Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[jerlands]

Science has certain precepts to its methodology that you seem to believe weren't followed in all mythological formulations. Ancient Egypt had an advanced science that you may not recognized and may in fact not be conventionally recognized but it's teachings of that science were expressed as relationships between things that formed stories. The science was also expressed in it's art and in fact science was the foundation of the civilization.

It's very unlikely that mythological formulations played any important role in the technical advances of ancient civilizations, whether they were the Egyptians, Assyrians, Mayans, etc. As history has shown us, it's actually the other way around: technical advances are related to the modes of production developed in a given society, which in ancient civilizations had to do with agricultural specialization and the sedentary life that came along with it. It also meant a division of labor and the emergence of hierarchical structures. And then here is where myths begin to play their role, trying to make sense of these social structures and power relations as divinely devised.

The foundation of mythological formulations were derived from reason, rational thought supported by observation. The science present in Ancient Egypt is self evident.

We do have pieces but we don't have the entire picture because simply put we're not in that space time. We don't possess the same thought process as we once had. We don't hold all things in the same regard as we once did i.e., the moon phases, the constellations, seasonal changes, the rising of the sun. We just don't have the same relationship with our environment as we once had. We can pretend to know but we don't and can't because we weren't there except in our minds to experience the effects of the universal influence of that time (inertia, the energy of matter in motion.)

Based on that concept, we wouldn't have much to say about World War I, the industrial revolution or the French Second Empire, because "we're not in that space time".

Not correct. The difference is the distance from the past. We have people alive today who had first had experience of WWI, first hand accounts and video but as we go back in time much is lost.

I see this as naive... To phatom the burning bush... how we communicate with "God." Do we understand the relationship man holds with trees or is there even one? Biologically we have an axis (seemingly our spinal cord but really our gut) and also we have these sensory branches that reach out give us depth of perception, that give us fullness in the space we occupy. We seemingly communicate with "God" through our consciousness, the totality of our situational awareness.
.

None of that has any scientific basis. Consciousness occurs in the brain. And there's no "god" to communicate with.

Well.. the notion of "God" is controversial and I don't believe I can be unbiased in an approach but I find evidence in many cultures for the notion of a creative force (if simply expressed through number, 1 arising from 0, 2 arising from 1 and so forth.) In fact the only evidence against a "God" are opinions and nothing that can be formulated.

[Namelesss]

Oh, I should, should I? *__-
So, you have suggestions for God? That seems to follow, as you are sufficiently vain to judge God.
Since you are so much more thoughtful on such judgmental topics, why don't you share with me, and all the rest of the peepers, the exact border, as you see it, between 'justice' and 'injustice', other than the vain, judgmental thoughts/ego of 'the beholder'?

Where did I bring "God" into that?

God is One! ALL inclusive!
When you 'judge', and have a better suggestion, you are God 'judging' God, and, finding God wanting (in your vanity) you make suggestions.
Not uncommon.
That is what the basis of 'hope' is.

I merely pointed out there is a difference between justice and injustice which you seem to think the same?

And IS the same, until you can rationally, logically, experientially... refute.

Please, check it out. You are simply laboring under a mistranslation that, ultimately fails completely if one can actually critically examine it!
Otherwise, believe as you must.

So you don't see value in the "Golden Rule?"

First, I just taught you the 'Golden Rule'.
Second, all 'value' exists in the thoughts/ego of the (judgmental) beholder.
Anything that one Perspective finds of 'value', another does not.
Both see the same thing from opposite Perspectives.
Third, as there is no 'free-will/choice', all the 'words of wisdom' throughout human history mean nothing. No one can 'choose' to follow them or not!
Thus, with all that great 'wisdom', the state of the planet is deplorable, horrendous.
If 'words of wisdom meant anything beyond the ego masturbation, if we actually could 'learn from history', the Earth would be a Utopia for all by now!
It ain't.
Proof is in the pudding.

Well, one more thing that can be deleted from the bible, the command to beat your children with rods. How many idiot pseudoXtians have used that one to justify their sin (blasphemy)!
Sorry, that trash is gone! Good riddance!
The 'love' of which you speak, is the dark simulacrum of the conditional thoughts/ego.
The 'love' that discriminates, that lives and dies, that passes, that, usually barely rises above chemical animal lust and need to reproduce.
You obviously have yet to experience the unconditional Love of which Jesus demonstrated/taught.

First, the literal interpretation of "the rod" might give the impression of the a whipping rod but a rod was a form of measurement in the day. So.. basically it's saying we should judge our children's development and behavior and guide them appropriately. Second, corporeal punishment is to this day controversial and there is good indication it can be beneficial, Evidence Favoring the Use of Disciplinary Spanking. The reason it's been banned in our society is misuse and abuse which is rampant.

As I said, such trash needs to be eliminated so the insane do not use it to justify their ASSAULTING of their children.
Try and beat me and you die, or go to hospital, or prison.
There are laws. Simply touching me without permission can be an assault.
But you justify the unLoving assault of your children based on some crap scripture!
I maintain that using 'God' as your excuse for your sin is blasphemy.

...True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS Known by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (Charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

Let me elucidate;
The philosophy that I said was an utter failure is the one that says that retribution and punishment and retaliation will somehow teach the 'offender' a lesson so she'll make 'better choices' next time.
It is THAT that history up to the moment has demonstrated a failure.
Perhaps a 'new' way to look at things.
Perhaps Love?

You seem very vague in your definition of the word "love" which in you appear to separate out justice, law and order so would you again elucidate specifically to what you're referring.
.

The 'love' of which you have experience is conditional 'love' of the ego.
Anything conditional can be clearly defined (limited).
It is not possible to 'define' (in dualistic terms) that which is not dualistic (unlimited), not contextual (context = definition), which is completely transcendent.
I was very clear in the means to recognize the Love of Christ.
Hitting your kids, or neighbors, is not on the list.
The only people who deliberately harm others are those who host 'beliefs'!

The 'symptoms' that you elucidate, are of egoic, conditional 'love'.
Perhaps a precursor for the Real thing, depending on the individual.
Most have never opened their eyes...
What do you think The Matrix was all about? *__-

[jerlands]

Where did I bring "God" into that?

God is One! ALL inclusive!
When you 'judge', and have a better suggestion, you are God 'judging' God, and, finding God wanting (in your vanity) you make suggestions.
Not uncommon.
That is what the basis of 'hope' is.

False. I am man judging man. I am man judging myself. I am a reflection of "God," I am not "God" nor is anything else in existence anything more than a reflection of.

I merely pointed out there is a difference between justice and injustice which you seem to think the same?

And IS the same, until you can rationally, logically, experientially... refute.

Ok.. let's tackle this concept of duality. Duality is two extremes of the same thing but it is the difference that creates the value we can draw upon or measure (quantify.) An example is a battery... a positive side (lacking electrons) and a negative side (abundant in electrons.) That difference in potential allows us to do useful work. The difference in justice and injustice is similar though conceptual and in our culture largely based upon sentiments of given statutes. These statues are man made however and so can be flawed but nevertheless it does create an understandable structure for common behavior and without which you might find it very hard to get to work (or wherever.)

So you don't see value in the "Golden Rule?"

First, I just taught you the 'Golden Rule'.

No, you did not teach me the golden rule but gave me your interpretation of it. And it really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

Second, all 'value' exists in the thoughts/ego of the (judgmental) beholder.
Anything that one Perspective finds of 'value', another does not.
Both see the same thing from opposite Perspectives.

Value is not necessarily different from person to person. The value of clean water, clean air, rich soil, abundant resources all have the same value to certain individuals. There are individuals who could care less and who damage our environment and they may be succeeding.

Third, as there is no 'free-will/choice', all the 'words of wisdom' throughout human history mean nothing. No one can 'choose' to follow them or not!
Thus, with all that great 'wisdom', the state of the planet is deplorable, horrendous.
If 'words of wisdom meant anything beyond the ego masturbation, if we actually could 'learn from history', the Earth would be a Utopia for all by now!
It ain't.
Proof is in the pudding.

I believe I understand where you're coming from as you've stated your belief that man has no choice in his origin or in his destination (supposedly because there is only one destination?) I do agree the world is facing a real trial but I believe education can help a lot.

First, the literal interpretation of "the rod" might give the impression of the a whipping rod but a rod was a form of measurement in the day. So.. basically it's saying we should judge our children's development and behavior and guide them appropriately. Second, corporeal punishment is to this day controversial and there is good indication it can be beneficial, Evidence Favoring the Use of Disciplinary Spanking. The reason it's been banned in our society is misuse and abuse which is rampant.

As I said, such trash needs to be eliminated so the insane do not use it to justify their ASSAULTING of their children.
Try and beat me and you die, or go to hospital, or prison.
There are laws. Simply touching me without permission can be an assault.
But you justify the unLoving assault of your children based on some crap scripture!
I maintain that using 'God' as your excuse for your sin is blasphemy.

Again, I am not "God" though I have the power to judge and judgement (to weigh or measure) is I believe part of our earthly responsibilities. We can do right or wrong as you so clearly point out. Beating a child is not correct discipline.

You seem very vague in your definition of the word "love" which in you appear to separate out justice, law and order so would you again elucidate specifically to what you're referring.
.

The 'love' of which you have experience is conditional 'love' of the ego.
Anything conditional can be clearly defined (limited).
It is not possible to 'define' (in dualistic terms) that which is not dualistic (unlimited), not contextual (context = definition), which is completely transcendent.

Well I believe that which is manifest is a reflection of the forces that created it.

I was very clear in the means to recognize the Love of Christ.
Hitting your kids, or neighbors, is not on the list.
The only people who deliberately harm others are those who host 'beliefs'!

The 'symptoms' that you elucidate, are of egoic, conditional 'love'.
Perhaps a precursor for the Real thing, depending on the individual.
Most have never opened their eyes...

Isn't Life itself conditional?

What do you think The Matrix was all about? *__-

Wasn't the Matrix a synthetic version of the world vs a natural version of the world? Sorta like a lie vs reality?

[Count Lucanor]

The foundation of mythological formulations were derived from reason, rational thought supported by observation. The science present in Ancient Egypt is self evident.

You forgot imagination. Myths, fables, lies, all are also supported by rational operations which include elements from fantasy. Limited observational capabilities, as you will find in ancient civilizations, produced a failed understanding of the real causes behind phenomena. Indeed, Egyptians were a civilization and displayed some technical advances, some of them very clever, but they didn't develop the wheel.

Based on that concept, we wouldn't have much to say about World War I, the industrial revolution or the French Second Empire, because "we're not in that space time".

Not correct. The difference is the distance from the past. We have people alive today who had first had experience of WWI, first hand accounts and video but as we go back in time much is lost.

It seems that you think that the only reliable information is that from live witnesses. I would strongly disagree. And I would not put personal testimony as top on my list of evidences for characterizing past societies.

None of that has any scientific basis. Consciousness occurs in the brain. And there's no "god" to communicate with.

Well.. the notion of "God" is controversial and I don't believe I can be unbiased in an approach but I find evidence in many cultures for the notion of a creative force (if simply expressed through number, 1 arising from 0, 2 arising from 1 and so forth.) In fact the only evidence against a "God" are opinions and nothing that can be formulated.

Since there are no evidence of gods to start with, no more "evidences against a god" are necessary. If you give so much reliability to the stories of gods from many cultures, you should be then a polytheist, as you have just stated that you haven't found any evidence against any of those gods that could be formulated.

[Namelesss]

God is One! ALL inclusive!
When you 'judge', and have a better suggestion, you are God 'judging' God, and, finding God wanting (in your vanity) you make suggestions.
Not uncommon.
That is what the basis of 'hope' is.

False. I am man judging man. I am man judging myself. I am a reflection of "God," I am not "God" nor is anything else in existence anything more than a reflection of.

I understand the limitations of the egoic 'I'.
Perhaps someday you will experience/Know the unconditional Love that Jesus taught.
Until then, I cannot talk you into anything, nor do I want to 'change your mind'.
Your mind is what hinders your spiritual progress.
This isn't an argument, it is observation and experience.

And IS the same, until you can rationally, logically, experientially... refute.

Ok.. let's tackle this concept of duality. Duality is two extremes of the same thing but it is the difference that creates the value we can draw upon or measure (quantify.) An example is a battery... a positive side (lacking electrons) and a negative side (abundant in electrons.) That difference in potential allows us to do useful work. The difference in justice and injustice is similar though conceptual and in our culture largely based upon sentiments of given statutes. These statues are man made however and so can be flawed but nevertheless it does create an understandable structure for common behavior and without which you might find it very hard to get to work (or wherever.)

Tell me, when science and philosophy demonstrate that all is One, 'connected', 'entangled', that there is no place that science has ever found where one thing definitively leaves off and another begins, ALL inclusive, how is your duality of 'separate autonomous opposite existences' that APPEAR apparent, possible?
Your daily experience belies all science and philosophy? Your common experience better reflects the metaphysical transcendent Reality is some superior fashion?
Perhaps you are merely defending/justifying a 'belief'?
I won't get into the superficial pragmatics of your 'argument', hamburgers will keep you alive, but there are much more nutritious foods along with the Knowledge and understanding of how the body works.
YOU are not tall or short other than in relation tosomething else, depending on PERSPECTIVE!
Depending on Perspective, you are BOTH at the same time! Two opposite mutually arising Perspectives.
Nothing more.

First, I just taught you the 'Golden Rule'.

No, you did not teach me the golden rule but gave me your interpretation of it.

You do not learn because you are filled with yourself.
It was not my interpretation. Go do some homework and find out for yourself!
You learned a mistranslation, along with so many other wide eyed babes, heard it so often it became bone deep.
Never really critically examining the absurdity of your mistranslation.
Swallow/spew.
Makes no difference to me, I Know better.
And you have a huge ignorant support group! *__-

And it really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

To absurd to respond.
I don't need to understand, I Know!
The unconditional is impossible to 'understand' with your conditional, dualistic, thoughts/ego.

Third, as there is no 'free-will/choice', all the 'words of wisdom' throughout human history mean nothing. No one can 'choose' to follow them or not!
Thus, with all that great 'wisdom', the state of the planet is deplorable, horrendous.
If 'words of wisdom meant anything beyond the ego masturbation, if we actually could 'learn from history', the Earth would be a Utopia for all by now!
It ain't.
Proof is in the pudding.

I believe I understand where you're coming from as you've stated your belief that man has no choice...[/quote]
You 'believe', I observe.

in his origin or in his destination (supposedly because there is only one destination?) I do agree the world is facing a real trial but I believe education can help a lot.

No choice in anything, ever!
Who and what we are, at any particular moment, manifests. No 'choice', no 'free-will'! (Ego will argue that one. Pride is THE sin!)
That's what the evidence supports.

Beating a child is not correct discipline.

Obviously there is a problem with the entire notion of 'discipline'.
So you have no problem excising the 'spare the rod' crap from the updated edition?
Me neither! *__-

Wasn't the Matrix a synthetic version of the world vs a natural version of the world? Sorta like a lie vs reality?

People were asleep and dreaming their limitations in the provided dream.
Some wake into the dream and find the limitations of the ego vanish and they... 'expand', awaken 'spiritually' into the unlimited transcendent.
They no longer are bound by their beliefs, by appearances of the ego.

[jerlands]

The foundation of mythological formulations were derived from reason, rational thought supported by observation. The science present in Ancient Egypt is self evident.

You forgot imagination. Myths, fables, lies, all are also supported by rational operations which include elements from fantasy. Limited observational capabilities, as you will find in ancient civilizations, produced a failed understanding of the real causes behind phenomena. Indeed, Egyptians were a civilization and displayed some technical advances, some of them very clever, but they didn't develop the wheel.

Imagination is not a four letter word. Imagination is how men like Einstein dreamt up relativity. Imagination is simply taking a picture and giving more dimension. Granted it can follow both logical and illogical progression but it seems an essential ability for development. As for the wheel, likely it was first developed for pottery but regarding the egyptians it just doesn't seem they needed it to move things with until they faced the chariots of the Hyksos. To their cleverness.. umm, they're still very much a mystery and how far they perceived into phenomena may be limited by our ability to understand it.

Not correct. The difference is the distance from the past. We have people alive today who had first had experience of WWI, first hand accounts and video but as we go back in time much is lost.

It seems that you think that the only reliable information is that from live witnesses. I would strongly disagree. And I would not put personal testimony as top on my list of evidences for characterizing past societies.

That's not at all what I said or implied. I simply said the further in time we go the less we have to form any picture. I did give an example of live accounts from WWI but that followed your mention of it. Take for instance stone age peoples of Tassil-n-Ajjer, Göbekli Tepe or Çatalhöyük. We actually know very little about them and their thoughts.

Well.. the notion of "God" is controversial and I don't believe I can be unbiased in an approach but I find evidence in many cultures for the notion of a creative force (if simply expressed through number, 1 arising from 0, 2 arising from 1 and so forth.) In fact the only evidence against a "God" are opinions and nothing that can be formulated.

Since there are no evidence of gods to start with, no more "evidences against a god" are necessary. If you give so much reliability to the stories of gods from many cultures, you should be then a polytheist, as you have just stated that you haven't found any evidence against any of those gods that could be formulated.

Ancient thought from Egypt, Israel, Babylon, China all conceived myth, a tale of origin and all but the Babylonians utilized number as one form of relation to the origin.

[Count Lucanor]

Imagination is not a four letter word. Imagination is how men like Einstein dreamt up relativity. Imagination is simply taking a picture and giving more dimension. Granted it can follow both logical and illogical progression but it seems an essential ability for development.

Imagination is nice, even necessary for human endeavors. It's a basic element of fiction, but humans also need to grasp reality for basic survival and development of society. Myths run contrary to the understanding of reality.

That's not at all what I said or implied. I simply said the further in time we go the less we have to form any picture. I did give an example of live accounts from WWI but that followed your mention of it. Take for instance stone age peoples of Tassil-n-Ajjer, Göbekli Tepe or Çatalhöyük. We actually know very little about them and their thoughts.

It depends on the physical evidence that they left, especially if they were advanced enough to have made things that endured the passage of time. We have lots of archaeological evidence of ancient civilizations and we know a lot about their myths. And many times, even the absence of physical evidence is a clue as to whether some narrative is mythical or factual. That's what archaeology, among other disciplines, is able to discover about the past. That's how we know there was no Exodus, patriarchs moving people 40 years in the desert, and so on.

Ancient thought from Egypt, Israel, Babylon, China all conceived myth, a tale of origin and all but the Babylonians utilized number as one form of relation to the origin.

It is without doubt that most ancient civilizations were polytheists. Even in Deuteronomy, the Hebrew god is just another god among many.

[jerlands]

False. I am man judging man. I am man judging myself. I am a reflection of "God," I am not "God" nor is anything else in existence anything more than a reflection of.

I understand the limitations of the egoic 'I'.
Perhaps someday you will experience/Know the unconditional Love that Jesus taught.

Perhaps one day yes.

Until then, I cannot talk you into anything, nor do I want to 'change your mind'.
Your mind is what hinders your spiritual progress.
This isn't an argument, it is observation and experience.

Well, it seems the mind reflects our state of consciousness but the spirit (our breath or aspiration) seems to be a motivational factor. I do see hower how consciousness could bring about changes in spirit and vice versa. The soul though I think more closely related with identity.

Ok.. let's tackle this concept of duality. Duality is two extremes of the same thing but it is the difference that creates the value we can draw upon or measure (quantify.) An example is a battery... a positive side (lacking electrons) and a negative side (abundant in electrons.) That difference in potential allows us to do useful work. The difference in justice and injustice is similar though conceptual and in our culture largely based upon sentiments of given statutes. These statues are man made however and so can be flawed but nevertheless it does create an understandable structure for common behavior and without which you might find it very hard to get to work (or wherever.)

Tell me, when science and philosophy demonstrate that all is One, 'connected', 'entangled', that there is no place that science has ever found where one thing definitively leaves off and another begins, ALL inclusive, how is your duality of 'separate autonomous opposite existences' that APPEAR apparent, possible?
Your daily experience belies all science and philosophy? Your common experience better reflects the metaphysical transcendent Reality is some superior fashion?

I have never argued against interconnectedness, that there are relations between all things. I do however perceive duality in all states of matter. Current cosmological theory suggests the universe emanated forth from the expansion of contraction and I see all things echoing their origin.

Perhaps you are merely defending/justifying a 'belief'?

Maybe I am justifying my belief. What's wrong in that?

I won't get into the superficial pragmatics of your 'argument', hamburgers will keep you alive, but there are much more nutritious foods along with the Knowledge and understanding of how the body works.
YOU are not tall or short other than in relation tosomething else, depending on PERSPECTIVE!
Depending on Perspective, you are BOTH at the same time! Two opposite mutually arising Perspectives.
Nothing more.

Yes, perspective... the breath at which we envision our lives makes a difference.

No, you did not teach me the golden rule but gave me your interpretation of it.

You do not learn because you are filled with yourself.
It was not my interpretation. Go do some homework and find out for yourself!
You learned a mistranslation, along with so many other wide eyed babes, heard it so often it became bone deep.
Never really critically examining the absurdity of your mistranslation.
Swallow/spew.
Makes no difference to me, I Know better.
And you have a huge ignorant support group! *__-

The sermon on the mount, the golden rule, a phrase within many. Matthew 7:12 - “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. So where did I go wrong there? This is basically the same as found in "the greatest commandment" Matthew 22:36-40 where you should love your neighbor as yourself. These laws given us in Christianity I see as those which we base our system of justice upon. I'm not saying Christs teachings are the only source for these concepts but they are the ones that western civilization carried through time and built upon.

And it really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

To absurd to respond.
I don't need to understand, I Know!

Mark Twain It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so

The unconditional is impossible to 'understand' with your conditional, dualistic, thoughts/ego.

I seems to me the only thing unconditional in our existence is we can't escape reality no matter our perception of it.

Third, as there is no 'free-will/choice', all the 'words of wisdom' throughout human history mean nothing. No one can 'choose' to follow them or not!
Thus, with all that great 'wisdom', the state of the planet is deplorable, horrendous.
If 'words of wisdom meant anything beyond the ego masturbation, if we actually could 'learn from history', the Earth would be a Utopia for all by now!
It ain't.
Proof is in the pudding.

You make the statement "there is no free will/choice" which to me seems totally unfounded and also a bit far fetched. Seems like the stupid blanket covered this planet and suddenly we have no struggle or objective in our lives but to folly around because there is no meaning (nothing that is shared by the mind.) If something in our existence is shared by the mind that alone denotes a state of duality (a giver and a receiver.)
Struggle denotes opposition which implies duality which requires we make decisions (determinations) in order to perceive that which opposes us.

I believe I understand where you're coming from as you've stated your belief that man has no choice...

You 'believe', I observe.

Observance is the posture of one in relation to the other and that requires duality and in duality there is choice (the recognition of state.)

in his origin or in his destination (supposedly because there is only one destination?) I do agree the world is facing a real trial but I believe education can help a lot.

No choice in anything, ever!
Who and what we are, at any particular moment, manifests. No 'choice', no 'free-will'! (Ego will argue that one. Pride is THE sin!)
That's what the evidence supports.

What? There are many reasons for everything. Why I'm who and what is the totality of everything up to that point. You don't think we have influence in our birth? I think differently. I see the seed of an alder only becoming an alder, the seed of the dolphin only becoming a dolphin and the seed of our love only becoming that love.

Beating a child is not correct discipline.

Obviously there is a problem with the entire notion of 'discipline'.
So you have no problem excising the 'spare the rod' crap from the updated edition?
Me neither! *__-

Man can hack out anything but there are realms in existence that man can enter that do provide greater insight into 'here and now' and how to get there.

Wasn't the Matrix a synthetic version of the world vs a natural version of the world? Sorta like a lie vs reality?

People were asleep and dreaming their limitations in the provided dream.
Some wake into the dream and find the limitations of the ego vanish and they... 'expand', awaken 'spiritually' into the unlimited transcendent.
They no longer are bound by their beliefs, by appearances of the ego.

In the Matrix they didn't enter sleep did they? It's been a while since I've seen it but I think it was a great show (I kinda liked the original Tron too.)
.

[jerlands]

Imagination is not a four letter word. Imagination is how men like Einstein dreamt up relativity. Imagination is simply taking a picture and giving more dimension. Granted it can follow both logical and illogical progression but it seems an essential ability for development.

Imagination is nice, even necessary for human endeavors. It's a basic element of fiction, but humans also need to grasp reality for basic survival and development of society. Myths run contrary to the understanding of reality.

First, you dismiss imagination as having anything to do with research and development but shove it off to the realm of fiction. Fiction however is interesting because there are many instances where fiction has actually paralleled our technological development. But your notion myth is fiction, unfounded, untrue is dismissive and naive. I'm not critiquing all myth but simply removing it from the realm of generality. I know certain myth to be very rich in reality.

That's not at all what I said or implied. I simply said the further in time we go the less we have to form any picture. I did give an example of live accounts from WWI but that followed your mention of it. Take for instance stone age peoples of Tassil-n-Ajjer, Göbekli Tepe or Çatalhöyük. We actually know very little about them and their thoughts.

It depends on the physical evidence that they left, especially if they were advanced enough to have made things that endured the passage of time. We have lots of archaeological evidence of ancient civilizations and we know a lot about their myths. And many times, even the absence of physical evidence is a clue as to whether some narrative is mythical or factual. That's what archaeology, among other disciplines, is able to discover about the past. That's how we know there was no Exodus, patriarchs moving people 40 years in the desert, and so on.

Archeology is just a branch of science and science is merely a branch of philosophy. Nothing alone explains the tree but the tree itself (if we can truly perceive it.) You speak of the Exodus. Fact.. if over 600,000 men (over a million including women and children) left Egypt at one time there would be a huge impact on the social structure of the time which consisted of maybe 3 million. Another fact.. there is no physical evidence of a large number of people wandering the Sinai... none... so we might conclude over a million people never wandered through the sinai for 40 years. However, the Exodus was a real thing and is evident through the transition of theological teaching from one group to the next. To understand this concept we have to understand what the teachings found in Egypt are; and coupled with that we have to understand how astrological time has any influence on man. And then we have to understand what man actually is.

Ancient thought from Egypt, Israel, Babylon, China all conceived myth, a tale of origin and all but the Babylonians utilized number as one form of relation to the origin.

It is without doubt that most ancient civilizations were polytheists. Even in Deuteronomy, the Hebrew god is just another god among many.

Egypt was not polytheistic. I understand conventional thought but the gods of egypt (neters) were natural forces emanating from a single source.
.

[jerlands]

Even in Deuteronomy, the Hebrew god is just another god among many.

Would you kindly reference what you're talking about? Every impression I have of the Bible is one (1) "God."
.

[Scribbler60]

Egypt was not polytheistic. I understand conventional thought but the gods of egypt (neters) were natural forces emanating from a single source.
.

False.

Egypt was very much polytheistic.

From Egypt's Golden Empire:

Unlike the major religions of future centuries, like Islam or Christianity, Egyptian religion did not bring a single set of beliefs. Egyptians were polytheists - they worshipped more than one god.

And there were hundreds to choose from. Some were minor or local gods, while others were more important and much more powerful.

(emphasis added)

Even from your own source:

The ancient Egyptians had many creator gods and associated legends.

That is the very definition of polytheism.

As for this,

Would you kindly reference what you're talking about? Every impression I have of the Bible is one (1) "God."

It's abundantly clear, even in the 10 Commandments: Thou shalt have no other gods before me

That clearly presupposes that the authors believed there were other gods.

Psalms: “There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8)
“For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4)
“Our Lord is above all gods” (135:5)
“Ascribe to Yahweh, [you] gods, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength” (29:1)
“He is exalted above all gods” (97:7)
“For Yahweh is a great god, and a great king above all gods” (95:3)

Want more?

The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jeremiah 10:11
Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. Numbers 33:4
The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. 1 Chronicles 16:25
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20
Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. Exodus 23:13

I have more but I'm in a bit of a hurry and have to skedaddle.

I look forward to your rationalizations.

[jerlands]

Egypt was not polytheistic. I understand conventional thought but the gods of egypt (neters) were natural forces emanating from a single source.
.

False.

Egypt was very much polytheistic.

From Egypt's Golden Empire:

Unlike the major religions of future centuries, like Islam or Christianity, Egyptian religion did not bring a single set of beliefs. Egyptians were polytheists - they worshipped more than one god.

And there were hundreds to choose from. Some were minor or local gods, while others were more important and much more powerful.

(emphasis added)

Even from your own source:

The ancient Egyptians had many creator gods and associated legends.

That is the very definition of polytheism.

This simply is conventional misconception. The best analogy I can presently give is the human body. To worship the heart as Horus, or the Lungs as Hapi, or the Stomach as Duamutef, or the Liver as Imsety or the Intestines as Qebehsenuef. All of these are parts of the whole and only represent that aspect of the whole.

As for this,

Would you kindly reference what you're talking about? Every impression I have of the Bible is one (1) "God."

It's abundantly clear, even in the 10 Commandments: Thou shalt have no other gods before me

That clearly presupposes that the authors believed there were other gods.

Psalms: “There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8)
“For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4)
“Our Lord is above all gods” (135:5)
“Ascribe to Yahweh, [you] gods, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength” (29:1)
“He is exalted above all gods” (97:7)
“For Yahweh is a great god, and a great king above all gods” (95:3)

Want more?

The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jeremiah 10:11
Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. Numbers 33:4
The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. 1 Chronicles 16:25
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20
Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. Exodus 23:13

I have more but I'm in a bit of a hurry and have to skedaddle.

I look forward to your rationalizations.

The notion of one (1) God is difficult as is the notion we have of man worshiping many gods. The notions arising from Biblical warnings we have concerning worship of false anything however should ring true. It is in truth that man depends and advances in his quest for knowledge and understanding. It is the notion of one (1) "God" that is stressed in the Bible for what reason? That reason seems to persuade us to search for origin and which we seem to be doing a lot of in our scientific and philosophical endeavors. But to really understand the reason "why" I think requires comprehension of the two extremes of our duality, the beginning and the end. That which lies in the middle is our struggle to reach those determinations.

[Sy Borg]

Is the issue here translation between those who prefer numerical analysis and those who prefer metaphor? Each is simply a way of grasping reality, and each is perfectly valid IMO, tools for certain applications.

Passengers will prefer the plane's engineers to avoid metaphor and focus on mathematical precision. Other qualities are needed in, say, palliative care. Yet, palliative care nurses still need to understand the technical aspects of nursing and pain management and for engineers need to use imagination as a critical aspect of risk management - envisioning what might go wrong. I spent about a year helping out with an inquiry into a major rail accident and the chain of events leading to the accident was bizarre - and people got in trouble because they failed to imagine that strange scenario.

So the Bible and every other ancient text is just information that's been passed on by elders to help the young. In lieu of scientific language, the ancient used metaphor, which is weirdly being taken literally by many.

However information passed down generations is not always entirely pure in motive. Elders will be biased towards traditionalism largely because that means preserving their own legacies, rather than wiping them out. Parents for the most part seek to pass on good information to their young to help them survive and thrive, but there is a genuine inherent conflict of interest in the relationship between generations.

In short, the conflict stems from "the changing of the guard" (Dawkins's The Selfish Gene covers this dynamic well). In lieu of Dawkins, a human example might be a parent pressuring a child into a path "for the family" or using the child to complete the parents' own unfinished business, disregarding the wishes and needs of the young.

So, embedded within the great legacy of knowledge passed down in the major texts of the past are numerous "Easter eggs", for instance the stitch-up that treats any questioning of the "wise masters" as not healthy or productive, but either a failure of faith or, worse, a transgression. Not a nice tactic, and one that's caused much suffering through fear of hellfire, annihilation or a painful incarnation, but it turned out to be an effective means of wielding power for generations to come. Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes graphically describes the suffering caused by manipulative existential threats.

How to parse the valuable from the cultural? If anyone has succeeded, it obviously hasn't caught on even today thousands of years hence.

So, again, the Bible and other texts are simply tools, albeit lacking in "safety features" aka reliability. Thus there is a need to use such tools with a caution seemingly not often observed in many of today's public "discussions" in the mainstream and social media.

[jerlands]

Is the issue here translation between those who prefer numerical analysis and those who prefer metaphor? Each is simply a way of grasping reality, and each is perfectly valid IMO, tools for certain applications.

Number to me is the concept of relationships as is mythology (one being in relation to another) so I kind of unify those views but the idea of grasping reality I think very important and the modes and modalities used for expression obviously are more readily accepted by some than others. I really think what we're striving for is a unity, a body that functions more harmoniously than what we have today.

Passengers will prefer the plane's engineers to avoid metaphor and focus on mathematical precision. Other qualities are needed in, say, palliative care. Yet, palliative care nurses still need to understand the technical aspects of nursing and pain management and for engineers need to use imagination as a critical aspect of risk management - envisioning what might go wrong. I spent about a year helping out with an inquiry into a major rail accident and the chain of events leading to the accident was bizarre - and people got in trouble because they failed to imagine that strange scenario.

We were just talking about imagination and I was trying to stress its importance in determination. Another aspect of this discussion has been perspective, the angle or view we see from. Encompassing the entirety of an airplane or the complications of locomotion does require scope, seeing the small picture in relation to the large but this is true for anything. If we want to talk about palliative care there are many views because pain is actually a good thing to a degree where too much of anything can be damaging but I think all things are relative so we shouldn't be seeing someone given tylenol for a headache (and really not for any other reason that I can think of.)

So the Bible and every other ancient text is just information that's been passed on by elders to help the young. In lieu of scientific language, the ancient used metaphor, which is weirdly being taken literally by many.

This is where I diverge because for me the Bible is not just any other ancient text but it is spell binding.

However information passed down generations is not always entirely pure in motive. Elders will be biased towards traditionalism largely because that means preserving their own legacies, rather than wiping them out. Parents for the most part seek to pass on good information to their young to help them survive and thrive, but there is a genuine inherent conflict of interest in the relationship between generations.

Was the Bible truly inspired or just the impulse of man. It seems obvious to me it was literally written down by man but what was it's motivation? The contextual purity seems intact at least to the first century BC but are those who carry it the same? Everything probably deteriorates through time but I see truth as being revealing and truth for all ages should be self evident if it exists.

In short, the conflict stems from "the changing of the guard" (Dawkins's The Selfish Gene covers this dynamic well). In lieu of Dawkins, a human example might be a parent pressuring a child into a path "for the family" or using the child to complete the parents' own unfinished business, disregarding the wishes and needs of the young.

Ever hear the phrase "science advances one death at a time?" Inertia is hard to overcome in any manner but the idea of the future and future generations adds a lot to our motivations and things we care to safeguard and protect for the future.

So, embedded within the great legacy of knowledge passed down in the major texts of the past are numerous "Easter eggs", for instance the stitch-up that treats any questioning of the "wise masters" as not healthy or productive, but either a failure of faith or, worse, a transgression. Not a nice tactic, and one that's caused much suffering through fear of hellfire, annihilation or a painful incarnation, but it turned out to be an effective means of wielding power for generations to come. Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes graphically describes the suffering caused by manipulative existential threats.

I don't know.. The gist given me was to stand as an individual questioning everything. As for traps and pitfalls.. probably. Falling isn't failure but not getting up may be.

How to parse the valuable from the cultural? If anyone has succeeded, it obviously hasn't caught on even today thousands of years hence.

So, again, the Bible and other texts are simply tools, albeit lacking in "safety features" aka reliability. Thus there is a need to use such tools with a caution seemingly not often observed in many of today's public "discussions" in the mainstream and social media.

Reliability, relativity, accuracy.. what we get out of a bowl of soup can vary upon the overall health and needs of the body. Of course the ingredients in that bowl of soup limit the availability of whatever so you really want something made from good stock and wholesome additives to make it a complete meal.
.

[Sy Borg]

So the Bible and every other ancient text is just information that's been passed on by elders to help the young. In lieu of scientific language, the ancient used metaphor, which is weirdly being taken literally by many.

This is where I diverge because for me the Bible is not just any other ancient text but it is spell binding.

I found NDGT's remake of Sagan's Cosmos spellbinding too, much more so than the Bible. You no doubt feel the opposite. I still have the whole Cosmos series at home as you would your Bible and, like you, I would access it at times for clarity and inspiration. The Bible, like Cosmos, was certainly one of the better efforts of its genre. Hence its enduring resonances (the same can be said for the Tao, the Gita, the Koran and some others.

Generally I gain more philosophical inspiration from nature in general than just the human part of it. Humans are not apart from nature but extending and refining it to ultimately make make life less cruel and ruthless than it has been for the past billion years. To that end, the Bible, Cosmos and many other parcels of knowledge handed down have contributed.