Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Zoroastrianism...a religion that came before Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.


Derived in Persia from possible Greek influences. This is considered the FIRST actual monotheistic religion.

Zoroastrianism has its own SUPREME BEING (GOD) and its own Devil (SATAN)

Zorastrianism also has its own "Armaggeddon" (Apocalypse) and its OWN SAVIOR (like our Jesus)

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam came much later. Many theologists already agree that the THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS all took influence and thier ideas from Zoroastrianism.

I CHALLENGE anyone who is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish to GOOGLE Zoroastrianism up, then tell me your thoughts.

What about Buddhists?

All religions are welcome to debate here, ofcourse. But Buddhism did not derive from Zoroastrianism, so Buddhism owes nothing to this ancient religion.


If one researches Zoroastrianism it will be made clear to them that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have taken MAJOR influence on the mythology of this religion.

I am wondoring if Christians, Jews and Muslims will disregard this religion as a mere "coincidence" or take this into consideration.

IM DYING FOR ANSWERS......

I was just joking, sorry.

It's all good

BULLSH*T!!! shock naw just kidding here's a link for the lazy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Thanks Black Rob...where do you stand on this ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Thanks Black Rob...where do you stand on this ? pretty much same stance on all religion;it's possible. But as far as what came first i believe that it probably did. It's not that hard of a concept to believe when it's well known some christian concepts are already based on other religions.(Christmas for example)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about Buddhists? Well before the 6th century, Zoroastrianism had spread to northern China via the Silk Road, gaining official status in a number of Chinese states. Remains of Zoroastrian temples have been found in Kaifeng and Zhenjiang, and according to some scholars, remained as late as the 1130s, but by the 13th century the religion had faded from prominence in China. However, many scholars assert the influence of Zoroastrianism (as well as later Manicheism, which drew from Zoroastrianism) on elements of Buddhism, especially in terms of light symbolism

Actually I think Judaism predates zoroastrianism, but it(judaism) was influenced by it(zoroastrianism) while the Jews were captives in babylon and persia.

Black Rob....god job ! Your debate was very imformative, you got to the point, and its very hard to argue with anything you just said.

NICE !

I got my information on Zoroastrianism from Wikipedia (which is on OKAY source of info) and www.godchecker.com

Gochecker.com gives you the origin and information on EVERY RELIGION and MYTHOLOGY

That's how i found out about Zoroastrianism.

Ahh..I'm dissapointed. I had hoped that more Christians, Jews and Muslims would comment on this

Was I the only christian in here?

I think you and Black Rob were.

Well thank you guys....you guys actually had the GUTS to comment here, and for that I respect you .

All religions tend to draw from prior popular religions. For example, Greek mythology probably had basis in the animist religions of early man, at a far stretch. After all, they had a god for animals and a god for fire and a god for this and a god for that, as the ancient men did.

Safe to say most monotheistic relgions drew from Zoroastrianism to some degree. I haven't really looked into it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam came much later.

Judaism actually came before Zoroastrianism (way before). But how we know it today was influenced by Zoroaster's teachings.

Did Judaism really come first? Okay let me check my sources and see if i overlooked something.....


But at the same time, I'd like to know what sources you found that Judaism came first, because I have looked at many sources and cannot find anything that supports that.

Ah what a dissapointment that SO FEW can debate this.

It should be apparent that all religion is based upon the same root truth that was known at the beginning of mankind. One God that created everything.
On another note, Judaism likely did predate or originate at nearly the same time as Zoroastrianism as there is time period yet established by history and archaeology during which Judaism did not exist. Abraham (circa 2800 BC) shows that Judaism existed in Shinar at the same time it existed in Jerusalem, showing Judaism was already a wide reaching and truly ancient religion.

Because few people are familiar with Zoroastrianism. At heart, this is about religion having deeper roots in and borrowing elements from other religions, whether it' s Zoroastrianism or any other.

True.

But i beleive EVERY religion borrows something from a previous religion.

Believing this, i find it hard to beleive that any SINGLE religion is ABSOLUTELY true.

Originally posted by Storm
Because few people are familiar with Zoroastrianism. At heart, this is about religion having deeper roots in and borrowing elements from other religions, whether it' s Zoroastrianism or any other. Yep, if you want to get back to your basics than look at the Sumerian's..........Let's worship the Sun god and change it's name and make it a HIM..........cast out women as evil, and persecute anyone who has a different point of view..........Ta Da.....Inquisitions, witch burnings, heretics, crusades.........Infact if these conversations were being watched in the 1400-1500's we would all be burned at the stake.

Could any of you tell me anywhere else you got your information? I'm writing a paper on which religion came first, Judaism or Zoroastrianism, and so far have found nothing on the subject. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by cunfuzzzled
Could any of you tell me anywhere else you got your information? I'm writing a paper on which religion came first, Judaism or Zoroastrianism, and so far have found nothing on the subject. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Judaism came first, but was later influenced by zoroastrianism. I don't remember the name of the textbook, but it was for a world religions class in college.

Originally posted by Black Rob
pretty much same stance on all religion;it's possible. But as far as what came first i believe that it probably did. It's not that hard of a concept to believe when it's well known some christian concepts are already based on other religions.(Christmas for example)

Yeah but I dont think Christmas is in the Bible.

Actually Zoroastrianism may have come after, more recent scolarship dates him to the end of the second millennium B.C.E. and Judaisms stories came around 1800 B.C.E

Ahura Mazda was the name of the Good God and was surrounded by angels, and worshipped by farmers and cattle owners; Angra Mainyu was the evil spirit, worshipped by rustlers.

While it has a lot of influence on other religions, it's unique in that it has evolved over time. Which is something that it's founding people in the middle east abandoned a long time ago. (The idea of change) And while it's nice to ascribe it the responsability of an archetype religion, it's hardly the first to use such ideas. Even in this religion you can find older stereotypes for characters, events and personalities.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Zoroastrianism...a religion that came before Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.


Derived in Persia from possible Greek influences. This is considered the FIRST actual monotheistic religion.

Zoroastrianism has its own SUPREME BEING (GOD) and its own Devil (SATAN)

Zorastrianism also has its own "Armaggeddon" (Apocalypse) and its OWN SAVIOR (like our Jesus)

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam came much later. Many theologists already agree that the THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS all took influence and thier ideas from Zoroastrianism.

I CHALLENGE anyone who is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish to GOOGLE Zoroastrianism up, then tell me your thoughts.
It is no challenge, the Bible tells us that even before the Israelites were in Egypt God warned them against the religions and idol worshippers of others. Satan is the source of these religions as he has been trying to since the beginning destroy and corrupt God's creation. He does not want to be the only one apart from his dominions to go to hell. And he spun his lies so well that even today people are "convinced" about their truth. But God is the only truth and He sent His son Jesus to heal the corrupted relationship beteen God and His creation. All you have to do is accept His gift. So it is of no important relevance that there are so many "religions" that came before Christianity or Judaism or whatever. God is still the only tue God and through Jesus came a religion called Christianity- followers of Christ-. For He is the way and no one goes to the Father except through Him (Jesus).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about Buddhists?

Sorry, but it seems you are all on your own.

blah blah blah..........

The only reason why they say such things is because they want to convey that the religions that existed in egypt and surroundings at the time were not theirs and therefore evil. The writers of the bible sought to persuade their readers away from that what had existed before. THATS all. And in the time of where FEAR played a major role in religion, they had to emphasize this fact.

WE all worship one god. Just because they did not know about other religions and beliefs at the time, does not make it evil. It does not mean that Satan created it!!!! They never knew that the planet was round, not about the americas and antartica...... SO DOES that make does places evil too?????????

ITs like saying all sharks are dangerous and ruthless killers, when the people saying this have only known about Great whites and Bull sharks. A very irresponsible statement when there are amazing species like the super gentle Whale sharks, Basking sharks, Bamboo sharks, zebra sharks........... etc, not to mention those that are usually under 1 meter in length

Originally posted by fini
blah blah blah..........

The only reason why they say such things is because they want to convey that the religions that existed in egypt and surroundings at the time were not theirs and therefore evil. The writers of the bible sought to persuade their readers away from that what had existed before. THATS all. And in the time of where FEAR played a major role in religion, they had to emphasize this fact.

WE all worship one god. Just because they did not know about other religions and beliefs at the time, does not make it evil. It does not mean that Satan created it!!!! They never knew that the planet was round, not about the americas and antartica...... SO DOES that make does places evil too?????????


The writer of the Bible is God through His spirit through men that worshipped God. They were annointed by God for this task. And God wants us to know that these religions are evil and will seperate us from the love of God forever if we follow them. It is such a danger to man that God instucted the the Isralites to destroy these people and their cities because they were not of God but of Satan and part of his plan to corrupt God's creation.
We do not all worship one God, another lie from Satan. Read the Bible to know who the only true God is.

Originally posted by sonnet
The writer of the Bible is God through His spirit through men that worshipped God. They were annointed by God for this task. And God wants us to know that these religions are evil and will seperate us from the love of God forever if we follow them. It is such a danger to man that God instucted the the Isralites to destroy these people and their cities because they were not of God but of Satan and part of his plan to corrupt God's creation.
We do not all worship one God, another lie from Satan. Read the Bible to know who the only true God is.

1 Timothy 6:13
I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate,

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

Sonnet, when I read your posts I know that you have the Word of God abiding in you, and I am well persuaded that you will continue to abide in the Word of God. For this reason I also thank God without ceasing, because when I receive the Word of God which I hear from you, I welcome it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which also effectively works in me who believes. Continue to witness the good confession just as Jesus Christ did before Pontius Pilate. Good job!

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Zoroastrianism...a religion that came before Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.


Derived in Persia from possible Greek influences. This is considered the FIRST actual monotheistic religion.

Zoroastrianism has its own SUPREME BEING (GOD) and its own Devil (SATAN)

Zorastrianism also has its own "Armaggeddon" (Apocalypse) and its OWN SAVIOR (like our Jesus)

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam came much later. Many theologists already agree that the THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS all took influence and thier ideas from Zoroastrianism.

I CHALLENGE anyone who is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish to GOOGLE Zoroastrianism up, then tell me your thoughts.

I'd just like to say, that this fiew is still borrowed from Ancient Egyptians. It is believed they are the firt one which tried out the idea of one God.

Ironically, it all went really wrong, so they went back to worshiping the old Gods. hah..

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'd just like to say, that this fiew is still borrowed from Ancient Egyptians. It is believed they are the firt one which tried out the idea of one God.

Ironically, it all went really wrong, so they went back to worshiping the old Gods. hah..
Only problem is their one god was not the True God, the Creator, who took Israel as His people and sent us Jesus. So what is the relevance?

Originally posted by sonnet
Only problem is their one god was not the True God, the Creator, who took Israel as His people and sent us Jesus. So what is the relevance?

The relevance is, that by ''pure accident'' the first place where the idea of One God was introduced was Egypt. And accidently, Moses was in Egypt, and accidently he took his people away on the orders of One God.

Why didn't the creater send the One True God to Chinese? They seem to have been very enlightened at the time.
Or Greeks? Why didn't he send them to Greeks, or Maya civiliations? They were extreamly enlightened and progressed very well.

Egyptians were extrealy advanced, so why didn't God send his message to the civilisations which were SO advenced?

But no, for some reason God sent the prophets to all the places where people were full of suffering and ignorance.

Its just...unlikely, thats all.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The relevance is, that by ''pure accident'' the first place where the idea of One God was introduced was Egypt. And accidently, Moses was in Egypt, and accidently he took his people away on the orders of One God.

Why didn't the creater send the One True God to Chinese? They seem to have been very enlightened at the time.
Or Greeks? Why didn't he send them to Greeks, or Maya civiliations? They were extreamly enlightened and progressed very well.

Egyptians were extrealy advanced, so why didn't God send his message to the civilisations which were SO advenced?

But no, for some reason God sent the prophets to all the places where people were full of suffering and ignorance.

Its just...unlikely, thats all.
It was by God's hand that Moses was in Egypt because God chose him to be the person to lead His people out. Yes the one True God was already in Egypt, because of the Isralites that worshipped Him there, they brought their reliogion there. The Egyptions worshipped idols and other gods.
What makes you think that Jesus went to China? The Bible seid they went to the east.... east of where they were? East of Bethlehem? No mention of a specific country, and defnitely not India or China. Another lie concocted by Satan to fool all who would be fooled. Keep your eyes on God and His Word and you not stray from Him or be fooled by Satan who the Bible tells us can appear as an angel of the light to fool the world and even the true Christians if he could.
Sorry, You have been fooled!!!

Originally posted by sonnet
It is such a danger to man that God instucted the the Isralites to destroy these people and their cities because they were not of God but of Satan and part of his plan to corrupt God's creation.

Genocide eh?

And kind of kicks sand in the face of free will.

God: "Yes, I gave you free will, it is on your hands to worship whatever you want."

People: "Yay! We can worship that which is relevant to us - our gods of fertility and love and music. The gods of the land and our ancestors!"

God: *Whispering* "Those people living their own lives and with there own culture are dangers to my plan. Exterminate them."

Israelites: "We obey merciful one. Consider them exterminated."


I mean really. I dislike the whole "all other religions are the product of the devil" - it doesn't seem to work.

There are religions that predate Judaism - by thousands of years. Great religions relevant to that culture. The is no devil in this. There is people - cultured, civilised people with their own identity, and in plenty of cases following religions took something from them. Christianity certainly has, as have the Jews and Muslims. And most of the rest.

And of course there is the fact there is no proof cultures prior to the Jews knew anything of the Christian God. Thus it goes against the concept God was known to them and they had turned to evil. They didn't know, and they were just living their lives.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Zoroastrianism...a religion that came before Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.


Derived in Persia from possible Greek influences. This is considered the FIRST actual monotheistic religion.

Zoroastrianism has its own SUPREME BEING (GOD) and its own Devil (SATAN)

Zorastrianism also has its own "Armaggeddon" (Apocalypse) and its OWN SAVIOR (like our Jesus)

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam came much later. Many theologists already agree that the THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS all took influence and thier ideas from Zoroastrianism.

I CHALLENGE anyone who is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish to GOOGLE Zoroastrianism up, then tell me your thoughts. Well of course they all came from the same religion. Christianity, Islam and Judaism say pretty much the same thing.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And of course there is the fact there is no proof cultures prior to the Jews knew anything of the Christian God. Thus it goes against the concept God was known to them and they had turned to evil. They didn't know, and they were just living their lives.

What a load of crap. You really need to read some stuff before you comment.

This comming form who?

Originally posted by Alliance
This comming form who?
A born again child of God. But I thought you knew that...

Originally posted by sonnet
Yes the one True God was already in Egypt, because of the Isralites that worshipped Him there

Not unless they worshipped the sun disk, the Aten. The concept of one true god was created by the Pharaoh Akhenaten. He was the father of king Tut and the first monotheist in history. His name was originally Amenhotep before he created the Aten, and changed his name to Akhenaten. This was during the 18th dynasty, around the 1350's BC. If you want to follow typical accepted history, the pharaoh during the exodus was Rameses the 2nd, who was the third pharaoh of the 19th dynasty. Which was a number of years after the reign of Akhenaten.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not unless they worshipped the sun disk, the Aten. The concept of one true god was created by the Pharaoh Akhenaten. He was the father of king Tut and the first monotheist in history. His name was originally Amenhotep before he created the Aten, and changed his name to Akhenaten. This was during the 18th dynasty, around the 1350's BC. If you want to follow typical accepted history, the pharaoh during the exodus was Rameses the 2nd, who was the third pharaoh of the 19th dynasty. Which was a number of years after the reign of Akhenaten.
Your point being? Abraham worshipped God long before the Israelites went to Egypt. God introduced Him to Abraham as the only true God. I don't recall the Bible telling us God telling him " Here I am, your one God the sun disk" As I said before the God that created us and our universe and that were worshipped by the Isralites are not the same God as that of the Egyptions. Maybe they liked the idea of a one God and addapted, but we read that they had many idols / gods.

Originally posted by sonnet
Your point being? Abraham worshipped God long before the Israelites went to Egypt. God introduced Him to Abraham as the only true God. I don't recall the Bible telling us God telling him " Here I am, your one God the sun disk" As I said before the God that created us and our universe and that were worshipped by the Isralites are not the same God as that of the Egyptions. Maybe they liked the idea of a one God and addapted, but we read that they had many idols / gods.

no one said they were the same god. We're telling you that it's coincidental that the idea of one god predates your notion that your version of one god is unique.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
no one said they were the same god. We're telling you that it's coincidental that the idea of one god predates your notion that your version of one god is unique.
I can't remember saying that it is unique, but that He is the only true God. I know there are many religions that believe in some or other one god, it is just not the true God. As God is the creator, there is no other god that can predate Him.

Originally posted by sonnet
As God is the creator, there is no other god that can predate Him.

who said that?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
who said that?
God said 'There are no other God before me" . Read His Word, you'll find out alot more about God.

Originally posted by sonnet
God said 'There are no other God before me" . Read His Word, you'll find out alot more about God.

I assure you, I have read the bible. 13 years in Catholic school has it's advantages when attempting to communicate with nutjobs who like to repeat themselves over and over again while saying nothing at the same time.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I assure you, I have read the bible. 13 years in Catholic school has it's advantages when attempting to communicate with nutjobs who like to repeat themselves over and over again while saying nothing at the same time.
I read the Bible too while in school, but it does not mean you understood it. You can only understand the full spiritual meaning when your spirit has been reborn through salvation through Jesus Christ. And it does not all happen in a flash. The Bible says in the beginning we are like babies that need milk, meaning that we understand little bits because we take in little bits but as we grow spiritually the Word and its full meaning opens up to our spirits and we are able to comprehend. So according to God you did not know His word.

Originally posted by sonnet
I read the Bible too while in school, but it does not mean you understood it. You can only understand the full spiritual meaning when your spirit has been reborn through salvation through Jesus Christ. And it does not all happen in a flash. The Bible says in the beginning we are like babies that need milk, meaning that we understand little bits because we take in little bits but as we grow spiritually the Word and its full meaning opens up to our spirits and we are able to comprehend. So according to God you did not know His word.

That's nice. But after 13 years, it failed to grow on me. I'm not a big fan of milk.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Zoroastrianism...a religion that came before Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Derived in Persia from possible Greek influences. This is considered the FIRST actual monotheistic religion.

Zoroastrianism has its own SUPREME BEING (GOD) and its own Devil (SATAN)

Zorastrianism also has its own "Armaggeddon" (Apocalypse) and its OWN SAVIOR (like our Jesus)

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam came much later. Many theologists already agree that the THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS all took influence and thier ideas from Zoroastrianism.

I CHALLENGE anyone who is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish to GOOGLE Zoroastrianism up, then tell me your thoughts.

Zoroastrianism is derived from the Aryan religion, it began somewhere around the 9th century BCE. Given this, the Hebrew religion is older. Influences from Zoroastrians are a fact though and no one can deny that.

The wise men from the east were most probably Zoroastrian priests, particularly given the title Magi used in the New Testament.

Zoroastrians are the only members of other religions mentioned in the Bible that are commended rather than condemned by the Lord. Cyrus, definitely a Zoroastrian, in the Old Testament book of Isaiah is referred to by Jehovah as his "anointed" and "my shepherd," an instrument in his hands for performing his will (Isa. 45:1, 44:28).

Esther in the Bible married the Zoroastrian king Ahasuerus. This king saved Mordecai, the prophet, an event still celebrated by the Jews with the feast of Purim.

The Avesta describes a spiritual creation followed by a physical one. Zoroastrians hold that man existed as an intelligent spirit prior to being born. These beliefs as well as many others are in line with LDS beliefs.

Mormons believe that God speaks to all men. It is not a conflict or surprise that the Zoroastrians were in line with what we believe, and that they may have taught the Hebrews various aspects of truth and religion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well of course they all came from the same religion. Christianity, Islam and Judaism say pretty much the same thing.

Thats true, but if you look at the three major religions and then at Zoroastrianism, you will find the same ideas. They all had their own Prophets, people who brought them, holy books, and all worship one god.

Originally posted by cunfuzzzled
Could any of you tell me anywhere else you got your information? I'm writing a paper on which religion came first, Judaism or Zoroastrianism, and so far have found nothing on the subject. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Here are some of the texts I have read on the subject of Zoroastrianism:



On the topic of Zoroastrian sacred texts:

Originally posted by Regret
Zoroastrianism is derived from the Aryan religion, it began somewhere around the 9th century BCE. Given this, the Hebrew religion is older. Influences from Zoroastrians are a fact though and no one can deny that.

The wise men from the east were most probably Zoroastrian priests, particularly given the title Magi used in the New Testament.

Zoroastrians are the only members of other religions mentioned in the Bible that are commended rather than condemned by the Lord. Cyrus, definitely a Zoroastrian, in the Old Testament book of Isaiah is referred to by Jehovah as his "anointed" and "my shepherd," an instrument in his hands for performing his will (Isa. 45:1, 44:28).

Esther in the Bible married the Zoroastrian king Ahasuerus. This king saved Mordecai, the prophet, an event still celebrated by the Jews with the feast of Purim.

The Avesta describes a spiritual creation followed by a physical one. Zoroastrians hold that man existed as an intelligent spirit prior to being born. These beliefs as well as many others are in line with LDS beliefs.

Mormons believe that God speaks to all men. It is not a conflict or surprise that the Zoroastrians were in line with what we believe, and that they may have taught the Hebrews various aspects of truth and religion.


Actually, Zoroastrianism's true date of origin is uncertain...some scholars beleive it was 600 B.C. while others beleive it was 7000 BC.

It definately had its influence on Christianity and Islam, without a doubt. However, it had large coincidenses with Judaism, and keep in mind that Judaism's true date of origin is ALSO uncertain. 5000 B.C. is only an estimate we have, and not automatic fact.

There is much evidense to show that Zoroastrianism began when the Greeks of Alexander's army were stuck in the regions between Afghanistan and Persia, and a mix of thier mythologies created the new religion, Zoroastrianism.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Actually, Zoroastrianism's true date of origin is uncertain...some scholars beleive it was 600 B.C. while others beleive it was 7000 BC.

It definately had its influence on Christianity and Islam, without a doubt. However, it had large coincidenses with Judaism, and keep in mind that Judaism's true date of origin is ALSO uncertain. 5000 B.C. is only an estimate we have, and not automatic fact.

There is much evidense to show that Zoroastrianism began when the Greeks of Alexander's army were stuck in the regions between Afghanistan and Persia, and a mix of thier mythologies created the new religion, Zoroastrianism. Doesn't matter, as to religion everyone picks which facts are accurate and which are not. Regardless of which facts are true and which are not, everyone will only believe the ones that fit their beliefs. Pushing the earlier date is only your method of supporting your beliefs.

Originally posted by Regret
Doesn't matter, as to religion everyone picks which facts are accurate and which are not. Regardless of which facts are true and which are not, everyone will only believe the ones that fit their beliefs. Pushing the earlier date is only your method of supporting your beliefs.

How so? I don't beleive in Zoroastrianism

It's all mythology to me...that religion, and yours.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How so? I don't beleive in Zoroastrianism

It's all mythology to me...that religion, and yours. Your post supports your attack on the Bible, and Christianity, which you believe to be mythology. Your belief is supported by the later date. Given this, you push the earlier date to support your belief.

But is everytthing motivated by a simple desire to be right?


I don't think that is true.

Originally posted by Alliance
But is everytthing motivated by a simple desire to be right?


I don't think that is true. Regardless, if the evidence is not conclusive or conflicting, the interpretation will be taken that fits one's personal position.

Originally posted by Regret
Your post supports your attack on the Bible, and Christianity, which you believe to be mythology. Your belief is supported by the later date. Given this, you push the earlier date to support your belief.

Uh NO...go back and read.

There is NO certain date for the origins of Zoroastrianism, just like there is NO certain date for Judaism.

Yes. However, intelligent people realize that that is a false argument.

You can make an argument, but its far from proven.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Uh NO...go back and read.

There is NO certain date for the origins of Zoroastrianism, just like there is NO certain date for Judaism. Yes, and so Zoroastrianism is not necessarily older than Judaism. Your impetus post for this thread is thus baseless, by your own admission.

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, and so Zoroastrianism is not necessarily older than Judaism. Your impetus post for this thread is thus baseless, by your own admission.

Yes, my earlier claims are not 100% valid. But neither are your own.

The answer of who is right or wrong in this matter, in terms of which religion predated the other (Zoroastrianism or Judaism) may never be answered, because there are too many varied sources making contradictory claims.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes. However, intelligent people realize that that is a false argument.

You can make an argument, but its far from proven. Yes they can realize this, but until there is conclusive evidence, these intelligent people pretend that their position is near absolute.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, my earlier claims are not 100% valid. But neither are your own.

The answer of who is right or wrong in this matter, in terms of which religion predated the other (Zoroastrianism or Judaism) may never be answered, because there are too many varied sources making contradictory claims. And so it seems, as a Christian, I have have responded more than adequately to your impetus post.

Originally posted by Regret
And so it seems, as a Christian, I have have responded more than adequately to your impetus post.

My posts are as impetus as your own, since you have no factual basis to go on with your beleifs.

Your religion is your right to have, but it is only a religion...it is not based on actual facts.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
My posts are as impetus as your own, since you have no factual basis to go on with your beleifs.

Your religion is your right to have, but it is only a religion...it is not based on actual facts. Impetus means instigating. Your impetus post is the post that began this thread.

It may be based on actual facts, the facts in question are merely doubted as to their validity.

Originally posted by Regret
Impetus means instigating. Your impetus post is the post that began this thread.

It may be based on actual facts, the facts in question are merely doubted as to their validity.

And you don't instigate ? When you claim that your beleifs are true, you also claim that all others are false, regardless of whether you mean to or not.

Those are challenging and offensive claims to make, JUST as challenging and offensive as my own.

Neither of us can claim our beleif is FACT or TRUTH, because neither of us have PROOF....we both have evidense yes, but our evidense contradicts each other's, and the only way to surely know who is correct, is by finding some kind of CONCLUSIVE and undeniable evidense to confirm the truth.

That may never happen...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And you don't instigate ? When you claim that your beleifs are true, you also claim that all others are false, regardless of whether you mean to or not.

Those are challenging and offensive claims to make, JUST as challenging and offensive as my own. Do not push this further, you are showing a lack of knowledge that was unexpected in you.

Neither of us can claim our beleif is FACT or TRUTH, because neither of us have PROOF....we both have evidense yes, but our evidense contradicts each other's, and the only way to surely know who is correct, is by finding some kind of CONCLUSIVE and undeniable evidense to confirm the truth.

That may never happen... The term impetus as I used it refers to the post that started this thread, there is only one post that began, or instigated, this thread.

I thought this was appropriate:

"What is important is to keep learning, to enjoy challenge, and to tolerate ambiguity. In the end there are no certain answers."
- Martina Horner, President of Radcliffe College

I believe that a couple of elements of Christianity were derived, or borrowed in some fashion from other religions, whether it' s Zoroastrianism or any other religion.

The Sumerians which is older worshipped An as the primary god, equivalent to "heaven"-- indeed, the word "an" in Sumerian means "sky", and his consort Ki, meaning "earth". Collectively the Gods were known as Anunaki ("heaven and earth", reminiscent of the opening verse of Genesis - "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth". An's closest cohorts were Enki in the south at the Abzu temple in Eridu, Enlil in the north at the Ekur temple of Nippur and Inana, the deification of Venus, the morning (eastern) and evening (western) star, Like Christian scripture at the Eanna temple (shared with An) at Uruk. The sun was Utu, was worshipped at Sippar, the moon was Nanna, worshipped at Ur and Nammu or Namma was one of the names of the Mother Goddess, probably considered to be the original matrix; there were hundreds of minor deities. The Sumerian gods (Sumerian dingir, plural dingir-dingir or dingir-a-ne-ne) thus had associations with different cities, and their religious importance often waxed and waned with the political power of the associated cities. The gods were said to have created human beings from clay for the purpose of serving them like in Genesis. The gods often expressed their anger and frustration through earthquakes and storms: the gist of Sumerian religion was that humanity was at the mercy of the gods.

The highest authority was the triad of gods: the sky god Anu, the storm god Enlil, and the water god Ea, or Enki. Later a second triad arose: the moon god Sin, the sun god Shamash, and the goddess Ishtar (sometimes replaced by the weather god Hadad). As Babylon rose to supremacy in the 2d millennium B.C., the local god Marduk became important; a thousand years later Ashur of Assyria took his place. Thus many deities were determined by political conquest as well as by interchange.
While originally the functions of priesthood were borne by the city rulers, in later times priests became a separate group and were assigned special and significant duties: some pacified the gods with hymns and liturgy; others were trained in divination and astrology (special functions in Middle Eastern religion that indirectly contributed to the growth of science); others, perhaps the most important, were concerned with protecting people from demons, who were considered actual creatures with distinct shapes and names and were to be repelled by magic, daily recitations, and exorcism.

Originally posted by Regret
The term impetus as I used it refers to the post that started this thread, there is only one post that began, or instigated, this thread.

You are dodging my point....neither of us have proof for our assertions in this debate. Only evidense.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are dodging my point....neither of us have proof for our assertions in this debate. Only evidense. I am not dodging it. I wholly agree. Given this, a stance as to which religion influenced which is not provable, neither is the stance as to which came first. My evidence/proof is my religious text combined with lack of evidence to refute it's claims as to which came first, so for me, I will make the assumption that the Hebrew religion predates Zoroastrianism until evidence refutes this belief.

Originally posted by Regret
I am not dodging it. I wholly agree. Given this, a stance as to which religion influenced which is not provable, neither is the stance as to which came first. My evidence/proof is my religious text combined with lack of evidence to refute it's claims as to which came first, so for me, I will make the assumption that the Hebrew religion predates Zoroastrianism until evidence refutes this belief.

Which is your right, but likewise, by the same logic, I can easily assume that Zoroastrianism predates Judaism, and use that as evidense for my beleif...

But I won't....I don't like just making assumptions, I would rather know for certain before claiming such a thing...or atleast have enough concrete reason to beleive, rather than just holding onto a belief to fit my bias.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Which is your right, but likewise, by the same logic, I can easily assume that Zoroastrianism predates Judaism, and use that as evidense for my beleif...

But I won't....I don't like just making assumptions, I would rather know for certain before claiming such a thing...or atleast have enough concrete reason to beleive, rather than just holding onto a belief to fit my bias. You made the assumption when starting this thread:Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Zoroastrianism...a religion that came before Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.


Derived in Persia from possible Greek influences. This is considered the FIRST actual monotheistic religion.

Zoroastrianism has its own SUPREME BEING (GOD) and its own Devil (SATAN)

Zorastrianism also has its own "Armaggeddon" (Apocalypse) and its OWN SAVIOR (like our Jesus)

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam came much later. Many theologists already agree that the THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS all took influence and thier ideas from Zoroastrianism.

I CHALLENGE anyone who is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish to GOOGLE Zoroastrianism up, then tell me your thoughts. Everyone makes assumptions, it is a key aspect of the scientific method. I make my assumption that the Hebrew religion was first and then as new evidence presents itself this assumption is further supported or refuted. I do not state that such is fact, but my belief is that it is so.

I accept that the evidence does not state definitively one way or the other on the subject, and do not claim it does, but evidence that is present does suggest that the Hebrew religion is the older of the two. I have never read anything placing Zoroastrianism older than between 1500 and 1000 BCE, do you have any support for the idea that Zoroastrianism is older than this? The Bible is traced back to at least 1200 BC at the time of Moses, and thus the Hebrew religion is at least this old.

Originally posted by Regret
You made the assumption when starting this thread: Everyone makes assumptions, it is a key aspect of the scientific method. I make my assumption that the Hebrew religion was first and then as new evidence presents itself this assumption is further supported or refuted. I do not state that such is fact, but my belief is that it is so.

Quite True my freind....However, after doing more research, I found that although there is much evidense to show that Zoroastrianism predated Judaism, or BEGAN at the same time Judaism spawned, there is ALSO Evidense to show that Judaism preceded it.

I stand almost corrected....

Originally posted by Regret
I accept that the evidence does not state definitively one way or the other on the subject, and do not claim it does, but evidence that is present does suggest that the Hebrew religion is the older of the two. I have never read anything placing Zoroastrianism older than between 1500 and 1000 BCE, do you have any support for the idea that Zoroastrianism is older than this? The Bible is traced back to at least 1200 BC at the time of Moses, and thus the Hebrew religion is at least this old.



I have found sources that claim the Hebrew Religion started 5,000 B.C. but I have also found evidense that Zoroastrianism originated that time.

Since all sources are subject to question, I find it pointless to present everything I found...however, if you'd still like to me cite everything, I'd be more than happy to.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I have found sources that claim the Hebrew Religion started 5,000 B.C. but I have also found evidense that Zoroastrianism originated that time.

Since all sources are subject to question, I find it pointless to present everything I found...however, if you'd still like to me cite everything, I'd be more than happy to.

I am not doubting that Zoroastrianism is old, about the same age as the Hebrew religion, but I do doubt any support for as old as 5000 BC. If you have some support for this age I wouldn't mind having that, I am not a scholar on the age of religions, even the Hebrew one, however all the evidence I have ever heard of dates oldest records of the two being between 1000 and 1500 BCE. The Hebrew religion claims to have begun ~5000 BCE, but I have never heard of evidence dating it this old.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I CHALLENGE anyone who is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish to GOOGLE Zoroastrianism up, then tell me your thoughts.

Um, its a cool ancient religion practiced by the Persians, I know Freddie Mercury practiced it and its where genies come from.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
True.

But i beleive EVERY religion borrows something from a previous religion.

Believing this, i find it hard to beleive that any SINGLE religion is ABSOLUTELY true.

Really? Then what did the Ancient Egyptian religion borrow from?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Really? Then what did the Ancient Egyptian religion borrow from?

Shaminism?

Something more specific please? Like the name of a religion.

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.

I doubt Pharonic Egyptian developed from anamism; its a lot more complex than just worshiping a rock or a bear.

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.

What about the Khmer, that would fit in that region and time period and is considered a great Classical civilization.

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.



Indeed.

The word "Worship" in the Hebrew texts was also just a sign just bowing.....it was just a sign of homage to a person......

Worship kings, bowing down to something..............It was the etiquette of those days............

Look at anthropologist views.

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.

Hey..........why doesn't anyone ever ever give me credit for my little tid bits....................woman thing huh???????????? hmmm

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.

Dumb stupid post....I didn't want it to do this nothing.......so ingore this.was really trying to do something kinda cool.......

Originally posted by debbiejo
Dumb stupid post....I didn't want it to do this nothing.......so ingore this.was really trying to do something kinda cool.......

Don't give up! That's an order soldier.

Didn't work..................

I wanted to post this certain song..................*sad*

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Don't give up! That's an order soldier.

When did you get the ability to militarize members?

HAHAHAHA.........cause he's been here longer than you......Private Alliance..........lol

I'm clearly not a private.

Besides, I have almost double his experience.

What are you a Sargent in the class of KMC military??? ........lol

I even think I surpass you my dear........oh, j/k

my posts if that really means anything.......18169

Yours. 10097


Just call me General.............hahahaha...............Just teasing.

Originally posted by Alliance
When did you get the ability to militarize members?

Since I released my movie/documentry "Imperial Samura Camp."

...

Originally posted by debbiejo
What are you a Sargent in the class of KMC military??? ........lol

I even think I surpass you my dear........oh, j/k

my posts if that really means anything.......18169

Yours. 10097


Just call me General.............hahahaha...............Just teasing.

*look at my location*

Yeah...thats what I thought.

And you do have more posts....but you don't have the personality

100 push ups to you now says the General!! Posture now and shoes shines..............bed made?

that was so unconvincing.

.

And you do have more posts....but you don't have the personality hysterical

Look at me when I'm talking to you soldier!! lol


ok back on topic before U and I get yelled at.............LOL

Originally posted by debbiejo
100 push ups to you now says the General!! Posture now and shoes shines..............bed made?

Try to combine the Gunnery Sargent from Full Metal Jacket (just don't go to far or your soldiers will kill you) and an impressive posture.

Even though generals don't really go around yelling at privates. They are more war room types.

No shit.

I really think we should have member rankings.

We do.............

Moderator and User.

LOL

Oops sorry, didn't mean it.

ok.

Originally posted by Alliance
I really think we should have member rankings.

What would they be based on?

How much I like the member.

Member ranks are unfair. the only people i can get to follow me are gay. comment above not withstanding.

"Gay Army"

Your talking about YOUR MEMBER..........don't count .

Originally posted by Alliance


"Gay Army"

i believe it's called the gay mafia.

That was better.

"follow your member"

I'm surprised you can't get any chicks to do it/

Originally posted by Alliance


"Gay Army"

Well if the membership is liberal enough to allow the really happy I would sign up.

The military has always been one of the great forces of equality.

Its just suffering a small lapse in the US right now.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well if the membership is liberal enough to allow the really happy I would sign up.

I was trying to think of something..........but this was great!!

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm surprised you can't get any chicks to do it/

i can. Well, I "could". But I haven't tried since high school

Originally posted by Alliance
The military has always been one of the great forces of equality.

Its just suffering a small lapse in the US right now.

I'm sure it will bounce back. In the long histories of nations lapses only become a problem when it goes beyond being a lapse and becomes the norm.

Indeed. The full integration of women and homosexuals into the military may be the great legacy of the Iraq War.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
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.

If a group of people are primitive, then they are in fact primitve. There's nothing "centric" about it.

About the Australian Aborigines; name a major technological invention or scientific feat that they did.

By the way, the Ainus literally worship rocks.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If a group of people are primitive, then they are in fact primitve. There's nothing "centric" about it.

Yeah, but we still can't build the pyramids of Giza today.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yeah, but we still can't build the pyramids of Giza today.
We could, but it is thought that it would take around 400 years.

Originally posted by Nellinator
We could, but it is thought that it would take around 400 years.

that's bullshit, ey. The ancient Egyptians knocked it out in 30 years; it sure as hell wouldn't take modern people 400 years!

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
that's bullshit, ey. The ancient Egyptians knocked it out in 30 years; it sure as hell wouldn't take modern people 400 years!


fine, get me ten thousand hebrews and i'll get the job done



(that's a joke. the pyramids were built by compensated Egyptian farmers during the off seasons.)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
fine, get me ten thousand hebrews and i'll get the job done



(that's a joke. the pyramids were built by compensated Egyptian farmers during the off seasons.)
I've never heard that. Also, there are many theories that the great pyramids were actually built over an extremely long time and that there construction was claimed by later pharoahs. I see a lot of validity in these claims.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I've never heard that. Also, there are many theories that the great pyramids were actually built over an extremely long time and that there construction was claimed by later pharoahs. I see a lot of validity in these claims.

No, there are not many theories. Read anything by the head of the supreme council of egyptian antiquities, Dr Zahi Hawass. There are well provided for burial sites on the giza plateau that prove as much.

But, then again you also believe that the bible is the infallible word of god. Don't argue for my side, it makes us look stupid.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If a group of people are primitive, then they are in fact primitve. There's nothing "centric" about it.

About the Australian Aborigines; name a major technological invention or scientific feat that they did.

By the way, the Ainus literally worship rocks.

Actually it is Eurocentric - scholars in these days are judging cultures less on comparison to the classic three and more on their own merits. They have realised that it is erroneous to declare a group barbarian simply because they didn't use sewers or a group primitive because they didn't invent things.

And you are playing right into an increasingly outdated view. The Australian aboriginals had a complex cultural history, oral tradition, artistic, sea faring and broad agricultural practices and the like. They are primitive compared to the English who discovered them - but it is not right they should be declared uncultured.

Because you see - a culture doesn't need to have made a major scientific discovery to be considered possessing complex culture. It would be good to see a day when words like "primitive" and "barbarian" were completely left behind and anthropological dating used to define - stone age, hunter gatherer etc.

The Egyptians didn't even get access to the wheel until another culture brought it to them - yet that culture isn't give the "advanced cultural" tag like the Egyptians even though they introduced many things to the Egyptian world.

Compared to the East Europe during the Middle Ages far inferior to them in most fields, and after the crusades assimilated many Eastern technologies and the like. Yet it isn't right to call them primitive.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, there are not many theories. Read anything by the head of the supreme council of egyptian antiquities, Dr Zahi Hawass. There are well provided for burial sites on the giza plateau that prove as much.

But, then again you also believe that the bible is the infallible word of god. Don't argue for my side, it makes us look stupid.
I am familiar with Dr. Hawass.

Should not agree with you if you are right then?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Should not agree with you if you are right then?

Not if this is representative of your opinion of legitimate:

Originally posted by Nellinator
Also, there are many theories that the great pyramids were actually built over an extremely long time and that there construction was claimed by later pharoahs. I see a lot of validity in these claims.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not if this is representative of your opinion of legitimate:
You think the great pyramids were built in one lifetime? I can see many of them being built by one pharoah, but not the great pyramid of Khufu, not with the distances between the quarry and the pyramid and definitely not without the horse and wheel. However, I would believe 100 years.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You think the great pyramids were built in one lifetime? I can see many of them being built by one pharoah, but not the great pyramid of Khufu, not with the distances between the quarry and the pyramid and definitely not without the horse and wheel. However, I would believe 100 years.

Tell me, what does the entire population of a country that lives off grain do when there is no grain? Starve and die out, of subsist off teh taxed storeshouses maintained by the state? You think the Egyptian governemnt taxed gold from it's peasant farmers? Nope, it was teh grain they fed back to them in the form of wages for state funded labour.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And you are playing right into an increasingly outdated view. The Australian aboriginals had a complex cultural history, oral tradition, artistic, sea faring and broad agricultural practices and the like. They are primitive compared to the English who discovered them - but it is not right they should be declared uncultured.

"Oral traditions"? Please, anyone can talk and tell a story. In terms of technology and contributions, the Aboriginals have shit. Except for maybe the boomerang, which is a pretty fun toy when you're a kid. They have absolutely nothing on the Chinese or the Mesopotamians or the Egyptians or the Aztecs.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because you see - a culture doesn't need to have made a major scientific discovery to be considered possessing complex culture. It would be good to see a day when words like "primitive" and "barbarian" were completely left behind and anthropological dating used to define - stone age, hunter gatherer etc.

If a given culture lacks a writing system and permanent structures/buildings, then they're primitive.

The Discovery Channel had made some great finds...............It seems that the pyramids were done gladly to that civilization............only because they were in that belief system also...................If they were there like 400 years like stated in the Bible don't you think they would absorb some thoughts on religion........yes they would!.............Can you say that after 100 years that your belief and those of your children would be the same as when you intered??..Nope........

Originally posted by debbiejo
The Discovery Channel had made some great finds...............It seems that the pyramids were done gladly to that civilization............only because they were in that belief system also...................If they were there like 400 years like stated in the Bible don't you think they would absorb some thoughts on religion........yes they would!.............Can you say that after 100 years that your belief and those of your children would be the same as when you intered??..Nope........
I've always thought that Egyptian and Canaanite religions would be the only ones with a chance of influencing Judaism. However, there is little evidence of influence from Egyptian sources or from the Canaanites.

Because there weren't any other religions around at the time...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"Oral traditions"? Please, anyone can talk and tell a story. In terms of technology and contributions, the Aboriginals have shit. Except for maybe the boomerang, which is a pretty fun toy when you're a kid. They have absolutely nothing on the Chinese or the Mesopotamians or the Egyptians or the Aztecs.

Well, I complement you on your ignorant, Eurocentric, psudoclassical view of history. And here is a little news flash for you... you know Homer? The Odyssey and Iliad? Do you know scholars believe that it existed primarily as an oral traditions for hundreds of years before it actually was recorded? Yes.... Oral tradition means nothing, it simply in one case gave us one of the greatest epic poems ever.

But then I forget - you don't see the arts as relevant do you? If I'm not mistaken you didn't think Russia had given anything to the world bar the AK-47 and Vodka - who cars about the great composers and authors.

Perhaps I could buy you a plane ticket so you can come and tell the Australian historical community that there work on a remarkably complex hunter gatherer culture is "shit" - maybe you can knock the aboriginals themselves with a 20,000 year oral history. And knock their sea craft - sea craft which saw them spread to islands all around Australia long before the Europeans were doing similar. And their religious culture, and their mythology.

Disgusting really.



And as I said there is a determined move away from such definitions in the historical community in the modern world as they realise the definition of "primitive" has negative connotations and degrees of bias and derogative thought processes.

An comparison to Rome would see many other cultures classed as "primitive" based upon erroneous definition and failing to take into account the numerous cultural aspects - art, culture, history, religion, craftsmanship and all the rest. It is why historians are becoming less happy with automatically applying the phrase primitive to "hunters and gatherers" because the term has placed emphasis upon settled culture, and ignores rich and vibrant cultural, intellectual and artistic ideals.

And that is unfair.



Pop down to your university, a good place to start is Claus Westermann's Genesis 1-11 : a commentary - it explains this section, while looking at it in a social and historical context. I memory serves I believe there were valid reasons to think Sumerian and other ancient Mesopotamian had an influence on what the Israelites wrote - from creation to the flood (assimilated from Sumerian myth and so on.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Pop down to your university, a good place to start is Claus Westermann's Genesis 1-11 : a commentary - it explains this section, while looking at it in a social and historical context. I memory serves I believe there were valid reasons to think Sumerian and other ancient Mesopotamian had an influence on what the Israelites wrote - from creation to the flood (assimilated from Sumerian myth and so on.)
I forgot to mention the Sumerians in my previous post. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. However, Sumerian mythology other than flood is not really apparent in Judaism. When nearly every culture worldwide has a flood myth it is not illogical to assume that one actually occurred. One recorded by both the Hebrews and the Sumerians. However, the close proximity in the flood accounts would put some validity in that statement.

Its obvious that severe floods happen around the world from time to time.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its obvious that severe floods happen around the world from time to time.
Ya, but what was the last on the scale to merit a myth? Most myths originate around the same time.