The Gods of Giza

Question: is it possible for a technologically highly advanced civilization to retain an archaic, all-encompassing religion? Put another way, modern Western scientific advances intentionally eschew any possibility of a god or gods—there is only the physical world that can, with enough study and effort, be rationally explained.

Discarding the Ancient Aliens theory while simultaneously discarding the accepted timeframe by mainstream Egyptologists, is it possible that humans built the pyramids in a much earlier epoch, using advanced methods and materials…all while viewing their work in an intentionally religious context as opposed to scientific context? Or did their science serve their religion?

In short, must scientific advances and wonders always come at the expense of religion? The pyramids seem to argue that the answer is no. Who—or what—were the gods of Giza: Science? Religion? Or both?

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

Who—or what—were the gods of Giza: Science? Religion? Or both?

There's a few more pages on youtube...not really an answer but entertaining!

I read a summary of the religious beliefs of highly specialized scientists in the fields of science, not really medicine which is more based on false beliefs that mankind knows what is going on in our bodies completely.

The vast majority of scientists in physics and other sciences have seen so much that does not fit the profile of chance that they believe there is something steering things, some entity of some kind. We are talking over seventy five percent of these specialists that believe there is some kind of consciousness to the universe because science alone cannot explain things.

Even chemical reactions can act differently sometimes, and there is sometimes variations of results in science research just because the observer alters the results of exact experimentation replications strictly by observing it with different beliefs. This explains why some research cannot be verified by those of a different mindset. It is called something to do with change initiated by the observer, I read about this in physics articles and chemistry articles.

Can you link me to this article or cite some Physicists who think someone, or something is willing the universe.

originally posted by: Darth_Revan
Can you link me to this article or cite some Physicists who think someone, or something is willing the universe.

I read that about the time I belonged to Physics.org, I was at that site for about a year before I came here. I used to chat with a few people there, some were physicists from CERN. I did lose my ability to post there once they discovered I was not really a physicist or working in physics or another science. I was surprised to find that most of those guys are pretty decent people there, but there are some with big heads who think they know everything. They usually did not give me direct answers to things, they gave me information to look things up and I actually liked that better because I got to learn a lot more that way than I would have learned if they just gave me an answer. Their sources sure are not like the ones I had access to in college or high school, I guess you do not get that kind of schooling till you go into your bachelors degree classes and above that. They explained that to me....regular college physics isn't that great, application of the info is not discussed well in regular physics I guess.

We discussed religion there one time and someone gave me some links to look at about this subject. That was around 2011 or so. I only knew about ten people there pretty well at that site, I actually joined to investigate if Cern could be a concern. My conclusion from talking to physicists working there was yes, if they induced a current from the core too much it could be a problem. But there are safequards and IF they work, no problem.

It is important to note that what I am talking about is in belief in a sort of supreme consciousness, a belief that something is influencing the creation of things, I should not have specified the word religion, just that not many of these scientists are athiests, they can see something is wrong with just believing in science. There are less of them that actually believe in the organized religions created by mankind.

a reply to: olaru12

Cool! Thanks!

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

I think this is the gist of the Robert Schock studies: that the structures were built during a far wetter time, and were repurposed by the people who came later.

In mesoamerica, they have noticed that many of the structures and settlements center around fault lines. Its why Machu Pichu is where it is: its at a crossing of fault lines. For some reason, whomever built all the structures and settlements found value in fault lines and where they crossed. How they knew this is something I don't know...but it appears they did.

Are humans just drawn to fault lines? Maybe nutrients in the soil attract us for farming/grazing?

Dunno.

originally posted by: Darth_Revan
Can you link me to this article or cite some Physicists who think someone, or something is willing the universe.

I hope this isn’t too off-topic.

Basically, the Observer can change the Outcome.

In short, must scientific advances and wonders always come at the expense of religion?

Absolutely not. It has been demonstrated in quantum mechanics that the quantum world can be directly influenced by consciousness. Which suggests that either reality is mind-like in nature (philosophical argument called panpsychism) or reality itself is a creation of conciousness. If reality is a creation of conciousness, then the possibility exists that entities without form, could exist within that conciousness (gods etc).

Plato wrote "This world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.".

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

"By the Gods of Cobol...."

Commander Adama, Battlestart Gallactica, 1978

Chapter About an advanced technology (in a spaceship) looking for places of ancient religion(kind of egyptian).


To your question: Yes.,
Yes, it is possible for a technologically highly advanced civilization to retain an archaic, all-encompassing religion.

First: Define: what is a technologically highly advanced civilization.
second: define the period of comparison.

If you believe that this "present" civilization is a highly advanced, then you can find active ancient religions now.

call it as you want: from masons, luciferians, satanists, buddhists, kabbalah,etc. what they believe has been preserved and achieved.

sometimes the knowledge of it has been rediscovered, preserved, like buddhist termas (teachings and knowledge for future civilizations).

your question could include variables about how those religions and civilizations, when existed were preserved against other ideas.

because when culture is vanished, or weaken or absorbed for other ideas, then most of them are preserved inside the language. (from the verb to be, to the I, to the way how each language assigns concepts)

but if framing it to only religions: yes.
you can look for those that are now and existed in the egyptian times.

sometime those were kind hidden, but remanined some of them preserved.

even in india, the religion survived after the technological civilization dissapeared (for example flying sauced , nuclear explosiones,etc), the religion describes the technologies that existed then and now have dissaperared, but the religion have endured over thousands years.
the india's religion are also a proof by contradiction, to your question.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime


I would say yes to your question.

If a societies culture is constantly shaped and shifted through advancing technology, the only way to truly maintain a constant identity would be through spiritual beliefs.


A crisis like this retarded liberalism of the day only serves to strengthen true believers' resolve.

It is ultimately prosperity that challenges beliefs the most which ironically is when it is least threatened.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

Who—or what—were the gods of Giza: Science? Religion? Or both?

In short I would say "Religion is a tool to control the mind, Science, is a tool, to free it". One is faith, the other is fact.

Religion would say the world is flat, and science would says its spherical. So I would think Religion was used to conceal and or control the facts.

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements;[1] however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3]

Though the above statement does not cover the word "Faith", it is the basis for any religion. A faith that what you were taught is true and correct. So, some science today has actually become a religion, because no scientific evidence supports it, and only supported by, faith. Any scientific theory that does not start with a observation, is not science.

No one alive today saw the Pyramids being built, or who built them, but we do see the Pyramids themselves. They, along with all the other ancient marvels around the world stand in testament to a society lost to time. And Religions have done nothing to record that society or to explain life prior to the great flood.

if you study the Cuneiform tablets you will discover the Sumerians believed their gods were real. If you study Plato's works the Timaeus and Critias you will find more information about those gods and the world in general. In that world, all of mankind were enslaved to those gods, as royal subjects are to their king.

After the reset, great flood, no mention of these gods are recorded in their previous roles has been discovered, other than the cuneiform records, and Plato. They were converted from a reality to myth's. They no longer walked with mankind in the open as they had previously done. Cargo cult religions sprang up hoping for the gods return and the fortunes they brought with them in the way of food or favor. The Hindu tradition also recorded these gods and the great heavenly battles that took place between the gods and their offspring, the demi gods.

Today, these gods must be considered "Aliens", not because they come from outer space, but because they chose to be outside our perception of reality, and therefor, Alien to our reality. As to their physical locations, interestingly enough, the Christian Bible betrays their locations in Exodus 20

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth

From the words above you can extrapolate that they have Deep underground, underwater, and Lunar domiciles. And when they do make appearances they are not known as ancient gods, but, as Aliens...

You can not separate out the Egyptian gods from the greater story because it would put them in a different context than it really was, and still be accurate.

They, the gods, possessed very advanced knowledge of physics and spirituality, we have not mastered of yet. They chose to use that knowledge to control and master over, us. There does seem to be a untold story concerning Mankind from before the gods but, not yet known, at least by me. It has something to do with the cuneiform word "Igigi". And if anyone built great monuments, it would have been them, because they were the first ones enslaved by the gods.

I suspect those Igigi are also alive and well to this day, and again the Bible betrays their location in Genesis 6:4

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

We have been trained through myth and Bible that the giants were evil, when in fact, we, descended from them. We, for the most part, are their children.

Did you realize the size of the "can of worms" you opened when asking the question? lol

So to answer your question, the gods were about science, and religion used to hide them...

Our family reunion, is way overdo... Its their story, let them, tell it

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
Discarding the Ancient Aliens theory while simultaneously discarding the accepted timeframe by mainstream Egyptologists, is it possible that humans built the pyramids in a much earlier epoch, using advanced methods and materials…all while viewing their work in an intentionally religious context as opposed to scientific context? Or did their science serve their religion?

"Advanced technology"???

Seriously... have you taken a good close look at the stones in the pyramids? They're roughly shaped, many different sizes, often jammed into place. The rather dreadful chop-and-place stuff isn't even up to the quality of the stonework of the mastaba of Ti, built at roughly the same time.

There seems to be some sort of idea that the Gizamids just suddenly "happened". This isn't true.

Before the Gizamids, Khufu's father built FOUR pyramids (two collapsed, one bent, one that looks like the Gizamids. If there had been an earlier "perfect" structure, he would have built exactly the same model.

In addition, there's a gradual design shift from predynasty shaft tombs to the shaft-and-room version that shows up in the pyramids. Djoser stars the fad for gabled pyramids.

If there'd been existing technology, they wouldn't have spent 100 years trying to reinvent it (they would have had a different approach.)

In short, must scientific advances and wonders always come at the expense of religion?

They had engineering but they did not have science (organized pattern of approach to research. Things just sort of "happened" and they did trial and error.)

The pyramids seem to argue that the answer is no. Who—or what—were the gods of Giza: Science? Religion? Or both?

Actually (and to the ancient Egyptians) the queens and kings buried there. There's more than just the three gizamids... there's tombs of important people, some of whom were worshiped or venerated.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Thoughtcrime
In mesoamerica, they have noticed that many of the structures and settlements center around fault lines. Its why Machu Pichu is where it is: its at a crossing of fault lines. For some reason, whomever built all the structures and settlements found value in fault lines and where they crossed. How they knew this is something I don't know...but it appears they did.

Are humans just drawn to fault lines? Maybe nutrients in the soil attract us for farming/grazing?

Dunno.

In general, earthquakes disrupt the crust, so you can get water (streams, rivers) flowing down there. But the idea that they deliberately built on fault lines isn't logical. Those areas are VERY earthquake prone and buildings tend to fall over.

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime

Discarding the Ancient Aliens theory while simultaneously discarding the accepted timeframe by mainstream Egyptologists, is it possible that humans built the pyramids in a much earlier epoch, using advanced methods and materials…all while viewing their work in an intentionally religious context as opposed to scientific context? Or did their science serve their religion?

Discarding scientific work ? not a good idea, the pyramid with surrounding structures, workers city etc and were carbon dated and the genaral timeline confirmed..no surprises here.

Of course the fringe$$$$ doesnt like that and keep spreading lies to sell books.

regarding the gods, newer research shows that in the 4th dynasty at Khufus times the figure of Osiris has not yet appeared as a mayor force, neither Isis.
Instead, the three most important deities were Horus, Hathor and Re.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Thoughtcrime

I think this is the gist of the Robert Schock studies: that the structures were built during a far wetter time, and were repurposed by the people who came later.

That is not even close to what Schoch has claimed.

Harte

When we look at the evidence we need to consider the background of the observer.
For example the codex Mendoza probably has more to do with the Spanish navigators perspectives during the Polish renaissance in Europe than any deep Aztec history.
This is just one frame from the Codex Mendoza which supposedly documents Mayan Aztec history.




In the beginning, Egyptian pyramid culture and trade winds?

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
When we look at the evidence we need to consider the background of the observer.
For example the codex Mendoza probably has more to do with the Spanish navigators perspectives during the Polish renaissance in Europe than any deep Aztec history.

An interesting idea, but the original was written in Nahuatl by the Aztecs who were educated by the missionaries. Some of them were children of nobles from Moctezuma's reign while others were former rebels against Moctezuma, who converted to Christianity. Several of them are named... and they really wouldn't have any understanding or knowledge of nautical navigation.

This is just one frame from the Codex Mendoza which supposedly documents Mayan Aztec history.

The Aztecs and the Mayans are two different people and they lived in different areas. Like the citizens of the United States and the citizens of Costa Rica. Both are in the Western Hemisphere, but you don't have "Costa United Statesians"

In the beginning, Egyptian pyramid culture and trade winds?

The Egyptians were notoriously poor sailors (they relied on others to travel the Mediterranean) and didn't know about trade winds. Besides, they'd been dead and gone for over 1500 years by the time this was written.

a reply to: Byrd

I think you make an important distinction there.
The official story for the Spanish sailing missions into Mesoamerica during the early 1500's was that they were searching for an alternative route for spice trade with India. Historically middlemen like the Persian cartel were making huge profits on Indian spice goods at the expense of the Spanish and European consumers.

The Codex Mendoza illustrators might have had some influences that were not actually shared with the Mesoamerican cultures. The Spanish navigators came into direct contact with the Aztecs who dated back to about 1200 AD however the bottom panel of the Codex Mendoza appears to depict the Mayan pyramid Chichen Itza located on the Yucatan peninsula which dates back much earlier perhaps 600 AD.

I noticed that the herbage above the characters differed in the Codex Mendoza. For example, that looks like an Agave cactus at sunset with "legs" over the character with the sunlit face. Agave cactus are usually blueish except when they are reflecting something like a red sunset.



The character with the shaded face is lit from behind which makes his ears appear red and his breath is circling back towards him as though he is faced east into the trade winds from Africa. His green cactus is taller kind of i shaped, perhaps looking for a star constellation rising to the east at sunset.



There may have been an earlier indigenous culture living in Mesoamerica that had something like the Sothic calendar that was based on the position of a constellation at the same cycle of the zodiac every year. Using the sunset as their clock system to align the constellation on the first day of their year over a cactus, tree branch etc. Four stars of Canis major would rise near the center of the horizon in the tropics. Probably look more like a birds foot standing on a cactus rather than a dog though..

So if an earlier indigenous culture was already using a bird constellation for their calendar and ships from Egypt bearing remarkable knowledge of pyramids and sun gods came sailing over the horizon, they might depict them like Quetzalcóatl with the serpent aspect.

I count nine terraced squares constructing the Mayan pyramid Chichen Itza. The Codex Mendoza appears to find fault near the top of the pyramid structure? If some early expedition was blown west to Mesoamerica a couple thousand years ago they might have had an incomplete concept of the Egyptian pyramid system although they apparently understood the sun as a latitude indicator, and the serpent path it creates between the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn.

I'm having trouble believing the official story that the Codex Mendoza depicts an unbiased history of Mesoamerica.
Might even been a social test similar to Plato's experiment with the slave child?

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: Byrd

I think you make an important distinction there.
The official story for the Spanish sailing missions into Mesoamerica during the early 1500's was that they were searching for an alternative route for spice trade with India.

Actually, they were looking for gold and silver so they could fund their wars.

The Codex Mendoza illustrators might have had some influences that were not actually shared with the Mesoamerican cultures. The Spanish navigators came into direct contact with the Aztecs who dated back to about 1200 AD however the bottom panel of the Codex Mendoza appears to depict the Mayan pyramid Chichen Itza located on the Yucatan peninsula which dates back much earlier perhaps 600 AD.

(quiet sigh)

There's writing on the page, and it's readable (yes, it's in the horrible cursive of the 16th and 17th centuries but it really is readable to modern eyes. It just takes a bit of time.) The pyramid isn't Chichen Itza... the Aztecs (Mexica, actually) had pyramid temples in their towns. One big section of the Codex Mendoza is the destruction of the towns. Each one is listed and there's a drawing for each, showing the pyramid for that town and its temple in flames and falling over.
Digitized Codex Mendoza (complete) is at this link

I noticed that the herbage above the characters differed in the Codex Mendoza. For example, that looks like an Agave cactus at sunset with "legs" over the character with the sunlit face. Agave cactus are usually blueish except when they are reflecting something like a red sunset.

That's the name of the towns (they used symbols.) The list of the towns and the drawings of their temples atop their pyramids in flame (stylized) begins on Fol3, V.

The character with the shaded face is lit from behind which makes his ears appear red and his breath is circling back towards him as though he is faced east into the trade winds from Africa. His green cactus is taller kind of i shaped, perhaps looking for a star constellation rising to the east at sunset.

You're looking at an incomplete image... He's facing right because he's watching the eagle landing on the cactus in the middle of a lake -- the myth of the founding of the Aztec empire and the city Tenochtitlan. This is what the complete image looks like There are a number of figures with those long white capes; they are "tlatoani" (the name for the local king of an area)



The name written on his garment identifies him as Tenoch - one of the first Aztec rulers. The symbol over his head is the symbol for the city Tenochtitlan. The other Tlatoani grouped around him are also named and are well-known if you study Aztec history (i took a deep dive into it recently) Below the eagle-cactus is a "map" of Tenochtitlan.

There may have been an earlier indigenous culture living in Mesoamerica

There were hundreds. The Aztecs inhabited the area from about 1300 AD through 1500 AD (they're still there, but now called "Mexicans") It includes at various times, the Olmecs, Maya, and Toltecs -- and those were just the major civilizations.

that had something like the Sothic calendar that was based on the position of a constellation at the same cycle of the zodiac every year. Using the sunset as their clock system to align the constellation on the first day of their year over a cactus, tree branch etc. Four stars of Canis major would rise near the center of the horizon in the tropics. Probably look more like a birds foot standing on a cactus rather than a dog though..

The Maya were excellent astronomers, and built observatories that were superior to the European ones (and far, far, far superior to Egyptian ones.) They were better at calculating the length of the year, and they had multiple simultaneous calendars

So if an earlier indigenous culture was already using a bird constellation for their calendar and ships from Egypt bearing remarkable knowledge of pyramids and sun gods came sailing over the horizon, they might depict them like Quetzalcóatl with the serpent aspect.

Their pyramids are very different from the Egyptian ones. They were meant to be climbed and had stairs, they had rooms with altars for sacrifices (you can read about those... real chamber of horrors... in Cortez' reports) they had flat tops, they built temples on top for the gods and the sides are far steeper because they used different building material. Oh... and the oldest Olmec pyramid (La Venta) dates to about 600 years AFTER the Egyptians stopped building pyramids. In Caral, Peru they were building pyramids about a thousand years earlier than La Venta.

Other than having four sides that slope upward, there's little that looks like an Egyptian pyramid.

I'm having trouble believing the official story that the Codex Mendoza depicts an unbiased history of Mesoamerica.

Oh, rest assured that it does not. However, there are other documents by the newly literate Aztecs who learned to write Nahuatl with the letters given by the Spanish missionaries that fill out a lot of the history and give a better picture of these fascinating people. There's a wealth of legal documents and court cases that also fill out more of the picture as well. Most aren't in English.

No Egyptians, though. They didn't need them.

There are a lot of good books on the Aztecs, but I think the best one that covers everything in an unbiased tone AND links all the source document (woohoo!) is the Fifth Sun

Warlords of Ancient Mexico is a bit more entertaining to read... BUT... be aware of some real bias there (Spanish soldiers are "murdered" but Aztec soldiers are "killed." And then there's the whole bit where he talks about what Moctezuma is thinking although Moctezuma left no record of his thoughts.)