|
Post by thought on Sept 7, 2010 22:10:10 GMT -5
|
|
locdiva
Craftsperson
#1 locdiva
Posts: 65
|
Post by locdiva on Oct 26, 2010 17:18:20 GMT -5
It;s informative but it does not tie Egypt's beginnings to Kerma or Nubia from what I could ascertain. You have to be careful about infromation sources. Some researchers are only interested in fortifying the status quo
|
|
|
Post by Dawn2Earth on Nov 25, 2010 12:09:41 GMT -5
Very informative indeed. Referenced on the site is: "... in the Solar faith we have a state theology, with all the splendor and the prestige of its royal patrons behind it ; while in that of Osiris we are confronted by a religion of the people, which made a strong appeal to the individual believer. (...) In the mergence of these two faiths we discern for the first time in history the age-old struggle between the state form of religion and the popular faith of the masses."- Breasted, 1972, pp.140-141. Found that part interesting -- the state's vs its people's popular idea of things. Although, Amen, (an aspect of Amen-Re) one of the biggest names, was also popular with the people. Re: Re and Osiris. A lot of this symbolism is repeated in modern media. Like with Laurence Fishbourne playing Morpheus (Ausar aka Osiris) who appeals to "the people" more than to the Establishment in the Watchowski Brothers' famous film trilogy futuristic sci-fi thriller, which was packed with symbolism. We also get from the site: "While there is some effort here to correlate the functions of Re and Osiris, it can hardly be called an attempt at harmonization of conflicting doctrines. This is practically unknown in the Pyramid Texts. (...) But the fact that both Re and Osiris appear as supreme king of the hereafter cannot be reconciled, and such mutually irreconcilable beliefs caused the Egyptian no more discomfort than was felt by any early civilization in the maintenance of a group of religious teachings side by side with others involving varying and totally inconsistent suppositions. Even Christianity itself has not escaped this experience."- Breasted, 1972, pp.163-164 Would this not be seen as conflicted, though, if we considered the view that the main "deities" (not the mortal and trivial gods, but main Neter names / identities) are really all just aspects or natures of this one true Neter responsible for all there is? This isn't the only instance we see more than one name attached to the same attribute, let alone the unsharable attributes that would get spread around were we to be talking about more than one being.
|
|