By coincidence, I came across this from Joseph Campbell. He is talking about the same time periods you are, but much different interpretation of what the mythology was and what it meant to people at the time. He has lots of books. You could add them to whatever else you are doing and maybe get your work on track.
I view traditional mythologies as serving four functions. The first function is that of reconciling consciousness to the preconditions of its own existence-that is, of aligning waking consciousness to the mysterium tremendum of this universe, as it is.
The primitive mythologies-including most of the archaic mythologies-are concerned with helping people to assent or say yes to that. They do it, however, in the most monstrous way, by enacting rituals of horrendous murder right in front of onlookers’ eyes with the whole community participating in it. If one cannot affirm that, one is not affirming life, for that is what life is. There came then in human history a moment when consciousness refused to accept this interpretation and there arose a system of mythologies concerned with helping people to remove themselves, to place themselves at a distance from this conception of basic experience.
The Zoroastrian religion appeared, presenting the notion that the world was originally good-harmless, so to say-and that an evil principle moved in to precipitate a fall. Out of that fall came this unfortunate, unhappy, unintended situation known as the human condition. By following the doctrine of Zoroaster, by participating in a good work, persons associate themselves with the forces of restoration, eliminating the infection of evil and moving on toward the good again.
Essentially, this is the mythology, in broad terms, found in the biblical tradition: the idea of a good creation and a subsequent fall. Instead of blaming the fall on an evil principle antecedent to man, the biblical tradition blamed it on man himself. The work of redemption restores the good situation and, this completed, will bring about the end of the world as we know it-that is, the world of conflict and contest, that universe of life eating life.
We know what domestication is. It's not gods creating white men or whatever you are talking about.
I am beginning to understand the problem here. You don’t know what domestication is. Or what it was during the Age of Domestication.
It very well could have been the people known as the Gods domesticating animals of all types. And with the new UV study the possibility of one type of man is on the board as one of the domesticated animals.
For the fourth time I will ask you, where did the white skin people come form 8 thousand years ago?
The problem I am beginning to see here is that, nobody on this posting really has any kind of realistic conception of what domestication entails. I think the whole Age of Domestication has been left out of the education system. I never made it to high school. I just assumed that would have been covered. But if you don’t understand the history of a chicken for example, then there is no way this white skin domestication will make any sense to you. It is like Write4U statement in post #108, that people engaged in the domestication of animals were “farmer and shepherd". That's like saying the people who design and build airplanes are pilots. As pilots play a part. They are not the core behind the science. History gave us the trade title of the people behind the domestication in the oldest Genesis stories.
What bothers me the most about these postings is the lack of subject matter. Instead of questions like. If white skin people only showed up 8 thousand years ago. What were their blood types? Were there any changes in things like blood and eye color, height or size? Is the life cycle the same in years. Any other major changes other than the skin?
The older Genesis stories covered the how and why. We just did not know when. The UV may have given us the when.
Lausten, thanks for the Joseph Campbell information. I have already covered Campbell’s type of stuff years ago. And he is basically looking at pieces of the puzzle of the past and connecting the dots.
Did you catch in the news this week the story of Professor Collins? Mr. Collins found the mythical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Many people have been searching for a very long time and have never been able to find the cities. Mr. Collins applied science to the bible story and then went to the actual locations. Mr. Collins made it look easy. Now history has to take the fairy tale and admit that part of the story is correct. Next, they should look at the translations for changes and see if any more of the story could make common sense.
Finding ruins of a city that was destroyed by fire proves the Bible in the same way that finding New York is also called Gotham proves Batman. It doesn’t prove anything. Archeology does not tell us about the individual stories of regular people. At best we get a general picture of what they did.
And I’ve addressed the white skin questions. You have a problem with me saying “I don’t know”. That’s your problem. I know that what you’re saying is wrong because I know evolution is how physical traits come to be. I don’t need to know and prove every specific trait that has ever existed to know that.
Domestication was covered in my public school by the way. Jared Diamond also has some good thoughts on that. By why should I mention another author, you just dismiss everyone else’s opinion and read from the book of Mike.
Until we understand how man understood science we will not understand how the past religions really worked.
Here's the thing, Mike. I don't care how religion worked in prehistoric times. And even you can't KNOW how it worked; the best you can do is speculate about it endlessly. "What if there was a people called gods, and they domesticated man?" What if... what if... That's what I consider pointless. The topic is "IS there a God?" What does any of this have to do with the way we perceive God today?
Not that Mike will read it, but here’s a guy who did actual research into the question of how people related to science.] In this article, he’s only talking about why we don’t have good information about early scientific thinkers. The whole idea of science is to question itself and prove itself wrong, then move on to the new paradigm. This is wildly unpopular with people who want to accumulate wealth and control populations as well as those who are easily misled and want someone to take care of them so they don’t have to think.
Until we understand how man understood science we will not understand how the past religions really worked.
Here's the thing, Mike. I don't care how religion worked in prehistoric times. And even you can't KNOW how it worked; the best you can do is speculate about it endlessly. "What if there was a people called gods, and they domesticated man?" What if... what if... That's what I consider pointless. The topic is "IS there a God?" What does any of this have to do with the way we perceive God today?
Because we perceive god today based upon a book that uses all the concepts except the gene.
The answer is yes, if we talk about humans having a god gene.
The answer is yes, if we talk about people being an upper gods and lower gods.
The answer is yes, if the term god means “knowledge" at certain periods of history.
The answer is no, if we are talking about a deity.
The answer is yes, if we are talking about the spirit at certain periods of history.
The answer is no, if we are talking about the spirit at certain periods of history.
The answer is no, if we are talking about Jesus.
Not that Mike will read it, but here's a guy who did actual research into the question of how people related to science.] In this article, he's only talking about why we don't have good information about early scientific thinkers. The whole idea of science is to question itself and prove itself wrong, then move on to the new paradigm. This is wildly unpopular with people who want to accumulate wealth and control populations as well as those who are easily misled and want someone to take care of them so they don't have to think.
Yea, that was good. He said he got the data from the book called “Atheism for Dummies". Part of the for dummies books.
Not that Mike will read it, but here's a guy who did actual research into the question of how people related to science.] In this article, he's only talking about why we don't have good information about early scientific thinkers. The whole idea of science is to question itself and prove itself wrong, then move on to the new paradigm. This is wildly unpopular with people who want to accumulate wealth and control populations as well as those who are easily misled and want someone to take care of them so they don't have to think.
Yea, that was good. He said he got the data from the book called “Atheism for Dummies". Part of the for dummies books.
He WROTE that book!
Until we understand how man understood science we will not understand how the past religions really worked.
Here's the thing, Mike. I don't care how religion worked in prehistoric times. And even you can't KNOW how it worked; the best you can do is speculate about it endlessly. "What if there was a people called gods, and they domesticated man?" What if... what if... That's what I consider pointless. The topic is "IS there a God?" What does any of this have to do with the way we perceive God today?
1 Because we perceive god today based upon a book that uses all the concepts except the gene.
2 The answer is yes, if we talk about humans having a god gene.
3 The answer is yes, if we talk about people being an upper gods and lower gods.
4 The answer is yes, if the term god means “knowledge" at certain periods of history.
5 The answer is no, if we are talking about a deity.
6 The answer is yes, if we are talking about the spirit at certain periods of history.
7 The answer is no, if we are talking about the spirit at certain periods of history.
8 The answer is no, if we are talking about Jesus.
1 No we don't and no it doesn't.
2 Which is only a theory. A very bad theory.
3 Your terms, undefined.
4 It did mean that, but it didn't make god exist. Sure, that definition exists, just like if someone said they worshipped a lamp and showed me the lamp, the lamp exists. If god.= knowledge, why have the additional term?
5 Right
6 Define spirit
7 Did you mean to do that?
8 Yet you've used his teaching as evidence. But good, I agree.
Not that Mike will read it, but here's a guy who did actual research into the question of how people related to science.] In this article, he's only talking about why we don't have good information about early scientific thinkers. The whole idea of science is to question itself and prove itself wrong, then move on to the new paradigm. This is wildly unpopular with people who want to accumulate wealth and control populations as well as those who are easily misled and want someone to take care of them so they don't have to think.
Yea, that was good. He said he got the data from the book called “Atheism for Dummies". Part of the for dummies books.
He WROTE that book!Yea, I should have added that fact. I just thought it was funny that he decided to do a book on the for dummies series of books. He was promoting his book.
1 No we don't and no it doesn't.
2 Which is only a theory. A very bad theory.
3 Your terms, undefined.
4 It did mean that, but it didn't make god exist. Sure, that definition exists, just like if someone said they worshipped a lamp and showed me the lamp, the lamp exists. If god.= knowledge, why have the additional term?
5 Right
6 Define spirit
7 Did you mean to do that?
8 Yet you've used his teaching as evidence. But good, I agree.
Thanks for the input. I like feedback.
Mostly what I have been posting is the thinking behind these items.
Can you pick the one you disagree with the most. I want to keep the posts short. One at a time will help.
You don’t seem to understand that what I want is for you to stop. You can respond more reasonably to things I said back on page 1 and we can start over, but I’m not interested in most of what you have to say. I’ve explained why.
It might be fun to hear your thinking about 6 and 7 though. I assume you mean the term “spirit” changed through history. Or did you do that by accident?
You don't seem to understand that what I want is for you to stop. You can respond more reasonably to things I said back on page 1 and we can start over, but I'm not interested in most of what you have to say. I've explained why.
It might be fun to hear your thinking about 6 and 7 though. I assume you mean the term "spirit" changed through history. Or did you do that by accident?
RE: 6 & 7. The spirit started out as the soul. Then moved to the ghost to mean knowledge. Then it moved again to mean deity. But I did not add the first one, because it is mostly pre-bible history. And not too many people have traveled there. Therefore when the spirit meant god, and god meant knowledge, then yes there was a god. But in 7, the spirit changed to mean deity god, then no there is no god.
You don't seem to understand that what I want is for you to stop. You can respond more reasonably to things I said back on page 1 and we can start over, but I'm not interested in most of what you have to say. I've explained why.
It might be fun to hear your thinking about 6 and 7 though. I assume you mean the term "spirit" changed through history. Or did you do that by accident?
RE: 6 & 7. The spirit started out as the soul. Then moved to the ghost to mean knowledge. Then it moved again to mean deity. But I did not add the first one, because it is mostly pre-bible history. And not too many people have traveled there. Therefore when the spirit meant god, and god meant knowledge, then yes there was a god. But in 7, the spirit changed to mean deity god, then no there is no god.
So god is just a concept?
You don't seem to understand that what I want is for you to stop. You can respond more reasonably to things I said back on page 1 and we can start over, but I'm not interested in most of what you have to say. I've explained why.
It might be fun to hear your thinking about 6 and 7 though. I assume you mean the term "spirit" changed through history. Or did you do that by accident?
RE: 6 & 7. The spirit started out as the soul. Then moved to the ghost to mean knowledge. Then it moved again to mean deity. But I did not add the first one, because it is mostly pre-bible history. And not too many people have traveled there. Therefore when the spirit meant god, and god meant knowledge, then yes there was a god. But in 7, the spirit changed to mean deity god, then no there is no god.
Thanks for the obfuscation.
Lois
Not that Mike will read it, but here's a guy who did actual research into the question of how people related to science.] In this article, he's only talking about why we don't have good information about early scientific thinkers. The whole idea of science is to question itself and prove itself wrong, then move on to the new paradigm. This is wildly unpopular with people who want to accumulate wealth and control populations as well as those who are easily misled and want someone to take care of them so they don't have to think.
Yea, that was good. He said he got the data from the book called “Atheism for Dummies". Part of the for dummies books.
He WROTE that book!Yea, I should have added that fact. I just thought it was funny that he decided to do a book on the for dummies series of books. He was promoting his book.
There is also a Bible for Dummies. That's even funnier.
amazon.com/The-Bible-Dummies-Jeffrey-Geoghegan/dp/0764552961
Lois
Yea, I should have added that fact. I just thought it was funny that he decided to do a book on the for dummies series of books. He was promoting his book.
Yeah, I get that you judge the book by its cover. Just one more example of your bad logic.
You don't seem to understand that what I want is for you to stop. You can respond more reasonably to things I said back on page 1 and we can start over, but I'm not interested in most of what you have to say. I've explained why.
It might be fun to hear your thinking about 6 and 7 though. I assume you mean the term "spirit" changed through history. Or did you do that by accident?
RE: 6 & 7. The spirit started out as the soul. Then moved to the ghost to mean knowledge. Then it moved again to mean deity. But I did not add the first one, because it is mostly pre-bible history. And not too many people have traveled there. Therefore when the spirit meant god, and god meant knowledge, then yes there was a god. But in 7, the spirit changed to mean deity god, then no there is no god.
So god is just a concept?
Darron, the subject is so vast and covers so much territory over such a long period of history that you can make semi-logical points in just about all directions.
And how do you answer such a question unless I know where you are in your understanding of god.
I guess the answer would be in today’s view god is a concept in a non-science understanding of god and definitely not a concept for those who are viewing the history and different uses of the word god in the scientific aspects use today and over time.
Example of new thinking. What we are observing is much more than a concept. Traits are passed down from the parents by genes. The human traits are said to be the need to multiply or to live forever. If god is part of the human trait to live forever, then god is physical and part of the genes and has to be dealt with by the brain. And look where the gene research is today, amazing.
Yea, I should have added that fact. I just thought it was funny that he decided to do a book on the for dummies series of books. He was promoting his book.
Yeah, I get that you judge the book by its cover. Just one more example of your bad logic.
No, you are always looking for the bad. The logic is that he wrote good data, and put it in a book for dummies. That book for dummies should have been around much earlier in history. It has never been needed more than today. This site is a great example. People here just taste the frosting and think they know the flavor of the cake. The whole topic of religion is that science has not been used properly in this field for many reasons. The science that has been used came from religious institutions or were controlled or financed by. It was not that long ago that this subject was career ending if your thinking was not mainstream.
Now that we have reached a point in time that science can be used properly we have a ship load of new scientific discoveries and methods that can also be used. What are we doing sitting on our fat asses talking about out dated data for. Are we too scared of being wrong to jump behind the cutting edge data? Afraid of how people will look at us?
Point being, the whole way the atheist thinks of god needs to be turned 180. The atheist thinking is not helping. Don’t you think after a few decades the atheist would see something is just not right? Never completely won the battle of evolution vs. creationism. It was just changed to evolution vs. intelligent design. Or put another way pseudoscience vs. real science. And it is going nowhere because the atheist’s lack of understanding of the subject matter.