Deus you need to chill out. As MM stated this topic isn’t the end of the world and there’s no point for getting a nasty tone with people. Especially Bahamat whom had nothing to do with your original bitterness. All he was trying to do was to get you to realize you were being a dick without directly calling you one.

I say if anyone has nothing new, insightful, interesting, or scholarly to add to this discussion than leave it be.

Thankyou both, nail on the head - was what I was trying to say in code- i realised out of this+ another event today that I find it difficult to judge how mild/harsh i need to be, I think there have been other threads where ive been too harsh at points though

Sometimes me wishful thinking, othersometimes I dont notice all good that is due to be recognised, but I’m try

This coming from the person that felt it appropriate and necessary to resort to ad hominem because you had no substantive argument. You were the first to start the name-calling. I think that speaks for itself.
As for critical reading skills, you might wish to try employing them before writing unparsable crap like that last post.
But if you want to get into an insult match I would be more than happy to match you, word for word.

Also, it is a simple matter of logic that it DOES have an effect on the validity of the content

I disagree 
Something is valid if it’s true

You are just simply wrong. Validity is an entirely separate thing from truth, and your belief to the contrary reveals your lack of understanding of simple, basic logic. Here is a perfectly valid syllogistic argument:
Hitler was a black man
All black men are Jewish
Therefore Hitler was Jewish.

Not a single statement above is true. Nevertheless, it is completely valid.
Please, before you bother to reply, just do a simple google search on, say logic+truth+validity, and do some research. Here, I’ll even d it for you.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=validity+truth+logic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong.

Deus you need to chill out. As MM stated this topic isn’t the end of the world and there’s no point for getting a nasty tone with people. Especially Bahamat whom had nothing to do with your original bitterness. All he was trying to do was to get you to realize you were being a dick without directly calling you one.

I say if anyone has nothing new, insightful, interesting, or scholarly to add to this discussion than leave it be.

First, if you think pointing out that someone might be mistaken is being a dick then you have a serious problem.
Second, at no point was I “bitter” about anything.
Third, again with the name calling. Once more, if you think pointing out to someone that they may be mistake is being a dick, then don’t get into arguments with people.
Last but not least, please follow your own advice.

Deus - the point you seem to be missing is that the vast majority of us don’t care about the point you intended to make. It’s been made, previously. You need to acknowledge that you are, indeed, making a mistake. Take your counsel’s advice, and join us in other threads.

Consi’s original statement was that Jesus != Horus, insofar as substantive evidence indicates. That’s all that remains, and it remains true.

First, if people do not care, they are free to not read. Second, what point are you claiming that I am making? Except for my very first post EVERY post I have made was in response to someone else’s post.
What mistake are you claiming I am making?
And regardless, why does this imply that I would benefit from reading other threads since, if you had bothered to actually read the posts I have made that you are commenting on, you would know I have specific reasons to be interested in THIS thread in particular.

These meta comments are getting tiring.

You have failed to understand the original (Consiglieri’s) post. His post most decidedly was NOT that Jesus != Horus. His post was a request for citations from those who claim the contrary. This is an entirely different animal. THIS was the very point I made in the first post, that people (including yourself) were making this exact same mistake, and thus NOT making relevant replies to this thread.
At least Archarya’s post, while factually inaccurate, was on point.

Look, it is very simple. The point you are missing is that, as I have already stated, all my posts here, after the first, have been replies to the posts of others. If you wish to move on, stop posting to this thread.

My computer has been down for a few days;

Deus - On validity, first a neutral observation to try to analyse our concepts
Your example of logic, and what I found in the link, categorises something, then associates a status of the category to what’s inside.
That’s fine when dealing with things that fall entirely within one easily defined category, and where all contents of that category have a common property.

But often we need to work with categories that aren’t well defined, and where there may be a bias towards a certain property, but not an entirity satisfies that property (i.e. more people who live near the equator tend to have darker skin, but not all, or that people in a certain geographical region are more likely to have a certain religion, but not all). We have to deal with statistical biases, must recognise them, but also cannot generalise. To deal with real situations we need a system that works outside absolute statements like ‘all X is Y’.

But what I was originally trying to get across is that your perception of how truthful something is overall does not affect how truthful (or useful) the individual points are. That perception is not always reality and that the overall average quality of a comment does not necessarily equal the quality of all of it’s statements.

Second, at no point was I “bitter” about anything.

I know that you know that we cannot prove how you feel, that makes it easy for you to say it was something else to dodge the point.
Ultimately we’re just trying to get you to look at yourself. Not everyone is as skilled at evading that as you are, and we tried stating our perception of your feelings because it because sometimes it works.
Nevertheless your evasion slows down the process of what we’re trying to do. Recognise the spirit of what we’re trying to do, we mean no harm, so there is no reason not to be willing

And yeah, feel free to debate on other threads too if you wish - there’s likely to be something for you, another angle to work from in addition…

What you are missing is that your use of the word “valid” is entirely incorrect in the context in which you used it. You say that:
“Something is valid if it’s true.”
You can’t get more clear than that. Or more wrong.
You equivocate by talking about “points” you are trying to get across, “perceptions,” and “reality.”
You are just obfuscating. Your above statement is just simply wrong.

This is made all the more absurd by your accusation that I am “evading.” Please.

“Nevertheless your evasion slows down the process of what we’re trying to do. Recognise the spirit of what we’re trying to do, we mean no harm, so there is no reason not to be willing”
I really don’t care what you are trying to do. What you ARE doing is hijacking the thread. I am not evading you, I have been attempting to IGNORE you, because your posts are, as a rule, irrelevant to the topic at hand, useless, and not worth the effort necessary to decipher.
I am more than happy to continue to do so.

“And yeah, feel free to debate on other threads too if you wish - there’s likely to be something for you, another angle to work from in addition…”

Um, I never felt it necessary to receive your permission.

Deus - my intention is not to be unclear as a method of hiding, I feel I am not playing the same conceptual ball game as you - I’m trying to communicate different points, that’s why it may appear off-topic to you.

It appears very regimented, the way you judge the right or wrong of an idea - perhaps you prefer seeing everything as being plain black + white and clear cut, over recognising the shades of grey that exist.

I say you evade because you avoid dealing with the points I make at all by simple dismissal or trying to discredit it on the outside, and always saying things aren’t that way, that you’re right and we’re wrong and stopping the explanation there. Simply saying a point is right or wrong is not the explanation as to why. Compared to a lot of people I’ve talked to you do the absolute minimal of directly dealing with the actual point that you disagree with, you try to dismiss it so you don’t have to, that won’t work on me, that’s why I keep pressing you.

We all have personal goals in discussion, as part of being an individual, do we not? In that way we all corrupt any discussion we get into with our own agendas wherever ideas get challenged.

I was not granting you permission, I was reminding you what you could already do for your own benefit, it seemed perhaps other things might interest you also, and I wonder whether you actually know how to get into other threads considering I’ve only seen you here - it’s not uncommon for those who do not spread out into other threads to not know how, perhaps that’s an explanation

“I say you evade because you avoid dealing with the points I make at all by simple dismissal or trying to discredit it on the outside, and always saying things aren’t that way, that you’re right and we’re wrong and stopping the explanation there.”

First, I am not avoiding dealing with your “points,” I am just ignoring them because I find your posts entirely uninteresting. Second, I have not “stopped the explanation there.” I have gone into detail MANY times. You are just too lazy to bother to go back and read what I wrote.

“Simply saying a point is right or wrong is not the explanation as to why.”

No, the explanation as to why is the explanation as to why. That you are too lazy to go back and read it is not my concern nor responsibility.

“ Compared to a lot of people I’ve talked to you do the absolute minimal of directly dealing with the actual point that you disagree with, you try to dismiss it so you don’t have to, that won’t work on me, that’s why I keep pressing you.”

I do the absolute minimum because I have absolutely no interest in the points you are making, when you hijack threads instead of doing the considerate thing of starting your own, which is why I have never, beyond the first time, attempted to engage you in a discussion. As such, I do not care if it works on you.

“ and I wonder whether you actually know how to get into other threads considering I’ve only seen you here - it’s not uncommon for those who do not spread out into other threads to not know how, perhaps that’s an explanation”

Then let me ease your mind, I assure you that even though I am only a mac user, I have fully figured out how to click a mouse cursor on links.

Is that all? Please?

What mistake are you claiming I am making?

Attempting to make points which have already been made: especially regarding Bahamat.

And regardless, why does this imply that I would benefit from reading other threads since, if you had bothered to actually read the posts I have made that you are commenting on, you would know I have specific reasons to be interested in THIS thread in particular.

Oh, I have, and I know that. I get a digest of your bullshit almost every day. A guy can’t help but see it all when keeping track of the thread. The reason I suggest other threads is because this one hasn’t kept on topic in any substantive way in some twenty or more posts - not even yours, nor Acharaya’s, since he presented no evidence for said claims. Besides, you might find them entertaining, and it might lighten alter your attitude. Most of your posts ooze with sarcasm - it only acts as a deterrent to debate, and will more likely bring about partisan hackery than any meaningful discussion. I’m guilty of it, elsewhere. It always manages to take much longer to return to the core of an issue when this shit gets started.

You have failed to understand the original (Consiglieri’s) post. His post most decidedly was NOT that Jesus != Horus. His post was a request for citations from those who claim the contrary. This is an entirely different animal. THIS was the very point I made in the first post, that people (including yourself) were making this exact same mistake, and thus NOT making relevant replies to this thread.

Wrong, because what I have said, above, and at least implied many many times throughout the course of this thread, is that

Jesus != Horus, insofar as substantive evidence indicates.

There has never been evidence for most of these claims, and they form the bedrock of the Jesus=Horus assertion. It would be foolish to conclude anything other than Jesus!=Horus, where some conclusion need be drawn. Consi laid out in further comments that Jesus is not some carbon-copy of Horus, which is a typical claim in this regard.

Yes, Consi called for evidence - where there was question as to the existence of any whatsoever, on most points. Of course Consi never concluded anything; if you’ve been around in other threads you’d pick up that Consi’s legalistic approach to debate means he almost never makes an independent claim. ‘Well, that’s not what Consi said‘ - no, it’s not. It’s the most immediate implication of the above article. If you accept that the article above earmarks many aspects as being completely lacking in any evidence, that’s where you end up. You can mince words all you want - you won’t end up a believer after that.

Look, it is very simple. The point you are missing is that, as I have already stated, all my posts here, after the first, have been replies to the posts of others. If you wish to move on, stop posting to this thread.

Yes, it is remarkably simple: you’re as bull-headed and stubborn as some of the rest of us. Welcome to the community.

I’m not stubborn, and I’ll debate you forever on that point.

Deus; I feel things are clarifying a little, and I noticed now things are pointing towards the issue of laziness, so i feel that underpins a lot of this and addressing it is the necessary next step

So either you dislike laziness and/or you’re just using it as convenient ammunition that you know will gain you support among those who do hold something against laziness. I think you may be trying this as you say it in a way as if to prompt people to look down on laziness.

So- what is so bad about it? Laziness alone doesn’t hurt anyone because it’s disengaged when they care about something, this changes the issue to whether or not they care about the emotions of others

Laziness is just the body’s way of recovering. I’m exhausted from work, and you would wish to raise the expectations here? That would increase the burden for those who do talk, where’s the sense in making life harder for people unnecessarily? We shouldn’t even have to work to survive because it’s not as if we have a real choice without some kind of pain anyway, so what right does society have to not allow each other a free basic existence? I’m sure there is enough money in the hands of the super-rich to do this easily.

I have already stated my case on explanations, I stand by it but feel at this point there won’t be any gain in saying again, you have your mind set, and resort to degrading instead, which among some circles is enough to win over people without having to explain your own point of view - it’s known as negative campainging. I seek to make that impossible to work, at least here, to force another way.

I have also already explained that what I’m trying to do doesn’t just occur in new threads set for it - it happens when issues come up, I can’t force them to come up, it takes debate to do that, and the challenge of ideas is what heppens in debate anyway, I’m not doing anything that different from anyone else, just a stronger shade of it.

p.s. Pleased you are computer literate. I had my doubts at one point because at first I saw quoting without quote boxes, which made me suspect, but I know you can use them, because on further looking you have used them. If you prefer quotation marks, fine with me.

I am not simply making points that have already been made. Even a superficial scan of my posts shows that every point I made was in DIRECT response to a particular comment. So if someone like Bahamat is too lazy to go back and read other posts, and restate the exact same mistaken points, there is little one can do in reply other than restate things. This is hardly a mistake.
That said, I find your characterization of my posts as “bullshit” to be asinine. First, you will be hard-pressed to claim that anything I wrote is substantially incorrect. Second, as stated, every post I made was in DIRECT response to posts by others. As such, my posts have been ENTIRELY on topic and apropos.

Wrong, because what I have said, above, and at least implied many many times throughout the course of this thread, is that

Jesus != Horus, insofar as substantive evidence indicates.

Of course Consi never concluded anything; if you’ve been around in other threads you’d pick up that Consi’s legalistic approach to debate means he almost never makes an independent claim. ‘Well, that’s not what Consi said‘ - no, it’s not. It’s the most immediate implication of the above article. If you accept that the article above earmarks many aspects as being completely lacking in any evidence, that’s where you end up. You can mince words all you want - you won’t end up a believer after that.

Never concluded anything? He makes a quite firm conclusion only three sentences in to the premier post. It is not a matter of mincing words. He then later in the thread calls for supporters of the claim to provide citations. This was missed by most, who continued posting additional Jesus=Horus claims.

@Bahamat:
The issue is that you say I do not give explanations, when in fact I do, and have several times, and am uninterested in posting them yet again just because you can’t be bothered to go back in the thread to where the particular points were made and read them yourself.
The issue is NOT laziness, the issue is you making accusations that are false, because you are to lazy to check to see if you are wrong.
Instead you pull words out of context, reconstruct completely new sentences around them, and then insert them in other people’s mouths. Case in point, your last paragraph about laziness.

But that aside, time to put up or shut up. This is a one time offer. You accuse me of not offering explanations. I challenge you to list a single point where I failed to do so. I will then do YOUR work for you, go back in the discussion to where the particular topic was raised, and quote you what I wrote by way of explanation.
Before you are so quick to jump to conclusions that people haven’t done something, it is YOUR responsibility to actually go back and check to see if they, in fact, did.

Very well, I’ll show all points I picked out starting from the beginning; some of these were not in response to me, but I still felt stopped short, and before you say ‘that was an explanation’, I’ll tell you what I was looking for. Some are minor and I’d usually dismiss, but they accumulate. Time and dates are at GMT +0.

Oh and by the way, I have no responsibility to do anything here, I shouldn’t even have to explain myself to you just because you can’t figure it out. Nevertheless, read on, and hopefully you’ll understand why I’m doing this.

On 10/10/07 you said:

The amount of disrespect and outright rudeness here is disheartening.

No examples of what was rude or how it was inappropriate, or why it offended you, just
- I say that it is very rude
- I say that it is disheartening
- (impression: Because I say it is)

There was no ‘X, you didn’t have to be like that to Y when you said “__”, that was unnecessary, he was only trying to ____,’
You didn’t name Y, say what he did wrong, or otherwise actually assist X.

Continuing the comment:

It was even more disheartening to see the almost complete lack of critical reading or reasoning skills employed by people claiming to decry other’s poor logical skills

Where are your examples? You could’ve at least quoted what you had an issue with. You didn’t point out here what it was that was lacking either, like you could’ve done with ‘X’s statement mentioned ____, but I think this is incorrect because ____, I think it would’ve happened this way because ____, I think there’s a cyclic logical error with ____ because it doesn’t depend on anything outside, say, the bible’

As a lifelong atheist, it was embarrassing to be associated with the views proffered on this thread by people who should know better

What views? Know better how? What was it that was wrong with what they said?

It was all the more dismaying since all but one respondent COMPLETELY failed to understand the intent of the original post

You have not (by this point – I grant you specified who it was later) explained what you consider a failure to understand to be, or why you say it’s ‘COMPLETELY’ – why that level of harshness?

The subject of this thread, as initially stated by Consiglieri, and repeated by him ad naseam

Was it really repeated by him? You didn’t quote him to show this

Instead of answering the original question, Nunyabiz proceeded to make irrelevant rehashes of the central argument, making illogical conclusions from non-existant information, followed by launching an unprovoked ad hominem attack based on his assumption as to the religious persuasion of the original poster

No quoting of examples, you say it is this way as if your words are some gospel story of the thread. No explanation as to what conclusions were illogical, no challenge of the ideas inside Nunyabiz’s attack, just a dismissal of the attack itself.

Yet the majority of you here just jumped on the Christian-bashing bandwagon, like the knee-jerk reactionaries you have shown yourselves to be

No quotations of what it is you accuse. No justification given for your judgement.

You did quote in the immediate next point however, to illustrate who understood what you perceive to be the central point, and what it was that made you think this, but you didn’t say here why you think the central point is what you perceive it to be.

Consiglieri is right in his question, as, indeed, these attributes ARE not attributes of Horus.

What attributes? Why are they not attributes of hours? Where does it say (reference)?

This is NOT a question of religion or Christian theology, it is a question of Egyptology

Explain

I have found no reputable source for these supposed Horan attributes, and have yet to find a SINGLE Egyptologist who would confirm them

Just because you can’t find it doesn’t mean it’s not there, or that it wasn’t the case just because it hadn’t made it to documentation – there could be any reason for that, it might’ve not been found, it might’ve put an archaeologists job at risk to report something contradictory to what their supervisor wants to believe, or research for the other idea might’ve come under pressure from the church, which can be a strong political power

I credit your refrence to W. Gasque’s conclusion in the next point, but you didn’t refrence or quote it so we’re left to just take what you say

The issue was never IF Jesus (or Horus) existed, but rather if the Horus MYTH ever existed in the form put forth in the Horus=Jesus argument, which clearly it (the myth) does not

‘Clearly does not?’ You havn’t said any actual myth-theory content so far, there’s no explanation as to how ‘it’s clear that it does not’, you just say it is as if we’re supposed to believe whatever you state.

Then some of the previous accusation of Nunyabiz and the others was repeated, without quotes or explanation again

It is disturbing that so many here completely failed to see this, and were so ready to launch into ad hominem

So if anyone ever has a different view to you they’re the ones who are wrong because they haven’t yet accepted your point of view? It didn’t occur to you that maybe they’ve already had your point of view in the past and, for whatever reason, moved onto another one for something they’ve realised?

Nunyabiz’ continued resort to the argument based on authority

You say it as if it’s a defacto story you’re telling, you didn’t ever give examples of what you’re saying to back it up. It’s so regular (with how often I’ve quoted this one comment) that it almost comes across as if you think you have the authority not to need to back up what you say.

His claim that his 30 years of “scholarship” in this issue makes his point valid is as laughable as it is absurd

You’re assuming by now we actually view his points as being invalid, even though you gave us no examples of what to think invalid or tell us what about the points you have a problem with. You’re also negative campaigning, an asshat game that only wins you the support of people who listen to asshats.

I believe my 40 plus years experience trumps his 30

How the hell do we know whether or not that’s true? It also sounds childish – I’m better than him, I got a bigger dick
Then you say some stuff about personal life, which seems fine enough, it’s a known thing that unknown people cannot prove or challenge that, so it’s not expected. It’s opening up to others…

Nonetheless, as far as I can ascertain, the claim that the MYTHOLGOICAL Horus corresponds to the MYTHOLOGICAL Jesus is TOTALLY without merit

You haven’t said anything from the content of the mythologies so far, so there is no reason for us to believe this, but you say it as a personal opinion, which OK’s it a bit because you’re not saying it’s fact. Still would be nice to know what content exactly makes you hold this opinion.

To disprove this, and thus prove the original premise, one must, per se, prove the existentially quantified inverse

Oh yeah? By that then I can disprove anything with a plane of reflection as existing, but I cannot disprove that, say, gravity doesn’t push stuff away from earth at any accelaration other than approx 9.8ms^-2 , because anything other is not a quantified inverse of the conditions I’m able to achieve, even if it’s obvious qualitatively that stuff isn’t being pushed away. Using ‘logic’ this way is too inflexible for any realistically useful situation I can think of

Anyway moving on to the next comment: 10/10/2007

But after repeatedly making plain that I was NOT arguing about the truth of the stories of either Jesus or Horus, you reply about there being no evidence about the truth behind the mythology

We were making different points, I was saying that it’s pointless to argue the specifics of mythologies/religions we don’t even know are true, because there’s so much that could be wrong. I was not challenging you’re stance on the truth of them, I knew you made no reference to them, but you seemed to think we could only discuss what you were talking about, It felt you’d claimed the thread as your own and that we had to bend round you.

I’m not your bitch, I don’t have to answer to you, I’m only going to all this effort to try to get you to look at yourself so you won’t be like this elsewhere, or at least you’d be aware you’re doing it

The issue is NOT if Horus was real, or if Jesus was

You’ve effectively confirmed here what I said above that you think the point is what you say it to be, because you say it is.

-feels like ‘The issue [I]is[/I] this’
You have no authority to forcibly dictate what we can and can’t talk about, or expect us to just believe what you say is true to be true

The god they DID believe in was decidedly different

You didn’t say how, you’ve said no content of any mythology so far

Ending the comment:

As to to my used of block capitals (as opposed to what, exactly?) I use them for emphasis

It just seemed to me like you were being very forceful, as if we’re to treat you like a god + the authority on the matter regardless of how you address us. You spoke with authority you simply don’t have in an anonymous blog, indeed I like SEB because it’s more of a fair playing field – here your ideas aren’t just dismissed just because of what role you have in life, or however pushy an asshat you are, I seek to maintain this integrity, to judge an idea on it’s substance as an idea and give everyone a chance to show and develop intellectual merit.

10/10/2007:

Um, what are you talking about? I made no comment at all about such associations

So far up your own ass that you think everything I talk about is directly related to something you said? You can’t see that I’m trying to bring in my own perspective?

10/11/2007:

The stuff about history and myth has already been dealt with sufficiently here by others. I’ll simply say that the idea that myth nor history “cannot affect anybody” is misguided

You didn’t bother explaing your own perspective because at this point others we’re fighting for you, you just jumped on their bandwagon. You ‘simply’ said the idea is misguided, but with that didn’t say how or why it’s misguided. You made no attempt at explaining your position, I don’t believe you engaged with the idea in any depth at all, because there was no content to show for it.

Why does continuing to disseminate patently false and invalid arguments based on easily verifiable misstatements make atheists look like fools? Does this really need answering? It makes them look like fools because it shows them to be unable to apply critical thinking skills, or to bother to check facts. It also makes many, who decry this failing in other, into hypocrites.

You seem to judge an idea by the author, not the content. I have seen no theoretical content of any mythology so far from you. You didn’t say ‘A believed B according to ____ because ____, and this would extrapolate to them believing in ____ because ___, etc…)

I credit that you gave an explanation for why you think time could be better spend on things other than mythology, but is that not what you’ve spent so long studying? And even sacrifice your own time to discuss? How do you benefit out of this? This is why I was asking why you’re here – I can’t see a logical reason why an atheist would sacrifice their time for something of no/little personal gain.

10/11/2007

This was stated in the very first post in the thread. It has been stated repeated throughout, including by myself. It is stated categorically on many of the sites linked to or referenced in the posts.

You didn’t give your intentions at any point. You said essentially that spending time on mythology is a waste, and you said that this thread brought you to SEB, but never did you say why you were discussing it. I didn’t see you hyperlink anything either.

What is your basis for this assertion? Simply stating it does not make it so. I think the consensus would be that it would indeed be a VERY powerful tool to challenge the veracity of the Jesus story to show that the Jesus story was fabricated

I have talked to a lot of xians over my year of being here, they ignore what they don’t want to hear regardless of what it is, this is no different. You are more guilty than I am of simply stating things without explanation, your view of others is my view of you.

10/14/2007

What on earth does the variance in the dates have to do with anything!?! I find it very difficult to believe that what I wrote was actually read. Certaily this comment is a nonsensical non sequitur haveing NOTHING to do with what I wrote

Again you consider yourself so important that everything we say has to be directly related to what you say, you appear unable to comprehend anything outside the context of what you say, and I will believe that’s the case until I see for myself anything otherwise

10/14/2007

Needless to say I found the reasoning behind this twisted chain of conjecture weak, to say the least.

Judging others again without presenting any evidence, you could’ve at least quoted what you have a problem with.
-(feels like) ‘these people are wrong, shall I [I]bother[/I] explaing why? Nah, because I know I’m right and anyone who doesn’t take the same view or asks for an explanation obviously doesn’t understand and is an idiot, because I’m such a self-rightous fucktard, but you better paint me good or I’ll get offended and tell you how much of a failure you are as a human being’
-and I feel like saying ‘fuck off and die, asshole’

10/14/2007

You are missing the point. The point is that there were NEVER any ancients who belived these things about Horus

[sarc]The point is whatever you say it is, AGAIN, because you own this thread, and no deviation from what you want to talk about will be tolerated.[/sarc]

11/08/2007

What is also telling is your complete failure to empirically address ANY of the complaints herein.

How about your failure to answer points outside what you wanted to talk about? Some things, granted, were begrudgingly addresses, some things were dismissed by you as being off topic of what you wanted to discuss, some things are not mentioned at all, or certainly not dealt with and any mention of them was to avoid dealing with the concept, because it’s not what you want to talk about, perhaps it’s outside your comfort zone
11/08/2007

For one thing, the Book of the Dead was never intended to be a religious text akin to the bible, but rather was a collection of prayers and devotions, often from coffin inscriptions, and served more as a prayer book than an expounding of religious tenets

How do you know this to be true?

Also, there is no reason to believe that this passage has this connection to Horus

The passage didn’t mention Horus, but if people are able to draw conceptual links to hours, there must be something they’re linking to, and you didn’t look into that.

and think that this is enough to establish a connection to John the Baptist, is an example of the over reaching nature of your scholarship.

I feel the sarcasm was uncalled for, it’s not as if Acharya had been unnecessarily unkind or provokotive, s/he didn’t feel like having the (unnecessary) angry tone you so often present

If the rest of the objections raised in this thread are “dealt with in like manner,” I think we can consider the matter closed

You do not have that authority. You appear to be closing your mind to what you don’t want to deal with, either out of laziness or fear of being forced to actually address the conceptual ideas behind a point that they made, so you do as you always have done and discard the idea from the outside.

What was claimed is that there is no Egyptian source for this belief, and in fact, that both you and Massey are mistaken, at best

Again, no quotes, hyperlinks or detail about [I]what[/I] the beliefs actually are.

12/16/2007

I think you are missing the point. No one here is debating whether the story of Horus is a myth. The issue is that the myth of Horus does not contain the items claimed by those championing the Horus=Jesus parallel. There is NO evidence that the ancient Egyptians EVER believed the things claimed by Acharya and Massey.

-feels like ‘The issue is whatever I say it is, I allow no deviation but I also don’t bother quoting where that point is, people are supposed to just accept it. There IS no evidence because I SAY there isn’t, but I won’t bother explaining or quoting the mythology itself to point this out. Naturally you’re in the wrong and I’m right.’

12/17/2007

This is not an issue of policing the thread, it is a matter of pointing out a misunderstanding, one that you are still making

Of course, we’re always the ones that are ‘wrong’ for not talking about what you came in and designated the thread to allow discussion over

Using Campbell’s book is anecdotal at best, and thus not really proof of anything, but it still makes a legitimate point

You didn’t say what that point is, or in what way the book is anecdotal, there was no quotations or detail

12/18/07

Because the post in question is immediately above. Are you really so lazy that you can’t raise your eyes two inches?

Even so, it’s consistently rare that you ever quote or otherwise detail the mythological content you’re talking about, that was what I was getting at

Because I think it reasonable to assume that people here understand what the word “anecdotal” means. Clearly you do not, but as you just as clearly have access to the internet, surely you are capable of looking it up.

I understood what anecdotal means, but you didn’t say what was anecdotal about it, that’s my point

This was the subject of my first post, my second post, and most of my subsequent posts

No, you didn’t explain the ideas behind your statements, that’s what I’ve been highlighting here.

Likewise, I have already addressed this

Besides not comprehending the meaning behind my questions, and hence not answering what I asked, you didn’t explain what you’re going to achieve by studying a theistic issue when you know for other reasons that the mythology is unlikely to be true anyway, and when there is no benefit for yourself in studying it. You didn’t address my queries about it before, so I brought them up again, and you try to pass it off with the same excuses

12/20/07

The problem with your admittedly lazy attention span is that it causes you to fail to see that your questions have already been answered repeatedly

You weren’t addressing the points I was making, so I keep bringing them up. When you think you’re answering them by telling me to essentially re-read and believe what you say without any reasons or detail on the content of what we’re discussing, you’re wrong. Realise that I will not relent until you deal with them.

and then you feel as if it is a personal affront when people don’t feel like bothering to restate their position yet another time

Always assume and believe the worst in people, eh? You have no right to tell me how I feel.

is especially true since even when people DO deign to go back and restate things for you

Give me an example of this then…. I haven’t seen one so far

If you don’t find this to be casual reading, and refuse to put in any effort at all to understand, then don’t read it. It is really quite simple

If we were ever actually talking about the subject at hand it would be easy, but we seem to be determined to just go judging books by their cover without any detail or refrence, don’t we?
(in case you didn’t get it, ‘we’=you)

Beyond this I feel I’ve already made all points that come up several times, i feel/hope there is nothing to be gained by re-hashing the recent

So when is Achaya S gonna respond?

Beegor- I doubt Achaya will, it seemed a one-off comment, and that sometimes means they’re not reading our responses. It was also a while back when s/he appeared, the thread as a whole has probably developed too far away from discussion of Achaya’s post. Though I did refer to Achaya, s/he wasn’t the one I was addressing, so there’s not much pressure on them responding even if they were reading, and if s/he was going to respond to the previous discussion of their comment, they probably would’ve done before anyway

Um… Jeeze. Talk about venting. You don’t actually expect me to respond point by point to that tower of Babel, do you? Nonetheless, even though my stated offer was to respond one more time to a single example, I will endeavor to do several. First things first, however:

If you don’t find this to be casual reading, and refuse to put in any effort at all to understand, then don’t read it. It is really quite simple

If we were ever actually talking about the subject at hand it would be easy, but we seem to be determined to just go judging books by their cover without any detail or refrence, don’t we?
(in case you didn’t get it, ‘we’=you)

Not surprisingly, you have taken my comment out of context and applied it to things it was not addressing. The above point was in direct reference to your complaining that you were having difficulty understanding something that was laid out a few posts earlier, simply because you couldn’t be bothered to scroll back and read. Instead you complain that I don’t explain something because I don’t post the same thing again. This is the very issue that is being discussed. Can you not see that?

The problem with your admittedly lazy attention span is that it causes you to fail to see that your questions have already been answered repeatedly

You weren’t addressing the points I was making, so I keep bringing them up. When you think you’re answering them by telling me to essentially re-read and believe what you say without any reasons or detail on the content of what we’re discussing, you’re wrong.

I most certainly WAS addressing your points. I am not telling you to accept what I say uncritically. Believing me is not the issue. What is at issue is you claiming that things were never explained in the first place. The reason you feel this way is because you refuse to go back and read the thread to see. Your failure to do so, and your failure to understand what is written, is not the same thing as things not being explained.

and then you feel as if it is a personal affront when people don’t feel like bothering to restate their position yet another time

Always assume and believe the worst in people, eh? You have no right to tell me how I feel.

Of course I have the right, just as you have the right to disagree. It is not an assumption. You make your feelings plain.

But on to the topic at hand:

Likewise, I have already addressed this

Besides not comprehending the meaning behind my questions, and hence not answering what I asked, you didn’t explain what you’re going to achieve by studying a theistic issue when you know for other reasons that the mythology is unlikely to be true anyway, and when there is no benefit for yourself in studying it. You didn’t address my queries about it before, so I brought them up again, and you try to pass it off with the same excuses

First, I comprehended the meaning of your point just fine, it was just irrelevant and a tad bit sophomoric. Second, I most certainly DID explain what I am going to achieve by “studying a theistic issue when [I] know that… the mythology is unlikely to be true.” Putting aside the obvious benefit of simple broadening of knowledge, I was quite clear a while back that I was interested in the Jesus=Horus belief because I was working on a screenplay based on conspiracy theories surrounding Illuminati, the Trade Center attack, and other items, including the Jesus=Horus supposition, contained in the documentary “Zeitgeist.” This was not just a once-off thing. It was discussed by me over several posts.
Third, just as with your misunderstanding of the meaning of “validity” as it relates to “truth,” so to you are incorrect in thinking that the fact that the mythology in question is “untrue” (both the Horus myth and the Jesus myth) has ANY relevance WHATSOEVER to the point of either this thread, or my posts. Pay careful attention and read EVERY word. The issue is NOT if Horus or Jesus existed, the issue is if the Horus MYTH existed. Consiglieri’s point was NOT that Horus didn’t exist, it was that the Horus MYTH, as laid out by Acharya, did not exist, at least not until modern times.
I said this ad nauseam earlier in this thread. That you fail to understand this or acknowledge that it was said is the issue at hand.
Again, one more time. The issue here is not if THIS particular Horus existed, it is whether the ancient Egyptians BELIEVED he did. Clearly there is no evidence that they did.

Because I think it reasonable to assume that people here understand what the word “anecdotal” means. Clearly you do not, but as you just as clearly have access to the internet, surely you are capable of looking it up.

I understood what anecdotal means, but you didn’t say what was anecdotal about it, that’s my point

If you understood what anecdotal meant, you would not have to have that told to you. It is an inherent property, and telling you “what was anecdotal” about it would have amounted to defining anecdotal for you. Thus my comment.
It is like this: I say the ball is red. You say, “What is red about it?” I could go in depth into defining light spectra, retinal neural networks, even have sophomoric debates about whether what I see as red is the same thing that you see as red. None of that advances the discussion, and should be part of what is assumed knowledge. In short, stating something is red includes within it, per se, all the explanations referenced above. So too, calling something anecdotal that fits the definition includes within it the features that match that definition. In this particular instance, the fact that it was a SINGULAR example in an uncontrolled setting as related in story form by second hand observers regarding personal accounts (and that the information came not directly but through inference from its absence in his work) is what makes it anecdotal. In other words, the fact that it met the definition of anecdotal, that is what made it anecdotal.
The reference was to a book by Campbell where he did not deal with the Jesus=Horus issue at all. The inference was made that this leant credence to the idea that, since the eminent Joseph Campbell did not cover it, it probably wasn’t true.  My point was that, while this may be right, and in fact I have made it plain that I think that it is, it was not a very strong peg on which to hinge your argument. This is all inherent in the point made. The extent that that needed to be spelled out, is the extent to which you don’t understand the word. The answer to your question is inherent in the definition.

Of course, we’re always the ones that are ‘wrong’ for not talking about what you came in and designated the thread to allow discussion over

Don’t bring other people into it. I am not talking to the forum here, I am talking to you. You are the one that is wrong. Nor was it me who came in and designated what the thread was about. THE ORIGINAL POSTER DID. Do you get that? This thread was started by someone. In his premier posts and his posts that followed, he laid out its purpose. Except for this current inanity, I have consistently held to that. This is not to say that a thread should never drift. But when people post things that have nothing to do with the point, or display an obvious failure to understand the topic, yet do so as if they are posting on point, that should be pointed out.
As an example, I start a thread about the fact that the ancient Greeks were monotheists, and believed in the great, all-powerful Cheese Wheel in the sky. Someone posts that there is no such thing as the Great Cheese Wheel. <<

As a final example, before I lock myself in a room and pull my hair out, I give you the following:

What was claimed is that there is no Egyptian source for this belief, and in fact, that both you and Massey are mistaken, at best

Again, no quotes, hyperlinks or detail about [I]what[/I] the beliefs actually are.

This is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about. Numerous references wwere made in this thread about what the ancient Egyptians believed. This was not even necessary, since the VERY FIRST POST, by Consiglieri, had already done this, at length. That you feel that this what not done just shows your lack of attention, and, quite frankly, laziness, since it is repeated on EVERY PAGE IN THIS THREAD.
Besides, since the whole point here is a call to provide evidence that a belief existed, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. I pointed this out in my very first post Requiring me, or others, to continually restate the mythology, or provide you sources because you are too lazy to use google to find them yourself, is absurd.
That said, I DID post references, both to what the ancient Egyptians believe, and to sources of this information.

For instance, this expert from the “Book of the Dead”:

You then post a supposed translation of a section of the Book of the Dead. This translation, supposedly by Renouf, is interesting in its intricacy. While bearing a superficial resemblance to mainstream modern translations, it appears to take great liberties with the text, adding terms and expounding on concepts in a way that is hard to justify against modern translations of the original text. You also take the chapters (96 and 97, not just 97, as you claim) out of context. In the preceding text, you see that the quoted excerpt is a formulaic plea for priests to use to implore Thoth to give the deceased entry into the underworld. This is hardly equivalent to the story of John the Baptist.

O night-bark, O sceptre of Anubis,
Those spirits who are in the following of the lord of offerings are content for me.
I am the lord of the marsh by their command.
I am the father of the flood, removing thirst, guarding the pools.
See then, O those great and grand gods,
the foremost of the powers of Iunu:
I am higher than your heads,
I am the effective one among you.
See, I am cleansed for my soul, great and grand.
I have not been given to that obstacle that comes from your mouths;
it is gone - it did not turn on me.
I am purified in the pool from pacifying the judgement,
when I had tied the headband with my divine eye,
under the sycamore of my divine quality of the sky.
Indeed all the previously justified are refreshed,
as those who travel in What is Right arrive.
I am one who is exact and right, who is in the earth.
I am the interpreter for his speech,
the powerful one of the sole lord, Ra, the great one who lives on What is Right.
Do not inflict injury on me.
The day is unveiled with those who are foremost in all offerings.

Even if we accept your translation, it certainly does not lend significant credence to your claim that it is the prototype for the biblical story.

Again, your belief that I am bound to post these references just shows that you still miss the whole point, and have a very tenuous grasp on logic.
I write this last bit with trepidation at what bizarre ways you will find to twist these words into an undisentangle-able mass of inanity, obtuseness, and free-association. Nevertheless, here goes:
The issue is whether Acharya’s claims vis-a-vis the Egyptians is true. As such, posting lists of what they did believe is not particularly helpful, beyond what Consiglieri did in his premier post. As has already been said, the burden of proof is on her to provide a single source that shows that what SHE believes they believed is actually what they did believe.

Now I shall go back to following the advice re: your posts given by many here.

My head hurts today so i’ll be a while in typing. I was letting out some pent up feelings but such as to let you know how it was making me feel, and I deliberately started from the first post so that I would see if you had previously mentioned something.

There is a fundamental, basic point behind all this that I’m trying to get through, but don’t know how to in words, it’s about how you handle people. Everything I’m trying, even my attacks on you, are just different angles of approaching this. I actually want to psychologically break you down if that’s what it takes, because that’s the only way I think I’m gonna get through, that is why I must be persistent. So here goes:

Not surprisingly, you have taken my comment out of context and applied it to things it was not addressing. The above point was in direct reference to your complaining that you were having difficulty understanding something that was laid out a few posts earlier, simply because you couldn’t be bothered to scroll back and read. Instead you complain that I don’t explain something because I don’t post the same thing again. This is the very issue that is being discussed. Can you not see that?

By ‘subject at hand’ I meant the mythology itself. By ‘judging books’ I meant you’re just reviewing other people’s reviews on mythology, by and large without bringing in the actual content of the mythology itself, and ‘by their cover’ I’m meaning you’re not dealing with them point by point, you’re making sweeping judgements over the whole of the ‘book’, without separating the good points from the bad. Reviewing other people’s studies on the mythology is not talking about the mythology itself.

I most certainly WAS addressing your points. I am not telling you to accept what I say uncritically. Believing me is not the issue. What is at issue is you claiming that things were never explained in the first place. The reason you feel this way is because you refuse to go back and read the thread to see. Your failure to do so, and your failure to understand what is written, is not the same thing as things not being explained

When I wrote the long comment above I started from your first comment, then systematically and thourougly dredged through it. I would’ve seen it if you gave an explanation, I even credited times when you did, but they simply weren’t there - I’ve told you what you left unexplained on each point I picked, I remember that you hardly ever gave examples.

You seem to have it in your head that the only possible explanation is that I havn’t bothered, but my stance that you didn’t explain what I was looking for still held when I went through hours of thourough drudgery. Seriously look at it yourself, although I reserve doubts over what you consider constitutes an ‘explanation’.

You say ‘believing me is not the issue’, I get the feeling you just don’t want it to be the issue. You want the issue to be what you want it to be, as you always have.

Of course I have the right, just as you have the right to disagree. It is not an assumption. You make your feelings plain.

There’s nothing stopping you from looking at the worst in people, but that’s what you were doing. Things, people, aren’t as bad as you may think. Do you want to spend your life hating everything in sight? Hating life?

I have the ability to put on feelings I don’t feel if I think they’ll get you to realise how others would feel. Some feelings in the last post were genuine, some were falsified, but appropriate.

First, I comprehended the meaning of your point just fine, it was just irrelevant and a tad bit sophomoric

You would claim that, wouldn’t you.
But you only saw them as irrelevant because you couldn’t see what I was saying, and were so hard-headed not to see beyond your own train of thought, and you resort to throwing in a personal attack with it like saying what I say is sophomoric/immature only because you don’t understand it yourself, though obviously you’ll claim that you do understand because you’ll refuse to accept that. If you really did understand it would show - you’d be able to acknowlege a point and move on without just bouncing it straight off, and if what I was saying was immature, and you know better, then surely you’d be able to tell me precisely what part of it is immature and why you consider it to be.

Cannot do that? Am I surprised?

Pay careful attention and read EVERY word. The issue is NOT if Horus or Jesus existed, the issue is if the Horus MYTH existed

I think you say to read every word because you want us to believe you literally that the issue is what you say it is. You say it in a forceful way much like when an Englishman goes to France and thinks he can get people to understand him and get his own way just by shouting his English louder at the locals, without any study of French.
You will probably claim this to be irrelevant, because you cannot understand analogies, or have any willingness to see a point that you’re not making yourself.

But because I just said the above, you’ll probably then say something along the lines of ‘it’s not because of my own flaws, it’s because it IS irrelevant’, but you will give no explanation.

If you understood what anecdotal meant, you would not have to have that told to you. It is an inherent property, and telling you “what was anecdotal” about it would have amounted to defining anecdotal for you. Thus my comment.

I stand by my point that you didn’t say what was anecdotal about it, let’s use an analogy;

Mark: It’s blue
Fred: What’s blue?
Mark: If you understood what blue was you’d know what I was talking about, clearly you don’t
Fred: I know what blue looks like but you didn’t tell me what I’m supposed to be looking at

Basically I don’t know what you’re referring to unless you quote it

It is like this: I say the ball is red. You say, “What is red about it?” I could go in depth into defining light spectra, retinal neural networks, even have sophomoric debates about whether what I see as red is the same thing that you see as red. None of that advances the discussion, and should be part of what is assumed knowledge

You wouldn’t need to say the mechanism of percieving the colour, you’d just have to say something like “it’s the stripes on the ball that’s red”.
In this example think of me as a blind person who cannot see the ball but is asking questions about it.

Don’t bring other people into it. I am not talking to the forum here, I am talking to you. You are the one that is wrong

I mentioned no names on that point, so I wasn’t bringing anyone else in, but I was saying I’ve seen you telling several people they’re wrong, and I’ve never seen you try to balance that out or have the guts to judge yourself.

This is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about. Numerous references wwere made in this thread about what the ancient Egyptians believed. This was not even necessary, since the VERY FIRST POST, by Consiglieri, had already done this, at length. That you feel that this what not done just shows your lack of attention, and, quite frankly, laziness, since it is repeated on EVERY PAGE IN THIS THREAD

I have spent hours drudging through everything since your first comment, and hardly ever did I see links from you for things that justified them. Any normal reader simply isn’t going to drudge through 19 pages of text just to see a link you couldn’t be bothered to provide, and it’s no work at all simply to copy and paste what’s in your address bar, just for the sakes of those who don’t know what it is you’re talking about.

Again, your belief that I am bound to post these references just shows that you still miss the whole point, and have a very tenuous grasp on logic.

I think you’re incapable of making a point without a personal criticism. You say there’s something wrong with the way I look at things, but you provide no help in doing what you think would improve my logic, you just say “it’s wrong”.

It’s like the people who say it’s wrong that people starve in africa, but do nothing about it to help. It’s judging without an attempt to improve things.

I feel you only find my way of explaining things bizzare because you don’t understand, if you do understand and had previously defeated my idea in your own mind then surely you’d recognise the point I was making

Meri is an egyptian word which denotes that something or someone is loved. For example, “Mut-Nefertari-Meri” means “Nefertari, beloved of Mut.” Ta-Meri is the ancient name of Egypt, which means “beloved land.” “Anen Meri” means “to bring back love.”
Egyptian rulers sometimes had Meri on the end of their name to suggest that they were loved by their people.

Any of the Egyptian gods, or any other thing in existence, could equally have “Meri” thrown on at the end. It isn’t Isis’ name, nor part of her name. Also, if we are to make a parallel between Isis and the Mary of Christianity by surrogating Isis’ name, then this practice would be equally legitimate to be done with, say, Zeus’ name… however, this would not support a Jesus = Horus myth, and so Achaya would be unlikely to choose this model.

Beegor,
Thanks you very much for further enlightening input on the subject. It is too bad that Acharya et al. only do hit and run posting so we will never be entertained by her reply.

She has a website, if that helps;
http://truthbeknown.com/

Even wrote a book…

I read somewhere on a previous page that Massey’s work has been rejected by a bunch of egyptologists. Is there more info that can be had on this, or a source?

I’d be interested in seeing Massey’s work resubmitted to some highly regarded egyptologists and see what the response is.

Consigliere Good job… Not… where are your sources?  And can you explain the other deities that are similar Jesus look a-likes..

Besides Horus:

Greece God Attis born of a virgin, crucified, after three days resurrected

Greece God Dionysus born of a virgin, crucified, after three days resurrected

India God Krishna
born of a virgin, crucified, after three days resurrected

Persian God MIthra born of a virgin, crucified, after three days resurrected

There are tons of examples that are copy cats of Jesus or Jesus was the copy cat of them… You just have to know where to look and study.  My favorite spot is https://www.Sacred-texts.com