The "One God" & Distinction Between Magical And Religious Texts In Ancient Egypt

Spoiler: One of my favorite images, cut to serve as a fancy thumbnail.

So, long story short, one of me mates wanted my opinion on this particular video (I do not think it is anyhow necessary to watch it, but it provides context):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYzhMN0JUD4
My answer resulted in the biggest write-up about Ancient Egypt I've done so far, and I think it is good enough to save it from being left to rot on Discord and post it at least somewhere else.
@dorgon encouraged me to copy it all here, so he gets the ping.
___________________________________________________________________
Me:
Took me a while longer than I've hoped it will, but, well, I've watched it...
What can I say... First of all, Jan Assman is a cool dude, but I ultimately disagree with a number of his propositions.
As for the guy who made the video - I think he is fair, but at the same time he definitely sees what he wants to see and he made at least one serious mistake that I've noticed. Still, he is right when he says he is convincing. I doubt I will have the words to counter him, because I was never one with a tongue or patience to explain things. But, I guess, it still would be good if I'll provide my notes on it...
So, starting with the serious mistake I've mentioned, it is on 15:50 where he says that Amun-Re is escalated to something that has never been seen before - and this is just not true. Which ties us to the creation myth he mentioned in his video.
Thing is, the creation myth of Atum is but one of creation myths of Egypt. And it is the earliest one known to us. And, therefore, I think it is safe to say that it is quite a primitive, tribalistic approach to the creation of the world. I cannot deny it remained popular in certain texts, especially in magical ones, but egyptians - in general - were quite respectful to their predcessors and enjoyed reciting old texts in one form or another. Plus, I'm not sure if it really a good argument to include clearly magical texts into religious talks...

Friend:
I don't think the ancient had a distinction between magic and religion, at least not until the rise of Christianity

Me:
It is a very dubious notion.
I mean, no one will ever be able to give you a direct answer. At least when it comes to Ancient Egypt.
I would argue against that, because there's a distinctly different form applied to magical texts and to proper religious rituals.
Magical texts in general are quite keen on taking a turn for the weird.

Friend:
Interesting
What's the key distinction in your opinion?

Me:
You see, I have this book here. James H. Breasted - Development Of Religion And Thought In Ancient Egypt.
I've got several passages from it, but allow me to return to them a bit later. First things first, allow me to conclude my thoughts about the video.
Anyway, thing is, arguably the most popular and way more "learned" creation myth that was also very widespread through the Egypt until the New Kingdom came from Memphis theology, and it was the creation of the world by Ptah. Unlike the creation by Atum, which comes from pre-dynastic period, creation of the world by Ptah has been written during very first dynasty, and it clearly shows the progress in the Egyptian worldview, as it changes from ejaculating other things into existance towards the more... enlightened practices. I can send you the myth itself, if you are interested, but here's the prelude to it.
When the First Dynasty established its capital at Memphis, it was necessary to justify the sudden emergence of this town to central importance. The Memphite god Ptah was therefore proclaimed to have been the First Principle, taking precedence over other recognized creator-gods. Mythological arguments were presented that the city of Memphis was the "place where the Two Lands are united" and that the Temple of Ptah was the "balance in which Upper and Lower Egypt have been weighed."
The extracts presented here are particularly interesting, because creation is treated in an intellectual sense, whereas other creation stories (like pp. 3-4 above [Atum]) are given in purely physical terms. Here the god Ptah conceives the elements of the universe with his mind ("heart") and brings them into being by his commanding speech ("tongue"). Thus, at the beginning of Egyptian history, there was an approach to the Logos Doctrine.
Therefore, what he claims as never had been before New Kingdom, actually has been conceived as early as Old Kingdom of Egypt.
Another point he mentions is how "Shu becomes Osiris", and therefore they should be one and the same, which is very wrong from egyptian point of view. Especially in case of Osiris, since - and it is one of my favorite theological points - in many texts of Ancient Egypt it is repeated that in death every man becomes Osiris. I doubt you can stretch that to the point that every man is literally God. I mean, it is definitely possible, but it doesn't sound viable.
Now, I'm glad he mentioned the Instruction of Merikare, because those passages where Gods are refered to as a singular God are nothing special in polytheistic religions. Allow me to quote myself from one of my recent forum posts...

...a lot of religions use those epithets in a kind of different meaning for Gods:

"The Sole Image, who made [all] that exists. Single One, who made that which exists."
"Single One, without his equal."

These two snippets are from The Hymn To Amun-Re, 1400BC. I underline that they are not about Aten and atenism - the lines above are from The Hymn To Amun-Re, from a polytheistic religion. The meaning of calling Amun-Re the "Single One" and "Sole" is not to underline his mono-ism, but rather to underline his place in the pantheon of Gods. He is indeed a special one among Gods, for no other God could take his place (in this case, he is praised as the creator) - and similar passages can be encountered in a number of hymns about other Gods as well. Even mortals sometimes had praises like that one, being "unique" and "without equal".

This is the point which I've picked up from the work named Stephen O. Smoot - Ancient Egyptian "Monotheism" A Comparative Analysis, and you can read it whole for a more detailed and nuanced point.

Stephen O. Smoot - Ancient Egyptian “Monotheism” A Comparative Analysis.pdf

Посмотреть и скачать с Яндекс Диска

disk.yandex.ru

Finally, we can move on to the New Kingdom, which I, in general, dislike. The man in the video says that New Kingdom provided volumes of "religious and intellectual developence" - well, in my opinion, the pinnacle of all that was the Middle Kingdom, while New Kingdom was largerly the decadence and the last breaths of Ancient Egypt. And while it is undeniable that a lot of... personal piety came to us in New Kingdom - especially after the heresy of Akhenaten - there are few points which you have to keep in mind.
First: New Kingdom simply wins this one because it is, well, New. A lot of texts that survived to our days come from New Kingdom just because it is closer to us on a timeline. We have significantly less prayers from Middle Kingdom and pretty much none from the Old Kingdom.
And second, here's another quote I want to present:
Černý noted that while depictions of the gods do not appear on personal monuments of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, divine names do occur in the inscriptions. Černý theorized that the absence of depictions of deities on individuals' monuments resulted from the official view that only the king, himself a deity, could appear with the gods. It was only in the Second Intermediate period that depictions of gods began to appear on private monuments ― due to the absolute equality for all in the religion which was achieved by the time of the XIIth Dynasty... Like Erman, Černý saw the reign of Akhenaten as the impetus that allowed freer expression in texts permitting Egyptians to express their emotional feelings and attitudes about the gods. In his discussion of the Deir el Medina stelae, published by Erman, Černý stressed the humility of the worshipper whose appeal for mercy is recorded on the stelae, as well as the confessional nature of the texts, contrasting it with the self assured tone and the assumption of infallibility pervading all the earlier religious literature. He contended, however, that these Deir el Medina texts are actually only a continuation of similar sentiments towards the gods expressed by the theophorous names of earlier periods that, in the New Kingdom, are openly expressed.
Plus a lot of texts mentioned in the video are actually from the very early dynasties of the New Kingdom. So if anything, even if I cannot really prove it, I think that personal piety comes to prominence during Middle Kingdom. And it is kind of important in context, because during Middle Kingdom Egypt was, without a doubt, polytheistic. The video also seems to emphasize the significance of Amun-Re, when it is simply not quite true as well, because personal prayers could have been extended to any God.
We do know, for example, of prayers dedicated to Thoth, and to a very local, pretty much unknown outside of the prayer, Goddess named "Meres-ger, Lady of Heaven, Mistress of the Two Lands, whose good name is Peak of the West."
And if we are to take magical texts into account, there are also quite heartful lines here and there, like "O thou in whose hand is the moment that belongeth to these hours bring in the light to me! Anubis, the good oxherd, bring in the light to me, for thoushalt give protection to me here today."
Which brings us to the point of magic...
So, key distinction lies in the fact that magical texts are really weird, as I've already mentioned. You probably just don't realise how weird they are, but with some experience you will pretty much never confuse a magic text with a religious one. Allow me to quote a friend of mine...
Hm, interesting. I must admit, I know little about both the PT (Pyramid Texts) and the Book of the Dead... I keep shying away from it because the PT are often kind a weird. May you bespit the face of Horus and remove his injury! May you catch the testicles of Seth and remove his mutilation! That one is born for you, this one is conceived for you. - What on earth?
This is the kind of stuff you will never meet in more religious texts.
And if you want more about this question, well, we have to start from the fact that I, in general think that Middle Kingdom is the peak of Ancient Egyptian culture. While it is decadence in the New Kingdom - during the Old Kingdom there's indeed little distinction between magic and religion.
There are also very... lowly concepts still prevalent during the Old Kingdom. Such as the concept of the afterlife reserved only for pharaohs or for pharaohs and nobles, you know...
But as Old Kingdom endured from 3000 BC to 2000 BC, it progressed a lot duting the thousand of years. And so by the Middle Kingdom we can see an entirely different, very enlightened society, with high moral values. Well, on paper, at least. Of course.
Here's the quote which I've picked up:
That which saves the Book of the Dead itself from being exclusively a magical vade mecum for use in the hereafter is its elaboration of the ancient idea of the moral judgment, and its evident appreciation of the burden of conscience. The relation with God had become something more than merely the faithful observance of external rites. It had become to some extent a matter of the heart and of character. Already in the Middle Kingdom the wise man had discerned the responsibility of the inner man, of the heart or understanding. The man of ripe and morally sane understanding is his ideal, and his counsel is to be followed. "A hearkener (to good counsel) is one whom the god loves. Who hearkens not is one whom the god hates. It is the heart (understanding) which makes its possessor a hearkener or one not hearkening. The life, prosperity, and health of a man is in his heart.
You see, during the Old Kingdom it seems the notion of Gods being equal to men - or at least top pharaohs and nobles - is quite widespread. The texts from those times often... pose an idea that Gods could be cheated, that men can use magic and whatever to appear innocent before judgement and make their way into the afterlife even if they were not quite as pious during their life. The funerary texts often portray egyptian simply declaring their innocence, as if declaration itself, spoken in a proper way, will erase all sins.
And it is really funny when you look at it like that; one can only wonder what happened to make it all change so radically - but by the time of a Middle Kingdom there's definitely a solid expression that all living beings have a soul which will enter the afterlife if they are worthy, and that Gods are infallible, magic will not save your soul. It is still welcome, and it still mentioned often, but I think it ties to the fact that I've mentioned in the very start: egyptians liked old texts and respected the wisdoms of their predcessors. Their art was very traditionalistic, conservative. So it is kind of understandable that all the magic of the Old Kingdom is still in the funeral texts, despite the general notion that it won't help you ultimately.
It is kind of like the... scenarious of the reliefs, which are the same in the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom. Or the general planning of a temple: despite all the new arhitectural nuance, the overall... map of the temple remains unchanged for a long time.
So kind of similar thing happens to the magical texts: they are still there, but the notion have changed, and when you read these texts, it is... quite visible.
Therefore I would argue that during Middle Kingdom there was a visible distinction between magical and religious texts. Whether egyptians themselves saw and recognized it is a whole other point, but it is there.
That book I've mentioned - Development Of Religion And Thought In Ancient Egypt - is very interesting, but it is also not a small read. I can send it to you if you are interested.
Plus, there is always this fact that definitely should be noted one more time: most texts that survived for us to read are the texts of kings and nobles - few layman egyptians could afford themselves the monuments and secure tombs which lasted to our days. I think it is more than viable to... use your internal gaze to figure out how things could have been. After all, ancient egyptians were pretty much the same human beings we were. And those changes in relgious texts between kingdoms - and changes overall - they did not just happen overnight. Ultimately, even Akhenaten didn't just appear and installed Aten out of sudden. There should be an understanding of background, of certain... social currents which enabled this kind of thing, and said social currents obviously take time to develop.
So it is quite... expectable that the texts of nobility that we see today are likely at least somewhat more arrogant than the ways the genral public addressed the Gods during their times. The few texts of the lower classes that we have are proving it.
___________________________________________________________________
I think it turned out rather solid. With the exception of my view that New Kingdom is likely the decadence of Ancient Egypt: this is a very personal point which - I admit - I can hardly support with any facts, really. But whether it is true or not - it doesn't change much. You can be free to ignore that particular notion if you do not agree with me.
I also sent everything I've written to another friend of mine who is way more prolific in the area of Ancient Egypt than I am, and he pretty much agreed with what I wrote. Matter of fact, he was even more harsh on the whole notion of monoteism in Ancient Egypt. But I think his opinion is interesting anough to attach it here as kind of final thoughts:

I think the very important starting point, one I also believe in, would be this:
After all, ancient egyptians were pretty much the same human beings we were.
A good place to look would therefore be modern polytheists, or should I say, people who grew up in a polytheist environment
I suspect that monotheists are near incapable of understanding non-monotheistic societies or thought
There is a certain underlying assumption that there can be only one god (mine) and people desperately search to find him in e.g. the Aten to say: see? They didn't use the right label but at least they had the right idea!
I don't think that catches the thoughts in the 2nd millennium BCE at all.
That said, there is an interesting question as to a more general concept of god vs the individual divine figures like Maat, PtaH, Amun, Re etc
I have noticed the phrase (from NK letters): I am well today, tomorrow is in the hands of the god.
This reminds me of the way shangdi 上帝 (heavenly emperor) is used in Chinese
This does not negate the existence of the earth god / kitchen god, the reign of the gods in the ocean and all the other divine figures in the Chinese pantheon. And yet it seems the most relevant for your day-to-day life or fate.
I think it would be interesting to look at how Chinese who still follow polytheism (South East Asia) and Hindus conceptualize divinity.
I think it will be hard from a monotheist perspective
...
Talked this over with my wife who grew up in a synchretist Chinese environment (e.g. for a funeral you would have four different types of monks show up, covering the different bases). Here's a quick summary of our discussion: Divinity is at the start, as a fundamental need of humans, something to lean on for protection, something to be in awe of. This takes different channels, which are situationally dependent. Not unlike in catholic Christianity, where you have not just Jesus and Mother Mary, but also the apostles, saints and archangels with their very specific functions. A devout catholic will know that for this ailment you turn to this saint, and for that protection to another. Not unlike a Hindu reaching out to Ganesh for success in their studies. For the believer, these entities are real, but they are also just channels of the same divinity. You could liken it to the State, which - depending on your worldview - may be there to protect you or out to get you. Said state has a myriad of different officials and entities you can turn to, but they are all part of the State.

Just how much particular Gods in polytheistic religions could be viewed as an extension of one Divinity is an interesting topic which could use a write up of its own. Same applies to parallels between polytheism and different saints, which is yet another very interesting topic - matter of fact, some of the saints are very likely Gods of ancient cultures, which managed to survive into christianity as saints rather than as full-fledged Gods. But for now, I think this is more than enough. Maybe we'll get to the other points later.

 

[pickleman]

I stopped thinking that the people of the past were "pretty much" the same human beings we were.

I think consciousness is tightly bounded to lineage and is constantly pressured by the environment; Meaning consciousness accelerates evolution in terms of a few generations whereas the genome is relatively similar as it were 10,000 years ago.

I personally believe the elites know this already and choose to hide it as it is convenient. This is why they come up with terms like "inherited trauma". Its completely made up nonsense that for some reason is correlated with ethnicity rather then individual experiences. The real reason why Africans and Native Americans have struggled to adapt to the world of the Europeans whereas the Asians have not struggled is because of the degree of consciousness evolutionary pressures taking place. Since Consciousness evolution is very quick; Natives and the blacks will very quickly be selected for consciousnesses which are well suited for our environment... which it seems isn't very well suited for Europeans and Asians Today in the 21st century like it was during the late-modern era of the 20th century.

The consciousnesses of Ancient Egyptians would not be able to handle the modern world; these people would combust worse the then the Natives did when they first contacted Europeans. Imagine that everything you know is not real; this is the only way perceive but not understand what I am talking about. The vast majority of the framework for how you construct reality is formed in your youth by your parents and trusted cultural officials (priests/teachers/coaches). This framework is what holds you together for the rest of your life and if you come across information which claims all of this is not true then you will be in a tail spin for the rest of your life... of course some people of your ethnicity will be better off then others; this is consciousness evolution taking place.

Consciousness's evolution is dictated by whom has kids and whom gets to raise them. When social conditions change there is immediate pressure on the consciousness which is apparent. If the consciousness is strongly willed they will reproduce and their offspring with a consciousness linked to yours will learn the new ways of the new reality easier then you can as they are able to start from a lower level of consciousness building (what you give them via inheritance and early life experiences).

When you talk about Polytheism and Monotheism; You are talking about the above. You talking about the evolution of consciousness. Its very obvious to me that Polytheism is a lower consciousness state that is actually less stable in monotheistic ones. This is because Polytheistic Gods are simply not as powerful metaphysically as a "Jack-of-all-Trades" God. Jack-of-all-Trades Gods make more sense to the layman... so the layman is more likely to prefer a monotheistic God. The Lemmings of society will move from Polytheistic Gods which require more effort to understand and more towards the "everything God". As soon as a polytheistic society is infected by monotheism the elites of the society need to stamp out the infection or they will be taken over.

The Reason for high rates of depression these days is that Monotheism has come under attack, and there is no apparent alternative. No one knows what is going on. The Lemmings were told that the "monotheistic" God was silly so they abandoned him for nothing and then they are surprised when being nothing is depressing. The filter here is very aggressive and only a small few will make it through. Its interesting to be apart of a great consciousness filter. People who have children essentially select the consciousnesses of tomorrow.

It seems to me that those who try out "nothingness" and realize there's nothing there and returning to monotheism are doing very well for themselves so I predict monotheism is still the dominate consciousness configuration, I think the "nothingness" virus is actually parasitic and it eats it own people.

 

[Ross_Я]

Consciousness's evolution is dictated by whom has kids and whom gets to raise them. When social conditions change there is immediate pressure on the consciousness which is apparent.

I think you should abandon the term "evolution", this will give your words more plausibility. Evolution means long-term changes by definition, evolution is not a thing that changes overnight. Quick changes are revolutions.
Overall, this whole "consciousness' evolution" reeks of bicameral mind theory. We talked about it a bit in this thread here: https://forum.agoraroad.com/index.php?threads/6341/#post-97057
I denounce it and find the notion of consciousness - or anything else, for that matter - being able to evolve so radically in less than 6000 years ridiculous. But you might find it an interesting read to support your ideas.
I will copy the most important part of my point against it here though:

I'm talking about an evolutionary kind of change here. Those changes in the brain we are talking about - you need them not only change neuroplastically, but imprint these changes onto DNA. And then spread those changes in the DNA globe-wide. Onto the whole human races, without losing all our... well, races - you know, asian, caucasian, african, all that kind of differences.
To stuff it all within a century - or even within a millenium - means to imply that either every single one of human races developed the very same changes in the brain at pretty much the same time - which is very doubtful - or some kind of selective breeding across the entire human race. Which is fun, but doubtful.

______________________________________

The consciousnesses of Ancient Egyptians would not be able to handle the modern world; these people would combust worse the then the Natives did when they first contacted Europeans.

Give them a year or two - or even a decade or two, or, perhaps, even a generation or two - and they will adapt. Humans in general are very adaptive species. They can adapt to almost anything. Adaptaion does not mean any radical changes though, and barely affect consciousness as well. And the most basic consciousness-related lines of human society haven't changed for years. To this day most people live by the Bible and the Ten Commandments which have been written 2000 years ago, and said text itself has been based upon older religions that has been written God knows how long ago. Some of the texts included in the Old Testament are proven to be ancient egyptian.
To top it off, there have never been a society which had a radically different morals. All human societies that are known to us knew basics, like, lying or stealing or killing is bad and should not be done. And - I'm not sure why, but I feel like I should note - terrorists and the likes are not a society.

I think consciousness is tightly bounded to lineage and is constantly pressured by the environment;.

Ultimately, this is the line where our views differ. Personally I read enough ancient texts to be sure that nothing really changes in a mind of an average human being. Decorations change, but humans remain the same for at least 4000 years at this point.
Obviously, there's no way to prove if any of us is right, though I'd like to bring an ancient egyptian to our times. Or, you know, the opposite thing. It would've been a shock, but I'm pretty sure adaptation would've been rather quick.
Now, I can provide a point to contradict myself, but I guess that wouldn't be wise. Maybe later.

Its very obvious to me that Polytheism is a lower consciousness state that is actually less stable in monotheistic ones. This is because Polytheistic Gods are simply not as powerful metaphysically as a "Jack-of-all-Trades" God. Jack-of-all-Trades Gods make more sense to the layman... so the layman is more likely to prefer a monotheistic God.

Finally, I feel like noting that the point above is the weakest one of yours. There are still polytheistic societies on our planet, like syncretistic part of China which I've mentioned in the OP. And they barely differ from the rest of us. Their laymen are no different from the monotheistic laymen, and their consciousness is neither lower nor higher than a christian one. Go figure.

 

[pickleman]

I think you should abandon the term "evolution", this will give your words more plausibility. Evolution means long-term changes by definition, evolution is not a thing that changes overnight. Quick changes are revolutions.

I was using evolution in its correct term. Consciousnesses are filtered via the incapacity to multiply itself before it dies out. I never mentioned anything about an overnight change... I explicitly said it takes multiple generations for a population to recover from a significant psychological shock such as witnessing a civilization which is significantly different from your own with much higher conscious thought and will. If you are someone in their late 20s you will have a hard time dealing with moving into a completely different culture, it would be significantly easier if you were young. But of course someone has to be the one to "give", ie: in order for someone of your group to exist in another culture someone in that linage would have to confront the conflict and reproduce. This first immigrant would require a strong will.

What I define as "higher conscious thought" and "higher will" is merely the capacity to continue improve the future of their descendants regardless of adversity. ie: if you were picked up and plopped into 16th century England you would probably commit suicide or be a drunk despite knowing "more". Its a really significant change. Like think about it. Nearly all modern conveniences you have today would not exist. It would be like getting lost in the forest. Even if you are a strongly willed person in this civilization; you may not be a strongly willed person in another. This is the evolutionary pressure.

Give them a year or two - or even a decade or two, or, perhaps, even a generation or two - and they will adapt. Humans in general are very adaptive species. They can adapt to almost anything

This is very idealistic. But since I was accurately using the definition of evolution to make my original point; Obviously some of the people (who may have seemed a little weird probably) may adapt very well to the new civilization... this is an evolutionary trait stemming from the genome. a recent meta-analysis reported heritability estimates for the Big Five (NEO) traits, ranging from 31% to 41%. You need some weird people who do not fit into a group to deal with the selection pressures in group conflicts. An adaption with in a couple years; this is the weird people. It takes a handful of generations before a population is at par with the dominate social group with the strongest wills.

Society is also always changing. So the dominate group is always has their consciousnesses stressed. There is a reason why there is civilization cycles in terms of a couple hundred years. This is basically the equilibrium of consciousnesses in stress of the dominate social group. When the Dominate Social Group has their consciousnesses stressed, this enables opportunities for other groups who have higher consciousnesses/stronger wills (which have been under higher stresses over more generations) to come in and take over. Take a look at the whites in America; They had strong wills up till the end of the 20th century then their children (who adopted the consciousnesses of their parents in youth) then had to come to terms that that consciousness is not very well equipped for a post-christian postmodern society. The typical white youth do not care about their next generation as they only care about themselves so their wills and consciousnesses are lower. What is interesting is that since a lot of evolutionary pressure has been applied to Natives/Blacks/Asians for quite a while; they seized the weakness of the whites and started to take over their civilization.

These people have higher wills and consciousnesses because the white people abandoned their monotheist God which is where their strength was given. Can you explain why whites are seemingly unable to reproduce? Wheres your year or two of "adaption" ? Wheres your "they can adapt to anything?" Doesn't seem to check out the birth rates are dropping very fast; the monotheistic people who abandon their monotheistic God see their birthrates plummet more then the ones who did not.

Do you not get it? The Europeans in the 20th century almost universally believed in a monotheistic God and from that they defeated communism and fascism. Without that God they are seeing plummeting birthrates/declining civilization. Why do you think leaders claim "diversity is our strength?" why do you think they leaders claim that we need "immigration"? Its because they failed to reconcile with killing God. Its waving the white flag non-ironically.

There are still polytheistic societies on our planet

Right and there is still Monkeys in the forest. But if you put a monkey into a city they will be disorientated. Obviously these people are not monkeys, but they will no doubt feel unbalanced/alienated in a place where there is a dominate christian culture. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of how people feel when they are noticably different then others around them. A group which is united by one God will not be as easily destroyed as by a polytheistic one. The only way to destroy the monotheistic God is to hit them with unrelenting nhilism (which destroys any civilization without recovery).

And they barely differ from the rest of us. Their laymen are no different from the monotheistic laymen, and their consciousness is neither lower nor higher than a christian one. Go figure.

This is objectively false; If you analyze the entirety of the population of these syncretistic chinese people and plop the average down next to an average (real) Christian they will not find much common ground in thought. I have read the Secular Age by Charles Taylor; In this book he mentions that many Boomers in the 1960s actually abandoned the Christian God for a "Theuraputic Moralistic God" in an incoherant way. They passed this fake God to their Children and of course the child found it incoherant and abandoned it.

If take a single individual from a population you can really say whatever about them. So I personally do not care much about the supposed random individual which may have underwent pre-selective pressures.

I denounce it and find the notion of consciousness - or anything else, for that matter - being able to evolve so radically in less than 6000 years ridiculous

Right so you do not believe in "learning" or the immune system or memes or sciences or theory. Got it. How do you not look at the objective diversity of consciousness around you and not conclude that it was crafted by natural selection (a tool of God). Literally no one around you carries the same thought as you do, I cannot comprehend how you can think you would think the same way as an ancient egyptian.

In consciousness evolution got speed up many times fold compared to what the genome had on offer. Consciousness then created civilization which also evolves... did you not consider that civilizations are pressured by their environment and selected by it? Did you not consider that philosophical theories evolve? Scientific theories evolve? All of these concepts are tested by the environment and if they survive they get to pass their "genes" or they are destroyed.

Your tools evolve because consciousnesses evolves. These new tools pressure not only the consciousness who created the tool but also the consciousnesses which exist where the tool is being used by other consciounesses. If your civilization is punching out tools like there is no tomorrow then you put on SIGIFICANT STRESS to existing consciousnesses in the society which utilizes it. The idea that you exist in a society means that you exist in a space where consciounesses are using tools and which you are then encouraged to use aswell. Using a tool fundamentally ulters the pressures on your consciousness as the tools fundamentally changes what the consciousness /is/.

So no theres simply no way you can take some one from ancient egypt and expect them to be a functional person in this civilization. Even if you could speak the language (highly doubt anyone could as we wouldnt have an audible understanding or understand any subcontexts/jokes/metaphors), these people would freakout over nearly every "tool" you take for granted. Indians literally just got toilets installed a decade ago, this guy would not know how to shit. Not know how to wipe his ass. Not know how to clean himself. Not know how to buy things. Not know what or how to cook. Not know how to cross the street. Not know how to get anywhere. This guy would be utterly helpless, would need to start at ground zero with understanding. He would need to have an insanely strong will to not fall into deep depression.

Imagine if you teleported to some alien world where everything you believed was a lie. You sacred beliefs? WRONG. Have a bunch of Gods you like? THEY ARE ALL DEAD. Sport you enjoy? LONG GONE NEVER COMING BACK.

The big reason why Western Culture has decided to go all in with unrelenting nhilism is that in the end it takes out everything and thus puts all consciousness on par. This is because they believe in the blank slate which isnt real. In reality they are just destroying themselves in a conscious suicide. Like talk to some white people, most of these people are mentally damanged even though they come from good households. What the fuck happened? Can you explain? No I do not think you can. You theory predicts the opposite of what is occuring.

 

[Ross_Я]

...talk to some white people, most of these people are mentally damanged even though they come from good households. What the fuck happened? Can you explain? No I do not think you can. You theory predicts the opposite of what is occuring.

White people are the only ones I have around my small place in Russia. I assume you are a member of the western society?
Well, I'm sorry to say that, but it seems it drove you a bit crazy.
Your post is a horrific mishmash of terms and dubious beliefs, and while it holds a coherent point or two on ocassion, most of it is gibberish. To address every single piece of nonsense would be to waste my time beyond any measure. But to complement your desire to write that amount of text, I will pick several lines to reply to.

ie: if you were picked up and plopped into 16th century England you would probably commit suicide or be a drunk despite knowing "more". Its a really significant change. Like think about it. Nearly all modern conveniences you have today would not exist. It would be like getting lost in the forest.

Good you've mentioned forests, because I do not lose my mind and do not feel like comitting suicide when I move away from the city and live in the wild for 2-4 weeks every summer with next to zero of modern tools, save for a tent, matches and my phone to keep in touch with the family. Enough people abandon modernity for even longer times than I do - heck, some even choose to live in wilderness or secluded communities, like the amish guys, certain monasteries or whatever else.
The change is not as significant as you think it is.
_________________________________________________________________________________

I also feel compelled to once again point out that adaptation is not evolution. Heck, you say it yourself:

adapt very well to the new civilization... this is an evolutionary trait stemming from the genome.

Indeed, adaptation is an evolutionary trait, and it does aid evolution, but in all the examples we have in thread, consciousness does not evolve - it remains a consciousness of a human being, it just adapt to new tools and environments.

Literally no one around you carries the same thought as you do, I cannot comprehend how you can think you would think the same way as an ancient egyptian.

Because I never said that I will think the same way as an ancient egyptian. It is quite obvious that no one around me carries the same thoughts as I do.
But the very base upon which our thoughts are built - some very general sets of morals and self-perceptions and, heck, the brain itself overall - do not change much. Whether between me or people around me, or between me and people of ancient civilisation.

Ugh, fuck, I do not know why I am compelled to help you to make your point better, but the best illustration supporting your position - which you somehow failed to mention at all - would be various histories of feral children from around the world. Even then it remains a two-edged sword for you, because even people raised by dogs and wolves on ocassion are able to be integrated into the modern human society, even though they often remain mentally impaired and quite often never learn to speak properly.
And I will have more in common with an ancient egyptian rather than with a feral kid, so our thoughts will not differ as radically.
And furthermore still, feral kids are not an example of evolution of any kind! The changes they are going through do not anyhow radically impact their DNA, and therefore even though a feral child might never be able to speak properly and will have troubles with human society, the children of feral kids would not have the same troubles, given that they will be raised properly. Because they did not evolve and remained human! Same principle applies to the following point:

theres simply no way you can take some one from ancient egypt and expect them to be a functional person in this civilization.

Even if the person in question will never adapt - which is doubtful in itself as even you admit that certain persons can adapt - their children definitely will. Just as I said in my previous post.

Give them a year or two - or even a decade or two, or, perhaps, even a generation or two - and they will adapt.

Finally, I want to note that I will not reply to you on this topic anymore, so please, keep it in mind before writing your next post. I probably value your time even more than you do, but I really do not want you to waste time on another huge write-up which I will ignore.

 

[pickleman]

White people are the only ones I have around my small place in Russia. I assume you are a member of the western society?
Well, I'm sorry to say that, but it seems it drove you a bit crazy.
Your post is a horrific mishmash of terms and dubious beliefs, and while it holds a coherent point or two on ocassion, most of it is gibberish. To address every single piece of nonsense would be to waste my time beyond any measure. But to complement your desire to write that amount of text, I will pick several lines to reply to.


Good you've mentioned forests, because I do not lose my mind and do not feel like comitting suicide when I move away from the city and live in the wild for 2-4 weeks every summer with next to zero of modern tools, save for a tent, matches and my phone to keep in touch with the family. Enough people abandon modernity for even longer times than I do - heck, some even choose to live in wilderness or secluded communities, like the amish guys, certain monasteries or whatever else.
The change is not as significant as you think it is.
_________________________________________________________________________________

I also feel compelled to once again point out that adaptation is not evolution. Heck, you say it yourself:

Indeed, adaptation is an evolutionary trait, and it does aid evolution, but in all the examples we have in thread, consciousness does not evolve - it remains a consciousness of a human being, it just adapt to new tools and environments.


Because I never said that I will think the same way as an ancient egyptian. It is quite obvious that no one around me carries the same thoughts as I do.
But the very base upon which our thoughts are built - some very general sets of morals and self-perceptions and, heck, the brain itself overall - do not change much. Whether between me or people around me, or between me and people of ancient civilisation.

Ugh, fuck, I do not know why I am compelled to help you to make your point better, but the best illustration supporting your position - which you somehow failed to mention at all - would be various histories of feral children from around the world. Even then it remains a two-edged sword for you, because even people raised by dogs and wolves on ocassion are able to be integrated into the modern human society, even though they often remain mentally impaired and quite often never learn to speak properly.
And I will have more in common with an ancient egyptian rather than with a feral kid, so our thoughts will not differ as radically.
And furthermore still, feral kids are not an example of evolution of any kind! The changes they are going through do not anyhow radically impact their DNA, and therefore even though a feral child might never be able to speak properly and will have troubles with human society, the children of feral kids would not have the same troubles, given that they will be raised properly. Because they did not evolve and remained human! Same principle applies to the following point:

Even if the person in question will never adapt - which is doubtful in itself as even you admit that certain persons can adapt - their children definitely will. Just as I said in my previous post.


Finally, I want to note that I will not reply to you on this topic anymore, so please, keep it in mind before writing your next post. I probably value your time even more than you do, but I really do not want you to waste time on another huge write-up which I will ignore.

Your assertion that consciousness doesnt evolve is fundamentally incorrect.

When did the consciousness of your ape ancestor "adapt" to be the consciouness you have right now? Clearly makes no sense.

Also many of your arguments are rooted in hypothetical, unnormal, zoomed in situations. I am taking a view of a multigenerational/civilizational view.

You mention a child raised by a "dog" but children are not EVER raised by dogs from birth. This is a myth. A baby in the forest is dog meat.

Why are you so threatened by my views you call them giberish? Then you say misleading things like babies being raised by wolfs as if that is a real thing that happens. I dont understand.

You took my metaphore of getting lost in the firest literally. obviously if you can survive easy in the forest the metaphore breaks down, but I was only saying you would be in a state of confusion not knowing what to do or how to live. Let alone finding pussy to raise a child with.

You said: Even if the person in question will never adapt - which is doubtful in itself as even you admit that certain persons can adapt - their children definitely will.

You missed a important argument I made and its that they need the higher will. They need to find a woman and fuck her and raise the child to a stable state to where that child can grow up and fuck another woman to produce another child. Without this higher will theres no evolution of consciousness.
Without pressures on consciousness, consciousness doesnt evolve it decays. A pressure on a consciousness prevents child birth and no pressure on consciousness means childbirth is easy.

You can see that my perspective on consciousness actually reveals truths about man/history/civilization and where they are destined. I would say America /west is in a state where consciousness is highly stressed. The evidence for this is low birthrates. Places where there is low stress on consciousness there is high birthrates. This is evolution. Its just faster then genetic mutation. You genetics can change after birth (epigenetics) but they cannot change as fast as consciousness in a single life time. That being said a single lifetime cannot have a full adaption from one civilization to another, it requires multiple generations for full adaption. And then civilization changes over time which applies a constant stress on all consciousnesses in the civilization.

Understand this concept and monotheism and polytheism start to make more sense, it starts to make sense why monotheism is more dominate.

 

[pickleman]

Your assertion that consciousness doesnt evolve is fundamentally incorrect.

When did the consciousness of your ape ancestor "adapt" to be the consciouness you have right now? Clearly makes no sense.

Also many of your arguments are rooted in hypothetical, unnormal, zoomed in situations. I am taking a view of a multigenerational/civilizational view.

You mention a child raised by a "dog" but children are not EVER raised by dogs from birth. This is a myth. A baby in the forest is dog meat.

Why are you so threatened by my views you call them giberish? Then you say misleading things like babies being raised by wolfs as if that is a real thing that happens. I dont understand.

You said: Even if the person in question will never adapt - which is doubtful in itself as even you admit that certain persons can adapt - their children definitely will.

You missed a important argument I made and its that they need the higher will. They need to find a woman and fuck her and raise the child to a stable state to where that child can grow up and fuck another woman to produce another child. Without this higher will theres no evolution of consciousness.
Without pressures on consciousness, consciousness doesnt evolve it decays. A pressure on a consciousness prevents child birth and no pressure on consciousness means childbirth is easy.

You can see that my perspective on consciousness actually reveals truths about man/history/civilization and where they are destined. I would say America /west is in a state where consciousness is highly stressed. The evidence for this is low birthrates. Places where there is low stress on consciousness there is high birthrates. This is evolution. Its just faster then genetic mutation. You genetics can change after birth (epigenetics) but they cannot change as fast as consciousness in a single life time. That being said a single lifetime cannot have a full adaption from one civilization to another, it requires multiple generations for full adaption. And then civilization changes over time which applies a constant stress on all consciousnesses in the civilization.

Understand this concept and monotheism and polytheism start to make more sense, it starts to make sense why monotheism is more dominate.

I can predict from my ideas that a society which the government raises children in pods like in Brave New World would cause civilizational decay as consciousness decay over time. As the pressure of reproduction will be removed. Without pressures of reproduction there is no need for higher wills.

The higher will will most definitely be demonized by marxists. As this is the root of inequality. Those with higher wills will probably be removed from gene pool by the state and in a couple hundred years due to retardation implode.

Your theory where consciousness is essentially a blank slate at birth has no basis, but would essentially mean the ideal world is a Brave New World. This makes you fundamentally an ideological enemy. You seek a world which to me is evil.

 

[Yabba]

I stopped thinking that the people of the past were "pretty much" the same human beings we were.

I think consciousness is tightly bounded to lineage and is constantly pressured by the environment; Meaning consciousness accelerates evolution in terms of a few generations whereas the genome is relatively similar as it were 10,000 years ago.

I personally believe the elites know this already and choose to hide it as it is convenient. This is why they come up with terms like "inherited trauma". Its completely made up nonsense that for some reason is correlated with ethnicity rather then individual experiences. The real reason why Africans and Native Americans have struggled to adapt to the world of the Europeans whereas the Asians have not struggled is because of the degree of consciousness evolutionary pressures taking place. Since Consciousness evolution is very quick; Natives and the blacks will very quickly be selected for consciousnesses which are well suited for our environment... which it seems isn't very well suited for Europeans and Asians Today in the 21st century like it was during the late-modern era of the 20th century.

The consciousnesses of Ancient Egyptians would not be able to handle the modern world; these people would combust worse the then the Natives did when they first contacted Europeans. Imagine that everything you know is not real; this is the only way perceive but not understand what I am talking about. The vast majority of the framework for how you construct reality is formed in your youth by your parents and trusted cultural officials (priests/teachers/coaches). This framework is what holds you together for the rest of your life and if you come across information which claims all of this is not true then you will be in a tail spin for the rest of your life... of course some people of your ethnicity will be better off then others; this is consciousness evolution taking place.

Consciousness's evolution is dictated by whom has kids and whom gets to raise them. When social conditions change there is immediate pressure on the consciousness which is apparent. If the consciousness is strongly willed they will reproduce and their offspring with a consciousness linked to yours will learn the new ways of the new reality easier then you can as they are able to start from a lower level of consciousness building (what you give them via inheritance and early life experiences).

When you talk about Polytheism and Monotheism; You are talking about the above. You talking about the evolution of consciousness. Its very obvious to me that Polytheism is a lower consciousness state that is actually less stable in monotheistic ones. This is because Polytheistic Gods are simply not as powerful metaphysically as a "Jack-of-all-Trades" God. Jack-of-all-Trades Gods make more sense to the layman... so the layman is more likely to prefer a monotheistic God. The Lemmings of society will move from Polytheistic Gods which require more effort to understand and more towards the "everything God". As soon as a polytheistic society is infected by monotheism the elites of the society need to stamp out the infection or they will be taken over.

The Reason for high rates of depression these days is that Monotheism has come under attack, and there is no apparent alternative. No one knows what is going on. The Lemmings were told that the "monotheistic" God was silly so they abandoned him for nothing and then they are surprised when being nothing is depressing. The filter here is very aggressive and only a small few will make it through. Its interesting to be apart of a great consciousness filter. People who have children essentially select the consciousnesses of tomorrow.

It seems to me that those who try out "nothingness" and realize there's nothing there and returning to monotheism are doing very well for themselves so I predict monotheism is still the dominate consciousness configuration, I think the "nothingness" virus is actually parasitic and it eats it own people.

Do you believe consciousness is genetic or memetic? In other words what do you think has more influence on how we think. Nature or nurture?

 

[Ross_Я]

Why are you so threatened by my views you call them giberish?

Because they are gibberish. I do not feel threatened, I just feel confused. As I always am when I see statements like these:

Right so you do not believe in "learning" or the immune system or memes or sciences or theory.

What is this sentence if not gibberish?

As is this one:

you would be in a state of confusion not knowing what to do or how to live. Let alone finding pussy to raise a child with.

Like, personally I do not even want to find a... uh, a "pussy to raise a child with". How the fuck did you even manage to type that. Either way, I'm sitting here alone and feeling rather fine. I doubt my consciousness experiences some kind of collapse... or whatever you want to imply, because it is hard to follow your thoughts. You are mixing up time periods and terminology and expect me to understand you.

Like, here:

When did the consciousness of your ape ancestor "adapt" to be the consciouness you have right now?

Obviously, if we will talk about apes, it wouldn't be simple adaptation! That would without a doubt be an example of evolution! But we are not talking about apes here, we are talking about humans! Humans who lived 5000 years ago, but were still humans and not fucking apes! In your own words:

Obviously these people are not monkeys

But somehow it seems not that obvious to you when it comes to ancient civilisations.

Your theory where consciousness is essentially a blank slate at birth has no basis, but would essentially mean the ideal world is a Brave New World. This makes you fundamentally an ideological enemy. You seek a world which to me is evil.

"My theory"? Where the fuck have I ever written something like that? Never once I even implied that consciousness is a blank slate! "Ideological enemy"? Pff... right, whatever. As I said, I'm done talking to you on this topic. You do not seem to understand my words either way. You just make things up and then call those phantoms in your head "my theory". Take your motherfucking meds, for Gods' sake.

 

[pickleman]

Do you believe consciousness is genetic or memetic? In other words what do you think has more influence on how we think. Nature or nurture?

I believe consciousness is both genetic and memetic.

Consciousness is constructed not in individual isolation but with a strong component stemming from the parents via genetics, epigenetics, memetics from the parents essential to child development, and memetics from society which is essential for the child to become an adult and reproduce.

Consciousness without others is without identity and undefined. I would also argue it empties as the connections to others fade with fading memories. This is why I do not think you can take somenone from a lets say a nomatic tribe in africa and place them into a new york city and expect them to know whats going on or to relate to anything. They will look different, their recognition will be in how they are seperate. Their skills will not match the needs of new york or its women for reproduction. Their only hope for survival is for a local to help them integrate. But even with help, the stress on the consciousness will be high. Even if my some miracle this guy reproduces, the children will still be under conscious stress of being othered. They may be unprepared pychologically for the high stress environments of Western society which encourages people to not breed and succum to it.

Nature implies that you have an intrinsic component to consciousness which exists when all nuture is taken away. I think this is a false diachotomy. Without nature, there is no reason to nuture, as nuturing implies to protect one from their natures awell as the natures of others. Without nurture, there is no psychological basis for memetics. A consciousness which evolved in an environment where there was memetics which stablized its construction/evolution it would not survive in a natural environment competing against species which do not require memetics for its consciousness, and act almost entirely on instinct. An example would be bacterial infection in the purest form as bacteria doesnt even have instincts they are as close to machines on the biological scale as possible... but against a human simply kept alive in a tube till 18 and released in the wild? Food is the basis of human culture, without cooking memetics, they will poision themselves almost immidietly.

This is consquence of original sin. When humans left the garden of eden they learned to judge good vs evil. This evolution of consciousness made humans different from animals. Humans now rely on memetics of morals more then they do on instinct. The birth of morals/ethics creates a doctrine of what one is not supposed to do.

This is why monotheism is superior to polytheism. It is because the doctrine of what one is morally ablidged is clear among the civilization rather then split among the demands of muliple gods.

This is why America/west is seeing high stress on consciousness. It is because its highly polytheistic in a post-theistic sense. while these people may be agnostic they exhibit traits of polytheists. Everyone is building their own sets of morals and the culture makes little to none moral demands other then to not critique the fact the America/West is decadant and polytheistic or face riticule.

A cohesive society is a monotheistic one. If you evolved with a consciousness in a monotheistic religion you actually require that religion for mental stability. This also has to be recognized in your peers or they will succum and be removed from the gene pool (and threatens your survival). Are some "New Atheists" mentally stable? Probably, this is a trait of genetic survival as I wrote about previously. These "new atheists" were wierd in the old monotheistic system. How will their children grow up? Many "New Atheists" are raised in christian households. How will these children form the adaptions required in this sudden change? Will they succumb?

I think they will, give it a few generations and the atheistic west will breed itself out and it will be monotheistic again. I will emphasize collapsing birthrates is occuring in countries which are becoming late modern countries. Which means they abandoned God. Birthrates are not falling as fast for the religous. The religous now know the evils of late moderns and the AntiCultural New Atheists and we want them purged. My children will learn philosophy and learn how to argue against new atheists for the genetic dead ends that they are.

 

[Vitnira]

Fantastic post, the sort of theological discussion I want to see on the road. I've been dwelling on the concept of monotheism/polytheism lately so this part really sings to me:

"The Sole Image, who made [all] that exists. Single One, who made that which exists."
"Single One, without his equal."

(I think I missed this in the paganism thread because when I checked on the thread it had devolved into shitposting...Sad, it was a very good post)

A God-before-others does seem to be a natural progression of polytheism. Look at Hinduism. Clearly based on trends, the Germanics would have unified around Wodanaz as a God-before-others - in modern times we do have Odinists that take Him as their chief god, and obviously He's at the center of my personal pantheon.

I've listened to this about 4 times now:


I'm starting to believe humans aren't capable of following a monotheist religion in the sense that most people mean it - of a religion where there is a single Divine source with nothing less powerful underneath it to be worshipped. In what we call monotheistic religions there is a God before other Gods, and the tiering of the other entities varies. Christians attempt to get around this by saying "Jesus is God", but for most of Christian history there have always been demons, angels, and saints - all of which take the place of Gods-underneath-God in the Christian pantheon. And even among the Christians that say "Jesus is also God" there is always a discontinuity between how they perceive Christ and God. For instance, the average Fundie Christian (including many on this forum) seems to actually have this as their Jesus:

And even though memes aren't well-founded logical arguments, it's obvious why:

I don't know what Muslims believe - I assume they have similar polytheist ideas - but they're inbred retards anyway so who cares.

I hope the jokes don't detract from the idea. But genuinely it does seem like the average Western conception of Christ is wildly different from the Bible to the point where he's his own God-under-God alongside the Biblical Jesus and God. At very least, the hardcore fundie Christian is still a duotheist even if they lie to themselves.
Someone will inevitably respond to me with "lol no I don't that's HERESY" - or better yet, share that insane jesus-is-actually-white conspiracy theory webpage. And to that, I say this:

The "monotheist" differs in that they actively attempt to hypocritically convince themselves they are not polytheist in fear of upsetting their God-before-Gods (because he's jealous, after all!), without the realization that worship of Gods is still worship of God. Some Christians recognize the polytheism, but most don't. I think this delusion is unhealthy. The (average, monotheist) Hindu seems psychologically healthier in their belief that there are still Gods-under-God that they personally don't worship.

The growing Fundie movement in the West is removing the "don't ask don't tell" polytheism that Christianity existed under for centuries and is, in my opinion, the largest contributing factor leading to the secular liberal atheism of modernity. We can point to many concrete things that are driving people from faith, but faith exists somewhere outside the concrete. A growing attempt to create a God-Without-Gods religion alienates the human soul and leads to a worship of State - with its many Gods of Bureaucracy and Science - to relieve the desire for polytheism.


Anyway I'm quite interested in reading the book you mentioned. My Egyptology is a weak spot I'd like to improve on. There's so much out there I have no idea what's good, or what would appeal to me. Are there some "easier" texts I could read to lead up to the one you referenced?

 

[Mеченый Яков]

Fantastic post, the sort of theological discussion I want to see on the road. I've been dwelling on the concept of monotheism/polytheism lately so this part really sings to me:

(I think I missed this in the paganism thread because when I checked on the thread it had devolved into shitposting...Sad, it was a very good post)

A God-before-others does seem to be a natural progression of polytheism. Look at Hinduism. Clearly based on trends, the Germanics would have unified around Wodanaz as a God-before-others - in modern times we do have Odinists that take Him as their chief god, and obviously He's at the center of my personal pantheon.

I've listened to this about 4 times now:


I'm starting to believe humans aren't capable of following a monotheist religion in the sense that most people mean it - of a religion where there is a single Divine source with nothing less powerful underneath it to be worshipped. In what we call monotheistic religions there is a God before other Gods, and the tiering of the other entities varies. Christians attempt to get around this by saying "Jesus is God", but for most of Christian history there have always been demons, angels, and saints - all of which take the place of Gods-underneath-God in the Christian pantheon. And even among the Christians that say "Jesus is also God" there is always a discontinuity between how they perceive Christ and God. For instance, the average Fundie Christian (including many on this forum) seems to actually have this as their Jesus:
View attachment 96243
And even though memes aren't well-founded logical arguments, it's obvious why:
View attachment 96244
I don't know what Muslims believe - I assume they have similar polytheist ideas - but they're inbred retards anyway so who cares.

I hope the jokes don't detract from the idea. But genuinely it does seem like the average Western conception of Christ is wildly different from the Bible to the point where he's his own God-under-God alongside the Biblical Jesus and God. At very least, the hardcore fundie Christian is still a duotheist even if they lie to themselves.
Someone will inevitably respond to me with "lol no I don't that's HERESY" - or better yet, share that insane jesus-is-actually-white conspiracy theory webpage. And to that, I say this:

The "monotheist" differs in that they actively attempt to hypocritically convince themselves they are not polytheist in fear of upsetting their God-before-Gods (because he's jealous, after all!), without the realization that worship of Gods is still worship of God. Some Christians recognize the polytheism, but most don't. I think this delusion is unhealthy. The (average, monotheist) Hindu seems psychologically healthier in their belief that there are still Gods-under-God that they personally don't worship.

The growing Fundie movement in the West is removing the "don't ask don't tell" polytheism that Christianity existed under for centuries and is, in my opinion, the largest contributing factor leading to the secular liberal atheism of modernity. We can point to many concrete things that are driving people from faith, but faith exists somewhere outside the concrete. A growing attempt to create a God-Without-Gods religion alienates the human soul and leads to a worship of State - with its many Gods of Bureaucracy and Science - to relieve the desire for polytheism.


Anyway I'm quite interested in reading the book you mentioned. My Egyptology is a weak spot I'd like to improve on. There's so much out there I have no idea what's good, or what would appeal to me. Are there some "easier" texts I could read to lead up to the one you referenced?

Unrelated, but i miss your old Sheperd profile picture.

the previous one says "Wise and collected"

this one is just "Rabies"

 

[Vitnira]

Unrelated, but i miss your old Sheperd profile picture.

the previous one says "Wise and collected"

this one is just "Rabies"

You could...y'know...post this to my profile instead of posting something completely unrelated here

 

[Mеченый Яков]

You could...y'know...post this to my profile instead of posting something completely unrelated here

Why should i?

 

[Ross_Я]

Fantastic post, the sort of theological discussion I want to see on the road. I've been dwelling on the concept of monotheism/polytheism lately so this part really sings to me:

...

Anyway I'm quite interested in reading the book you mentioned. My Egyptology is a weak spot I'd like to improve on. There's so much out there I have no idea what's good, or what would appeal to me. Are there some "easier" texts I could read to lead up to the one you referenced?

Thanks. As you can probably deduce from my rather limited presence recently, I've been busy with real life stuff, so I'll keep it short and will answer only last question for now. I will most likely return to your post about a week later, since it's quite a good one and I want to watch that video you provided which will likely give me some more points to talk about. But I need some free time for that.

But as for the entry-level books, I can recommend three. First of all, Encyclopaedia Of Religion And Ethics, which I quoted in this thread:

Ancient Sacrificial Practice

Almost every ancient civilization I can think of has practiced sacrifice, such as the Greeks, Aztecs, Egyptians, and so forth, and it has made me wonder why this is? It doesn't make any Darwinian sense why it would work, because the point of sacrifice is to destroy useful things, so why is this...

forum.agoraroad.com

It provides a wide range of topics which it covers, though the problem is it is not a purely egyptian-centered literature, and therefore it is huge. But once you locate the topic you want to know about, this Encyclopaedia has a good chance to provide you with knowledge. It is not without a catch though: every article is written by its own author, and you have to keep in mind that some of them can be biased. Here's a note I made for myself (and for everyone who will download this stuff from me via DC++) for the parts of the Encyclopaedia saved on my HDD:

In certain places these articles mention other articles - for example Alan H. Gardiner in Magic mentions Disease And Medicine, yet I did not save that article. This is because said article has been written by George Foucart and I, generally, dislike him. He doesn't fail to establish how barbaric and pagan egyptians were and how christianity is superior. Being a christian myself, I nevertheless find Foucart's articles rather biased - and, to top it off, rather badly written.

That being said, his article about Dreams And Sleep is still worth a read. The point is: as you read through different works about Ancient Egypt, it is always important to look at the author. This part of history is very ancient, sometimes quite damaged, and therefore it allows for multiple interpretations and subtle bends. If you'll really get into it, with time you will choose your preferences - I cannot put it any other way; once again, this part of history is so ancient it almost impossible to choose purely objective and scientific approach. Too much is left to speculation. I mean, among other things, we still do not even know all the hieroglyphs, which in turn means some words or even sentences from different texts have to be filled from the context, and, well... As I often say, even one carefully inserted word can change the meaning of the whole text.
So yeah, if you'll get deep into it, I guess there's no other way but choosing your favorite authors and sticking to their writings. I prefer mostly researchers from the first part of the 20th century; a friend of mine, whom I quoted in the OP, on the contrary thinks most of them were christianity-obsessed fanatics and prefers more modern approaches... To quote myself one more time:

...I usually dislike the site, but this particular article is quite extensive and provides many quotes and points of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

...

...I would recommend to read at the very least the "Background" section and "Position of modern scholarship". If anything, it will provide you a nice view on how history and historical research is always biased and influenced by politics, and as politics shift, so do scientific theories. I generally distrust modern egyptologists, as, in my opinion, in modern times historians are even more dependent on money from the government, and therefore quite often try to base their research on notions that are popular in current politics...

Anyway, here's my personal list of worthy names to look at (the ones that write on english, at least):
Alan H. Gardiner
Aylward M. Blackman
Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge
Jan Assman (as I've said in the OP, he is cool, even though I disagree with a huge number of his points; if anything, his translations are most excellent in my opinion)
Miriam Lichtheim

Aside from Encyclopaedia Of Religion And Ethics, I have to recommend another book. After all Encyclopaedia is more of a... collection of second-hand interpretations of what you can read on your own. Though reading it all on your own is definitely a much more... huge task. But it's a direct, head-on approach which I wholeheartedly encourage if you have the time (though even I do not have time to read it all, hence why I turn to Encyclopaedia every now and then).
Anyway, here's the book I myself started with: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating To The Old Testament by James B. Pritchard. It's a wonderful book. Once again, it is not really Ancient Egypt-only literature and it features texts from different cultures of the region, but it is comprised much tighter than Encyclopaedia and it is much easier to navigate. This book actually provides a wide arrangement of texts - far from only those related to Old Testament. It has myths, rituals, songs, didactic literature, letters, various documents and records written by the official scribes and more, all of which ought to give you quite a comprehensive view on quite an amount of aspects of life of an ancient egyptian. The book also features quite an expanded introduction to each text, mentioning time periods this or that particular text has been written in, which researcher worked on it, whose translation is featured in the book, et cetera - along with multiple quotations which can easily lead you to further researches about the texts you like.
Not to mention that there are actually texts that are related to Old Testament in this book - heck, matter of the fact, there is a number of original texts from various polytheistic religions which Old Testament borrowed from. If not to say outright copied.
Overall, as I've said, it is a wonderful book and the one I started with myself.

Finally, the third book, which is quite similar to the previous one, but which is written in more modern language and, unlike all the previous books, completely centered on Ancient Egypt is Ancient Egyptian Literature by Miriam Lichtheim. It's in three volumes, and it features a lot of ancient egyptian texts. In general, I have to say I do not like Miriam Lichtheim's translations as much as I like the ones provided in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating To The Old Testament, but it is nice to read alternative takes on some texts, as well as Lichtheim's personal notes on some of them. Overall, I feel like Miriam's book is a lighter read rather than a previous recommendation, though at the same time it is completely centered on Egypt and Egypt only and that's definitely a plus. That, and the fact that some texts Miriam features in her book simply do not appear in the Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating To The Old Testament.

So, yeah, I'd recommend either second or third book for a direct, wide and slow approach, or Encyclopaedia Of Religion And Ethics for a brief collection of thoughts about the topics that are of interest to you. Obviously, I have most of the books I've mentioned on my HDD (well, all of them, but Encyclopaedia Of Religion And Ethics, from which I only saved the passages I personally was interested in), and therefore I can upload them somewhere if you'll have troubles finding them yourself.