Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2017, 02:00 PM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
If you're auditioning for "Atlantis Rising" you're in the wrong venue.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 02:43 PM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
Please DONT give too much credit to ANY civilization of antiquity.

When you can find videos of APES using sticks to fish for ants and termites as tools to get food, that says all to me I need to know about how life evolved.

When you can find video of elephants saving a calf from drowning in a zoo pool, that says to me WE ARE NOT SPECIAL.

We do have advanced brains sure. But we stupidly mistake that as being an apex instead of accepting we are only ONE species among many.

HUMAN are actually an invasive species to the planet and the most destructive. We are great at in inventing things, but we are also capable of great exploitation and destruction.

Of course the ancients, WORLDWIDE contributed to what we know now, but that does not make humans a superior species . It is still far more likely that when the next mass extinction event happens, which is a matter of when, not if, that humans will be the first to go It is far more likely that things like bacteria and cockroaches will survive us.

I am not sure what you mean by posting this Original Post.

YES there have been smart humans even in antiquity, but they still did not know what we know today.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 04:17 PM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
(31-10-2017 11:24 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-10-2017 11:34 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I'm not "creating" fiction.

Yes you are. You're connecting similar general concepts which you see as somehow "connected" even though they just happen to be in generally similar categories. For instance : "As for Egyptian mythology and religion, the Osiris, Isis, Horus story is well known. Egyptian art is replete with images of Horus, the Ank or coptic Christian cross, the falcon, phallic images and all that stuff."

You have no evidence that a "crossed figurine" (the ank) bears any cultural relationship to the Christian cross, (and in fact we know what the ank symbolized, and what the cross symbolized), and they are in no way related, except in general, a somewhat similar structure. Egyptian art had no "Christian crosses". The figures they had meant what it did TO THEM, and they knew NOTHING about Christian crosses or that culture in general. You're making connections that simply don't exist.

Quote:I didn't castigate my professor for suggesting, as she did, that the pyramids were the equivalent of modern public works projects. That was something that she, as an Egyptian, suggested. I actually took issue with her, but not in an unpleasant way, because I didn't see the need to have "public works" on that scale for an economy to be successful in creating employment.

Good. They were public works projects, not to create employment, but to glorify the culture which was flourishing at the time.

Quote:I didn't make up the Josephus histories in which the monotheists who he identifies as the "Jews" came from Assyria. Nor did I make up the Old Testament story that Abraham was a Keltoi from Ur of the Chaldees. I didn't make up the Chaldeans of Van or their belief that they were descended from Noah, or their god, Khaldi. Nor did I invent the idea of an exodus from Egypt or the Babylonian captivity.

Someone did. We know Abraham was mythological, AND he was not a monotheist. The Hebrews did not become monotheists until very LATE in their history, after the Exile. Josephus had no way of knowing what modern archaeology would discover .... he only knew the ancient myths.

Quote:I honestly don't understand why you take exception to what I post.

I don't. Some of it make s sense. Some does not.

Quote:Since earliest times the ancient Egyptian paid particular attention to Sirius, which they identified to the 'soul' of the Goddess Isis. There was a time, very long ago, that Sirius could not be seen in the sky from Egypt. This was because of a phenomenon known as the Precession of the Equinoxes. The Precession is a very slow wobble of our planet taking the polar axis of the Earth in a circular swing of 47 degrees every 26,000 years. The general effect is that the stellar landscape appears to swing up and down like a pendulum.

Not to ancient humans it didn't. They didn't know about precession. There is no evidence they had records or understood it.

Quote:We do not know when exactly Sirius became identified to the goddess Isis, but the idea certainly goes back to the origin of Egyptian culture.

You don't know that. You made it up.

Quote:Some three hundred years before the birth of Jesus, Egypt had fallen under the rule of the so-called Ptolemys, Greek-pharaohs who ruled Egypt from 305 BC until 30 BC, the last being Queen Cleopatra VII. During this period the capital city of Egypt moved to Alexandria, where the pseudo-Egyptian cult of Sarapis was installed. Sarapis was a synthetic god modeled on the Egyptian god Asar-Hapi (Osiris-Apis), a name meaning 'Osiris of the Nile'. Isis, quite naturally, became the consort of Sarapis and her cult flourished in Alexandria and the whole Mediterranean basin. It was adopted by many of the Roman legions and, through them, found its way into Western Europe. Temples of Isis have been found in Italy, France, Germany and as far as Oxford in England. Along with the cult of Isis also spread the celebration of the birth of Horus, called Hapocrates by the Greeks and identified to Apollo and Sol Invictus by the Romans. This event, as we have said, associated by the rising of the birth-star Sirius in the east at dawn. Interestingly, when Julius Caesar introduced the so-called Julian Calendar, it was the Alexandrian astronomer Sosigenes who converted for Caesar the old lunar calendar into a solar one. There can be little doubt that Sosigenes borrowed the idea from the Egyptians, who had a solar calendar since at least 3300 BC. This calendar, as we have seen, fixed the New Year with the heliacal rising of Sirius which, in Sosigenes' epoch, began in the month of 'July' and this, I would imagine, is probably why this particular month was named after Julius Caesar. His famous consort, the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra, was also a high priestess of Isis and Caesar dedicated in her honour a temple in the Rome Forum. After the death of Cleopatra in 30 BC, Egypt became a Roman province, where there was a large Greek and Roman community in Alexandria as, more importantly, a great number of Jews who had fled Judea. With the rise of the newly formed Christianity in Egypt, the ancient mystery cult of the pharaohs that had mingled with those of the Greek and Romans, now also mingled with the Judeo-Christian ideologies.

Prove it. How do you know that ?

"The basic tenets of these older mystery cults rested on the belief that "immortality" was achieved through the initiatory teachings of a "dying-resurrecting Son of God" and the symbolic re-enactment of his 'death' and 'rebirth'. The Phoenician Adonis, the Phrygian Attis, the Egyptian Osiris and the Alexandrian Sarapis, were all contenders for such a doctrine. The Romans furthermore had imported into Egypt the mystery cult of Mithras who also was a "dying-resurrecting Son of God" and, more intriguingly, whose 'birthday" was celebrated at sunset on the 25th December. It is no wonder, therefore, that the early Christian community also celebrated the 'birth' of their own dying and resurrecting 'Son of God', Jesus, on the 25th December and with the idea of a nativity 'star in the east' to mark this supernatural event. But which star? "

We do not know that.
"The first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in 336, during the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (he was the first Christian Roman Emperor). A few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on the 25th December."

You continue to connect dots that are in no way related.


I moved to Wiltshire in 1990. When you live there, you are surrounded by ancient pagan stone circles, churches built on the sites of pagan places of worship and various man-made hills and long barrows. There's virtually nothing written about the origin of these things. They dug into Silbury Hill thnking they'd find someone buried in it, but they just found more dirt. People there talk about how their distant ancestors worshipped fertility gods and trees. That's the nature of life as it is lived in the "old world". It's not written down anywhwere.

I don't disagree with most of the comments you make. I don't have the facility to parse posts so I would find it difficult to respond to your comments one by one.

You mention, however, that the Ank has no cultural connection to the Christian cross. That, to me, is a culturally loaded statement in itself. I accept that Christians don't connect the two at all and it would be an afront to them to draw the connectinon, as it would be to suggest that the whole idea of virgin birth and resurrection flow out of Eygptian mythology, or that their "Jesus" is either just a rewrite of the Egyptian Horus myth, or that he was Ellis' Izates.

I don't really care what anyone thinks of it. I'm not going to change anyone's minds, here or on a global scale...lol.

My beef with Christianity is that it is utterly ridiculous in its belief in this stuff and growing up in it, if you have half a brain, is torture because you can't have a meeting of minds with anyone in a society where 99% of people believe in pure nonsense.

Christian society developed through Roman Catholic proselytising to pagans. All of pagan society was veneered over by Christian theologians to the extent that as a person growing up in a western Anglo-Saxon milieu, one is led to believe that there is only the Christian history of things, which includes the OT history of the world's origins followed by the Judeao-Christian Western interpretation of history. So, yes, there's not going to be any "cultural" connection between the Ank and the cross or Jesus and Horus, because there have been two millenia of scrubbing history clean of anything other than the Christian view of things.

I've made my point. I don't feel the need to keep going over it. It makes sense to me, when dealing with a major part of my life, which is deeply irrational, to try to find a rational way of looking at it. I can't accept that the world's most significant person, in many ways, ie., Jesus was entirely mythical. Nor, however, do I believe that the NT is entirely factual in its rendition of ordinary events or that this person, whoever he was, was anything other than an ordinary man, not the son of "God" or a capable of performing "miracles".

I seem to be almost unique in this community in that I never believed in anything. I don't believe in things I can't see or understand according to ordinary notions of how things actually happen in real life. I find it utterly mind boggling that whole nations and civilizations have been built around hocus pocus and nonsense or that people accept this stuff at face value. As a child, if I heard some kid talk about believing in the Jesus miracles etc, I would be as amazed at their stupidity as I would be if they said they believed in the Easter bunny.

So, y'know, I'd rather look up at Horus/Orion, with the star formation of a cross behind him, which you can see right now if you look out your window, and think that this is the "god" which the Romans discovered that the Gentiles of the Near East believed in, and that the Egyptians believed in, and that the Ank and the cross are star signs, and that the Romans crucified these people to mock their belief in a sky-god who carried his cross across the night sky to drive the darkness away and bring back the sun. At least it's plausible. It doesn't necessitate the suspension of disbelief or the adoption of a perspective which reflects someone else's cultural bias.

Nothing I have ever said here involves any "belief" in anything, nor have I ever suggested that I have anything which is a definitive or academically credible version of first century, or Egyptian, history. I merely observe and make comments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 04:33 PM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
Yeah, and the comments are full of things you believe but can't prove.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 05:02 PM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
(31-10-2017 04:33 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Yeah, and the comments are full of things you believe but can't prove.

No, I don't "believe" in them. Quoting someone else's idea does not mean I believe it. I simply post it to show where the idea comes from.

It is "provable" that there is a star sign which is called Orion, and that there is a star formation of a cross behind it, and that it has a "belt" which resembles a phallus. That is provable by looking up at it. It's also provable that when a man is crucified he gets an erection. It's also provable that early depictions of Jesus on the cross show him with an erection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection
Draw your own conclusions. None of that is an expression of belief, nor does it have anything which requires belief. You can make of it what you want, or you can go on your own merry way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2017 08:24 PM by Chas.)
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
(31-10-2017 05:02 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 04:33 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Yeah, and the comments are full of things you believe but can't prove.

No, I don't "believe" in them. Quoting someone else's idea does not mean I believe it. I simply post it to show where the idea comes from.

It is "provable" that there is a star sign which is called Orion,

It's a constellation, not a "star sign".

Quote:and that there is a star formation of a cross behind it,

Never heard of it. Have you a credible reference?

Quote:and that it has a "belt" which resembles a phallus.

Do you mean the sword? Because the belt does not and it's a stretch to interpret the sword that way.

Quote:That is provable by looking up at it.

Have you a credible reference?

Quote:It's also provable that when a man is crucified he gets an erection. It's also provable that early depictions of Jesus on the cross show him with an erection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection
Draw your own conclusions.

My conclusion is that those ideas have no strong relationship to each other and some of it is just made up..

Quote:None of that is an expression of belief, nor does it have anything which requires belief. You can make of it what you want, or you can go on your own merry way.

I suggest, then, that you don't make your posts indistinguishable from assertions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 05:57 PM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
(31-10-2017 05:02 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 04:33 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Yeah, and the comments are full of things you believe but can't prove.

No, I don't "believe" in them. Quoting someone else's idea does not mean I believe it. I simply post it to show where the idea comes from.

It is "provable" that there is a star sign which is called Orion, and that there is a star formation of a cross behind it, and that it has a "belt" which resembles a phallus. That is provable by looking up at it. It's also provable that when a man is crucified he gets an erection. It's also provable that early depictions of Jesus on the cross show him with an erection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection
Draw your own conclusions. None of that is an expression of belief, nor does it have anything which requires belief. You can make of it what you want, or you can go on your own merry way.
Reposting woo while saying "I don't believe this woo!" just makes you a liar.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2017, 12:46 AM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
Not every straight line in the univese represents s phallus....at least not to everyone....at least i hope Drinking Beverage

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2017, 04:44 AM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
If wanted to know what I "believe" then you could ask. You make assertions which aren't supported. I know what I believe, you plainly don't.

I could equally say that Gawdzilla believe in little green men, then call him an asshole, but I don't because...I'm not an idiot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2017, 04:50 AM
RE: Megalyths and ancient advanced technology
(31-10-2017 05:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 05:02 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  No, I don't "believe" in them. Quoting someone else's idea does not mean I believe it. I simply post it to show where the idea comes from.

It is "provable" that there is a star sign which is called Orion,

So what?

It's a constellation, not a "star sign".

Quote:and that there is a star formation of a cross behind it,

Never heard of it. Have you a credible reference?

Go look for yourself

Quote:and that it has a "belt" which resembles a phallus.

Do you mean the sword? Because the belt does not and it's a stretch to interpret the sword that way.

The Three Kings, which form a diagonal line.

Quote:That is provable by looking up at it.

Have you a credible reference?

Go look
Quote:It's also provable that when a man is crucified he gets an erection. It's also provable that early depictions of Jesus on the cross show him with an erection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection
Draw your own conclusions.

My conclusion is that those ideas have no strong relationship to each other and some of it is just made up..


That would be your conclusion, just an assertion, no credible references. As I said, make of it what you will.
Quote:None of that is an expression of belief, nor does it have anything which requires belief. You can make of it what you want, or you can go on your own merry way.

I suggest, then, that you don't make your posts indistinguishable from assertions.

Thanks for your advice
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: