Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver

Share your thoughts on the written word.
User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29416
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver

Postby Gord » Sun Jun 19, 2016 11:32 am

Robert Tulip wrote:Here is some of Gord’s false commentary on Acharya from the thread that he linked. My critique of it is perfectly reasonable and measured, especially considering the utterly wild and false emotional attacks about such complete red herrings as "feminazis" and belief in UFOs. The defense you and others here make of Gord's comments is irrational. Inability to engage with symbolic language is behind much skeptical pathology about religion.
Gord wrote:
"And during this three day pause, the sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation."

No. The Sun is never in the "vicinity" of the Southern Cross (or Crux). It gets as close to the Southern Cross as it gets to the Big Dipper. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest, as the movie did, that the Sun actually enters the constellation of the Southern Cross.

No. In December the sun appears close to the Southern Cross, and in June it appears close to the Big Dipper

The Sun never gets close to either the Southern Cross or the Big Dipper. Here is an image of the sky; the ecliptic is the reddish brown line. That's the path of the Sun through the constellations. I've circled the Southern Cross and the Big Dipper in red so you can make them out.

path of the Sun through the constellations.gif


Sunrise at the winter solstice is at its southernmost point, which is the real scientific basis behind the allegorical language about the Southern Cross.

Uhhh, "allegorical language about the Southern Cross"? The Southern Cross was created by Spanish explorers in the 16th century. They some of the first Europeans in the Southern Hemisphere, so they felt the need to create constellations in the Southern sky. Being Christians, they named one of them the Southern Cross. What kind of allegory do you see in that?

Gord wrote: Look at the map of the constellations for yourself, and it should be absolutely obvious: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... r_plot.svg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes of course it is absolutely obvious, which should lead any reasonable person to examine whether the intent is symbolic or literal. In this case a person would have to somewhat unversed to think the intent was literal, since as I recall, the movie also makes the obvious well known point that the sun only ever appears within the zodiac, which illustrates that your alleged 'gotcha' error is just your own misunderstanding.

What a load of crap. The movie, as I've already stated numerous times, clearly implies the Sun enters the Southern Cross. Yes, it mentions the Zodiac, but it never states the Southern Cross is nowhere near the constellations of the Zodiac. It leaves it to the viewer to misunderstand just how far from the Southern Cross the Sun is, and intentionally deceives them with statements of "near the Southern Cross" and images of the Sun superimposed upon the Southern Cross.

Gord wrote:Furthermore, there wasn't even a constellation called "the Southern Cross" until the 16th century AD, when European sailors started exploring further south. Before that it was just part of another constellation, Centaurus.

The actual language of the movie, as far as I can tell, is about the entirely simple and true fact that the date when the sunrise is closest to the south pole is the December solstice. The rest is just your fertile embroidery. The fact that the movie uses a symbolic picture to illustrate an imagined connection between the cross and the solstice is just a parable, not a literal claim. Wrongly seeing that as an imagined literal claim reflects a serious failure of comprehension.

Your really desperate to ignore the mistakes and intentional misrepresentations of the movie, aren't you?

What the movie actually claims is that the Sun gets close to the Southern Cross even as it shows an image of the Sun within the stars of the Southern Cross, at the same time saying claiming a connection between that false claim and the story of what it laughably calls "the Sun of God" being crucified upon a cross.

Gord wrote:The same anachronistic error is made when the movie claims the three stars of Orion's belt were known as the Three Kings. The did not receive this name until probably the 18th century.

No.

Yes.

You do not know that is the case.

I pretty much do.

You are just making it up.

No, I researched it to find that out. I have these things called "books" written by these people called "experts" who recorded wonderful information that is pretty easy to access if you know where to find it.

There was massive destruction of ancient myth.

And massive invention by people like you, Murdock, and the schmuck who made Zeitgeist, creating completely new myths from scratch and trying to pass them off as things people in the past once believed. And that's the problem! You're fighting against Christian myths with your own myths. I can't suppose either side in such a fight, but I will continue to point out such nonsense from both sides.

The purpose here is imaginative reconstruction of how stories most probably emerged.

Except you're just making {!#%@} up. This isn't how the stories emerged, they're how your own narrative is supported by nonsense that you've created solely to make your story sound plausible to people who want to believe.

In fact the connection between the three kings and orion’s belt as a real mythical origin for part of the Jesus birth narrative is highly plausible

Only anachronistically. You people invented the story, and then turned around and tried to use it as evidence to support your hypothesis (and I use that term lightly).

To prove an anachronism you would have to show that ancient use is unlikely

No, I only have to show that the the connection between the three kings and Orion's belt is a new one. It's up to you people to find actual evidence that ancient people made that connection, but you can't, so you just made it up and called it "plausible".

Gord wrote:What I am is someone with enough knowledge of astronomy to see the BS being passed on to, and eaten up by, the gullible people who desperately want to somehow "disprove" Christianity. The right way to do something like that is with facts, not the made up nonsense being espoused by people like Acharya S.

The agenda in Murdock’s book Christ in Egypt is to explore how the systemic parallels between Egyptian myth and the New Testament could have arisen. Unfortunately, hostile ignorant attacks on this whole area of scholarship are rife. You fail here to engage with very simple symbolic language and you attribute to Murdock claims that she does not make. Such elementary errors illustrate the big difficulties and cultural pathologies surrounding such work.

It is very sad that you self-professed skeptics exhibit such a weak grasp of a core issue in this topic, how a skeptical approach to mythology can avoid the mistake of failing to recognize symbolic language.

What's actually sad is when BS artists like yourself create complete nonsense which anyone who has any knowledge of the matter can deconstruct, and use that nonsense to draw gullible people into a cult-like fan base who believe so strongly in such utter nonsense that even simple and easy explanations cannot get them to see how they've been led to believe bad information simply because it makes them feel better about themselves and worse about Christianity.

I'm sorry if you think lying to people is the way to make money, but trying to claim "symbolism" and "scholarship" to cover up your lies just isn't good enough.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jun 19, 2016 3:19 pm

Poodle wrote:Hmmmmm.

I think we upset him.

Maybe we shouldn't send him off without a little reward?

Hey, Robert, here's a twenty for your efforts.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29416
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver

Postby Gord » Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:36 pm

Jeez, lookit that. Posting at 5:32 am makes me messy!

Gord wrote:They some of the first Europeans in the Southern Hemisphere

They were some of the first Europeans in the Southern Hemisphere.

Your really desperate

You're really desperate

at the same time saying claiming a connection

at the same time claiming a connection

I can't suppose either side

I can't support either side

I only have to show that the the connection

I only have to show that the connection

I also shouldn't have used the word "lie" so much. A little thought would have enabled me to come up with better terms, Shirley.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Book Reviews/Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest