Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:02 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:33 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
The flat earth idea was there in terms of the Egyptian underworld. It's there in the Bible as well. If we suppose that there was ancient knowledge of the spherical earth and it's place in the galaxy, as in high science transmitted by visiting space travelers, aquired on the earth over long periods of development and observation, or divine inspiration, that knowledge was gradually lost by the looks of things. What we're dealing with is a flat earth idea which eventually gave rise to spherical earth insights. Some argue that the spherical idea was simply a return of ancient knowledge, but in any case it was either not around at all or lost and later recovered.

They really did think that the sun went under the flat surface earth and then rose again on the other side. The sun dies and then the sun is reborn again. The whole death and resurrection motif is addressed to that. Later, with the Golden Dawn movement, esoterics revised the old death and resurrection mysticism in favor of a new idea reflecting the reality of the sun. It doesn't die and resurrect, but rather the sun stays on all the time. It simply goes out of sight and then returns but never turns off so to speak. So they built around the idea that the sun stays on all the time = we stay on all the time. Like the sun doesn't really die = we don't really die. This changed the entire perspective coming out of ancient Egypt.

Now if the ancient Egyptians were really aware of the spherical earth separated into two hemisphere's then they would not have had the religion of resurrection, you see? It only makes sense from a flat earth perspective where the sun travels under the flat earth disk only to come back up on the other side. This is the journey of Osiris, the sun going through the darkness of the underworld. I've been reading through your link and I must say, FTL is correct in his advise to you:

Native wrote:
Well, this confusion and distortion of a myth happens only because modern scholars and laymen have GREAT difficulties to grasp that our Ancestors used their spiritual skills so brilliantly that they intuitively got the cosmological knowledge via spiritual journeys of-of-the-body-like travels in cosmos where The Creation itself told the cosmological stories.

And right there you loose anyone who might have been taking you seriously. The videos that I posted are a big stretch, but far less of a stretch than what you're proposing. John West and others are suggesting that over the long course of precession of the equinoxes human civilization has risen and fallen, at least a few times already. His radical dating of the sphinx suggests that it was built 1 1/2 precession cycles ago, not one but two golden ages (Satya Yugas) back. The idea is that humans had evolved to higher levels of knowledge via long periods of development, experimentation, and observation. So the explanation for mysterious scientific knowledge is that it was aquired over long periods of development and then lost during periods of decline and chaotic disaster only to be recovered again. If the ancients knew about space, the galaxy, the earth and solar system, it is only because they had developed science high enough to understand and observe these things. And that's a very radical proposition mind you.

Now you come along with the assertion that ancient peoples were having out-of-body experiences which showed them the cosmos from a perspective of off and away from the earth, which leads to seeing the creation of the solar system and knowing that it came from the Milky Way's galactic center. It's difficult enough for West to have to prove his assertions and about 10 times more difficult for you to stand forward and prove yours. To be honest with you, I've considered every angle and the divine inspiration assertion is the weakest explanation as I see it. This type of research goes beyond the old archetypes of the unconscious promoted by Jung and towed along by Campbell. And if you ever get around to reading any of Scranton (Science of the Dogon) he makes a strong case against the intuitive or archetypal explanation.

Native wrote:
It is of course only the star constellations that changes compared to the seasonal markings via the precession movement and not the Earth/Sun seasonal related data that repeats itself every year on approximately the same datum´s.

I've simply posted the data and a link to the source of the data. Descarte's simply went to the astronomy software program in question and searched the winter solstice dating for 2,000 BC. It comes up clear as day - January 4, 5, and 6 according to our calendar system.

I don't know the details and I've wondered about this for a while now. Your discussion of the Epiphany brought it back up again. The idea is that the Alexandrian celebration observed by Epiphanius was the remnant of a very old winter solstice celebration held on that date and then not changed over time. It would seem to show the antiquity of the celebration, which, eventually had to be changed because it eventually fell out of alignment with the actual winter solstice.
Native wrote:
The 25th of December ritual should correctly be the 20 or 21 Winter Solstice if strictly following the Solar Mythology...

Just like now, if the solstice starts on the 20th through the 23rd then Christmas should be changed to the 24th, but it hasn't been changed - not yet anyways...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:57 am 
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
The flat earth idea was there in terms of the Egyptian underworld. It's there in the Bible as well. If we suppose that there was ancient knowledge of the spherical earth and it's place in the galaxy, as in high science transmitted by visiting space travelers, aquired on the earth over long periods of development and observation, or divine inspiration, that knowledge was gradually lost by the looks of things. What we're dealing with is a flat earth idea which eventually gave rise to spherical earth insights. Some argue that the spherical idea was simply a return of ancient knowledge, but in any case it was either not around at all or lost and later recovered. AD 1

They really did think that the sun went under the flat surface earth and then rose again on the other side. The sun dies and then the sun is reborn again. AD 2

Now if the ancient Egyptians were really aware of the spherical earth separated into two hemisphere's then they would not have had the religion of resurrection, you see? It only makes sense from a flat earth perspective where the sun travels under the flat earth disk only to come back up on the other side. This is the journey of Osiris, the sun going through the darkness of the underworld. AD 3

Now you come along with the assertion that ancient peoples were having out-of-body experiences which showed them the cosmos from a perspective of off and away from the earth, which leads to seeing the creation of the solar system and knowing that it came from the Milky Way's galactic center. AD 4

This type of research goes beyond the old archetypes of the unconscious promoted by Jung and towed along by Campbell. And if you ever get around to reading any of Scranton (Science of the Dogon) he makes a strong case against the intuitive or archetypal explanation. AD 5

AD 1: In my opinion, “the flat Earth idea” origin from a scholarly confusion between the mytheme of “the first land” on the Primeval Mound which is “an Island floating in a disc” i.e. the Milky Way galaxy, and the Earth itself. The First Land has been confused for Earth and has resulted in “the flat Earth idea”.

This is a very understandable confusion when scholars don´t know of, or ignore to apply the Milky Way Mythology if they do.

AD 2: May be some cultures really did.

AD 3: Oh yes they certainly would. And they obviously had. If you apply the Milky Way Mythology with its seemingly revolving figures of Osiris in the northern hemisphere and Isis on the southern hemisphere, it all makes a perfect system for the mytheme of the” dying and rising god”.
Attachment:
Resurrection Rite.jpg
Resurrection Rite.jpg [ 65.42 KiB | Viewed 1205 times ]

The Northern Milky Way figure (Represented in this case as Osiris) in different positions seen from the same location and marker point. In the diving position, the figure the figure seems to dive into the Underworld; down to the other Milky Way figure of the southern hemisphere, the Underworld, where Isis resides.
Attachment:
Milky Way Explanations.jpg
Milky Way Explanations.jpg [ 150.32 KiB | Viewed 1205 times ]

When adding the deity qualities of Osiris and Isis to this motion and to the Milky Way Mythology with the Cosmic Womb in the centre of our galaxy (On the Isis figure) it all makes perfectly sense and this explanation doesn´t give illogical conclusions as for instants that “the sun has created everything in our galaxy” because this is in fact what the “seasonal solar myth” indirectly and directly claim when connecting the sun to these superior deities and exchange the Milky Way deities with the solar deity.

AD 4: If thinking of the ancient knowledge of the elementary deities (Ogdoad Deities) that create everything, how do you then imagine that they got this knowledge? How did they get the knowledge of the Creation and the connected stories? From ancient astronauts? Or from factual revelations and divine inspirations?

AD 5: I can very well understand if strict scientifically minded scholars – for many reasons - deny or avoid to operate with the spiritually dimensions, but this is really sad in my opinion and when it comes to really understand mythology; archetypes and real mytho-cosmological knowledge, they are missing a lot understanding.

- In the case with Laird Scranton (and other): If he have had the correct understanding, that all cultures all over the world in ancient times got the very same (physical and divine) cosmological knowledge of creation, he then would be more careful when he connects specific cultures to the Dogon Knowledge.

NB: With this reply I`ll will concentrate to post these kind of issues on my Milky Way Mythology Topic. Link: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3757&hilit=milky+way+mythology


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:28 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Native wrote:
If you apply the Milky Way Mythology with its seemingly revolving figures of Osiris in the northern hemisphere and Isis on the southern hemisphere, it all makes a perfect system for the mytheme of the” dying and rising god”.


I see why you're having a hard time with relating to what the rest of the astrotheological community here at these forums are into as far as luni-solar mythology goes. You see, what you've raised about the galactic center doing a similar underworld journey like the sun, is just that - it's a similar journey to that of the sun. You have no grounds at all - with the above diagram in mind - to claim that the ancients were not talking about the sun but rather the galactic center instead. The grounds that you do have to argue on is that the galactic center should be included as part of the totality of the ancient death and resurrection mythologies.

Also included in the overall picture is the organic life cycle. I've heard Christian apologists try to argue that no, Horus has nothing to do with the sun because he's addressed to organic life and point to a few pieces of information that seem to support that conclusion. This is completely ridiculous and it all boils down to people trying side step the solar issue for various reasons, usually addressed specifically to trying to preserve personal beliefs which are threatened by admitting to the solar mythology. What you're doing is very similar to what these apologists are doing. What it always boils down to is that in mythology the ancients were using deities to personify any given number of things. There is the creation, and then there is everything going after the creation. At times they wanted to associate Osiris with the sun's nightly journey. At times they wanted to associate Osiris with constellation of Orion (Buvual covers this in many videos). At times they wanted to associate Osiris with the rising and falling of organic life. It's futile to try and argue that any one of these aspects of the mythology knocks out the other aspects of the mythology as irrelevent or just plain wrong.

And I'd say that since the stellar and lunar religions seem to predate the solar religions (for reasons of nomadic travelers giving way to agricultural communities) then you have a strong case for the Milky Way being mythologized before the dominant solar religions. Granted. That doesn't seem too far fetched at all considering the evolution of religious mythology itself. But even so, that in no way means that these myths are not about the sun just because the older creation myths are addressed to the Milky Way and the galactic center. Don't you understand that Ivan? I can see a clear line of evolution (from what you've raised) where night traveling nomadic herder wanders changed concerns from the night sky to the day time sky when wandering turned into agricultural settlements. The Jews, for instance, show signs of transitioning from lunar to solar. And Murdock has written about the stellar religion outdating both the lunar and solar mythologies. So it would do you good to continue reading her work before jumping to too many conclusions. So I'd don't think that you're entirely crazy or anything for asserting that the Milky Way plays a primary role in ancient creation myth. I don't think that anyone else around here does either. Where it starts to get crazy is when you logic leap to beyond what can be proven in black and white.

But if you really want to make a good point and get serious recognition from respected scholars in relevant fields, you may want to dump the mystical angle from the presentation. Even if you seriously believe that the ancients were having out-of-body experiences that gave them insight into the creation of the galaxy, it only hurts the case that you're trying to make for including the Milky Way into mainstream comparative mythological scholarship. If you really do believe this and you think that it's important to get this information into the mainstream, then why don't you simply slip it in under the radar so to speak? You could just as easily present this in terms of what the ancients believed about creation and how they claimed that they aquired knowledge. Why not leave it as a study on ancient cultures without trying to assert that they were necessarily correct? Then you avoid the slippery slope that people like John West and Walter Cruttenden have created for themselves. They carry a certain burden of proof on their shoulders that can not really be met. And if the burden of proof can't be met, and if the conclusion relies on intuition, gut feelings, or simply "faith," why even take up the cross of carrying the burden of proof on your shoulders in the first place? Why not leave it as a personal belief, which is what it is in reality. You could say that the ancients believed that everything was sprung out of the galactic center without trying to assert that they were absolutely correct and therefore science needs to be changed around. This is the very thing FTL was trying to get at about your website, although he was more abrupt about it. As it stands, we (FTN) can not be associated with what you're doing at your own website. If it was cleaned up and made presentable to a scholarly scientific oriented audience then that could possibly change...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:53 pm 
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
Native wrote:
If you apply the Milky Way Mythology with its seemingly revolving figures of Osiris in the northern hemisphere and Isis on the southern hemisphere, it all makes a perfect system for the mytheme of the” dying and rising god”.

I see why you're having a hard time with relating to what the rest of the astrotheological community here at these forums are into as far as luni-solar mythology goes. You see, what you've raised about the galactic center doing a similar underworld journey like the sun, is just that - it's a similar journey to that of the sun. AD 1
You have no grounds at all - with the above diagram in mind - to claim that the ancients were not talking about the sun but rather the galactic center instead. The grounds that you do have to argue on is that the galactic center should be included as part of the totality of the ancient death and resurrection mythologies. AD 2
Also included in the overall picture is the organic life cycle. I've heard Christian apologists try to argue that no, Horus has nothing to do with the sun because he's addressed to organic life and point to a few pieces of information that seem to support that conclusion. This is completely ridiculous and it all boils down to people trying side step the solar issue for various reasons, usually addressed specifically to trying to preserve personal beliefs which are threatened by admitting to the solar mythology. Ad 3
What you're doing is very similar to what these apologists are doing. What it always boils down to is that in mythology the ancients were using deities to personify any given number of things. There is the creation, and then there is everything going after the creation. At times they wanted to associate Osiris with the sun's nightly journey. At times they wanted to associate Osiris with constellation of Orion (Buvual covers this in many videos). At times they wanted to associate Osiris with the rising and falling of organic life. It's futile to try and argue that any one of these aspects of the mythology knocks out the other aspects of the mythology as irrelevent or just plain wrong. Ad 4
And I'd say that since the stellar and lunar religions seem to predate the solar religions (for reasons of nomadic travelers giving way to agricultural communities) then you have a strong case for the Milky Way being mythologized before the dominant solar religions. AD 5
Granted. That doesn't seem too far fetched at all considering the evolution of religious mythology itself. But even so, that in no way means that these myths are not about the sun just because the older creation myths are addressed to the Milky Way and the galactic center. Don't you understand that Ivan? AD 6
I can see a clear line of evolution (from what you've raised) where night traveling nomadic herder wanders changed concerns from the night sky to the day time sky when wandering turned into agricultural settlements. The Jews, for instance, show signs of transitioning from lunar to solar. And Murdock has written about the stellar religion outdating both the lunar and solar mythologies. So it would do you good to continue reading her work before jumping to too many conclusions. So I'd don't think that you're entirely crazy or anything for asserting that the Milky Way plays a primary role in ancient creation myth. I don't think that anyone else around here does either. Where it starts to get crazy is when you logic leap to beyond what can be proven in black and white. AD 7

But if you really want to make a good point and get serious recognition from respected scholars in relevant fields, you may want to dump the mystical angle from the presentation. Even if you seriously believe that the ancients were having out-of-body experiences that gave them insight into the creation of the galaxy, it only hurts the case that you're trying to make for including the Milky Way into mainstream comparative mythological scholarship. If you really do believe this and you think that it's important to get this information into the mainstream, then why don't you simply slip it in under the radar so to speak? You could just as easily present this in terms of what the ancients believed about creation and how they claimed that they aquired knowledge. Why not leave it as a study on ancient cultures without trying to assert that they were necessarily correct? Then you avoid the slippery slope that people like John West and Walter Cruttenden have created for themselves. They carry a certain burden of proof on their shoulders that can not really be met. And if the burden of proof can't be met, and if the conclusion relies on intuition, gut feelings, or simply "faith," why even take up the cross of carrying the burden of proof on your shoulders in the first place? Why not leave it as a personal belief, which is what it is in reality. You could say that the ancients believed that everything was sprung out of the galactic center without trying to assert that they were absolutely correct and therefore science needs to be changed around. This is the very thing FTL was trying to get at about your website, although he was more abrupt about it. As it stands, we (FTN) can not be associated with what you're doing at your own website. If it was cleaned up and made presentable to a scholarly scientific oriented audience then that could possibly change . . . AD 8

AD 1: I´m fully aware that the solar motion can be compared to the motions of the Milky Way. Compared to the Milky Way Mythology as such, the Solar Myth motion and allegory is indeed very simple and easy to understand.

AD 2: Of course they were talking of the motions of the Moon and the Sun – especially as “agricultural calendar systems”, “the organic life cycle” as you wrote.

AD 3: I´m not trying to sidestep the solar issues. The only thing I´m emphasising is that it is not correct to compare the sun with deities that belong to another celestial deities, objects or phenomenons.

The sun hasn´t the same powers and qualities as Ra – or other so called “solar deities” who represents the MW galactic light. I am criticising this generally scholarly mythological confusion of the Sun and the MW-Central Light and of connecting these MW-deities to the solar cycle rhyhtmics.

AD 4: As already stated above: I´m of course not refusing the seasonal solar rhythm/myth.

AD 5: Agreed.

AD 6: Obviously. (BTW: My name is Ivar)

AD 7: I´m not jumping into any conclusions. As stated above, the solar myth and allegories are very easy to understand. My jumping regards only the “jumping into conclusions of exchanging MW-deities with the Solar deity”.

- Because other people cannot/will not see my “logic leap”, even when explained several times, this is not a question of what can be proven or not in black and white.

AD 8: Thanks for your advice in general. I´ve tried very hard to find relevant Forum´s in order to find the best way to re-launch the old MW-Mythology.

As long as “respected scholars” have no genuine ideas and understanding of the Milky Way Mythology or for the connected Stories of Creation, I prefer to stay far away from these literary guys.

Regarding my website, I have not expressed any wishes or claims for my website to be connected to or accepted by the FTN.

- As clearly stated before to FTL: I of course completely refuse to change anything on my personal website unless I´ve be represented with some logical arguments that clearly contradicts my mythological understanding and explaining.

Enough for me her and now - Thanks for the conversation!


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:15 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Take care Ivar. :wink:

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:48 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Quote:
The sun hasn't the same powers and qualities as Ra – or other so called “solar deities” who represents the MW galactic light. I am criticising this generally scholarly mythological confusion of the Sun and the MW-Central Light and of connecting these MW-deities to the solar cycle rhyhtmics.

Sorry, I just had to chime in here on this one. Now I haven't been following this entire conversation so pardon me if this was already addressed, but can you please cite to me some primary Egyptian sources that interpret Ra this way, as the "MW galactic light"? I'm not saying there aren't any, and Egyptian gods can take on several attributes and roles, but I AM saying that for all the primary stuff I've read, I've never seen anything remotely alluding to that.

Now, that said, regardless of whether Ra had any association with the "MW galactic light" or not, to refer to Ra as a "so-called" solar deity comes across as though saying Ra... is NOT a solar deity. Is that what you are saying?

If it is, I find such a statement confusing in light of the countless primary texts that refer to Ra not only as a sun god, but give him attributes that are clearly in reference to the sun and not some Milky Way galactic light, as I have never seen the milky way light rise at dawn in the morning or set at dusk in the evening.

Just the opposite would appear to be the case, no? As the milky way is only visible to the naked eye at night time when the sun sets, and would go OUT of sight when the sun rises in the east at dawn, as do "all" the stars(see R.O. Faulkner's Pyramid Texts, Utterance 216 & footnote 3 as just one example).
Yet the above ARE characteristics explicitly attributed to Ra, and more.
And even the most rudimentary reading of easily accessible texts such as The Pyramid Texts or The Book of the Dead unambiguously demonstrate this.
(See T.G. Allen's Book of the Dead, Spell Pleyte 170- "come forth tomorrow MORNING like Re"; Spell 15A1 a- "Hail to thee, Re at his rising... thou shinest, at DAYBREAK, having DAWNED as king of the gods"; Spell 15 c- "Hail to thee when thou risest from thy horizon as Re... at DAWN thou betakest thyself to thy goal as Re and risest from the horizon"; Spell 111 a - "for Re, that he may set in the EVENING"; Spell 149 d - "for Re, that he may set for me in the EVENING"; Spell 15B3 b - "Adoring Re at EVENTIDE as he SETS in life in Bakhu. The great God who is in his DISK"; etc., etc., etc.)

So it is one thing to say Ra DOES represent the "MW galactic light".

It is quite another thing to infer that he does NOT represent the sun.

The latter I cannot support, for it is false.

The former I am willing to hear out, if you can make a case from primary material instead of just personal intuition or something else that is less objective.

Also, I'm not sure what all you had in mind when you made the statement "The sun hasn't the same powers and qualities as Ra", but the exact same could be said of the Milky Way and it's "galactic light".
For instance, does the Milky Way have a man's body with the head of a bird?

Nevertheless, Ra IS still a sun god, regardless of the discrepancies between the literal sun and his anthropomorphic depictions.
The Egyptians in their own literature do not come across as so hardline as you appear to be here.

If Ra truly were ALSO the representation of the Milky Way galactic light, to the ancient Egyptian, there would be no dichotomy between that and his role as sun god, yet your posts DO come across as depicting this as a dichotomy.

This reminds me of all the ignorant folks who keep saying "Horus is NOT a sun god!" "He is a sky god!" or "He is the god of kingship!" etc.

There is NO dichotomy there, he is ALL of those things, INCLUDING a SUN god, as is undeniably shown in primary source material.

Osiris is the god of the Duat AND a god of agriculture.

Nut is a goddess of the sky AND a goddess of the sycamore tree.

And so on.

The Egyptian religion was not so linear as many people today mistakenly try to present it.


T.G. Allen's Book of the Dead, Spell 185A - "like Re when he shines in the horizon and gives light to the face of darkness, he has brightened the SUN with his twin plumes"; Spell 15 a - "Adoring Re as he RISES from the eastern horizon of the sky and rejoices his train. Osiris N. shall say: o thou DISK, lord of rays, who rises from the horizon every day, mayest thou shine in Osiris N.'s face when he adores thee in the MORNING and gladdens thee in the evening".
So that's hardly "scholarly mythological confusion", that's quite succinct & conspicuous. Afterall, I've seen Ra depicted as crowned with the sun. I've yet to see him crowned with the Milky Way.

Although I'd be interested to see such a depiction if one exists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Oh GodAlmighty, thanks for that. I've been dying to make similar points for some time now but, thought it best I stay out of it since I'm far too frank and abrupt (fair enough).

Special thanks to Tat Tvam Asi for hanging in there to figure several things out with Native. I nearly commented a few days ago when Native was trying to make the case (again) that solar and lunar mythology is irrelevant and it's all about the milky way. However, when I logged-in to quote and address it Native had just edited his post so, I couldn't quote it.

Anyway, along with all of GA's points above, Native had made a claim that the ancients knew that the milky way was a star creator ("Cosmic Womb in the centre of our galaxy" posted above) - I would love to see the primary sources for that ... if they believed that the earth was flat I'd love to know how they knew about galaxy star cocoons that we now know exist thanks to the Hubble telescope.

Since Native claims to be interested in logic I'm still trying to understand why Native/Ivar thinks that the sun & moon are not nearly as important as the milky way since the sun rises and sets everyday and the moon too cannot be missed by any human on earth. How often do people observe the milky way compared to the sun and moon? The sun provides light, warmth and photosynthesis (which also provides our atmosphere to breathe). The moons gravitational pull has had much affect on life on earth. How does all that compare to the milky way?

It just seems really strange to me that anyone would try to minimize solar and lunar mythology to try and trump it with the milky way. I can fully appreciate the milky way and its mythologies without any desire to minimize it's importance to the ancients in any way whatsoever. That position is just weird to me.

* Ducking out again 8)

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:06 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
FTL wrote:
if they believed that the earth was flat I'd love to know how they knew about galaxy star cocoons that we now know exist thanks to the Hubble telescope.

That's where the vision and special revelation enters the picture. From what Ivar's told me I get the idea that he believes that the ancients journeyed off of the planet, in mystical vision or what-have-you, and witnessed things like the birth of the galaxy and documented what they SAW in their creation stories.

So the plee is that we should toss aside the standard model cosmology of solar system formation in favor of believing Egyptian and other creation myths about the sun, moon, and visible stars being flung out of the MW galactic center. And also, we ought to toss aside everything scholarship has to say about Ra as a solar deity, or any of the major deities asserted by scholarship to be solar or lunar deities. If I have this wrong then jump and make a correction Ivar, if you're still following the thread...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:25 am 
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
FTL wrote:
if they believed that the earth was flat I'd love to know how they knew about galaxy star cocoons that we now know exist thanks to the Hubble telescope.

That's where the vision and special revelation enters the picture. From what Ivar's told me I get the idea that he believes that the ancients journeyed off of the planet, in mystical vision or what-have-you, and witnessed things like the birth of the galaxy and documented what they SAW in their creation stories.

So the plee is that we should toss aside the standard model cosmology of solar system formation in favor of believing Egyptian and other creation myths about the sun, moon, and visible stars being flung out of the MW galactic center. And also, we ought to toss aside everything scholarship has to say about Ra as a solar deity, or any of the major deities asserted by scholarship to be solar or lunar deities. If I have this wrong then jump and make a correction Ivar, if you're still following the thread...

Hi Tat,
That is pretty much correct - (Job well done :lol: )

- It seems that this issue now continue on the Milky Way Myth: http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3757&start=45as

Cheers


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group