"Let a
man, therefore, rejoice in his empire, like Darayaush; or in his good
fortune, like Polycrates; or in his bravery, like Achilles; or in his
wife, like Agamemnon; or in his offspring, like Pariya-muwa; or in his
skill, like Archimedes; or in his wisdom, like Socrates; or in his
learning, like Pythagoras; or in his ingenuity, like Palamedes;-the life
of men, my son, departs from the world, but their praises and their
virtues abide for ever."
Saturday, 11 January 2014
Thursday, 9 January 2014
Pseudohistorical nonsense found on the Internet- Part 2
I'm not done yet- I have a few more:
The Chart:
'The Chart' refers to a chart which has been shared around many pagan, atheist, and science pages. It proposes to map out scientific progress made in the history of civilization. It starts with the Egyptians, then the Greeks, then the Romans (each time progressing steadily upward), and then reaches the 'Christian Dark Ages' and drops drastically.
For those of you who haven't seen it, here it is:
There are a few things wrong with this. Firstly, how can you even measure 'scientific advancement'? What unit of measurement do you use for that? If you want to respond with "It's only a meme- the point still stands", it might be helpful to know that even here it's still inaccurate. The so-called 'Dark Ages' were a period of advancement like any other. The Renaissance scientists found their sources in the scientists of the Middle Ages. Most misconceptions that people have about this time- that people burned people at the stake for claiming that the earth is a sphere, that science was associated with witchcraft, that people halted medical science because they believed it was a punishment from God- all of these and more are simply false. Medieval monasteries houses vast libraries of Classical knowledge and these works were copied down by the monks. Even the Muslim scholars of the time got their books originally from the Byzantines, and from here they passed back into the hands of the Christians after being translated from Arabic into Latin by the Catholic monks.
'Hannibal and the Moorish World Conquest':
I will admit that when I first saw the cover for this DVD I was slightly confused as to what exactly was the source for the history being purported in it. After looking around the Internet I found some clips with 'Aseer the Duke of Tiers' talking about it. Essentially, he claims that Hannibal was black and that the Romans were also. Anything otherwise is simply historical revisionism. He asks why is it that ancient Greek buildings look so old and yet statues of so-called 'Caucasian Greeks' look new, and concludes that they were put there in the 20th century.
Among other outlandish claims that he makes are that the Romans "were called Romans because they Roamed from one city-state to another". That the Romans were originally called Etruscans, and then Minoans, then Greeks, and finally Romans. Apparently also the Romans changed the original god of the 'Grecian cosmology' from 'Aethops' to 'Zeus', because Aethops meant black.
The comments were even more silly, with someone claiming that it was possible to transport large armies and elephants into Italy through teleportation via magical portals, and that 'Ethiopian nomad tribes' and 'Voodoo practitioners' can still do this today.
The Chart:
'The Chart' refers to a chart which has been shared around many pagan, atheist, and science pages. It proposes to map out scientific progress made in the history of civilization. It starts with the Egyptians, then the Greeks, then the Romans (each time progressing steadily upward), and then reaches the 'Christian Dark Ages' and drops drastically.
For those of you who haven't seen it, here it is:
There are a few things wrong with this. Firstly, how can you even measure 'scientific advancement'? What unit of measurement do you use for that? If you want to respond with "It's only a meme- the point still stands", it might be helpful to know that even here it's still inaccurate. The so-called 'Dark Ages' were a period of advancement like any other. The Renaissance scientists found their sources in the scientists of the Middle Ages. Most misconceptions that people have about this time- that people burned people at the stake for claiming that the earth is a sphere, that science was associated with witchcraft, that people halted medical science because they believed it was a punishment from God- all of these and more are simply false. Medieval monasteries houses vast libraries of Classical knowledge and these works were copied down by the monks. Even the Muslim scholars of the time got their books originally from the Byzantines, and from here they passed back into the hands of the Christians after being translated from Arabic into Latin by the Catholic monks.
 |
| God creating the heavens and the earth- note the spherical earth |
'Hannibal and the Moorish World Conquest':
I will admit that when I first saw the cover for this DVD I was slightly confused as to what exactly was the source for the history being purported in it. After looking around the Internet I found some clips with 'Aseer the Duke of Tiers' talking about it. Essentially, he claims that Hannibal was black and that the Romans were also. Anything otherwise is simply historical revisionism. He asks why is it that ancient Greek buildings look so old and yet statues of so-called 'Caucasian Greeks' look new, and concludes that they were put there in the 20th century.
Among other outlandish claims that he makes are that the Romans "were called Romans because they Roamed from one city-state to another". That the Romans were originally called Etruscans, and then Minoans, then Greeks, and finally Romans. Apparently also the Romans changed the original god of the 'Grecian cosmology' from 'Aethops' to 'Zeus', because Aethops meant black.
The comments were even more silly, with someone claiming that it was possible to transport large armies and elephants into Italy through teleportation via magical portals, and that 'Ethiopian nomad tribes' and 'Voodoo practitioners' can still do this today.
Friday, 3 January 2014
Pseudohistorical nonsense found on the Internet
In my browsing of many 'pagan' blogs, pages, groups, websites, and videos, I have to deal with a lot of historical misinformation being branded about. Some of the more entertaining ones I've decided to list here:
- 'Genocide of the Mother Goddess worshipers'
Ancient people apparently were peaceful worshipers of a Mother Goddess, until they were destroyed by violent followers of male gods. Only trouble is that there is no evidence of this, and Mother Goddess worship continues to be an important part of many religions which have male gods. Most common source for this myth seems to be fictional fantasy novels dealing with King Arthur's Celtic Britain in some variation. Also, to simply brand the male gods as being violent warriors or 'sky tyrants' as they're often described is also a gross oversimplification. Certainly El, Anu, Brahma, Hermes, and a few others wouldn't fit this description at all. Proponents of this theory also like to deal with pseudofeminism and sexism a lot.
- '"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I have seen enough fake and falsely attributed quotes on the Internet to know that this is one of them"-- Magellan'
This 100% legitimate quote ("The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church") was famously said by Magellan, who doubted the Church's dogmatic teaching that the Earth was flat. This happened during the Dark Ages, when the evil Christians suppressed all scientific learning that the pagans had discovered. Magellan, like all educated people, saw Christianity for the lie that it really is. Except that he didn't.
It comes as something of a shock to many people to note that no major Christian sect has *ever* taught that the Earth was flat, even in the so-called 'Dark Ages'. So Magellan certainly never said this quote at all. In fact, the whole thing was literally made up on the spot. Note that when I pointed out this error in a page where I saw it posted, I was promptly told to "shut up" because I was apparently "missing the point".
- 'The Normans who invaded England were Indian Hindus, and Westminster Abbey was a Shiva temple'
This theory was put forward by prominent historians of Vedic civilization who have asserted that the Sri Shiva Nataraja Temple (otherwise known as Westminster Abbey) in London, which was famously in the hands of England's Norman kings, was a shining bastion of ancient Vedic civilization and the Hindu religion in Medieval England. The Normans, like the Romans before them, were indeed Indian Hindus. Apparently.
Related to this theory is the theory that the Ka'aba in Makkah was a Shiva temple owing to Arabia being a part of the Indus Valley. Erm... Arabia being a different culture to that of the Vedic Indians. While I don't deny the similarities, to state that Makkah is located in the Indus Valley is a gross misrepresentation of geography. These theories are based on ethnocentrism and cultural chauvinism. And while we're on the subject...
- 'Phoenicia was a Mycenaean Greek colony, as was Egypt'
Apparently, Phoenicia and Egypt were both 'colonies' of the Mycenaean Greeks from the Aegean in the Bronze Age. How do we know this? Well, because 'Aigyptos is a masculine Hellenic name' of course. I don't think that this one requires too much explaining to anyone with even a basic knowledge of history.
- Jesus- the fictional sun god, invented by the Romans to control the Jews
This theory is based largely around the 'documentary' movie Zeitgeist which tends to circulate the Internet around the time of year just gone by (the Christmas period). Nor is this one limited to 'pagans' either, for I could tell you of the atheists who have told me to watch this amazing 'documentary' with an open mind, because it 'disproves God's existence' and you'd have to be 'an idiot' to doubt its claims.
Gaze upon the chart above, and see for yourself the damning proof that God is not real, that Jesus never walked the earth, and that Christianity itself is a lie invented to control the gullible masses by the Roman government, based on the myth of several older gods. Nor is this limited to Horus either. Indeed, let us take a brief look at all of the following religious figures: Buddha, Krishna, Osiris/Serapis, Gilgamesh, Adonis, Zoroaster, Mithras, Baal, Dionysos, Orpheus... What do all of them have in common? All of them were born on December 25th, visited by three kings, preached in the temple, were baptized in a river, had 12 disciples, were crucified, ascended from the dead after three days, were called 'the Lamb of God' and 'the Christ' by their followers, and had the crucifix as their holy symbol.
Really now? It's our own mythology. I can affirm that most of this simply isn't true. On top of that, things like December 25th and the three kings aren't even in the Gospels! This is especially true of the supposed Hindu/Buddhist parallels. What version of Hinduism or Buddhism have these people been reading up on? There are hardly any parallels between the Gospels and the myths or stories of any of these gods or prophets, aside from extremely superficial ones such as a triumph of good over evil. I for one can't seem to recall the scene in one of the Gospels where Jesus is killed by Satan and has his body scattered all over Judah and thrown into the River Jordan. Now, that's not to say of course that Jesus may have become syncretized with some of these gods at certain points in time. But I think we pagans understand very well that syncretism does not equate to one god 'ripping off' another.
So was Jesus a real person? According to most historians, yes. And I agree with them. Where is the evidence? Well, Jesus is talked about by many Christian historians, but also pagan and Jewish ones as well. Many of them were opponents of Christianity, but none of them questions Jesus' existence. Celsus, Melek Porphyrios, Emperor Julian the Blessed... all of these considered Jesus to be a real person. Not one of them claims that he was a 'rip-off of Horus' created by the Romans to control the Jews through fear and guilt- despite being pagans themselves.
And this is not even counting the mention of Jesus by Tacitus: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judah, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". And again by Josephus: "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judah, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned". In addition to this we have the fact that Paul also records speaking to Peter, who was one of Jesus' most trusted disciples.
The fact remains that the conspiracy theories simply have no reason to be believed. Why should we believe that Jesus was made up by the government to control people based on myths of other gods, aside from our biases against Christianity?
- 'Hypatia, a martyr of reason'
We often hear that Hypatia, a Greek Neoplatonist philosopher of the Academy of Alexandria in Egypt, was killed by 'the Christians' because they feared knowledge and learning, and so labelled her a witch.
Contrary to this, however, we have no evidence of any contemporary Christians associating knowledge or education with witchcraft. Rather, Hypatia was caught up in a bitter political struggle between two powerful figures: Governor Orestes and Bishop Cyril.
Here we have the events described by a Christian writer, Socrates Scholasticus:
"There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions.
On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in coming to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius."
- 'Genocide of the Mother Goddess worshipers'
Ancient people apparently were peaceful worshipers of a Mother Goddess, until they were destroyed by violent followers of male gods. Only trouble is that there is no evidence of this, and Mother Goddess worship continues to be an important part of many religions which have male gods. Most common source for this myth seems to be fictional fantasy novels dealing with King Arthur's Celtic Britain in some variation. Also, to simply brand the male gods as being violent warriors or 'sky tyrants' as they're often described is also a gross oversimplification. Certainly El, Anu, Brahma, Hermes, and a few others wouldn't fit this description at all. Proponents of this theory also like to deal with pseudofeminism and sexism a lot.
- '"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I have seen enough fake and falsely attributed quotes on the Internet to know that this is one of them"-- Magellan'
This 100% legitimate quote ("The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church") was famously said by Magellan, who doubted the Church's dogmatic teaching that the Earth was flat. This happened during the Dark Ages, when the evil Christians suppressed all scientific learning that the pagans had discovered. Magellan, like all educated people, saw Christianity for the lie that it really is. Except that he didn't.
It comes as something of a shock to many people to note that no major Christian sect has *ever* taught that the Earth was flat, even in the so-called 'Dark Ages'. So Magellan certainly never said this quote at all. In fact, the whole thing was literally made up on the spot. Note that when I pointed out this error in a page where I saw it posted, I was promptly told to "shut up" because I was apparently "missing the point".
 |
| Magellan's truthful quote, which was really said by him- a bastion of reason in an age of superstition |
This theory was put forward by prominent historians of Vedic civilization who have asserted that the Sri Shiva Nataraja Temple (otherwise known as Westminster Abbey) in London, which was famously in the hands of England's Norman kings, was a shining bastion of ancient Vedic civilization and the Hindu religion in Medieval England. The Normans, like the Romans before them, were indeed Indian Hindus. Apparently.
 |
| King William I of England, a great Shaivite Maharaja in Christendom |
Related to this theory is the theory that the Ka'aba in Makkah was a Shiva temple owing to Arabia being a part of the Indus Valley. Erm... Arabia being a different culture to that of the Vedic Indians. While I don't deny the similarities, to state that Makkah is located in the Indus Valley is a gross misrepresentation of geography. These theories are based on ethnocentrism and cultural chauvinism. And while we're on the subject...
- 'Phoenicia was a Mycenaean Greek colony, as was Egypt'
Apparently, Phoenicia and Egypt were both 'colonies' of the Mycenaean Greeks from the Aegean in the Bronze Age. How do we know this? Well, because 'Aigyptos is a masculine Hellenic name' of course. I don't think that this one requires too much explaining to anyone with even a basic knowledge of history.
- Jesus- the fictional sun god, invented by the Romans to control the Jews
This theory is based largely around the 'documentary' movie Zeitgeist which tends to circulate the Internet around the time of year just gone by (the Christmas period). Nor is this one limited to 'pagans' either, for I could tell you of the atheists who have told me to watch this amazing 'documentary' with an open mind, because it 'disproves God's existence' and you'd have to be 'an idiot' to doubt its claims.
 |
| The evidence itself, as collected by prominent historians- all of whom know the truth which Christianity has tried to keep suppressed for so long |
Really now? It's our own mythology. I can affirm that most of this simply isn't true. On top of that, things like December 25th and the three kings aren't even in the Gospels! This is especially true of the supposed Hindu/Buddhist parallels. What version of Hinduism or Buddhism have these people been reading up on? There are hardly any parallels between the Gospels and the myths or stories of any of these gods or prophets, aside from extremely superficial ones such as a triumph of good over evil. I for one can't seem to recall the scene in one of the Gospels where Jesus is killed by Satan and has his body scattered all over Judah and thrown into the River Jordan. Now, that's not to say of course that Jesus may have become syncretized with some of these gods at certain points in time. But I think we pagans understand very well that syncretism does not equate to one god 'ripping off' another.
So was Jesus a real person? According to most historians, yes. And I agree with them. Where is the evidence? Well, Jesus is talked about by many Christian historians, but also pagan and Jewish ones as well. Many of them were opponents of Christianity, but none of them questions Jesus' existence. Celsus, Melek Porphyrios, Emperor Julian the Blessed... all of these considered Jesus to be a real person. Not one of them claims that he was a 'rip-off of Horus' created by the Romans to control the Jews through fear and guilt- despite being pagans themselves.
And this is not even counting the mention of Jesus by Tacitus: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judah, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". And again by Josephus: "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judah, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned". In addition to this we have the fact that Paul also records speaking to Peter, who was one of Jesus' most trusted disciples.
The fact remains that the conspiracy theories simply have no reason to be believed. Why should we believe that Jesus was made up by the government to control people based on myths of other gods, aside from our biases against Christianity?
- 'Hypatia, a martyr of reason'
We often hear that Hypatia, a Greek Neoplatonist philosopher of the Academy of Alexandria in Egypt, was killed by 'the Christians' because they feared knowledge and learning, and so labelled her a witch.
Contrary to this, however, we have no evidence of any contemporary Christians associating knowledge or education with witchcraft. Rather, Hypatia was caught up in a bitter political struggle between two powerful figures: Governor Orestes and Bishop Cyril.
Here we have the events described by a Christian writer, Socrates Scholasticus:
"There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions.
On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in coming to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius."
Saturday, 26 October 2013
I need to sort out my routine better
In life I need to get my routine sorted out better. I want to regulate my life better this shanatu qadishti. I'm going to get into a routine of getting up earlier on the morning and regulating my sleep better, as well as practicing better exercises. This is physical health, but the body is linked both to the mind and to the spirit.
I also want to begin working harder on my writing and really putting my mind to it, to get it all finished.
Finally, I want to start practicing some meditation or a daily ritual each day for spiritual growth. As a Neoplatonist, it's important for me because of the idea of theurgy to bring about the ecstatic union with the Deity. Only with regular rituals can I do this.
I also want to begin working harder on my writing and really putting my mind to it, to get it all finished.
Finally, I want to start practicing some meditation or a daily ritual each day for spiritual growth. As a Neoplatonist, it's important for me because of the idea of theurgy to bring about the ecstatic union with the Deity. Only with regular rituals can I do this.
Wednesday, 16 October 2013
Some words about my blog and pages
It's very sad that I feel this has to be said, but I think I've been more than reasonable and patient at this point. So, without further ado:
- This blog and my pages focus on ethnic Canaanite religion, culture, and history. I feel that we are a people like any other, be they Egyptians, Hellenes, Romans, Celts, Persians, Hindus, Chinese etc.
- I am NOT interested in discussing anti-semitic conspiracy theories,
- I am NOT interested in racism or hate speech, of any kind,
- I am NOT interested in preaching. I do not want to be told that I'm evil, my gods are demons, and that God will punish everyone for my sins. Please respect my religion like you would any other religion,
- I am NOT interested in discussing 'race', or whether Jews or Palestinians are 'closer' to being 'pure' Canaanites,
- I am NOT interested in discussing nationalistic politics in the Middle East. As a rule, we traditional Canaanites, like the ethnic Hellenes such as YSEE, do not attach ourselves to modern fringe political groups or ultra-nationalistic political movements- as we feel very strongly that these run contrary to traditional Canaanite ethics and culture. Many such movements also tend to associated themselves with either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam anyway, and so are not in our interests,
- I am NOT interested in discussing 'alternative history' theories such as human civilizations being created by aliens. Our gods are not aliens/reptilians,
- I am NOT interested in discussing biblical literalism either. Some of the material that I post may run contrary to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible,
- I intend for my blogs, pages, and groups to be peaceful and spiritual places to come and learn and experience. Please, respect my wishes and keep them that way.
- This blog and my pages focus on ethnic Canaanite religion, culture, and history. I feel that we are a people like any other, be they Egyptians, Hellenes, Romans, Celts, Persians, Hindus, Chinese etc.
- I am NOT interested in discussing anti-semitic conspiracy theories,
- I am NOT interested in racism or hate speech, of any kind,
- I am NOT interested in preaching. I do not want to be told that I'm evil, my gods are demons, and that God will punish everyone for my sins. Please respect my religion like you would any other religion,
- I am NOT interested in discussing 'race', or whether Jews or Palestinians are 'closer' to being 'pure' Canaanites,
- I am NOT interested in discussing nationalistic politics in the Middle East. As a rule, we traditional Canaanites, like the ethnic Hellenes such as YSEE, do not attach ourselves to modern fringe political groups or ultra-nationalistic political movements- as we feel very strongly that these run contrary to traditional Canaanite ethics and culture. Many such movements also tend to associated themselves with either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam anyway, and so are not in our interests,
- I am NOT interested in discussing 'alternative history' theories such as human civilizations being created by aliens. Our gods are not aliens/reptilians,
- I am NOT interested in discussing biblical literalism either. Some of the material that I post may run contrary to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible,
- I intend for my blogs, pages, and groups to be peaceful and spiritual places to come and learn and experience. Please, respect my wishes and keep them that way.
Saturday, 5 October 2013
The path that I follow
Today I want to take the opportunity to talk about the religion that I follow. I realize that not all Canaanites are going to agree with me, but I would ask people to be respectful of the path I follow. I realize that it is not the same as the path that other Canaanites may follow, but I believe that mine is just as valid and that it's wrong to outright dismiss another person's religion as merely being a false religion or a 'made-up religion' (at least without thinking on it first).
- My path does not consider one era or type of Canaanism as the 'true' form. What I mean by this, is that I believe that labels like 'Late Bronze Age Canaanite religion', 'Israelite religion', 'Phoenician religion', 'Punic religion' etc. are merely human constructs. I don't believe that they are different religions or that they are not compatible. I believe Canaanite religion is eternal and divine; human-constructed limits do not matter. I certainly don't think that the religions from those categories are completely unlike one another. While Canaanite religion does change, I don't view (for example) Middle Bronze Age Canaanite religion as being somehow more pure or more true than religion in Late Antiquity in- for example- Tyre. I don't think that any deviation from one city-state's system automatically disqualifies them from following the same religion as another. A good comparison would be the various city-states in Greece (Sparta, Athens etc.) at different time periods. Another comparison is India with the various philosophical schools of thought and religious sects which exist within Hinduism. In Egypt there is a change from Middle Kingdom, to New Kingdom, to Hellenistic Egypt. I just don't see Canaan as any different. Furthermore, the ancients themselves, even right until St. Augustine's time, saw themselves as following the same religion as their ancestors going back until the beginning of time, and always understood it to be this way. Otherwise just seems- to me at least- to be imposing human constraints on something as divine as pure religion. (Getting onto the theory of time as proposed by Ya-milku of Qinnashrin talks of Shapash as changing yet remaining eternal, signifying two types of time: one which changes (cyclical), and one which always stays the same (linear), and that these do not contradict one another. I think this aptly describes my view of religion).
- Similarly, I hold that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam derive ultimately from the same source, but that they are not as 'complete' as our own. I don't consider them outright false, merely misled. I'm open to mystical Christian and Jewish practices, though I'm not a Christian or Jew.
- I am not a reconstructionist. In all honesty, this goes with what I've outlined above. I think it's healthy for religion to experience changes. It's not just going to stay the same as it was in the Bronze Age for ever. I think it's stifling and backward to a living religion to try and relegate it to something which 'belongs in the past' and shouldn't change from that point. However:
- I don't just believe in changing the religion to whatever it is that you want it to be. Religion does change, but at it's core it should remain the same. What I mean by this is that religion itself is an eternal way. I don't believe in simply changing Canaanite religion to whatever you want it to be. It is tradition- a living tradition, yes- but still a tradition.
- I hold that there is a One, a Monad, as I belong to the Neoplatonist school of thought. I don't see a contradiction between religion and philosophy (and historically this wasn't the case either). I believe that there is an ultimate reality, and that this does not contradict the gods.
- I believe that people should be allowed to come up with new ideas provided they can rationally propose philosophical arguments to justify them. I don't just want somebody telling me what I am and am not allowed to believe in.
- While I'm not a 'soft polytheist', I'm not a strict 'hard polytheist' either. For example, I don't believe that the god Resheph worshiped in Canaan is a different god from the one worshiped in Egypt. The ancients clearly understood them to be the same god, just slightly different due to being worshiped in different contexts. I also don't go as far as to claim, as some hard polytheists do, that a god worshiped in later times whose role may have changed slightly to be a different one from earlier times. For example, though Ashtart by late antiquity has acquired different characteristics from in the late Bronze Age, I don't view her as being a different goddess than the earlier one who just happens to share the same name.
Overall, this just strikes me as being the way (at least for me personally) that religion should be. There are differences between different city-states and different time periods, but I don't believe that this constitutes different religions. Differences in religion, yes. Canaanite religion is tradition, and does have a traditional 'way'. There is a point when something ceases to become Canaanite religion. Egyptian and Greek religions, despite many similarities, are not Canaanite religion. But at the same time, I view Canaanite religion as a flexible and living tradition. Things may have changed from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age to the Post-Alexander world. But change is healthy. You may age and grow, but you are still in essence the same person now as you were when you were 7 years old. I view religion the same way. That doesn't mean that I think that everyone should share my opinions though. I also think it's personally fine for people's religion to be city-state specific or era specific. But I view all of them as being part of the same religion rather than different religions.
In closing, I'm going to point out that I accept differences. This is after all my path and not anybody else's, even though I may happen to share the same religion as them.
- My path does not consider one era or type of Canaanism as the 'true' form. What I mean by this, is that I believe that labels like 'Late Bronze Age Canaanite religion', 'Israelite religion', 'Phoenician religion', 'Punic religion' etc. are merely human constructs. I don't believe that they are different religions or that they are not compatible. I believe Canaanite religion is eternal and divine; human-constructed limits do not matter. I certainly don't think that the religions from those categories are completely unlike one another. While Canaanite religion does change, I don't view (for example) Middle Bronze Age Canaanite religion as being somehow more pure or more true than religion in Late Antiquity in- for example- Tyre. I don't think that any deviation from one city-state's system automatically disqualifies them from following the same religion as another. A good comparison would be the various city-states in Greece (Sparta, Athens etc.) at different time periods. Another comparison is India with the various philosophical schools of thought and religious sects which exist within Hinduism. In Egypt there is a change from Middle Kingdom, to New Kingdom, to Hellenistic Egypt. I just don't see Canaan as any different. Furthermore, the ancients themselves, even right until St. Augustine's time, saw themselves as following the same religion as their ancestors going back until the beginning of time, and always understood it to be this way. Otherwise just seems- to me at least- to be imposing human constraints on something as divine as pure religion. (Getting onto the theory of time as proposed by Ya-milku of Qinnashrin talks of Shapash as changing yet remaining eternal, signifying two types of time: one which changes (cyclical), and one which always stays the same (linear), and that these do not contradict one another. I think this aptly describes my view of religion).
- Similarly, I hold that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam derive ultimately from the same source, but that they are not as 'complete' as our own. I don't consider them outright false, merely misled. I'm open to mystical Christian and Jewish practices, though I'm not a Christian or Jew.
- I am not a reconstructionist. In all honesty, this goes with what I've outlined above. I think it's healthy for religion to experience changes. It's not just going to stay the same as it was in the Bronze Age for ever. I think it's stifling and backward to a living religion to try and relegate it to something which 'belongs in the past' and shouldn't change from that point. However:
- I don't just believe in changing the religion to whatever it is that you want it to be. Religion does change, but at it's core it should remain the same. What I mean by this is that religion itself is an eternal way. I don't believe in simply changing Canaanite religion to whatever you want it to be. It is tradition- a living tradition, yes- but still a tradition.
- I hold that there is a One, a Monad, as I belong to the Neoplatonist school of thought. I don't see a contradiction between religion and philosophy (and historically this wasn't the case either). I believe that there is an ultimate reality, and that this does not contradict the gods.
- I believe that people should be allowed to come up with new ideas provided they can rationally propose philosophical arguments to justify them. I don't just want somebody telling me what I am and am not allowed to believe in.
- While I'm not a 'soft polytheist', I'm not a strict 'hard polytheist' either. For example, I don't believe that the god Resheph worshiped in Canaan is a different god from the one worshiped in Egypt. The ancients clearly understood them to be the same god, just slightly different due to being worshiped in different contexts. I also don't go as far as to claim, as some hard polytheists do, that a god worshiped in later times whose role may have changed slightly to be a different one from earlier times. For example, though Ashtart by late antiquity has acquired different characteristics from in the late Bronze Age, I don't view her as being a different goddess than the earlier one who just happens to share the same name.
Overall, this just strikes me as being the way (at least for me personally) that religion should be. There are differences between different city-states and different time periods, but I don't believe that this constitutes different religions. Differences in religion, yes. Canaanite religion is tradition, and does have a traditional 'way'. There is a point when something ceases to become Canaanite religion. Egyptian and Greek religions, despite many similarities, are not Canaanite religion. But at the same time, I view Canaanite religion as a flexible and living tradition. Things may have changed from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age to the Post-Alexander world. But change is healthy. You may age and grow, but you are still in essence the same person now as you were when you were 7 years old. I view religion the same way. That doesn't mean that I think that everyone should share my opinions though. I also think it's personally fine for people's religion to be city-state specific or era specific. But I view all of them as being part of the same religion rather than different religions.
In closing, I'm going to point out that I accept differences. This is after all my path and not anybody else's, even though I may happen to share the same religion as them.
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
A brief history of philosophy and theology in the Levantine world
The schools of thought within Western philosophy which appear in the land of the Canaan are mostly Atomism, Neoplatonism, Neopythagoreanism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism.
Atomism is interesting because it actually predates the Hellenistic period. As early as the time of Moses, a prophet called Mosheh the Sidonian was writing a creation myth which gives an early Atomist cosmology, contrasting matter with void. He also starts the introduce the theory of time as found in Canaanite theology for the first time in recorded history. This all was later picked up from the Greeks, and philosophers like Democritus and Pythagoras are said to have learned from either his own writings or from those of his descendents. Still, his 'philosophy' is in a way mixed in with mythology, as philosophy as a specific intellectual discipline has not yet really emerged properly in the Bronze Age.
Philosophy proper in itself develops among the Greeks. They were the first to come up with the ideas, though the first philosopher Thales based many of his ideas on Canaanite, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian ideas. This happens in the Iron Age, during the Persian period. At this time, the great Persian Empire rules over most of the known world. Within this empire, ideas begin to develop and spread among the people.
Among the Babylonians, astronomy begins to develop. The Babylonians by the Persian period have mapped the constellations of the heaven and can accurately predict eclipses and weather phenomenon. This knowledge spreads throughout the empire.
Among the Egyptians, medicine begins to develop. The Egyptians perfect medical science and use it to treat their patients. Hospitals are set up. Again, this knowledge is very valuable and so spreads throughout the entire Persian Empire, of which Egypt is a part.
The Canaanites meanwhile develop the alphabet and perfect mathematics for use in trade and commerce. Canaanite scribes pass knowledge of the alphabet throughout the empire, and this knowledge is quickly picked up by others.
It's at this time- while the Babylonians develop astronomy, the Egyptians medicine, and the Canaanites letters and numbers- that the Greeks first develop philosophy. This begins with Thales and with the pre-Socratics, and then passes down through to the famous Socrates, Platon, and Aristotles.
This is mostly happening among the intellectuals in Athens, though it also occurs in the colony of Ionia as well.
So what brings philosophy from the Greeks to the rest of the world?
Firstly, Pythagoras went abroad to study the mysteries from other people. He studied among Mosheh's descendents in Sidon, and in the mystery schools of the Canaanites in Tyre. He ascended the holy mountain, Mount Carmel, and spent much time there. He also went to Egypt and to Babylon where he encountered the Babylonians and the Zoroastrian priests called the Magi.
Then Alexander's conquests happen. Alexander, himself a student of the philosopher Aristotles, travels east and conquers the old Persian Empire. When this happens, the Hellenistic period begins, and the whole world changes. Koine Greek becomes the main language of all people. Philosophical academies are set up in major cities such as the cities of Sidon and Tyre, the Decapolis cities like Rabbath-Ammon, and in Babylon and Egyptian Alexandria.
The founder of the Stoic school, Zenon, was not a Greek but a Canaanite from Tyre who lived during the time of Alexander's invasion. He left his mother city and his family moved to the city of Kittim on Cyprus, which was also a Canaanite city. His family are merchants, and his travels take him to Athens in Greece, where he learns the teachings of Socrates from a book and begins to study philosophy. He then goes on and founds the Stoic school of thought.
Stoicism spreads to Mesopotamia, where it becomes very popular. Meanwhile, Epicureanism is flourishing under the Hellenistic empires which succeed Alexander in the Near East. Several kings adhere to this school of thought, and so it finds a lot of supporters and a strong intellectual tradition among the Canaanite elite.
By the late Hellenistic period, Platonism and Aristotleanism are largely harmonized together and taught in schools throughout Canaan and in colonies such as Qart-Hadasht in the west. Philosophers like Hasdrubaal emerge. Other Platonic philosophers develop among the Jews, who develop their own ideas and traditions. Platonism and Pythagoreanism are largely harmonized together, and by Roman times have become extremely popular. Neopythagoreanism finds support in the east and in the western states like Maktar. Neoplatonism develops in Egypt in this time, and it spreads to Canaan. Th most famous philosophers of this tradition who are Canaanites are Melek of Tyre and his student Ya-milku of Qinnashrin. They become famous throughout the Mediterranean world in late antiquity. Their teachings are a blend of Neoplatonism with Neopythagoreanism.
In late antiquity, Neoplatonism becomes very popular among the Christians, and spreads throughout Canaan with them. Later the Muslims would also adopt it to a large extent.
This concludes a very brief history of philosophy and theology and their role in the Levantine world.
Atomism is interesting because it actually predates the Hellenistic period. As early as the time of Moses, a prophet called Mosheh the Sidonian was writing a creation myth which gives an early Atomist cosmology, contrasting matter with void. He also starts the introduce the theory of time as found in Canaanite theology for the first time in recorded history. This all was later picked up from the Greeks, and philosophers like Democritus and Pythagoras are said to have learned from either his own writings or from those of his descendents. Still, his 'philosophy' is in a way mixed in with mythology, as philosophy as a specific intellectual discipline has not yet really emerged properly in the Bronze Age.
Philosophy proper in itself develops among the Greeks. They were the first to come up with the ideas, though the first philosopher Thales based many of his ideas on Canaanite, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian ideas. This happens in the Iron Age, during the Persian period. At this time, the great Persian Empire rules over most of the known world. Within this empire, ideas begin to develop and spread among the people.
Among the Babylonians, astronomy begins to develop. The Babylonians by the Persian period have mapped the constellations of the heaven and can accurately predict eclipses and weather phenomenon. This knowledge spreads throughout the empire.
 |
| Babylonian astrologers mapped the heavens, stars and planets |
 |
| Egyptian doctors use their healing methods in medicine |
 |
| Canaanite scribes and traders use the alphabet and mathematics |
 |
| Greek philosophers set up academies to teach their students |
So what brings philosophy from the Greeks to the rest of the world?
Firstly, Pythagoras went abroad to study the mysteries from other people. He studied among Mosheh's descendents in Sidon, and in the mystery schools of the Canaanites in Tyre. He ascended the holy mountain, Mount Carmel, and spent much time there. He also went to Egypt and to Babylon where he encountered the Babylonians and the Zoroastrian priests called the Magi.
Then Alexander's conquests happen. Alexander, himself a student of the philosopher Aristotles, travels east and conquers the old Persian Empire. When this happens, the Hellenistic period begins, and the whole world changes. Koine Greek becomes the main language of all people. Philosophical academies are set up in major cities such as the cities of Sidon and Tyre, the Decapolis cities like Rabbath-Ammon, and in Babylon and Egyptian Alexandria.
The founder of the Stoic school, Zenon, was not a Greek but a Canaanite from Tyre who lived during the time of Alexander's invasion. He left his mother city and his family moved to the city of Kittim on Cyprus, which was also a Canaanite city. His family are merchants, and his travels take him to Athens in Greece, where he learns the teachings of Socrates from a book and begins to study philosophy. He then goes on and founds the Stoic school of thought.
 |
| Zenon of Kittim |
By the late Hellenistic period, Platonism and Aristotleanism are largely harmonized together and taught in schools throughout Canaan and in colonies such as Qart-Hadasht in the west. Philosophers like Hasdrubaal emerge. Other Platonic philosophers develop among the Jews, who develop their own ideas and traditions. Platonism and Pythagoreanism are largely harmonized together, and by Roman times have become extremely popular. Neopythagoreanism finds support in the east and in the western states like Maktar. Neoplatonism develops in Egypt in this time, and it spreads to Canaan. Th most famous philosophers of this tradition who are Canaanites are Melek of Tyre and his student Ya-milku of Qinnashrin. They become famous throughout the Mediterranean world in late antiquity. Their teachings are a blend of Neoplatonism with Neopythagoreanism.
In late antiquity, Neoplatonism becomes very popular among the Christians, and spreads throughout Canaan with them. Later the Muslims would also adopt it to a large extent.
This concludes a very brief history of philosophy and theology and their role in the Levantine world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)