And as with much oral history, "it sounds cool add that to the story".

But both are sourced from Roman writings.

The difference being that the origin of the tale is much older

both?

you mean the earlier stuff with more gods and the later stuff with less?

unless they had a super simple language, i dont see how they wouldnt have ever analysed their existence/thought about thought

Read them

Its really interesting

Pretty much every scenario in which you would assume a self-congnising situation, the person blames a god for their own behavior or actions, good or bad.

It's like they think of themselves as mere puppets

Theres a whole psychological theory surrounding this as well

but that just sound like how people think the voice in their head is god

Yes. Imagine your inner monologue bei g someone else's voice. Multiple voices.

I don't think they necessarily viewed it that way, I've always seen it more as a way of explaining things they can't explain otherwise. And they definitely had an understanding of good and bad actions, code of Hammurabi.

Why would they have had such laws if they thought their god was responsible.

Oh I'm not saying they didn't understand good or bad

oh

I'm saying for both good and bad actions, they hardly attribute those things to themselves

Well I think the fact that those laws exist shows that they did indeed attribute them to themselves, otherwise why have them.

If their not responsible then why would the punish them.

spitting truths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

the old '*god told me to ride the horse into the twin huts*'

@meratrix Morality is merely a byproduct of natural law. It seems obvious that the gods would want punishment to befall someone who violates it

Not if that god is the one doing the violation.

by what your saying, they wouldnt view it as them violating it, they would view it as the god puppeting them

Yes

The gods are acting through them for violating the natural law

how could they truely believe that if people had different opinions on things???

Because, believe it or not, morality is actually objective

One of the criticisms I see there is something I thought of a few minutes ago, the Epic of Gilgamesh is very introspective, contrary to the theory.

no I mean, if they thought their thoughts were actually the thoughts of the gods, how could the believe that knowing that different people thought different things?

I'll have to read more, might get the book.

@aWildTomAppeared Because the things they DID agree on would be the things that are important

did you know sargon did a reading of gilgamesh on his old history channel that is much longer than the recent one he did

Yeah

Gilgamesh is the ultimate **T H O T D E S T R O Y E R**.

and the ultimate chad/cucker-of-betas, followed by alcibiades

Ishtar is the first ** T H O T**

Ishtar, the fucking tsundere thot.

**TSUNDERE!!**

\*AC-DC plays*

so what's the deal with Meghan Markle?

she's a whore