Speaking for myself, I treat all ancient texts the same - religious and otherwise (not accepted scripture, vedas, gnostic etc)
Our human species has been about the same as “humans” are concerned.
Reading any of hear texts, a person stumbles onto weird claims that others “believed”. Talking donkeys, half-gods, bushes on fire and not burning, etc. TONS
It’s a combination of “motives”. Just like today. Big bullshit claims are believed and passed along like “truth”. People do all sorts of dumb things that harm themselves or others based on bullshit.
Is it just a straight up narcissist starting the beginning “lie”? A prankster? Someone on drugs or mentally ill? Money or politically motivated?
I just know this. To wade through all info (old and new) I need to maintain a standard of evidence. The newer stuff that effects my current life and worldview I’m more attentive towards.
Do the texts exist? Obviously. Can they be presented “as is” (without tweeking)? I hope they are. Can parallels be drawn? Yup. You may succeed in concluding accurately “motive” for the dishonesty… something that even today with current evidence to confront dishonest liars or purveyors of mis-information is a mountain to climb.
To be clear, that is my position. I read the story about Amun-Ra walking around lifting up tablets as a boldfaced lie. It did not happen. There was a statue, the statue did not walk around, it did not lift tablets. I do not assume that anyone hallucinated the statue walking around lifting up tablets either, but admit or concede that this is possible.
I am inclined to believe that the people who did the lying were closeted or covert narcissists, but I am not a psychologist so I don’t make that claim in the book. They lied because by lying to slaves, peasants, and other citizens, they could enjoy the god’s feast themselves after the ceremonies. If slaves, peasants, etc. believed in hungry, thirsty statues (or spirits in China), they were more likely to provide food and drink for them willingly.
That isn’t my argument. That is exactly why what you’ve been posing is a straw-man.
I don’t know what that word means in this context (moralizing). I posted the truth: I feel that what you have posted on this subject is ludicrous and disturbing. Would you prefer that I stroke your ego and lie to you? Say that you’re a genius for posting stuff that contradicts common experience?
@Nyarlathotep There is a part of me that wants to fire back at you, but for the sake of the argument I’m not going to. You know that there’s a big difference between stroking someone’s ego and calling their words disturbing and ludicrous. You could respond to what I say without being hostile.
@BigNeerav I post under my real name because I stand by what I say, and I cite and quote evidence. Go back through my posts and you’ll see scholarly citations, quotes from ancient texts, and coherent arguments.
@JoelInbody If I did, nobody would be laughing, as my sense of humor sucks. As others have pointed out, you are making quite wild claims here, and are getting butthurt, when challenged about them.
No, I’m not. You started throwing ad hominem attacks around, and @Nyarlathotep got pissy and started calling my ideas ludicrous and disturbing. That’s what happened today.
@JoelInbody I got no stake in this whole thing. I just noticed that what you are doing, reminds me of a “former” member of this forum, who I shall not name. Carry on.
I recently got my ass chewed by some of the community members on here. But I don’t see it as hostility. Especially in your case.
I see that these people are teaching us how to word our thoughts differently in a way that we don’t come across silly or crazy with our beliefs. I don’t want to sound crazy or nuts. If I need to explain my beliefs to someone, I want to come off normal. Just think of it as a lesson and I get it, some lessons are frustrating.
I don’t think Nylarlathotep holds any animosity towards you. He’s just teaching you to be better without coming across as off the wall. Although you might not see it that way. Some people see things differently and it takes awhile.
“The case of the nicotine mummies” has been around for about 20 years. A common view is that the mummies were contaminated after discovery. Very common. (look up the damage done to Tut Ankh Amun’s mummy after it was discovered)
Plus, tobacco is not the only source of nicotine. The ancient Egyptians had access to other sources locally.
After these experiments, even assuming that cocaine was actually found on mummies, it is possible that this could be contamination which occurred after the discovery of the mummies.[7] The same argument can be applied to nicotine but, in addition, various plants other than tobacco are a source of nicotine and two of these, Withania somnifera and Apium graveolens , were known and used by ancient Egyptians.[7] Sources of nicotine other than tobacco and sources of cocaine in the Old World are discussed by the British biologist Duncan Edlin.[9]
I agree that the idea of trade between ancient Egypt and the Americas is fascinating, but I think unlikely. In this case, in the absence of much stronger evidence, I’ll stick with Occam’s razor.
@David_Killens Just just like that ex-member, he seems to be making a lot of claims regarding hallucinations, without really understanding what a hallucination is, or the types of hallucinations, and somehow, relating it to religion or religious rituals. But I’ll let you guys deal with him. Have at it.
