Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Something more specific please? Like the name of a religion.
Sorry cant be more specific, but to an extent it is a religon. As far as I know shaminism is the earliest form of "religon" man is supposed to have practiced. When humans were in caves they practiced Shaminism...*shrug*
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Really? Then what did the Ancient Egyptian religion borrow from? 😕
Borrow form? No one really. The Nile valley spent most of the old kingdom and middle kingdoms in relative isolation. So, it's religious beliefs and practices were based on the human experince and achetypes that can be found in a majority of ancient religions. Torture of the martyr, rising from the dead, creation by the sun, the commitment to doing good to ensure a safe passage to the after life. In ancient Egypt, there was no real concept of hell, much like in Judaism. If the soul being weighed against the feather of truth was found to be lacking, it was devoured and the person ceased to exist, in either life. If you had lived your life with respect for others and had been a fairly decent person, you went on to the after life. But, in ancient times, the Egyptians still relied on this world and those who lived in it to sustain them after death in a more comfortable fashion. So offerings were not required, but usually made to dead ancestors. And of coarse the preservation of the body was essential.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Really? Then what did the Ancient Egyptian religion borrow from? 😕
While many religions likely assimilated aspects of earlier religions certain Ancient religions are far more independent and assimilated far less.
The earliest religions of major civilisations like the Sumerian's and Egyptians probably evolved pretty much on their own, but it is possible both still drew upon older beliefs of more "primitive" times - animism and shamanism - which themselves might have been the first type of religious belief - in the simplest terms attributing supernatural but vaguely human power on the natural world - the soul, the spirit.
And the Egyptian religion didn't stay the same over the 3000 years of its existence - it evolved over time with contact from other cultures, and found a way of working in outsider gods with the pantheon.
So while Christianity and Islam appear to have many features derived from prior cultures, it is harder to find links between something like Egyptian religion and things before it, because they don't as often exist.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I doubt Pharonic Egyptian developed from anamism; its a lot more complex than just worshiping a rock or a bear.
Yeah I know its more complex than that, what im saying is that before you had complex religon you seem to have had shaminism, then it evolved. So by default everything evolves from Shaminism.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I doubt Pharonic Egyptian developed from anamism; its a lot more complex than just worshiping a rock or a bear.
You realise Egypt did just spring up fully formed, don't you? We are talking about taking from previous religions. And you know that prior to the Greek influence it is believed the Roman tribes had animist beliefs? The people that in less then 5 centuries would be a major power in the Mediterranean.
It is a terribly Eurocentric view that animism was somehow primitive or without complexity - it was in no way "simply worshipping a rock."
Early Egypt is descended from numerous, barely settled primitive tribes that gradually grew together, with many beliefs.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You realise Egypt did just spring up fully formed, don't you? We are talking about taking from previous religions. And you know that prior to the Greek influence it is believed the Roman tribes had animist beliefs? The people that in less then 5 centuries would be a major power in the Mediterranean.It is a terribly Eurocentric view that animism was somehow primitive or without complexity - it was in no way "simply worshipping a rock."
Early Egypt is descended from numerous, barely settled primitive tribes that gradually grew together, with many beliefs.
True, in many ways the reason there are so many gods of ancient Egypt is because of the way the country came together. It was originally many tribes that untied under king Narmer. He had teh good sense to realize that defeating an opposing tribe was one thing, but taking away their religion was another. So the pantheon of gods kept growing. Also, there was a tradition in Egypt that whenever a new dynasty or capitol came along, a new set of gods found themselves in a position of national importance. So far as I can tell, there were only a handful of gods that kept their position of prominence throughout the kindoms history.
And it should be noted that the complexity of the Egyptian religion shouldn't be questioned because it isn't still practiced today. It was extremely complex. After all, it evolved over 4000 years. That's more than twice as long as chrisitianity has existed as a major religion. And forms of it are still practiced in some parts of Africa.
Also, the question of outside influences on the Egyptian religion can be partly dismissed, because every conquerors that came along, from the hyksos to the greeks and romans, began to practice their religion rather than forcing them to subscribe to theirs.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You realise Egypt did just spring up fully formed, don't you? We are talking about taking from previous religions. And you know that prior to the Greek influence it is believed the Roman tribes had animist beliefs? The people that in less then 5 centuries would be a major power in the Mediterranean.It is a terribly Eurocentric view that animism was somehow primitive or without complexity - it was in no way "simply worshipping a rock."
Early Egypt is descended from numerous, barely settled primitive tribes that gradually grew together, with many beliefs.
Its not Eurocentric; its true. Name a single great civilization in history that worsiped 'the rock spirit' or 'the tree spirit'. There were none; Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Persia, Incas, Aztecs, none.
On the other hand, primitives such as the Ainu, Australian Aboriginals, etc did.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Its not Eurocentric; its true. Name a single great civilization in history that worsiped 'the rock spirit' or 'the tree spirit'. There were none; Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Persia, Incas, Aztecs, none.On the other hand, primitives such as the Ainu, Australian Aboriginals, etc did.
It is Eurocentric - it is a view born out of the Ivory tower mentality of the 17th and 18th century - the concept of European superioty, the pinnicle repsresnted by the Classical Cultures.
Early Rome had a mass of beings in its pantheon prior to the influx of Greek culture. These beings lacked mtyhology of themselves, they are, it is believed, considered spirits that populated everyday objects. There were ones who represented storms and forests. There was Camenae who represented wells. Cardea who represented door hinges. Potina who represented drinks for children of all things.
Scholars consider these beings quite in line with animist beliefs - the concepts of spirits empowering the physical world. And when the Greek gods came these Roman gods remained. Roman religion wasn't truly animist at their height, but it had descended from it.
And to consider the religious culture of the Australian aboriginals as primitive is very disappointing, and once again shows that romanticised image of the nature of the "Great Civilisations" religions:
"Tosh and poppycock the glorious Roman's wouldn't have worshipped a rock."
If anything it shows your ignorance of the significance of animism. Worshipping a spirit that represents something is no the same as worshiping the thing it represents. Many pantheistic cultures have at least minor links to ancient animist religions. Including the Egyptians. The first Christians to encounter the Egyptians wrote their religion of as simple minded idol worship - they believed the Egyptians worshipped little statues kept in the dark. The totally failed to understand that the cult icon and the god istelf was not the same thing. The first people to encounter the aboriginals thought their religion simple and foolish as they did not record their mythology and as a result missed an amazingly complex belief system and understanding of the land and cosmos.
Saying "Simply worshipping a rock" is comparable to what those people did hundreds of years ago.
What about the Khmer, that would fit in that region and time period and is considered a great Classical civilization.
Indeed.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The totally failed to understand that the cult icon and the god istelf was not the same thing.
I would agree. In the case of the Egyptians, they knew the gods as tangible beings that ruled during different ages of man. They had ascended to rule in the afterlife, leaving the position of Pharaoh to be their earthly representative. However, the idols were their tools to communicate with the god. Much like the golden idol of Amon, which during his anual festival headed a procession from Karnak to Luxor and the citizens were allowed to directly question the idol. When they asked their question of the god, the barge on which he was carried would either proceed for yes, or take two steps back for no. (It was carried on the shoulders of the priests.)
So the idol was considered sacred and as a representation of the god. But it wasn't the god itself.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I would agree. In the case of the Egyptians, they knew the gods as tangible beings that ruled during different ages of man. They had ascended to rule in the afterlife, leaving the position of Pharaoh to be their earthly representative. However, the idols were their tools to communicate with the god. Much like the golden idol of Amon, which during his anual festival headed a procession from Karnak to Luxor and the citizens were allowed to directly question the idol. When they asked their question of the god, the barge on which he was carried would either proceed for yes, or take two steps back for no. (It was carried on the shoulders of the priests.)So the idol was considered sacred and as a representation of the god. But it wasn't the god itself.
Exactly.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Hey..........why doesn't anyone ever ever give me credit for my little tid bits....................woman thing huh???????????? hmmm 😠
Kudos for your tidbit, it was relevant, and further moves away from the idea of the anceitn animists simply "worshipping rocks" - in seeking to understanding the natural world they attributed supernatural reasoning to the phenomona, to the physical matter.
They weren't bowing down before the thing itself - it was merely a representitive, they believed in the spirit behind the storm or wind of childrens drink.