OK! So, as I promised, I will do my best to put this first piece you propose, 'Antique egyptian era', in what I understand to be its historical context.

We will then be able to debate, discuss or otherwise toss around, the actual religious concepts you have submitted above within the historical context inside which I suggest they existed.

The first thing to be clear about when discussing such topic, is the 'source', the starting point.
'Who' said 'What', and 'When' did they say 'it'.

Doesn't mean it is always accurate, but at least it organises the dicscussion from a 'here is what we know to be accurate' from the 'here is what we suspect, and are not certain to be accurate' pragmatic grid.

Sort of separating science from myths.

And on that point, we pose the follow-up question which arises when asking 'what do we mean by religion in Egypt???'

Do we mean the first possible interpretation, attributed to the american sociologist, J.B. Pratt, for whom religion is a social attitude, taken most seriously, by individuals, or groups, confronted by the power, or powers, which they are convinced, end up disposing of their interests and destinies???

Pratt distinguishes certain circumstances, the knowledge of which he suggests, will help with the understanding of 'RELIGIOUS FACTS'.

You see what happens here J.B.??? We're actually setting some parameters to hold the infamous discussion to which we invited ourselves.

Coming 'from' the myth itself, will never give us a perspective from which to understand the myth in itself.

A bit like a superstition is never a superstition for the person for whom it is ONE!!!

To understand the superstition, you must take a step back from it, and consider it in a larger, and broader context.

It all starts with a simple question: 'WHY I AM SO CONVINCED THAT IT IS SO??? IS IT REALLY SO??? LET'S TAKE A HARD LOOK???'

Back to Pratt's 'circumstances', he proposes 4 of them.

1) Intellectual: Knowledge and understanding of dominant forces
2) Emotional: The sentiment of dependence between the actions dictated by either the intelectual or emotional domains
3) Social: a social implication, religion being a community affair.

So, the analysis of religion of a civilization must deduct the facts, according to Pratt, must deduct the facts, taking in consideration the perspectives of TOUGHT (THINGKING), PIETY (DEVOTION), RITUALS AND MORALE.

What jumps up from this approach, is that this grid of criteria doesn't just define the domain of religion, but the much larger dmain of society in general.

As we see on these very forums J.B., a world obsessed by a totalitarian lay view, or scientific bias, as we know it, is not necessarily distinguished by the grid that Pratt proposes. In either case, we could say that is an intellectual conviction of the 'existence' of natural forces from which human destiny depends, corrolated to a strong commun effort to control those forces from a pure human will!!!

So on this forum, like elswhere in life the fundamental question is: 'HOW DO SCIENCE AND RELIGION DIFFER???'.

From a pragmatic standpoint, which is the perspective chosen for this dicussion, the only effective distinction resides in the FORM we attribute to the power or powers to which humanity and the universe in which it exists, are subjected to.

In the case of science,
the powers take the shape of numbers,

... whereas for religion,
the shapes of the power(s) are characters (superhumans and humans), suited with attributes, and very human and emotional qualities, all impossible to measure (numbers), and held together inside the contruct of myths.

So given that 'myths' and 'numbers' are the only useful distinctions, to tell social and religious phenomenons apart, we will have to keep this heterogeneous notion in mind.

Like water of different density, it looks as though it is together, but it never mixes! Likewise, numbers and myths, facts and faith, DON'T MIX. It's the fundamental distinction between the two bodies!

It took Pratt, analysing egyptian history, to arrive at this pragmatic distinction between science (numbers/facts), and religion (faith/myths). By no means do we master this distinction in everyday life, as demonstrated profusely by the different discussions on these forums, but the working distinction has been made, and is practiced by the communities which matter.

From that perpective, we will agree that egyptian religion, like all others, must be looked at from its mythical and superstitious realities, and not from an angle of numbers and first degree facts. While it might be fact that such and such 'periods' held such and such beliefs, the beliefs themselves are never facts!!!

That distinction is indispensable if we want to account specifically for that which is 'religious' in antique Egypt.

It is only in that context that we can assert correctly that egyptian religion was essentially a social phenomenon: an instrument by which egyptians demonstrated their collective 'will' to not be at the effect of nature (nature wrath), and their determination to integrate instead, with nature.

This ion turn gives us a profound difference between modern conepts and the egyptian concept. It is most generally accepted thatwe areno longer obcessed by the imminence of destruction (fear of wrath), quite to the contrary, the defining will of our era is one of transforming, whereas egyptian religion concentrated all its efforts toward integration with that which existed (conservation vs transformation).

Thinking of the discussions which take place on these forums, I feel the 'egyptian heritage' and mindset hasn't completely dissapeared!!!

More to come on the Egyptian era later (truly the founding antique blocks of our western civilization and historical mindset).

In the meantime I leave you with a Wiki defintion of its principal and definitive 'story teller', HERODOTUS.








Herodotus (see below) had already defined the Egyptianas the most religious of all men, and modern science has done little else tan confirm that. Enventhough this religious attitude was a fundamental caracteristic of a particular stage of the development of humanity, and could be witnessed elshwere, art history has helped us establish that 'egyptian religion' generated the largest number of specialised works, the most written 'exposés', and the most overwhelming number of popular treatises.

From WIKI:
'... Herodotus of Halicarnassus (Greek: Ἡρόδοτος Ἁλικαρνᾱσσεύς Hēródotos Halikarnāsseús) was a Greek historian who lived in the 5th century BC (c. 484 BC–c. 425 BC) and is regarded as the "Father of History" in Western culture.

He was the first historian to collect his materials systematically, test their accuracy to a certain extent and arrange them in a well-constructed and vivid narrative.[1] He is almost exclusively known for writing The Histories, a record of his "inquiries" (or ἱστορίαι, a word that passed into Latin and took on its modern connotation of history) into the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars which occurred in 490 and 480-479 BC—especially since he includes a narrative account of that period, which would otherwise be poorly documented, and many long digressions concerning the various places and peoples he encountered during wide-ranging travels around the lands of the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Although some of his stories are not completely accurate, he states that he is only reporting what has been told to him.

Opinions

Herodotus's invention earned him the twin titles "The Father of History", first conferred by Cicero, and "The Father of Lies".[4] As these epithets imply, there has long been a debate—at least from the time of Cicero's On the Laws (Book 1, paragraph 5)—concerning the veracity of his tales and, more importantly, the extent to which he knew himself to be creating fabrications. Every manner of argument has surfaced on this subject, from a devious and consciously-fictionalizing Herodotus to a gullible Herodotus whose sources "saw him coming a long way off".[citation needed]

Criticisms of Herodotus

There are many cases in which Herodotus, not certain of the truth of a certain event or unimpressed by the dull "facts" that he received, reported the several most famous accounts of a given subject or process and then wrote what he believed was the most probable. Although The Histories were often criticized in antiquity for bias, inaccuracy and plagiarism—Claudius Aelianus attacked Herodotus as a liar in Verae Historiae and went as far as to deny him a place among the famous on the Island of the Blessed—this methodology has been seen in a more positive light by many modern historians and philosophers, especially those searching for a paradigm of objective historical writing. Of course, given the sensitivity surrounding the issue, the very foundation of the discipline of history, this has not become a common view; attacks have been made by various scholars in modern times, a few even arguing that Herodotus exaggerated the extent of his travels and invented his sources.[5]

Discoveries made since the end of the 19th century have helped greatly to restore Herodotus's reputation. The archaeological study of the now-submerged ancient Egyptian city of Heracleion and recovery of the so-called "Naucratis stela" give extensive credibility to Herodotus's previously unsupported claim that Heracleion was founded under the Egyptian New Kingdom. Because of this recent increase in respect for his accuracy, as well as the quality and content of his observations, Herodotus is now recognized as a pioneer not only in history but in ethnography[6] and anthropology...'



REMEMBER IN GOING THROUGH THIS,

'... SLOW DOWN, IN ORDER TO GO FASTER!!!' ... an ancient ZEN paradox!!!

or as I answered to TRIBO:

'... aren't we all spinning our wheels anyway???'


In reading the different 'off topic' posts on this thread, and useless to say I have given up all intent of managing it, I am reminded that saying (forget the author):

'... chaos is beautiful! ... and absolute chaos is bliss!!! Trying to 'fix it', understand it, avoid it, change it, is the expression of man's stupidity, and his ultimate downfall!!!'

Eljay,

I inquired as to what you thought happened to the dinosaurs and you indicated that they must of died after the flood. (Maybe they were drowned?) But my question is why weren't there any mention of these hideous monsters going around eating people in any of the ancient scriptures of mankind? And how do you justify science and carbon dating of bones?

The reason I inquired into your beliefs is because I wonder how you can justify these things just as you inquired into how I justify the problem of space travel for aliens.

I don't mind telling you how I "justify" my beliefs in aliens and I don't' question why you would ask as you did me.

The aliens live in another dimension and very possibly traverse time through vortexes. Our own government has discovered this technology and is probably still playing around with it, but most of it (hopefully) was destroyed. (Montauk Project) This project, I believe is not fantasy. It really happened in my opinion. These technologies are accomplished with frequencies ~~and other things.

JB

In order to accept the modern scientific interpretation of carbon dating - the event of the flood must be denied, for immersion in water effects the ability to accurate carbon date anything. Ask anyone who thinks the world is a billion years or so old, and you will have found someone who denies the flood. So - to me, there is no justification for dating anything before the flood by this method.



I'm not familiar with this concept - but then again, I am not really a follower of "sci-fi" gendre (not a derogatory comment - just a pont of reference as this is where most of the theories of time abnormalties are explored). Though some of the difficulties of understanding what may or may not be legitimate these days occurs through the advancements of technology in the film industries. From Rod Serling and his parallel universe to the film "Leapers" - it gets harder and harder to know where to draw the line between potential truth and pure fiction.

i agree V, sorry but i will tell you what - if you would rather i mave my comments and talks with others to a diff post i will -

In order to accept the modern scientific interpretation of carbon dating - the event of the flood must be denied, for immersion in water effects the ability to accurate carbon date anything.

Ask anyone who thinks the world is a billion years or so old, and you will have found someone who denies the flood. So - to me, there is no justification for dating anything before the flood by this method.

No its not actually.

Evidence has been found that this knowledge predated scripture and was even practiced in secret by some priests. Sorry I don't have those references for you, but if you won't even believe valid science or the history of myths and the sun worshipers, I doubt if you will accept any other evidence contrary to your set-in-stone religious belief system.

I did not get this from a movie.

Apparently many of them do, including you. You believe the world was created in seven days, including Adam and Eve and dinosaurs which were not even mentioned anywhere in scripture.

They apparently just have not put two and two together. For people who study numerology and astrology that would seem silly. But like many, they won't allow anything to un-brainwash them of their religions notions of their creator.

JB

(I don't know much about accurate carbon dating vs water.)

But what you are saying is that you are restricted in considering the validity of science because you are 'married to' your belief in the story of the flood.

Have you carefully compared any real evidence for the flood as apposed to real evidence in contradiction to the flood or are you believing in the flood on faith alone?

Have you looked into the science of carbon dating or did you quickly reject it because it would require that you reject your current belief based on faith in the Bible being accurate?



Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you reject science completely, opting to believe the literal translation in the Bible.

I guess that is your option. I can't argue these points with you on that premise.

JB

Gaps?

That's a creationists wet dream.

It's not necessarily to show precisely how every little detail evolved in order to know that evolution took place.

The evidence that life on Earth slowly evolved from primitive species to more complexed species is overwhelming. So much so that to suggest it didn't happen that way is truly naïve, especially in face of the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

You look at scientific knowledge and claim there are Gaps. But that's superficial nonsense.

And to what end? So that you can suggest that a totally inconsistent mythology is true.

It's clear that this is only motivation to want to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence that evolution did indeed occur.

You'd rather believe in a mythology that has our creator at war with a demonic fallen angel. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever.

You'd rather believe that our creator just coincidently happens to require blood sacrifices to appease it, just like every other manmade myth on the planet. What's the probability of that happening? Basically zilch.

You'd rather believe that a supposedly all-wise, all-loving, all-perfect God would ask people to stone each other to death after it had already commanded them not to kill? Your God would need to be extremely inconsistent and unstable to have done that. Yet there it is, in black & white, (carved in stone as they say), in the very words that you came belong to this supposedly stable unchanging deity.

You can believe in a doctrine that is a totally oxymoronic in it's description of a deity. Yet, you can't believe in scientific evidence that is indisputable? You claim it has 'gaps'?

You can believe in a God who so loved the world that he drowned out all but a handful of people. Not only did he drown all the innocent newborn babies, but he even downed out the entire animals kingdom as well according to these absurdly silly stories. That kind of act doesn't sounds like an all-wise, all-powerful God.

There are huge logical GAPS in that story.

For example, if this God is supposed to be a fatherly-figure why didn't he provide better mentoring for the people of planet earth instead of having them play guessing games? If he were a human father he's be up on charges of child abuse for neglect.

Also, why not nip it in the bud? Why not just give heart attacks to the evil people so that the good people aren't corrupted by them? After all, if he can intervene to cure cancer, or help someone obtain a job, surely he could give sinners heart attacks. After all they were supposedly having sex like crazy. He could have given them heart attacks and no one would have even known that it was divine intervention.

By not nipping it in the bud and carrying out his own law that sinners must pay the penalty of death for their sins, he just sat by and allowed the whole bowl of apples to go rotten. Not much of a father. Clearly these stories can't be true because there are huge GAPS between what they claim God is like, and what they portray God to actually be like via the stories they tell.

It's full of logical GAPS via gross inconsitences.

The Bible says that God is unchanging, yet Jesus was a completely different persona than the God of Abraham. They supported wildly different philosophical notions. Jesus said to love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, and don't stone people to death, in fact don't even JUDGE them! You certainly can't be stoning "sinners" to death if you aren't allowed to judge them to be sinners.

This is completely opposite to the persona of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham said to hate your neighbor if they don't worship him! In fact, he even said that it is your duty to take up the sword and murder non-believers and destroy their entire villages, including all the women, children, and even their pets and livestock! Leaven nothing! Burn all their physical possessions to the ground and never build on that spot again. Jesus would be totally appalled if anyone did this! Clearly Jesus and the God of Abraham had extremely different philosophies on how people should behave.

You talk about supposed 'gaps' in science yet the mythology that you're trying to sell is completely full of holes.

It's no wonder they call it the Holey Bible.

And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up the divine claims of these outrageously inconsistent myths. You claim to what more 'proof' that evolution actually happened and until then you're going to believe in something that is totally absurd and clearly impossible to be true.

It's clearly impossible to be true because it constantly claims that God has a specific character but then tells stories that reveal just the opposite. It claims that God is unchanging, yet it contains stories where its God has a complete personality transplant.

It has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it can't possibly be true via it's own self-inconsistencies.

And there is not one iota of evidence whatsoever for it's claim of divine origins

Not one shred of evidence for it's claim of divinity. All it has to offer is it's own unsupported claims within the myth itself.

Claiming that some of the cities, people, and worldly events that are described in the bible can be shown to have actually historically occurred does not support it's claims of divinity or divine intervention. All mythologies are based on some real events. Those real events and situations are what give men the ideas to make up these incredulous stories. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support divine intervention or divine inspiration.

In fact, the self-inconsistencies in the stories are self-proof that it can't be the divine word of an all-supreme perfect creator because an all-supreme perfect creator wouldn't have been inconsistent in it's behavior and messages. So it has truly proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it can't possibly be true.

You have absolutely indisputable proof that the biblical account of God can't possible be true simply because a truly all-wise, all-perfect God would not have behaved in such an inconsistent manner as the Bible describes. You have PROOF that it can't be true right in the book itself. No need to even look outside of it to see that it's a totally manmade fallacy.

Trying to dismiss science just because it doesn't have a completely formulated explanation for every single little detail of precisely how every species evolved from the previous one, and then turning around and supporting a mythology that is utterly full of holes is truly an absurd position to be taking Eljay.

Seriously, if that's your stance there isn't much sense in even conversing with you at all because you clearly want to support your favorite mythology at all cost no matter how unreasonable you need to be to argue for it.

Eljay wrote:

Well - the main difference between the two, is for someone to accept numerology and Astrology as absolute truth - reincarnation must be believed - which is contradictory to Christian belief that it is appointed for man to live once.

(on this planet that is) However, numerology and Astrology still have discernable truths that are exclusive from accepting reincarnation. Therefore - those who feel reincarnation is a myth - often dismiss anything that has to do with numerology and astrology. Just as those who do not believe in Creation dismiss all of scripture.

My belief in God has nothing to do with my disbelief in Darwinian evolution and the subsequent adjustments made to it (see macro and micro evolution) in the attempt to legitimize this myth.

Well, I work for a union that mandates that a break be taken after three hours of work. I'm never "exhausted" or in need of this "rest" - I just take it. So for you to assume that I take this break because of these reasons is to READ this into your interpretation. You see rest as a result of being exhausted. To me - it is also an indisation of simply having completed something - and not exclusively a result of physical exertion.

No one has the free choice to not starve if there is no food available - so I guess that would include babies now - wouldn't it.

Of course the child could thrash around and pull out the I.V. But here - you are forcing the will of someone stronger and able to control the actions of the child. If I held a gun to your head and strongly requested you to do whatever - I would say that "I'm changing the rules" to your freedom of choice, eH. You could always chose to be shot. So - coming up with the exception does not prove the rule.

So on this forum, like elswhere in life the fundamental question is: 'HOW DO SCIENCE AND RELIGION DIFFER???'.

My belief in God has nothing to do with my disbelief in Darwinian evolution and the subsequent adjustments made to it (see macro and micro evolution) in the attempt to legitimize this myth.

You're wrong Abra. There is no evidence of "links" to the cross evolution of species. Only that which has been fabricated and subsequently proven as a hoax - or commisioned artist renderings. I felt the same way when I was an Atheist. So your strawman logic isn't convincing me that you've got a grasp of the truth here. You're just a product of the academic institution that you blindly accepted because they rewarded you with a piece of paper.

So, I've concluded that observation and experience is the only viable choice we have to discover truth. If we can't trust our own experience and observations then any search for truth would be utterly futile.

science will never find the truth as long as it contains itself within its own dogma's. one has to be free of held beliefs to go forward. Be it Eljay, aba,V, or any others.

your all barking up the wrong trees.

science will never find the truth as long as it contains itself within its own dogma's. one has to be free of held beliefs to go forward. Be it Eljay, abra,V, or any others.

your all barking up the wrong trees.

You're wrong Abra. There is no evidence of "links" to the cross evolution of species.