Merged Their Return

[Marduk]

Your first point is WRONG. There was no 'science' around to KNOW what a star or lightening and thunder was. .

Dude,

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world

It has always been around, it doesn't matter if you actually know what a star is as long as your study of it reaps some benefit. In the ancient world, study of the stars was used to foretell omens. They didn't know it was irrelevant, but their science still existed. You don't understand this because once again you don't know what you're talking about because you have never studied any of the cultures you have based conclusions on.

Surya WAS only the Sun, but no one KNEW that, and no one had ran any tests to prove that. Lightening and thunder while real, no one understood or studied the phenomena, so they made up a God- Thor to represent it. Even if ONE scientist DID manage to see lightening cause thunder, without a test to prove it, it just wasn't so. Mermaids 'became' manatees, when scientists discovered them. That said, I concede that the reality of the Sun, lightening & thunder, and manatees all existed before man could prove it. .

The sun, lightening & thunder, and manatees have what to do with your cryptoterrestrials exactly, I already went into great detail earlier how the mythology concerning mermen changed with each culture it pased through until the original truth was lost, it was only rediscovered in the last 100 years. We know the basis for that myth, you've been told the basis of that myth, yet for some reason it just won't sink in will it. You have a scorching case of fundamentalism

Sir with all due respect, you don't know what Ezekiel saw, what U.F.O.'s are in reality, or what is or is not true with regards to heavenly agents. Sadly you are not qualified to discard reports of fiery chariots from this or any other time period.

Ezekiel stated at the start of the text that it was a vision, again you have been told this several times, again it didn't register
Apparently you think you know what Ezekiel saw better than he did, even when he gave a near perfect description of the chaldean Zodiac, when he was living in Chaldea, when he stated himself that it wasn't a real object but a vision of something. You on the other hand don't even know where Chaldea was and you certainly don't understand the context of the revelation he was having or even who he was.
Your argument is invalid
your knowledge is non existent
your life is wasting away

ce la vie

No problem, you are easily one of the more civil posters I've had the opportunity to interact with.
.

Isn't it funny that you only get that sort of response from newbs.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Isn't it funny that you only get that sort of response from newbs.

So are you suggesting that the longer you post here the more of an ignorant flamer you become?

Which came first do you think, mer-people mythology or manatees?

If you don't like my Ezekiel tale, please chick out the painting I referenced above and tell me if that looks to you like a flying saucer...

 

[Marduk]

So are you suggesting that the longer you post here the more of an ignorant flamer you become?...

no, I'm suggesting that the longer people post here the more sick of wasting their time talking to you they become

Which came first do you think, mer-people mythology or manatees?...

I already went into great detail about that earlier in this thread, apart from anything else, the mer-people mythology comes from a culture that were unaware of the existence of manatees as they lived thousands of miles from their natural habitat on a different continent

If you don't like my Ezekiel tale, please chick out the painting I referenced above and tell me if that looks to you like a flying saucer...

Its not your Ezekiel tale, its Ezekiels.
heres what the painting represents
http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm
just think, this is the 4th time I have posted this link to you

btw you're off topic

 

[King of the Americas]

no, I'm suggesting that the longer people post here the more sick of wasting their time talking to you they become

I already went into great detail about that earlier in this thread, apart from anything else, the mer-people mythology comes from a culture that were unaware of the existence of manatees as they lived thousands of miles from their natural habitat on a different continent


Its not your Ezekiel tale, its Ezekiels.
heres what the painting represents
http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm
just think, this is the 4th time I have posted this link to you

btw you're off topic

Then the people who are sick of wasting time, should cease posting toward me, in an uncivil manner.

I didn't ask you about your argument. I asked you which came 'first' mer-people mythology or manatees.

So who do you think "Angels of the Lord" look so similar to flying saucers and other UFO's?

And is it me, or is there an invisible finger, just above the Madonna, pointing toward the UFO, in the painting?

---

Off topic...?

 

[Marduk]

Then they people who are sick of wasting time, should cease posting toward me, in an uncivil manner.

They have, thesedays they just laugh at your hole

I didn't ask you about your argument. I asked you which came 'first' mer-people mythology or manatees.

It wasn't an argument, it was the facts, why is it that you don't understand how your question is irrelevant, its like asking what came first, your erroneous belief or your feet, they are completely unconnected

So who do you think "Angels of the Lord" look so similar to flying saucers and other UFO's?

They don't
there are no such things as flying saucers, the term was a mistaken description invented by a journalist and ufo's are unidentified, so whats to compare with
what youre actually asking is about the similarity between a handful of images already explained and whats in your head. No one else cares whats in your head as on the whole its based on willful ignorance. I could actually show you what angels are based on using images which date back 4000 years, but that wouldn't fit your preconceived baloney would it.

And is it me, or is there an invisible finger, just above the Madonna, pointing toward the UFO, in the painting?

You're asking me if I can see something you are describing as invisible ?

Off topic...?

This thread in the history forum is about the historical God
not manatees
not mer men
not cyclops
and certainly not ufo's

 

[King of the Americas]

They have, thesedays they just laugh at your hole

It wasn't an argument, it was the facts, why is it that you don't understand how your question is irrelevant, its like asking what came first, your erroneous belief or your feet, they are completely unconnected

They don't
there are no such things as flying saucers, the term was a mistaken description invented by a journalist and ufo's are unidentified, so whats to compare with
what youre actually asking is about the similarity between a handful of images already explained and whats in your head. No one else cares whats in your head as on the whole its based on willful ignorance. I could actually show you what angels are based on using images which date back 4000 years, but that wouldn't fit your preconceived baloney would it.

You're asking me if I can see something you are describing as invisible ?


This thread in the history forum is about the historical God
not manatees
not mer men
not cyclops
and certainly not ufo's

No this thread is titled "The historical 'god'...", and given your inability to understand what I've written, I understand your confusion... That some skeptic posters would rather make jokes rather than take someone's mysterious depression story seriously, indicates their lacking, not mine, for relaying a story.

Your facts aren't in question. I asked which came first the stories of mer-people or manatees. The point in asking is that one likely begat the other. That you don't believe the originators of the myth had access to actual manatees on which to create mer-people is irrelevant. Someone, from distant lands/seas COULD have. So, which do YOU think came first, mer-people mythology or manatees?

You 'think' there's no such thing as flying saucers...? RALMAO. Your ignorance is truly astonishing, to me.

The invisible finger I am referring to IS 'visible' within the painting, it just looks transparent.

 

[Marduk]

What I am trying to do here is draw a distinction between god and religion. Religion being the art used to depict the subject.

no, what youre trying to do here is once again push your personal beliefs about aliens where they aren't valid
it's what you always do
go on, try to deny it

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-one-trick-pony.htm

 

[King of the Americas]

...

What is a no-retort wisenheimer?

 

[bruto]

No this thread is titled "The historical 'god'...", and given your inability to understand what I've written, I understand your confusion... That some skeptic posters would rather make jokes rather than take someone's mysterious depression story seriously, indicates their lacking, not mine, for relaying a story.

Your facts aren't in question. I asked which came first the stories of mer-people or manatees. The point in asking is that one likely begat the other. That you don't believe the originators of the myth had access to actual manatees on which to create mer-people is irrelevant. Someone, from distant lands/seas COULD have. So, which do YOU think came first, mer-people mythology or manatees?

You 'think' there's no such thing as flying saucers...? RALMAO. Your ignorance is truly astonishing, to me.

The invisible finger I am referring to IS 'visible' within the painting, it just looks transparent.

Are you really asking what you appear to be? I'm pretty sure Sirenians (manatees and dugongs) evolved before humans did, so your question makes little sense. Of course they predate mer-person myths. Really, how could mer-person myths have begotten manatees even if they had evolved later? It's possible manatees gave rise to mer-person myths, but more likely, I think, that such myths come naturally to people. And there were seals before there were selkies, and horses before there were kelpies, but you would be hard put to try arguing that this arose from the misidentification of animals. It seems far more likely that existing. mer-person myths resulted in the wishful misidentification of animals such as manatees than the other way around. Their family designation of "sirenians" suggests as much.

Believe it or not, People make stuff up!

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

koa

You seem to have this notion that everyone used to think thunder was Thor. I'm sure believers in Thor knew they were a different concept. Thor brings the Thunder.

You also seem to suggest that people noticed magical beings (or aliens) and tried to assign them a rulership over natural phenomena. The phenomenon happens, then you assign an agent. That's the observed order of things.

I think the fact that we didn't know about how the brain works made it normal to assume the sun or the moon had thoughts of their own. I have a very hard time giving anything without brain cells credit for thinking.

Bonus opinion: If aliens had visited us, the tales should be more like "that thing came from the sky. A door opened and Thor came out."

The tales youe have are all about weird, hallucinatory type stories. That's because it makes it easier to shoehorn anything that can vaguely fit a wild alien story. Straightforward accounts seem to pertain to mundane affairs. God and aliens stories give you more leeway.
(Made sense to me as I wrote it)

 

[King of the Americas]

Are you really asking what you appear to be? I'm pretty sure Sirenians (manatees and dugongs) evolved before humans did, so your question makes little sense. Of course they predate mer-person myths. Really, how could mer-person myths have begotten manatees even if they had evolved later? It's possible manatees gave rise to mer-person myths, but more likely, I think, that such myths come naturally to people. And there were seals before there were selkies, and horses before there were kelpies, but you would be hard put to try arguing that this arose from the misidentification of animals. It seems far more likely that existing. mer-person myths resulted in the wishful misidentification of animals such as manatees than the other way around. Their family designation of "sirenians" suggests as much.

Believe it or not, People make stuff up!

Admittedly, I asked the question, because I KNOW that manatees came before mer-people mythology. The poster's original statement seemed like an attempt to pre-date manatee discovery.

I AGREE with you that people make stuff up. They also misidentify stuff, add stuff to already told stories, and occasionally 'get the story and details accurate' in the retelling...

The point I've repeatedly tried to make is that, stories, even of a wild unbelievable nature, often have an actual reality at their heart. And while we can't and shouldn't take them at face value, dismissing them as complete fiction is equally unacceptable.

 

[TX50]

I don't buy the elephant origin for cyclops either, the Greeks were familiar with elephants, they used them in their army and the earliest stories about the first mentioned cyclops in history, Polyphemus originally had two eyes.
I think the origin is much more likely due to the preponderance of the single eye symbol across the ancient near east, where it was used by characters of great stature, such as Gods and kings so its more likely due to a blending of mythology and symbolism.

The elephant skull origin for the cyclops myth is definitely a modern notion. The idea was invented by the Austrian palaeontologist Othenio Abel in 1914 in "Die Tiere der Vorwelt", who asserted that Empedocles in the 5th century BC had identified the "bones of Polyphemus" after examining a fossil elephant skull and noting the large nasal aperture (or whatever the proper osteological term is). However, nothing of the kind exists in any of the surviving works of Empedocles (or anyone else in antiquity). The whole idea is pure guesswork by Abel based on the appearance of the bones. There is no evidence from antiquity to back it up.

The idea was taken up and repeated uncritically by later historians of palaeontology. Willy Ley, one of the first historians of palaeontology to repeat it, expanded the story in 1948 by asserting that Boccaccio (who indeed did report examining a giant skeleton in the 14th century) had also identified a cyclops and cited Empedocles as his authority. This is a gross distortion of Boccaccio's actual report (In "Genealogy of the gods" he in fact mentioned seeing some large bones that crumbled to dust when touched. He did think they could have been the bones of a giant. He did not cite Empedocles). Since then, the idea has been taken up by others, none of whom ever bothered to check what Empedocles or Boccaccio actually said, and been embellished into a commonly repeated "factoid".

More on this may be found in Adrienne Mayor's "The First Fossil Hunters, Paleontology in Greek and Roman times", Princeton, 2000.

More on the origin of the cyclops myth may be found in:

"The Polyphemus Myth: Its Origin and Interpretation.", Justin Glenn, Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Oct., 1978), pp. 141-155

 

[Finn McR]

... Aaand Marduk scores again! ... and again, and again... bloody hell.

 

[bruto]

Admittedly, I asked the question, because I KNOW that manatees came before mer-people mythology. The poster's original statement seemed like an attempt to pre-date manatee discovery.

I AGREE with you that people make stuff up. They also misidentify stuff, add stuff to already told stories, and occasionally 'get the story and details accurate' in the retelling...

The point I've repeatedly tried to make is that, stories, even of a wild unbelievable nature, often have an actual reality at their heart. And while we can't and shouldn't take them at face value, dismissing them as complete fiction is equally unacceptable.

You conflate the existence and discovery of manatees. Unless you know when manatees were first seen, and whether they were first seen by people who had not previously held any mer-person myths, this assumption is a fundamental error.

Stories do often have some kind of reality at their heart, but this does not mean they must, and whether that reality is useful or not remains questionable. Whether mer-person mythologies rely on manatees, seals, skeins of seaweed momentarily imagined as golden tresses, or the drunken hallucinations of a sailor hardly matters. And likewise, the various possible reasons that some gods are thought to live in the sky are so varied, so impossible to pin down, that it would be foolish to assume any single identifiable reality behind these myths, and tenuous at best to assume any reality at all other than the human impulse toward religion and the need to make sense of the unknown and frightful.

Sure, it would be cool if the reason people have imagined gods in the sky is that there really were gods in the sky, as you so hopefully believe, but there's no evidence to support it. This would be true of the way mythology and religion come about, I believe, even if there really were flying saucers.

Theology and theogony and the roots of religion are interesting subjects. You would learn more about these subjects by studying them than by making it up as you go along.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Sure, it would be cool if the reason people have imagined gods in the sky is that there really were gods in the sky, as you so hopefully believe, but there's no evidence to support it. This would be true of the way mythology and religion come about, I believe, even if there really were flying saucers.

Theology and theogony and the roots of religion are interesting subjects. You would learn more about these subjects by studying them than by making it up as you go along.

So, the painting I referenced does NOT show a flying saucer as an "angel of the lord"?

And anyone else who has seen UFO's, flying saucers, or gods in heaven simply haven't...because there's no evidence of it?

And accounts of mer-people can't or shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything other than people have active imaginations, even if we now KNOW that manatees exist and look very similar in shape to mer-folk???

Yet silvery oval shaped UFO's, instantly become blimps to skeptics, because we KNOW they exist and they are the same general shape.

The term flying saucer came about in the early 50's, yet I produce a painting, of a religious nature, featuring the Madonna and the invisible hand of god pointing toward a UFO/flying saucer from over 100 years before that, and it means nothing? So, you claim that what exactly? That there's absolutely no connection or consistency between the historical gods of heaven, and what people are STILL seeing today?

Sorry buddy, that's a beat I just can't dance to...

 

[Marduk]

The term flying saucer came about in the early 50's, ..

you don't even know the background to the Kenneth Arnold story do you, he didn't say that, the press misreported his claim of the flight characteristics "a saucer skipped across water" as "a flying saucer". They weren't saucer shaped, yet immediately afterwards people start reporting "flying saucers"
do you really not know why that it, thres only two possible explanations
1. the Aliens redesigned their ships in line with the imagination of the press
2. psychology and hollywood http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049169/

once something is in the public imagination, its hard to dislodge and it becomes marketable

Sorry buddy, that's a beat I just can't dance to...

the name of your tune is ignorance
and its getting tired

 

[King of the Americas]

the name of your tune is ignorance
and its getting tired

Stop whining and make an argument.

So, what did you make of the invisible finger pointing toward the flying saucer?

Is that water damage, or a purposeful image placed by the artist?

 

[Marduk]

Stop whining and make an argument.

you are the only one here who can't see that my argument and knowledge has destroyed you
shall we take a vote

I'm done with this thread, you got busted again, it was never about God or history, once again as I proved just another attempt by you to validate a brief scene from the x files

I'm going to start a new thread in general about fox mulder being your genesis

and everyone will believe that

So, what did you make of the invisible finger pointing toward the flying saucer?

Is that water damage, or a purposeful image placed by the artist?

well, looks to me like its the Halo of the madonna, the kids got one too, its pointing at her crotch
Amazing huh, fancy that, the mother of Jesus is portrayed as being Holy, I never would have realised if I hadn't known that already


but hey, lets make it easy for other people to give you their opinion of the finger

Take a look everyone at the halo shaped object on the Madonnas head
is that a finger ?


let me guess King, you weren't aware that the Madonna is always shown with a finger halo on her head in religious art from the renaissance
that would be because you don't understand religious art then

 

[Marduk]

double post

 

[King of the Americas]

you are the only one here who can't see that my argument and knowledge has destroyed you
shall we take a vote

...

well, looks to me like its the Halo of the madonna, the kids got one too, its pointing at her crotch
Amazing huh, fancy that, the mother of Jesus is portrayed as being Holy, I never would have realised if I hadn't known that already


...

Take a look everyone at the halo shaped object on the Madonnas head
is that a finger ?


...

I started that voter thread already, it's called Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers.

I'll rightly concede the image is a halo. The image you provided clearly shows that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Could you blow up the images/features to the left of the Madonna, those that appear like yellow/gold flames?

What is that representative of?