So it seems that Jerusalem's much vaunted and sole contribution to the West was no contribution at all. They filed off the serial numbers, presented a conclusion we'd long since come to ourselves as their own, and induced us to forget that we'd ever known God Most High on our own terms, and had had to be enlightened by an alien cult.
Combined with Gmirkin's evidence that much of the Bible was directly inspired by Hellenistic literature and philosophy, and, well....
The Jews have a strong lineage of Prophets & Messengers. However; most failed to live up to the responsibilities of said lineage.
As such, they are punished in a myriad of ways. One of which happens to be their lies & deceit regarding being the “sole moral lawgivers to the West” being (correctly) critiqued & called out for what it is: A Fraud.
Oct 4, 2023·edited Oct 4, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe
Someone erudite in these matters told me that Christianity also has roots in ancient Egypt. But we surely shouldn't throw the Jesus baby out with the bathwater. There was a chemistry to Christianity....it is in large measure why we in the West are the way we are?
The only thing we need from Jerusalem is the Person of Christ.
And everyone should already know that the Hellenic era Kingdom of Jerusalem was in conversation with the Academy of Athens. I'll take Logos in the Gospel of John for 500, Alex.
Oct 5, 2023·edited Oct 5, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe
I thought everyone knew this, it is shocking to me that people were unaware of the ubiquity of polyatric monotheism. The singular shocking good news of Christianity isn't that there is one God on High. Everyone knew that already. It was that the unknown God on High had made himself known. That he took upon himself our own lowly forms and united our nature with his. That he has a face and name and you may know him personally and call him by name.
This is why I have always said that yes, I am Pagan Catholic. And that's how it's supposed to be.
>The geography and chronology of the archeological evidence for the Cult of God Most High makes it highly implausible that Jewish belief would have formed the primary basis for it
The Bible itself seems to concur that the belief in God Most High preceded the Jews. E.g. Genesis 14:
"18. And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. 19. He blessed him, saying, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20. And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your foes into your hand.” And [Abram] gave him a tenth of everything”
King Melchizedek appears to be the ether. Salem means 'peace' so it would probably be the (a)ether/plasma of the universe that hasn't been manipulated. Hermetically or alchemically it's called water but once affected by man, it's then called 'wine'. Same concept w/bread.
A tenth of everything is the ego, or 'ten percent of brain that we use.' In meditation we're supposed to release the ego from thought and go in to the 'ether', ostensibly to await the fire which enables 'eternal life' - literally opening the other 90% of the brain.
Once activated it's known as Krishna/Christ/Buddha consciousness etc.
In general, every Muslim theologian (who has seriously studied the religion) would agree with you.
That Monotheism was the default, starting state of Humanity; on that you would also find agreement.
The blessed Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) notes in the Hadith that 124,000 Prophets (of which 313 were Messengers) have been sent to every nation of Mankind. Therefore *at the minimum* there are 124,000 Prophets (not counting the ones sent to Djinn, as well as Saints and whatnot who are 'lower' relative to the Prophets & Messengers with regard to righteousness).
So assuming 117 billion Humans "have ever existed" (I don't entirely trust this number, but let's run with it for now) and trillions of Djinn have been around also, it makes sense.
In fact; French & German Anthropological schools back in the early 20th century derided the "Mohammedans" for this age-old view. You can find several such essays (from the 1910s & 1920s) which speak about the "peculiar Mohammedan view that Monotheism came PRIOR to Animism".
This was back when they were trying to promulgate the "Animism -> Spiritism -> Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Atheism" storyline in Academia (which they succeeded in promoting).
It's good to see that this Drivel is finally being swept into the Dustbin of history, where it correctly belongs!
That's really fascinating about the Islamic scholars! Prior to the early 20th century, the Europeans believed the same thing. Original Monotheism was taken to be true from both anthropological evidence and Biblical testimony. But that was overturned during the socialist takeover of anthropology in the early 20th century, yah. Only recently has it become acceptable to discuss again. The book "In the Beginning, God" goes into this in depth, it's a good read.
In general, the sort of things every nation & peoples used to *subconsciously* know about the Divine … I.e the “innate predisposition for God”, that’s the subject matter covered in “The Divine for Critical Minds” by Dr Rehan.
You can check it out when you have the time to do so! Well worth the read!
Well, this takes me back to watching Dr. Gene Scott lecture on the Lost Tribes and other ancient historical mysteries. He was reading some book which claimed that some of the wealthier Hebrews escaped Egypt by ship as the Hebrews in general lost favor with the Pharoah -- much as American billionaires have homes in places like New Zealand in case things go south here.
In particular, note the story of Judah's twin sons by Tamar in Genesis 38. Zerah's hand came out and the midwife tied a thread to his hand -- which then went back in and Perez, the ancestor of the kings of Judah, came out first. Do recall that Jacob split the blessings of Abraham, giving the blessing of great numbers to Joseph's sons, and the kingship to Judah's descendants.
The descendants of Zerah -- Judah's true firstborn by Tamar -- disappear from the narrative. The book Dr. Gene was reading claimed that the descendants of Zerah founded Troy. And when Troy was sacked, they founded Rome.
Your mention of the early Roman king being a monotheist brings this memory back.
And then there is this: the chief god of the Roman pantheon was sometimes called Jove. Pronounce the J and V as one should in Latin. The name seems mighty close to the proper name of God in the Old Testament...
"Monotheism" is an early modern coinage, it is not the way the argument was made in antiquity or throughout the Middle Ages. The real debate then (as now) is over the Incarnation, whether Jesus was a charlatan (aka blasphemer) or the Son of the Most High (as Luke put it). Very interesting about the use of the term "God Most High" in the Septuagint, which is, of course, the version of the Scriptures that the authors of the New Testament used to prove that Jesus was the Son of the Most High. My guess, if you look into it, is that "monotheism" was always intended as a slur against recognizing Jesus as Son of God.
Hey R! From all I could gather, the term "monotheism" seems to have been coined in the 17th century and entered common parlance in the 18th century as part of the debate about deism, theism, etc. I don't see any evidence that it was intended as a slur, but of course one never knows since so much history is fake; if only I knew a history PhD who could research this....
Oh, fascinating! Thanks for this link. This evidence suggests that Frede's definition that I used in this essay is actually quite close to proper usage of the term, since it differentiates God from gods and allows for overlap.
Do you know what the authors are referencing when they write about "the ‘dethroning of the verb’ and the ‘spatialization of knowledge.’" ? That sounds interesting.
You will have to be satisfied with having established the largest empire in human history, made your language the primary dialect of the human race, and re-shaped the world in your image. I'm sorry I can't help you further.
Another great series, with profound implications for some of the issues shaping the broader culture. If politics is downstream of culture, you could say that culture is downstream of metaphysics and religious paradigms/narratives. Looking forward to seeing where you go with this topic!
I’m surprised that this is surprising. Shouldn’t the null hypothesis be that that indo-european people would share something analogous to the Hindu view that Brahman is “most high” and that other deities are his aspects or emanations?
Well, the notion of an Indo-European language tree, and the suggestion that Hindu, Iranian, and European populations were related in some way, wasn't made clear until the 1750s. Assyria and Sumeria weren't discovered until the 1840s and those discoveries revealed the Epic of Gilgamesh and Flood Myth. The Rig Veda wasn't translated until the 1850s, and the Zoroastrian Avesta wasn't translated until the 1880s or so. The Nag Hammadi library wasn't discovered until the 1940s, the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't discovered until the 1950s.
So I think Western civilization has simply gotten access to so much information at such a rapid pace that it has become impossible to keep up. It will be an effort of centuries to account for everything we know now about history...
Book VIII addresses all of these issues. We are not the first people to think of this stuff. It's sad that we are neglecting our intellectual tradition.
Hah! Well, I make no such claim. Anytime I ever start to believe I'm the first to think of something, someone inevitably shows up on the Comments and says "actually 2500 years ago..." I don't mind, though. That's how I discovered Plutarch. This blog is me thinking out loud and learning as I go.
I'm not blaming you! I'm annoyed at the scholars you cite. People trust them to make an honest and complete historical assessment. They really should do their research before making these silly claims.
I find it simply amazing, to crawl out from under my rock, to discover the Abrahamics are still claiming to have brought anything other than sleepwalking to the human condition. Monotheism, Abrahamic style is obviously a rather quaint distillation of a far greater, richer, and more spiritually significant tradition.
One can easily discover the truth of this by studying the early Christian church. It was master Dionysus who brought the ancient form of mystical participation into Christianity. His mysticism, which became canon until the onset of the Renaissance, IS the practice of the ancient mystical tradition of the philosopher mystics of old.
The abrahamics, all three of them, but with Scientism we now have a junior member, made a cognitive mistake that they don't believe is a mistake. They named their god and described him through activity, holding this concept in the mind. In doing so, they cannot be considering the One, because they are making their god subordinate to their mind, and thus are describing something else entirely. The Gnostics attempted to make them aware of their error, and got murdered for it. They attempted to make it clear that at best the Abrahamics deified the Demiurge.
In the end, the lack of understanding characterized by Abrahamic style monotheism lends itself quite effectively to a temporal, political institution, but is a whopper of an embarrassment to a religion.
> The Gnostics attempted to make them aware of their error, and got murdered for it.
The Gnostics reject the Divine Law and the material universe, seeking instead a God too abstract to actually make any demands of them. We can see the secularized version in the modern left.
Who is to say exactly what divine law actually is?
At best a slippery slope, at worst a claim which establishes an arbitrary authority.
Gnostics can quite easily point out that the Abrahamics reject the highest god, and deny this highest god due to their worship of matter. We can see this clearly in the modern world through their endless indulgences.
Allah Most High is the Creator of Law. So the very concept that “law can be interpreted coherently” is proof that He exists. Otherwise, the world would be filled with automaton zombies (without consciousness) and mental ability to interpret, use language, logic, etc.
If we define consciousness as an ability to be self aware, then this ability is what we use to understand ideas such as right and wrong, which is the basis for law. The basis for this understanding is morality. The basis for moral behavior is intrinsic to survival of that species.
All kinds of creatures act morally, not simply man. Therefore, if one is going to study moral behavior, one cannot separate the behavior from the context in which it exists. There is nothing in moral behavior that demands the existence of your god, since the behavior exists in and arises from a context.
So, rather than life following some divine law, life is adapting on its own to the conditions to secure survival. Once again, we are back to examining supposed external conditions with a thoroughly internal process.
The problem with any supposed external condition used as evidence is that far simpler and direct explanations are easily found.
The external world is revealed purely through internal processes, so focusing upon externalities is utterly missing the reality of the human experience.
Even if we use this definition of consciousness you use here; there is nothing Necessary to it which makes it Logically entail that purely naturalistic forces “ought to have” given rise to them.
There is no reason why “aboutness” of even the most subtle, basic form (i.e “self awareness”) be entailed, since (as Chalmers, Nagel & others note) it is *more likely* and simple (“parsimonious”) that living organisms have zero Subjective states and be purely automata in nature.
This however is not seen at all; indicating the failure of aforementioned Naturalist ideas.
Disagree on the basis of my previous discussion with Eugine.
There is every reason to choose adaptation to a condition over decree by a cosmic concept. The only reason to choose the cosmic concept, the absent external god, is because one wants to support the concept.
Moral behavior exists outside of the human, it's not simply me saying this. Look it up.
God. That this isn't obvious to you shows how seriously you take your so-called "highest god".
> Who is to say exactly what divine law actually is?
In the grandparent you complained that Gnostics were "murdered" by Abrahamics. This complaint presupposes that there is something wrong with murder. But if as you say "who is to say what divine law actually is", then who is to say that killing Gnostics is wrong? Or did you mean for your antinomianism to only apply to you?
> Gnostics can quite easily point out that the Abrahamics reject the highest god, and deny this highest god due to their worship of matter.
For all their claims to worshiping their "true highest god", Gnostics are ultimately only capable of worshiping themselves. At least the Dawkins-style rational materialist is capable of recognizing that there exists something outside himself, even if he willfully refuses to recognize its Source.
Since it's already been established above in your statement that matter is primary, anything outside of it cannot have primacy. Every Abrahamic theologian states that their god is transcendent, yet this negates god as any type of interpreter in such a universe.
Is that the best you've got?
Do we really have to discuss murder? Every society that has ever existed historically has some type of injunction against murder for it's own stability. No transcendent god need apply.
The argument that an external physical world is somehow a given, ignores the obvious fact that any interaction in it entirely stems from internal processes. It was proven thousands of years ago that these internal processes are not reliable measures of reality, so exactly what measure of the so called external world can be relied upon to actually be external is forever up to question. Indeed, one's external god one worships could simply be a figment of belief, since there is no participation, no experience, no method applicable to discern this god.
But there is one last little problem...
It is truly ridiculous for a devotee of matter to assert anything concerning the supposed deity at all. In fact, the materialist must reject even the mere idea of a transcendent god, since there is no material that embodies this god.
However, the materialist cannot answer questions concerning origins or meaning, much less destinations, thus the Abrahamics seek to straddle both the spirit and matter in an unhappy compromise where they understand neither.
> Since it's already been established above in your statement that matter is primary,
You appear to have hallucinated this. Not surprising since you don't really believe in an independent external reality.
> Every Abrahamic theologian states that their god is transcendent, yet this negates god as any type of interpreter in such a universe.
Why?
> Do we really have to discuss murder? Every society that has ever existed historically has some type of injunction against murder for it's own stability. No transcendent god need apply.
Every society that ever existed has been under God and subject to His law, whether it explicitly acknowledged Him or not. However, many societies were perfectly willing to kill Gnostics and other similarly extreme heretics.
> The argument that an external physical world is somehow a given, ignores the obvious fact that any interaction in it entirely stems from internal processes. It was proven thousands of years ago that these internal processes are not reliable measures of reality, so exactly what measure of the so called external world can be relied upon to actually be external is forever up to question.
Very well, then you shouldn't object if your apparent external world were to resemble an inquisitor's torture chamber. And frankly, how can we be sure that the reports of Gnostics being killed are at all reliable.
> Indeed, one's external god one worships could simply be a figment of belief, since there is no participation, no experience, no method applicable to discern this god.
Yes there is. I'm not going to summarize basic theology here, look up Thomas Aquinas.
> It is truly ridiculous for a devotee of matter to assert anything concerning the supposed deity at all. In fact, the materialist must reject even the mere idea of a transcendent god, since there is no material that embodies this god.
Good thing I'm not a materialist.
> However, the materialist cannot answer questions concerning origins or meaning, much less destinations, thus the Abrahamics seek to straddle both the spirit and matter in an unhappy compromise where they understand neither.
Both spirit and matter exist. Both materialists who seek to deny the existence of spirit, and Gnostics who seek to deny the existence of matter ultimately run into the problem that not only does the thing they deny actually exist, but that they can't do anything, not even deny it's existence without making use of it.
Your assertions commit an error you aren't aware of, so let me help you. You are mistaking belief for evidence. Belief, certainly in the abrahamic context is advanced through entrainment to achieve a directive position in the psyche. This starts when the subject is very young, before they have developed the cognitive ability to filter and resist this attack. Hypatia wrote of this over 1,500 years ago, and it has since been confirmed in modern psychology that such entrainment is extremely difficult, if not impossible to break. However, this doesn't negate the truth that belief, and concomitant world views simply aren't evidence. We can discuss beliefs as beliefs, but but belief masquerading as evidence is simply an absurdity.
For example, your blanket assertion that every society that ever existed is/was under God and his law cannot be demonstrated by any evidence. This is merely a statement of belief.
Actually, there is a good evidence that Judaism came AFTER Plato. There is a guy who made a very good case but his book is expensive. But one reviewer made an excellent review of this thesis.
Of course this is all unnecessary for people who understand that pagan religion was created syncretistically, that is local monotheisms were combined together to create imperial polytheisms. That has always been the Christian position. It is easily seen in the Roman tendency to bring idols from conquered cities into Rome and worship them, as was done to Carthage and the Phrygian Great Mother as notable examples. Read Augustine or Philip Schaff. Hell read Cherterton. None of this is new knowledge. It is an inferior copy of old knowledge.
So it seems that Jerusalem's much vaunted and sole contribution to the West was no contribution at all. They filed off the serial numbers, presented a conclusion we'd long since come to ourselves as their own, and induced us to forget that we'd ever known God Most High on our own terms, and had had to be enlightened by an alien cult.
Combined with Gmirkin's evidence that much of the Bible was directly inspired by Hellenistic literature and philosophy, and, well....
I've ordered the Gmirkin book and will review it once I've read it!
Looking forward to that. I haven't actually read him myself, intellectual sluggard that I am.
The Jews have a strong lineage of Prophets & Messengers. However; most failed to live up to the responsibilities of said lineage.
As such, they are punished in a myriad of ways. One of which happens to be their lies & deceit regarding being the “sole moral lawgivers to the West” being (correctly) critiqued & called out for what it is: A Fraud.
Someone erudite in these matters told me that Christianity also has roots in ancient Egypt. But we surely shouldn't throw the Jesus baby out with the bathwater. There was a chemistry to Christianity....it is in large measure why we in the West are the way we are?
The only thing we need from Jerusalem is the Person of Christ.
And everyone should already know that the Hellenic era Kingdom of Jerusalem was in conversation with the Academy of Athens. I'll take Logos in the Gospel of John for 500, Alex.
Has all the markings of a PsyOp on a cosmic scale!
I thought everyone knew this, it is shocking to me that people were unaware of the ubiquity of polyatric monotheism. The singular shocking good news of Christianity isn't that there is one God on High. Everyone knew that already. It was that the unknown God on High had made himself known. That he took upon himself our own lowly forms and united our nature with his. That he has a face and name and you may know him personally and call him by name.
This is why I have always said that yes, I am Pagan Catholic. And that's how it's supposed to be.
That's a fascinating way to think about it!
>The geography and chronology of the archeological evidence for the Cult of God Most High makes it highly implausible that Jewish belief would have formed the primary basis for it
The Bible itself seems to concur that the belief in God Most High preceded the Jews. E.g. Genesis 14:
"18. And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. 19. He blessed him, saying, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20. And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your foes into your hand.” And [Abram] gave him a tenth of everything”
I'm so glad you brought that up. The mystery of Melchizedek is to me one of the most interesting aspects of Genesis.
King Melchizedek appears to be the ether. Salem means 'peace' so it would probably be the (a)ether/plasma of the universe that hasn't been manipulated. Hermetically or alchemically it's called water but once affected by man, it's then called 'wine'. Same concept w/bread.
A tenth of everything is the ego, or 'ten percent of brain that we use.' In meditation we're supposed to release the ego from thought and go in to the 'ether', ostensibly to await the fire which enables 'eternal life' - literally opening the other 90% of the brain.
Once activated it's known as Krishna/Christ/Buddha consciousness etc.
"A Monotheist is one whose conception of *God* is such that there can be Only One Supreme Being".
Correct. Relevant:
https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/everything-other-than-god-is-unreal
In general, every Muslim theologian (who has seriously studied the religion) would agree with you.
That Monotheism was the default, starting state of Humanity; on that you would also find agreement.
The blessed Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) notes in the Hadith that 124,000 Prophets (of which 313 were Messengers) have been sent to every nation of Mankind. Therefore *at the minimum* there are 124,000 Prophets (not counting the ones sent to Djinn, as well as Saints and whatnot who are 'lower' relative to the Prophets & Messengers with regard to righteousness).
So assuming 117 billion Humans "have ever existed" (I don't entirely trust this number, but let's run with it for now) and trillions of Djinn have been around also, it makes sense.
In fact; French & German Anthropological schools back in the early 20th century derided the "Mohammedans" for this age-old view. You can find several such essays (from the 1910s & 1920s) which speak about the "peculiar Mohammedan view that Monotheism came PRIOR to Animism".
This was back when they were trying to promulgate the "Animism -> Spiritism -> Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Atheism" storyline in Academia (which they succeeded in promoting).
It's good to see that this Drivel is finally being swept into the Dustbin of history, where it correctly belongs!
That's really fascinating about the Islamic scholars! Prior to the early 20th century, the Europeans believed the same thing. Original Monotheism was taken to be true from both anthropological evidence and Biblical testimony. But that was overturned during the socialist takeover of anthropology in the early 20th century, yah. Only recently has it become acceptable to discuss again. The book "In the Beginning, God" goes into this in depth, it's a good read.
I will definitely put it on my reading list!
In general, the sort of things every nation & peoples used to *subconsciously* know about the Divine … I.e the “innate predisposition for God”, that’s the subject matter covered in “The Divine for Critical Minds” by Dr Rehan.
You can check it out when you have the time to do so! Well worth the read!
Thanks for the recommendation!
Well, this takes me back to watching Dr. Gene Scott lecture on the Lost Tribes and other ancient historical mysteries. He was reading some book which claimed that some of the wealthier Hebrews escaped Egypt by ship as the Hebrews in general lost favor with the Pharoah -- much as American billionaires have homes in places like New Zealand in case things go south here.
In particular, note the story of Judah's twin sons by Tamar in Genesis 38. Zerah's hand came out and the midwife tied a thread to his hand -- which then went back in and Perez, the ancestor of the kings of Judah, came out first. Do recall that Jacob split the blessings of Abraham, giving the blessing of great numbers to Joseph's sons, and the kingship to Judah's descendants.
The descendants of Zerah -- Judah's true firstborn by Tamar -- disappear from the narrative. The book Dr. Gene was reading claimed that the descendants of Zerah founded Troy. And when Troy was sacked, they founded Rome.
Your mention of the early Roman king being a monotheist brings this memory back.
And then there is this: the chief god of the Roman pantheon was sometimes called Jove. Pronounce the J and V as one should in Latin. The name seems mighty close to the proper name of God in the Old Testament...
I find the Jove - YHWH similarity to be exceptionally interesting, too! By Jove, I think we're onto something.
I keep wanting to bring back "By Jove" but "By yoh-vey" doesn't sound as good.
There is also the movie Exodus Decoded https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0847162/?ref_=nm_flmg_t_28_prd
which includes evidence that some of the early Hebrews got to Mycenae
I'll have to check it out.
I don't even know in my heart of hearts how much of these "ancient mysteries" and "alternative histories" I believe, but I do know I love them!
The thing is, that all the "alternate histories" tend to contradict each other.
Right. Which is why I do not claim to believe any one of them in particular. I merely state my enjoyment of the field.
The only way to link them together is by going behind the scenes in to esoterism, 'hidden' meaning. Internalised meaning.
If they make a film about it, they're externalising it, just like the church. The church is an external 'temple' whereas Mind is the internal temple.
To me it seems Western Hermeticism is the continuation of Pagan Monotheism
"Monotheism" is an early modern coinage, it is not the way the argument was made in antiquity or throughout the Middle Ages. The real debate then (as now) is over the Incarnation, whether Jesus was a charlatan (aka blasphemer) or the Son of the Most High (as Luke put it). Very interesting about the use of the term "God Most High" in the Septuagint, which is, of course, the version of the Scriptures that the authors of the New Testament used to prove that Jesus was the Son of the Most High. My guess, if you look into it, is that "monotheism" was always intended as a slur against recognizing Jesus as Son of God.
Hey R! From all I could gather, the term "monotheism" seems to have been coined in the 17th century and entered common parlance in the 18th century as part of the debate about deism, theism, etc. I don't see any evidence that it was intended as a slur, but of course one never knows since so much history is fake; if only I knew a history PhD who could research this....
Fortunately, a Philosophy PhD has.
https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/monotheism-vs-polytheism/
Tl;dr: The word "monotheism" was coined by 17th century Cambridge Platonists and originally referred to what we now call pantheism.
Oh, fascinating! Thanks for this link. This evidence suggests that Frede's definition that I used in this essay is actually quite close to proper usage of the term, since it differentiates God from gods and allows for overlap.
Do you know what the authors are referencing when they write about "the ‘dethroning of the verb’ and the ‘spatialization of knowledge.’" ? That sounds interesting.
I’m descended from Englishmen, Scots, and Danes. What of us?
You will have to be satisfied with having established the largest empire in human history, made your language the primary dialect of the human race, and re-shaped the world in your image. I'm sorry I can't help you further.
I don’t like that at all! When you’re on top you have nowhere to go but down. I wish we had just stayed barbarians.
Most are descendants of the Israelites.
Another great series, with profound implications for some of the issues shaping the broader culture. If politics is downstream of culture, you could say that culture is downstream of metaphysics and religious paradigms/narratives. Looking forward to seeing where you go with this topic!
I’m surprised that this is surprising. Shouldn’t the null hypothesis be that that indo-european people would share something analogous to the Hindu view that Brahman is “most high” and that other deities are his aspects or emanations?
Well, the notion of an Indo-European language tree, and the suggestion that Hindu, Iranian, and European populations were related in some way, wasn't made clear until the 1750s. Assyria and Sumeria weren't discovered until the 1840s and those discoveries revealed the Epic of Gilgamesh and Flood Myth. The Rig Veda wasn't translated until the 1850s, and the Zoroastrian Avesta wasn't translated until the 1880s or so. The Nag Hammadi library wasn't discovered until the 1940s, the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't discovered until the 1950s.
So I think Western civilization has simply gotten access to so much information at such a rapid pace that it has become impossible to keep up. It will be an effort of centuries to account for everything we know now about history...
I don't think that notion is ancestral Indo-European so much as developed in several places during the Axial age.
I guess none of these "scholars" ever read St. Augustine's City of God.
I *think* I understand what you are implying but I haven't read City of God myself except for excerpts. Can you elaborate what you mean?
Book VIII addresses all of these issues. We are not the first people to think of this stuff. It's sad that we are neglecting our intellectual tradition.
Hah! Well, I make no such claim. Anytime I ever start to believe I'm the first to think of something, someone inevitably shows up on the Comments and says "actually 2500 years ago..." I don't mind, though. That's how I discovered Plutarch. This blog is me thinking out loud and learning as I go.
I'm not blaming you! I'm annoyed at the scholars you cite. People trust them to make an honest and complete historical assessment. They really should do their research before making these silly claims.
Or Deuteronomy.
I find it simply amazing, to crawl out from under my rock, to discover the Abrahamics are still claiming to have brought anything other than sleepwalking to the human condition. Monotheism, Abrahamic style is obviously a rather quaint distillation of a far greater, richer, and more spiritually significant tradition.
One can easily discover the truth of this by studying the early Christian church. It was master Dionysus who brought the ancient form of mystical participation into Christianity. His mysticism, which became canon until the onset of the Renaissance, IS the practice of the ancient mystical tradition of the philosopher mystics of old.
The abrahamics, all three of them, but with Scientism we now have a junior member, made a cognitive mistake that they don't believe is a mistake. They named their god and described him through activity, holding this concept in the mind. In doing so, they cannot be considering the One, because they are making their god subordinate to their mind, and thus are describing something else entirely. The Gnostics attempted to make them aware of their error, and got murdered for it. They attempted to make it clear that at best the Abrahamics deified the Demiurge.
In the end, the lack of understanding characterized by Abrahamic style monotheism lends itself quite effectively to a temporal, political institution, but is a whopper of an embarrassment to a religion.
The writings of Dionysius the Areopagite needed to be added to my reading list. Thanks for reminding me!
> The Gnostics attempted to make them aware of their error, and got murdered for it.
The Gnostics reject the Divine Law and the material universe, seeking instead a God too abstract to actually make any demands of them. We can see the secularized version in the modern left.
Divine law?
Who interprets divine law?
Who is to say exactly what divine law actually is?
At best a slippery slope, at worst a claim which establishes an arbitrary authority.
Gnostics can quite easily point out that the Abrahamics reject the highest god, and deny this highest god due to their worship of matter. We can see this clearly in the modern world through their endless indulgences.
Allah Most High is the Creator of Law. So the very concept that “law can be interpreted coherently” is proof that He exists. Otherwise, the world would be filled with automaton zombies (without consciousness) and mental ability to interpret, use language, logic, etc.
If we define consciousness as an ability to be self aware, then this ability is what we use to understand ideas such as right and wrong, which is the basis for law. The basis for this understanding is morality. The basis for moral behavior is intrinsic to survival of that species.
All kinds of creatures act morally, not simply man. Therefore, if one is going to study moral behavior, one cannot separate the behavior from the context in which it exists. There is nothing in moral behavior that demands the existence of your god, since the behavior exists in and arises from a context.
So, rather than life following some divine law, life is adapting on its own to the conditions to secure survival. Once again, we are back to examining supposed external conditions with a thoroughly internal process.
The problem with any supposed external condition used as evidence is that far simpler and direct explanations are easily found.
The external world is revealed purely through internal processes, so focusing upon externalities is utterly missing the reality of the human experience.
This is incoherent.
Even if we use this definition of consciousness you use here; there is nothing Necessary to it which makes it Logically entail that purely naturalistic forces “ought to have” given rise to them.
There is no reason why “aboutness” of even the most subtle, basic form (i.e “self awareness”) be entailed, since (as Chalmers, Nagel & others note) it is *more likely* and simple (“parsimonious”) that living organisms have zero Subjective states and be purely automata in nature.
This however is not seen at all; indicating the failure of aforementioned Naturalist ideas.
Disagree on the basis of my previous discussion with Eugine.
There is every reason to choose adaptation to a condition over decree by a cosmic concept. The only reason to choose the cosmic concept, the absent external god, is because one wants to support the concept.
Moral behavior exists outside of the human, it's not simply me saying this. Look it up.
> Who interprets divine law?
God. That this isn't obvious to you shows how seriously you take your so-called "highest god".
> Who is to say exactly what divine law actually is?
In the grandparent you complained that Gnostics were "murdered" by Abrahamics. This complaint presupposes that there is something wrong with murder. But if as you say "who is to say what divine law actually is", then who is to say that killing Gnostics is wrong? Or did you mean for your antinomianism to only apply to you?
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/04/09
> Gnostics can quite easily point out that the Abrahamics reject the highest god, and deny this highest god due to their worship of matter.
For all their claims to worshiping their "true highest god", Gnostics are ultimately only capable of worshiping themselves. At least the Dawkins-style rational materialist is capable of recognizing that there exists something outside himself, even if he willfully refuses to recognize its Source.
God interprets divine law?
Circular argument, and nonsensical.
Since it's already been established above in your statement that matter is primary, anything outside of it cannot have primacy. Every Abrahamic theologian states that their god is transcendent, yet this negates god as any type of interpreter in such a universe.
Is that the best you've got?
Do we really have to discuss murder? Every society that has ever existed historically has some type of injunction against murder for it's own stability. No transcendent god need apply.
The argument that an external physical world is somehow a given, ignores the obvious fact that any interaction in it entirely stems from internal processes. It was proven thousands of years ago that these internal processes are not reliable measures of reality, so exactly what measure of the so called external world can be relied upon to actually be external is forever up to question. Indeed, one's external god one worships could simply be a figment of belief, since there is no participation, no experience, no method applicable to discern this god.
But there is one last little problem...
It is truly ridiculous for a devotee of matter to assert anything concerning the supposed deity at all. In fact, the materialist must reject even the mere idea of a transcendent god, since there is no material that embodies this god.
However, the materialist cannot answer questions concerning origins or meaning, much less destinations, thus the Abrahamics seek to straddle both the spirit and matter in an unhappy compromise where they understand neither.
> God interprets divine law?
Yes, it's His law.
> Since it's already been established above in your statement that matter is primary,
You appear to have hallucinated this. Not surprising since you don't really believe in an independent external reality.
> Every Abrahamic theologian states that their god is transcendent, yet this negates god as any type of interpreter in such a universe.
Why?
> Do we really have to discuss murder? Every society that has ever existed historically has some type of injunction against murder for it's own stability. No transcendent god need apply.
Every society that ever existed has been under God and subject to His law, whether it explicitly acknowledged Him or not. However, many societies were perfectly willing to kill Gnostics and other similarly extreme heretics.
> The argument that an external physical world is somehow a given, ignores the obvious fact that any interaction in it entirely stems from internal processes. It was proven thousands of years ago that these internal processes are not reliable measures of reality, so exactly what measure of the so called external world can be relied upon to actually be external is forever up to question.
Very well, then you shouldn't object if your apparent external world were to resemble an inquisitor's torture chamber. And frankly, how can we be sure that the reports of Gnostics being killed are at all reliable.
> Indeed, one's external god one worships could simply be a figment of belief, since there is no participation, no experience, no method applicable to discern this god.
Yes there is. I'm not going to summarize basic theology here, look up Thomas Aquinas.
> It is truly ridiculous for a devotee of matter to assert anything concerning the supposed deity at all. In fact, the materialist must reject even the mere idea of a transcendent god, since there is no material that embodies this god.
Good thing I'm not a materialist.
> However, the materialist cannot answer questions concerning origins or meaning, much less destinations, thus the Abrahamics seek to straddle both the spirit and matter in an unhappy compromise where they understand neither.
Both spirit and matter exist. Both materialists who seek to deny the existence of spirit, and Gnostics who seek to deny the existence of matter ultimately run into the problem that not only does the thing they deny actually exist, but that they can't do anything, not even deny it's existence without making use of it.
Your assertions commit an error you aren't aware of, so let me help you. You are mistaking belief for evidence. Belief, certainly in the abrahamic context is advanced through entrainment to achieve a directive position in the psyche. This starts when the subject is very young, before they have developed the cognitive ability to filter and resist this attack. Hypatia wrote of this over 1,500 years ago, and it has since been confirmed in modern psychology that such entrainment is extremely difficult, if not impossible to break. However, this doesn't negate the truth that belief, and concomitant world views simply aren't evidence. We can discuss beliefs as beliefs, but but belief masquerading as evidence is simply an absurdity.
For example, your blanket assertion that every society that ever existed is/was under God and his law cannot be demonstrated by any evidence. This is merely a statement of belief.
Honestly, you abrahamics are real pieces of work.
https://vridar.org/series-index/russell-gmirkin-plato-and-the-hebrew-bible/
Actually, there is a good evidence that Judaism came AFTER Plato. There is a guy who made a very good case but his book is expensive. But one reviewer made an excellent review of this thesis.
https://vridar.org/series-index/russell-gmirkin-plato-and-the-hebrew-bible/
Of course this is all unnecessary for people who understand that pagan religion was created syncretistically, that is local monotheisms were combined together to create imperial polytheisms. That has always been the Christian position. It is easily seen in the Roman tendency to bring idols from conquered cities into Rome and worship them, as was done to Carthage and the Phrygian Great Mother as notable examples. Read Augustine or Philip Schaff. Hell read Cherterton. None of this is new knowledge. It is an inferior copy of old knowledge.
I'm interested in seeing the sources you used, is there a list somewhere that I could get access to?
They're all available on Amazon. Just search for:
Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity
One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire
In the Beginning, God
Awesome. Thanks.