I don't know what ancient people saw, neither do you. You say they reported that first hand, so based on your study of the subject, I'll assume, for now, that they did. I do know that they did not see any supernatural gods, because there is no such thing. They wouldn't have to be Schizophrenic to think that they actually saw that. Technically, they would not even have to be delusional. But either their perception was off (as can happen with various altered states of consciousness), or their processing of what they perceived was off (potentially due to a fundamentally misguided worldview), or they flat out just made it up (as people are often prone to do).You left out the most plausible explanation: that “gods" meant “Northerners" or “Easterners" or “White people" or “the Lords, the filthy scumbags".
That is exactly what happened.Evidence, please!
However did Campell forget that there were competing religions around the world?We are discussing the origins of religion, i.e. the first stories told about gods which Campbell calls “monomyth". Competing religions came later and moreover he wrote:And though many who bow with closed eyes in the sanctuaries of their own tradition rationally scrutinize and disqualify the sacraments of others, an honest comparison immediately reveals that all have been built from one fund of mythological motifs
Did Campell forget that religion was used as power centers by rulers? Thus religions have room for not being taken seriously.We are using the history of religion in order to prove that the idea of God is a hoax so that we can kill religion.
As far as fading out....It's still here.Yes, because of you saying above: That is exactly what happened.
Campells argument works maybe if there was one unified religion right from the start. But there wasn't.Religion is based on one story, on one fund of mythological motifs as per Campbell, on the archetypes as per Jung, and on an inhuman social system according to the scriptures and the archaeological findings.
Using the word "improving" here is not correct in the context of the idea either.You need to know something about ancient theology in order to appreciate the “improvement" Here is a sample of ancient Egyptian theology (Atum is the main god, the father of gods): Atum is he who (once) came into being, who masturbated in On. He took his phallus in his grasp that he might create orgasm by means of it, and so were born the twins Shu and Tefenet. (The Pyramid Texts, Utt. 527 §1248)
They weren't exactly the same. Recently it was brought up in another thread about these coincidences.(actually by nature they're not coincidences!) I forget the term used, but the striking similarities that were shared have to do with the common physiology we all share, the common social habits we all share, the common sexual behaviors etc etc etc. So overtones of fertility, immortality, power, healing, weather phenomena etc etc etc... was going to come up.If in a court room you try to persuade a judge that ten persons who have the same story to tell do not know each other and neither they eye-witnessed the events, you will be jailed for false testimony. :-)
All the items are basic knowledge items.OK, let’s examine one of the items:
If we go back to Mt. Toba eruption in 71K/74K BC that cause only 500 to 5,000 people with our DNA to be on earth.What do you mean by our DNA, because our present genome did not exist at that time since the present one contains some Neanderthal DNA in it. Who were the 500 to 5,000 people who survived?
Dimitrios Trimijopulos, I have to repeat once more that your babbling about physics and math has no place in this thread. We are here discussing the naiveté of modern atheist scholars who have made themselves victims to theological cunning.And exactly what does that mean? Naive, how? Modern Atheist scholars, who? Victim, in what way? Theological cunning is a new phenomenon? You are not discussing anything but tales of old and newer tales. What's the point of this discussion? Who said what when?
What's the point of this discussion?Well, you obviously did not read the op, so here are the last paragraphs: It now becomes obvious the reason obliging religious scholars (and dishonest or idiotic agnostic scholars) to support the archetypes’ theory or humans’ psychological priming for religion; they strive to protect religion! But there is more to it. If the story that Campbell detected is not an imaginative one but the report of actual events, then the criminal rapist gods that the ancients were talking about were real people and we are dealing not with the idea of God but with a monumental hoax. By means of archaeological and scriptural evidence the history of religion can be reconstructed and the God idea be shown for what it is: a monumental hoax based on an archaic joke! So, where does your metaphysics philosophy fit in this environment?
No, I'm judging you on the words you have presented here and the "study" that you linked us to.I have not seen any remark from you yet pointing out the mistakes in the study, the lack of evidence or the wrong premises. You do that first and you pronounce your critique later. I did, very briefly, but it doesn't matter. We have not established the ground rules for this discussion so attempting to "critique" you will only result in childish banter. We've seen that in this entire thread.
I'm referring to the lack of proof that you have the expertise, then we can get to the proof of the work itself. You have listed some books you read. How would I know if you really had, or if you comprehended them?I skimmed a little of your other work also. I'm pointing out the lack of proof you have provided…You have to be specific here!
That's not what it made you is it? It made you go study for yourself and challenge those authorities. That's how it's supposed to work. That's why we have universities. (I'm not saying have to go to a university, but I'm saying their function is to bring new ideas in to challenge the established ones) I'm not brainless, I just don't have the level of interest in this subject that you do. We're thinking of using JSON to connect our property data to the imaging files instead of Java, is that a good idea? Oh, you don't know? Are you a brainless idiot? Hopefully that example is enough to make my point. I'd rather not lecture you further on what "expert" means. You quoted my explanation of "authority", the next line was about "expertise". Those are two different things. Do you know the difference?If you are an authority on your subject, then I'd have little choice but to accept what you say, or override it with a greater show of authority.This line of thinking creates suckers
They weren't exactly the same. Recently it was brought up in another thread about these coincidences.(actually by nature they're not coincidences!) I forget the term used, but the striking similarities that were shared have to do with the common physiology we all share, the common social habits we all share, the common sexual behaviors etc etc etc. So overtones of fertility, immortality, power, healing, weather phenomena etc etc etc... was going to come up.If in a court room you try to persuade a judge that ten persons who have the same story to tell do not know each other and neither they eye-witnessed the events, you will be jailed for false testimony. :-) You are ignoring the differences between history and eyewitness testimony in a court. This is another aspect of the scholar/credential/authority/expert discussion. Notice how you challenge MikeYohe. He claims something is common knowledge and you challenge him. You are making the same kinds of assertions that he is.
We are discussing the origins of religion, i.e. the first stories told about gods which Campbell calls “monomyth". Competing religions came later and moreover he wrote:And though many who bow with closed eyes in the sanctuaries of their own tradition rationally scrutinize and disqualify the sacraments of others, an honest comparison immediately reveals that all have been built from one fund of mythological motifsEvidence? You don't have texts that go back that far. Memory doesn't go back 40,000-100,000 years.
Religion is based on one story, on one fund of mythological motifs as per Campbell, on the archetypes as per Jung, and on an inhuman social system according to the scriptures and the archaeological findings.Evidence? Wrong. religion is based on many stories from many different religions. That's self evident.
You need to know something about ancient theology in order to appreciate the “improvement" Here is a sample of ancient Egyptian theology (Atum is the main god, the father of gods): Atum is he who (once) came into being, who masturbated in On. He took his phallus in his grasp that he might create orgasm by means of it, and so were born the twins Shu and Tefenet. (The Pyramid Texts, Utt. 527 §1248)That's great. I knew you were a pervert. I'm convinced you're a christian now too. Trying to convince us of the origin of one god. That's your idea of appreciating the improvement? I suppose all of this improved until it became roman catholicism? Is that what you're really trying to say here? Were you a catholic priest Dimitrios? You sure seem like one to me.
If in a court room you try to persuade a judge that ten persons who have the same story to tell do not know each other and neither they eye-witnessed the events, you will be jailed for false testimony. :-)10 people don't have the exact same story. But they have cars that were involved and jobs and family members etc... They don't have the same story. You don't know what the stories were 10,000 years before that. 20,000 years before that. You only know a narrow sliver of stories that were written down 5000 years ago. 50,000 years(for example) is a lot of time leading up to your stories. Do you know what the stories were 50,000 years before your meager research into ancient texts were? No you don't.
All the items are basic knowledge items.OK, let’s examine one of the items:
If we go back to Mt. Toba eruption in 71K/74K BC that cause only 500 to 5,000 people with our DNA to be on earth.What do you mean by our DNA, because our present genome did not exist at that time since the present one contains some Neanderthal DNA in it. Who were the 500 to 5,000 people who survived? As the story goes, there was a convention of DNA researcher meeting at a resort to try and figure out what was wrong with the math in the formulas they were using. The problem was that the math was showing mankind just about extinct around 71K BC. It just so happen at this same resort was a group of volcanologist studying the eruption of the super volcano Mt Toba that occurred 74K thru 71K BC. During a lunch break one of the DNA researchers talked to a volcanologists and they realized that the time period was the same. Of the three studies done using DNA, one put the population at only 5,000 humans. Another was 500 humans left on earth. The other study results was in between the two. This finding gives us a very important date for the expanding of humans on the earth again. What we know at this point is the Red Ochre burials found so far are dated 80K years ago. One of the latest entry on the timeline is Homo Naledi. Yet to be dated. Expected to be from 280,000 years to 3,000,000 years old. The favored date right now is 2.5 million to 2.8 million years old. The reason Homo Naledi is on the timeline is that they buried their dead and used stone tools. A definite indication of knowledge. And that pre-dates the Neolithic Red Ochre burials but there is not enough data to connect any religious activity. Now as far as ancient genetics. Another piece of the puzzle. http://www.inquisitr.com/1662352/one-of-humankinds-most-ancient-genetic-lineages-found-in-a-southern-african-tribe/#FVM3OohbDPAqfK7C.99 This is saying that there were at least two groups or pockets of humans to repopulate after the Mt. Toba eruption. What I am seeing is one group in India and one in Africa. Both had the same base religion burial methods, with no signs of gods.
I did, very briefly, but it doesn't matter. We have not established the ground rules for this discussion so attempting to "critique" you will only result in childish banter. We've seen that in this entire thread.English is not my first language, but I want to always improve my knowledge of it, so, what is wrong with the sentence: You do that first and you pronounce your critique later? You understand, I hope, that you have no right to pronounce judgment on a work you studied very briefly.
I'm referring to the lack of proof that you have the expertise, then we can get to the proof of the work itself.Oh, yes, the famous credentials again! Well, I managed to translate four sentences that an honest translator (Myriam Lichtheim) chose not to attempt to translate, and those of the translators who did translate them only managed to make themselves appear as fools. I wrote an article on those four sentences: https://www.academia.edu/9927923/Open_letter_to_Egyptologists_3_The_four_sentences_Lichtheim_chose_not_to_translate Give it a try; you may not regret it.
You have listed some books you read. How would I know if you really had, or if you comprehended them?That is fair! The study of these books enabled me to understand the ancient world and, as a result, to be able to realize what the four sentences mentioned above were referring to. In my work I cite extracts from the dictionaries and I also provide a series of translations for each line I translate myself, also I provide explanations which rationalize what appears to be illogical in the texts.
That's not what it made you is it? It made you go study for yourself and challenge those authorities.But your advice was to trust the authority. If I had put my trust on Allen’s translation, I would have made myself into a sucker. The layman may depend on the authority when it comes to fields of knowledge he was no control on. I have no idea of physics and mathematics, so I have to respect what Einstein said on this subject, yet I can very well realize that Einstein was spouting nonsense every time he was referring to religion. With translations of ancient texts one only has to study three of four different translations of the same sentence in order to make his mind on the validity of the translations.
That's why we have universities. (I'm not saying have to go to a university, but I'm saying their function is to bring new ideas in to challenge the established ones)You are certainly right, but when it comes to Egyptology and the history of religion it appears that what the universities are doing is to perpetuate misconceptions and the mistakes of the past.
I'm not brainless, I just don't have the level of interest in this subject that you do.There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to say that my work is no good when you lack the interests to study it.
We're thinking of using JSON to connect our property data to the imaging files instead of Java, is that a good idea? Oh, you don't know? Are you a brainless idiot? Hopefully that example is enough to make my point. I'd rather not lecture you further on what "expert" means.If you tell me you are an expert in computer programming, I will ask your advice if I ever need it. You, however, do not want to learn something from me although I insist that I am an expert in the history of religion. ;-)
Notice how you challenge MikeYohe. He claims something is common knowledge and you challenge him. You are making the same kinds of assertions that he is.You are being unfair now. I back my assertions with my research and my articles, but you discard them without studying them. As for MikeYoke, I am waiting for him to back his assertions.
Notice how you challenge MikeYohe. He claims something is common knowledge and you challenge him. You are making the same kinds of assertions that he is.You are being unfair now. I back my assertions with my research and my articles, but you discard them without studying them. As for MikeYoke, I am waiting for him to back his assertions. Dimitrios, I have been known to take over postings about religion by trying to be detailed. I do not want to start posting pages of data. So, if you could google the key words you will see what I am talking about. Or break down the items to individual items that you disagree with and I will follow up. Just like you did in the last post. That was perfect.
Personal viewpoint. Just a reminder when talking about religions of the past. The people were not much different than you and me. And religion dealing with afterlife and miracles needing a supernatural being was about the same as today. About 2% on an average of a person’s activity. The religions were more than god’s house. Many might include the banks, the entertainment centers, the food storage, the colleges, the hospitals, the post offices, the police force and much more.
Today all the main activities done by the ancient religions are being handles by the government and private corporations. I understand the interest in god and supernatural. But to understand ancient religions, one should get some ideas about the other 98% of their activity.
I personally think that many of the people of the past viewed religion in much of the same way as you and I do. I still go to church sometimes because of my friends and family. Not because of god.
Evidence? You don't have texts that go back that far. Memory doesn't go back 40,000-100,000 years.Have you noticed my signature? "Culture is memory"! The report of an event will, with time, become a legend, then a myth and eventually a fairytale, but in the kernel of that fairytale the report remains covered with the layers of time. The modern Eurasians were produced, as hybrids Homo sapiens sapiens – Neanderthal, in the Near East 50k years ago and that is the limit that their memory can reach. For the Africans it could go back 100k years, but unfortunately their mythology was recorded too late. So, texts that old are not necessary because the artifacts made before the invention of writing were according to the stories told and when writing was invented those same stories were recorded.
Wrong. religion is based on many stories from many different religions. That's self evident.Not according to the study of Comparative mythology and to the experts in mythology.
That's great. I knew you were a pervert.You regard masturbation perversion? Do not react like a child, my friend. Hold your temper!
That's your idea of appreciating the improvement? I suppose all of this improved until it became roman catholicism? Is that what you're really trying to say here? Were you a catholic priest Dimitrios? You sure seem like one to me.Well, if I were a priest the chances are that I would have been a Greek Orthodox priest. As for the improvement, surely Judaism and Christianity represent a huge improvement compared to polytheistic religions. People were killing their own children in order to satisfy the old gods. Do not judge religions by the acts of their priesthood.
You regard masturbation perversion? Do not react like a child, my friend. Hold your temper!No, but I regard someone who brings up lurid quotes of masturbation and raping virgins etc etc etc multiple times in a thread with no apparent contextual basis as weird. For example I stated that there are no "improvements" in religion over time. You rebutted with an excerpt from somewhere about a man who masturbated. How in the hell is that relevant to my point? You've cited ejaculation scenarios 2-3 times with no apparent basis in context to this thread or the accompanying arguments.
Do you know what the stories were 50,000 years before your meager research into ancient texts were? No you don't.I do, because I am a person educated in this subject while you are an ignoramus. You were informed about one god of the ancients who was producing offspring by masturbating. Here is one more “perversion" of the ancients: There is evidence that in certain areas the women of even the upper social classes were obliged by custom and tradition to be engaged in prostitution before marrying. Strabo writes: The Persian shrines are also honored by Medes and Armenians. The Armenians hallow in particular goddess Anahiti. They vow temples to her and dedicate slaves. This, of course, is not unusual, what indeed is unusual is that the most eminent of the citizens give over their virgin daughters to the deity, to be, according to the law, engaged in prostitution in the temple of the goddess for a long time and then be married. Nobody refuses to live with such a woman. Something similar mentions Herodotus for the women of Lydia, they all engage in prostitution. They are so gallant with their lovers that they give sometimes more presents than they take, and they can do that since they come from wealthy families. However, they do not accept all strangers but only those of like good descendance. (11, ΧIV,16 /C.533) For the women of Lydia (An area of western Asia Minor) Herodotus writes: All the maidens of the labor class of Lydia, with no exception, hustle to collect money for their dowry and keep so doing until they get married. They select their husbands, ..etc.(Α, 93) Herodotus, also wrote the following, regarding Babylonians: There is though one of the customs of this people which is utterly shameful. Every woman who is native to the land must once in her life go to the temple of Aphrodite and give herself to a stranger. Many wealthy women who are too proud to mix with the others go to the temple in closed carriages with a multitude of servants following, and they wait there. Most of them, however, sit on the parvis with a ribbon of intertwined cordon around their heads. And they are many, for as some of them have already sat down others come and go. Between them there are passages to any direction for the men to pass and make their selection. Once a woman sits down she cannot return to her home until a man throws a coin in her lap and takes her inside to lie down together. While the man is throwing the coin he must say: “In the name of the goddess Melita," that is the name of Aphrodite in the Assyrian language. The value of the coin is of no importance because as soon as it is given it is consecrated and the law forbids refusal. She has no margin for choice; she must follow the first man who will give her the coin. After having slept with him she has fulfilled her obligation to the goddess and may return to her home. After that she cannot be allured whatever the promised amount. The tall, beautiful women manage to return home soon, while the ugly ones stay there for a long time before their duty, imposed by the law, is done. Some of them stay there for three and even four years! A similar custom is known from several areas of Cyprus. (1,199) Frazer states, concerning Cyprus, that the custom of religious prostitution was brought into Cyprus by King Kinyras. He also writes that there was a law in the Amorites (Semitic tribe 2000 – 1600 BCE) requiring from the woman who was about to get married to engage in prostitution close to the gate for seven days. He further says that in Baal-beck of Syria the custom of women hustling in the temple of Astarte was abolished by emperor Constantine who destroyed the temple and built a church in its place. My meager research enabled me to comprehend the reason behind that illogical behavior. If you want to know, you would have to ask. :-)
Have you noticed my signature? "Culture is memory"! The report of an event will, with time, become a legend, then a myth and eventually a fairytale, but in the kernel of that fairytale the report remains covered with the layers of time. The modern Eurasians were produced, as hybrids Homo sapiens sapiens – Neanderthal, in the Near East 50k years ago and that is the limit that their memory can reach. For the Africans it could go back 100k years, but unfortunately their mythology was recorded too late. So, texts that old are not necessary because the artifacts made before the invention of writing were according to the stories told and when writing was invented those same stories were recorded.:lol: Culture is memory...because you say so! Artifacts that were made before writing are according to the stories. What artifacts? The pornographic figurines from your paper? All of those artifacts just handily fill in the timeline of culture for tens of thousands of years and it just picks up seamlessly right where writing begins? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Reading above the quotes from interpreted ancient texts you quote, I see more evidence of various forms of cultural selective breeding than I do any commonality of religions.
Selective breeding is one of the most common strands of human behavior that can be found in cultures and religions.
So what’s influencing what here?