Masonry prerequisite for Monotheism?

[ChosenOne]

Very true, in fact, if you read the ten commandments carefully, they imply that there are other gods.

In any case, Judaism was not the first monotheistic religion. Zoroastrianism and Akhenaton preceded Jewish monotheism. Judaism as we know it developed in Babylon. There, the Jews absorbed Zoroastrian ideas, such as angels, monotheism, dualism, etc. They also absorbed Babylonian/Sumerian creation myths.

You're right. The torah never said that anyone before abraham was a jew; that includes adam, eve, noah and his sons. The ancient israelites didnt call their religion judaism.. they simply said they worshiped one God and they were to be the "light" of the world. Judaism recognizes that NONjews worship one god also.. zoroatrians, diests, unitarians, sihkism.

 

[Reveilled]

You're missing the last one:

... -> monotheism -> atheism

--Julian

Not necessarily. From what I've heard, there's been evidence to suggest that Atheism was not unheard of during the height of many ancient era civilisations. If true, then Atheism would not be a step in a religious progression, it would be a sort of parallel track related more to the success of the people in question rather than the religion from which the people have come. Deciding whether or not this is an indication of humanity realising it does not need a deity for protection, or an indication of the arrogance of man is an exercise left to the reader.

So is finding out whether the fact I'm remembering here is a fact at all, as I have a notoriously shoddy memory.

 

[monitor173]

You point out yourself that you approach the question from a Christian basis, which surely gives overwhelming relativity to you interpretation.

You're stating that a principle of absolute spiritual transcendental truth (whether it be Christian or non-christian) is MORE relative than contemporary distortions of scientific method? That is a little more disturbing, but still not surprising. It's my fault for not elaborating key ideas, and perhaps, assuming more of a philosophical inclination on your part. Let me try to explain what I meant again via a different approach:


Assume for an instance the premise that a spiritual reality does exist; that it has primacy over all events at a material level, and that all material events and situations are seen to derive from or have basis in matters at the level of spirit. An existential hierarchy becomes evident, with spiritual truths and principles clearly more "fundamental" or "absolute" in comparison to observations and ideas that have basis on material perception.

Those who perceive and ponder matters with a spiritual insight do so with faith as a primary basis, not doubt, which is the premise of science. That does not make spiritual logic and spiritual thought any less precise; in fact, for those with a mystical inclination, spiritual logic and reasoning has incredible mathematical precision to a level of clarity that is wonderful and resounding. Faith is, in its true and purest form, a door by which to activate spiritual perception, judgment and reasoning such that it is similar to or even more acute than material perception. That is what is refered to as an absolutistic mode of thought; the belief in and application of a spiritual absolute truth, providing a higher perspective by which to discern and act on all events at the level of the material.

Impose on this state of affairs a fundamental shift of perspective: the notion that faith is absurd and that one should adopt a premise of doubt in all matters of thinking. Then material perception appears to become the more "truthful", and spirituality perceived to be an issue of mere conjecture. The association of the term "fundamental" with spirituality, becomes a contradiction of terms, nothing more than a defunct "connotation" or overtone due to influences past or oblique. Confined to the material realm in all matters of reasoning, one may attempt to search for absolute and "fundamental" truths within the realm of material science, or abandon the notion of an absolute truth altogether.



Let me also state that I am not an individual unfamiliar with the scientific and scholarly method. I have lived my life in a scientific and science-related profession, with numerous publications to my name, and understand fully the assumptions, arbitrations and limitations of contemporary applications of "scientific method". True scientific method, in its purest forms, may actually be utilised to serve both spiritual and material modes of thought. However, that's a matter for another discussion.

 

[Venger]

liberalism leads to communism, this isnt correct either

Must... resist... cheap... political shot...

Venger

 

[abbamouse]

I thought Masonry was because of the association between Judaism and the Great Temple.

 

[Ariks]

True scientific method, in its purest forms, may actually be utilised to serve both spiritual and material modes of thought. However, that's a matter for another discussion.

That is so true. Every intellectual argument requires axioms, which themselves cannot be proven. No system can be proven without evidence from beyond that system. Thus Human logic cannot prove anything absolutely. For absolute knowledge, you’ll have to find another tool.

 

[LoneWolf5050]

Not necessarily. From what I've heard, there's been evidence to suggest that Atheism was not unheard of during the height of many ancient era civilisations. If true, then Atheism would not be a step in a religious progression, it would be a sort of parallel track related more to the success of the people in question rather than the religion from which the people have come.

I'm not sure if that is right, I'm no scholar of ancient history, just a student, but one interesting thing of note here is how the religions of the eastern world really seem to have a decidedly different view of God than western thought. Buddhists, as I understand it, don't actually believe in anything resembling a God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense. I don't think Taoism or Confucianism are much different in that respect.

So in a sense you might say that Buddhists are atheists from a Christian point of view.

Nonetheless, regarding atheism "as we know it"...in the west where monotheism flourished, it was scholars of the Rennaisance and later the Enlightenment, working within or against that religious framework, who laid the philosophical groundwork for later expressions of atheism. (Remeber Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.")

Certainly, there is a undeniable numerical progression from many gods, to one god, to no gods. I wonder what -1 gods would be like?

--Julian

 

[trotskylite]

Must... resist... cheap... political shot...

Venger

if you're thinking of liberalism in its present state, you're thinking of the wrong liberalism. liberalism today bears little resemblance to the original ideology.

 

[Venger]

if you're thinking of liberalism in its present state, you're thinking of the wrong liberalism. liberalism today bears little resemblance to the original ideology.

Trust me, I know, there is a traditional and a vernacular when it comes to "liberalism"...

Venger

 

[abbamouse]

Liberalism also means different things in US politics and international relations. Liberalism on the international stage is loosely based on Kant, and involves three pillars of free trade, international organizations, and democracy. US liberals tend to be skeptical of free trade, US conservatives tend to be skeptical of international organizations, and both liberals and conservatives love democracy (or at least republican forms of government). The opposite of liberalism in international relations isn't conservatism, but rather classical (as opposed to neo-) realism.

But I suppose this is rather off-topic

 

[dh_epic]

I see the liberalism tech as resembling enlightenment. Religious Freedom, Seperation of Church and State... freedom, solidarity, equality.

The reason why this is a prerequisite for communism is, well, two of the enlightenment principles: solidarity and equality.

 

[Tholish]

The Hebrews in Egypt were used to make bricks. Get it? It's a joke.
Now I want an expansion with spinoff civs. Heres an idea for how that can work: units can culture flip and such. When a missionary or great person culture flips it becomes something like a missionary (which maybe converts a city to a new civ rather than to a religion), or maybe settlers or workers that culture flip become settlers of the new nationality. Military units that culture flip are just culture flipped military units.

What would cause nationality flips? New religions. Unhappy population in the tile the unit is in. Civic changes. Failed city conversions (didn't get the whole city, just one unit). Maybe special barbarian units.

Culture flilps of this sort would not flip to other major empires that currently exist, they would flip to NEW empires or defunct ones. Thus Israel emerging from Egypt, thus the American Revolution creating a previously non existant nation, thus the vestiges of the Roman empire culture flipping to become Greek again (just say no to a separate Byzantium). There could be a tree of fissions starting with peoples that actually existed in 4000 BC, including all historical failed civs as possibilities, with different possibilities. Thus the English and French would have to fission from the proto Germans, the Americans then would Fission from the English (and maybe also from the Iroqois, since Civ 4 has "or") and the Confederacy, and others which might have been would be some of the fission products of America. Mexico would be a fission of either Aztecs or Spain, which is a fission of both Rome and Goths (did Goths or Romans exist in 4000BC?) and the California Replublic and Republic of Texas could be fissions of Spain.