the dominance of religion in the ancient world

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:16 am

ditto

Fair enough. A little mutual respect goes a long way. We'll see how it goes. I may have a discussion about FOTG sometime this week.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:29 am

Fair enough. A little mutual respect goes a long way. We'll see how it goes. I may have a discussion about FOTG sometime this week.

why not have a discussion about Sir Leonard Woolley instead
his life was much more exciting than grahams
he had a guy called T.E. Lawrence as his assistant you know
heard of him ?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:16 am

Frank Harrist wrote:
fact of the matter is that most of his readership don't know what hyper diffusionism means
I don't.

http://listserv.tamu.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind9 ... =0&P=23846

Frank, I had intended to post this last night in the Schoch thread. It is a bit of a rant by a guy that's mad at Doug Wellar for restricting the posting on his web site. (I think we were just talking about that here somewhere).

I didn't because I thought Doug may think I was making a personal point. Many websites restrict what may be posted. Usually orthodox sites but not always.

In any case he is talking about the hyperdiffusion theory. Not bad.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:29 am

Maat doesn't actually do that
normal procedure
1) hyper diffusionist poster claims that aliens impregnated homo sapiens and then on every succesive visit taught mankind sciences
2) poster gets overwhelming evidence from other posters that he is wrong
3) poster starts swearing at peple and gets banned

personally I have proposed the egyptian culture was not original in many aspects heres how that went
1) I propose that certain aspects of egyptian culture is heavily influenced by another supplying orthodox evidence as proof
2) poster gets sworn at by other posters who don't want to believe it
3) other posters get told to calm down by mod team
4) i post more evidence
5) other posters go and sulk and stop posting

it depends on the evidence you provide
in many cases people think that Sitchin or Hanock or Childress et al are authorities when in fact they aren't. as such their fabricated evidence is not acceptable because the vast majority of posters present know enough about the subject to blow them out of the water

its that simple

no one has yet managed to refute the evidence that Dumuzid is the forerunner of Osiris
no one has yet managed to refute the evidence that giant serpent mythology originated in Sumer
no one has managed to refute the evidence that the eye symbol is not unique to Horus or even originates with him
etc etc

and when you start talking about Akkadian cuneiform the diplomatic langauge in both mesopotamia and Egypt people just don't know how to respond
notably no egyptian artifacts have ever been excavated from mesopotamia. the reverse is not true

diffusionism is a known and proven fact
hyper diffusionism is psuedoscience

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:30 am

archaeologist wrote:
You are one strange duck, you know that?
why? because i am frustrated with the evangelical world and its inability to research without throwing in a gospel message and throwing out the investigation?

you wonder why i read so many old publications...well there is one reason there, less preaching to the choir and more scholarship.

it is the most frustrating thing, to start a book that is building a great case for their point and then you flip a page and a jump to a conclusion plus a reference to the great commission comes flying out at you and you are left wondering what happened to their point and research.

evangelicals rarely dig below the surface which makes them so ineffective and leave people like you dealing with Jean Marie types.

problem is even with my experience, qualifications and degrees they wouldn't listen any more than you guys do, because i go outside their comfort zone and find the details they refuse to consider.

Perhaps the reason they don't do it is that it cannot be done?

The story, and the undisputed belief in the story by adherents, locks them in to what is essentially a string of impossibilities.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:30 am

he had a guy called T.E. Lawrence as his assistant you know
heard of him ?

Well, yeah. I don't know what there is to discuss about him that would relate to this forum. Lawrence of Arabia was a really good movie though with Peter O'Toole. I guess I'm missing your point.

I'm going to discuss a book with Min.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:33 am

Well, yeah. I don't know what there is to discuss about him that would relate to this forum

he was an archaeologist
this forum is an archaeology forum and is called archaeologica
hancock is a journalist
this forum is not called journalistica last time i checked
if you don't know enough about him to comment just say so Beagle
I'd happily start a thread so you can all learn about him if theres any interest
p.s. Arch would really really hate woolleys conclusions

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:33 am

And you of all people, Bob, know how the media twists the truth and uses quotes out of context. They're all like tabloids now. Bush uses it extensively as a proaganda tool. So no I don't trust the media.

Somehow, I can't see a minor discovery in a Chinese backwater falling into that category.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:34 am

the reason that you think the truth is being hidden from you by this mystical club is because the orthodox truth has been arrived at through decades of research and evidence.

Some day, soon, we are going to have a discussion about the depth of that "evidence."

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:37 am

marduk wrote:
Well, yeah. I don't know what there is to discuss about him that would relate to this forum
he was an archaeologist
this forum is an archaeology forum and is called archaeologica
hancock is a journalist
this forum is not called journalistica last time i checked
if you don't know enough about him to comment just say so Beagle
I'd happily start a thread so you can all learn about him if theres any interest
p.s. Arch would really really hate woolleys conclusions

Easy now.

Start any thread you want. It's got nothing to do with me reviewing a book.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:53 am

Minimalist wrote:
And you of all people, Bob, know how the media twists the truth and uses quotes out of context. They're all like tabloids now. Bush uses it extensively as a proaganda tool. So no I don't trust the media.

Somehow, I can't see a minor discovery in a Chinese backwater falling into that category.

But it's the atmosphere it creates. Maybe not so bad in China, but everywhere else. Look at what the press did in Bosnia. Between them hyping everything Os said and the crtazy shit he said it was a circus.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:10 am

Were reporters chasing him or was he chasing them?

I think you are blaming the messenger for the message.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:13 am

hancock is a journalist
this forum is not called journalistica last time i checked

Exactly the kind of statement I would expect from you, marduk.

How DARE anyone else think or offer an opinion if they are not dues-paying members of the Club.

Michelle should probably shut this whole board down because so few of us have any right to even think about things which are clearly beyond our limited mental abilities, right?

When last I looked Hancock (or I) had as much freedom to speak as you.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:09 pm

How DARE anyone else think or offer an opinion if they are not dues-paying members of the Club.

time o put up or shut up
this club of yours
whos in charge of it
how is its structure organised
credible links only please

Exactly the kind of statement I would expect from you, marduk.

you mean one thats based on the evidence rather than your imagination
are you claiming you know Hancock better than i do
prove it

Hancocks freedom to speak is nothing to do with anything
its his inability to print the facts that should concern you

if you like i'll send you his contact details and perhaps you can volunteer to be his unpaid slave
i'm sure he has lots of things you can help him with
hoovering, dusting washing up etc

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:59 pm

Everybody has the right to speak their mind even if they hold to the theory that aliens did it. However, some of the more radical ones, such as hyperdiffusionists, (just learned exactly what that meant so I wanted to use it) run the risk of not being taken seriously. There are radical thinkers and conservative thinkers and the lines between them sometimes blur, but there ain't no club! Buncha old farts that need to go ahead and kick off, but it ain't no club. More and more things are changing. You just have to be patient. Anyway, don't get your bowels in an uproar. I ain't on either side. I can see both points of view. Guess that makes me objective..........or wishy washy. Or stuck in the middle.