Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

You have just presumed Ashera as electromagnetism, hence “superstition”.
If the ancients thought Zeus or Thor was responsible for the lightnings in a thunderstorm, probably because they believed the god is angry, I would say those people believed in superstitions.
If a person hurt or kill someone because god or the Devil told him to, I would say he is delusional and superstitious.
That you believed ashera is the attractive force in electromagnetism, then I would you are superstitious.
If I see a chicken, I would call it a chicken, not a duck or turkey. I don’t and won’t mince my words for your comfort or convenience.
So I would say superstition, if I see people believe in superstition.

Remember this: You are the one who just take "myths as myths" which is why you cannot differ what is superstition or cosmological symbols.

Do you want me to be truthful with my opinions or not?

It doesn´t matter to me what you think is true as long as you have no clues of what myths are all about. Regarding the myths, your opinions are empty because to you, "myths are just myths"

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
What? Obviously you don´t read my posts at all. I´ve all over the places opposed against the stupid idea that planets should represent any gods or goddesses.

BS
You wrote earlier that the contour of the Milky Way is the shape of male Sumerian/Babylonian god Utu/Shamash, and not a sun god.
You are saying basically how the band of Milky Way resemble the shape of a person, and assert everyone calling Utu a “sun god” is wrong, but it is okay for you claim him to be the Milky Way.
Likewise, you think Re is not a sun god, but the central light of the Milky Way.
That’s all typical superstition.

You completely circumvented my complains about your false perception of me thinking of planets as gods as goddesses.

It´s one case that you just take "myths as myths", but you cannot even concentrate on reading a reply and come up with a relevant reply. And I bet you even this time didn´t read the link which could have explained to you what I think of planets as gods and goddesses.

I simply cannot take you serious anymore.

 

[gnostic]

You completely circumvented my complains about your false perception of me thinking of planets as gods as goddesses.

It´s one case that you just take "myths as myths", but you cannot even concentrate on reading a reply and come up with a relevant reply. And I bet you even this time didn´t read the link which could have explained to you what I think of planets as gods and goddesses.

Native. You are doing it again.

Resorting to strawman again.

I have only talk of the sun or the Milky Way that were associated with gods or goddesses of Egypt, and to lesser extent of Sumer or Babylonia.

I did not think in this thread, that I have linked any name of gods or goddesses to any planet with the exception of Geb “Earth”, but I don’t view Geb being a planet, but earth as dry land, in particular of Egypt.

I was referring to planets that Egyptians viewing the sky, not Geb.

Once again, you are lying, putting words in my mouth with baseless claims. Hence, another strawman.

I simply cannot take you serious anymore.

That’s okay, I haven’t you seriously since our first exchange at Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate thread, since you have carried your misinformation and false claims from there to here.

 

[gnostic]

If you have read the article, you would have known that it deals with scientists who have forund unexpected observations of a galaxy which contradicts the formational idea of Big Bang. But in your blind opposition against me, you criticize me instead of the theory.

Besides this: Neither you or any other human understand Big Bang, because it isn´t proven at all, which is why there are more Big Bang ideas.

I haven’t read that link you are talking about because it has restricted or blocked, so I can’t read it. If the link doesn’t work, then I would just ignore it and focused on your reply.

Beside that I have read some of your links before, and they have the tendencies of being nothing more than baseless woo and misinformation, just like most of your replies in this thread.

In one linked article, you had claimed, all the BB cosmologists were all in the state of panic because of one discovery, but when I read that article itself that you had cited, there were no such “panic”.

It was just YOU, making up false rumor about BB cosmologists and physicists running scared.

You have the tendencies of sensationalising webpages you have linked, that scientists are always scared of new discoveries.

And you are still doing this crap. Nothing but propaganda.

You are such a BS artist, Native.

 

[Bear Wild]

In most ancient Stories of Creation both a Goddess and a God are participating in the creation and this was also the case in the ancient Jewish mythology where the consort of JHVH is Ashera - but of course the patriarchal part in this religion got Ashera abandoned and binned. This is an example of how ancient myths are skewed for several different reasons. - More here on Ashera

If using a modern scientific term of JHVH and Ashera as creative forces, JHVH represents the repulsing part in electromagnetism and Ashera represents the attractive part of EM.

The creation and other myths from religions are stories are to teach values and relationships and not to describe scientific principles. An example given earlier of sky woman describes the relationship of humans to their world. It has nothing to do with astronomical information. In this myth she falls to earth with the animals creating a place for her to live. This myth teaches those of that belief of their relationship to the world they live in which is very different from what the myth genesis teaches. Each important to their own believers.

As for Celtic and Norse mythology the cosmology recorded in these is very complicated to sort out with some very different views. We do not have a real creation story from the Celtic pre-Christian beliefs. The myths we do have were altered by the Christians that recorded them which makes it hard to delineate what was believed in the pre-Christian times. It is true that Before the Celts there were people who were very connected with sun and moon positions with amazing structures to celebrate critical events such as Newgrange, Stonehenge r the causeways such as the causeway at Fiskerton which are connected with lunar eclipses. All of these are however relationships between events in the sky in relationship to of people on the earth and do not attempt to explain anything beyond. That does not diminish their meaning but it should not be used for something beyond.

 

[gnostic]

Regarding the myths, your opinions are empty because to you, "myths are just myths"

You can repeat and use this mantra “myths are just myths” sagainst me, ad nauseum, but they are weak arguments when overused.

And you have used it repeatedly when you really have no logical argument.

You should know that myth, like any symbol, can have many possible interpretations, but for you to say that, you actually believe are the only one have the right interpretations, just show arrogant you are.

 

[Native]

Native. You are doing it again.
Resorting to strawman again.
I have only talk of the sun or the Milky Way that were associated with gods or goddesses of Egypt, and to lesser extent of Sumer or Babylonia.

Nope!

What you doing, connecting some myths to Sun, stars, planets, etc, that's not only superstitions, what it is, it is more to do with astrology than astronomy.

Written by gnostic, Yesterday at 11:32 AM in #453

You completely circumvented my complains about your false perception of me thinking of planets as gods as goddesses.

It would be much easier to debate if you were aware of what you are writing and remember what you are writing.

I´ve NEWER advocated for planets to be compared to gods or goddesses! You even didn´t needed to visit the link I posted. You just could take in what I wrote earlier in #441:

[QUOTE="Native]It´s really tragicomic! Just by reading the myths which today are popularly connected to planets, anyone can see the that planets cannot look like female or male figures and deities, and when sticking firmly to the mythical contexts and contents, there is NO WAY that planets fits the mythical context. This isn´t just tragicomic. It´s down right stupid.[/QUOTE]

 

[Native]

In one linked article, you had claimed, all the BB cosmologists were all in the state of panic because of one discovery, but when I read that article itself that you had cited, there were no such “panic”.
It was just YOU, making up false rumor about BB cosmologists and physicists running scared.
You have the tendencies of sensationalising webpages you have linked, that scientists are always scared of new discoveries.

It must be something in your mind which is "scared" I´ve never used this term at all on modern cosmological science. My term in these cases is "surprised", of which there are numerous in modern cosmology, because the annoying Universe doesn´t fit the scientific assumptions.

You are such a BS artist, Native.

What kind of a reply is this in a serious debate?

 

[Native]

You can repeat and use this mantra “myths are just myths” sagainst me, ad nauseum, but they are weak arguments when overused.
And you have used it repeatedly when you really have no logical argument.
You should know that myth, like any symbol, can have many possible interpretations, but for you to say that, you actually believe are the only one have the right interpretations, just show arrogant you are.

You should now that when a celestial object clearly is mentioned in a myth, this don´t have "many possible interpretations". The Sun means the Sun and the Milky Way means the Milky Way - but to you "myths are just myths and superstitions all over the place".

This is why you don´t understand the myths and it´s symbolic language at all.

 

[Native]

Hi Wild Fox,

The creation and other myths from religions are stories are to teach values and relationships and not to describe scientific principles.

The numerous cultural Myths of Creation deals of course specifically with the creation of the ancient known world. And the question is how much of these ancient myths can be compared to modern science and scientific principles.

An example given earlier of sky woman describes the relationship of humans to their world. It has nothing to do with astronomical information. In this myth she falls to earth with the animals creating a place for her to live. This myth teaches those of that belief of their relationship to the world they live in which is very different from what the myth genesis teaches. Each important to their own believers.

A "Sky Woman" is an astronomical term - and yes, "she" has a relationship with humans on the Earth as she is a Mother Goddess who participates in the creation of everything in the ancient known world. When "she is falling to the Earth" this is the mythical way of telling this story of the creation as a motion of life power from the Milky Way center and to the Earth.

To me, the creation story is not a question of "belief" as such, but a question of understanding and knowing.

It is true that Before the Celts there were people who were very connected with sun and moon positions with amazing structures to celebrate critical events such as Newgrange, Stonehenge r the causeways such as the causeway at Fiskerton which are connected with lunar eclipses. All of these are however relationships between events in the sky in relationship to of people on the earth and do not attempt to explain anything beyond. That does not diminish their meaning but it should not be used for something beyond.

I really like the Celtic Mythology and also the ancient ritual sites and especially the ancient symbols of Rock Art which I have studied for some 35 years and I think there are more to it all but just "Earthly matters". So, to me, there is no doubts that the ancient myths can and shall be used much more as a cosmic telling of everything.

 

[Native]

Wild Fox,
I´ve just skimmed "Celtic Mythology" and it seems to me that that this also is somewhat fragmented from it´s original meanings.

Read my post "ACADEMIC CONFUSIONS IN MYTHOLOGY" here on #436

IMO, the key to understand the ancient Myths of Creation, is primarily to divide the Earth hemisphere and investigate the astronomical scenarios on both hemispheres. As such we have an "Overworld" above our heads, and an "Underworld" below the horizon where the celestial nocturnal images of star constellations and the contours of the Milky Way constitutes the human imaginations of gods and goddesses in the Sky.

Everything on the southern hemisphere belongs to the "Underworld" or to the "Sea Goddesses" or "Sea Creatures". In many Myths of Creation, this world = hemisphere, we have a Sky Mother Goddess to reside on the southern hemisphere, resembling the contours of the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere.

In order to understand the Mother Goddess symbolism, we have to think of what the prime female principles and attributes are, namely to form and give birth, On this cosmic scale, this in fact means that the Mother Goddess forms and gives birth to everything in our Milky Way galaxy, thus also the Solar System.

On the Earth´ northern hemisphere, the "Overworld", we primarily have the Sky Father God, stylistically resembling the Milky Way contours.

OK, see what you get out of this explanation for now compared to the Celtic gods and goddesses you know of - and feel welcome to reply on this.