Stuart Mason wrote:Speaking of strawmen, I didn't claim that Murdock said mythology is only astrotheological and nothing more.

That's a common argument circulating and you took off as if you're trying to make this argument, so I addressed it as such. But no sooner had you said the above before double backing and posting this:

Stuart Strawman wrote: That's the all or nothing I was speaking of.

And it was this very claim that we are "all or nothing" that I was accusing you of making strawman against the MP in the first place. So yes, you were raising a strawman as a matter of fact. The whole point of my previous post is that we are not in fact "all or nothing." We do know that astrotheology is a sub-set of the cosmological function of mythology ranking as one function among many others. We also know that is 'possible' for the Osiris myth to have been based on a real person, or even 'possible' that Abraham, King David, Solomon, and even Jesus could have been based on real people at some point down the line.

But where is the credible evidence for these claims? Without credible evidence there's no good reason to move from an agnostic - uncertain - position to a position of certainty. Being uncertain of these historicities, but being certain of these allegorical attributes blatantly plastered all over the myths, the simplest explanation is that these mythological characters are teaching symbols, used by priesthoods, as ways of passing along certain collected bodies of knowledge and organizing community politics around these tales. None of them require an historical person at their core in order to exist as myths. So why keep fighting to hang on to such an evemerist idea? And the point is that Tulip, Murdock, and myself have gone on record time and again saying that it isn't an "all or nothing" situation. But we're clearly zeroing in on the astrotheological function because it explains a great deal of these ancient myths concocted by the astronomer priests of many different religions. It explains a great deal of the Horus and Osiris myths and how both of them, I repeat, both the Osiris and Horus myths - interchangeability aside - are paralleled in the Christ myth...

What's with this "sort of atheist" on a wild goose chase person you are trying to describe me as? I left atheism 32 years ago. And this "something wrong" with the way I'm going about sharing my information? Could it be you're reacting to having to deal with theistic argumentation you haven't met before?

Once again, what sort of, or type of atheist takes off on some ridiculous wild goose chase to validate theistic New Age belief? My guess is that you were never a real atheist to begin with. Some people are confused about religion, never knew or understood it while growing up, and therefore called themselves "atheist". And they were atheist if they simply lacked God belief because that's all atheism really is when stripped bare. But there is an ignorant variety of atheist and a well informed variety, the real atheists. The ignorant atheists, for lack of a better term, often fall victim to theistic belief sooner or later due to their lack of back ground knowledge about theism in the first place. And the first reaction is generally do an abrupt about face and start proselytizing theistic beliefs from the platform of "I used to be atheist." lol

Have you brought to the table anything I've never heard before? Of course not. We've had many people trying to argue for Gnostic belief over the years, both here and at FTN. It's becoming a rather common reaction to the outfall from ZG and mythicism sweeping over the internet. Not knowing what to do with it, many take an initial knee jerk reaction to try and salvage some type of theistic belief while accepting the astrotheology of the ancients and it's role in world religion and what not. And each person seems to have unique ways of trying to salvage it all mind you. There's no one set way of doing it, but what is generally common is an immediate reaction to try and latch onto ancient Gnosticism in some way and attempt to modernize it to some degree. So you've brought your own variety of a well played out issue to the table, nothing more.

Oh yes, I know it's a tough crowd but that's the way it always is for those bringing new revelation. Few want to hear anything that upsets cherished beliefs. When you start picking up stones then I'll get worried.

And who, pray tell, bringing new revelation has been afraid of stones, STEPHEN!!! LOL

As for understanding the mythicist position, no I'm a real newcomer to that, just found Acharya's book around 5 or 6 months ago. I am spiritually led and beginning in 2008 I started getting stuff about Egypt and its connection to Christianity. The astro-theology information is quite new to me except I have been well aware of the zodiac aspects of it because I'm living out the Aquarius archetype, something that always informs me how wrong atheistic ideas of a non-spiritual universe can be.

Yes, I can tell. You know how to throw a lot of the info back at us, such as the history of YHWH and it's evolution and such, but this information is new to you, hence the knee jerk reaction conclusion drawing...

I'm here mainly to get feedback on my book that I'm preparing to publish in print and also to learn more about Egypto-Judaism or Christianity.

That's all fine and well. It may do you some good to set these young and evolving beliefs of yours on the chopping block to see what happens to them before you put them into print.

tat tvam asi wrote:And it was this very claim that we are "all or nothing" that I was accusing you of making strawman against the MP in the first place. So yes, you were raising a strawman as a matter of fact

When I said all or nothing I was speaking to a specific comment(that I quoted, not "strawmanned") that it was paradoxical for a writer to speak of gods as being both real people and cosmic objects. I didn't say that Murdock believes all myth is only astrotheological and nothing else nor was I speaking against the mythicist position at all. I was making the point that a god can be both an astronomical object and a person because different myths have different contexts. Osiris may represent an earthly king in one myth, grain in another myth, the Sun in another myth, etc. You can also have some gods that are based on real people and other gods that are entirely mythical.

None of them require an historical person at their core in order to exist as myths. So why keep fighting to hang on to such an evemerist idea?

It's not really a matter of fighting for the evemerist idea, it's a matter of trying to correctly understand what information is being conveyed by a myth.

Robert Tulip wrote:Stuart, with respect, I don't find your argument to be completely above board. In the post from Murdock you just quoted, she also gave a clear response to your question, but you seem to have selectively quoted almost to give the impression she was avoiding your question.

Unless I missed something in the comment, it was an argument that Horus and Osiris are interchangeable and that Jesus and Horus have similarities. Since I've already agreed that Jesus and Horus have parallels and actually included the interchangeability point in the opening post when I asked the question, I do feel as though the response left things in the same place it started. But if I gave the impression that she was intentionally or underhandedly avoiding the question that wasn't my intent.

As well, you have repeated your opinion about the Jesus-Osiris parallel being primary, even though others have pointed out that both Jesus and Horus are the sons of father gods, and of virgin mothers, and that the Jesus Horus parallel was made in antiquity.

Well I did repeat that opinion because I still hold it for the reasons already explained(ie central myths) and I can confidently say most mythologists and Egyptologists hold it as well. And most Christians too so far as I can tell, even if Satan is often invoked to explain why Osiris is so similar. If the answer to my question is that Horus is a closer analogue to Jesus than Osiris, then I'd just have to disagree.

We have another thread going on the broader question of the mythicist position. I commented there on the problem you have raised here about the relation between astrotheology and myth.

We would differ on degrees, but I would more or less agree with your assessment there.

Stuart Mason wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:And it was this very claim that we are "all or nothing" that I was accusing you of making strawman against the MP in the first place. So yes, you were raising a strawman as a matter of fact

When I said all or nothing I was speaking to a specific comment(that I quoted, not "strawmanned") that it was paradoxical for a writer to speak of gods as being both real people and cosmic objects. I didn't say that Murdock believes all myth is only astrotheological and nothing else nor was I speaking against the mythicist position at all. I was making the point that a god can be both an astronomical object and a person because different myths have different contexts. Osiris may represent an earthly king in one myth, grain in another myth, the Sun in another myth, etc. You can also have some gods that are based on real people and other gods that are entirely mythical.

None of them require an historical person at their core in order to exist as myths. So why keep fighting to hang on to such an evemerist idea?

It's not really a matter of fighting for the evemerist idea, it's a matter of trying to correctly understand what information is being conveyed by a myth.

That's all fine and well Stuart. If that's all that you meant then we basically agree from what I can tell. At first you seemed to be trying to raise up mythicism as an "all or nothing" position to take and then knock it down by pointing out that it isn't an "all or nothing" situation, and, we all agree that it isn't. But in any case, Murdock has answered "why Horus?", so the next point of confusion is addressed to why you haven't caught on to "why Horus?" yet.

I don't think we can attach any measuring stick to "how much of an atheist" someone is.

If someone really doesn't believe in a god, then they are atheists. IF they then later re-convert to their old religion, or to some other, then they have jumped ship from atheist to theist again.

It doesn't shed a negative light on the word "atheist", but it might cast into doubt whether that person was a methodological rationalist, or empiricist, or some other name which could be defined by accepting claims based on evidence, rather than subjective dispositions or preference.

It is these terms which suffer for they denote the means of acquisition of knowledge, whereas atheism is simply a yes no answer which could be held no matter what means was used to reach that conclusion. Even if it were a psychich revelation or some wavelength of universal vibration which caused somebody to intuitively know for certain there was no god.

That sounds like nonsense, and you won't find any methodological rationalists on board with that path to atheism, but it doesn't change the state of that binary qualifier.

Tat, have you ever taken a class on listening to others?

No, but I'm listening. Take this for instance:

I told you I was an atheist until age 35 when I went through my original religious conversion experience. I considered myself an agnostic actually at the time but through the religious experience I discovered that agnostics are atheists as there is no significant difference between not knowing God and denying God's exist--both do not have God consciousness which is the definition of "a-theism", i.e. "without theos, without God".

As I was saying, ignorant.

A = not and Theism = God belief. Hence, a theist is "God Belief" while an atheist is "Not God Belief." It's simple, an atheist is simply a person who lacks God belief. They don't have to "deny God's exist." There's nothing to deny when you lack God belief. You just don't have it. And any ignorant bastard can be an atheist simply because they lack God belief, not because they've researched, and studied, and concluded that no such thing as a God or Gods exist. You want to come at me about belief's I have, but I'm not the one promoting belief, you are. The only person between you and I with belief to loose here is you Stephen.

As soon as the agnostic has authentic spiritual experience he or she becomes a theist but here I want to show you something about your own thinking- you say you were a theist before and now are not and you try to pin my theistic enthusiasm on the reformed drunk syndrome but it looks more like it's you that is performing it. Not being able to wait to actually learn about my beliefs before trying to clobber them with atheist argument you tip your reformed theist/born again atheist hand.

I've pushed you into revealing these beliefs of yours by challenging you. And so far it's worked out just fine. You got pissed and tried to return fire. So now, Gnostic is basically one who is "Knowing", while the bare meaning of Agnostic is basically A = not and Gnostic = knowing, and so an Agnostic is not knowing. So you're telling me that when a "not knowing" person has authentic spiritual experience he or she becomes a theist? I'd say that he or she becomes an idiot when they delude themselves with fantasy theories and psychological head games. At least that's how I see it.

I'm the opposite of you Stephen. My name is Nehpets, and I was born into theistic delusion. I fooled myself into thinking I was having spiritual experiences when it was all in my head the entire time. I eventually woke up and realized that. And then I moved on. I've watched people delude themselves and play off of one another in church circles, such as one idiot claiming to get demon possessed on a mission trip to central America. When arriving back to school in the states and speaking up front about it, several other people in the audience, for attention obviously, suddenly started feeling ill and rolling around acting like this demon was after them too. It's a lot of BS Stephen, all of it. And theism is slowly going the way of the dinosaur...

I've got 32 years into this stuff so while I am a newbie learning about the mythicist position, I got my own historical research track going.

Well excuse me, you must be a real wiz bang then. It really shows.

"Have you brought to the table anything I've never heard before? Of course not."

Oh yeah? Like Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."

Yes, the mystery of mere existence. 'Pick up the stone, I am there...' This is Gnostic mythology addressed to the mystery of existence, which is simply the great unknown. No eye has seen the mystery behind the existence of existence. No ear has heard the mystery underlying mere existence itself. The mystery behind the existence of existence itself has never occurred to the human mind. This text is NOT actually addressed to any literal deity, supreme being, or even any mind of any type, eternal or otherwise. Certainly not a spiritual realm, literally, either. It is addressed to BEYOND all of those things which can be named and conceived with the mind. I am in accord with the first mythological function and you lower level New Age type mystics have no hold on me. You still think that the transcendent is in reference to a literal God, or a literal realm just beyond this one, hence you cling to theism. And it gives your mystical ignorance away...

PS Mods, sorry for this rant. Can someone please split this off topic back and forth to a new thread about theism verses atheism or something?

We really should conduct this debate elsewhere Stephen. It's way off topic. In my last post I thought I was responding in the mythicism thread until I posted it and realized we were on Stuarts thread. I just responded to you over there, and maybe they can clean this thread up of our off topic rambling and put it over there.

In this case I think Tat has a good point regarding splitting the thread. Biomystic's first post was sort of relevant, but then he hared off into discussion of belief in the supernatural. It doesn't even relate to Christ in Egypt, so best not in the forum for this book.

I have made a new thread called Belief in the Supernatural. Interbane or Johnson, could you please move biomystic's comments and direct responses to them to that thread?

Thank you guys for moving the trolling elsewhere. Now back to CIE...