One God or many gods

[IndigoChild5559]

There is only one potential Ionian/Matriarchal society and that is the Indus Valley Civilization in my opinion.

I realize I'm butting in on an ongoing conversation that I haven't been following, but I'm a little confused by this remark. Ionia refers to the geographic location that stretches from the Aegean Sea to the interior of Anatolia. Indus Valley is a location in India. They are close to 2000 miles apart.

 

[GoodAttention]

I realize I'm butting in on an ongoing conversation that I haven't been following, but I'm a little confused by this remark. Ionia refers to the geographic location that stretches from the Aegean Sea to the interior of Anatolia. Indus Valley is a location in India. They are close to 2000 miles apart.

Here is a nice table describing the differences

The reference is to the societal structure.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Here is a nice table describing the differences

View attachment 99352



The reference is to the societal structure.

Dorians, like Ionians, are connected with Greece. I was replying to the statement that "There is only one potential Ionian/Matriarchal society and that is the Indus Valley Civilization in my opinion." The remark is the equivalent to saying that American society existed among the Maya simply because both cultures have ball and hoop games. The Indus Valley is almost 2000 miles away from Greece and had its own distinct culture independent of what evolved in Ionia. Thus, nothing in the Indus Valley Culture can be described as Ionian society.

And to be really honest with you, what I found strangest is that the use of the word "only" in the remark would mean that Ionian society didn't exist in Ionia. Clearly I'm missing something here, which is why I'm asking for clarification.

Let me approach this a different way. If we compare Ionian and Dorian culture, the Ionians tended to have democratic states, whereas the Dorians were more militaristic. However, you wouldn't go and say "I find Dorian society in the Soviet Union." The way you would word it is more like, "Some societies are more militaristic, such as Dorian society or the Soviet Union."

I'm still listening. It's possible you are simply using "Ionian" and "Dorian" in a way unrelated to location or culture. Anything you can do to clarify would be helpful, starting with a link to your chart. I ran a google image search because I wanted some context for this compare/contrast. However, nothing came up. Do you have a link?

 

[GoodAttention]

Dorians, like Ionians, are connected with Greece. I was replying to the statement that "There is only one potential Ionian/Matriarchal society and that is the Indus Valley Civilizationin my opinion." The remark is the equivalent to saying that American Football existed among the Aztecs. The Indus Valley is almost 2000 miles away from Greece and had its own distinct culture independent of what evolved in Ionia. Thus, nothing in the Indus Valley Culture can be described as Ionian society.

Let me approach this a different way. If we compare Ionian and Dorian culture, the Ionians tended to have democratic states, whereas the Dorians were more militaristic. However, you wouldn't go and say "I find Dorian society in the Soviet Union." The way you would word it is more like, "Some societies are more militaristic, such as Dorian society or the Soviet Union."

I'm still listening. It's possible you are simply using "Ionian" and "Dorian" in a way unrelated to location or culture. Anything you can do to clarify would be helpful, starting with a link to your chart. I ran a google image search because I wanted some context for this compare/contrast. However, nothing came up. Do you have a link?

Yes, I think the first question to ask is, in what way was the IVC society different to the Sumerian and Egyptian societies at the same time?

Although we are still learning, from what we know the IVC appeared to champion equality, respect, and democracy. The buildings were open to the public regardless of sex, and there does not appear to be any royal authority over the cities. I know some experts think there could have been some social heirarchy, but for the most part it was significantly different to the other bronze age civilizations of the time. The lack of temple structures is also in stark contrast to Mesopotamia and Egypt.

That table is somewhat oversimplified, and Ionian/Dorian are ethical ideals, not necessarily frameworks for administration. Nevertheless, the table is useful to apply the descriptors to the societies of the time, and it is my opinion that the IVC were more "Ionian" in their views of the world compared to the Sumerians or Egyptians.

Equality of the sexes, especially at that time would have been amazing to see in action. I think females and motherhood were given a significant amount of respect, and although I don't consider the IVC a "matriarchal" society, the lack of a "patriarchy" is also very interesting. By lack I mean no evidence for male royalty, nor evidence that the people had a standing army or anticipated violence.


Here is the link

A return to the high ethic of the Ionian Ideal

It took nearly 2000 years for the physical sciences to return to the level of knowledge of the physical world known to the Ionians, recovering from the suppression that started with Sparta and ended with the Roman Catholic Church. Modern philosophy

www.academia.edu

I first saw it here on this forum, and @River Sea also kindly found it again.


It is my firm belief that the Tamil language is also a reflection of Ionian/Matriarchal ideals, and as such it is a logical match for the Indus Valley Civilization.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I think the first question to ask is, in what way was the IVC society different to the Sumerian and Egyptian societies at the same time?

Although we are still learning, from what we know the IVC appeared to champion equality, respect, and democracy. The buildings were open to the public regardless of sex, and there does not appear to be any royal authority over the cities. I know some experts think there could have been some social heirarchy, but for the most part it was significantly different to the other bronze age civilizations of the time. The lack of temple structures is also in stark contrast to Mesopotamia and Egypt.

That table is somewhat oversimplified, and Ionian/Dorian are ethical ideals, not necessarily frameworks for administration. Nevertheless, the table is useful to apply the descriptors to the societies of the time, and it is my opinion that the IVC were more "Ionian" in their views of the world compared to the Sumerians or Egyptians.

Equality of the sexes, especially at that time would have been amazing to see in action. I think females and motherhood were given a significant amount of respect, and although I don't consider the IVC a "matriarchal" society, the lack of a "patriarchy" is also very interesting. By lack I mean no evidence for male royalty, nor evidence that the people had a standing army or anticipated violence.

We actually know very little about the Indus Valley culture, and what little we know tends to be greatly debated, since we have no written records.

For example, we know it had some level of administrative organization, but how power was distributed and who held that power remains unclear. Some scholars do, like you, suggest that a form of collective decision-making may have existed, possibly involving local leaders or councils, but this is largely speculative. But this is speculative. There is no direct evidence of democracy.

The archaeological record does not provide clear evidence of economic equality. There are indications of social stratification, like the differences in the size of their homes.

Let's talk about the woman question. It is true that there are many female figurines. But what does that mean? While some might think it suggests that women were valued, and perhaps even shared power, others point out that many completely misogynistic societies such as ancient Greece also had many idols of female goddesses.

There is just very little evidence of ANYTHING. All of this is just completely speculative.

Here is the link

A return to the high ethic of the Ionian Ideal

It took nearly 2000 years for the physical sciences to return to the level of knowledge of the physical world known to the Ionians, recovering from the suppression that started with Sparta and ended with the Roman Catholic Church. Modern philosophy

www.academia.edu

I first saw it here on this forum, and @River Sea also kindly found it again.

I wasn't able to view it without signing up for something or another to see the entire pdf. However, the title of the article, "A return to the high ethic of the Ionian Ideal," would seem to indicate that the author(s) simply want to compare Ionian and Dorian culture, and present certain elements of Ionia as superior and worthy of emulating.

I seriously doubt that these authors would say that Indus Valley was Ionian society, or even Ionian culture. As for society, as I said, they are separated by 2000 miles. As for culture, we simply don't know enough about Indus Valley culture to make the comparison.

It is my firm belief that the Tamil language is also a reflection of Ionian/Matriarchal ideals, and as such it is a logical match for the Indus Valley Civilization.

Generally speaking, languages, ANY language, don't contain cultural values. To a tiny degree, yes, here and there you might find something. But as a rule of thumb, language is one thing, and culture is another. Ideals are a cultural thing. Just as someone who speaks Tamil can value love and respect, another Tamil speaker can be a total sociopath incapable of love who disrespects and exploits people all the time. Just as someone who speaks Tamil can have a great love appreciation for women, another Tamil speaker might go home and beat his wife.

On your side, there is a very small connection of the Tamil language to a more matriarchal culture, such as that Tamil is referred to as "Mother Tamil"--this means that the speakers of Tamil associate the language with a motherly ideal. But I found very little of this sort ot thing, certainly not enough to claim that the language itself is matriarchal. Culture? Yes. Language? No. IOW, what I'm saying is that the ONLY reason that you see an association of the language with Matriarchy, is because the language is associated with a culture which in turn is associated with matriarchy.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Let me explain something to all who will hear.

Abrahamism is based on an old pharaohs lie. Akhenaten who sought absolute power lied his way into the essentially pope position of highest priest by his taking of what was true and perverting it into one singular diety. He ruined his country, he was an idealist, not a pragmatist. He did not go by what was practical or true, he went by what he wanted to be true so he could have absolute power.

The Egyptians prior to and for many years after believed essentially that the gods composed god who was held above the others in an inclusive way. This was something they came to the realization of by way of psychedelic substance which expands awareness i.e. it is true( and I have checked with Science)

Practically, not exaggerating, all of abrahamism/monotheism is hogwash. What isn't is stolen and some of what is stolen is contorted.

 

[GoodAttention]

We actually know very little about the Indus Valley culture, and what little we know tends to be greatly debated, since we have no written records.

For example, we know it had some level of administrative organization, but how power was distributed and who held that power remains unclear. Some scholars do, like you, suggest that a form of collective decision-making may have existed, possibly involving local leaders or councils, but this is largely speculative. But this is speculative. There is no direct evidence of democracy.

The archaeological record does not provide clear evidence of economic equality. There are indications of social stratification, like the differences in the size of their homes.

Let's talk about the woman question. It is true that there are many female figurines. But what does that mean? While some might think it suggests that women were valued, and perhaps even shared power, others point out that many completely misogynistic societies such as ancient Greece also had many idols of female goddesses.

There is just very little evidence of ANYTHING. All of this is just completely speculative.

I wasn't able to view it without signing up for something or another to see the entire pdf. However, the title of the article, "A return to the high ethic of the Ionian Ideal," would seem to indicate that the author(s) simply want to compare Ionian and Dorian culture, and present certain elements of Ionia as superior and worthy of emulating.

I seriously doubt that these authors would say that Indus Valley was Ionian society, or even Ionian culture. As for society, as I said, they are separated by 2000 miles. As for culture, we simply don't know enough about Indus Valley culture to make the comparison.

Generally speaking, languages, ANY language, don't contain cultural values. To a tiny degree, yes, here and there you might find something. But as a rule of thumb, language is one thing, and culture is another. Ideals are a cultural thing. Just as someone who speaks Tamil can value love and respect, another Tamil speaker can be a total sociopath incapable of love who disrespects and exploits people all the time. Just as someone who speaks Tamil can have a great love appreciation for women, another Tamil speaker might go home and beat his wife.

On your side, there is a very small connection of the Tamil language to a more matriarchal culture, such as that Tamil is referred to as "Mother Tamil"--this means that the speakers of Tamil associate the language with a motherly ideal. But I found very little of this sort ot thing, certainly not enough to claim that the language itself is matriarchal. Culture? Yes. Language? No. IOW, what I'm saying is that the ONLY reason that you see an association of the language with Matriarchy, is because the language is associated with a culture which in turn is associated with matriarchy.

Yes of course, speculation is rife and unfortunately knowledge of the Indus Valley is only 100 years old, but we can trace back the history of the Tamil language as far as we can. It is when we do that firstly, there is a mismatch between what is considered written textual references, and what is then considered evidence.

I have considered a "plan of attack" so to speak IF one is to consider a relationship between the Tamil language as we know it, and the Indus Valley Civilization.

First, we would require to remove any Sankritization as best as we can for academic purpose. This includes the letters and words that are clearly derived from Sanskrit and not of Tamil origin. Now I have started this, and have put my focus on simple references like days of the week, name of months, and the calendar. Whilst these have certainly been influenced, there is still signs of what I consider to be potentially "original" names and meanings in Tamil that have a significant lean towards being matriarchal.


The Tamil calendar is an excellent example, since it combines both language and culture.

We know it to be a solar calendar which I believe is significant, since it says the focus of the culture was on the Sun only, and not on constellations or the moon. This also suggests it was practical and designed for an agricultural society, not one based on religious ideas. There are 12 months, and the first month is Chittirai. The word itself isn't considered by Tamils today to have much meaning, but it is clear that the name contains the word that means aunt, or specifically, a mother's younger sister.

In my opinion it has been corrupted to mean "pregnant aunt" or more vulgar than that, but my point is the meaning is there. Now going back 3 month another month is called Tai. This was an attempt to change to original meaning away from what it means, which is mother. It wasn't even a very good attempt, since whoever decided on the names gave that month a name with just 1 letter. That letter NOW has the meaning of 9th month of the year, but there is no reasoning behind it except for changing it for the reasons they had.

However, IF you say it like everyone does, which is Thaai, then people are saying the word mother.

Moving on to another month in the calendar, the current name is Aipacci, which again has no meaning except to say the whatever month of the year. What I believe the "deciders" have done it alter the original name slightly from Aicci to match another language or whoknowswhy. That is because Aicci is the honourable way to refer to grandmother!

So we have Grandmother, Mother, Little mother (aunt), as three months in the Tamil calender that currently have other names that have no meaning whatsoever. I suspect a fourth one, currently named Aadi which has basically no meaning, was known as Thathi. I never heard of this term but it means foster mother or hand-maid. Aadi is cheeky since the long Aa attempts to masculinize the name even if it has no meaning, but it does this almost out of spite if my "revealation" is correct. I would certainly believe that at some point in human history foster mothers were very highly respected, and I could see a society who already has 3 mothers as months on their calendar add them as a fourth. All of these months are also separated equally, as a continuous reminder throughout the year.

So yes, I think if Tamils all understood that

(1) The Tamil calendar is NOT a Hindu calendar
(2) The names we use are not the original names
(3) That referring to "Mother Tamil" isn't only lip-service
(4) The language has had significant influence from Sanskrit
(5) The names for the days of the weeks make ZERO sense!

Sunday is Gnairru, which does not mean sun. Again it has no meaning BUT when you divide the word it becomes Gnana Irruvu, which NOW is heading towards a meaning of Night of Wisdom/Creation.

Then we can start moving towards doing what I'm doing, which is accepting the scenario to be true, i.e. the Indus Valley spoke Tamil, and working backwards as long as the actions complement.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have considered a "plan of attack" so to speak IF one is to consider a relationship between the Tamil language as we know it, and the Indus Valley Civilization.

I am sure your own culture is of enormous interest to you. It's the same reason I study Jewish history.

But I don't share your interest in Tamil culture and language, just as you are probably not interested in Yiddish, the Shulchan Aruch, or how to make hamantaschen. No harm, no foul. I'll only make one comment before bowing out of this conversation.

The language spoken in the Indus Valley Civilization is largely undeciphered. Although we do have numerous inscriptions on seals, pottery, and other artifacts, the exact language family it belonged to and the content of these inscriptions are still uncertain. Until that changes, there is no reason to think that the Tamil language is related to the language of the Harappan people.

So for now, I bid you adieu. It was a good chat. I'm sure we will reconnect again on other topics in the future.

 

[GoodAttention]

I am sure your own culture is of enormous interest to you. It's the same reason I study Jewish history.

But I don't share your interest in Tamil culture and language, just as you are probably not interested in Yiddish, the Shulchan Aruch, or how to make hamantaschen. No harm, no foul. I'll only make one comment before bowing out of this conversation.

The language spoken in the Indus Valley Civilization is largely undeciphered. Although we do have numerous inscriptions on seals, pottery, and other artifacts, the exact language family it belonged to and the content of these inscriptions are still uncertain. Until that changes, there is no reason to think that the Tamil language is related to the language of the Harappan people.

So for now, I bid you adieu. It was a good chat. I'm sure we will reconnect again on other topics in the future.

It wasn’t always, and coming full circle has certainly been eye opening. Reading the Hebrew Scriptures through my lens is mesmerising, and imagining the connection between Abram and Sara is better than any romance novel. Truly.

I will leave you with one word, Cem-muli, but the focus is on Cem, since muli means word.

Cem is the word which is itself, Good, undivided, simple, and eternally elegant. What is the meaning of cem? It is cem, or sem, or Shem.

செம்மொழி​

cem-moḻi n. id. +. 1.Good, spotless words; நல்வார்த்தைசெம்மொழிமாதவர் (சிலப். 30, 32). 2. (Gram.) Simple,inseparable word; word that cannot be split up,opp. to piri-moḻi;

See you when I do.

 

[Samael_Khan]

From my very cursory review of recent posts, it appears his remark is made about God, not the gods. The idea that God has no gender is one of many ways that a monotheistic God is often different from polytheistic gods.

The monotheistic god is referred to as a He in the Bible. Adam was made in gods image, and Eve came from him. It is quite possible that in some sense the monotheistic God either has one gender, or is an hermaphrodite, with both the masculine and feminine residing in it, like with Adam.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I disagree with your premise. Prohibition is not evidence of existence. For example, Witchcraft is forbidden. But Witchcraft doesn't work -- it is a fraud.

I mean, Witchcraft could be said to be a fraud as much as God is a fraud.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The monotheistic god is referred to as a He in the Bible. Adam was made in gods image, and Eve came from him. It is quite possible that in some sense the monotheistic God either has one gender, or is an hermaphrodite, with both the masculine and feminine residing in it, like with Adam.

To start with, the Hebrew language only has two genders, male and female. There is no word for "it." This limits the choice of pronouns for God to he/him and she/her.

Some Jews do argue that God IS masculine, because the God of the Israelites was a judge, a God that gave moral and ethical laws along with consequences, and these people see that as a predominantly masculine trait. They would contrast that with the idea of a fuzzy, wuzzy loving God who is more interested in making you feel good. My personal response to that is that I don't think having a strong moral ethic is masculine, nor do I think men are not capable of nurturing.

It is more likely that God was assigned masculine pronouns for no other reason than the culture was deeply patriarchal. Men held the power, so if God was the most powerful, he would obviously be seen as male.

There are also many religious Jews that correctly point out instances that, while less common, portray God as feminine. Ruach ha kadosh (holy spirit) is a FEMININE noun, as is shekinah (the divine presence of God that dwells or manifests tangibly in the world, especially in sacred spaces or moments.)

My personal view is not uncommon among religious Jews. Simply put, God transcends gender. The idea of male/female only exists in procreating carbon based life forms, and God just is not one of those. I almost always use he/him when I speak of God, because that is the tradition, but I have absolutely no problem with anyone who prefers to use she/her.

Isaiah 49:15 says, "Can a woman forget her nursing child, or lack compassion for the child of her womb? Even if she could forget, I will not forget you."

Isaiah 66:13 offers the maternal image of comfort: "As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem."

So you see, it's really not all that cut and dry, is it?

 

[Samael_Khan]

To start with, the Hebrew language only has two genders, male and female. There is no word for "it." This limits the choice of pronouns for God to he/him and she/her.

Some Jews do argue that God IS masculine, because the God of the Israelites was a judge, a God that gave moral and ethical laws along with consequences, and these people see that as a predominantly masculine trait. They would contrast that with the idea of a fuzzy, wuzzy loving God who is more interested in making you feel good. My personal response to that is that I don't think having a strong moral ethic is masculine, nor do I think men are not capable of nurturing.

It is more likely that God was assigned masculine pronouns for no other reason than the culture was deeply patriarchal. Men held the power, so if God was the most powerful, he would obviously be seen as male.

There are also many religious Jews that correctly point out instances that, while less common, portray God as feminine. Ruach ha kadosh (holy spirit) is a FEMININE noun, as is shekinah (the divine presence of God that dwells or manifests tangibly in the world, especially in sacred spaces or moments.)

My personal view is not uncommon among religious Jews. Simply put, God transcends gender. The idea of male/female only exists in procreating carbon based life forms, and God just is not one of those. I almost always use he/him when I speak of God, because that is the tradition, but I have absolutely no problem with anyone who prefers to use she/her.

Isaiah 49:15 says, "Can a woman forget her nursing child, or lack compassion for the child of her womb? Even if she could forget, I will not forget you."

Isaiah 66:13 offers the maternal image of comfort: "As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem."

So you see, it's really not all that cut and dry, is it?

I wasn't aware that hebrew didn't have a word for it. I wonder why and what impact that potentially plays in biblical interpretation.

I am aware of the rest of the things you mentioned. I am mainly basing my theory on Adam being made in God's image.

So do you think that Adam being male or him maybe being originally both male and female and then being split, with Eve being created, has any potential baring on the gender of god?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am aware of the rest of the things you mentioned. I am mainly basing my theory on Adam being made in God's image.

This is traditionally thought to mean sharing of common traits (not physiology), such as having agency, knowing right from wrong, intellect, creativity, free will...

So do you think that Adam being male or him maybe being originally both male and female and then being split, with Eve being created, has any potential baring on the gender of god?

I'm going to give you my own personal opinion on this. I've never heard anyone else interpret the text this way. Here is how it seems to me:

Genesis 1:27
"And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

IMHO, the last part explains the first part. IOW when it says "in his image," that image is male and female.

IOW, God has traits assigned to BOTH men AND women. Thus, as I say, God transcends gender.

In reference to your question, there actually is a Jewish tradition that Adam was not originally male when created, but androgynous. It was only when God took the female from him to form Eve that Adam became man.

 

[GoodAttention]

Genesis 1:27
"And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Is it His, him, them? or His, them, them?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is it His, him, them? or His, them, them?

Yes