It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forbidden Egyptology

page: 42
108
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
And how deep, you reckon, would they have to go to see evidence of an ancient flood?


Flood evidence is found in a lot of places and at varying dates. What is NOT found is an evidence of a flood that hit every continent at the same time. You can find large localized floods and the occasional megaflood produced by the breaking of ice dams at the end of the last ice age (the "Scablands").


Do tree rings show flood too?

No. The event is too brief.




posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Byrd
It produces a "code" or kind of "text" that can be read by everyone and there's no confusion about the meaning.


Perhaps for you Byrd, but not for all, you surely must be aware of the confusion many people have about the meaning of the "code" or kind of "text" of the Bible.


Err... wrong historical time period and wrong interpretation of "code." Sorry... I got all linguistic on you, there.

A "code" is a set of symbols understood by people to mean something. So to the ancient Egyptians, the wadjet (eye) symbolized protection from evil. The lamb symbolizes Jesus in Christian art, as does the cross. The Catholic religion is rich with these symbols and emblems that identify who is who and what is what:
www.fisheaters.com...

The Protestant religion, with its emphasis on "we are not Catholics" did away with the symbolism and as a result rather lost much of the additional information that comes with the paintings and art.

So I'm not talking about "Bible codes" but about symbolism.

Sorry! Is this a bit clearer?



Why do you suppose that, because when I search on Google to those pyramids you mean of Rain God Tlaloc, they look much more on the South American pyramids then the Egyptian pyramids?

Can you show me a link to the pyramids you mean?

I don't think I made my point very clear, here, and I'm sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that it's easy for another culture to come in and re-interpret what was originally meant as long as they refuse to ask the people about the symbols or refuse to read what the people wrote about the icons and symbols.

The Catholic church (and other sources) have a lot of information written at the time of the paintings about halos and glories and symbolism in religious art. The UFO researchers seem to ignore every bit of it in the search to find a UFO meaning to everything.

Wikipedia has a short and interesting article on one of the religious symbols; the halo. It goes into a bit of the richness of symbolism in the paintings and about the decline of some of the iconography:
en.wikipedia.org...(religious_iconography)

likewise the aureole, which I've also seen misinterpreted by some researchers:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
The UFO researchers seem to ignore every bit of it in the search to find a UFO meaning to everything.


First, thanks for your explanation; it is clear to me now.
But I find this remark of yours unfair and I absolute disagree with it.


Originally posted by Byrd
Wikipedia has a short and interesting article on one of the religious symbols; the halo. It goes into a bit of the richness of symbolism in the paintings and about the decline of some of the iconography:
en.wikipedia.org...(religious_iconography)

likewise the aureole, which I've also seen misinterpreted by some researchers:
en.wikipedia.org...


I see what you mean there.

Are you perhaps willing to read some information of Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a Vatican theologian and an insider close to the Pope, and see what his opinion is of the Extraterrestrial phenomena.
I can provide you if you will a very interesting interview of him about that.
Of course debunkers have tried to bring his opinion in discredit but that is there “job” so to speak.
You can make your own opinion of course and maybe let me know what you think about it.
But it is too large to post it here, I get the Mods on my tail, so let me know?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


The whole idea of "ancient astronaut theory" is based upon the basic fundamental statement that technology was misrepresented as being "religious"

Its the basic premise of AAT. Whether one agrees with the premise or not, its helpful to know that thats where we (me, spacevisitor and a few others here) are coming from.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Are you perhaps willing to read some information of Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a Vatican theologian and an insider close to the Pope, and see what his opinion is of the Extraterrestrial phenomena.


Certainly, if you can link to text (I'd prefere something that has the original Italian and an English translation) about him and his opinions. What I'm curious about is how ancient he thinks the contacts are, and which particular texts he's pointing to.

But no videos, please. I have a headache-load of homework for the next 2 weeks and just don't want to waste my time on a vid when I can read the material about 4 times faster than it can be spoken and I really don't want to have to write down what I think his points are in Italian and then go look it up to verify that the translation is correct.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Byrd
The UFO researchers seem to ignore every bit of it in the search to find a UFO meaning to everything.


First, thanks for your explanation; it is clear to me now.
But I find this remark of yours unfair and I absolute disagree with it.

Can you point me to some examples where someone has identified an object as a UFO and is a published scholar who specializes in the artwork of that time and that period? Not a self-proclaimed expert, but someone known for writing about the time and the art and the symbolism?

I ask, because on the sites I encounter, I see only interpretations from a modern standpoint and no effort at all to identify what the people who did the art said and what kind of culture they had. But I haven't seen every single site. Can you point me to some that actually have good cultural based information (and correct timelines) which then come to a "UFO" conclusion?

I haven't seen any but am willing to be educated otherwise if such exist.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Certainly, if you can link to text (I'd prefere something that has the original Italian and an English translation) about him and his opinions.


Sorry but I don’t know what you mean by “if you can link to text” so perhaps you can help me with that.
It is in English and absolute no video.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Can you point me to some examples where someone has identified an object as a UFO and is a published scholar who specializes in the artwork of that time and that period? Not a self-proclaimed expert, but someone known for writing about the time and the art and the symbolism?


It is really a difficult question, but perhaps archaeologist Roberto Volterri is such an example?


UFOs in 15th century paintings
Summary: ITALY'S Old Masters were recording flying saucers and UFOs in their paintings as far back as the 15th century, according to a scientist in Rome. Roberto Volterri argues that artists dating back to 1406 included evidence of "strange objects in the sky" for later generations to see.
ITALY'S Old Masters were recording flying saucers and UFOs in their paintings as far back as the 15th century, according to a scientist in Rome.

Roberto Volterri argues that artists dating back to 1406 included evidence of "strange objects in the sky" for later generations to see. He says that far from being the product of the paranoid Cold War years, UFOs were documented but overlooked because they were often extraneous to the subject of the painting and could only be explained as "testimonials of something seen or heard about".

Volterri, 56, an archaeologist by training, specialises in the measurement and analysis of metallic objects. He said he had spent his working life in a thoroughly down-to-earth environment of cold and rational calculation and sophisticated and precise instruments, but he was convinced science did not have all the answers.

Source; www.ufoevidence.org...


[edit on 1/4/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Some comments on the last four pages of messages;

1. I would hope that at some point another civilization would be found. One of the myths/deliberate misconceptions of the fringe world is that the mainstream is against finding such a civilization. In fourty years I've never run across a single mainstream Archaeologists who held that view - however I'm sure their must be someone somewhere who might hold that idea, particularly someone who is religiously oriented. What puzzles men is why the fringe thinks this mindset exists in the mainstream. My greatest annoyance with this whole concept is that I probably won't be the person to find one of these lost civilizations, LOL

2. Somebody came up with the idea that AAT doesn't requre human to be dumber than dirt. Well that is a nice idea but it causes certain questions to be asked. If humans were smart why then:

Do most myth accredit gods in bringing most if not all inventions (besides making the world etc) to mankind? I do not recall any myths that say, we (humans) made x and y and we got from the gods z. Most if not all seem to say that x, y and z came from the gods. So by what measure do you deem humans intelligent? (untless you are referring to the advanced humans).

At a number of points in history less advanced people have considered more advanced people to be "gods". However I don't recall this misconception lasting very long. So the question is, if the AAT believer says that humans were intelligent why did they think aliens or humans were gods for hundreds of years and in some cases thousands of years?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   
New finds are still made. Experts often "surprised".

giant statue uncovered



the discovery of an undamaged statue has surprised experts.



“The surprise was that she was not crushed,”



so the surprise was that the queen lying behind it was intact



and then we had the surprise of this beautiful queen



Im not surprised at all.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   



Somebody came up with the idea that AAT doesn't requre human to be dumber than dirt. Well that is a nice idea but it causes certain questions to be asked. If humans were smart why then:

Do most myth accredit gods in bringing most if not all inventions (besides making the world etc) to mankind? I do not recall any myths that say, we (humans) made x and y and we got from the gods z. Most if not all seem to say that x, y and z came from the gods. So by what measure do you deem humans intelligent? (untless you are referring to the advanced humans).

At a number of points in history less advanced people have considered more advanced people to be "gods". However I don't recall this misconception lasting very long. So the question is, if the AAT believer says that humans were intelligent why did they think aliens or humans were gods for hundreds of years and in some cases thousands of years?



In ancient astronaut theory and also in myth & scripture it is said that humans were made in the image of "God".

My personal view is that there is not much difference between extraterrestrials and humans or between different races of humans.

Some beings (whether advanced human or ET) however, abused their power to "pose" as Gods and make people worship them.

An example of ancient astronaut theory:

Enochs "ascension" to "heaven" is supposed to be a religious allegory that only took place in non-physical realms.

However, having read the Enochian writings there are way too many references to "angels" and "Gods" and "Sons of Gods" conducting physical action (such as instruction, writing, shaking hands, sex, craftswork) as for this to be a pureley physical event.

There are hundreds of references to technology as described by people who were not familiar with technology. Note: That doesnt mean they are inherently stupid, it just means they are unfamiliar with something.

Enoch for example, warns people not to follow him when he goes to be picked up by angels in their chariot. Some people do follow him anyway and after the chariot ascends there is "snow" all over the place and "people die" from it.

Now, you REALLY have to ask yourself: Why would people die from being near angels? What is this "snow" lying around the place a chariot took off?
Why would anybody die of "snow"?

The religious interpretations wont do.

So, in countering the religious interpretation, you can either side with "its all a myth / fantasy" or...with what we propose.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Byrd, I can’t link you to the text somewhere on the net because I have scanned it from some book pages from the book “Disclosure” of Dr. Steven Greer.
So I think it is not available somewhere on the net, not that I know.
I have it only as a word document.
I can if you will send it by mail, but then you must give me an address.
I will never misuse that.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Byrd, I can’t link you to the text somewhere on the net because I have scanned it from some book pages from the book “Disclosure” of Dr. Steven Greer.
So I think it is not available somewhere on the net, not that I know.
I have it only as a word document.
I can if you will send it by mail, but then you must give me an address.
I will never misuse that.


Actually (sorry... quick message before I run off to school), I was looking for some confirmation that the Vatican source had really said that things in the paintings were UFOs. I see him state a belief in aliens (an opinion that most scientists share) and that if there were aliens visiting the earth (as he believes) they might be interpreted as angels or demons.

Lotta ifs... but what I don't see is his statement that these same UFOs are shown in paintings and are masqueraded as auroras, halos, and glories.

example: I do believe that there are other civilizations among the stars, so I'm all in favor of aliens. This doesn't mean that I believe they've showed up on Earth to monkey with our civilization or our genes. So, while his statement might be taken as his own idea that UFOs are alien technology, I dont see anything to support the UFO in art theory.

Make sense?

I'd like to see any documentation on that.

And the other guy is a self-professed archaeologist. I do see some metalurgy papers that MIGHT be his, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that he knows about culture... so any link to his bio where he talks about where he got his degree and what he participated in would be useful.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
At a number of points in history less advanced people have considered more advanced people to be "gods". However I don't recall this misconception lasting very long. So the question is, if the AAT believer says that humans were intelligent why did they think aliens or humans were gods for hundreds of years and in some cases thousands of years?


Actually, it turned out (at least in the case of the Spaniards and Aztecs) that the Spaniards perpetrated the myth that they were viewed as gods. There's no real evidence that the Aztecs thought of them as such (other than the writing by the Spaniards themselves). The tribes who allied with them to defeat the Aztecs certainly didn't think of the Spaniards as gods.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Lotta ifs... but what I don't see is his statement that these same UFOs are shown in paintings and are masqueraded as auroras, halos, and glories.


What I say was “what his opinion is of the Extraterrestrial phenomena”, not his view on UFOs shown in paintings, nothing more.


Originally posted by Byrd
example: I do believe that there are other civilizations among the stars, so I'm all in favor of aliens.


May I ask on what ground you believe that?


Originally posted by Byrd
This doesn't mean that I believe they've showed up on Earth to monkey with our civilization or our genes.


If you believe that there are other civilizations among the stars, why can’t you believe then that they are so advanced that they already have the means to come here?
You must be aware of the available information about that possibility.
For the record, to me personally is it a reality, and not a possibility.


Originally posted by Byrd
So, while his statement might be taken as his own idea that UFOs are alien technology, I dont see anything to support the UFO in art theory.
Make sense?


You are right about that.


Originally posted by Byrd
so any link to his bio where he talks about where he got his degree and what he participated in would be useful.


No, I can’t provide you a link.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
1. I would hope that at some point another civilization would be found. One of the myths/deliberate misconceptions of the fringe world is that the mainstream is against finding such a civilization.

Hi Hans

at least in my opinion, most "mainstream archeologists/scientists" are not against anything. They just (reasonably) ask for strong evidence of things, and when not aware of such evidence, fit things in where they can and reject those they cant. Unfortunately it seems like there are a whole bunch of cases where scientist A and B find different finds, both opposed to mainstream timelines, both backing each other up, but without knowing about each other, both either personally reject/try to fit the evidence or are disbelieved by others.

I dont want to sidetrack the thread, but I think the following is relevant:

I used to have fairly mainstream beliefs, and have a strong science background. I'm also always interested in learning new things, and stumbled across some conspiracy sites/books etc in my net browsing. When I first saw them, I gave them a bit of a read (an example is NWO illuminati stuff) and pretty much dismissed much of it as crazy because it was too big, seemed like there had to be too much that I and most others had missed for it to be real, and it was so far beyond my world view that it was hard to even consider some of it (eg icke stuff) therefore wasnt worth investigating. Later on I saw the collapse of WTC7, which got me interested in 9/11. I got hooked researching that event, convinced myself of its "dodgyness", then started noticing/researching other "false flag" ops, such as oklahoma bombing, first wtc bombing, russian "9/11" (apartment bombing by fsb), london bombing, port arthur, etc etc. And the more I looked, the more obvious it became, that this was an international thing, and had been going on for at least a century or two.

now an interesting thing happened. One of the books I initially read a few pages of and then thought "this is rubbish" was a david icke book. A few months ago, out of curiosity, I tried again to read it, and you know what: If you can accept/ignore or put to the side the "metaphysical" stuff and his actual belief in lizard people (unconvinced myself), it was a really well researched fascinating book, with a lot of info I'd seen verified elsewhere and a lot of new interesting stuff, some of which I've since seen verified.

HOW IS THIS RELEVANT?

well I'd imagine most established archaeologists, coming across a "Daniken" or "Sitchen" like theory, would have the same reaction that I did to the Icke book, EVEN if among any errors there are nuggets of truth, the they miss out on by having the thought in their head "this is rubbish".

some of you (Byrd for example) seem to have gone the opposite way, starting off with these alternative histories and ending up learning/following more mainstream beliefs.

I wonder how your opinions would change if you believed there was a group capable of and likely motivated to destroy/hide evidence of alternative history from media attention? The sort of group with the connections to intercept/be involved with (ie watch over and make sure nothing big gets out) most discoveries long before they get known about more widely, even to other archeologists, and to cover up those that do slip through by destroying reputations. "losing" evidence, convincing people to admit to non-existant fraud (eg using bribery or threats to persons and families etc).

I've seen a couple of people in the 9/11 scene who initially got convinced it was an inside job after seeing certain "documentaries" etc, then later on switched their views after seeing various "debunkings. The amazing thing is, looking at their arguments for why they changed their mind, without fail, I see lots of "debunked" disinfo arguments which were possibly spread for that very reason in the first place, and a distinct lack of real info on core problems



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
continued

with the official conspiracy theory. In other words, they got convinced of some hypothesis based on certain information which they later found out was wrong (or they got convinced through otherfalse info that the orginal info was wrong), so they rejected the entire hypothesis, and are likely "inoculated" against ever believing it again, WHILE never actually having seen the real info proving/strongly suggesting the initial hypothesis was actually true, just not for the initial reasons.
From that point on, it is likely (I have seen it) they will fight that hypothesis and dismiss any new info they see on it, no matter if it is actually true or not, often without even considering it at all.


I guess what I'm trying to show here is what I see as how "mainstream archeology/ists" can cover up/suppress real discoveries WITHOUT any deliberate intent in most cases. Chuck in the (controlled) media led ridiculing of anyone brave enough to stand up and say what they've found, and the control of funds for research giving anyone finding interesting things at least some pause before publishing too direct a statement, and tight media control of what actually gets out(*) (yes this includes scientific journals, though its a little less blatant there) and its all too possible to keep "alternative" discoveries unknown and therefore suspect among all but "alternative" researchers.

(*) this ties in to your (dont know which one of hans, byrd or other said this, one of you did when I discussed this previously) argument that anyone finding something amazing would yell it from the hilltops for the fame and glory to follow: assuming they somehow manage to make the discovery and subsequent findings without being "meddled with"; How do you yell if the controlled media wont yell with you, high profile "experts" express doubt or outright denounce you (often with no ulterior motives on their part), and many journals wont publish you or delay publishing until interest has faded etc etc. For a weak find (one in which there exists any doubt at all about the find proving the case, or about the discoverers integrity) this is probably enough to keep it from convincing most people of anything. If the find was something truly amazing (eg a 10000 year old computer chip or something like that), simply stealing the item would be enough to make most people say "haha right... you found an ancient silicon chip..but it got stolen..how convenient".
I am constantly amazed at just how controlled the mainstream media is, with virtually no dissenters managing to break any of what I would think would be career making stories, while disinfo is spouted left right and centre. I doubt very much that the majority of news people are "in on it" or even aware of going on, so it just proves to me how subtly yet thoroughly the control is exerted


By the way, I'm curious: any of you guys who are the AAT/Atlantis/ancient advanced civ "doubters" here (or sane voice of reason, however you want to look at it), eg byrd, hanslune etc, believe/strongly suspect anything like an NWO/illuminati like organisation exists?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Something to consider is this: I see a lot of people say something along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Now while I dont necessarily disagree with this, it makes the job of anyone trying to suppress said claim very easy: sow ANY DOUBT AT ALL on any strong evidence or the person presenting it, and it no longer gets the "extraordinary evidence" check box in most peoples eyes.


I Hope I haven't blabbed on too much, and that you understand what Im getting at. also I should add, Im not an AAT "believer" (I know nowhere near enough about any of this to be sure of much at all), but I do consider it a real (not yet proven thoroughly) possibility (and it makes a lot of sense to me). I am however fairly convinced there was a lot more going on 10,000 ish years ago than we are led to believe (eg atlantis?).

also I was hoping one of you guys with a bit more experience in the area (byrd?) would have a decent look at the following site "www.atlantisquest.com" and let me know what they think (not a cursory glance please, thorough look or don't worry about it)
it seems to have some good evidence for the existence of Atlantis (as in a ~bronze age civilisation ~12kY ago on a large island in the Atlantic)

[edit on 2-4-2008 by diablomonic]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd[/i']
 


"Actually, it turned out (at least in the case of the Spaniards and Aztecs) that the Spaniards perpetrated the myth that they were viewed as gods. There's no real evidence that the Aztecs thought of them as such (other than the writing by the Spaniards themselves). The tribes who allied with them to defeat the Aztecs certainly didn't think of the Spaniards as gods. "

My understanding is that the spaniards arrived on shore in S. America on the day that was prophezed by the Aztec Shamans.. and that the shiny steel armor appeared like the shinning ones in the Atztec Prophecy to include un heard of form of transportation ,,,horses that in war armor would appear very frightful. Was it Coranado or one of the others,, simply took advandage (as any experienced soldier would) of the deference paid to them by the Aztec ruler ..Montazuma...And siezed a tactical advanage.

Still the Aztec culture that the Spaniards found was a reminant culture,,the edifices were explained to the Spainish as being made by the early fathers that came from the stars to earth,, that these "Fathers" left and promised to return,,, as it happens the day that the Spanish landed on the beach.

I think this is the right story for the time that we are discussing (However paraphrased).



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I agree with pretty much everything you have said in your post. Excellent explanation of why its entirely plausible to think it may have all been smoke and mirrors.

I would only like to add that its pretty damn unlikely an alien race would evolve on another planet to be anything like a human being. If the AAT is correct, this means we are the descendants of cloned aliens (in his own image etc), and not something descended from the life of Earth.

As we have a fossil record to suggest humans actually evolved on Earth, I think this to be unlikely. Therefore, I would postulate it is much more likely that the AAT is refering to technologically advanced humans, instead of aliens.

We know that the gods must have been of the same species as us. From a genetics point of view, you can't have a non-human mate with a human to produce a child. I doubt anyone can produce an example of where it happened (chimp-human paring hybrid etc). In A level biology, these were the facts. They may have progressed on from then (it was a decade ago...dammit), but I'm confident my point stands.

Mythology frequently suggests mankind was created from the blood of a god (or at least a part of a god - good enough), which does imply cloning. Which means that we are of the same exact species.

So I'm happy to say I believe the gods were humans.

I do also think they had access to an advanced level of technology, when all their peers lived in caves.

How did this happen? Well, I don't know. But I can guess.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil bore a fruit that, when eaten, enlightened the person. Obviously, this is just the most famous example - every mythology is rife with the "food of the gods". It's a funny thing, but the literal belief seems to be "eat this, it gives you smarts".

So, I suspect somewhere, a particular tribe got themselves isolated somehow. I have no idea where, or when, or how. They had some kind of "superfood", of a type I have no idea. The painters always paint them like apples, so damned if I know. It might just be that food was especially abundant where they were. But the point is, this food was the edge they needed over the rest of the world. They developed, their isolated population boomed while the rest of the world was a big ice sheet and tiny populations of cro-magnons huddled around fires with their spears.

With a big population comes progress and civilisation. Technology developed, the ice age ended. The "gods" realised there was a whole world out there that was actually worth exploring now, and went out to find little tribes of people in villages up to a few thousand, pottering along.

Lo and behold, they descend in their aircraft and present themselves, and their power awes the poor paleolithic hunters. These are then enslaved in the first religion, made to work for the gods while the gods sat back and decided it was too good to last, and they had better find something to bicker about.

Like the Romans, they tear themselves down through in-fighting, and wipe themselves out.

Afterwards, you have the poor normal people, who are wondering what the hell just happened and how they are going to explain it to their kids. The Piriah (sp? whatever, I hate that tribe, they are jerks!) prove, if it aint important then people won't bother passing it down. For some reason, these people REALLY wanted their kids to remember that once, there were these beings of terrible power called the gods.

This also explains a lot of other minor things:

Children of dieties - as the gods are morally and physically capable of cloning a genetically-inferior slave race to do their bidding, I don't think they'd be above genetically engineering themselves to be supermen. Why wouldn't they? I can't think of a reason. Obviously they wouldn't engineer us to be supermen, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to just tone down muscle bulk, etc. This would handily explain the "son of X" mentality and the divine right of kings.

To be the son of a god would mean you would share in an awesome genetic heretige. Not only would you be tall, powerful and agile (who is going to genetically engineer their kids to be short, weak and dumpy?) to an almost superhuman level, you are going to have a massive intellect boost to go with it, aren't you?

It is only natural for these people to emerge as leaders of men. If you were the only normal human adult in a society of retarded midgets, you would sure as hell emerge as their champion, wouldn't you? Especially if you went to war with a sword.

The Sumerians believed that at one time, their gods lived in their cities with them. Each city had a god (like a king). This is what gave their decendents legitimacy to rule in their place.

This notion has been transfered, the purpose of it lost, to hereditary monarchies till this day. They don't know why the son of a king must be the next king, but it was essential back in the day.

Why would a pharoh marry his sister? To ensure that no non-god blood (which actually was inferior) to dilute the line of the most powerful person in the area.


Gods can be killed - In most of the indo-european-derived mythologies, the gods are immortal, but not unkillable. They fight and kill each other all the time. They have helper people to build them stuff (I.E. Hephaestion, the Head of Design and Technology) and are generally not all-powerful.

They do have an access to a range of technology, which makes religion appear to be a remnant cargo cult of a godlike civilization that were right bastards about things a very long time ago.

Thankfully, we've changed.




top topics



 
108
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join