The Tomb of Pantera

[Marduk]

On the History Channel last night they had a show called "In Search of Christmas" They said that the tomb of Pantera (the Roman soldier that legend has it raped Mary and was Jesus real dad) was found in Germany, his obit says he was a Bowman that once served in Palestine, this legend goes back to the second century, Origen mentions the story in a debate with someone whose name I forget. NT scholar Crossan dismissed the legend as early Christian name calling. FYI

[Pantera]

Originally posted by marduck:
<strong>Origen mentions the story in a debate with someone whose name I forget</strong>

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html" target="_blank">Contra Celsus</a> (Early 3rd Century)

[Marduk]

thanks, good site.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by marduck:
<strong>On the History Channel last night they had a show called "In Search of Christmas" They said that the tomb of Pantera (the Roman soldier that legend has it raped Mary and was Jesus real dad) was found in Germany, his obit says he was a Bowman that once served in Palestine, this legend goes back to the second century, Origen mentions the story in a debate with someone whose name I forget. NT scholar Crossan dismissed the legend as early Christian name calling. FYI</strong>

What was your opinion of the rest of the show?
I thought they were doing their best to stay on
the fence. At times it felt like an overview of
the Gospel intros, at others they tried to be
very "gentle" with how alternative theories were
presented. If heard "Some [scholars/skeptics/people] believe however..."
one more time... :-)

I did appreciate the [obviously] Irish Catholic
priest who just flat out said "It's just fiction",
compared to that lady from Loyalla who just
danced around the difficult stuff (I guess that
should be expected).

[Marduk]

Kosh asked:
"What was your opinion of the rest of the show?"

only got to see the first 30 min. or so, I was surprised they brought up the Pantera issue at all, points for this, I have never seen that on TV before, having watched so many of these type shows on TV I'm getting used to the "some people think this is ALL fiction" disclaimer. It was much better than the 3 hour 'History of Christianity' they had on A & E, pure Church line.
What I saw was decent, The 2 hour 'Digging for the Truth' was also very good, minimalists vs. traditionalists, Finkelstein, Dever etc. Though I was disapointed in the minimalists, their case for some things was not as strong as I thought.
Finkelstein's claim that Solomon didn't build his three cities was based on only 2 mason marks in one city, prettty weak, as was the claim for Joshua not having destroyed Hathor (?)
The loyal opposition made a good point, only radical monotheists would have bothered to deface someone elses idols. Pagans were very tolerant of other peoples gods.
Not that any of this is relevant to the existance of the Hebrew God, just that (as I've always suspected) there is some real history in the Bible.

[RyanS2]

Not that any of this is relevant to the existance of the Hebrew God, just that (as I've always suspected) there is some real history in the Bible.

I'd go with Rabbi Lewis Browne in the assertion that many of the stories of the Bible were oral forms long before they were written down, (Hebraic language being somewhat difficult until the 8th century BCE, as a form of Canaanite logo-syllabic writing derived from North), so the stories were corrupted somewhat. Concerning the actual sources of the Old Testament, I'd say linguistically, etymologically, and historically, I'd connect them to concurrent stories surrounding the area of Canaan, with helpings of Ugaritic origins.

Mark S Smith in "The Early History of God", page 8 notes the Hebrew text as ‘el’elohim yhwh ‘el’elohim yhwh or God of gods is "yhwh" God of gods is "yhwh". Confusing as that sounds, it means that God was the head of a plurality. Smith argues for the development of the Hebrew concepts, from the Canaanite, perhaps from the period of Iron Age 1, as shown from the Ugaritic corpus, imposing themselves on the cult of Yahweh (Intr., p. xxvii). He argues that some practices, regarded as syncretic, belong to Israel’s ancient religious heritage (ibid., p. xxxi), perhaps also from the Canaanite linguistic base which is essentially the same language as Hebrew.

The "great Assembly of the Mighty" referred to in Psalm 82:1 appears at Ugarit in the form of "adatu 'Ili-ma" meaning "Council of El." The "stars of God" in Isaiah14:13 is found on an inscription from Pygi, 'kokabe El' meaning "the stars of El" and refers to the northern or circumpolar stars. There are a group of epithets of Yahweh that are most appropriate for the Canaanite El.

Recent expansion of knowledge on Canaanite and Amorite religion connects certain names with El. 'El-Olam' of Genesis 21:33 means "the God of eternity" or "ancient one." In Ugarit and the Punic world, El is the "old one" or "ancient one" par excellence: "he of the graybeard, he of eternal wisdom" (Cross p. 50). In Ugaritica V, melek olam "eternal king" is similar to the liturgical name 'malku abu shamina' "King, father of years." This is reminiscent of the Biblical 'el gibbor abi ad' "El the warrior, eternal Father", Isa 9:6 & 40:28, and of the "Ancient of Days", Dan 7:9. 'El-elyon "El, the highest one", Genesis 14:18, is found in the Sefire I inscription as a pair, 'el u elyn' "El and Elyon", who come after the tutelary gods immediately before the great natural pairs that summarize the old powers of the cosmos. This is obvious to scholars to not be a pair-but rather could be a double name of a single god as often is the case at Ugarit. "Elyon" could have been an early epithet of El splitting apart in a separate cult and hence taken as a separate deity (Cross p. 5 1). A more frequent epithet mentioned in the Bible yet more enigmatic, 'El-Shaday' "God Almighty", is the primary designation of the Patriarchal deity in the Priestly tradition. 'Shaday' could be the Hebrew shdy/shdh "field". According to Ugaritic evidence, 'tdy' meant "mountain" as distinguished 'shd, "field". The meaning of 'shaday' as "One of the Mountain" is only secondary from the word's early primitive meaning of 'tdu/tdy, which obviously means "breast": Heb. Shadayirn "breasts". This liturgical name is precisely paralleled by the epithet of El in a Hurrian hymn, 'El-paban-hi-wi-ni' "El, the one of the mountain" (Cross p.56).

The Hebrew scriptures are not at all unique, as they are claimed to be, but are, more or less, copies of the Ugaritic religious scriptures found at Ras Shamra (1928). (Cross, "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic").

Thus how much chronological data would depend upon how long they could remember these stories, (story-telling abilities at this time was excellent at this time, however), whether or not the story-teller would be inclined to change the story, (The Hyksos versus the Exodus), and whether or not there was a historical basis for the story in the first place. The earliest written record of Hebrew is the so-called Gezer Calendar, generally dated to the late 11th or early 10th century BC, though the familiar Hebrew alphabet was not invented until quite a bit later, around 8th century B.C.E. The Gezer calendar has four months from Canaanite names, while seven are from Babylonian.

Generally, I believe the minimalists when it comes to the larger stories, (the wandering about in Exodus, for instance. Sorry, but 3 million people wandering around in a desert for 80, (not forty, 40 years to get to Canaan, then another 40 years wandering around while everyone died off who disbelieved in the conquest of Canaan), would leave massive archeological data to support the idea. However, there are smaller stories which don't have any need for the Hebrews to lie about, and it's strange to think that the Hebrew stories would lie about everything.

[offa]

Offa;
RyanS2, I read your profile. You say you are an Atheist/Agnostic and Satanist. Please remove Atheist because it is irrefutable. You can be Agnostic all you want but an Atheist and a Satanist is an impossible mix.

Thanks,
Offa

[Marduk]

Offa'
"You say you are an Atheist/Agnostic and Satanist. Please remove Atheist because it is irrefutable. You can be Agnostic all you want but an Atheist and a Satanist is an impossible mix."

Not many Satanists actually worship the Christian antagonist 'The Devil' They are more often than not atheists poking fun at Christian ritual, eg. Alsteir Crowley, 'The Luciferians' etc. In the 17 & 1800's these groups would gather in clubs or 'Rakes' and party hearty.

RyanS2, I have the 'Hebrew Epic & Caananite Myth" book but haven't had time to read it yet. You're right about the larger issues like the Exodus though.
Tonight on the History Channel from 8-11 "Who Wrote the Bible"

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]</p>

[RyanS2]

Originally posted by marduck:
<strong>Offa'
"You say you are an Atheist/Agnostic and Satanist. Please remove Atheist because it is irrefutable. You can be Agnostic all you want but an Atheist and a Satanist is an impossible mix."</strong>

Please visit the following webpages:

<a href="http://www.martialartsreview.com/history.html" target="_blank">http://www.martialartsreview.com/history.html</a>

Then visit:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/satanism.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/satanism.html</a>

Very enlightening to what the Satanist believes and thinks about metaphysical concepts, (God, the Devil, Demons, etc.)

"Not many Satanists actually worship the Christian antagonist 'The Devil' They are more often than not atheists poking fun at Christian ritual, eg. Alsteir Crowley, 'The Luciferians' etc. In the 17 & 1800's these groups would gather in clubs or 'Rakes' and party hearty."

Very astute observation. Nice to know that being a member of one of the most maligned religions in the World, (next to the Yezidi perhaps), has some people who know the truth about us. There are "Theistic" Satanists, but they resemble the "Blind Watchmaker" God, or the Kaballah God, (infinite and unknowable, and they don't actually worship whatever God this is. I'm an atheist because no, I don't believe in God, yes, I do say that there's a chance he could exist, (there could be a green bogey man eating my socks in the laundry too), so that makes me agnostic, and I like to perform human sacrifices, kidnap children, run across flames, resurrect dead beings, and give advice on Mrs. Cleo's hotline, (does sarcasm come out in print?), so that makes me a Satanist.

"RyanS2, I have the 'Hebrew Epic & Caananite Myth" book but haven't had time to read it yet. You're right about the larger issues like the Exodus though."

I think though that many of the finds are correct, particularly because of how close linguistically and culturally the Hebrews are to the indigenous people of that area. If you don't know Hebrew, the references to Hebrew language are going to get somewhat annoying, (like reading Jung's book referring to Latin and Greek phrases regularly), but otherwise an interesting look at the origins and development of Judaism. I'd also recommend Theodore Reik's "Pagan Rites in Judaism", but it's hard to get.

[offa]

Offa;
Let me reiterate. An atheist and a satanist is an impossible mix. Either you are an atheist or you are not an atheist. BTW, Atheist/Agnostic is an impossible mix ... can't be both.

thanks,
Offa

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by offa:
<strong>Offa;
Let me reiterate. An atheist and a satanist is an impossible mix. Either you are an atheist or you are not an atheist. BTW, Atheist/Agnostic is an impossible mix ... can't be both.

thanks,
Offa</strong>


Wrong again. One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. To be an atheist, one must not believe in gods. Many agnostics do not believe in gods, regardless of their different take on the evidentiary aspects of the matter.

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by offa:
<strong>Atheist/Agnostic is an impossible mix ... can't be both.
</strong>

Hmm, I consider myself to be an Atheist/Agnostic.

As an atheist, I don't believe a god exists, since I haven't seen any good evidence that he does.

As an agnostic, I think that if a god did exist, and if he wanted us to have free will, he would never provide convincing proof of his existance. If he ever provided such proof, we would have no choice but to believe in him. Therefore, such a god will always be unprovable.

There is no way to distinguish between no god and a god that won't let himself be seen. :)

[RyanS2]

Let me reiterate again:

If someone asks me, "Do you believe in God?" The answer is, "No". Now then, we already know that you can't prove things from a negative. Just because there is no convincing evidence of "God(ess)" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, that makes me agnostic, because I CAN acknowledge that because there is no proof of God doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"An atheist and a satanist is an impossible mix."

If you do not know what a Satanist believes, why do you comment on it? No Satanic literature, (except Dr. Acquino, but he calls his religion "Setianism", in worship of "Set", so it is a different religion), recognizes a God, or advocates the worship of God. The most recognized piece of Satanic literature in the market is the "Satanic Bible", which clearly states:

"All Gods are men that have externally projected themselves onto another being."

Or, as one person put it: "I beware those who tell me what God wants, because it so often coincides with what they want".

Likewise, Crowley didn't believe in a literal God or Devil either. He wrote, "The devil is just an invention of the Great Black Brotherhood". (The Great Black Brotherhood is somewhat the equivalent of stomach cancer in terms of society. Any religion falling under the "Great Black Brotherhood" is the equivalent of social cancer, according to Crowley.) A reporter observing Crowley noted, "The only thing Crowley worships is himself".

I don't know though, then again. Satanism and Thelema, (the religion that Crowley actually founded), say that man is God. Only to him/herself however. Any atheists know if the belief that I am the most important thing to myself is considered antithesis to atheistic beliefs?

[Kosh]

Originally posted by RyanS2:
<strong>
If you do not know what a Satanist believes, why do you comment on it? No Satanic literature, (except Dr. Acquino, but he calls his religion "Setianism", in worship of "Set", so it is a different religion), recognizes a God, or advocates the worship of God. The most recognized piece of Satanic literature in the market is the "Satanic Bible", which clearly states:</strong>

Most people would define a "Satanist" as one who
worships the Satan of the Hebrew/Christian bible.
I think this is an appropriate definition, since
it's how a majority of people would define it.

I submit that you are a nomenclature problem with
your particular beliefs... perhaps you should just
call yourself something that doesn't indicate
belief in a non-existent being?

[RyanS2]

"Most people would define a "Satanist" as one who
worships the Satan of the Hebrew/Christian bible.
I think this is an appropriate definition, since
it's how a majority of people would define it."

Very interesting. Now, if there are groups of Satan worshippers out there, they surely would have written a book about it. It's a fairly safe assumption. Now, the two current recognized authors of Satanic literature are Dr. Michael Acquino, and Anton Lavey. Some also consider Aleister Crowley a Satanist, but he was actually a Thelemic, (Greek for "Will"). To my knowledge now, no such book exists, nor ever has. (Unless we count Leo Taxil's book, but he was arrested for fraud because he used a story about a girl being kidnapped for sacrifice as a way to milk money out of the Church.)

So, the sources say:

Religioustolerance.org

"Gothic Satanism: It is an imaginary, profoundly evil religion that was invented during the late Middle Ages by the Christian church. These Satanists were said to ritually kill children, sell their soul to the devil, break crucifixes, conduct black masses, etc. Gothic Satanism has never existed in the past as an organization, and does not exist today, except in the imagination of the public, and in horror movies.

Gothic Satanism should not be confused with the Goth sub-culture. The latter is a philosophical, musical, cultural group that is unrelated to Satanism."

Likewise, the CSER, (Committee for Scientific Examination of Religion), couldn't find that group either. Nor could the FBI, as Kenneth V. Lanning reported in 1992, after an investigation from 1983. (You can find it in "Investigator's Guide to Allegations of 'Ritual' Child Abuse.")

Bottom line? As Dr. Acquino put it: "It is not the right of other religions to define others beliefs". The early Christian Catholic Church labeled Buddhism to be devil worship, as did the Muslims labeling the Yezidi, as did a whole slew of religions. If we base this assumption as well, atheism was seen as the work of the Devil, and the Chinese believed that Christians ate babies. Unless I am currently incorrect, there are no authors on Satanic literature other than the ones I listed above. So, to prove that there are these "majorities" of Satanists who believe in a literal devil and worship it, you'd have to show me where they are. I've never met them, though, like aliens, they could be out there... somewhere....

[CX]

Originally posted by offa:
<strong>Offa;
Let me reiterate. An atheist and a satanist is an impossible mix. Either you are an atheist or you are not an atheist. BTW, Atheist/Agnostic is an impossible mix ... can't be both.

thanks,
Offa</strong>

Let me reiterate. You are wrong. You clearly don't know what those two words mean. An atheist is someone with a lack of belief in god. This is not necessarily someone who positively affirms god's nonexistence. An agnostic is someone who believes the very question of god's existence or nonexistence is insoluable. One is neither entailed nor precluded by the other.

And I'm still waiting for our debate about GJn being first and all that other rot you were talking about, but never responded to prior to saying you were leaving II, which you apparently have not.

[offa]

Offa;
I beg your pardon, we are talking in an ideal language? (I hope). An
Atheist does not believe in God. An Agnostic ain't so sure. An atheist
is not interested in want-to-be's. Either you are an atheist or you
are not an atheist. Period. An Agnostic remains an agnostic until
he/she can be sure that God does not exist. Period. I am an atheist.
I know God does not exist. Period.


Asha'man
Hmm, I consider myself to be an Atheist/Agnostic.
As an atheist, I don't believe a god exists, since I
haven't seen any good evidence that he does.

Offa;
Well chose words, Asha'man, my agnostic friend. An atheist does not
believe an atheist knows, i.e., I know God does
not exist. Try forming those words in your mouth and say them (I know
God does not exist), if
you can say them with conviction then you are an atheist, if, by
chance, you have doubt, then you are not atheist. Period.




RyanS2
Bottom line? As Dr. Acquino put it: "It is not the right of
other religions to define others beliefs". The early Christian
Catholic Church labeled Buddhism to be devil worship, as did
the Muslims labeling the Yezidi, as did a whole slew of
religions. If we base this assumption as well, atheism was
seen as the work of the Devil, and the Chinese believed that
Christians ate babies. Unless I am currently incorrect, there
are no authors on Satanic literature other than the ones I
listed above. So, to prove that there are these "majorities"
of Satanists who believe in a literal devil and worship it,
you'd have to show me where they are. I've never met them,
though, like aliens, they could be out there... somewhere....


Offa;
First of all atheists have no religion. Atheists do not "sacrifice"
nor do we worship idols (crucifixes) and we have no "Devil"
working in the background. We have no songs and chants and we
do not run around fires naked and all that stuff. Now, the only
place I can find Satan is in the Judeo-Christian religion. You
cannot re-invent the wheel. Satan belongs to religion and has nothing
to do with atheists. Atheism is not a religion. Accordingly your
quote, "It is not the right of
other religions to define others beliefs". disqualifies atheists
because we are not a religion."

CowboyX
Let me reiterate. You are wrong. You clearly don't know
what those two words mean. An atheist is someone with a lack
of belief in god. This is not necessarily someone who
positively affirms god's nonexistence. An agnostic is someone
who believes the very question of god's existence or
nonexistence is insoluble. One is neither entailed nor
precluded by the other.

Offa;
Cowboy, My fundie friend, why don't you find me countless scholars
who exactly agree with what you just wrote.

O.K., according to your definition, I am not an atheist, then what
the hell am I. I know of God's non-existent. I do not lack belief
in God, I know he does not exist. I positively affirm God's non
existence. What am I? I am not that atheist you just defined.


CowboyX
And I'm still waiting for our debate about GJn being first
and all that other rot you were talking about, but never
responded to prior to saying you were leaving II, which you
apparently have not.


Offa;
I am going to respond. But I am going to respond under a different
format. It is obvious that you do not read "prior" prior posts and
respond only to prior posts. I explain my points then you want me to
re-explain (an old fundie trick). If you have not the courtesy
to read what I have already written do not waste my time and have
me reiterate.


BTW, I wrote I'd be back, did you read that? Also, I have to travel
to New Orleans for a convention and will be gone for 9/10 days. I
want to work on my web-page, <a href="http://www.pesher.com" target="_blank">www.pesher.com</a> I am reading a book
by a Jew named Robert Eisenman and I feel that he writes like a
Jew (very narrow stream of mind, stingy) and I want to confront him. Also
I want to write a reply to Spider about my remark "All Angels are
Pharisees". I may have to apologize to Nomad because I may have
drawn a wrong conclusion about "exactly" what he wrote. See;
"Internet Infidels Discussion Forum: Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene?" or use "Search" for bethulah"


The Bottom-Line is, I should be packing. This convention means I have to attend two-classes a day M thru F and one on Sat. and it is about concrete ... can you imagine? I thought a convention was a party with booze and babes!, obviously I am a few cards short of a full deck.

Thanks, Offa

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: offa ]</p>

[Marduk]

Let’s try and uncomplicate this (futile as it may be) just because the word Satan appears in the title doesn’t mean that Satan is either believed in or worshipped, Early Roman Christians called everyone who didn’t tow the Church line Satan worshippers whether they were Gnostic or Catherns or atheists or whatever. In their way of thinking anyone who didn’t believe, as they were followers of the Devil. Why modern day ‘Satanists’ keep the name, I don’t know, perhaps as a joke, a badge of honor for opposing the Church, or to piss off fundy’s. I suppose somewhere in teenage wasteland there are some who really worship the Devil just as there are those who think they really are themselves Vampires, Blame Buffy and Alice Manson.
As far as running around partying naked, I suppose many neo Pagans do this, drugs do the darndest things.
Too bad Modern Primitive no longer posts, I think she was a neo Pagan, and I believe it’s all in fun.
:D

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]</p>

[Kosh]

Originally posted by RyanS2:
<strong> So, to prove that there are these "majorities" of Satanists who believe in a literal devil and worship it, you'd have to show me where they are. I've never met them, though, like aliens, they could be out there... somewhere....</strong>

I never claimed there were "majorities of Satanists". I claimed the a majority of
people would define "Satanists" as...[yada yada
yada]. A majority of people would define
"UFO" as Unidentified Flying Object (although
I often use it as Undistinguishable Furry Object
to refer to roadkill), but that doesn't mean
they exist.

See the difference?

[Kosh]

Originally posted by offa:
I know of God's non-existent. I do not lack belief
in God, I know he does not exist. I positively affirm God's non
existence. What am I?



A logical fallacy.

(what do I win?)

:p

[RyanS2]

Originally posted by offa:
<strong>RyanS2
Bottom line? As Dr. Acquino put it: "It is not the right of
other religions to define others beliefs". The early Christian
Catholic Church labeled Buddhism to be devil worship, as did
the Muslims labeling the Yezidi, as did a whole slew of
religions. If we base this assumption as well, atheism was
seen as the work of the Devil, and the Chinese believed that
Christians ate babies. Unless I am currently incorrect, there
are no authors on Satanic literature other than the ones I
listed above. So, to prove that there are these "majorities"
of Satanists who believe in a literal devil and worship it,
you'd have to show me where they are. I've never met them,
though, like aliens, they could be out there... somewhere....</strong>

<strong>
Offa;
First of all atheists have no religion. Now, the only
place I can find Satan is in the Judeo-Christian religion. You
cannot re-invent the wheel. Satan belongs to religion and has nothing
to do with atheists. Atheism is not a religion. Accordingly your
quote, "It is not the right of
other religions to define others beliefs". disqualifies atheists
because we are not a religion."</strong>

So, atheists have the free reign of calling any religion whatever they want? That's a fascinating line of logic. So, if atheists call Taoists flesh-eating goats it is obviously true on your line of logic? Wait a minute...

"Atheists do not "sacrifice" nor do we worship idols (crucifixes) and we have no "Devil"
working in the background. We have no songs and chants and we do not run around fires naked and all that stuff."

So atheists DO have the right to invent and reinterpret religions!!! That's a fascinating discovery. I guess we should all bow down and let you explain to us how you derived this conclusion. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> I'm sure this will be the debate of the century!

You didn't read any of the links I posted, so let me keep this brief.

(The origin of Satan)

First things first, Satan is NEVER repeat, NEVER the name for a deity. Satan means "adversary" in Hebrew, and according to expert testimony in Judaism, no such deity as Satan exists:

<a href="http://www.outreachjudaism.com/satan.html" target="_blank">http://www.outreachjudaism.com/satan.html</a>

If you do not have an educated reply, please don't bother. Thus far, your comments would either be "ad absurdum", or just redundancy without an argument. Now, go back to the essays and notice these valuable statements:

Now, Satan was taken from "Set", in one of many various forms, Set-an, Set-anup, and the cult title, Set-Hen, a cult title meaning the Majesty of Set.

Sooner or later, as the people continued to migrate north and became more focused on the Lord of the North Pole Star, Horus, they began to view Set as less important and Horus of greater significance. No doubt this led to conflicts. Set continued to be worshipped along the Nile, but it became clear that factions arose who desired to make Horus supreme. This ploy would be, once again, for political and material reasons. The movements of the astral bodies that corresponded with and symbolized these entities, such as the Pole Stars, and the Moon and Sun, were crucial to life along the Nile. These heavenly bodies were closely charted and calendared. Such movements provided a semblance of order in what would ordinarily seem like a chaotic and unkind world full of yearly flooding, terrific sandstorms and unbearable heat. By measuring the movements of such planetary bodies, those who later became regarded as priests of these bodies could determine when would be the most auspicious time for planting, reaping and harvesting. This was intrinsic to life along the Nile, and without it there was no life.

The Egyptian calendar was not solar but riverine: its premise was that the Nile always flooded after the star Sirius started rising in the east before instead of after sunrise. Still, it was a 365-day calendar, and except for missing the leap years it worked quite well. Sirius is the "Dog Star", the first star to rise in the east in the latitudes of Egypt. It is sacred to Set, the figure of Egyptian religion.

Satan's etymological connection puts him as an Egyptian high God who was adopted by the Chaldeans as "Shaitan", (adversary). It's amazing you couldn't find that, it was on a link I posted. That already precludes the amount and depth of searching you will do to find out information, so why be pretentious and act as if you even bothered to look this up? So please, take the challenge. Show me a published book by a Satanic author detailing these fascinating rituals involving sky-clad dances around fires with the devil in the background. Otherwise, you're just being an idiot, and I have the right to dismiss you as that.

"I claimed the a majority of
people would define "Satanists" as...[yada yada"

Good to see you already know that is an argumentative fallacy. The term is "Argument ad populum". You already know that what the "majority" of people think is worthless to prove any case. We can then let the majority of people show where Kyrgyzstan is on a map as a means of determining where Kyrgyzstan is, we will be in a whole lot of trouble. Hence the reason that is an argumentative fallacy. Likewise, the majority of people believe in a God of some sort, but that doesn't make them correct either. So, why should I be concerning myself with what other people think or define?

Posted by offa:

"I am reading a book by a Jew named Robert Eisenman and I feel that he writes like a
Jew (very narrow stream of mind, stingy) and I want to confront him."

Writing like a Jew? Let's see, argumentative fallacy of "Poisoning the well"? Also what anthropologists would refer to as a "broad, sweeping statement". Then there's the even funnier part, you say, "very narrow stream of mind". Coming from someone who hasn't made any convincing arguments outside of
"I SAY SO!", that's a hilarious interpretation of another's writings. (Argument ad stultus?)

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

[CX]

&lt;flame&gt; Wow, are you an inarticulate bigoted piece of crap! Jews are narrow minded and stingy? I trust you've applied the same razor sharp critical thinking skills to your examination of god. What an idiot. Please don't bother to respond and I won't bother to address you ever again.&lt;/flame&gt;

Any admin that wants to delete this ad hom diatribe go ahead, but this guy is a grade 'A' asshole.

[Toto]

Originally posted by offa:
<strong>obviously I am a few cards short of a full deck.

Thanks, Offa

</strong>

He said it, I didn't.

Thanks Offa

[Vorkosigan]

"I am reading a book by a Jew named Robert Eisenman and I feel that he writes like a
Jew (very narrow stream of mind, stingy) and I want to confront him."

That's funny. I am reading a book by Eisenman too (James the Brother of Jesus, and it's beyond question the farthest from "stingy" I have ever encountered; in fact, it is an overwhelming cornucopia of data.

Michael

[Vorkosigan]

First things first, Satan is NEVER repeat, NEVER the name for a deity. Satan means "adversary" in Hebrew, and according to expert testimony in Judaism, no such deity as Satan exists:

What do you think differentiates "Satan" from subordinate deities in a hundred other superstitions?

Michael

[RyanS2]

That depends on what position you take. The Hindu's have deva's which aren't really deities, likewise, the Jews and Greeks had daimons or malek, but these were supposed to be "intercessors", and thus not actual "deities", or at least that's the excuse that we've always been given by (Catholics, Christians, Muslims, etc.) when asked how you can declare a monotheism when there are other spirits that would fit the role of it being polytheism.

"What do you think differentiates "Satan" from subordinate deities in a hundred other superstitions?"

Satan has the best fashion coordinator, though he did have lots of helpings from Pan. Also, Satan is a champion dancer of both ballet and traditional tap-styles. His formal title in the dance world is El Distendo Tortuga, ESQ - and no other subordinate diety in the form of intercessoral worship can take that away...

If you wanted a more "meaty" answer:

""The exalted "Devil" (also the "other" secret Eye) by the formula of the Initiation of Horus elsewhere described in detail. This "Devil" is called Satan or Shaitan, and regarded with horror by people who are ignorant of his formula, and, imagining themselves to be evil, accuse Nature herself of their own phantasmal crime. Satan is Saturn, Set, Abrasax, Adad, Adonis, Attis, Adam, Adonai, etc. The most serious charge against him is that he is the Sun in the South. The Ancient Initiates, dwelling as they did in lands whose blood was the water of the Nile or the Euphrates, connected the South with life-withering heat, and cursed that quarter where the solar darts were deadliest.

Even in the legend of Hiram, it is at high noon that he is stricken down and slain. Capricornus is moreover the sign which the sun enters when he reaches his extreme Southern declination at the Winter Solstice, the season of the death of vegetation, for the folk of the Northern hemisphere. This gave them a second cause for cursing the south. A third; the tyranny of hot, dry, poisonous winds; the menace of deserts or oceans dreadful because mysterious and impassable; these also were connected in their minds with the South. But to us, aware of astronomical facts, this antagonism to the South is a silly superstition which the accidents of their local conditions suggested to our animistic ancestors. We see no enmity between Right and Left, Up and Down, and similar pairs of opposites. These antitheses are real only as a statement of relation; they are the conventions of an arbitrary device for representing our ideas in a pluralistic symbolism based on duality. 'Good' must be defined in terms of human ideals and instincts. 'East' has no meaning except with reference to the earth's internal affairs; as an absolute direction in space it changes a degree every four minutes. 'Up' is the same for no two men, unless one chance to be in the line joining the other with the centre of the earth. 'Hard' is the private opinion of our muscles.

'True' is an utterly unintelligible epithet which has proved refractory to the analysis of our ablest philosophers. We have therefore no scruple in restoring the 'devil-worship' of such ideas as those which the laws of sound, and the phenomena of speech and hearing, compel us to connect with the group of 'Gods' whose names are based upon Sht, or D, vocalized by the free breath A. For these Names imply the qualities of courage, frankness, energy, pride, power and triumph; they are the words which express the creative and paternal will.

Thus 'the Devil' is Capricornus, the Goat who leaps upon the loftiest mountains, the Godhead which, if it become manifest in man, makes him Aegipan, the All.

The Sun enters this sign when he turns to renew the year in the North. He is also the vowel O, proper to roar, to boom, and to command, being a forcible breath controlled by the firm circle of the mouth.

He is the Open Eye of the exalted Sun, before whom all shadows flee away: also that Secret Eye which makes an image of its God, the Light, and gives it power to utter oracles, enlightening the mind.

Thus, he is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem the world." [Source: Aleister Crowley, "Magick in Theory and Practice," Chapter V.]

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by CowboyX:
<strong>&lt;flame&gt; Wow, are you an inarticulate bigoted piece of crap! Jews are narrow minded and stingy? I trust you've applied the same razor sharp critical thinking skills to your examination of god. What an idiot. Please don't bother to respond and I won't bother to address you ever again.&lt;/flame&gt;

Any admin that wants to delete this ad hom diatribe go ahead, but this guy is a grade 'A' asshole.</strong>

Well said!