Abrahamic religion and the old gods

[Artimas]

Is Christianity or are the Abrahamic religions interpretations of the ancient gods?

Since thoth is in every culture known to man under different guises does that mean every deity or archetype is also portrayed somewhere in the more modern or commonly associated religions in a metaphorical manner?

Is Christianity more or less validated than the old gods? I feel pagan gods are represented more as our archetypes and the Christian God is more represented as our subconscious self/collective consciousness. Does this seem like an accurate analogy to you? Is this a noticeable footprint in being able to observe evolution?

If this is the case then where do the archetypes or old gods fit into the Abrahamic religions and what are the metaphors as such to give vision to them? I feel these different ideas of identity could be just as crucial as becoming conscious of the unconscious.

Are the old gods simply "Satan"? I do not think so personally as he is supposedly the representation for the evilness of ego incarnate.

[Pandora]

Pagan knowledge survives through folk knowledge (folklore, folk knowledge/holidays, and fairy tales).
I would compare monotheism to electricity. An artificial light that is always present and disconnects man from natural cycle. Paganism was connected to fears (and hopes) that are no longer present because of technology. The remaining memory is symbolic only. It is curious, and even playful (ex: at Halloween/Easter), if observed, but no longer holds the seriousness that it once may have (I suspect darker elements were intentionally neutralized/altered or removed altogether from collective memory). Alternatively, they were demonized, especially those that challenged the new power.

It is possible that Christianity itself incorporated elements from ancient pagan traditions, but I don’t see its doctrine, being essentially monotheistic, as pagan. Perhaps it had to be monotheistic to successfully consolidate its power. I suspect intentional wiping out of pagan spirituality on the account that very little remains of it, and what is left is mostly fragmentary. Although, perhaps that was also due to its practices (oral traditions and use of wood or organic materials, instead of stone or metal).
In any case, if there was a power coup, it was very successful, as Christianity took very deep roots and spread very wide.

[promethean75]

the monotheistic 'take over' of paganism was not something that happened for nefarious reasons, although of course pagans would feel insulted by such an inquisition. it was instead the result of a more critical examination of theological logic that led philosophers to the idea of a single god. now of course all this theological theorizing, whether it be in the crude minds of semi-literate tribal priests or formally educated philosophers and logicians such as aquinas, is still operating within the anthropomorphic fallacy. in fact, aristotle was perhaps the only one of the ancients who didn't fall into this error, but his theory of the indifferent prime mover would become subordinated to and used for supplanting new anthropomorphic theories that emerged in the abrahamic religions. these errors remained until the appearance of spinoza, who was the terminus to theology. elsewhere i wrote:

the supremacy of monotheism over polytheism/paganism lies in the logically rigid lines of thinking that the islamic philosophers produced. the designation of divine power to a single entity eliminates several contradictions, which these thinkers noticed. now this isn't to say the monotheism that replaced polytheism is any better, overall, because it's still riddled with those anthropomorphic errors that spinoza had later corrected. only with monotheism, you have a single error, as opposed to the many errors you have with the greeks... or any other henotheists. perhaps the greatest correction made by the islamic philosophers was the reduction of the lesser gods to spirits; forms of life lesser than god but higher than humans, for instance. an ontological explanation for this conclusion would be simple; spirits are contingencies who's essence does not involve existence, while 'god's' essence is its existence, since there is nothing external to it for which to give it cause to exist. in spinoza's thinking, for there to be such external cause would mean there was at least two things who's essence involved existence... in which case you would have more than one 'god', ... in which case you would be back at those contradictions concerning the power relations between divine things and the conflicts that result.

so we see the progression: animism > paganism > henotheism > monotheism (anthropomorphic) > pantheism (spinozist).

but while the origins of monotheism were not malevolent, it became a malevolent force, primarly as a tool for sustaining cultural solidarity and obedience in civilizations in which ruling, aristocratic (bourgeois) classes were emerging and needed to secure their power by lessening the threat of revolution by the lower classes. rulers found that theological philosophers were especially useful. calvin, for example, was the quintessential ruling class philosopher hack... even more so than leibniz, descartes and aquinas.

but it was the consolidating power of monotheism that was of interest to rulers. this is why christianity was so useful to the roman empire; it settled conflicting paganistic cultures within the empire and brought everyone together under one pacifying opiate.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"but while the origins of monotheism were not malevolent'

Fucking gotcha man!

Lol, on a more serious note, I hope you were alluding to other things you write that I haven't read that stem from a deep, experience-accessible only insight of very profound philosophy.

Cause this isn't very advanced: "animism > paganism > henotheism > monotheism (anthropomorphic) > pantheism (spinozist)."

[promethean75]

Cause this isn't very advanced: "animism > paganism > henotheism > monotheism (anthropomorphic) > pantheism (spinozist)."

that's because the history of religion isn't very advanced. you'd probably find comte's three stages of religion to suffice to account for the whole history of it. or spencer's. yeah spencer's is even better. you know who herbert spencer is, right? one of the most underrated and scarcely mentioned philosophers to date. and that was one of the most writingest sonsabitches you'll ever find in the annuls of philosophy. dude wrote like a hundred volumes or something like that. don't think he got out much.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I find your theory of Benevolence vs Malevolence which underlies all your writings to be very religious.

In any case, what you alluded was that this deep insight you have gained informs everything you write. That silly progression could as easily have been telling me about the guy that wrote the Golden Bough.

Like, you don't even indicate that or even if you notice the assumptions necessary to accept that progression. I'm like, where's the gold?

[Artimas]

Well both the pagan gods and the subconscious are key elements in psyche so why haven't we written anything more updated for people? I mean we have psychology but it is too complex for all everyday average Joe's to become curious about or comprehend. So do we not need it written and explained/correlated to make sense to them tying literal into metaphorical with scientific backing?

I feel they are both of equal importance, to understand what both are and their roles in reality.

[Pandora]

Well both the pagan gods and the subconscious are key elements in psyche so why haven't we written anything more updated for people?

. You may like the works of archetypal (jungian) psychologists like James Hillman and Thomas Moore. They bring ancient mythology and pagan gods into modern life, through story telling/narrative, and show us that they are very much with us in modern life (and insofar as archetypes are connected to instincts, they may be right). People like interesting and colorful stories. Just scientific explanation may be too dull for most people to accept. Some ancient cultures (like Sumerian/Akkadian) had very elaborate creation myths and a rather impressive pantheon of dieties (perhaps not unlike today’s Hinduism).

Also, a thing to note is that pagan gods (and corresponding myths) were historically connected to a particular natural geography (or climate if you will) as well, so it wouldn’t really make sense for one to plead or invoke a god of say, desert dust storms, or a fertility goddess Taweret, by someone who has never experienced dust storms in their life, or has ever lived in the same environment as hippos because of their evolutionary geography.
This is why it doesn’t make sense for people wearing Egyptian ankhs or pentagrams, or Yin/yangs, when neither they nor their ancestors have any historical connection to them. I say that such people are simply drawn an exotic and mysterious element that they do not even (or really could) understand, and when in fact, any other nonsensical symbol embued with aura of mystic status in public consciousness would have worked just the same. The real purpose would simply be to draw attention to self. This is just my opinion, but you can’t just transplant gods and wear them as a fashion statement. That would be blasphemous, wouldn’t it? At best, even if such person honestly believed in a foreign god he adopted, it likely wouldn’t work the same.

[Artimas]

Well both the pagan gods and the subconscious are key elements in psyche so why haven't we written anything more updated for people?

. You may like the works of archetypal (jungian) psychologists like James Hillman and Thomas Moore. They bring ancient mythology and pagan gods into modern life, through story telling/narrative, and show us that they are very much with us in modern life (and insofar as archetypes are connected to instincts, they may be right). People like interesting and colorful stories. Just scientific explanation may be too dull for most people to accept. Some ancient cultures (like Sumerian/Akkadian) had very elaborate creation myths and a rather impressive pantheon of dieties (perhaps not unlike today’s Hinduism).

Also, a thing to note is that pagan gods (and corresponding myths) were historically connected to a particular natural geography (or climate if you will) as well, so it wouldn’t really make sense for one to plead or invoke a god of say, desert dust storms, or a fertility goddess Taweret, by someone who has never experienced dust storms in their life, or has ever lived in the same environment as hippos because of their evolutionary geography.
This is why it doesn’t make sense for people wearing Egyptian ankhs or pentagrams, or Yin/yangs, when neither they nor their ancestors have any historical connection to them. I say that such people are simply drawn an exotic and mysterious element that they do not even (or really could) understand, and when in fact, any other nonsensical symbol embued with aura of mystic status in public consciousness would have worked just the same. The real purpose would simply be to draw attention to self. This is just my opinion, but you can’t just transplant gods and wear them as a fashion statement. That would be blasphemous, wouldn’t it? At best, even if such person honestly believed in a foreign god he adopted, it likely wouldn’t work the same.

A lot of those traits like the animals and elements associated with symbolism or deities have meaning that is through metaphor. The symbols of Thoth for example, ibis and baboon, ibis due to its beak being shaped like a Crescent moon, the baboon due to its being nocturnal. Pentagram and the goat has its own meaning, one that signifies balance through both sciences and spirituality and there are a lot more as well I am sure. Night time I have heard is when a lot of intellectual and abstract thinking occurs along with moon being feminine and also ties into subconsciousness.

I do think it is foolish to wear it as simple fashion with the lack of understanding but if it is understood then it can be used as a quick method of signifying traits of that specific individual, how an archetype should be used, to identify others in a simpler fashion. Some of it is imagination for sure, some possible, a lot of it as metaphor/analogy. It is not so much as believing it as it is becoming it if that makes sense. That's what correlates to me at least. It is similar to, knowing being easy but the difficulty lying in understanding. I hope that's a good analogy. These "gods" are mere men with characteristics of the elements/nature to represent chaos and order in a sense, imagine if I wrote a book about a character, most often creations resemble creator due to it being expression. These "deities" are just the many expressions of mankind recorded and expressed through tons of metaphors to describe characteristics, emotions, feelings, surroundings/environment like moon and sun.

The goat for example is the light bearer for good reason through metaphors/analogy and I can explain why if you are interested in more but I am sure you are well aware also.

[promethean75]

Like, you don't even indicate that or even if you notice the assumptions necessary to accept that progression. I'm like, where's the gold?

i'm afraid there isn't any 'gold' to be given. the history of the evolution of the 'religious man' is interesting only insofar as it is a tremendous blunder reflecting the rather frail and confused nature of man. that religion still persists today speaks volumes about the species' immaturity... or should i say existential anxiety... something that may take a few more centuries to be finally clear of.

but i mean c'mon, you aren't even a little intrigued by comte's three stages? i think he pretty much wrapped that shit up, b.

[promethean75]

I say that such people are simply drawn an exotic and mysterious element that they do not even (or really could) understand, and when in fact, any other nonsensical symbol embued with aura of mystic status in public consciousness would have worked just the same. The real purpose would simply be to draw attention to self. This is just my opinion, but you can’t just transplant gods and wear them as a fashion statement. That would be blasphemous, wouldn’t it? At best, even if such person honestly believed in a foreign god he adopted, it likely wouldn’t work the same.

now this is something. what i'd suggest is that it is impossible to 'get wrong' what is mythological/metaphysical nonsense to begin with. funny that cultures feel offended when foreigners 'transgress' on what they believe is 'holy'. some american tourist wears a yin-yang around his neck, and a 'real' daoist becomes offended, as if this guy somehow depreciates what has no substance to begin with. is the real daoist any more enlightened than the tourist? or you're touring greece and walk up to two guys engaged in an argument over who the real goddess of the harvest is. okay, you're both wrong. the real goddess of the harvest is Cindy McMullen. now what do we do? what does this change?

until the world grows up and realizes that culture is not grounded in traditional religious beliefs and practices, but rather the real modes and relations of their material being, they will continue quibbling over senseless nonsense that achieves nothing but division and conflict between them. i mean if that's what they want, then by all means continue; let's stage a war between the holy trinity and allah, or thor and the buddha.

but you can only do this for so long. eventually, one of ya is going to have to wipe the other out, or assimilate them. since you know that integration is inevitable, why would you continue to shake your talisman at the other guy and call him an infidel?

i don't care whether or not there is ever 'peace on earth'. what befuddles me is how people who claim to want this go about it perfectly wrong. it's not my fight, though. i just watch with an occasional chuckle.

[Artimas]

I say that such people are simply drawn an exotic and mysterious element that they do not even (or really could) understand, and when in fact, any other nonsensical symbol embued with aura of mystic status in public consciousness would have worked just the same. The real purpose would simply be to draw attention to self. This is just my opinion, but you can’t just transplant gods and wear them as a fashion statement. That would be blasphemous, wouldn’t it? At best, even if such person honestly believed in a foreign god he adopted, it likely wouldn’t work the same.

now this is something. what i'd suggest is that it is impossible to 'get wrong' what is mythological/metaphysical nonsense to begin with. funny that cultures feel offended when foreigners 'transgress' on what they believe is 'holy'. some american tourist wears a yin-yang around his neck, and a 'real' daoist becomes offended, as if this guy somehow depreciates what has no substance to begin with. is the real daoist any more enlightened than the tourist? or you're touring greece and walk up to two guys engaged in an argument over who the real goddess of the harvest is. okay, you're both wrong. the real goddess of the harvest is Cindy McMullen. now what do we do? what does this change?

until the world grows up and realizes that culture is not grounded in traditional religious beliefs and practices, but rather the real modes and relations of their material being, they will continue quibbling over senseless nonsense that achieves nothing but division and conflict between them. i mean if that's what they want, then by all means continue; let's stage a war between the holy trinity and allah, or thor and the buddha.

but you can only do this for so long. eventually, one of ya is going to have to wipe the other out, or assimilate them. since you know that integration is inevitable, why would you continue to shake your talisman at the other guy and call him an infidel?

i don't care whether or not there is ever 'peace on earth'. what befuddles me is how people who claim to want this go about it perfectly wrong. it's not my fight, though. i just watch with an occasional chuckle.

I agree it is ridiculous and on how hypocritical it is.

Do those people actually understand what they worship though? I worship myself because I am "God" as a mere fragmented unique expression. That was the misconception of ancient expression, the entire time their gods are inside themself and come out in form of archetypes which they attribute those traits to the "gods" external expressions through language/art to depict self. When one understands fully the symbol is not what matters alone, it is the understanding of the symbol and realizing it is a representation of a specific existence of a unique expression. It's the typical heros story on repeat through different Era, language changes, people change, art changes, the messages stay nearly the same but some has been left out with modern "religion" it would almost seem as if Abrahamic religion intentionally demonize the ego/archetypes completely as to avoid the balance and keep passive-like behavior and we must achieve balance/understanding between the ancient "gods" and the universal one, does this make sense? Both are key elements in understanding self if interpreted properly with the key element being to understand it, openly, unbiased and not so literally.

Think a bird, two wings (politics) take Republicans, religion for unification, take liberals, New world order for unification. Both are an attempt to lead to sameness (bred passivity). They work together based on which choice we make or which side wins, the outcome is the same. Hence the "two wings, same bird" metaphor. Each side offers limited "freedoms" that appeal to different sides, ultimately leading to sameness. This is why empires fall and then come back together just to fall again, this constant attempt of complete unification or cultural genocide.

Of course I am not saying man has the ability to call storms out of the sky, that would be magic (unexplained science) but they are representations mostly of self along with environment of the present moment of which when they were recorded/expressed.

Christianity does not account for the old gods, which leads me to the thought that it may be a method to completely unify man kind to easily control them since sameness(breeding passivity) is a lessening of idea and thinking. We come to new through appreciation of and an attempt to understand this diversity. It would be easier to weed the intellectuals out and keep the sheep on the bottom, think in terms of "new world order" today through "politics", it is the same concept of which switched form they're trying to control or direct us through using psyche. Trying to unify us all so we may be controlled and limited further under one culture. Is this not what Abrahamic religions are doing today and can be observed blatantly? The fighting to convert?

The old gods were left out because they paint a story that is simpler to understand than a universal deity, no common man comes to understand that they are a branch of this universal God, not without a ton of study and understanding, but a pagan may believe they are embodiment of Odin, which isn't NOT correct, except for "mystical power" which they attribute weather as control when it is merely another reaction of variables.

Why else do they (America) destroy culture like Iraqs Ancient sumerian temple/tower? it is an agenda of control, not a mere ignorance of mans ego(of which this ignorance to ego is bred from the very society which is in trying to achieve this agenda) like they like to have everyone believing. Rich men at the top don't want to lose their power they have clung to for ages past.

[promethean75]

Do those people actually understand what they worship though?

what i would ask is; do those people who 'really' worship x actually understand what they worship, and, what would 'understanding' amount to? is there something exclusive to those who 'really' worship x that is inaccessible to those who don't 'really' worship x.

when you strip away all the cultural contingencies, you find all peoples doing the same thing with and through their metaphors. if that's the case, we should look at what they have in common... which will be something lying behind all the superfluous religious rituals and customs... things that actually work against their understanding of each other by alienating them from one another.

I worship myself because I am "God" as a mere fragmented unique expression. That was the misconception of ancient expression, the entire time their gods are inside themself and come out in form of archetypes which they attribute those traits to the "gods" external expressions through language/art to depict self.

feuerbach couldn't have said it better himself. well done, lad.

this is the part where you google feuerbach and then say 'oh cool, this is very informative and something i've always thought, myself.'

what the world is ripe for is the third and final stage (comte); the deification of man and the spiritualization of his positivism and science. but this won't happen until all the little cultural pests scattered across the planet still holding on to their religious relics and worshiping imaginary gods, will let go of such nonsense.

i'll tell ya what man needs. he needs an alternative enemy. see it was the love of the fight and the virility that war gave to the spirit of man, that kept him divided and encouraged him to draw lines in the dirt; this is my land... you stay over there and get your armies ready. we'll meet at dawn and have it out. this is what strengthened peoples and cultures; having an enemy to distinguish themselves from. but we're past that stage in the history of the world. these imaginary lines in the dirt are no longer as definitive. what we'll have to find, once they completely disappear, is a new enemy to give us that lust for life and power.

we've got two options. we need to find an extraterrestrial threat, or focus all our energies on the radical expansion into outerspace. the new enemy needs to be the threat of natural disaster, the problem of finite resources, the rapidly evolving viruses and bacteria that roam the planet, and the extremely difficult task of terraforming the moon and mars. these things will surely keep us occupied as a species, and we'll have no time arguing over who's gods or customs are cooler.

but to get this show on the road, there is one more pest that needs to be eliminated. you guessed it; the capitalist. until that weasel is exterminated, the things that divide us and keep us at cultural odds with each other will only be strengthened. that's what he needs in order to thrive; he needs us to be religious, he needs us to commodify our cultural identities, he needs us to maintain our class antagonisms so that we feel pressured to enhance our social mobility by buying the things that define us as individuals.

we've got to stop him, godammit! we've got to wage the war that will end all wars, artimas!

you'll do fine, son. you just follow my lead and we'll bring mankind into a new era together.

hail artimas! champion of the new technocratic vanguard and democratic proletarian space colonization program!

jesus christ, i think i did this whole thing too fast. even i'm dizzy after reading it. i can't help it, man. this shit gets me all giddy.

[promethean75]

Btw, are you still a pink floydian like you were back in 2015? If so, you should listen to 'the trial' (from the wall) down the street at the ILP Karaoke bar. I pulled it off almost flawlessly. And let me tell you; Roger waters is not the easiest to do. He's got this nasally thing that's hard to reproduce. I killed it though. Indubitably.

I should be on broadway, man, or an actor or something. I'm pretty much a diamond in the dirt, artimas. I want you to know that, buddy.

[Pandora]

until the world grows up and realizes that culture is not grounded in traditional religious beliefs and practices, but rather the real modes and relations of their material being, they will continue quibbling over senseless nonsense that achieves nothing but division and conflict between them.

I disagree. Spiritual beliefs, however superstitious, show a people’s unique relationship with an environment. And because environments are different, this relationship, and emergent styles of thinking, are bound to be slightly different as well.

but we're past that stage in the history of the world. these imaginary lines in the dirt are no longer as definitive. what we'll have to find, once they completely disappear, is a new enemy to give us that lust for life and power.

we've got two options. we need to find an extraterrestrial threat, or focus all our energies on the radical expansion into outerspace. the new enemy needs to be the threat of natural disaster, the problem of finite resources, the rapidly evolving viruses and bacteria that roam the planet, and the extremely difficult task of terraforming the moon and mars. these things will surely keep us occupied as a species, and we'll have no time arguing over who's gods or customs are cooler.

I don’t see this happening, the idea of global unity under global universal threat. There will still be division among people, even when faced with global human annihilation. History shows that coerced communal existance of different peoples does not last. Differences (however small) are always the weakest spots of such heterogeneous systems, and have to be continuously managed to preserve overall harmony.

[promethean75]

i know we've only just met, but i'd like to see your box, pandora. i've searched your post history and i'm finding a lot of activity in the pseudo-sciences. so what's in the box? a bead collection, a copy of the rigveda, a few olive branches, some smoky quartz crystal... what?

I disagree. Spiritual beliefs, however superstitious, show a people’s unique relationship with an environment. And because environments are different, this relationship, and emergent styles of thinking, are bound to be slightly different as well.

'unique' relationship? it seems that way, duddint it? but it really isn't. the differences in symbols and rites and rituals and passages does not make the actual interaction with the environment unique to a specific people. these narratives could have been anything, but still the same things would be considered sacred; marriage or union, sex, child birth, passage into manhood/womanhood, the harvest, the hunt, preparing for battle, and whatever other ordinary activities people engage in are ritualized. so if the eskimos are more or less doing the same thing everyday as the vikings, what makes each culture and its relationship to the environment unique, other than the bizarre ways they might behave when conducting their ceremonies and rituals?

the people aren't unique. the environment isn't unique. the interaction with the environment isn't unique. the only unique thing is the ritual... which could have been anything... and still they'd do the same thing. dance around with feathers in your hair, toss a magical rock into the river, or stick a bone through your nose, doesn't matter. you're still showing appreciation, respect and reverence for [insert whatever sacred thing], something all human beings do.

now i'm not saying the anthropology of cultural religious practice isn't neat. it certainly is. people do some pretty amusing stuff when they get all spiritual. like the greeks when the have those dionysus festivals. everybody gets drunk and runs around naked. now that is something i'd like to see.

anyway, what i'm saying is that the age of this stuff is coming to an end and those people from that other inferior, false religion over the hill are QUICKLY APPROACHING YOUR BORDERS. now what are you going to do? read some jung to em? hand em some runes and read their horoscopes? i certainly hope not.

[Artimas]

Btw, are you still a pink floydian like you were back in 2015? If so, you should listen to 'the trial' (from the wall) down the street at the ILP Karaoke bar. I pulled it off almost flawlessly. And let me tell you; Roger waters is not the easiest to do. He's got this nasally thing that's hard to reproduce. I killed it though. Indubitably.

I should be on broadway, man, or an actor or something. I'm pretty much a diamond in the dirt, artimas. I want you to know that, buddy.

I think we are all diamonds in the dirt, it's just a lack of understanding that separates us from them and yes of course, I love pink floyd. I got to see roger waters us and them tour live in 2016-2017 summer, was awesome. Holographic pyramid and wall from animals album.

I am still figuring out what I want to do other than understand more to guide others to education properly or peak curiosity. I appreciate you all and your diversity even if we ever disagree, for I could never evolve without you and struggles we all face. I believe you though, I can only imagine. I have a sg epiphone cherry/wine red guitar I really need strings for so I can practice, I just put it off, I seriously need to commit to routine, never know who the next hendrix could be if we never practice to find out, ya know. lol

[Artimas]

i know we've only just met, but i'd like to see your box, pandora. i've searched your post history and i'm finding a lot of activity in the pseudo-sciences. so what's in the box? a bead collection, a copy of the rigveda, a few olive branches, some smoky quartz crystal... what?

I disagree. Spiritual beliefs, however superstitious, show a people’s unique relationship with an environment. And because environments are different, this relationship, and emergent styles of thinking, are bound to be slightly different as well.

'unique' relationship? it seems that way, duddint it? but it really isn't. the differences in symbols and rites and rituals and passages does not make the actual interaction with the environment unique to a specific people. these narratives could have been anything, but still the same things would be considered sacred; marriage or union, sex, child birth, passage into manhood/womanhood, the harvest, the hunt, preparing for battle, and whatever other ordinary activities people engage in are ritualized. so if the eskimos are more or less doing the same thing everyday as the vikings, what makes each culture and its relationship to the environment unique, other than the bizarre ways they might behave when conducting their ceremonies and rituals?

the people aren't unique. the environment isn't unique. the interaction with the environment isn't unique. the only unique thing is the ritual... which could have been anything... and still they'd do the same thing. dance around with feathers in your hair, toss a magical rock into the river, or stick a bone through your nose, doesn't matter. you're still showing appreciation, respect and reverence for [insert whatever sacred thing], something all human beings do.

now i'm not saying the anthropology of cultural religious practice isn't neat. it certainly is. people do some pretty amusing stuff when they get all spiritual. like the greeks when the have those dionysus festivals. everybody gets drunk and runs around naked. now that is something i'd like to see.

anyway, what i'm saying is that the age of this stuff is coming to an end and those people from that other inferior, false religion over the hill are QUICKLY APPROACHING YOUR BORDERS. now what are you going to do? read some jung to em? hand em some runes and read their horoscopes? i certainly hope not.

I don't think it's coming to an end because Science has become religious in a sense, dogmatic, systematic and is beginning to not follow it's own philosophy of "evidence being consistent through result", they refuse to connect the dots for unexplained phenomena or what seems like "Magic", magic is merely unexplained science and it is only still unexplained because they do not want to invest time into it because they are also controlled by capitalistic, ego blinded groups of rich bankers.

Understand that the mythology and abrahamic religions, all of it.. is unique expression of one or perhaps multiple individuals, it is the language that is unique due to the individual being shaped by genetics and environment that cannot be exactly replicated (Diversity), no man, stone or creature is identical to the other, nothing is, this is for a reason. Our unique expression of this knowledge on repeat is merely art, back then they did not understand it was a projection onto the material world of their own psyche or perhaps they did and merely tried writing it and we mistakenly misinterpret it since most people have adopted this "literal only stylized thinking" since Science has told the masses to, it is laziness and not wanting to accept responsibility.. So in technical terms, people don't kill people over religion, people kill people over misinterpreting it since it is "I am responsible for what I say and do, not your comprehension of those things." similar to guns don't kill people, people do. They are willfully ignorant in the masses and this is why people die.

The way I describe mythology and religion is my unique way of correlating things due to my being unique. This is what makes it very much still valid, present and important to understand. It is merely mankind's willful ignorance due to psychological manipulation by society/culture, if they understood and took a step back from their narrowed viewpoint they could begin to see and understand this, I think people are waking up but still have a bit of a way to go to fully understand this all.

The knowledge stays the same, our interpretation and explanation of such is what changes due to perception diversity. It is not new, merely remembered and expressed via language and art. I hope this makes sense the way I am trying to connect it. I do this all and write not only to learn more but because I need more people with me in understanding.. it is the only way.

This is why Plato or Socrates stated, "Ignorance is the root and stem of all evil" because it truly is.

I used to hate religion and fought against it myself but now that I have taken a step back to understand it I see it for what it truly is, expression of psychology in the only language they knew when they wrote it and it is merely our lack of trying to understand it fully on multiple pedestals of thought.

Well when they come to my doorstep and attempt at asserting their will upon mine I will fight to the death for that is tyranny, to assert will upon one who deems it fine to assert will is justice. I am the embodiment of nature and will react accordingly. They do not understand and are trapped. What I would do is not out of malevolence but of valuing my perception and intentions more than theirs due to the fact that theirs is corrupt and their actions would show such. The ancient gods of war will take over in form of archetype and I will fight.

[Artimas]

Do those people actually understand what they worship though?

what i would ask is; do those people who 'really' worship x actually understand what they worship, and, what would 'understanding' amount to? is there something exclusive to those who 'really' worship x that is inaccessible to those who don't 'really' worship x.

when you strip away all the cultural contingencies, you find all peoples doing the same thing with and through their metaphors. if that's the case, we should look at what they have in common... which will be something lying behind all the superfluous religious rituals and customs... things that actually work against their understanding of each other by alienating them from one another.

I worship myself because I am "God" as a mere fragmented unique expression. That was the misconception of ancient expression, the entire time their gods are inside themself and come out in form of archetypes which they attribute those traits to the "gods" external expressions through language/art to depict self.

feuerbach couldn't have said it better himself. well done, lad.

this is the part where you google feuerbach and then say 'oh cool, this is very informative and something i've always thought, myself.'

what the world is ripe for is the third and final stage (comte); the deification of man and the spiritualization of his positivism and science. but this won't happen until all the little cultural pests scattered across the planet still holding on to their religious relics and worshiping imaginary gods, will let go of such nonsense.

i'll tell ya what man needs. he needs an alternative enemy. see it was the love of the fight and the virility that war gave to the spirit of man, that kept him divided and encouraged him to draw lines in the dirt; this is my land... you stay over there and get your armies ready. we'll meet at dawn and have it out. this is what strengthened peoples and cultures; having an enemy to distinguish themselves from. but we're past that stage in the history of the world. these imaginary lines in the dirt are no longer as definitive. what we'll have to find, once they completely disappear, is a new enemy to give us that lust for life and power.

we've got two options. we need to find an extraterrestrial threat, or focus all our energies on the radical expansion into outerspace. the new enemy needs to be the threat of natural disaster, the problem of finite resources, the rapidly evolving viruses and bacteria that roam the planet, and the extremely difficult task of terraforming the moon and mars. these things will surely keep us occupied as a species, and we'll have no time arguing over who's gods or customs are cooler.

but to get this show on the road, there is one more pest that needs to be eliminated. you guessed it; the capitalist. until that weasel is exterminated, the things that divide us and keep us at cultural odds with each other will only be strengthened. that's what he needs in order to thrive; he needs us to be religious, he needs us to commodify our cultural identities, he needs us to maintain our class antagonisms so that we feel pressured to enhance our social mobility by buying the things that define us as individuals.

we've got to stop him, godammit! we've got to wage the war that will end all wars, artimas!

you'll do fine, son. you just follow my lead and we'll bring mankind into a new era together.

hail artimas! champion of the new technocratic vanguard and democratic proletarian space colonization program!

jesus christ, i think i did this whole thing too fast. even i'm dizzy after reading it. i can't help it, man. this shit gets me all giddy.

Understanding is when one attempts to translate/interpret the context of what one writes, correlation of already old knowledge to reach unique understanding/expression. This is the difficulty in being diverse and separated manifestations of the collective consciousness.

I'm no champion and want no worship for worship does nothing for me other than make me feel comfortable which I urge others to escape from and seek enlightenment through struggle and understanding. Learn or 'know' from the insight gathered out of light, reflect in the dark when in solitude to correlate or 'understand'. I agree we may have to resort to violence and war to overthrow the corrupt tyrannical government but ultimately we will leave that decision up to them so they may be the tyrant and we may be the hero. They have done us great injustice and only will continue to if we never set our foot down and as time moves forward we will move backwards and it will become harder and harder to resist or overthrow them due to their agenda of breeding passivity as well as limited thought/idea in the species through cultural genocide and the unification/lack of appreciation for diversity in culture.


I also agree that we evolve faster under active threat or when we have an achievable objective set. Which we have none at the moment, other than the tyrants who run this near inescapable society which enslaves individuals through social status/indoctrination of authoritative ideology. I think we should appreciate diversity instead of fighting each other though, ultimately.. It will lead to less ego involved and more understanding/true knowledge.

I couldn't tell if you were being facetious or not through text by the comments "all hail Artimas or saying it better than another philosopher" lol but I would hope not, I understand this could be my own projection of ideas upon what you have stated.

[Artimas]

until the world grows up and realizes that culture is not grounded in traditional religious beliefs and practices, but rather the real modes and relations of their material being, they will continue quibbling over senseless nonsense that achieves nothing but division and conflict between them.

I disagree. Spiritual beliefs, however superstitious, show a people’s unique relationship with an environment. And because environments are different, this relationship, and emergent styles of thinking, are bound to be slightly different as well.

but we're past that stage in the history of the world. these imaginary lines in the dirt are no longer as definitive. what we'll have to find, once they completely disappear, is a new enemy to give us that lust for life and power.

we've got two options. we need to find an extraterrestrial threat, or focus all our energies on the radical expansion into outerspace. the new enemy needs to be the threat of natural disaster, the problem of finite resources, the rapidly evolving viruses and bacteria that roam the planet, and the extremely difficult task of terraforming the moon and mars. these things will surely keep us occupied as a species, and we'll have no time arguing over who's gods or customs are cooler.

I don’t see this happening, the idea of global unity under global universal threat. There will still be division among people, even when faced with global human annihilation. History shows that coerced communal existance of different peoples does not last. Differences (however small) are always the weakest spots of such heterogeneous systems, and have to be continuously managed to preserve overall harmony.

I think you have a good grasp on the intricacies of how religion/mythology work as well Pandora, as unique expression of man. I feel it is merely a matter of us reaching the level of being able to appreciate diversity and genuinely attempt to understand others unique expression that will progress us as a species, I don't think fear alone or fear at all can progress us more due to fear being the main motivator for this society, which it is not very motivating(outside of learning, which there are apparently few of us who seek to understand) to be honest, this much is obvious through how people function now and even have in the past. Our job is not to fight and kill over diversity in expression but to attempt at correlating it so we may lead ourselves to new thinking styles, which in turn leads to more idea's coming to us psychologically.

Is Abrahamic religion evolved or devolved from paganism?

Does Abrahamic religion not demonize and shun the sciences/alchemical principles more so than paganism, is this not a clear indication of it being a devolution?

Is being able to manipulate more people through fear successfulfully, if one uses a literal sense of thinking in attempt to know or understand but fails too, due to this style of independent thought being promoted, a sign of devolution? If it was meant as a weapon, is this not devolution of thought on a mass scale due too ignorance and willful ignorance being more consistent/abundant? Since we destroy environment the way we do now ignorantly and how Abrahamic religion could have played a role in the collapse of Rome and of the entering into the dark ages, should we assume so? Or is it an assumption out of misconception?

Or are we, independent thinkers, a sign of evolution of it by being able to understand both sides, were there not great and understanding men in history as well though..

[Pandora]

unique' relationship? it seems that way, duddint it? but it really isn't. the differences in symbols and rites and rituals and passages does not make the actual interaction with the environment unique to a specific people. these narratives could have been anything, but still the same things would be considered sacred; marriage or union, sex, child birth, passage into manhood/womanhood, the harvest, the hunt, preparing for battle, and whatever other ordinary activities people engage in are ritualized. so if the eskimos are more or less doing the same thing everyday as the vikings, what makes each culture and its relationship to the environment unique, other than the bizarre ways they might behave when conducting their ceremonies and rituals?

And yet, we have also evolved to speak 6,000 different languages. These minute differences, which you want to downplay, are important enough. You may disagre, but history repeatedly shows that the moment the unifying communal systems shift or disappear, people, even with minute cultural difference (or ethnicities), even within same families (especially ruling) are at each others’ throats.

And it is not fair to compare Vikings to Eskimos (or Sami), as they do not have the same cultural histories. You tend paint with very broad strokes.

[promethean75]

And yet, we have also evolved to speak 6,000 different languages. These minute differences, which you want to downplay, are important enough.

yeah but professor big chom tells us there's a universal grammar that provides structural rules for all languages. so we ought to be more concerned with the nature and use of the vegetable rather than the fact that you call it a tomato and i call it a tomahto.

You tend paint with very broad strokes.

that's not the only thing i do with very broad strokes.

omg i can't believe i just said that.

[Artimas]

And yet, we have also evolved to speak 6,000 different languages. These minute differences, which you want to downplay, are important enough.

yeah but professor big chom tells us there's a universal grammar that provides structural rules for all languages. so we ought to be more concerned with the nature and use of the vegetable rather than the fact that you call it a tomato and i call it a tomahto.

You tend paint with very broad strokes.

that's not the only thing i do with very broad strokes.

omg i can't believe i just said that.

Language evolves too, through diversity. We will get to understanding the vegetable but first we must understand how to grow it, nurture it, before taking it to the lab. Due to it not being available in an objective form like what reality is (objective vegetable) (objective reality being easier learning) and what modern day science is based on but instead we may only get there through subjectivity (diversity of words based on unique expression) and our attempt at understanding it.

Mind is the embodiment of nature it is merely the connection between multiple facets of which understanding is lacking, for the masses or common Joe's.

If someone says a word differently from me and I don't understand why (environment/culture) and their being shaped by such, it could matter, that's why it is important to always attempt understanding of semantics from all angles(unique expression).

Semantics and language are tied heavily into symbology and also psyche, should be blatant.

[promethean75]

in order to sustain any enduring cooperation between the peoples of the world, the myth that their cultural distinctions are something that make them unique, has to be dispelled once and for all. and to dispel this myth, one doesn't have to make much effort. one only has to find the foundations that such cultural diversity can be reduced to. call it anthropological reductionalism. what you'll see is that human beings are physiologically similar enough to propose an underlying and universal form and content to their 'culture making' behaviors... so that while specific details of culture are different, the function of the behavior and the understanding of particular concepts (novel or not) serves the same purpose.

so let me give you a crude example. people x invent metaphysics 1 to handle their anxiety of death, and people y invent metaphysics 2 to do the same. metaphysics 1 and 2 each contain distinct features of belief, but the purpose of the metaphysics is the same... to alleviate that anxiety. this anxiety is something hardwired into the mind of man, in the same way the basic rules of grammar are hardwired into our use of language.

now, it means little to say culture x is unique and quite different than culture y, unless by that we mean trivial contingencies. but it's these very contingencies that people are holding onto so dearly to define themselves and their identities in contradistinction to other cutures doing the same. result: conflict. but not just any ol' conflict. this conflict is an especially stupid one, because the things each people believe distinguish them from the others are of the most minor significance. am i really going to deny you because you worship the flying spaghetti monster while i worship the flying lasagna monster? or, because you bury your dead in the earth while we dump ours in the ocean? or, because you eat cows while we don't? or, because you practice polygamy while we practice monogamy?

none of these behaviors are intrinsic to the people and could just as easily not have developed in any specific culture, and you'd change nothing fundamental about the people. in fact, the very notion of 'culture' is a kind of hermeneutic vanity... a systematic misinterpretation of what constitutes universal human nature, something that is inherent despite the cultural diversity that might evolve among geographically different peoples.

now none of what i tell you here is very important yet. i am writing from a future that is coming, sooner rather than later. i am to anthropology what green energy is to fossil fuels. in the future, schools will teach about a period that spanned thousands of years in which man, who was still at that time in his metaphysical infancy, got almost everything about what, and why, he was, wrong, and with flying colors. this period will be known as the second and final ape-stage of humanity, and what we today are most proud of will be in the future an embarrassing story told in classrooms of children with IQs of a buck-thirty or more.

[Artimas]

in order to sustain any enduring cooperation between the peoples of the world, the myth that their cultural distinctions are something that make them unique, has to be dispelled once and for all. and to dispel this myth, one doesn't have to make much effort. one only has to find the foundations that such cultural diversity can be reduced to. call it anthropological reductionalism. what you'll see is that human beings are physiologically similar enough to propose an underlying and universal form and content to their 'culture making' behaviors... so that while specific details of culture are different, the function of the behavior and the understanding of particular concepts (novel or not) serves the same purpose.

so let me give you a crude example. people x invent metaphysics 1 to handle their anxiety of death, and people y invent metaphysics 2 to do the same. metaphysics 1 and 2 each contain distinct features of belief, but the purpose of the metaphysics is the same... to alleviate that anxiety. this anxiety is something hardwired into the mind of man, in the same way the basic rules of grammar are hardwired into our use of language.

now, it means little to say culture x is unique and quite different than culture y, unless by that we mean trivial contingencies. but it's these very contingencies that people are holding onto so dearly to define themselves and their identities in contradistinction to other cutures doing the same. result: conflict. but not just any ol' conflict. this conflict is an especially stupid one, because the things each people believe distinguish them from the others are of the most minor significance. am i really going to deny you because you worship the flying spaghetti monster while i worship the flying lasagna monster? or, because you bury your dead in the earth while we dump ours in the ocean? or, because you eat cows while we don't? or, because you practice polygamy while we practice monogamy?

none of these behaviors are intrinsic to the people and could just as easily not have developed in any specific culture, and you'd change nothing fundamental about the people. in fact, the very notion of 'culture' is a kind of hermeneutic vanity... a systematic misinterpretation of what constitutes universal human nature, something that is inherent despite the cultural diversity that might evolve among geographically different peoples.

now none of what i tell you here is very important yet. i am writing from a future that is coming, sooner rather than later. i am to anthropology what green energy is to fossil fuels. in the future, schools will teach about a period that spanned thousands of years in which man, who was still at that time in his metaphysical infancy, got almost everything about what, and why, he was, wrong, and with flying colors. this period will be known as the second and final ape-stage of humanity, and what we today are most proud of will be in the future an embarrassing story told in classrooms of children with IQs of a buck-thirty or more.

This is what I was saying as well, we're in agreement, just of different words. Semantics become an issue to one who doesn't seek to understand or perhaps doesn't have the vocabulary to discuss in which they want, which is unhappiness. I agree a united people will be stronger but not through cultural genocide. Cultural appreciation, people need to be educated and if they do not wish to be educated then they should not be able to have a say in governance. This will create a response hardwired in them to act violently or to learn but ultimately it is up to them but ignorance is bliss but what they do not know may kill them, tyrants get defeated by the hero.

Unique expression is important for evolution, we make more words to describe complex things. Natural selection in a sense, creating stronger language.