aa5874

You are an experienced blogger of SEVEN years and have argued against those who support the MJ position.

You may have thousands of posts on public forums against the MJ position and perhaps not one of them against HJ.

Zwaarddijk

Experienced insofar as I have registered a blog and written some short shit on it? Yes. Experienced insofar as having acquired any actual useful experience from it? Pretty much no. I am also member of a blog which was started to coordinate carpooling for going to dances. Dunno why some people figured they wanted that in blog form, but apparently they figured that was a good format. So sure, I am a member of three blogs, so sue me for it or something.

The full number of anti-MJ posts I've made on public fora has an absolute upper boundary of 400. (- that's the only public forum in which I have argued for HJ, against MJ and so on. And even then, I have presented arguments among those less than 400 posts that are definitely not pro-HJ, but rather just pointing out flaws in reasoning, made dumb jokes (e.g. pointing out that Jesus can't have played the electric guitar as guitars were only invented centuries later, he must have played the *electric lyre* and other bullshit along those lines as well), so the total number of criticisms of MJ stances I can't imagine to be much in excess of 300 posts, if even that. (And even then, I am overestimating the numbers). An example of a non-anti-MJ post made by me in that thread can be found here )

tanya

a. what difference does it make whether or not someone is an "academic". DCHindley, so far as I know, is not an "academic", but his contributions to the forum are universally scholarly.

b. how do you know that she "has spent more time interacting with" xyz sources, rather than abc sources?

c. Let us suppose, for sake of argument, that you are correct, and that she has in fact, "interacted" with (i.e. quoted from) "standard academics", in insufficiently brief quantity. Who decides what that quantity should be? How many of the "standard academicians" did Einstein cite, when he submitted his 1904 publication explaining the equivalence of matter and energy? Was Einstein employed in scholarly pursuits at that time?

d. Instead of these ridiculous comments of yours, why not provide a single example, illustrating your contention that Acharya S has devoted "more time to new age and pagan sources", than to {supposedly, proper} "scholarly" sources? This is precisely what is wrong (notwithstanding your laudatory, if incorrect, comments directed to him) with Miekko's much acclaimed "scholarly blog". Give us some meat and potatoes, instead of drivel.

e. What constitutes a "Pagan" source? Do folks submit articles for publication in journals, with the heading: WATCH OUT, this article submitted by a PAGAN? What is a pagan, anyway? Am I a pagan? I guess I am. I am not religious, so, oh, no, that's right, I am an heretic, not a pagan. Ok. That's a relief.

f. You do know, I hope, after reading Miekko's longwinded, emptyheaded comments, that he enjoys music, or sound at least. You ought to know, and I bet you do know, that "new age" is a particular compositional type of music, (one which I happen to enjoy listening to, especially this one: Kitaro, Silk Road. So, why do you disparage "new age" anything?

g. Are we to understand that this phrase: refers to me?

Are you calling me a drama queen?

tsk tsk.....

aa5874

Now, you state that you "document bullshit" so you must have documented the HJ argument.

The HJ argument is a load of BS.

To be fair you must Show us the documented bullshit from HJers.

Toto

tanya

Acharya S has stated that the source of her inquiry was the Bodhi Tree bookstore, a Los Angeles institution for many years. I am personally familiar with that bookstore and the sort of New Age thought that it promoted.

I notice that Acharya S gives interviews to XZone podcast, which focuses on psychic phenomena, UFOs, and similar topics, and on Stench of Truth

show_no_mercy

Not so. Isaiah 7.14, the popular verse that conservative Christians use to appeal to the virgin birth, actually has the word "lord" when it undoubtedly means YHWH. There are actually quite a few verses where "lord" is substituted for YHWH in the OT. No Christians had a hand in it; unless you want to claim that Jews were in on the conspiracy as well.

Philo actually goes on for a bit about why the god of the Jews has both the title "god" and the title "lord":

To explain this (away) you would have to posit that Christians interpolated not just individual words but entire philosophical treatises of Philo. This then results in multiplying hypotheses unnecessarily, which decreases the likelihood that it is the correct explanation for the data available.

tanya

Thank you show no mercy, an excellent rejoinder, and when I have more time, I will respond in detail, but I am most impressed.....

Zwaarddijk

Tanya,

I did provide the page number and a direct quotation. Do tell me why it is ok for her not to check this with, say, a dictionary?

tanya

Miekko: Please examine show_no_mercy's post, yesterday, #36. He (or she) is a master (mistress?) on this forum, one of the dozen genuine cognoscenti.

That doesn't mean he/she never errs. That means, when he/she writes something, it is most generally well thought out, well expressed, detailed, informative, and well documented, with links, and definitions spelled out in detail.

If we wish to write something contesting show_no_mercy, we had better have our ducks in a row.

When I read your posts, or your blog, I don't observe that same kind of attention to detail. You claim competence in computer science. A well written computer program is akin to reading a novel: one has characters defined at the beginning of the story, then some plot, and character development, leading up to a conclusion. You need to adopt the same strategy when submitting a criticism of an author, and forum participant, who has written several books.

Are her books perfect? No. I doubt whether she herself would claim perfection. But, they exist, which is more than you or I can write.

I have no idea whether or not she consulted one or more dictionaries, and frankly, I don't really care, one way or the other. I do care whether or not ancient Egyptian religious practices were incorporated into Christian themes, and my impression, from glancing at her posts, is that she is one of the handful of authors, alive today, who has made that point. In that sense, she has been my instructor, just as was Niklaus Wirth my teacher of Modula-2.

In my opinion, she is a noteworthy figure, an authoritative author, with some ideas which I do share, and some which I do not share. To my way of thinking, more of my convictions are supported by her written expressions, than most other authors out there. I do not know, or care, whether or not she is fluent or literate in Gaelic, but, if that issue is important to you, then you need to present a much clearer image of what it is that she has written (look at show_no_mercy's post, as an illustration), that you find offensive, or erroneous, as well as a much more distinctive elaboration of the "proper", i.e. correct exposition, for that particular example.

You may wish to read The Mythical Man Month (or via: amazon.co.uk), to learn more about the method of thought.

tanya

Thank you for yet another well written rejoinder, much appreciated.

yes, the Masoretic text states adonai, not YHWH. I agree with you. That shows me that the Leningrad Codex, like LXX, is corrupted.

Well, I may be incorrect here. I am an admirer of Philo's writing, but I am unsure about the provenance of it.

a. Who maintained the copies of his work, and why did they keep it alive?

b. Philo was living under Roman occupation. Censorship is viewed today as banal or insignificant. In those days, death came easily, especially for anyone writing outside acceptable limits. Philo's praise of Hercules, in no way suggests doubt of the latter's existence and yet, we must know, we must believe, that as a strictly adherent Jew, Philo would have had not the slightest grain of doubt as to Hercules' mythical character. In other words, one cannot accept at face value everything Philo had recorded, as though it echoed his own, true, genuine opinion. If observant Jews were writing YHWH at the time of DSS, and later, then, a couple of centuries later came along and insisted on changing the name to adonai, who is going to intercede? Philo? He's been in the ground for a couple of centuries. How's he going to object? Is he, in any event, going to denounce the Roman Emperor, who demands universal acceptance of Christianity, or death?