• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Their Return

Well, since the "let's pretend all anecdotes are real" was already a huge nonsense...

Sure, after a few posts it became clear it actually meant "lets pretend my interpretation of the anecdotes I selected are real". But it is still a huge nonsense.
 
more pedantry

In the vain hope that someone, somewhere could learn something from this inane thread.

The Ellipsis



An ellipsis [ … ] proves to be a handy device when you're quoting material and you want to omit some words. The ellipsis consists of three evenly spaced dots (periods) with spaces between the ellipsis and surrounding letters or other marks. Let's take the sentence, "The ceremony honored twelve brilliant athletes from the Caribbean who were visiting the U.S." and leave out "from the Caribbean who were":

The ceremony honored twelve brilliant athletes … visiting the U.S.
If the omission comes after the end of a sentence, the ellipsis will be placed after the period, making a total of four dots. … See how that works? Notice that there is no space between the period and the last character of the sentence.​

The ellipsis can also be used to indicate a pause in the flow of a sentence and is especially useful in quoted speech:

Juan thought and thought … and then thought some more.
"I'm wondering …" Juan said, bemused.​
 
I wonder why it is virgin and not virginity sacrifice?
The later would make more sense if fertility/harvest goods were involved, and a properly designed ritual would be a lot easier to get volunteers.
 
Please stop the personal attacks, including accusation of trolling.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Please stop the personal attacks, including accusation of trolling.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

So what DOES one call it when another poster tries to derail serious discussion with attempts to elicit emotional responses?
 
Let's seriously discuss how looking up will make aliens magically appear.

What have you got, KotA?
 
So what DOES one call it when another poster tries to derail serious discussion with attempts to elicit emotional responses?

:dl:

ETA: As strange as your ideas are, I do appreciate your humour sometimes. It is humour, isn' it?
Or do you really mean stuff like that?


I am just say'n you can't just throw ANY virgin out there and expect results, that's all...
 
Last edited:
The historical god...

...when I read accounts from anyone, about anything, I almost always know that I can't and shouldn't take things 'at face value'. The person I am listening to isn't me, and thus they have a slightly different manner of perception & communication. I am going to need to do some level of understanding, to fully appreciate what the account is trying to relay.

When I look at a piece of art, not only do I examine individual brush strokes, but I try to get an overall feeling, message, scene and especially an appreciation for the action of the characters featured. That said, I understand that artists, story-tellers, and witnesses are hampered by the means to depict reality for all time. We can only look and try to understand...

As scribes all that we can do is TRY to relay what it was we really witnessed. Details will almost never be complete, especially if they come from a singular source. It's only when we have LOTS of sources from a wide range of peoples, that we can start to get a real appreciation for the 'reality' of a something.

When we read accounts of "cyclops" monsters today, what does that mean? That there WAS a race of men with monocular vision, having now died out due to the problems with depth perception? OR that some of our ancestors happened upon fossilized mammoth skills, and thought this must be the skull of a cyclops?

When we read accounts of "mermaids", should we reject the reality behind the myth, or understand that the tale likely came from a manatee, sighting?

With that in mind what is behind the historical "god"...?

What is the REALITY behind the myth? What real thing is behind the story told the world over? Everywhere and anywhere you go there are ancient tales of "god(s) of heaven".

Even today, people have and are seeing 'them, up there'. Mermaids became manatees. What will god become?
 
With that in mind what is behind the historical "god"...?
theres generally three types
1. forces of nature become Gods as shamanistic cultures become civilised,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therianthropy
2. Deified kings, that's why God looks totally human and in legends manages to impregnate women just with his penis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Vico#Rhetoric_in_the_Scienza_Nuova
3. Idealism, Gods are invented from whole cloth in order to fulfill a preconceived religious plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

These truths are quite evident from anyone who's actually studied them.
Even today, people have and are seeing 'them, up there'.
No, thats just nuts who haven't studied the subject and who made up their minds without looking at any evidence. Aliens wouldn't be deified, they would become monsters, but thats moot, there's no credible evidence they have played any part in Earth's history
End thread /
:p
 
Last edited:
the “Cycplops”, thing was on the science channelI’ve that mammoth skulls have a look vaguely like a human but the nasal cavity is right where you would place (in your imagination) the single eye. The ancient world was littered with Paleolithic fossils and a lot of the monsters of legend were just people finding a “giants” bone and making up a story.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm trying to become a medieval historian (MA so far) and what I do a lot of is look at mythology and what it teaches us.

From a historical perspective, it's typically simple speculation to say that cyclops et al where taken from a specific erroneous observation. While some do have some evidence (like the medieval Beastiaries for example), most are pastiches of various beliefs. It is also somewhat irrelevant. Mythology is best seen as informing us on the society that spawns it and it's concerns and culture. Gods are always a reflection of ourselves.

If you take Christianity for example, you can see the shift in beliefs through the ages as it comes to reflect the current cultures and people who adopted it. From a mono-racial, paternalistic culture, the Yahweh of the Jews, we see it's alteration by the more philosophically inclined Greeks where we get the ideas of God as omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Zoroastrianism gives Christianity it's very defined dualism and the Roman empire gave the idea of governance through hierarchy.

In the Middle Ages you get the legions of Angels and Demons, in feudal array with specific names and duties along with a Heaven and Hell at war with each and us.

Of course, I am massively oversimplifying a very complex subject but I hope the idea is presented. Whenever you see Mythology (or religion), you see the people, not the Gods.
 
Last edited:
When we read accounts of "mermaids", should we reject the reality behind the myth, or understand that the tale likely came from a manatee, sighting?
Mermaids became manatees. What will god become?

The existence of mermen and women predates any sighting of a manatee by civilisation about 3500 years. Their origins began with the story of Adapa, who because of his nautical prowess was depicted in clothing resembling the form of a fish
Oannes3.gif

he was also known as the fisherman of Eridu (his home town)
Because he was a religious figure was emulated by Sumerian priests who wore a fish costume
oannes4.jpg

Depictions like this passed from Babylonia to Assyria, where they were depicted thus
oannes6.jpg

And from there the stories spread to Greece where he was depicted like this and associated with Poseidon
Oannes.jpg

something got lost in translation. This was due to the Babylonian priest Berossus who was ordered by Antioch I to write a history of Mesopotamia which the king had just acquired. He described Adapa who was known as Uan in Babylon as a fully fledged aquatic bringer of civilisation and named him Oannes. This was a bit of a mystery for a while as the story of Adapa was translated only in the modern era, showing the true origins of the character, turns out Berossus was having a laugh at the kings expense. The Greeks then added mermaids as his companions.
:D
So much later the concept of mermen was already in the minds of sailors setting out on long voyages, so you have the cart before the horse, Manatees are not responsible for mermen mythology, merman mythology is however responsible for identifying manatees as mermen
;)

I don't buy the elephant origin for cyclops either, the Greeks were familiar with elephants, they used them in their army and the earliest stories about the first mentioned cyclops in history, Polyphemus originally had two eyes.
I think the origin is much more likely due to the preponderance of the single eye symbol across the ancient near east, where it was used by characters of great stature, such as Gods and kings so its more likely due to a blending of mythology and symbolism.
 
Last edited:
theres generally three types
1. forces of nature become Gods as shamanistic cultures become civilised,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therianthropy
2. Deified kings, that's why God looks totally human and in legends manages to impregnate women just with his penis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Vico#Rhetoric_in_the_Scienza_Nuova
3. Idealism, Gods are invented from whole cloth in order to fulfill a preconceived religious plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

These truths are quite evident from anyone who's actually studied them.

No, thats just nuts who haven't studied the subject and who made up their minds without looking at any evidence. Aliens wouldn't be deified, they would become monsters, but thats moot, there's no credible evidence they have played any part in Earth's history
End thread /
:p

Interesting that you would list 3...are you sure there aren't more possibilities?

So long as they aren't openly hostile and helpful, I think they'd be featured just as they are...as angels with wings, riding on clouds carrying blessings...
 
the “Cycplops”, thing was on the science channelI’ve that mammoth skulls have a look vaguely like a human but the nasal cavity is right where you would place (in your imagination) the single eye. The ancient world was littered with Paleolithic fossils and a lot of the monsters of legend were just people finding a “giants” bone and making up a story.

It was just an example of something quite fictional, having an actual basis on real evidence, just misinterpreted.

I can show you countless images of god in heaven, angels riding clouds, people gazing upward toward bright shiny silver disks, and any number of other airborne entities within old paintings.

The question is what is the reality behind this images?
 
Interesting that you would list 3...are you sure there aren't more possibilities?
I did say generally.
So long as they aren't openly hostile and helpful, I think they'd be featured just as they are...as angels with wings, riding on clouds carrying blessings...

Angels didn't exist until after the babylonian diaspora, they didn't start off with wings and clouds and blessings. Thats just Christianity, Old testament angels weren't very friendly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
They are the result of monotheism being born out of a polytheistic pantheon by a culture who didn't want to piss off the rest of the gods just in case. Textually prior to the captivity God had a couple of messengers, afterwards the entire hierarchy of heaven.
:D
The question is what is the reality behind this images?
we've been over this, you wouldn't accept it preferring to go with your imagination over the opinion of experts
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom