Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 PaPa, how uncharitable. You know how long CARM has put up with your trolling! Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Why does this always happen in groups?
The King's Servant Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Do you define trolling as "keeping their feet to the fire". Guilty. I've never seen you do that with those drive-by comments.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 I've never seen you do that with those drive-by comments.What drive by comments?
RussB Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 *Sigh**Double Sigh**Triple Sigh*Best of luck on your crusade. You're off to a stellar start.Careful there! You might hyperventilate. No Egyptologist outside Mormondom accepts Smith's work as bonafide.Do you believe there is any validity in their assessment, or do their sites somehow need adjustment too?
Vance Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 What is this?http://www.goodshepherdcollinsville.org/Gifs/churchyear9.gifWell well well!!!From http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htmThe pre-Christian history of the fish symbol:The fish symbol has been used for millennia worldwide as a religious symbol associated with the Pagan Great Mother Goddess. It is the outline of her vulva. The fish symbol was often drawn by overlapping two very thin crescent moons. One represented the crescent shortly before the new moon; the other shortly after, when the moon is just visible. The Moon is the heavenly body that has long been associated with the Goddess, just as the sun is a symbol of the God.The link between the Goddess and fish was found in various areas of the ancient world:> In China, Great Mother Kwan-yin often portrayed in the shape of a fish.> In India, the Goddess Kali was called the "fish-eyed one"> In Egypt, Isis was called the Great Fish of the Abyss> In Greece the Greek word "delphos" meant both fish and womb. The word is derived from the location of the ancient Oracle at Delphi who worshipped the original fish goddess, Themis. The later fish Goddess, Aphrodite Salacia, was worshipped by her followers on her sacred day, Friday. They ate fish and engaging in orgies. From her name comes the English word "salacious" which means lustful or obscene. Also from her name comes the name of our fourth month, April. In later centuries, the Christian church adsorbed this tradition by requiring the faithful to eat fish on Friday - a tradition that was only recently abandoned.> In ancient Rome Friday is called "dies veneris" or Day of Venus, the Pagan Goddess of Love.> Throughout the Mediterranean, mystery religions used fish, wine and bread for their sacramental meal.> In Scandinavia, the Great Goddess was named Freya; fish were eaten in her honor. The 6th day of the week was named "Friday" after her.> In the Middle East, the Great Goddess of Ephesus was portrayed as a woman with a fish amulet over her genitals.The fish symbol: "... was so revered throughout the Roman empire that Christian authorities insisted on taking it over, with extensive revision of myths to deny its earlier female-genital meanings...Sometimes the Christ child was portrayed inside the vesica, which was superimposed on Mary's belly and obviously represented her womb, just as in the ancient symbolism of the Goddess." 4 Another author writes: "The fish headdress of the priests of Ea [a Sumero-Semitic God] later became the miter of the Christian bishops." 5The symbol itself, the eating of fish on Friday and the association of the symbol with deity were all taken over by the early Church from Pagan sources. Only the sexual component was deleted. So Russ, what does this symbolhttp://www.goodshepherdcollinsville.org/Gifs/churchyear9.gifrepresent?What do Pagans say it represents?
Robspectre Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 I have been to CARM and seen Russ and the Queen and have been in debates with them. I personally think you are waisting your time with Russ. I myself have tried to make headway with them and was either shouted down and ridiculed...then banned, or seemed to be winning the argument, only to get...banned. I personally would like to see Russ stay here for a while just so all of the posters (and readers like myself) can see him for who he is. I only wish he would bring over the Queen with him so they could both be exposed for what they are.
Doctor Steuss Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Careful there! You might hyperventilate. I keep a paper bag around for when I'm engaging in the serious business of the internet. I also try to keep one around for when I read Garfield comics, and while watching my dog pee on bushes.Serious stuff this internet business is.No Egyptologist outside Mormondom accepts Smith's work as bonafide.Lulz.It would be rather strange if an Egyptologist were to accept Smith's work as
USU78 Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 This a just a non-response and dodge. First, the word is theophoric, not theophonic. Second, it is besides the point because many Israelites have demontraely [sic] baal derived names. Third, it is doubtful that anyone in their right mind could claim that Jerub-baal is Yahwistic. Good grief.Thanks for the spelling lesson. It's much appreciated.Question: Are you saying that Gideon, who spoke with JHWH according to Judges 6-7, was not a worshiper of JHWH?pSecond Question: In Judges 8:27-35 Gideon makes an ephod of gold, but it doesn't say that Gideon worshiped it. Other people did, unless I'm missing something, though Gideon certainly got big for his britches and his children suffered for it.Blake . . . Me worry about you. Are you okay? And are your quite sure that the presence of -baal [lit. L-rd] in a name in ancient Israel indicates that the bearer of that name is perforce a worshiper of the Canaanite Baal(s)?Besides, the whole point of the silly OP's silly point is simply too silly to be taken seriously. Do you really want to be paired with his silliness?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Careful there! You might hyperventilate. No Egyptologist outside Mormondom accepts Smith's work as bonafide.Do you believe there is any validity in their assessment, or do their sites somehow need adjustment too?Oh Russ you got us good, burn baby burn.No Egyptologist wouside mormondom accepts smith's work as bonafide what? Just what are you arguing here?
RussB Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 Thanks for the spelling lesson. It's much appreciated.Question: Are you saying that Gideon, who spoke with JHWH according to Judges 6-7, was not a worshiper of JHWH?pSecond Question: In Judges 8:27-35 Gideon makes an ephod of gold, but it doesn't say that Gideon worshiped it. Other people did, unless I'm missing something, though Gideon certainly got big for his britches and his children suffered for it.Blake . . . Me worry about you. Are you okay? And are your quite sure that the presence of -baal [lit. L-rd] in a name in ancient Israel indicates that the bearer of that name is perforce a worshiper of the Canaanite Baal(s)?Besides, the whole point of the silly OP's silly point is simply too silly to be taken seriously. Do you really want to be paired with his silliness?It would be quite helpful if Mormons could locate just ONE qualified Egyptologist that would concur that Smith's translation can mean what Smith said it meant. Such a person would have to say, "Yep, it could mean that. Yes, indeedie."The reason that Mormons will never find that person is because it's obvious that Smith adopted the symbolism at whim to create his own story.
SilverKnight Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 I have been to CARM and seen Russ and the Queen and have been in debates with them. I personally think you are waisting your time with Russ. I myself have tried to make headway with them and was either shouted down and ridiculed...then banned, or seemed to be winning the argument, only to get...banned. I personally would like to see Russ stay here for a while just so all of the posters (and readers like myself) can see him for who he is. I only wish he would bring over the Queen with him so they could both be exposed for what they are.Nobody is fooled by Russ and his appearance here.We all know his motivation for coming, and the customary explosion of bile that will ensue when he returns to CARM and makes his report to the Queen and her subjects.But so far he has acted and spoke most politely and has shined a spotlight on a serious issue in mormonism.
RussB Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 Nobody is fooled by Russ and his appearance here.We all know his motivation for coming, and the customary explosion of bile that will ensue when he returns to CARM and makes his report to the Queen and her subjects.Nah, I have no plans on making any reports on CARM about this thread. Like I said from the outset, I came to find out the very best that Mormonism has to offer on this subject and they have come up woefully short.The best they have, in a nutshell, is "V" can mean anything one wants it to.Well, gee, officer, if you just see it my way, "school zone" doesn't mean slow down. I've co-opted it to mean that school starts next week. You therefore cannot give me a ticket. It's all in the translation, don't-cha-know.Yeah, go tell the judge and see what he thinks.But so far he has acted and spoke most politely and has shined a spotlight on a serious issue in mormonism.Thanks.
Pahoran Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 I have been to CARM and seen Russ and the Queen and have been in debates with them. I personally think you are waisting your time with Russ. I myself have tried to make headway with them and was either shouted down and ridiculed...then banned, or seemed to be winning the argument, only to get...banned. I personally would like to see Russ stay here for a while just so all of the posters (and readers like myself) can see him for who he is. I only wish he would bring over the Queen with him so they could both be exposed for what they are.If "the Queen" refers to who I think it does, she's been here before. Several times. With numerous sockpuppets. I prefer to call her "Countess Karnstein."And indeed she may already be here. Aurelia Rozella, perhaps?Regards,Pahoran
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 That's the classic logical fallacy known as the argument from silence.Speaking of silence, you've still not answered any of my questions. Including this one which I stole: Yes, where is the peer-reviewed, non-fundamentalist, non-anti-mormon journal stating that Anubis and Osiris (or their priests!) could never be associated with anyone else?
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Actually, you did:"...we now have a Baal-Seth scarab to further show how plausible the idea is that Egyptian deities could be known under different, local names."Here you are trying to loosely tie Abraham to the altar (pun intended) as some sort of "evidence" that it "could be" Abraham.That's the argument from silence.Here's the thing, I read every word in this thread. Real Egyptologists tell us what the scene means. Joseph explained it very differently. He got the storyline wrong, he got the identities wrong and he got the genders wrong. In a nutshell, he attempted to reexplain the scene in fac. 1 completely differently from what it really means.LDS apologists want to come across as experts on this issue, but the real experts disagree with you.I like what Sandra Tanner has to say regarding fac. 2 fig. 7, the ithyphallic deity which supposedly represents the God of the Holy Bible.... according to Mormons."Joseph Smith's identification of these pagan deities with the God of Abraham makes no more sense than to claim that a a statue of the Buddha actually represents Jesus Christ in prayer or claiming the Hindu goddess Parvati is actually the Virgin Mary." Salt Lake City Messenger Nov. 2009, issue no. 13 Amen, Sandra.Why don't Mormons see it?Sandra Tanner is a peer-reviewed, academic, non-LDS source?
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 What Smith did, and what Mormons defend, is the equivalent of calling a black ball blue.Osiris would have said, "Hey, it's black. Don't go trying to change things to suit your own story."The deepest blues are black.
Doctor Steuss Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Nah, I have no plans on making any reports on CARM about this thread. Like I said from the outset, I came to find out the very best that Mormonism has to offer on this subject and they have come up woefully short.The best they have, in a nutshell, is "V" can mean anything one wants it to.Well, gee, officer, if you just see it my way, "school zone" doesn't mean slow down. I've co-opted it to mean that school starts next week. You therefore cannot give me a ticket. It's all in the translation, don't-cha-know.Yeah, go tell the judge and see what he thinks.Russ, if you're going to take others to task when they utilize logical fallacies, I'd try to avoid posting stuff such as the above.Tends to send a mixed message about your stance on their use whilst engaging in internet polemics.
Vance Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 The best they have, in a nutshell, is "V" can mean anything one wants it to.Here let me help you with that.The best they (non-LDS Christians) have, in a nutshell, is http://www.goodsheph...churchyear9.gifcan mean anything one wants it to.There fixed it for you.
RussB Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 Speaking of silence, you've still not answered any of my questions. Including this one which I stole: Yes, where is the peer-reviewed, non-fundamentalist, non-anti-mormon journal stating that Anubis and Osiris (or their priests!) could never be associated with anyone else?Your "AHA!" moment seems to rest on the fact that IF they could be associated with someone else then it's "plausible" (the favorite word of LDS apologists) that it could have been Abraham.The best response to such rhetoric is to inform you that to rely on hope-so's and maybe's is a bad bet.Especially when we are informed as to the exact meaning of the scene in fac. 1 by those who know how to read it.Again, Smith got the story wrong, he got the genders wrong and he got the identities wrong.He simply missed the mark. Big time.
Doctor Steuss Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 But so far he has acted and spoke most politely and has shined a spotlight on a serious issue in mormonism.As much as I find the practice of virtual *high-fiving* (unless, of course it's me receiving the accolades) loathsome...+1
Pahoran Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 RussB,you appear to have missed the following questions:So. Yet another CARMite, who has clearly never so much as opened the Book of Abraham, comes swanning in here to tell us what idiots we are for not being Calvinists. Of all things.Call for references, please; on both counts.Call for references, please.It is clear that you have never read the Book of Abraham. Rather, you rely upon the polemical propaganda flick you are promoting.Had you actually bothered to read the text, you might have seen that little word "of." Which means that Joseph didn't give the figure a name at all.You absolutely love what "Egyptologists" have to say -- but only as long as they tell you what you want to hear: namely, that there is something wrong with a religion you despise and detest. Are you equally happy with them when they tell you things you don't want to hear?Will you accept the verdict of the "Egyptologists" about whether or not there really was an Exodus?Or are you going to skate over that, like a good little Pharisee?Regards,PahoranNow in case the penny hasn't dropped yet: this is not CARM. You do not get to dictate the terms of the discussion. If you make an assertion, and another poster calls for references, you are required to furnish them.That is according to the board guidelines. Have you read them?So please answer these questions. (To see them in their context, click on the snapback button in the top left of the quote panel.)And to the above I will add another: what peer-reviewed, academic, non-Judeo-Christian Egyptologists have published supporting the biblical account of the Exodus?Regards,Pahoran
SilverKnight Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Nah, I have no plans on making any reports on CARM about this thread. Like I said from the outset, I came to find out the very best that Mormonism has to offer on this subject and they have come up woefully short.You're not going to find the best mormonism has to offer on this message board, so I rather doubt that was the reason you came.
RussB Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 Russ, if you're going to take others to task when they utilize logical fallacies, I'd try to avoid posting stuff such as the above.Tends to send a mixed message about your stance on their use whilst engaging in internet polemics.In what way have I misunderstood the LDS message to me here in this thread?It seems to me that they (and you) are saying that symbols have lots of meaning and can be adopted to fit Joseph's story.If I have you right, then that is simply not the case at all. Such symbols as found in fac. 1 have specific meanings and should not be reinvented to mean something completely 180 degrees opposite of the author's intent.I have a feeling that Egyptians would roll over in their graves if they found out what Joseph Smith says about it.
Vance Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 If I have you right, then that is simply not the case at all. Such symbols as found here http://www.goodsheph...churchyear9.gifhave specific meanings and should not be reinvented to mean something completely 180 degrees opposite of the author's intent.I have a feeling that Egyptians Pagans would roll over in their graves if they found out what Joseph Smith non-LDS Christians says about it. There, fixed it for you.
RussB Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 RussB,you appear to have missed the following questions:Now in case the penny hasn't dropped yet: this is not CARM. You do not get to dictate the terms of the discussion. If you make an assertion, and another poster calls for references, you are required to furnish them.That is according to the board guidelines. Have you read them?So please answer these questions. (To see them in their context, click on the snapback button in the top left of the quote panel.)And to the above I will add another: what peer-reviewed, academic, non-Judeo-Christian Egyptologists have published supporting the biblical account of the Exodus?Regards,PahoranOh, I see how this works. I have to answer every question put to me, no matter how off-topic (such as your request for evidence for the exodus), else I'm not playing fair.This thread isn't about the exodus and it's not about evidence for talking donkeys either.I'm not falling for such ill treatment.Goodbye.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.