power?

what power?

does one statue combat the other one?

or was it like a president being tied of the senate?

maybe, like a martin luther posting a sign on the door?

what i like is the idea of a declaration of independance, in which, 'the rules are posted', we dont need a feudalism to control us and since the pyramids are already built, how about building a house of knowledge to maintain the book of life (the book of the dead, was their version) and the temple designs were created for the arc.


now compare the dimensions of the amarna sites with other theological temples.

we already know the arcs are/were in king tuts tomb

[Cavemonster]

I don't know if it speaks to this egyptian moment but...

In terms of our understanding of how the world works, numerous competing gods can be good for describing the supposed causes of world events, but it's not a great model for predicting future ones. While there may be some regularity (flooding of the nile etc), inherent in the idea of multiple gods who may be at odds, is that the laws of the universe are in flux and unpredictable. You can try to appease one god, but the outcome may be the will of another.

Monotheism begins to approach the idea that there is a single set of potentially predictable rules for the universe that are more or less discoverable.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I don't know if it speaks to this egyptian moment but...

In terms of our understanding of how the world works, numerous competing gods can be good for describing the supposed causes of world events, but it's not a great model for predicting future ones. While there may be some regularity (flooding of the nile etc), inherent in the idea of multiple gods who may be at odds, is that the laws of the universe are in flux and unpredictable. You can try to appease one god, but the outcome may be the will of another.

Monotheism begins to approach the idea that there is a single set of potentially predictable rules for the universe that are more or less discoverable.

i like that.

may i borrow it for a moment

Science begins to approach the idea that there is a single set of potentially predictable rules for the universe that are more or less discoverable.


There, ....i put in a word that seems to fit.


Let me test it against my little pun:

If existence only operates ONE way, is the math the 'name' to know?



monotheism..... monoscience'ism....monoreality'ism

or maybe, for each to comprehend themselves, we all "ism" capable in livin' within 'what is real"............ism

aye......'realism'.............. So then, is that a contradiction to a romantic?

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Do you think this answers the OP's question about being the single conduit of
revelation from the supreme god (to put it in slightly different terms)?

Well, in the sense that the answer may not even be "consolidating power by claiming to be the only conduit", but possibly simply "the dude was schizophrenic."

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, in the sense that the answer may not even be "consolidating power by claiming to be the only conduit", but possibly simply "the dude was schizophrenic."

many creative minds are practically nuts.

Newton, Tesla, even Ahkenatan must have been, to take on such ventures.

The weak minded dont care about doing something for others but then nut jobs are often the ones who leave works that live well beyond their days of choice.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Good question, I can't think of a good reason for a single god.

Being a, you know,

It's like a foxhole, but for a different animal

Seriously, monotheism isn't some great philosophical advance or breakthrough, it's a big step back. For almost two hundreds of thousands of years humans had learned to basically worship one god or spirit anyway, but be tolerant of those misguided guys from the next tribe who worship a different one.

Does anyone think Akhenaten was the first one to figure out that there is only one Sun but a dozen wildly different Sun deities and all can't be right? Or that assimilating Amun with Ra and Aten -- of for that matter Hermes with Thoth, or Artemis with Ishtar, or Venus with Cloacina -- was kinda nonsensical and self-contradicting anyway? I think everyone was pretty aware that _someone_ has to be wrong, and likely it's the other guys. But we essentially figured out that there's not much point in fighting about that too, so we all played nice with each other over that.

The rise of monotheism was just the rise of the block-headed bigotry. The monotheist were basically just the gang who stopped being nice to other people's misguided belief in other gods.

Briefly, it's more "dick move" than "philosophical breakthrough."

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

many creative minds are practically nuts.

Newton, Tesla, even Ahkenatan must have been, to take on such ventures.

The weak minded dont care about doing something for others but then nut jobs are often the ones who leave works that live well beyond their days of choice.

No arguments there. But not everyone who's nuts actually leaves something worthwhile. See, for example, Herostratus.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Being a, you know,
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=3414
It's like a foxhole, but for a different animal

Seriously, monotheism isn't some great philosophical advance or breakthrough, it's a big step back.

combining knowledge of anything is not ooosually a step back.

Quote:

For almost two hundreds of thousands of years humans had learned to basically worship one god or spirit anyway, but be tolerant of those misguided guys from the next tribe who worship a different one.

each have a preference (fertility, food, rain.... you like dancing for Love?)

Quote:

Does anyone think Akhenaten was the first one to figure out that there is only one Sun

I last heard it was like billions and billions of suns 'out there' (stars).

But the 'ray' of light is the foundations to motions of mass (life). I can sustain, that light is the life of mass, can you?

Quote:

but a dozen wildly different Sun deities and all can't be right?

lots of different colors of light too, but the same stuff (electromagnetism)

Quote:

I think everyone was pretty aware that _someone_ has to be wrong, and likely it's the other guys.

so combine a bit and see, that perhaps like science, many had pieces to the puzzle and to combine the 'properties' a greater scope can be ascertained by the variety of recorded evidence.

ie... ahkenatan was right, on this earth the SUN is practically a god to all life.

Quote:

The rise of monotheism was just the rise of the block-headed bigotry.

sounds like you labeling just about everyone who is of an abrahamic sect (judaism, christianity, muslim), not to mention the egyptian pharoah who supposedly took out the priesthood of his time, to perhaps remove the divides of bigotry.

i am one of them kind that like to look at the good of things people are capable of but then again, some think that all of mankind has horns on their heads. Kind of like the creationist used to draw nasty pictures of darwin when the guy spent so much time, love and consideration to GIVE, all by his own choice (compassion).

Quote:

The monotheist were basically just the gang who stopped being nice to other people's misguided belief in other gods.

So if the pharoah of egypt (ahkenatan) did in fact, take down the misguided crap and began to combine information (noah stories (flood)) and creation (genesis) to a single god entity, wouldnt it be weird if that was the beginning of a whole body of currently existing religious beliefs.

Quote:

Briefly, it's more "dick move" than "philosophical breakthrough."

why?

Does it move you to read about how some of the old leaders, were trying to evolve?

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

combining knowledge of anything is not ooosually a step back.

First you have to actually show _what_ did he combine into something actually new, and why couldn't he do that without the religious BS. Frankly, the Egyptians weren't fundies. They had a long history of being able to separate the science from the religious part. Imhotep is probably the best example of a guy who was High Priest of Ra, yet wrote a medical treatise completely devoid of any magical, religious or ritual stuff.

So exactly what did Akhenaten create that _needed_ his being an a-hole about religion?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

each have a preference (fertility, food, rain.... you like dancing for Love?)

Sort of, but not exactly. While the gods or spirits may have formally divided their main jobs, people who favoured one, favoured him for everything. You could pray to a god of death that the missus gets pregnant, or to a god goddess of the home to help you slaughter the enemies (and that's for example just what Enheduanna does when she prays to Inana to slaughter the enemies, burn their crops and colour major rivers red with their blood,) and so on. So, really, it's not as much a case of favouring one activity, as favouring one god for all activities.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

I last heard it was like billions and billions of suns 'out there' (stars).

That's just an equivocation, and as such irrelevant. The Sun as in, the entity the Egyptians worshipped, was exactly one. They didn't worship the generic idea of a star, and they didn't really worship stars. (If you want people who did worship the pretty bright dots in the sky, try the Mesopotamians. Different folks.)

Quote:

ie... ahkenatan was right, on this earth the SUN is practically a god to all life.

In that aspect, he was right, but he was not the first one with that idea. Frankly, more than half the Nomes worshipped the Sun since predynastic times, and more than half the Gods were originally the Sun. Ra, Seth, Sekhmet, Amun, Horus, and even non-obvious candidates like _Bast_ were originally worshipped as the Sun.

So, as I was saying, it wasn't a new idea of Akhenaten. The Egyptians had been doing that for over 2000 years at that point.

Quote:

sounds like you labeling just about everyone who is of an abrahamic sect (judaism, christianity, muslim), not to mention the egyptian pharoah who supposedly took out the priesthood of his time, to perhaps remove the divides of bigotry.

I am. The rise of religious intolerance in ancient Judah is hardly something I'd endorse as a good thing.

Quote:

i am one of them kind that like to look at the good of things people are capable of but then again, some think that all of mankind has horns on their heads. Kind of like the creationist used to draw nasty pictures of darwin when the guy spent so much time, love and consideration to GIVE, all by his own choice (compassion).

Some people do good things, some people do bad things. I feel no need to try to find the good in bigotry and intolerance.

Quote:

So if the pharoah of egypt (ahkenatan) did in fact, take down the misguided crap and began to combine information (noah stories (flood)) and creation (genesis) to a single god entity, wouldnt it be weird if that was the beginning of a whole body of currently existing religious beliefs.

Umm, no, he did no such thing. If you want to support the idea that he actually based anything on a Genesis that wasn't even composed for another century or two... well, you'll have to come up with some serious evidence.

Quote:

why?

Does it move you to read about how some of the old leaders, were trying to evolve?

Except for the part where it wasn't actually an evolution, but a step backwards.

[Soapy Sam]

Economies of scale.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

First you have to actually show _what_ did he combine into something actually new

3500 yrs ago and we still talking about him and how he affected egypt.

This thread is asking about the 'reason' so unless you have a tablet or something, we are all speculating.

to you, it was tyranny (it seems)

Quote:

So exactly what did Akhenaten create that _needed_ his being an a-hole about religion?

go look it up. Because if you dont have any idea, and have condemned the efforts.

what is a bigot?

Quote:

That's just an equivocation, and as such irrelevant. The Sun as in, the entity the Egyptians worshipped, was exactly one. They didn't worship the generic idea of a star, and they didn't really worship stars.

one minute, you were saying the "ONE" god thing aint good nor special, then you post there is only ONE sun, and i am contesting, there are more than one sun, son, songs and stars.

Now to compare what Ahkenatans works created (monotheism) which is archelogically sustained, i asked WHY, and you have no idea 'what' was created by ahkenatan except that he followed a single sun (light) diety in which yu render that its the same one, of many periods.

funny **** dood

Quote:

In that aspect, he was right, but he was not the first one with that idea.

OK, so when any of the abrahamic sect put the claim up that 'their' god is the one god, you have a list of other cultures that can contest the claim?

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Good question, I can't think of a good reason for a single god.

I can't think of a good reason either. However:

My understanding it was a common practice for the government to take a cut from the temple collections. The Roman Caesar collected 50%. State enforced belief in one god, as opposed to many, simplifies this process. This makes as much sense as any other reason for one god vs. many.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by MontagK505

I can't think of a good reason either. However:

My understanding it was a common practice for the government to take a cut from the temple collections. The Roman Caesar collected 50%. State enforced belief in one god, as opposed to many, simplifies this process. This makes as much sense as any other reason for one god vs. many.

But the more temples, the better the chance for graft. That would militate for MORE gods, yes?

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

But it's less filling than a pantheon.

Especially if its a pantheon if hot sexy female gods.

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

But the more temples, the better the chance for graft. That would militate for MORE gods, yes?

Good point! There would have to be an optimal number however. Too many and the cost of collection cuts into the skim.

(too many bagmen taking their cut)

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by MontagK505

Good point! There would have to be an optimal number however. Too many and the cost of collection cuts into the skim.

(too many bagmen taking their cut)

The downfall of Tammany Hall, IIRC.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

But it's less filling than a pantheon.

Good point. I guess tastes great wins after all. Especially if its a pantheon of hot sexy female gods*.





















*Maybe I shouldn't have gone there.

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

The downfall of Tammany Hall, IIRC.

Boss Tweed and his gang probably worshiped the same god.

[Gawdzilla]

Can I retract my previous answer?

Thanks.

I believe the reason for a single god is that he's a computer programmer.

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Can I retract my previous answer?

Thanks.

I believe the reason for a single god is that he's a computer programmer.

Now that is a truly evil idea. Are you planning to see the next "TRON" movie perhaps?

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by MontagK505

Now that is a truly evil idea. Are you planning to see the next "TRON" movie perhaps?

No, I'm just basing that on the number of programmers I know who will never get married, or even a date.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

go look it up. Because if you dont have any idea, and have condemned the efforts.

It doesn't work that way. If you postulate that he did something -- in this case base something on a book that didn't even exist yet -- then you support it.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

what is a bigot? one minute, you were saying the "ONE" god thing aint good nor special, then you post there is only ONE sun,

Are you at least trolling or do you have real comprehension problems. You genuinely don't see the difference between talking about (A) a monotheistic religion, and (B) the simple fact that if you look up there in the sky there's exactly one thing that people back then, some thousands of years before telescopes, would call Sun?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

and i am contesting, there are more than one sun, son, songs and stars.

And it's still fully irrelevant since they neither worshipped those, nor knew that they're suns at the time. For the purpose of Akhenaten's religion, those other "suns" didn't even enter the equation. They weren't even called suns at the time. Come back when you have something actually relevant, really.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Now to compare what Ahkenatans works created (monotheism) which is archelogically sustained, i asked WHY, and you have no idea 'what' was created by ahkenatan except that he followed a single sun (light) diety in which yu render that its the same one, of many periods.

1. You're changing the topic again. Do you even remember what claim of yours that was in response to?

2. Nope. He didn't even worship the light as such. Aten was the solar disc in the sky, that was "talking" to him.

3. Yes, worshipping the Sun was what they always did. Historically they had a dozen solar gods at least, though about 3 remained clearly Sun gods by Akhenaten's time. Akhenaten just proclaimed his solar god to be the only one.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

OK, so when any of the abrahamic sect put the claim up that 'their' god is the one god, you have a list of other cultures that can contest the claim?

What does that have to do with anything? Again, do you even remember what that was about, or are you in Eliza mode and just making some BS up for each paragraph as you go?

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

No, I'm just basing that on the number of programmers I know who will never get married, or even a date.

You may be thinking of game designers. I sometimes think our universe is the creation of a very cruel sadistic game designer.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by MontagK505

You may be thinking of game designers. I sometimes think our universe is the creation of a very cruel sadistic game designer.

"Halo", the name says it all.

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

"Halo", the name says it all.

On the other hand "Tomb Raider" says something different. That game may have been designed by Satan.

I think we are drifting off the OP.

Perhaps someone could start a thread debating the idea that god's true nature is that of a sadistic game designer.