Robert Tulip

Perhaps outhouse you just don't bother to read people's comments so that you can valiantly persevere in your egregious error.

Dave31 provided a simple clear reference above to show you are wrong, and yet you completely ignore him. I provided a link to a paper by Acharya on this topic, and yet you ignore it.

spin

Are you confirming that Dave31 is in fact the halfwit who was so confused that he thought I was a sockpuppet for Zwaarddijk and banned me from the Freethought Nation forum? If so, I certainly want an apology from Dave31 for being so rude and incompetent. As he now knows that he was utterly wrong, will he freely reinstate my membership to that forum?

On confirmation that Dave31 is the person I referred to as "freethinkerdouche", I'll happily withdraw the statement.

As you haven't dealt with the issue I raised on the subject, you should try harder, Robert Tulip.

You have yet to respond to the criticism I made on the subject, ie that when the Hebrew bible is "allegorical", it plainly lets you know full well that it is being allegorical and is not simply open to interpretation. You cannot miss that the two women Oholah and Oholibah are not really two women at all, for the text tells you plainly that they are in fact Samaria and Jerusalem. Beside this sort of signalling and Paul's "this is allegorical", anything that is not so signaled must be considered in doubt and certainly cannot be assumed.

You are having such a hard time with this, aren't you? Forget the pronouns for you will probably be wrong with your efforts. A language that has grammatical genders requires the users to use those genders and they do not relate to natural gender at all. It is purely grammatical that those pronouns are used. Until you can grasp this issue you will only make a mockery of yourself.

You can think all of this with the lightest flight of whimsey, but until you provide that trail of epistemology that requires us to take your claims seriously, you can forget about expressing your ontological commitments.

Dumb, boyo, plain dumb. As I said, when there is no "it" one has to use "he" or "she". "He" and "she" don't reflect natural gender in a language that uses grammatical gender. Just keep spreading that egg around your face showing the world that you cannot grasp the problem and that you won't even contemplate it.

--
Foreigners often look at English and think, why doesn't this language have a 2nd person singular? We are missing a basic pronoun, but we still get the idea across using the plural form. We used to use "thou" for 2nd singular, but because of social customs during the Elizabethan period it was phased out and has only survived in centuries old texts such as the KJB. In Romeo and Juliet a fight started because one of the Capulets used "thou" to a Montague which was taken as an insult. In Twelfth Night there's an instruction given to someone to insult someone, "Thou thou'st him thrice", ie use "thou" to him three times and that will terminally insult the person, for "thou" was used either for intimate friends or for servants. We therefore no longer have a 2nd person singular pronoun, forcing us to use the plural form for singular as well. We can happily do without it. Imagine however, someone from another language thinking about the implications of not using a 2nd person singular pronoun. I'm sure you can come up with as whacky an idea as that of Diane Murdock on the use of "he" and "she" for those things we refer to with "it".

Zwaarddijk

I think we can be confident Dave is not freethinkerdouche, as he has said so himself!

At least it shouldn't be punishable this far, as Dave31 most explicitly has explicitly said it's none of his business what Freethinkaluva does, see your question to Dave and Dave's response:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....61#post7339161
Robert Tulip, if it is the case that Freethinkaluva and Dave are the same person - as you seem to imply - do you think Acharya should have such dishonest people for moderators on her board? Do you think it reflects well on her?

Iskander

Hello, Robert,

It is said that the Torah owes its inspiration to the culture of Mesopotamia, but it is more likely that Abraham was an Egyptian and not a man from Babylon.

This extract from a book written long before I was born suggests that Christianity is also a secondary development of the Egyptian culture.

I think D. Murdock is a very interesting writer and her books make an interesting reading.


The civilization of the ancient Egyptians by A. Bothwell Gosse




Mountainman seems to have some ideas worth exploring over a coffee .Just a thought.

Jeffrey Gibson

The (relatively recent-- 1854) doctrine of the immaculate conception has nothing to do with the insemination of Mary, let alone an insemination by God. It has to do with the idea that she was conceived and born without the stain of original sin on her soul and that she was was filled from the moment of her conception with the sanctifying grace normally conferred during baptism

That you seem to be unaware of this does not inspire any confidence in me that you know what you are talking about in any of the other claims you make.

Could you provide us please with some primary source material that shows that Egyptians always believed in in the perpetual virginity of Isis?

And speaking of providing us with things, I note too that you have not yet answered my questions about your qualifications to judge the validity of AS's exegesis of ancient texts or the arguments she makes on the basis of Greek or Hebrew or Latin, and whether or not you are proficient in any of these languages.

Why is that?

Jeffrey

outhouse

Circular reasoning, you dont post a link to the blogger to prove the blogger is correct.

What I stated stands solid.

Isis was not viewed as a virgin. Of course all women were at one time virgins.

Lets not get into details because you are forced to avoid them!


Mary is a virgin, that is a later poor translation that LATER dogma has used. The original word written from the beginning by the real unknown authors was a "YOUNG MAIDEN"


Do you understand the poor work involved intrying to decieve ignorant readers who drink the conspiracy koolaid! :vomit:

tanya

There may well be a handful of forum members who know Coptic, but that language wasn't even on the horizon, when the story of Isis evolved, several thousand years ago. If at all, it would have been written in Hieroglyphs.

I doubt that one needs more than the fingers on a single hand to list the folks on this forum, capable of reading Hieroglyphs. Would that club include you, as a member, Jeffrey?

Robert Tulip

Hello Jeffrey. I am perfectly well aware of the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is an utterly ridiculous piece of magical misogyny, aimed at iconising the oxymoronic woman as virgin mother. This patriarchal idiocy aimed at controlling and subordinating women is at the mythic root of the psychological damage of the Catholic Church with its pedophilic degradation. I hope you do not actually believe this stupid evil. I will have to pray for your eternal soul.

Even Catholics say that the conception of Jesus when God fucked Mary was immaculate, even while their mad dogma reserves this supposedly exalted IC phrase for the strange myth that you have described. In any case, the "sanctifying grace" of the BVM is subject to the 'turtles all the way down' reductio ad absurdum to the root of Jesse and beyond to when Adam was a boy.
What is "always" supposed to mean? It is a ridiculous weasel word. Of course Egyptians did not "always" believe one thing, especially after their old religion fell into decay under the imperial onslaughts. Dave31 gave references above to extremely old Egyptian veneration of Isis as perpetual virgin. The paper I linked by Acharya discusses further.Sadly I am a monoglot, with just a little German and Tok Pisin apart from English. However I am perfectly capable of following discussion about Greek and Hebrew when it is relevant.

Given your apparently sympathetic reference to BVM tridentine-style archaic sexist nonsense here Jeffrey, your implicit assertion that Acharya is lying about her language skills looked initially to me like malevolent apologist trolling, so I was reluctant to respond. Why don't you email her and ask if she is lying?

My qualifications relating to this material include an MA Honours degree in philosophy from Macquarie University on ethics and ontology. I wrote my BA Honours thesis in 1985 on precession in Christianity, and was utterly gobsmacked at the time at the depth of emotional irrational hostility to any discussion of the topic. I have been studying this material privately for 30 years, and remain perplexed at the intense suppression of any debate around it. There are subconscious religious currents at work here which require a lot of clearing away of underbrush to uncover and understand.

I consider that Acharya's analysis of Jesus Christ as allegory for the sun provides an accurate scientific heuristic to explain the Bible, in support of my own analysis grounded in the astronomy of precession. I have been pleased to discover the depth of research Acharya has conducted into a range of related topics in comparative mythology. This material is subject to culture war nearly as bad as the ancient orthodox suppression of gnostic heresy. Luckily people don't get nailed up today just for talking about ideas.

There is ample material in the Bible itself to justify a mythicist astrotheology. For example, consider the allegorical star worship comments by Jesus Christ at Mark 8

The five loaves are allegory for the five visible planets, the twelve baskets are the twelve signs of the zodiac, the 5000 and 4000 are estimates of the number of visible stars, and the seven baskets are the planets plus sun and moon. The hardness of heart and failure to understand describe the pervasive attitude of suppression of natural theology.

The bread is the constellation Virgo (Isis and Mary), whose main star Spica is named after a spike of wheat. The equinox precessed into Virgo at the time of Christ, seen with the Easter Blood Moon of 4 BC visible from Jerusalem at the foot of the woman in the sky, the great wonder described in the Apocalypse (Rev 12).

The yeast of the pharisees is the stupid alienated evil transcendental tares of conventional theology, the whited sepulchres of the church who fail to engage with the deep gnostic wisdom of Christ.

Iskander

British Museum, Bronze statuette of Isis nursing the infant Horus




http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore...is__horus.aspx

The chisel of Greek sculptors carved statues of Isis, and the picture of Isis nursing the child Horus became the lovely original of the Madonna with the child

Jeffrey Gibson

The question of whether or not I can read certain languages has no bearing on, and is irrelevant to, the question of whether Robert has any evidence from Egyptian sources that back up his claim that Isis was always viewed as a perpetual virgin.

Jeffrey