The Biblical God - Why isn't credit being given where credit is due?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 



No, atheists tend to be pretty poor performers in debates against philosophers,


Atheists aren't philosophers? You can have a philosophy without believing in a god...and you can discuss ideas you don't believe in.


Philosophy is a discipline, just like physics or biology is. I didn't say "atheists aren't philosophers" (Daniel Dennett obviously is,) I said that atheists don't tend to do well against philosophers, and that Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris serve as excellent examples of non-philosophers who fail in such debates.

Amusingly (while at the same time a bit disconcerting,) Lawrence Krauss recently lashed out at philosophy, claiming it was useless, after David Albert (a philosopher of physics) called Krauss' invalid claims in A Universe From Nothing the nonsense that they were (Source). Krauss, who is not a philosopher, writes a philosophical book (in part) and then gets angry when his claims are shown to be irrational. Big shock there, lol, but his claim that philosophy is useless seems to indicate the belief that the philosophical conclusions of scientists shouldn't be questioned.

An interesting article on Krauss and his anti-philosophical jabbering is here: rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com...




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   


reply to post by AfterInfinity
having intercourse during the moon cycle?

Doing that during a 'blue moon' is nothing more than a shallow thrill.

Ref. Book of Enoch Chapter 8 verse 8.
Back in the Days of Enoch, the fallen watcher named Asaradel taught the motion of the moon.
Every month starts at a new moon.

the Gregorian calendar that is used today does not match the real calendar. it is a solar calendar, real dates are fixed by a lunar calendar which begins at new moon. there is never a blue moon then.

Source for 'blue bloods', 'blue moons' and 'moon children'
timenolonger.wordpress.com...

The “Illumined” Luciferian or Illuminati concept of a Moon Child ties in closely with the concept of ascended mastery. A Moon Child ritual is a very dark and high level occult ritual which requires blood sacrifice, the goal of which is to call into a prenatal infant, a demonic entity which will not just possess, but displace the original spirit, and live out a mortal life in the body.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rapha


reply to post by AfterInfinity
having intercourse during the moon cycle?

Doing that during a 'blue moon' is nothing more than a shallow thrill.

Ref. Book of Enoch Chapter 8 verse 8.
Back in the Days of Enoch, the fallen watcher named Asaradel taught the motion of the moon.
Every month starts at a new moon.

the Gregorian calendar that is used today does not match the real calendar. it is a solar calendar, real dates are fixed by a lunar calendar which begins at new moon. there is never a blue moon then.

Source for 'blue bloods', 'blue moons' and 'moon children'
timenolonger.wordpress.com...

The “Illumined” Luciferian or Illuminati concept of a Moon Child ties in closely with the concept of ascended mastery. A Moon Child ritual is a very dark and high level occult ritual which requires blood sacrifice, the goal of which is to call into a prenatal infant, a demonic entity which will not just possess, but displace the original spirit, and live out a mortal life in the body.


Lillith is also sometimes depicted as An evil goddess. One can make their own conclusion with extensive study.


Lilith's more sexual and predatory aspects seem to be associated with the waxing phase of the Moon: Zohar 3:76b-77a - "At times it happens that Naamah goes forth into the world to become hot from the sons of man, and a man finds himself in a connection of lust with her, and he awakens from his sleep and takes hold of his wife and lies with her. And this desire comes from that lust which he had in his dream. Then the child that she begets comes from the side of Naamah, for the man was driven by his lust for her. And when Lilith comes and sees that child, she knows what happened, and she ties herself to him and brings him up like all those other sons of Naamah. And she is with him many times, but does not kill him. This is the man who becomes blemished on every New Moon, for she never gives him up. For month after month, when the moon becomes renewed in the world Lilith comes forth and visits all those whom she brings up, and makes sport with them, and therefore that person is blemished at that time. (Patai81:457f)" (bold mine) Zohar 2:267b - "And that spirit which is called Asirta becomes stirred up...and goes to the female who is beneath all females. And she is Lilith the mother of demons. And a man may become stirred up by that evil spirit called Asirta, which attaches himself to that man and ties himself to him permanently. And on every New Moon that spirit of evil appearance becomes stirred up by Lilith, and at time that man suffers harm from the spirit, and falls to the ground and cannot get up, or even dies. (Patai81:462)" (bold mine) Bacharach, 'Emeq haMelekh, 84b, 84c, 84d - "And this is the secret of the children laughing in their sleep when they are small: it is from Lilith who plays with them. And I heard that when a small child laughs during the Sabbath night or the night of the New Moon, it is because Lilith is playing with him, and it is well that his father or mother or anyone who sees him laugh should tap his nose with his finger and say: "Go from here, you accursed one, for you have no resting place here!" Let him say this three times, and each time he recites this incantation let him tap the child's nose. " (bold mine)


There's much though to be discussed in regards to Lilith. lilithgate.atspace.org...

Eta, it's wroth mentioning though that she has been depicted with owl feet. Check out Bohemian Grove as leaders across the globe go to Cali once a year to worship the owl/ Lilith who holds wisdom of dark secrets.

In my view though Lilith is not an evil entity as she has been portrayed to be.
edit on 13-9-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


That really didn't answer my question, although it does make me curious as to the validity of the 'moon child' myth. That's a different subject, however, and I would like to know the answer to the question I posed in my previous post.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen


Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. (Source)




I just watched the debate and completely disagree. I have no idea why anyone would say that Hitchens was rambling and incoherent while Craig was flawless. I didn't see that in ANY WAY. Yes, you could tell that Craig was used to arguing more in a philosophical sense and started out great, but he just kept repeating himself and really gave no good evidence whatsoever to support his beliefs. He should have stuck with trying to argue for the existence of a god and left Christianity out of the picture. I think Hitchens did a great job, although, he didn't hit all of the points (and didn't really have to). His common sense, realistic arguments against belief in a god were MUCH more believable than Craig's arguments for Christianity and I don't understand why Craig continually hounded him for arguments that god doesn't exist because Hitchens does just that by refuting belief in religion (Christianity in this case). Hitchens tried to explain that he doesn't need to prove that god doesn't exist because that's not the point. He only needs to argue reasons for not believing that one does because there's no good evidence for it. It would be like me making up some space creature that visits earth called a "Goron" and expecting Hitchens to believe that it exists. Hitchens wouldn't need to prove that it doesn't, only that there's no reason to believe that it does.
edit on 13-9-2012 by brackforce because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by brackforce

Originally posted by adjensen


Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. (Source)




I just watched the debate and completely disagree. I have no idea why anyone would say that Hitchens was rambling and incoherent while Craig was flawless. I didn't see that in ANY WAY.


Well, you're definitely in the minority -- Hitchens' performance was widely panned among his peers. From a debate standpoint, he definitely failed to put together a cohesive and organized argument, didn't respond to a lot of points that Craig made, and his rambling lack of direction, particularly in the section where he could ask Craig direct questions, indicated a almost total lack of preparation.

Remember, debate (rhetoric) is a very specific type of contest. It isn't a back and forth conversation, or testimony about how you feel on something, but the presenting of facts that support a position, and using fact, argument and persuasion to either defend or attack that position. Opinion based arguing is pointless in a debate, and that's a lot of what Hitchens did here.

There are far better Hitchens debates out there, but, as I said, they are against non-philosophers -- in this case, going toe to toe with a philosopher truly resulted in a train wreck.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by n00bUK
Well, every religious war that has ever happened was obviously in the name of God, so this number would be running into the hundereds of millions. But if we want to get technical then God is responsable for every war, every death and so forth. So God has a Kill record next to none.



In the name of doesn't mean anything. Some guy could go blow up something in iran and say it was in the name of the Dallas Cowboys.

Does that mean the Dallas Cowboys killed people ? No

Your logic...if there is any...is very flawed.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by n00bUK
Well, every religious war that has ever happened was obviously in the name of God, so this number would be running into the hundereds of millions. But if we want to get technical then God is responsable for every war, every death and so forth. So God has a Kill record next to none.



In the name of doesn't mean anything. Some guy could go blow up something in iran and say it was in the name of the Dallas Cowboys.

Does that mean the Dallas Cowboys killed people ? No

Your logic...if there is any...is very flawed.


Doesn't matter anyway, the claim that religion is the cause of most wars has been debunked. There were only three "purely religious" conflicts, the Muslim Conquest of Europe, the Crusades, and the Catholic/Protestant Wars of the 16th and 17th Centuries. Sixty percent of all major conflicts in history had zero religious component, making his claim there ridiculously wrong.

I mean, what religion was World War I or II about?

(Source: GOD AND WAR: AN AUDIT & AN EXPLORATION)

ps to n00bUK: Don't forget to mention that millions died in the Inquisition, while you're at it! (Actual number - less than 5,000)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   


Well, you're definitely in the minority -- Hitchens' performance was widely panned among his peers. From a debate standpoint, he definitely failed to put together a cohesive and organized argument, didn't respond to a lot of points that Craig made, and his rambling lack of direction, particularly in the section where he could ask Craig direct questions, indicated a almost total lack of preparation.



I get you. Yea, Craig was definitely trying to stick to the rules and had obviously prepared more. He laid out his 5, I think, arguments right off the bat and did his best to stick to those points. Hitchens did seem to get off on tangents and didn't have a set outline to use like Craig did. It might have been interesting to see how it went if Hitchens had opened since everything he said seemed more of a rebuttal as opposed to a stand alone argument. He also said a lot without actually spelling things out for the audience as if he expected them to know where he was going with it (especially in the Q&A section). I will admit that Craig might have won in the context of the rules of debate or whatever, but my point is that I identified much more with the things that Hitchens pointed out as opposed to Craig who did nothing to sway my opinions to the the side of religion.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by brackforce
I will admit that Craig might have won in the context of the rules of debate or whatever, but my point is that I identified much more with the things that Hitchens pointed out as opposed to Craig who did nothing to sway my opinions to the the side of religion.


Aw, no one's mind ever gets changed by these sorts of things. Debates on deeply held beliefs are for entertainment, mostly -- the enjoyment of seeing someone you agree with making a great defense, or watching someone you disagree with get nailed to the wall.

That's why Hitchens' fellow atheists really ripped into him for this one, why the inept performances of others, like Thunderf00t, are so harshly criticized, and why Dawkins is called a coward for not facing Craig -- because not only do their followers feel let down, but because they figure it gives theists some "false" security.

That said, as I stated earlier, there are better Hitchens debates, and, though there's something about him that just bugs me, I have a lot of respect for Craig... I don't think I'd want to debate him on "The Sun will rise tomorrow", even if I took the "pro" position



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Seems to me that Rich has good reason to not want to talk to Craig.

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by brackforce
 


Let's steer this back on topic, guys. What does this debate have to do with giving "God" credit for all the harm he's done?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by brackforce
 


Let's steer this back on topic, guys. What does this debate have to do with giving "God" credit for all the harm he's done?


Go to the link and read the article. Richard won't debate Craig for the very reason this thread was started...because Craig gives "God" credit for exterminating tribes of people based off of biblical morality and even quotes Craig talking about how he feels bad for the Israelites who had to murder women and children.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by brackforce
reply to post by adjensen
 


Seems to me that Rich has good reason to not want to talk to Craig.


Naw, that's just a pretty obvious straw man argument to try and fend off the cowardice claims -- Dawkins has said that he'll "talk with anyone, anywhere, anytime about religion" -- geez, he's debated the Archbishop of Canterbury, for pete's sakes.

Dawkins is an intelligent person, he's clearly aware of the fact that Craig would have him for lunch, and, as selling books, chattering on television and giving speeches is how he makes his money, losing a public debate with Craig would pose a serious threat to that income, so he's just going to keep running from it.

Though, with the way that Dawkins is being excoriated in the radical atheist community these days, maybe it doesn't matter all that much anyway.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by brackforce
 


If "God" is omniscient and omnipotent (the Bible is pretty clear in this matter) then any time he does not stop or change the course of the present, it's because he wants that particular future to happen.

Which means every death was according to his will. There is no other explanation. You cannot know everything, and be capable of doing anything, and be unable to control what the creatures you created do to the world you created. Whatever happens, it's because you wanted it to.

That level of capability, combined with that level of inaction, is synonymous with that level of approval. You might as well say, "You know what, I don't care." Or, "Actually, I like that idea. Let's go with that." Either way, your capability to KNOW what's about to happen and to CHANGE that course, but your choice to NOT do anything, gives you full responsibility of the consequences.

It doesn't matter what "God" told them to do. If the Bible is taken to be entirely accurate regarding his nature, the moment he allowed those tragedies (any and all of them) to happen, he gave permission for them to happen. Including anything blamed on "Satan", because if "God" is so powerful, "Satan" wouldn't even be a memory. So "God" is fully responsible for that to, having created, given him free reign, and refused to interfere in his business. So that's his fault too.

All-powerful...all-knowing...and all-inactive. Of his own choice. That makes him equally guilty, as guilty as any sinner that ever existed. Possibly even more so. End of story.
edit on 13-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by brackforce
 


All-powerful...all-knowing...and all-inactive. Of his own choice. That makes him equally guilty, as guilty as any sinner that ever existed. Possibly even more so. End of story.
edit on 13-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I completely agree. If any one of the biblical gods exists (and I don't believe that they do) then they are wholly responsible for every disgusting and despicable act talked about in the Bible. Let's pretend as everyone does that El Elohim and Yahweh are one and the same and let's call them "God." God created the entire system and banned his creation from knowing the truth. When they chose knowledge over rules that didn't make sense to them he fabricated a punishment requiring death and decided that "sin" would be passed on to every other human that ever existed. He also pioneered the idea of killing the shi-ite out of animals to make up for human mistakes. He created the "scapegoat" and developed rules for how to use one. He talked about when to stone animals to death because of THEIR sins and when to have his own people killed for their mistakes. He obviously viewed men as better than women, advocated killing children for not listening to parents, tortured his own people to see if they still loved him (Job, anyone?), ORDERED the genocide of people who worshiped gods other than him, and the list goes on an on. There is simply no reason to believe that he did all of this out of "love". The New Testament doesn't make up for any of this. It blatantly says that he is everlasting and never changing. It blatantly says that his laws are the same as they were and that not one jot or tittle shall be changed. It talks about turning his "son" into a scapegoat then tells the story of his torture and execution to make up for sin if you only "believe" but then describes how those believers are also killed and tortured as martyrs. Jesus says that very few people will enter the kingdom of heaven. He also talks about people performing actual miracles in his name, but upon judgement are rejected because he "never knew them". He makes it sound as if very, very few will ever be redeemed and takes pleasure in describing the torture that nonbelievers and sinners will face after death. If he is supposed to be the embodiment of "God" then his views align perfectly with the same homicidal murder from the Old Testament. Finally, we arrive at Revelation which is mainly a horror story about how everyone is going to be tortured in horrible ways at the end of days followed by a judgement by the same guy that came up with the whole system in the first place. Everything boils down to whether or not you "believed" yet, your actions also play a huge part and if you broke the laws or lived an "unrighteous" life then you're still going to be punished. "God" determined that acts would be sinful, he created the punishment for those sins, decided that the punishment would last even after death, and decided the he had to kill someone or something in man's place to atone for said sins when he could have just forgiven everyone and started over! All of this leads me to the conclusion that it simply isn't possible to justify any of this unless one has already determined that one will believe the text regardless of any contradictory evidence presented. At this point one has closed his/her mind to other possibilities and will therefore rationalize the murderous, conniving, judgmental, jealous, childlike nature of "God" in any way he/she can so that those attributes fit into what that believer has determined to be desirable qualities of his/her creator/savior.

Or, you can take the MamaJ approach and just make a bunch of crap up combining whatever you like from various religions, discarding what you don't understand or agree with, and end up with your own science fiction story that makes you feel good about your "understanding" of the spiritual realm.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


The entirety of your initial reply, and at least the first half of this one are all fluff and woo. They are unimportant. In the future, if you're looking to dispel the Veil I would recommend you lose the infomercial elements, they do nothing to support your premises.

 


Your four secrets:

1. Lilith

Lilith is actually Lilitu, a Sumerian desert demon who would come to steal the life-force from infants. The people of Sumer developed charms against her, in the hopes of protecting their babies from her deadly assault. What Lilith is, is a representation of the terrible disease SIDS. Interestingly, there were two halves for Lilitu; one who killed baby girls, and one who killed baby boys; just like the disease.

This is the actual origin of Lilith. She is a personification of a real threat, and the charms and methods by which a culture tried to prevent her from doing her harm.

 


2. Adam and Eve

Have you ever read the myth of Enki and Ninmah in the Land of Dilmun? It's a much more interesting myth, and there's no need for speculation (like the Biblical version). Here's how it goes:

Enki is asked to make a servant to tend to the gardens and herds of Dilmun (Paradise). He and his wife, Ninmah, decide to do so. The combine blood, clay, bone, and breath to make a man. Seeing as he'd be alone, they decide to make more. But, they want to give their people purpose. Ninmah makes seven lame individuals (one without a leg, one without a hand, etc). Enki finds a place for them all, so no one is without purpose.

Then, Ninmah makes 3 more: one cannot read, one cannot work, and one is a female. Enki's job is to perfect these three with three different people. He makes: a teacher to help the first, an artificer to help the second, and a husband to care for the third. Now it is Enki's turn. He makes a single individual: it cannot eat, speak, work, stand, or move. Ninmah tries for a long, long time to make something which fixes this individual, but she cannot. Finally, Enki gives it to the woman and husband and they raise it as the first child.

This myth explains our creation, our diversification, it accounts for abnormalities and birth defects, it explains our purpose on Earth, and even sets up elements of love, family, community, profession, and education. Far more in-depth then the Biblical version. Also, about 3000 years older than Adam and Eve as well.

God's recounting is kind of missing the love and time Enki spent.

 


3. Hermes / Maat

First, it's pronounced Maht with an "ah", not Mate with an "ay".

Maat is the personification of the Laws of the Tuat. She is not the personification of wisdom. In fact, her association with Thoth (Tho-th; or Deh-who-ty) is to maintain cosmic order, not wisdom. The feminine wisdom principle of Egypt is actually Thoth's wife, Seshat, the goddess who discovered the stellar and solar alignments for the building of pyramids and other ritual objects. Sacred geometry, numerology, astrology (12-sign version), and early occult Mystery School sciences all come from her, not Maat.

Additionally, Hermes is more closely linked with Anubis, the illegitimate child of Osiris. Both are psychopomps who guide the dead. Both also attempt to assist in returning the Dying-and-Rising God during the myths (Osiris/Isis and Demeter/Persephone). So, your Thoth/Maat/Hermes connection is wrong. Pallus-Athena is the Greek Thoth.

As for wisdom gods, take your pick: Enki, Nidaba, Nabu, Ea, Thoth, Seshat, Athena , Minerva, Ohgma, Odin, Kvasir... there's plenty out there. What's your point?

 


4. Jesus / Mary

Inanna & Dumuzi
Ishtar & Thammuz
Osiris & Isis
Baal & Anat
Telipinu & Kamrusepa
Kybele & Attis
Demeter & Persephone
Krishna
Aphrodite & Adonis
Odin on the Yggdrasil
Baldr & Loki

Starting roughly 4500 BC, and working up to 1 AD those are the dying-and-rising gods of West Asia, India, Europe, and the North Lands. They're also the premise for my current thesis, which I am writing and researching as I type this. If you're going to discuss Jesus without discussing them, you don't know your mythology.

So, what's your point concerning these 4 topics? Elaborate for me, if you'd please.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   


Or, you can take the MamaJ approach and just make a bunch of crap up combining whatever you like from various religions, discarding what you don't understand or agree with, and end up with your own science fiction story that makes you feel good about your "understanding" of the spiritual realm.
reply to post by brackforce
 


The day I begin to misunderstand you at the same time tongue lash, you can do the same but I would appreciate some patience and understanding.

It's not my fault you do not understand my position.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


Mythologies of all kinds tell a similar story with the same people across the globe.

I'm very familiar with all of it.

My fifteen yr old son knows of them as well. Lol

I'm not going to debate about who was who, how their names were pronounced and which God/ Goddess they are to you in your understanding.

Keep believing what you may.... No worries here.

If you do not see or cannot make a connection with the Bible then that's ok with me.

It should be ok with you that I do.

Also, e.t.a..... Where in the world did you find such information? Links please!

I've spoken about Jesus and the myths .... Not my fault you haven't read it.
edit on 14-9-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Oh no. Don't mistaken me. I do not mind you believing in the Bible. The Jews took their mythology from the cultures they explored (Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Levant). So you're essentially reading the same myths. YHVH just happened to leave out much of the heart in his altered retelling of Mesopotamian mythology. Seeing as you were very much interested in compassion and emotion—judging by you claiming I had none because I did not feel sorry for you and your loss—I imagined you would have liked to learn of gods and creators with more heart than the Biblical one.

I only corrected your pronunciation of the Egyptian gods because Egypt was very concerned with spelling and pronunciation. The Hieroglyphic language was considered a sacred gift from the god Thoth. So sacred even, that sometimes they chiseled their hieroglyphs without feet so they could not magically get up and walk away. How you pronounced their name—called a ren in Egyptian phonetics—was extremely important.

As for the mythology of Jesus, I have read it as well. I own a KJV, a Gideon, and a Catholic Bible. I'm familiar with the Jesus mythology. Which is why I said you have to consider that list of previous deities and mythologies before you approach Jesus. Jesus is the Roman Christian interpretation of a solar dying-and-rising hero-god. He was influenced by all of the ones I listed, as well as a couple of other purely solar figures, like Horus, the sky- and sun-god of Egyptian Pharaohs.

Links? I see now why your knowledge is incomplete. Websites are a poor replacement for actual hard-research. I only use websites for a quick reference when I need to copy-paste some kind of quote. For actual study I don't trust much other than historical, archaeological, or religious books themselves. Here's a small portion of my library which has helped my understanding evolve:

The Sumerians
by Samuel Noah Kramer

Myths from Mesopotamia
from the Oxford Library

Myths of Enki - The Crafty God
by Samuel Noah Kramer & John Maier

Inanna, Queen of Heaven - Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer
by Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer

Adapa and the South Wind
by Shlomo Izre'el

Jealous Gods - Chosen People
by Professor David Leeming

In the Beginning: Creation Myths from Mesopotamia, Israel, and Greece
by Joan O'Brien & Wilfred Major

A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses
by George Hart

The Gods of the Egyptians Volumes I & II
by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge

Egyptian Religion
by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge

The Babylonians, The Egyptians, The Hittites, The Persians
by various authors from the Folio Society (four volume series)

The Greek Myths Volumes I & II
by Robert Graves

Celtic Myths and Legends
by T. W. Rolleston

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of World Mythology
by Arthur Cotterell & Rachel Storm

Encyclopedia of Gods
by Michael Jordan

The Dictionary of Mythology
by J. A. Coleman



If you're really interested in "links" though, I have a few of those for you as well:

Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses

Mesopotamian Deities and Myths

Egyptian Gods and Goddesses I

Egyptian Gods and Goddesses II

Egyptian Gods and Goddesses III

Greek Gods and Goddesses

There are plenty more, but, those books and links are a good place to start. Although the links have significantly less information than the books. I've always trusted books over websites. Anyone can write anything they want on a website in five minutes for free. Anyone who takes the time to write a book, get it edited, find an agent, and get it published, intends for the information to be accurate, well-sourced, and informational.

~ Wandering Scribe





top topics
 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join