There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of mythical beasts, dragons, etc...were in fact ancient people finding fossils and using a bit of imagination. I wonder how much of these ancient works, including the Bible have a basis in reality.
I thought this was itself a myth. That most myths are in fact combinations of existing things.
Like dragons for an example. It is easy to imagine that they could have been thought up from dinosaur bones. So many ancient cultures have draconic myths. It's peculiar that they would all make the same stories about the large bones they found in the earth though, isn't it?
I seriously think that dragons and dinosaurs are one in the same. That is to say, some of the first humans lived the same time as the last of the dinosaurs and their primitive knowledge, coupled with the all powerful imagination made living legends of the great lizards.
Cyclopes could live in the hills outside my town. I have most of a skull! Well, that is to say, I have the better part of a mammoth skull that my dad and I found arrowhead hunting.
I also had fairies in my garden. There was a circle of mushrooms that marked their leaving. Even it's gone now, so all the knowledge that was there is lost, but my cat looks at me with wise eyes, so I think it wasn't completely wasted.
Yes, myths and religions were based on things that couldn't be explained, but as it turns out, Vulcan is just the earth moving a little and the snuffing of the firstborn of Egypt was simply a lake letting loose gas that had been building up under the surface for a long time.
The only bad thing about explaining everything with science is that it makes eternal children like myself a little sadder every day. So I choose to believe that there are fairies in my garden in the summer and I plant many flowers to invite them in. I also always have my eye out for the marauding cyclops of the hills. A small part of my soul has me convinced that if I keep a wary eye out, someday I will be rewarded with a glimpse of something truly fantastic.
How so do you mean?
I actually stated it hoping you would provide more info. This is an area I don't know very much about, but I was under the impression, from what little I was able to gather during my ancient history and religion courses, that the idea that some or many myths were caused by discovery of fossils is not supported by the evidence, and is do mostly to creative speculation. That myths normally are the product of combining one existing element with other existing elements. I could be wrong, since I don't read a lot about myth. So I was basically asking you if my understanding was incorrect.
Thanks to String Theory (and what it says about black holes) change can happen backwards through time as well as forward. That puts evolution in a precarious position. Suddenly we could find Dragons and fairies at the fossil bed at the end of the garden.
The debris genes in our cells indicate a much broader set of possibilities than the limits set by the genes that say we are human.
With that kind of reality, maybe we are human because we think we are.
That is not all. She has researched archeological digs of ancient Greece that took place closer to the 1900's. In the archeologist notebooks they remarked about finding gigantic bones but feeling they had no value they threw them out. On more recent archeological digs they have found and recorded fossils that earlier they would have just discarded. So the there is good physical evidence besides the anecdotal evidence from earlier archeological digs.
geomyths that accounted for them. Dense concentrations of oversize petrified bones led to the notion that a great battle or slaughter had taken place there in the distant past. For example, ancient Greek writers reported that the smoking earth around the city of Megalopolis (ancient Greek for ‘Giant City’) in the Peloponnesus, where colossal bones of unfamiliar creatures emerged, was known as the ‘Battleground of the Giants’. The god Zeus was said to have destroyed the giant Titans here with lightning in the mythic
era before present-day humans. The bones of ‘giants’ had been unearthed and displayed in the Peloponnesus since at least the fifth century BC, according to the historian Herodotus (c. 430 BC) and other ancient authors.
In 1902, Greek palaeontologists discovered that the smouldering lignite soil around the ruins of ancient Megalopolis contains plentiful fossils of large Pleistocene mammals, including ancestral rhinoceros and elephant species that lived about
2 million to 10 000 years ago. The fossil bones are stained dark by the lignite, which can burn and smoke for long periods of time. The discovery of very large skeletons combined with this natural fact gave rise to the idea of a lightning-blasted battlefield where giants were once slain. According to the ancient writers Strabo (c. 30 BC) and Solinus (c. AD 200), the ‘Headquarters of the Giants’ was at Pallene, on the Kassandra Peninsula in NE Greece. The ancient place name and geomyth were confirmed in 1994, when Greek palaeontologists discovered rich Pleistocene fossil beds at Pallene. In the Roman era, the discovery of steppe mammoth fossils in a river bed in what is now Syria resulted in the naming of Orontes River, after the mythical giant whose bones were supposed to have been buried there (Mayor 2000, pp. 73, 98–99, 128–29).
According to the historian Plutarch (c. AD 100), a conspicuous bone bed on the Aegean island of Samos was called Panaima (‘Bloodbath’, or ‘Bloody Battlefield’). The name designated a large flat surface of red soil where immense skeletons
continually weather out. According to myth, a violent battle between the god Dionysus’s war elephants and an army of Amazons took place here, and the bloodshed was so great that the earth was stained red. Notably, the ancient Greek name for the landmark, ‘Bloody Battlefield’, was still preserved on seventeenth century Italian maps of Samos, with the Latin name Guerrarii, ‘Battlefield’.
The fossil beds of Panaima, some of the most prolific in Europe, were first excavated by scientists in about 1870. The most impressive bones are those of Miocene mastodons from about 8 million years ago. The myth about Dionysus’s war elephants suggests that mastodon remains were apparently recognized as those of elephants as early as the first century AD. In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Greeks of Samos began to refer to the site as Elephanton Nekrotafeion, ‘Elephants’ Graveyard’
(Solounias & Mayor 2005, pp. 288–293). A few kilometres west, on a mountain known as Vigla, old nineteenth-century maps indicate the place name ‘Christ’s Footprints’. No fossil footprints on the island are yet known to palaeontologists, but the name may refer to fossil tracks or natural depressions in rock (N. Solounias, pers. comm. 2001).
I was trained as a historian. So my approach to this issue would be to only to say that it is very likely some myths were created by ancient man's intereaction with the fossil record. The extend of this interaction and the degree to which it influenced out collective storytelling, is very much a matter for speculation and debate. But there is written and physical evidence to support a relationship between the two in some cases.
So if you stumble into a witches den and smoked her dope...you shouldnt blame her for the snakes you see coming from her head like hair nor the Medusa's and Gorgon's capacity to turn a vicitm to stone.
The legend of the Medusa and the Gorgon comes from a scythian Hasish/poppyseed smoking brazier. Scythian witches would burn these drugs in this bull headed brazier. The Hallicinagenic and toxic effects were...unhealthy.
So if you stumble into a witches den and smoked her dope...you shouldnt blame her for the snakes you see coming from her head like hair nor the Medusa's and Gorgon's capacity to turn a vicitm to stone.
Scythia was also responsible for legends of Gryphons.
Search Adrienne Mayor for more. You can check her creds and her work. She is good about getting evidence...not only speculative but physical.
Thanks. I will be sure to check out her work. It looks like she has a few books. Can you recommend the best one to start with?
Did the Bible burrow it from the Epic of Gilgamesh or Atra-Hasis? The Epic of Gilgamesh has a noah and a ark...It appears to have been taken from Atra-Hasis except there was changes made. Instead of a local river flood...it became a flood of a sea. Look it up and decide if it is logical yourself.
Be back later for more.
Now for the Flood Myth...
Did the Bible burrow it from the Epic of Gilgamesh or Atra-Hasis? The Epic of Gilgamesh has a noah and a ark...It appears to have been taken from Atra-Hasis except there was changes made. Instead of a local river flood...it became a flood of a sea.
Usually the biblical flood is attributed to the EPic of Gilgamesh. But to be fair, they probably borrowed it from an earlier source, and at some point there may have been a flood that it was based on (I think the black sea was originally dry, but was flooded by the mediteranean), after humans had inhabited the area.
My name is Sean.
For the Irish that is "Gift of the Gods" or "Tradegood" because it comes from the Ancient Greek "Xia" which comes from the Chinese city of Xian. which was pretty big on global trade. That makes Sean an older name than Jesus.
Basicly I'm a tradegood that comes from Ancient China. Damned if i know what tradegood it is but...
Thanks to String Theory (and what it says about black holes)
This theory is nothing proved and very hypothetical yet.
Unfortunately, I haven't spotted any yet.
Whenever I go sailing, I hope to see several attractive mermaids.
Unfortunately, I haven't spotted any yet.
Drink more rum next time. It helps your eyes focus better on mermaids and kraken. This can be very important because, while the former is just a frivolous species content to taunt desperate men with their curvy torso, the later is just plain dangerous.
Drink more rum next time. It helps your eyes focus better on mermaids and kraken. This can be very important because, while the former is just a frivolous species content to taunt desperate men with their curvy torso, the later is just plain dangerous.
So is consuming alot of run among a wholly male crew that's been out to sea for a very long time w/ little, uh, visceral outlets.;)
Moving on though, this thread is terribly impressive and right at home here. Nice job to all involved.
-I was always under the impression cyclops were mamoth skulls where the trunk void space was suspect of the occular area of a cyclopian skull.
-The bit about the hallucinogens/gorgons was rather illuminating too. Interesting.
-Does anyone know why very remote cultures w/ little to no contact w/ one another all have variations on vampire mythoi?
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of mythical beasts, dragons, etc...were in fact ancient people finding fossils and using a bit of imagination. I wonder how much of these ancient works, including the Bible have a basis in reality.
Of course myths have similarities to reality. Read Joseph Campbell's works and take classes on philosophy to learn about myths. Sadly today's "sound bite" and "literalness" trends have made the general public ignorant.
I suggest Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" and of course the Bill Moyers/Campbell book "The Power of Myth" to begin.
Rob
Of course myths have similarities to reality. Read Joseph Campbell's works and take classes on philosophy to learn about myths. Sadly today's "sound bite" and "literalness" trends have made the general public ignorant.
I suggest Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" and of course the Bill Moyers/Campbell book "The Power of Myth" to begin.
Rob
I agree. Campbell is a good source and lots of fun to read.
That is to say, some of the first humans lived the same time as the last of the dinosaurs (...)
Wrong! Dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago and first humans appeared 3-4 million or so years ago, if I remember correctly. By the time mammals (and beetles) already ruled the globe.
Wrong! Dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago and first humans appeared 3-4 million or so years ago, if I remember correctly. By the time mammals (and beetles) already ruled the globe.
Yes but there was a rather large version of the Komodo Dragon living in Austrillia with man...a bred of monitor lizard. Needless to say humans killed them off which was probably for the best /shrug...
I think it was believed that man was in Austrillia at 40,000BC. That means there was some form of sea travel, though more like island hopping.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of mythical beasts, dragons, etc...were in fact ancient people finding fossils and using a bit of imagination.
This is actually an urban myth. There is actually no evidence to suggest that is the origin of them. People often ascribed the fossils to such, but in reality, it was the other way around - people came up with the myths, then attached fossils to them, rather than the other way around.
I wonder how much of these ancient works, including the Bible have a basis in reality.
The Bible is mostly mythology with a sprinkling of historical fiction. Ancient Israel existed, for instance, as did several of the kings mentioned. But the specifics, not at all.
Jesus, likewise, PROBABLY existed (though the paucity of contemporary evidence for his existance may suggest otherwise, especially given the resemblance of Christianity to various mystery religions).
Very little of the Bible is based on factual history though.
Like dragons for an example. It is easy to imagine that they could have been thought up from dinosaur bones. So many ancient cultures have draconic myths. It's peculiar that they would all make the same stories about the large bones they found in the earth though, isn't it?
It is easy to think this. It is also very wrong.
Dragon myths very likely started from snakes and crocodiles. Ever wonder why dragons have "poisonous breath" sometimes? This is because snakes had "poisonous breath". Yes, we know that their teeth were what are actually poisonous, but back in the day snakes were said to have "poisonous breath" as well.
Dragons are conflations of many stories, exaggerated over time, and eventually given life because they are a potent mythic archetype. You can see parallels of them within both human and animal behavior - the hoarding of shiny objects, for instance.
I seriously think that dragons and dinosaurs are one in the same. That is to say, some of the first humans lived the same time as the last of the dinosaurs and their primitive knowledge, coupled with the all powerful imagination made living legends of the great lizards.
Non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 65 MILLION years ago. Humans have had language for far less than one million years.
Just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true.
People who think that human myths are based on reality, perhaps ironically, suffer from lack of imagination.
I'm sorry. It wasn't aliens who gave us culture. It wasn't dinosaurs who gave us dragons. It wasn't fossils that gave us gryphons.
People made them up because they make for good stories.
There's still the myth that dinosaurs and people did not live together, but scientists are coming closer to disproving that every day as well. They have found a few bits of evidence to support this, but they're not going to rewrite the history books just yet. That happens to be my unofficial form of study.
Did any of you see the program about Gustav? The two ton crocodile with the spear marks and machine gun scars down his side? Crocs are dinosaurs too. They haven't evolved in the last several million years. Granted they aren't the brontosaurus, but they are still an ancient form perfected so long ago that their only concession to change is a smaller body size, for the most part. Gustav puts the lie to that particular change.
I may be wrong about thinking that dragons came from dinosaur bones, but the way that most every culture has dragon myths, it would suggest that dragons are so old as to have come out of Africa with the first crews that began exploring the world. After not finding dragons after the first few thousand years, those stories probably would have faded out if it weren't for the "solid" evidence to the contrary.
A lot of myths and religious stories do have a basis in reality, like it or not. There is a lot of imagination involved, but there is also a lot of superstition and lack of scientific knowledge that mash together to create the stories we know and love.
Some myths could be made out of whole cloth, but for the most part they weren't thought to be stories, they were told to explain the world and the things that happened in it. They were indeed based on the things the ancients found and observed. Myths are explanations of how things came to be, why they are the way they are, and why things happen the way they do. They had to have basis in fact for one simple reason: without a something to explain, you have no reason to explain it, right?
Neither were Megalodons.
By your assertions, horseshoe crabs are also dinosaurs because there were around in ancient times.
The idea that humans didn't exist 65 million years ago and that dinosaurs didn't exist 2 million years ago isn't a myth, it's 100% fact. There isn't one scientist on the planet that says otherwise.
You're either lying, or you are using sources written by liars. But then again, you are refusing to say who is filling your head with this offal, probably out of fear of us tearing it apart.
Everyone knows that society was founded by a drunken Keith Richards teaching some monkeys to make whiskey for him! After all, once we're all dead and gone it will just be Keith and a couple of cockroaches left.
You want to know about dragons and dinosaurs, ask him!
Righteous!
There's still the myth that dinosaurs and people did not live together, but scientists are coming closer to disproving that every day as well. They have found a few bits of evidence to support this, but they're not going to rewrite the history books just yet. That happens to be my unofficial form of study.
Humans and dinosaurs live together to this very day. I have many dinosaurs around my house, and hear them every morning when I get up.
However, just because they're still alive doesn't mean they gave rise to myths of dinosaurs. Pidgeons and dragons have little in common, and while dragons hoarding shiny things may come from magpies, birds and dragons hold little resemblance.
Talking about what most people refer to dinosaurs as - things like tyrannosaurs, velociraptors, triceritops, ect. - no. Those never coexisted with humans; they went extinct 65 million years ago.
This is pretty basic stuff.
Did any of you see the program about Gustav? The two ton crocodile with the spear marks and machine gun scars down his side? Crocs are dinosaurs too. They haven't evolved in the last several million years. Granted they aren't the brontosaurus, but they are still an ancient form perfected so long ago that their only concession to change is a smaller body size, for the most part. Gustav puts the lie to that particular change.
Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They're reptiles but are not closely related. The living dinosaurs, birds, are obviously closely related.
And the idea that crocodiles haven't evolved in millions of years is simply false; they have. Many people BELIEVE they haven't because they don't understand evolution.
I may be wrong about thinking that dragons came from dinosaur bones, but the way that most every culture has dragon myths, it would suggest that dragons are so old as to have come out of Africa with the first crews that began exploring the world. After not finding dragons after the first few thousand years, those stories probably would have faded out if it weren't for the "solid" evidence to the contrary.
Not really, no. Indeed, not every culture has dragon myths; the claim that it is is false. Indeed, not even the east and west have dragon myths. People call eastern dragons dragons, but they're actually rather different from western dragons and very likely have independent origins. Quetzecoatl and the Piasa Bird both superfically resemble dragons as well, but the reality is that we simply label them all as dragons because we oversimplify.
The reality is that they're mostly just monsters and have very important differences. Yes, there is a shared archetype of a powerful, wise, long-lived monster which eats people and hoards wealth, but that isn't an indication of common descent, but simply convergence, and many "dragons" are missing a feature - the Piasa Bird didn't hoard wealth, for instance. Eastern and western dragons are very different, as the former are akin to river spirits or gods while the latter are more monsterous.
It is interesting that humans have made up semi-similar stories across the globe; however, the idea that they're all of common descent is currently believed to be false. The idea of common inspiration is instead used; people have myths about things around them. This is why flood myths are so prevalent; people usually live around flood plains. Cultures which didn't lack such myths. "Dragons", likewise, are a pretty common archetype because they reflect on common human traits. Humans are covetous, long-lived creatures which often kill one another; many monsters have very human motivations, ultimately.
Not really, no. Indeed, not every culture has dragon myths; the claim that it is is false. Indeed, not even the east and west have dragon myths. People call eastern dragons dragons, but they're actually rather different from western dragons and very likely have independent origins. Quetzecoatl and the Piasa Bird both superfically resemble dragons as well, but the reality is that we simply label them all as dragons because we oversimplify.
The reality is that they're mostly just monsters and have very important differences. Yes, there is a shared archetype of a powerful, wise, long-lived monster which eats people and hoards wealth, but that isn't an indication of common descent, but simply convergence, and many "dragons" are missing a feature - the Piasa Bird didn't hoard wealth, for instance. Eastern and western dragons are very different, as the former are akin to river spirits or gods while the latter are more monsterous.
It is interesting that humans have made up semi-similar stories across the globe; however, the idea that they're all of common descent is currently believed to be false. The idea of common inspiration is instead used; people have myths about things around them. This is why flood myths are so prevalent; people usually live around flood plains. Cultures which didn't lack such myths. "Dragons", likewise, are a pretty common archetype because they reflect on common human traits. Humans are covetous, long-lived creatures which often kill one another; many monsters have very human motivations, ultimately.
Hey, I remember one guy in the EU Parliament saying that the presence of dragons in nearly every culture proves that the theory of evolution is wrong and dinosaurs lived among humans in the past. Shortly after there appeared an article saying the same thing about gnomes ;)
Hey, I remember one guy in the EU Parliament saying that the presence of dragons in nearly every culture proves that the theory of evolution is wrong and dinosaurs lived among humans in the past. Shortly after there appeared an article saying the same thing about gnomes ;)
You mean you didn't hear about the Great Gnome Purge of 1273?
They were nasty little buggers back in the day...
You are saying that when people found fossils they attributed the fossils to myth that they already possessed.
Still, work has been done and evidence has been gathered from archeological digs that support that fossils were collected by ancient people (or reburied again for respect.)
I am sure some of the myths predate...yet it comes down to the fundamental truth that Dinosaurs went extinct before Man and therefore from time to time when the place and time where just right, Man would come upon Fossil's of said beast and without the understanding we possess today they would draw from imagination.
TD we seem to have decent knowledge on religions that were taken from and became Christianity(amoung other things)...and from a astrological perspective a host of myths that Christianity occur off of are based in reality. The truth is still there regardless of whether typical people regard it. Then again you have allegories that seem to possess multiple meanings...Who can deny potential truth or fallacy when you employ allegories.
It is called the Precession of Equinox. We are currently in Aquarius (I think, lol not referencing anything at the moment.) If you go back...around the time of Jesus (and up til a few decades ago) we were in Pieces.
If you look at a lot of mythology you will notice a good tint of myth also depends on the Precession. During the Age of the Bull for instance, bulls were attributed greatly in symbolism...and ex cetera. I will reread some things and try to give ya more specifics later.
Please remember also that once upon a time the sun orbiting the earth was also a basic truth. It took a lot of time and some pretty bold rejections of conventions to find the truth. That's how science moves forward.
The physics that are taught in school are faulty as well. Using the principals of physics you can prove that bumblebees can't fly. My ninth grade physics teacher showed me that. Just because it's what you are taught doesn't make it the truth.
Just remember, rejecting what you hear out of hand because it conflicts with what you've already been told is what keeps the human mind stagnant.
I admit, I tend to use "dinosaur" to cover any ancient lizard. It's wrong but I do it, I am not a scientist, just an interested third party. Megalodon was thrown in simply to give a basic time line. I suppose those humanoid bones could have been gnomish in origin! :P
I had never heard Quetzalcoatl or Piasa referred to as a dragon. That's a new one on me.
Most monsters as well as gods have human motivations, even those that are supposed to be beyond such things. That's how you know they're not real. They are given human motivation because that's all their creators understand.
The only thing I don't figure about dragons is why not make humanoids with those traits and call them "gods" as the Greeks and Romans did? Why make them monstrous? What's the purpose? There's more to it than just making up monsters to scare the brats.
I figured they were made the same reason the cyclops was made, to explain odd fossils.
Also Maulorn, it is indeed the Age of Aquarius as you can see from the technological advances made in the last forty years. Technology is the province of Aquarius. The Water Bearer also brought with him problems concerning water, massive pollution and undrinkable tap water, but he also gives us the benefit of his wisdom by teaching us to build machines that run on hydrogen and produce pure water. Though Aquarius is an air sign, you can see the focus on water because he is the water bearer.
That's something I never really paid attention to, though I was into astrology for a while. It's something that I will look into further, no doubt.
The physics that are taught in school are faulty as well. Using the principals of physics you can prove that bumblebees can't fly.
I've heard that recently they solved both bumblebees and honeybees flying dilemma. I don't know about the bugs, but scientists are relieved ;)
I've heard that recently they solved both bumblebees and honeybees flying dilemma. I don't know about the bugs, but scientists are relieved ;)
That "bees are too fat to fly" statement was actually made using the physics of fixed-wing flight. Of course, because the bees move their wings--very fast--such problems are avoided.
You are saying that when people found fossils they attributed the fossils to myth that they already possessed.
That's correct.
Still, work has been done and evidence has been gathered from archeological digs that support that fossils were collected by ancient people (or reburied again for respect.)
We know that ancients knew of fossils. You're assuming, however, that this is meaningful.
I am sure some of the myths predate...yet it comes down to the fundamental truth that Dinosaurs went extinct before Man and therefore from time to time when the place and time where just right, Man would come upon Fossil's of said beast and without the understanding we possess today they would draw from imagination.
No. Indeed, as is well known by those who actually understand the field, dinosaur fossils have pretty much nothing to do with it. Most "dragon bones" are actually mammilian fossils. This is because the most recent fossils are usually the ones nearest the surface.
TD we seem to have decent knowledge on religions that were taken from and became Christianity(amoung other things)...and from a astrological perspective a host of myths that Christianity occur off of are based in reality. The truth is still there regardless of whether typical people regard it. Then again you have allegories that seem to possess multiple meanings...Who can deny potential truth or fallacy when you employ allegories.
Astrological? You do realize that astrology is pretty meaningless, right? The movement of the planets have no mystical influence on Earthlings.
And who can deny it? People who understand. Its not hard to say something is made up.
Claiming a "host" of Christian myths are based on reality is silly. There's little evidence that Jesus even existed; there are exactly zero contemporary records of him. Genesis and Exodus are known to be made up, as is the flood, ect.
I come up with this stuff by watching the history channel, the science channel and animal planet. Yeah, some of it is certainly unproven and some will ultimately be found false, but thinking it through and picking it apart is what will find the truth. To that end, I'm not worried about you picking it apart, I welcome it. It's not my theory after all and I didn't present it as a universal truth. It's an idea that I heard and I liked it. Nothing more.
I think you need to learn something. This is what is known as "the ability to distinguish entertainment from reality."
Here's a hint: if a show on those channels is about UFOs, cryptozoology, or anything which they claim is novel... it isn't. Its made up stuff they use to boost ratings from the gullible.
The physics that are taught in school are faulty as well. Using the principals of physics you can prove that bumblebees can't fly. My ninth grade physics teacher showed me that. Just because it's what you are taught doesn't make it the truth.
Ah ignorance. This myth has been around for absolute ages. It isn't true, and never has been true. We're well aware of how bumblebees fly and have been so for the last fifty years or so.
Just remember, rejecting what you hear out of hand because it conflicts with what you've already been told is what keeps the human mind stagnant.
I don't reject it out of hand. I know far, far more about such things than you or pretty much anyone else who isn't an expert in the field. Why? Because it interests me.
The only thing I don't figure about dragons is why not make humanoids with those traits and call them "gods" as the Greeks and Romans did? Why make them monstrous? What's the purpose? There's more to it than just making up monsters to scare the brats.
Well, the reason is they are composite creatures.
I figured they were made the same reason the cyclops was made, to explain odd fossils.
You figured incorrectly.
Also Maulorn, it is indeed the Age of Aquarius as you can see from the technological advances made in the last forty years. Technology is the province of Aquarius. The Water Bearer also brought with him problems concerning water, massive pollution and undrinkable tap water, but he also gives us the benefit of his wisdom by teaching us to build machines that run on hydrogen and produce pure water. Though Aquarius is an air sign, you can see the focus on water because he is the water bearer.
This is what is known as "made up garbage" I'm afraid. It was made up because (you guessed it) people wanted to claim they'd predicted the future. Here's a hint: Its not a prediction if you make it after the fact.
Though, hilariously, it also shows they're pretty ignorant. You see, all combustion produces water. Moreover, hydrogen as a fuel source is pretty much a false god, because hydrogen sucks as a feul; it isn't particularly energy efficient per volume and producing hydrogen takes a lot more energy than you get out of it, unless you produce it from fossil fuels, in which case you waste a lot of energy. Its great for fusion, but fusion doesn't produce water.
The only bad thing about explaining everything with science is that it makes eternal children like myself a little sadder every day.
What a woefully sad view of science, because science shows us how incredibly varied, how intricate, how beautiful, and yet mysterious the world is.
Cheers, LT.
The Lord of the Rings is an example, as is the book of Genesis (yes I am comparing Scripture and Tolkien, albeit not with the same reverence or on the same scale).
Scripture and Tolkien should be taken with the same level of reverence. It's just that in the matter of Tolkien, we can point directly to the man that was trying to get his point across in the telling of wild and imaginative tales.
It is called the Precession of Equinox. We are currently in Aquarius (I think, lol not referencing anything at the moment.) If you go back...around the time of Jesus (and up til a few decades ago) we were in Pieces.
Pisces ends and Aquarius begins in another 140 years or so. Should be around 2150 AD.
Then again you have allegories that seem to possess multiple meanings...Who can deny potential truth or fallacy when you employ allegories.
You have to remember that the mythology that you read today was someone else's religion yesterday. Religion itself is a way to keep order in a society and ultimately it comes down to whether you'll want to take the time to listen to the drawn-out answer or would it be better to just tell you "dragons" live there when you get curious about the column of smoke rising from that mountain top?
I can tell you in no uncertain terms, there are fairies in the garden. I can tell you in no uncertain terms there are dragons in those volcanoes. And I can tell you in no uncertain terms that when god saw the wickedness of man, he called out the rain and washed away the wickedness of his creation. Are these things true? The short answer is "yes". The Long answer is "no, but..."
For alot of people, the thought that there was a man behind the curtain is unfathomable. To think that the Bible may be nothing but a work of fiction meant to teach you how to live within society is unthinkable to some. You'll break down everything they've thought and believed in their entire lives if you try to prove that to them. Or perhaps they'll continue to believe the story and think you're deluded. Many people need to believe there's some higher authority. Whether there is or isn't, who can say?
Those myths are realities to some, and that makes them behave in a manner that isn't hazardous to society in general. Take away their myths and people are nothing more than animals, violent, vicious and cunning. Does believing that fairies live in the garden make you a better person? It might, so what's the harm in that belief? Does believing that a dragon lives in that crater on the mountainside help society? Probably not, but it keeps you from going up there to look and dying from the poisonous gases that are spewing out of it, doesn't it?
------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to believe that Frank X Baum taught me anything about religion, but the man behind the curtain does exist. I can read any religious text and begin tearing it apart to find the reason for prohibitions. Understanding the reason why something is prohibited may not mean much, but I think it's better to know why than to blindly follow. Read the Wizard of Oz, maybe you'll see it too.
i heard this theory somewhere not exactly sure where about dragons.
dragons are a composite creature made up from species memory of a snake or lizard body, a bird of preys head and wings, and a large cats claws.
when the ancients found fossils they thought they had found proof.
Huzzah For doom and gloom! :evillaugh
my theory of why in Judaism you cant eat pig, is
you have to cook the pig right or you get sick.
Not to mention that it can spoil in a very short time and fouled pork can be lethal if eaten.
The book of Levitticus is full of all sorts of rules that, if followed, will ensure better health and increase the size of the tribe. More of us means better survival.
exactly, its a guide to betterment of the species or in general ones own life physically socially and mentaly
My grandfather once told me that the stories we tell take on a life of their own as they pass from father to son. It's not that he intentionally mislead anyone, although that's exactly what he did at times. The stories all have meanings and in the retelling and they sometimes change, depending on the listener. The stories themselves aren't important, they're just the way we pass wisdom from father to son down through the ages. I would say that fairies, gnomes, dragons and even the Holy Bible are really irrelevant, as long as the meaning of the story is still carried through.
I remember once my son asked me why the sky was blue. I could've gone through the whole explanation of light refracted through water vapor in the air and bored him to tears. Instead I just looked at him and said, "because if it was green you wouldn't see the horizon and wonder was beyond it." People always want answers to the things they can't understand and religions and myths fill that void. Is it right? Is it wrong? Does it matter? Just because I know what's over the horizon, doesn't mean I don't want to look again to make sure.
The physics that are taught in school are faulty as well. Using the principals of physics you can prove that bumblebees can't fly. My ninth grade physics teacher showed me that. Just because it's what you are taught doesn't make it the truth.
No he didn't. Unless you took physics in the 1960's, you weren't taught that.
Physics can and does explain bumblebee flight, their weight is well within the tolerances of the lift that their wings can produce under their own power. Physics does not have that sort of glaring error in it.
We don't know everything, but we can explain the locomotion of every known animal within the current aerodynamics model.
And as for your sources: Animal Planet and History channel are entertaining. They are poor sources though, they blatantly get the facts wrong pretty frequently.
I wasn't dismissing your statements out of hand, I was dismissing them because there are literally mountains of evidence saying that your statements are wrong. Although I made a minor error, I didn't realize that Aves had been classified under Archosaur, that's news to me. But I went back and verified that independently.
I'm going to be nicer to you, but I am saying that people that come up with new models have a better view of what's going on than most, and you don't.
Thanks to String Theory (and what it says about black holes) change can happen backwards through time as well as forward. That puts evolution in a precarious position. Suddenly we could find Dragons and fairies at the fossil bed at the end of the garden.
I'm actually a physicist with alot of background on String Theory. The number of errors in the media and the over simplifications in the vulgarisations are immense. I hate it when people uses String Theory as a shield to protect arbitrary statements.
I have studied Black Holes for years now, if you want to discusse it with me, I will be glad to do some math with you. I'll show you the beauty of the Metric in the Kruskal-Szekers coordinates, which is in fact the source of many SCI-FI concepts, like parallel universes, white holes, etc.
The physics that are taught in school are faulty as well. Using the principals of physics you can prove that bumblebees can't fly. My ninth grade physics teacher showed me that. Just because it's what you are taught doesn't make it the truth.
Like many people all ready stated, this is false. I want to add, the physics of High School is Classical Physics. A well known theory that gives really good results in general, there are only two limits in which it fails. These limits are typically hard to achieve or observe (needs allot of equipment). That is why General Relativity, Quantum Physics, and other theories like Modified Newtonian Dynamics exists.
Another thing, people learn Newtonian physics pretty good (well in a non dispersive medium). But they usually lack the knowledge of it's postulates. Hence, they use these theories in non applicable situations. In the case of the bumblebee, you need Aerodynamics. Which is not really covered in high school.
###############################################################
Now, to the topic at hand
###############################################################
Like I stated, I'm a physicist. So my background in philosophy, history or sociology are not as good. But I think mythes are really a way to explain natural phenomenons and are thus completly made up. I don't want to over generalize. Heck, I don't know all mythes, so maybe some are based on fossiles. Here are two examples:
1) The battle of Thunderbird and the whale :
The tales of this mythic battle, with earth shaking and water rolling consequences, where told to generations of Quilleute and Hoh Indians. These tribes are located on the West coast of Canada and the US. Modern day interpretations for this battle would be earthquakes followed by tsunamies. In the mid-1980s, UW geologist Brian Atwater found evidence proving that the region had been hit in 1700 by a massive "subduction zone" quake big enough to send a destructive tsunami all the way to Japan. These could be one of the events leading to the myth of Thunderbird. Seismologists, like Ruth Ludwin, believe it enough to use these mythes to locate unknown geological events.
2) The titans and giants:
Many cultures explain the formation of mountain ranges by being the result of a war (or labour in others) of giants. They correctly identified the mountain ranges as being "folds" in the earth. But what could as caused such folds, was unknown. To them,the earth was a solid, immobile layer beneath there feet. They could not imagine the gigantic (pun intended) pressure building between tectonic plates. The only thing they knew, was muscle power. So, they imagined beings big enough to cause such feats of strength.
Well, I believe that most mythes are the result of human the search for meaning behind natural phenomenons. The more amazing/frightening the phenomenon, the more powerful the myth.
P.S. As always, forgive the grammar... I'm firstly french.
No I didn't go to school in the sixties. Hoover, my science teacher, showed us how they proved that bees couldn't fly to prove a point. He said that a lot of what is taught is relatively unknown, and some was unprovable but they taught it anyway so that people would understand and hopefully someday go into the field to make what was supposition into either fact or replace it with the facts. It was the first thing he showed us. It was on the board when we went into the classroom and he walked us through the whole thing. He said if we weren't questioning the veracity of everything, then we weren't even close to learning.
I'm perfectly aware of the differences between entertainment and reality. *sigh* I just think that it's fun to consider what's put forth as speculation and compare it to what I have been spoon-fed my whole life. If I'm dead wrong, so what? I'm wrong. I'm not going to die, it makes no difference in my over all life other than being insulted by people who use the anonymity of the internet to say things they wouldn't have the temerity to say to me personally.
I don't really care other than to say, my life may not be fact filled, but it's a lot more fun.
I don't really care other than to say, my life may not be fact filled, but it's a lot more fun.
Where do people get this fact =/= fun from?
Because, seriously, the thing you feel when you understand something, that epiphaneous feeling when everything falls into place and everything becomes clear after you've wracked your brain over it... is, I daresay, the most enlightening feeling, most enjoyable joy humans can feel.
But it's hard to get there, because learning facts isn't the same as connecting the facts.
Cheers, LT.
Because, seriously, the thing you feel when you understand something, that epiphaneous feeling when everything falls into place and everything becomes clear after you've wracked your brain over it... is, I daresay, the most enlightening feeling, most enjoyable joy humans can feel.
I completly agree.
Once, I explained the physics of a setting sun to a girl. She looked at me with a sad face, and said: "But where is the romance. Where is the magic of the moment. You only see light and atoms. I am sad that you do not see how stunning this sunset his." I replied: " It's is you who do not see how special is this sunset. It is unique. The cloud pattern, the reflections on the buildings, the composition of the air and an infinite of subtile factors make it what it is. We could write a novel on the subtilties of this sunset. When I look a it, I imagine the complexity and I see the real nature of it's beauty, it is fleeting."
I guess that made me a romantic, because her reaction was quite nice.
I completly agree.
Well, probably, I'm studying physics (finished 2nd year now), so I guess we have a similar view regarding science and the beauty of the universe! ;)
Cheers, LT.
He said if we weren't questioning the veracity of everything, then we weren't even close to learning.
I agree with the message, but you missed the point. The teacher was giving you purposefully wrong information and "proving" it by using faulty mechanics. You were supposed to be questioning the teacher.
Sounds like my Bio 101 teacher, who used to let fly some really ridiculous "facts" from time to time to see if we were checking his teaching. (Like the time he said that cats and rabbits were close enough genetically to mate and produce offspring, and they actually have bred several hundred of them in a genetics experiment.)
I will also argue that events in our solar system do have effect upon us. Phases of the moon, sun spots, etc. I am trying to recall some information at the moment and if I can find it I will get it up...
So in the mean time let us take a crack at this...Mary was a virgin and gave birth to Jesus. This conception of virgin birth not only takes place in Christianity but also its precursors (duh I know).
Now is virgin birth of the son a myth?
[sblock]Each year the sun passes entirely around the zodiac and returns to the point from which it started--the vernal equinox--and each year it falls just a little short of making the complete circle of the heavens in the allotted period of time. As a result, it crosses the equator just a little behind the spot in the zodiacal sign where it crossed the previous year. Each sign of the zodiac consists of thirty degrees, and as the sun loses about one degree every seventy two years, it regresses through one entire constellation (or sign) in approximately 2,160 years, and through the entire zodiac in about 25,920 years. (Authorities disagree concerning these figures.) This retrograde motion is called the precession of the equinoxes. This means that in the course of about 25,920 years, which constitute one Great Solar or Platonic Year, each one of the twelve constellations occupies a position at the vernal equinox for nearly 2,160 years, then gives place to the previous sign.
As the zodiacal band marks the pathway of the sun through the constellations, it results in the phenomena of the seasons. The ancient systems of measuring the year were based upon the equinoxes and the solstices. The year always began with the vernal equinox, celebrated March 21 with rejoicing to mark the moment when the sun crossed the equator northward up the zodiacal arc. The summer solstice was celebrated when the sun reached its most northerly position, and the day appointed was June 21. After that time the sun began to descend toward the equator, which it recrossed southbound at the autumnal equinox, September 21. The sun reached its most southerly position at the winter solstice, December 21.
Concerning this season of celebration, an anonymous Master of Arts of Balliol College, Oxford, in his scholarly treatise, Mankind Their Origin and Destiny, says: "The Romans also had their solar festival, and their games of the circus in honor of the birth of the god of day. It took place the eighth day before the kalends of January--that is, on December 25. Servius, in his commentary on verse 720 of the seventh book of the
....
Now is virgin birth of the son a myth?
Depends on who you ask. ;)
I will also argue that events in our solar system do have effect upon us. Phases of the moon, sun spots, etc. I am trying to recall some information at the moment and if I can find it I will get it up...
Sure the sun as a big influence. Heck it's the primary source of energy on this planet. The moon also has great influence, it makes the tides, cause precession on the rotation axis, and more. But, it stops there. The other bodies of the solar system (heck of the univers) does not affect in any noticeable way our lives*. You can calculate the gravity from such objects and find it so minute as to be completly meaningless. Same can be said for there radiation. So, I don't see any other way for it to interact with us.
Astrology also stipulates that constellations are important. They take no regard to the fact that constellation do not physically exist. They are a 2 dimensionnal projections (on the celestial sphere) of distant stars. We do not see the "depth" of the sky. Hence, the stars in one constellation can have varying distance from the earth (and this distance changes immensly). The distance between stars in a constellation can be greater then the distance between stars in different constellations. So they dont really share a common link. Combined with the point in the preceding paragraph, Astrology is completly meaningless.
So in the mean time let us take a crack at this...Mary was a virgin and gave birth to Jesus. This conception of virgin birth not only takes place in Christianity but also its precursors (duh I know).
Now is virgin birth of the son a myth?
Wow, that is a nice thread killer. I feel it is arrogant to call another man's religion a myth (because of the negative flavour of the word in the popular usage, see Myth on wikipedia). But by the strict definition of the Academic usage, it is a myth: "a sacred narrative in the sense that it hold religious or spiritual significance for those who tell it, and it contributes to and expresses systems of thought and values".
*You can calculate the force incurred by adding a neutral particule (say a neutron) at the other side of the solar system. As it turns out, it is pretty small as to not change the macroscopic world (what we observe without instruments). But, we can also show that it is enough to change the trajectory of molecules after numerous collisions (10^12 collisions if I remember correctly). But that is exactly what happens in gases, like our atmosphere. Hence, the determistic philosophy of Holbach is practically impossible. One would need the know the position and trajectory of not only the particules of the gas under study, but also the position and trajectory of the particules in all the rest of the univers.
Bravo People, Bravo.:
Now if I could just think of something constructive to add to proceedings. :D
Oh I know, what about turning the question on its head.
How much of today's reality will become myth?
Sure the sun as a big influence. Heck it's the primary source of energy on this planet. The moon also has great influence, it makes the tides, cause precession on the rotation axis, and more. But, it stops there. The other bodies of the solar system (heck of the univers) does not affect in any noticeable way our lives*. You can calculate the gravity from such objects and find it so minute as to be completly meaningless. Same can be said for there radiation. So, I don't see any other way for it to interact with us.
Astrology also stipulates that constellations are important. They take no regard to the fact that constellation do not physically exist. They are a 2 dimensionnal projections (on the celestial sphere) of distant stars. We do not see the "depth" of the sky. Hence, the stars in one constellation can have varying distance from the earth (and this distance changes immensly). The distance between stars in a constellation can be greater then the distance between stars in different constellations. So they dont really share a common link. Combined with the point in the preceding paragraph, Astrology is completly meaningless.
I was not trying to argue the fact that astrology (damn I had astronomy right the first time! TD made me question my def) is valid. I think you get as much radiation from sitting across the room from your TV as you do from some of the closer planets (which is so very minute.)
Meanwhile a lot of the myths (sacred text version of the word) speak a lot about the mechanics of the signs moving around the earth. Now this is very important because this was how we tracked time. Being able to predict the equinoxes and solstices helped man where he got to today. Without that how can we have agriculture?
If used to track where you are exactly in the "year." The signs helped, therefore while the various stars, and their distances, that form the constellations do not affect us. They tell us about bodies that do.
Some myths are related to astronomical events. If I remember correctly, a supernovea light the night sky in the ~1000 like it was day. It stayed visible during the day for months. it was observed by everyone on the planet, whe can see it in amerindian art and in chinese astronomical notes. It lead to a story about a dragon in China if I remember correctly.
I agree with the message, but you missed the point. The teacher was giving you purposefully wrong information and "proving" it by using faulty mechanics. You were supposed to be questioning the teacher.
Sounds like my Bio 101 teacher, who used to let fly some really ridiculous "facts" from time to time to see if we were checking his teaching. (Like the time he said that cats and rabbits were close enough genetically to mate and produce offspring, and they actually have bred several hundred of them in a genetics experiment.)
*Snicker* Holy Crabbits!
How did that turn out? I bet there was some frustrated research going on!
That must've been an awesome class to be in! My biology teacher was a mad scientist in training with pickled everything in jars sitting around the classroom. It was a pretty cool place to be, and I made some great Ravenloft-esque dungeons using the stuff she had sitting around as inspiration.
I know what he had in mind was for us to question what we were learning, I just took it further than the classroom. I have to admit I learned absolutely nothing in Hoover's physics class other than I am not interested one whit in physics. The class was fun though.
Maulorn, it's still interesting to see how astrology was used to build so much of the world. All the great kings have had astrologers as have some US presidents. Hitler also has one if I remember correctly. It doesn't make it truth for sure, but it is pretty interesting to see something so ancient hold it's own in the age of science.
Well, personally I hope Americans are seen as being warlike and violent, because then future high schools will make "The Fighting Americans" their mascots.
Wow...I read "Deep Thoughts" recently. <3 Deep Thoughts with Jack
Astrologically...sorry used the term Astronomy. I change them sometimes. I meant that some of the myths have basis in reality because of Astrology. You may consider astronomy debunk but the sun's radiation varies and cycles through the year by 6.9%
I will also argue that events in our solar system do have effect upon us. Phases of the moon, sun spots, etc. I am trying to recall some information at the moment and if I can find it I will get it up...
So in the mean time let us take a crack at this...Mary was a virgin and gave birth to Jesus. This conception of virgin birth not only takes place in Christianity but also its precursors (duh I know).
Now is virgin birth of the son a myth?
The virgin birth is not a myth. It's supposed 'precursors' are not to be taken as the fulfillment of such dogma. The idea of Isis and other such items should be seen as a glimpse, a note, if you will, of what was to come. Isis was a 'Goddess', and she only existed in myth and false worship, but Mary was real (and by all accounts, still is).
Furthermore one cannot make any rational argument for the validity of astrology. There are patterns within the universe, yes, and that gives evidence to the supreme beauty of it (plus with its nice shapes in certain movements (the orbit of... Venus I believe makes a pentagram which is nice) easy to remember). It does not give credence for prediction or truth within a system that does not give authority for truth. Astronomy is the study of the heavens, that is, of the firmament which we call space. Astrology tries to determine that spatial bodies have power of Man and his future. That, is false, because Man is greater than the boundaries that far off bodies can put on us, and to think that we can be calculated, and with planets which do not have life, degrades our freedom and place within creation.
In order for Astrology to be credible, it must be quantifiable, for it is a science. What forces, physical or otherwise, are interacting with the metaphysical truth that is our conscience? With what mathematics can we accurately predict, not the position of the bodies, but how angry we will feel?
Science is the pursuit of physical truth. Astrology is no more use to us in our lives than a discount on a sofa we will never buy.
Right, that's my rant over. Time to get back to my studies...
The only point made was that the virgin birth is a occurrence that occurs during the Winter Solistice.
If you want to say there is no merit what so ever to astrology then do the scientific work to prove that electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation do not affect people emotionally. When that field is thoroughly done then we should see.
Also...I am saying this again. I am not saying that the planets in our solar system or the far off bodies that we call the constellations have an effect on us, but they helped us have time and be able to predict the sun better. The sun does have an effect on many levels.
Again...there was no attempt to say that you can predict the future by the stars.
The only point made was that the virgin birth is a occurrence that occurs during the Winter Solistice.
If you want to say there is no merit what so ever to astrology then do the scientific work to prove that electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation do not affect people emotionally. When that field is thoroughly done then we should see.
Also...I am saying this again. I am not saying that the planets in our solar system or the far off bodies that we call the constellations have an effect on us, but they helped us have time and be able to predict the sun better. The sun does have an effect on many levels.
Well, if you're talking the virgin birth of Christ...it's celebrated around winter solstice. I don't recall if that's the actual time it happened. It may have been during summer, for all I can recall offhand.
Well, if you're talking the virgin birth of Christ...it's celebrated around winter solstice. I don't recall if that's the actual time it happened. It may have been during summer, for all I can recall offhand.
It was theorized around Spring if I recall correctly. At least that's what I remember from Religion 101 in college '95-'96. I think one of the clues was the sheep (no symbolism intended) in that they were recently shorn of their wool indicating the time of the season. That is, cold seasons had passed.
Also, it was allegedly a cave, not a stable proper. This is not to say that it was not used in that capacity, but they were all over Bethlehem.
As for the official holiday itself, it is cannibalized from Saturnalia, a Roman holiday that occured at, what we acknolwedge, as Christmas or Yuletide (if you prefer). This keeps w/ the format of a great many other religious holidays based on prior religious dates in that it made transition easier for pagans (pagani, literally "farmer" or non-Christian in the roman vernacular) to assimilate into Christendom.
Halloween was Sawhain, Easter was some Germanic fertility holiday I think(forget namesake), and Groundhog Day was Climb out of your Hut & Stare at the Sun Day, etc.
It was theorized around Spring if I recall correctly. At least that's what I remember from Religion 101 in college '95-'96. I think one of the clues was the sheep (no symbolism intended) in that they were recently shorn of their wool indicating the time of the season. That is, cold seasons had passed.
Also, it was allegedly a cave, not a stable proper. This is not to say that it was not used in that capacity, but they were all over Bethlehem.
As for the official holiday itself, it is cannibalized from Saturnalia, a Roman holiday that occured at, what we acknolwedge, as Christmas or Yuletide (if you prefer). This keeps w/ the format of a great many other religious holidays based on prior religious dates in that it made transition easier for pagans (pagani, literally "farmer" or non-Christian in the roman vernacular) to assimilate into Christendom.
Halloween was Sawhain, Easter was some Germanic fertility holiday I think(forget namesake), and Groundhog Day was Climb out of your Hut & Stare at the Sun Day, etc.
Quite possibly, the whole inn was basically a cave. The stable would have been inside, sectioned off. Either way, a rather smelly affair. Probably hot, dark, and cramped, too.
And as for the holiday cannibalism; yeah, that's kind of what I understood. I don't reallly mind it myself, though I think we (Christians) often get caught up in the commercial aspects too much, and sometimes forget the roots of something.
Quite possibly, the whole inn was basically a cave. The stable would have been inside, sectioned off. Either way, a rather smelly affair. Probably hot, dark, and cramped, too.
That was my understanding I had neglected, thank you for elaborating.
And as for the holiday cannibalism; yeah, that's kind of what I understood. I don't reallly mind it myself, though I think we (Christians) often get caught up in the commercial aspects too much, and sometimes forget the roots of something.
Well said. I like where your head's at and I take no offense as a Christian, furthermore a pastor's kid too. But it's not like that matters, I just find myself having to preface this sort of thing time and again to illustrate the point that it's not a personal matter and for people to chill out and discuss rationally. You have, so respect.
I don't fall in line w/ most dogma and swallowing all the truisms or tripe hook, line, and sinker is a fast track to just being another ant in the hill. ie)God didn't give us brains to fritter away, you know? Religion's namesake literally means reconnecting and looking for answers, not just nodding and being another yesman. Dissecting these dates and so on may or may not get us closer to the source or another enlightenment, so I'm all for it.
Still, it's understandable certain liberties were taken in terms of historic dates, religious or otherwise and I'm cool with that. Doesn't change the message. Besides, it wasn't my idea, just working w/ the material I was given, not trying to rock the boat so much as get answers is all.
Furthermore one cannot make any rational argument for the validity of astrology. There are patterns within the universe, yes, and that gives evidence to the supreme beauty of it (plus with its nice shapes in certain movements (the orbit of... Venus I believe makes a pentagram which is nice) easy to remember).
What?? The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of it's focus. The physics of such a movement is known since Newton (1643-1727). No pentagram anywhere. Maybe you are thinking the Mercury with it's precessing orbite. Still an ellipse, but with the long axis rotating.
Astrology tries to determine that spatial bodies have power of Man and his future. That, is false, because Man is greater than the boundaries that far off bodies can put on us, and to think that we can be calculated, and with planets which do not have life, degrades our freedom and place within creation.
This is really really really bad reasonning. Something isn't false because you don't like it or because it "degrades our freedom". Heck, gravity is a real bother and it limits our freedom alot. So does prisons.
Something is false because we can show experimentally that it is. Experiments show that there is no link between astrology and the details of the lifes of humans.
In order for Astrology to be credible, it must be quantifiable, for it is a science. What forces, physical or otherwise, are interacting with the metaphysical truth that is our conscience? With what mathematics can we accurately predict, not the position of the bodies, but how angry we will feel?
I would never call Astrology a science. It does not obey any definition of the term (except maybe the more liberal). I suggest reading the works of Popper.
Right, that's my rant over. Time to get back to my studies...
Good Studying.
What?? The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of it's focus. The physics of such a movement is known since Newton (1643-1727). No pentagram anywhere. Maybe you are thinking the Mercury with it's precessing orbite. Still an ellipse, but with the long axis rotating.
Actually I was referring to enus_pentagram.png" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image
enus_pentagram.png">this. The inferior conjunctions are a result of patterns in the respective orbits of Earth and Venus. Now, actually, these laws have been known since before Newton, actually, since the turn of the 17th Century, when Kepler invented the things, and then Newton proved them in his Principia Mathematica.This is really really really bad reasonning. Something isn't false because you don't like it or because it "degrades our freedom". Heck, gravity is a real bother and it limits our freedom alot. So does prisons.
Something is false because we can show experimentally that it is. Experiments show that there is no link between astrology and the details of the lifes of humans.
It is not bad reasoning, just not scientific. Reason reaches beyond what science tells us, because science is just one of many searches for truth. I'm not going to argue, because that is just silly. I may have given the wrong impression, and you can reply to this in all the anger you want to. Please, do so, you have that freedom. I'm not going to, because there is no reason to. I know where science stands, and I know where religion stands, because I belong to both. You can test me all you want, you can flame me, abuse me, I really don't care. I am sorry if I have made you angry and I am sorry if I have made a mistake. Truth is meant to be liberating, and Astrology robs us of that. Science allows us to see how the world around us works, and let us marvel at the beauty of how everything is connected and interacts with each other, but because of the very use of the scientific method, it is actually a very limiting study. Truth is truth is truth, and if there is a conflict between two sets of studies, be it Science (physical or social), theology, history, art, then it means we are looking at one or both incorrectly.
I would never call Astrology a science. It does not obey any definition of the term (except maybe the more liberal). I suggest reading the works of Popper.
No thank you.
Good Studying.
Thank you, I am sure my MPhys will agree.
I don't fall in line w/ most dogma and swallowing all the truisms or tripe hook, line, and sinker is a fast track to just being another ant in the hill. ie)God didn't give us brains to fritter away, you know? Religion's namesake literally means reconnecting and looking for answers, not just nodding and being another yesman. Dissecting these dates and so on may or may not get us closer to the source or another enlightenment, so I'm all for it.
I think, friend, that you've just discovered the whole point of Christian teaching in it's original form. The Gnostic texts* have always read more like Buddhism than Christian to me, but that's my own take on it.
People today are rather quick to take offense at the thought that there might be more out there undiscovered or forgotten. When the Bible stops being a work in progress and ceases to evolve the religion stagnates. Look at the old testament, the bulk of it is about the prophets that came after Adam. If you eliminate all the prophets, the bible doesn't tell much of a story. Christianity has stalled because it stopped seeing prophets after Yshua (Jesus).
* The discovery of the Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi was the single most devastating event in modern Christianity. The more they're translated, the more alien the modern religion seems from it's ancient ancestor. I recommend anyone to read through some of the work translated so far and judge for themselves. To quote the messiah from those texts, "Let those who have eyes see it."
Halloween was Sawhain, Easter was some Germanic fertility holiday I think(forget namesake), and Groundhog Day was Climb out of your Hut & Stare at the Sun Day, etc.
Halloween was All Hallow's Evening, the night before the festival of All Hallows. It's the night before the day that you're supposed to remember the hallowed dead.
The Germanic spring holiday was Eoster. It was a day sacred to Ostara, the goddess of fertility. It was the day that she returned the world to life.
And the Mithraic faith gave us Candelmas, 3 days after the Winter solstice. I don't recall the exact purpose of the holiday, but it had something to do with the return of the sun from the underworld (death).
Yes Jesus was born sometime in spring. There was reference I believe in the passages to that effect.
Gnostics rock btw.
My big question in regards to astrology is does it have potential. I do not buy picking up the news paper and seeing that I am going to have a good day or hard time...but there is far to many coincidences in my perspective that make it seem more than coincidence.
The radiation coming of the sun in January is going to be about the same as any other January (give or take depending on sun spot activity etc etc.) Yet the same cannot be said for January compared to July. I just really wonder what effects it really has and it would be interesting to see what turns up in the future.
lol which kinda reminds me. There is something about the Mayan calender that was very in sync with the sun. I will remember in a little. I think it was that it correlates to the poles twisting the mid part until it goes back which is a bigger and longer aspect of the whole sunspot cycle. I cannot remember at the time though and I may be wrong.
....
* The discovery of the Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi was the single most devastating event in modern Christianity. The more they're translated, the more alien the modern religion seems from it's ancient ancestor. I recommend anyone to read through some of the work translated so far and judge for themselves. To quote the messiah from those texts, "Let those who have eyes see it."
...Not quite. Again, I have to doubt this severly. I already talked about how far back the mainline texts go, and how directly some of our books were written against the ideas of Gnosticism.
I'm not dissing you, but I am doubting this whole "devastating to modern Christianity" thing.
Actually I was referring to enus_pentagram.png" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image
Okay, you ment Apparent Movement and not orbit. Sorry about that, but I really did not see what you where talking about. Of course, the ellipsoïd movement was first stated by Kepler from observation. But the physics of the movement came from Newton. Kepler actually taught that the magnetic lines from the sun was wipping the planets when they came closer to it, causing the acceleration and thus the ellipsoïd orbit.
It is not bad reasoning, just not scientific. Reason reaches beyond what science tells us, because science is just one of many searches for truth. I'm not going to argue, because that is just silly. I may have given the wrong impression, and you can reply to this in all the anger you want to. Please, do so, you have that freedom. I'm not going to, because there is no reason to. I know where science stands, and I know where religion stands, because I belong to both. You can test me all you want, you can flame me, abuse me, I really don't care. I am sorry if I have made you angry and I am sorry if I have made a mistake. Truth is meant to be liberating, and Astrology robs us of that. Science allows us to see how the world around us works, and let us marvel at the beauty of how everything is connected and interacts with each other, but because of the very use of the scientific method, it is actually a very limiting study. Truth is truth is truth, and if there is a conflict between two sets of studies, be it Science (physical or social), theology, history, art, then it means we are looking at one or both incorrectly.
I would not do such a thing. I believe in respect and dialogue (which is a good reason for me). Heck, I wasn't even mad. I just wanted to point out the fact that the reasoning was faulty. Of course, you can think what you want. Personnaly, I prefer logic and Occam's Rasor. My players even complain about it some times, my adventures are always to logical (I prefer Investigations in general but with alot of action. Like Sherlock Holmes meets James Bond). :D
To be quite frank, I don't know if the Truth is meant to be liberating. Many truthes are quite the opposite some times. History as even showed that the Truth can be pretty badly welcomed.
...Not quite. Again, I have to doubt this severly. I already talked about how far back the mainline texts go, and how directly some of our books were written against the ideas of Gnosticism.
I'm not dissing you, but I am doubting this whole "devastating to modern Christianity" thing.
Mainline texts go back far when you look at what we have from the religions that Christianity was built off of. You also have to understand that Christianity was very fractious with many different views.
The Council of Nicaea was used to help solidify the various factions and destroy those who either did not attend or do not conform. Christian persecuting Christian is no different than Christian persecuting Pagan*
One of my favorite Gnostic works was the Gospel of Judas. There was a lot more logic to what happened leading up to Jesus' death in that then in other works. It also shows that the apostles were in competition after Jesus was gone and that this was the start of the various factions.
*Using this term for the various religions that shared the same belief system but were not Christian.
I'm not dissing you, but I am doubting this whole "devastating to modern Christianity" thing.
Sorry, that should've been "devastating to modern Catholicism". There's quite a bit in the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Judas that oppose directly to Catholic teachings. The bulk of my readings so far seem to suggest an opposition to organized ritual in favor of personal observation and enlightenment.
Sorry, that should've been "devastating to modern Catholicism". There's quite a bit in the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Judas that oppose directly to Catholic teachings. The bulk of my readings so far seem to suggest an opposition to organized ritual in favor of personal observation and enlightenment.
If Christianity did not censor those texts then they would not have been able to reach the heights of power that they did. It is not the majority's fault that people with power want more power Yet time and time again when people behave like sheep under ego-centric authority, bad things happen. It happens to day and it happened in the past.
To be quite frank, I don't know if the Truth is meant to be liberating. Many truths are quite the opposite some times. History as even showed that the Truth can be pretty badly welcomed.
So true. Truth can only be a good thing when the mind is ready for it.
You can see that ancient texts also share this same opinion because they hid truth and only taught the meaning's to select individuals who went through the rites and rituals. It was there feeling that an ignorant mind could not handle the secret. It was probably also for power.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of mythical beasts, dragons, etc...were in fact ancient people finding fossils and using a bit of imagination.
Actually, there isn't. It is a solidly logical supposition, and one I consider most likely, but there is actually no evidence whatsoever that this is in fact the case.
Actually, there isn't. It is a solidly logical supposition, and one I consider most likely, but there is actually no evidence whatsoever that this is in fact the case.
I already posted a deal of evidence...and gave people a direction to go if they would like to find more on that part.
The consensus in the thread, though, is that dragon's also have different origins in reality from living reptiles as well. Other mythical beasts and composites though...
PS - Why Dog's Smile was awesome and I had someone else check that out the other day. Also...follow some of what has been posted for the evidence and track it more, you will find some cool stuff.
I already posted a deal of evidence...
I have seen much circumstantial evidence relating to coincidence of locales, but nothing to indicate that ancient peoples discovered anything at these sites or that these in turn led to the creation of myths.
Again, I think it is very likely this is what happened but there is no actual evidence to support this. We simply do not, and cannot, know the truth unless a first-hand document comes to light that clearly details both the discovery of such a specimen and the creation of a myth based on such.
I have only read a fraction of Mayor's work and it is pretty solid. For a while it was merely anecdotal because she could not find physical evidence that ancient people kept fossils. Then she started looking over archeologists' journal's and finding notes that indeed such fossils were found and disregarded as not important. Finally she was able to find fossils in more current archeological digs that were almost overlooked until she pointed it out.
She does pretty good at finding links in ancient literature to help steer her where to look in the present. It should be interesting to be able to read more of her works.
She was on History's Mysteries "Ancient Monster Hunters" the other night. If you have a chance check it out.
They have found a mastodon reburied in a coffin and laid out like a human.
Mastodons were contemporary to humans. This isn't the same as building a myth around a previously unknown beast based solely on remains.
Really a good breakthrough came when I think Mayor was looking at works of Horodotus(sp?) who wrote many travel guides. Through the information that he provided she was able to sync up many present day archeological sites with the sites listed in the traveling guide where bones of heroes have been found.
Again, this is circumstantial evidence. It does not in any way prove, or even remotely suggest, that ancient myths were based on fossil finds.
I have only read a fraction of Mayor's work and it is pretty solid. For a while it was merely anecdotal because she could not find physical evidence that ancient people kept fossils. Then she started looking over archeologists' journal's and finding notes that indeed such fossils were found and disregarded as not important. Finally she was able to find fossils in more current archeological digs that were almost overlooked until she pointed it out.
What are the dates associated with these purported discoveries? Since the field of archaeology is only about 300 years old then this doesn't really qualify as "ancient".
What are the dates associated with these purported discoveries? Since the field of archaeology is only about 300 years old then this doesn't really qualify as "ancient".
Early 1900s...and the writing of Horodotus I am not sure though I think they are B.C.
...and the writing of Horodotus I am not sure though I think they are B.C.
Herodotus of Halicarnassus, the father of history, 5th century BC.
Mastodons were contemporary to humans. This isn't the same as building a myth around a previously unknown beast based solely on remains.
It's possible that animal bones unfamiliar to ancient people were the basis of the mythlogical creatures. Without any kind of historical evidence to link a fossil find to the mythology, we'll most likely never know.
Personally, I think dragons most likely came from crocodiles, alligators, caymans and the like. Even those cultures that didn't have those still had some form of lizard to draw from in creating the mythological beasts.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of mythical beasts, dragons, etc...were in fact ancient people finding fossils and using a bit of imagination. I wonder how much of these ancient works, including the Bible have a basis in reality.
I like to refer to the 1% problem (my own term).
I was mentioning to the wife the other day, if in all of human history, only one ghost sighting was actually real, that's too many ghosts.
The additional problem is knowing if any one portion of mythology is that 1% or not.
It's easy to disprove vast sums of our crazy notions. But it's those few occasions that just laugh at us while we struggle to explain them.
I don't accept the paranormal, UFOs, religion and a good deal of peculiar science simply because it is mostly bunk.
But I can't offer you any explanations for a lot of things too.
It can account as to why there are flood myths all over the world. Suffice there is one huge flood once and that you can find fossils of sea shells on top of mountains and you have a myth.
I also read somewhere that the greek islands were home to a species of dwarf mammoths. Dwarfing is a typical consequence of isolation. Anyhow, their skulls have this huge hole for the trunk... and you can see how it leads to the idea of cyclops.
For european dragons, there are two theories. dragons at first were only huge snakes in early medieval texts. It apparently got cross bred with another discovery. The cave bear is a large bear species living in Europe until 10 000 years ago that has a large skull that can be interpreted in any way by unknowing peasants... or by dishonest knights.
http://www.paleodirect.com/cavebear1.htm
The giant squid myth does have a basis... their existence was only proven about 5 years ago.
Has our world been affected by the concepts of legends and fantasy? Certainly. The very concept of abstract thought and it's ability to control the thought process of the human mind is what makes our race special. Incorporating the ideas of myths and legends into first our oral and later our written traditions has set the grounds for numerous little idiosyncrasies that are now a part of human life on earth.
The biggest of these would have to be organized religions.
And now that I have my nomex undies on I'm ready for the flames of wrath that will follow a statement like that.
Hmmm, I think the real question to ask is How much of Reality is compiled from Myth?
Has our world been affected by the concepts of legends and fantasy? Certainly. The very concept of abstract thought and it's ability to control the thought process of the human mind is what makes our race special. Incorporating the ideas of myths and legends into first our oral and later our written traditions has set the grounds for numerous little idiosyncrasies that are now a part of human life on earth.
The biggest of these would have to be organized religions.
And now that I have my nomex undies on I'm ready for the flames of wrath that will follow a statement like that.
I really like you
You are bold in your statements and courageous in you're beliefs.
Of course, as I pointed out earlier, the real academic use of the word myth is to describe religious texts and concepts.
I really like you
You are bold in your statements and courageous in you're beliefs.
Of course, as I pointed out earlier, the real academic use of the word myth is to describe religious texts and concepts.
What is religion if not myth, eh?
I like it.
What is religion if not myth, eh?
I like it.
Fundamental truths people can base their life on?
Fundamental truths people can base their life on?
Well, I was gonna say cash grabbing chance for world power and economic might, but ok, fundamental truths could get in there somehow.
Well, I was gonna say cash grabbing chance for world power and economic might, but ok, fundamental truths could get in there somehow.
There is some interesting things when you look deeper into a lot of religions and see parallels...
I still do not see how people can try to prove an allegory wrong.
I still do not see how people can try to prove an allegory wrong.
Yeah, but you can't exactly prove them right, either. There's always another possible meaning. I like that.
Yeah, but you can't exactly prove them right, either. There's always another possible meaning. I like that.
Yup it is interesting...
Another raging debate
Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy
Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy
Both. Neither. It's a bit of a pickle, ennit?
That's why I stick with Christians. They just get ****** off and go lynching.
If you would ask a Buddhist what he was he would reply "Nothing". If you asked him if what his beliefs were he would reply "Everything".
That's why I stick with Christians. They just get ****** off and go lynching.
Alternatively, we go off and...stand around with some signs. Or maybe get "****** off " and...go listen to music, pray, whatever, and let it go.
I realize you're being sarcastic, but still.
Alternatively, we go off and...stand around with some signs. Or maybe get "****** off " and...go listen to music, pray, whatever, and let it go.
I realize you're being sarcastic, but still.
Oh come one now. Be honest. Take some of them good ol' southern boys, give them some bibles to thump and a rousing rendition of dueling banjos on the music box and they're off to the races in the name of betterin' the human race just like God wants 'em to.
Alternatively, we go off and...stand around with some signs. Or maybe get "****** off " and...go listen to music, pray, whatever, and let it go.
I realize you're being sarcastic, but still.
And they light themselves on fire and protest...well sometimes.
Oh come one now. Be honest. Take some of them good ol' southern boys, give them some bibles to thump and a rousing rendition of dueling banjos on the music box and they're off to the races in the name of betterin' the human race just like God wants 'em to.
Hey I resent that. Please speak in a more civil tongue.
:P