"Spiritual Satanism is Mankind's Original & Only Religion" ?

[The Kilted Heathen]

So it's a correlation based on assumption? I'll check that when I get back from work at 04:00 CST.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay I am done then.

If you cannot look at that and admit that you said yourself you are uncertain I see no point in discussing it further with you.

The only thing I said I was unsure about was the world serpent thing. You have to realize that there's multiple genesis myths in Hellenic religion. They may all be true in that they teach truths. So in that respect, I would say I believe in the world serpent.

But I fail to see what this has to do with the nature of the deities, specifically.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

So it's a correlation based on assumption? I'll check that when I get back from work at 04:00 CST.

I think you meant to say that it is an assumption based on correlation. You know, like most links between religions.

I do not know why you are so dead-set against the fact that Judaism is related to your religion.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

The only thing I said I was unsure about was the world serpent thing. You have to realize that there's multiple genesis myths in Hellenic religion. They may all be true in that they teach truths. So in that respect, I would say I believe in the world serpent.

But I fail to see what this has to do with the nature of the deities, specifically.

I said done.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I said done.

Fine with me.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think you meant to say that it is an assumption based on correlation.

I said what I meant.

Zoroastrianism has its dawn at 440 BCE. Comparatively, Abraham - the patriarch of the Abrahamic faiths - lived somewhere around 2000--1850 BCE, a full 1,500--1,400 years before Zoroastrianism.

In addition, Akhenaten - often credited with being the first to introduce monotheism - reigned from 1351--1353 BCE. 911 years before Zoroastrianism.

If anything, it would be more plausible that Zoroastrianism took inspiration from Akhenaten and his monotheistic cult of Atenism.

I do not know why you are so dead-set against the fact that Judaism is related to your religion.

Judaism is absolutely not related to my religion; this I know for a fact. Also I am not a Zoroastrian; my religion is plain to see in every post that I make.

 

[crossfire]

I said what I meant.

Zoroastrianism has its dawn at 440 BCE. Comparatively, Abraham - the patriarch of the Abrahamic faiths - lived somewhere around 2000--1850 BCE, a full 1,500--1,400 years before Zoroastrianism.

In addition, Akhenaten - often credited with being the first to introduce monotheism - reigned from 1351--1353 BCE. 911 years before Zoroastrianism.

I really wouldn't call Atenism a monotheism, as the members of the Royal Family were the only ones allowed to practice it. The commoners could worship the Royal Family, but not the Aten or even the old gods. It was more like an attempt to make the State into God.

If anything, it would be more plausible that Zoroastrianism took inspiration from Akhenaten and his monotheistic cult of Atenism.

This might be plausible, as Akhenaten's wife Nefertiti is thought to have been Mitanni--from the general area whence Zoroastrianism sprang. (Or at least Atenism might have inspired Zoroastrianism into becoming a State Religion. However, this might be quite a stretch, since the Egyptians did everything they could to try to eradicate and erase the records and memory of Atenism after the end of Akhenaten's influence.)

 

[Electus de Lumine]

I said what I meant.

Zoroastrianism has its dawn at 440 BCE. Comparatively, Abraham - the patriarch of the Abrahamic faiths - lived somewhere around 2000--1850 BCE, a full 1,500--1,400 years before Zoroastrianism.

In addition, Akhenaten - often credited with being the first to introduce monotheism - reigned from 1351--1353 BCE. 911 years before Zoroastrianism.

If anything, it would be more plausible that Zoroastrianism took inspiration from Akhenaten and his monotheistic cult of Atenism.


Judaism is absolutely not related to my religion; this I know for a fact. Also I am not a Zoroastrian; my religion is plain to see in every post that I make.

So do you really believe what you are throwing out here, because archaeology heavily disagrees with you heavily on the age of Zoroastrianism.

I am referring to it's distance like via the Indo-Euorpean religion. I never thought you where a Zoroastrian nor implied it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I really wouldn't call Atenism a monotheism, as the members of the Royal Family were the only ones allowed to practice it. The commoners could worship the Royal Family, but not the Aten or even the old gods. It was more like an attempt to make the State into God.

Akhenaten was worshiped as the "son of Aten", yes, but the worship of Aten was not limited to the royal family. Atenism was established as the State Religion, and worship of the Egyptian gods was forbidden; which made Akhenaten very unpopular with both the people and the priests. He even went so far as to ban idols and imagery, save for the solar disc. This lasted for about 20 years, until the people had enough and overthrew him, erasing much of the records of Atenism, as you mention.

This might be plausible, as Akhenaten's wife Nefertiti is thought to have been Mitanni--from the general area whence Zoroastrianism sprang.

Not really, as Nefertiti also lived somewhere around 900 years before Zoroastrianism came to be.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So do you really believe what you are throwing out here, because archaeology heavily disagrees with you heavily on the age of Zoroastrianism.

Show something to counter it, then. "Nuh-uh" isn't a strong criticism.

I am referring to it's distance like via the Indo-Euorpean religion. I never thought you where a Zoroastrian nor implied it.

You most certainly did imply it. We're discussing Zoroastrianism, and it's influences and relation to Judaism. For you to say that I'm "dead-set against Judaism being related to my religion" implies - quite heavily - that you thought I am a Zoroastrian.

It's okay to be wrong.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

Show something to counter it, then. "Nuh-uh" isn't a strong criticism.


You most certainly did imply it. We're discussing Zoroastrianism, and it's influences and relation to Judaism. For you to say that I'm "dead-set against Judaism being related to my religion" implies - quite heavily - that you thought I am a Zoroastrian.

It's okay to be wrong.

You are being extremely willfully ignorant right now.

You are of religion partly descended from the Proto Indo-European religion.

Zoroastrianism is a religion partly descended from the Proto Indo-European religion.

I am claiming that Judaism is a religion partly descended from Zoroastrianism.

Therefore if I am correct Judaism is related to your religion.

Could you seriously not make that connection?

 

[Electus de Lumine]

Show something to counter it, then. "Nuh-uh" isn't a strong criticism.

An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You are being extremely willfully ignorant right now.

Careful that your argument doesn't start to devolve.

You are of religion partly descended from the Proto Indo-European religion.

Zoroastrianism is a religion partly descended from the Proto Indo-European religion.

Yes.

I am claiming that Judaism is a religion partly descended from Zoroastrianism.

Therefore if I am correct Judaism is related to your religion.

No, as I - and others - have tried to explain to you, Judaism is derived from the Canaanite religion, which is factually an Afro-Asiatic culture. Even still, to say that because Zoroastrianism and (assumedly) share root with the PIE religion, as do many European religions, and thus they are all related is fallacious; it is akin to saying that we're related to monkeys, rather than having a common ancestor. The cultural progression is so much and far that there is no relation save common root.

Judaism - or even the Canaanite religion - shares no deities with my religion. The cultural practices are not the same, the world view is not even remotely similar, nor is the theology. There is no relation by any means.

Could you seriously not make that connection?

No, I seriously could not. My religion had no place in the conversation, and you made no clarification as to it. You only said "my religion" in a discussion about Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Had Heathenry been a topic of discussion in this correlation, or used as an example of parallel, your statement would have made more sense. It was not, however, and your statement remained inaccurate through it's vagueness.

An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Not very well, and withholding evidence that "archaeology heavily disagrees" with me only indicates that you have no such evidence.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

No, as I - and others - have tried to explain to you, Judaism is derived from the Canaanite religion, which is factually an Afro-Asiatic culture. Even still, to say that because Zoroastrianism and (assumedly) share root with the PIE religion, as do many European religions, and thus they are all related is fallacious; it is akin to saying that we're related to monkeys, rather than having a common ancestor. The cultural progression is so much and far that there is no relation save common root.

Judaism - or even the Canaanite religion - shares no deities with my religion. The cultural practices are not the same, the world view is not even remotely similar, nor is the theology. There is no relation by any means.

And you seem to be incapable of realizing that it is possible for a religion to be derived from more than one source.

Not very well, and withholding evidence that "archaeology heavily disagrees" with me only indicates that you have no such evidence.

Okay why should I spend 30 or more dollars a piece and waste my time on google proving this to you when you are the one with the burden of proof and likely will never change his mind no matter what the evidence is.

If you got evidence of your claims then provide it and go claim your Nobel prize for revolutionizing archaeology, otherwise I do not care.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And you seem to be incapable of realizing that it is possible for a religion to be derived from more than one source.

No, I recognize this; the problem is that Zoroastrianism comes after Judaism, and certainly the Canaanite religion. Unless Zoroaster was a Time Lord, they did not inspire Judaism.

Okay why should I spend 30 or more dollars a piece and waste my time on google proving this to you when you are the one with the burden of proof and likely will never change his mind no matter what the evidence is.

If you got evidence of your claims then provide it and go claim your Nobel prize for revolutionizing archaeology, otherwise I do not care.

I don't understand why you would need to spend anything; you apparently have this knowledge, why not just share it? Snide dismissal is further indicative of a lack of argument on your part.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

No, I recognize this; the problem is that Zoroastrianism comes after Judaism, and certainly the Canaanite religion. Unless Zoroaster was a Time Lord, they did not inspire Judaism.

Glad that he is not the founder of Zoroastrianism, just the name sake of the term that Zoroastrians do not even tend to use.

[

I don't understand why you would need to spend anything; you apparently have this knowledge, why not just share it? Snide dismissal is further indicative of a lack of argument on your part.

Lots of reasons but tbh none of them will change your set way of thinking.

You made the claim back it up.

 

[crossfire]

Akhenaten was worshiped as the "son of Aten", yes, but the worship of Aten was not limited to the royal family. Atenism was established as the State Religion, and worship of the Egyptian gods was forbidden; which made Akhenaten very unpopular with both the people and the priests. He even went so far as to ban idols and imagery, save for the solar disc. This lasted for about 20 years, until the people had enough and overthrew him, erasing much of the records of Atenism, as you mention.

Do a little bit of research. Commoners could use the solar disc, but they could not have the "rays of hands carrying ankhs" depicted as going towards anyone except the Royal Family. Aten worked strictly through the Pharaoh.

Not really, as Nefertiti also lived somewhere around 900 years before Zoroastrianism came to be.

So you do agree that it is unlikely that Atenism sparked Zoroastrian monotheism!

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Glad that he is not the founder of Zoroastrianism, just the name sake of the term that Zoroastrians do not even tend to use.

And yet a cursory search shows that Zoroastrianism is credited to his teachings. Zoroaster is to Zoroastrianism what Jesus is to Christianity.

Lots of reasons but tbh none of them will change your set way of thinking.

Ah, the ol' "You're not going to change your mind so why bother" ploy. Try me.

You made the claim back it up.

Actually, no. You're the one who's made the claim that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, and have yet to back that up at all. When pressed, you've claimed that it's going to cost you money to prove, that your audience won't change their mind anyway, or as we see here you attempt to shift the burden of evidence (something that was done earlier this morning.)

Do a little bit of research.

I have. Granted, it's been a couple of years, but I still remember most of the events. Nothing that you said contradicts what I stated - in fact, that commoners could use the solar disc icons contradicts your prior statement that they weren't allowed to worship Aten.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

And yet a cursory search shows that Zoroastrianism is credited to his teachings. Zoroaster is to Zoroastrianism what Jesus is to Christianity.

And I rest my case.

Bye bye.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And I rest my case.

Bye bye.

What case?

Actually, nevermind. If you're not going to hold any indication or interest in a two-way discussion, it's not worth continued effort.