Isis/Osiris consipracy, sexual and occult symbology in art, crucifixion scenes

I have to wonder about the "megalomaniac dictators love of using slaves' comment. There is not a lot of evidence of that until the 20th century.

The EVIDENCE is showing that the pyramid builders were well fed, were given 'a right' that others didn't have. Think about folks wanting to be buried in Arlington Nat'l Cem.

The Egyptians of that time period did not have our modern day ideals of life. In fact, to them, your afterlife was more important than the life you were living. I have read a lot of their religious beliefs and their social structure, ever since I was a child. It doesn't seem like you have---you mixed up Isis, (an Egyptian goddess), Ishtar (a Babylonian goddess) and Artemis (a Greek goddess). You didn't seem to recognize a normal hieroglyph either (the owl).

So there is little evidence of slaves until the 20th Century. The gladiators were not slaves? The Christians were not thrown to the lions. Crucifixions did not take place. There were no galley slaves. Whips were not used. Everybody lived happily and worked together until the 20th century. All the reports of slaves throughout the area and ages are all fiction because 'someone found a few skeletons'.

And you expect to be taken seriously and put yourself forward as some sort of authoritative source. I think not.

I didn't see you raising the Ishtar/Isis issue before Alhazred.

If you know anything, you will know ALL deities were known throughout the ages by different names in different cultures right through to Diana.

Ishtar IS Isis, the same as a rose is a rose by any other name.
 
First I've heard of this trend. People have been scientifically criticizing the Bible ever since it was not illegal to do so, (and even when it was)

A trend normally denotes an increase or decrease. I am suggesting it is increasing. Not only that... it appears to be on flimsy evidence.
 
So there is little evidence of slaves until the 20th Century. The gladiators were not slaves? The Christians were not thrown to the lions. Crucifixions did not take place. There were no galley slaves. Whips were not used. Everybody lived happily and worked together until the 20th century. All the reports of slaves throughout the area and ages are all fiction because 'someone found a few skeletons'.

And you expect to be taken seriously and put yourself forward as some sort of authoritative source. I think not.

I didn't see you raising the Ishtar/Isis issue before Alhazred.

If you know anything, you will know ALL deities were known throughout the ages by different names in different cultures right through to Diana.

Ishtar IS Isis, the same as a rose is a rose by any other name.

Wow you put a lot of words into Cairenn's mouth there, didn't you?
 
No she isn't. They are different religions and to say that they are the same is to say that Christianity and Islam are the same. In fact, those 2 are closer to being the same.

I DO KNOW and while folks often adopted gods/goddesses of other religions, that doesn't make the same. St Bridget is not the same as the goddess Brighid.


http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=453

Historicity

In the controversy about the historical existence of Brigit that erupted in the last third of the 20th century, it was noted that eleven people with whom Brigit is associated in her Lives are independently attested in annalistic sources, sources that place her death at AD 523 (in the Annals of Tigernach and Chronicon Scotorum) and her birth at 451 (calculated from the alleged age of 72 at death).[3]

The differing biographies written by different authors, giving conflicting accounts of her life, are regarded as having considerable literary merit in themselves. Three of those biographies agreed that she had a slave mother in the court of her father, Dubhthach, a king of Leinster.Some scholars suggest that St Brigid was syncretized with the pagan goddess Brighid. According to medievalist Pamela Berger, Christian "monks took the ancient figure of the mother goddess and grafted her name and functions onto her Christian counterpart.
Content from External Source

There are some very close relationships between Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. There are some close parallels between some Germanic and Norse ones. But there will be major differences. Often it seems that the problem is that the person WRITING it down altered the name. Sort of like a lot of eastern European names got altered at Ellis island.
 
A trend normally denotes an increase or decrease. I am suggesting it is increasing. Not only that... it appears to be on flimsy evidence.

I'm a little confused so let me clear this up first: you are saying that criticism of the Bible's facts is INCREASING?

Increasing from what? Can you make a list? What's been postulated as true and what false?
 
No she isn't. They are different religions and to say that they are the same is to say that Christianity and Islam are the same. In fact, those 2 are closer to being the same.

I DO KNOW and while folks often adopted gods/goddesses of other religions, that doesn't make the same. St Bridget is not the same as the goddess Brighid.

It is much closer than that... it simply evolves like Christmas is really a corruption of Saturnalia.

Of course there are differences but the 'essence and body' are the same. It's like the Church building on ancient places of pagan worship to supplant their beliefs.

Are you going to admit there is LOADS of evidence for slavery before 20th Century or are you going to continue in a ridiculous denial?
 
Here's a book from my bookshelf:



Full of bunk. If anything there's been a recent movement to try to provide scientific support for the bible in fairly recent time (the book is from 1937). Before science came along there was not any real conflict, then people started to figure out that some things in the Bible were a bit unlikely (Noah's Ark, etc), and so some other people tried to fit the stories into science.
 
Last edited:
So there is little evidence of slaves until the 20th Century. The gladiators were not slaves? The Christians were not thrown to the lions. Crucifixions did not take place. There were no galley slaves. Whips were not used. Everybody lived happily and worked together until the 20th century. All the reports of slaves throughout the area and ages are all fiction because 'someone found a few skeletons'.

I did not say ANY of those things. However you bring up several more commonly believed, but incorrect items>

Taking them one by one.

Gladiators. Some were slaves, some were NOT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/gladiators_01.shtml

http://archive.archaeology.org/gladiators/arena.html

I suggest that you update your knowledge.

The Romans were slave holders, as were most 'nations'.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/slaves_freemen.html

A common practice

Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.

Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Content from External Source
Some Christians were thrown to the lions, so were a LOT of other folks.

I never said that there were NO Crucifixions.

I did say that they were NOT modern Americans with our sense of morality and justice
 
Oxy, you reinterpreted what I said.

Now show us the evidence that slaves built the pyramids. Isn't that where this started?
 
CBD was obviously taking from the Bible, which for centuries has been 'the absolute truth', and even recently carries much credibility with anyone of 'faith'... The Bible is historically very accurate on many things.

If CBD was obviously taking from the bible, then why show Jewish slaves building pyramids when no such thing is mentioned in the bible? As for the bible being historically very accurate on many things, I'd be interested to read just a few of these. For example, the whole Exodus chapter is in doubt. The Noah story is borrowed from a much older Flood Myth, attributed to the Sumerians (although multiple flood myths exist in numerous other cultures from Africa, through the ME, Asia and on into South America). Even the historical accuracy of the New Testament is dubious, in particular the whole reason for Jeebus being born in Bethlehem. There was no census at that time (the Romans kept records), there was no mass slaughter of male babies by Herod. In fact, for 100 years after the death of Jeebus there was no mention of him at all in the historical record - but that's another thing.

Seriously, Oxy, are you really an atheist? I ask because during the whole Mason discussion you seemed unduly worried that they were practicising rituals that were opposed to christianity, when an atheist couldn't care less - christian/satanic, two sides of the same mythological bullshit coin. And now you're using the bible to back up arguments (I don't think this is the first time you've used or quoted from the bible, but I'm not about to trawl back to see). You're the first atheist I've ever met that sees the bible as being historically accurate; a useful collection of moral tales, perhaps (if you remove the stuff which approves of slavery, sexism, homophobia, etc.).
 
I didn't see you raising the Ishtar/Isis issue before Alhazred.

If you know anything, you will know ALL deities were known throughout the ages by different names in different cultures right through to Diana.

Ishtar IS Isis, the same as a rose is a rose by any other name.

No, they are not the same. The conflation of goddesses was a Greek and Roman thing, and is very well understood. It wasn't until those cultures encountered the gods of others and began to meld them with their own gods that the identities became blurred. Syncretism and Interpretatio graeca, look them up. That should clear up the misunderstanding.
 
I think in debating the specifics the point is being lost. This isn't about the bible or jews. The Egyptian pyramids unquestionably took decades of back-breaking labor a piece. Whether its builders were unfed, unpaid, brutalized slaves of the strictest sense or endured instead some more forgiving sort of treatment, many upon many lives were spent raising structures which served no purpose but to gratify an elite culture of selfish psychosis. That recent and hardly conclusive data implies those who raised these structures perhaps didn't live in hunger (which says absolutely nothing as to whether they lived in horror) by no means detracts from the cruel frivolity of such an effort; squandering the wealth and livelihoods of a people for what amounts to no more than an impressive tomb-stone and a sadistic mind-fuck.

On one hand I'm being told America's romantic feelings toward the pyramids are imagined: some false pattern I'm conjuring up out of my conspiracist brain. On the other hand I've got perfectly reasonable and secular people defending the Pyramids, the method of their construction, and even their purpose, for no other supposed reason than them being 'cool'. The irony is only compounded when one considers that the historical treatment of the pyramids as a wondrous and worthy human endeavor to be treasured rather than as a crime of atrocious waste to be looked upon as a lesson in a culture/belief system gone horribly wrong gives a level of validity to the ideals of the Madmen who had them built. Thousands of years later and they're still great and mysterious Pharaohs, workers of wonders... instead of the shameful motes of unmourned dust they deserve to be.
 
I think in debating the specifics the point is being lost. This isn't about the bible or jews. The Egyptian pyramids unquestionably took decades of back-breaking labor a piece. Whether its builders were unfed, unpaid, brutalized slaves of the strictest sense or endured instead some more forgiving sort of treatment, many upon many lives were spent raising structures which served no purpose but to gratify an elite culture of selfish psychosis. That recent and hardly conclusive data implies those who raised these structures perhaps didn't live in hunger (which says absolutely nothing as to whether they lived in horror) by no means detracts from the cruel frivolity of such an effort; squandering the wealth and livelihoods of a people for what amounts to no more than an impressive tomb-stone and a sadistic mind-fuck.

But your view of it being "cruel frivolity" is completely subjective. You have no idea what the mind set and beliefs of the workers were...perhaps it was the ultimate honor to work on the pyramids and they thought the purpose to be nothing short of life fulfilling. To you its "squandering" but perhaps to them it was perhaps the best way to accumulate social and spiritual capital. To you its just a tomb that "served no purpose" but to them is was the gateway to the afterlife.

You are trying to impose your beliefs and constructs onto an ancient culture that obviously differed greatly from your modern mind.
 
no more than an impressive tomb-stone and a sadistic mind-fuck ... instead of the shameful motes of unmourned dust they deserve to be.
With the benefit of hindsight.

I see them as representing nearly the totality of TRUTH at that time. These people were earnest. That was all there was.
 
No, they are not the same. The conflation of goddesses was a Greek and Roman thing, and is very well understood. It wasn't until those cultures encountered the gods of others and began to meld them with their own gods that the identities became blurred. Syncretism and Interpretatio graeca, look them up. That should clear up the misunderstanding.

I don't think it does clear up anything. The problem being that it is all interpretation on interpretation on interpretation in a myriad of ambiguous permutations.

From my research it appears that the 'Divine Feminine' goes by many different names throughout the ages.

The Divine Feminine
http://www.theharmonyproject.org/feminine.html
What does it mean when someone praises the divine feminine? Or when someone says the divine feminine is the way to healing and enlightenment? Or that the divine feminine is reawakening our world at this time, heralding a return to higher frequencies of light and thought? Is this a Christian concept? Buddhist? Pagan? New Age? Is it tied to religion? Or is it a spiritual concept? What is its history and where are its roots?
The answer is simple. The divine feminine is the goddess is in all traditions, and has been since the beginning of time. These traditions are a mystical, magical, powerful, part of primal Mother Earth. They symbolize balance and healing, renewal and restoration.
Sophia is a very ancient form of the Goddess of Wisdom. She is known in many traditions by different names but she carries the mantle of intuitive intelligence. Sometimes she is Isis, spreading her wings of ascension. Sometimes she is Asherah, the original bread of life. Mary Magdalene is said to have been an incarnation of Sophia.
The Old Testament’s King Solomon had a deep and profound relationship with Sophia. She was revered as the wise bride of Solomon by the Jewish people. In Greek mythology, Athena was the goddess of wisdom and weaving; the owl and the olive tree were sacred to her.
The symbol of Sophia is the dove, depicted as the bird descending from the heavens, known in Christianity as the Holy Spirit.
Isis is the Egyptian goddess of magic, fertility, and motherhood. She has gone by many names, such as the Queen of the Heavens, Star of the Sea, Light-Giver of Heaven, Lady of Green Crops, and She Who Knows How To Make Right Use Of The Heart.
She is the Great Mother of fertility, of creation, of life and death. Some see the Mary, the mother of Jesus, as an incarnation of Isis.
Content from External Source
Astarte/Ishtar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astarte
Astarte pron.: /æˈstɑrti/ (Ancient Greek: Ἀστάρτη, "Astártē") is the Greek name of the Mesopotamian (ie Assyrian, Akkadian, Babylonian) Semitic goddess Ishtar known throughout the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean from the early Bronze Age to Classical times. It is one of a number of names associated with the chief goddess or female divinity of those peoples.[1] She is found as Ugaritic ʻṯtrt ("ʻAṯtart" or "ʻAthtart"); Phoenician "ʻštrt" (ʻAshtart); and Hebrew עשתרת (Ashtoret, singular, or Ashtarot, plural), and appears originally in Akkadian as D, the grammatically masculine name of the goddess Ishtar; the form Astartu is used to describe her age.[2] The name appears also in Etruscan as Uni-Astre (Pyrgi Tablets), Ishtar or Ashtart.
Astarte was connected with fertility, sexuality, and war. Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus. Pictorial representations often show her naked. She has been known as the deified evening star.[3]
Astarte (Ishtar) was accepted by the Greeks under the name of Aphrodite or, alternatively, Artemis. The island of Cyprus, one of Astarte's greatest faith centers, supplied the name Cypris as Aphrodite's most common byname.
Astarte arrived in Ancient Egypt during the 18th dynasty along with other deities who were worshipped by northwest Semitic people. She was especially worshipped in her aspect as a warrior goddess, often paired with the goddess Anat.
In the Contest Between Horus and Set, these two goddesses appear as daughters of Ra and are given in marriage to the god Set, here identified with the Semitic name Hadad. Astarte also was identified with the lioness warrior goddess Sekhmet, but seemingly more often conflated, at least in part, with Isis to judge from the many images found of Astarte suckling a small child. Indeed there is a statue of the 6th century BC in the Cairo Museum, which normally would be taken as portraying Isis with her child Horus on her knee and which in every detail of iconography follows normal Egyptian conventions, but the dedicatory inscription reads: "Gersaphon, son of Azor, son of Slrt, man of Lydda, for his Lady, for Astarte." See G. Daressy, (1905) pl. LXI (CGC 39291).
Plutarch, in his On Isis and Osiris, indicates that the King and Queen of Byblos, who, unknowingly, have the body of Osiris in a pillar in their hall, are Melcarthus (i.e. Melqart) and Astarte (though he notes some instead call the Queen Saosis or Nemanūs, which Plutarch interprets as corresponding to the Greek name Athenais
Content from External Source
Other Associations
Some ancient sources assert that in the territory of Sidon the temple of Astarte was sacred to Europa. According to an old Cretan story, Europa was a Phoenician princess whom Zeus, having transformed himself into a white bull, abducted, and carried to Crete.[9]
Some scholars claim that the cult of the Minoan snake goddess who is identified with Ariadne (the "utterly pure") [10] was similar to the cult of Astarte. Her cult as Aphrodite was transmitted to Cythera and then to Greece.[11] Herodotus wrote that the religious community of Aphrodite originated in Phoenicia and came to Greeks from there. He also wrote about the world's largest temple of Aphrodite, in one of the Phoenician cities. Her name is the second name in an energy chant sometimes used in Wicca: "Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Inanna."[12]

Content from External Source
I expect as a Wiccan, Cairenn has experience of this during some of her pagan rituals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis#Etymology
Isis (Ancient Greek: Ἶσις, original Egyptian pronunciation more likely Aset) is a goddess in Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs, whose worship spread throughout the Greco-Roman world. She was worshipped as the ideal mother and wife as well as the patroness of nature and magic. She was the friend of slaves, sinners, artisans, and the downtrodden, and she listened to the prayers of the wealthy, maidens, aristocrats, and rulers.[1] Isis is often depicted as the mother of Horus, the hawk-headed god of war and protection (although in some traditions Horus's mother was Hathor). Isis is also known as protector of the dead and goddess of children.
Content from External Source
 
Seriously, Oxy, are you really an atheist? I ask because during the whole Mason discussion you seemed unduly worried that they were practicising rituals that were opposed to christianity, when an atheist couldn't care less - christian/satanic, two sides of the same mythological bullshit coin. And now you're using the bible to back up arguments (I don't think this is the first time you've used or quoted from the bible, but I'm not about to trawl back to see). You're the first atheist I've ever met that sees the bible as being historically accurate; a useful collection of moral tales, perhaps (if you remove the stuff which approves of slavery, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

When I encounter fully robed and hooded people in a cemetery at near midnight, set to practice whatever weird beliefs they have, I am concerned. I am not concerned about the dead but I am concerned about the living and whether they pose a danger to me or not. I felt very strongly that they did and I am not a faint hearted person. Perhaps you would have climbed over the gate and said... "Oh how jolly this looks, certainly I will come and play these high jinks". Most people, including me would not.

Make light of it as you will, but when I see them dressed up in their robes sacrificing an effigy of a screaming, begging child in a highly secret ceremony which smacks of a typical Dennis Wheatley novel and I know these people are the same people who are responsible for the wars and financial terrorism which has cost the lives of millions whilst enriching them to obscene degrees, funny enough, it sends alarm bells.
 
I don't think it does clear up anything. The problem being that it is all interpretation on interpretation on interpretation in a myriad of ambiguous permutations.

From my research it appears that the 'Divine Feminine' goes by many different names throughout the ages.

I think it's more like a lot of different things that you can kind of put under the same umbrella.

It's not one 'Divine Feminine' deity that's evolving over time, it's just a common concept that independently arises thousands of times over human history. It does not mean it's like a thread running through history, it's just something people naturally think of, as they see women giving birth and raising children.
 
Personally I feel that municipalities are foolish to tax their selves in order to build areas, stadiums and ball parks for rich owners.

In the middle ages, folks spent resources and efforts on building great cathedrals.

The folks then were NOT us, They did not think like we do, they did not have our values. To try to place our philosophy of life on them (or onto many folks in other countries, even now) is a fool's errand.

I don't ascribe to the pyramids, or Stonehedge, or the Nazca lines any 'special' powers. I respect them as engineering feats, however.
 
But your view of it being "cruel frivolity" is completely subjective. You have no idea what the mind set and beliefs of the workers were...perhaps it was the ultimate honor to work on the pyramids and they thought the purpose to be nothing short of life fulfilling.To you its "squandering" but perhaps to them it was perhaps the best way to accumulate social and spiritual capital. To you its just a tomb that "served no purpose" but to them is was the gateway to the afterlife.
Sure, that's nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group) Another example of earnest belief driving folks to work towards achieving a gate to the afterlife. Is my negative view of their practices less subjective? Does that make it less valid?

You are trying to impose your beliefs and constructs onto an ancient culture that obviously differed greatly from your modern mind.
How in the world am I supposed to impose my beliefs and constructs onto an ancient culture...? I'm talking about our culture, and how it views the Pyramids.

With the benefit of hindsight.
Surely. But hindsight is rather key to learning from our mistakes, I feel.

I see them as representing nearly the totality of TRUTH at that time. These people were earnest. That was all there was.
Perhaps, but should it have been? Should any one man/system have the power to dictate the entire life's purpose of a person without that person choosing such a fate for themselves?
 
I think it's more like a lot of different things that you can kind of put under the same umbrella.

It's not one 'Divine Feminine' deity that's evolving over time, it's just a common concept that independently arises thousands of times over human history. It does not mean it's like a thread running through history, it's just something people naturally think of, as they see women giving birth and raising children.

You may be right Mick and I think most people would share that view but the fact is... there are people out there who BELIEVE in these ancient religions and have set out to keep these deities alive, even if it means in absolute secret. That is what these secret societies are about... keeping the doctrine alive.

i.e. This is a good example.

http://www.golden-dawn.com/eu/index.aspx

You live in a world shaped by women and men who sought greatness beyond the limitations of their own minds. It was their destiny to become more than merely human to become true masters over the winds of their lives.

They are no different than you. They once stood where you are now - at the gateway to hidden knowledge. They made a choice to act and take control of their lives. You too can transform yourself from living in wakeful sleep to living in radiant consciousness
Content from External Source
And before someone says 'It can't be secret if it's on the web', have a think about it!
 
I have NO idea where you get the idea of absolute secretly with Wicca/pagan/heathen beliefs. We are careful, because there are many that will consider us to be Satanists and we have been persecuted. I know of folks that have been fired, when it was discovered that they were Wiccan.

Wiccans in Dallas often hold open Solstice ceremonies. In fact, here in Dallas, there has been a Wiccan that gave the 'invocation' for a City Council meeting

I have never heard of any wiccan/pagan group meeting in a cemetery. That sounds more like teen 'wantabes'.

Secret societies, like fraternities and sororities ? They are a LOT more common
 
You may be right Mick and I think most people would share that view but the fact is... there are people out there who BELIEVE in these ancient religions and have set out to keep these deities alive, even if it means in absolute secret. That is what these secret societies are about... keeping the doctrine alive.

i.e. This is a good example.

http://www.golden-dawn.com/eu/index.aspx

You live in a world shaped by women and men who sought greatness beyond the limitations of their own minds. It was their destiny to become more than merely human to become true masters over the winds of their lives.

They are no different than you. They once stood where you are now - at the gateway to hidden knowledge. They made a choice to act and take control of their lives. You too can transform yourself from living in wakeful sleep to living in radiant consciousness
Content from External Source
And before someone says 'It can't be secret if it's on the web', have a think about it!

Sure, there are people who believe all kinds of odd religions, traditions, and superstitions.

It does not necessarily follow that they rule the world.
 
Make light of it as you will, but when I see them dressed up in their robes sacrificing an effigy of a screaming, begging child in a highly secret ceremony which smacks of a typical Dennis Wheatley novel and I know these people are the same people who are responsible for the wars and financial terrorism which has cost the lives of millions whilst enriching them to obscene degrees, funny enough, it sends alarm bells.

It's not "the same people" some of them are some of the people. Probably more like this:

 
Last edited:
Sure, that's nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group) Another example of earnest belief driving folks to work towards achieving a gate to the afterlife. Is my negative view of their practices less subjective? Does that make it less valid?

How in the world am I supposed to impose my beliefs and constructs onto an ancient culture...? I'm talking about our culture, and how it views the Pyramids.


You are projecting your view that the pyramids were frivolous and cruel....If the people who actually labored on them did not view them as frivolous and cruel then your subjective opinion 3000 yrs later is not as relevant.

You might as well include every church or palace ever built in your belief that large construction projects are frivolous and cruel

The pyramids were important to the people who built them...That You, in the context of your 21st century life, can't imagine a life where building such a structure is indeed important, cannot diminish their sociological and technological achievements merely by waving them away as "frivolous and cruel" simply because they contradict your modern context.

The building of the pyramids- regardless of the labor practices- were an important step to where mankind is today. Their relevance should be duly noted...and indeed they are.
 
When I encounter fully robed and hooded people in a cemetery at near midnight, set to practice whatever weird beliefs they have, I am concerned. I am not concerned about the dead but I am concerned about the living and whether they pose a danger to me or not. I felt very strongly that they did and I am not a faint hearted person. Perhaps you would have climbed over the gate and said... "Oh how jolly this looks, certainly I will come and play these high jinks". Most people, including me would not.

Make light of it as you will, but when I see them dressed up in their robes sacrificing an effigy of a screaming, begging child in a highly secret ceremony which smacks of a typical Dennis Wheatley novel and I know these people are the same people who are responsible for the wars and financial terrorism which has cost the lives of millions whilst enriching them to obscene degrees, funny enough, it sends alarm bells.

I wasn't referring to your experience near a cemetery in London. I was speaking of your previously stated problems with Bohemian Grove and masons.
 
... many upon many lives were spent raising structures which served no purpose but to gratify an elite culture of selfish psychosis. ...

Psychosis is "a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality"." I'd say that for the culture we're discussing this WAS their reality. Were a bunch of people to begin developing a cult based on ancient Egyptian beliefs today, it might be possible to consider them psychotic, but back then that was the real deal.
 
I wasn't referring to your experience near a cemetery in London. I was speaking of your previously stated problems with Bohemian Grove and masons.

The second paragraph related to BG. I am not sure how Mick came up with this:

But I really do not think 'People Who Go' has any relevance as opposed to 'Really Rich and Powerful People'. There simply is not this massive 'People Who Go', as if it is Disneyland. The whole place is sealed off and it is very difficult to get in unless you are invited and that appears to be pretty exclusive, (especially since AJ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The second paragraph related to BG. I am not sure how Mick came up with this:

But I really do not think 'People Who Go' has any relevance as opposed to 'Really Rich and Powerful People'. There simply is not this massive 'People Who Go', as if it is Disneyland. The whole place is sealed off and it is very difficult to get in unless you are invited and that appears to be pretty exclusive, (especially since AJ).

It's a guesstimate. There's about 3,000 people who go to any one Bohemian Grove, the number of "Really rich and powerful" people is harder to pin down, but it was suggested the being a billionaire is a good criteria, which is around 1,500 people.
 
Last edited:
But I really do not think 'People Who Go' has any relevance as opposed to 'Really Rich and Powerful People'. There simply is not this massive 'People Who Go', as if it is Disneyland. The whole place is sealed off and it is very difficult to get in unless you are invited and that appears to be pretty exclusive, (especially since AJ).

I think the point Mick was making was that lots of people have been invited. FFS one of the Grateful Dead was there! And if you can think of anyone who represented the counter-culture in the US better than the Grateful Dead then fair dues. Actors were invited, musicians were invited, artists were invited. If you were a member of a decent golf club in California, etc. etc.

It's not been as exclusive as Alex Jones has made out. It's not some mad satanic ritual exercised by the elites. It's a bunch of rich fuckers going a bit wild. You're letting something daft worry you, when you've plenty real shit to be worried about - like all the cuts the current government in your country have just introduced, and the moves towards a health system run by private entities. Rich farts in pointy hats in California are the least of your problems.
 
I think the point Mick was making was that lots of people have been invited. FFS one of the Grateful Dead was there! And if you can think of anyone who represented the counter-culture in the US better than the Grateful Dead then fair dues. Actors were invited, musicians were invited, artists were invited. If you were a member of a decent golf club in California, etc. etc.

It's not been as exclusive as Alex Jones has made out. It's not some mad satanic ritual exercised by the elites. It's a bunch of rich fuckers going a bit wild. You're letting something daft worry you, when you've plenty real shit to be worried about - like all the cuts the current government in your country have just introduced, and the moves towards a health system run by private entities. Rich farts in pointy hats in California are the least of your problems.

Indeed, look at this list of "members of note", then see how many are on the Forbes billionaire list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bohemian_Club_members

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

I think the overlap is pretty much as I drew it.
 
If the people who actually labored on them did not view them as frivolous and cruel then your subjective opinion 3000 yrs later is not as relevant.
First off, we have no window into the soul of an Egyptian laborer. My opinion that life for an Egyptian labor working on the pyramids would have been exceedingly hard and likely unpleasant is based upon the fact structures of epic proportion were constructed in relatively short order using bronze-aged tools and techniques. You don't get massive construction projects done without a whole lot of pain and suffering in today's world. To believe they got it done in the ancient world without an abundance of pain and suffering strikes me as entirely asinine.

Psychosis is "a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality"." I'd say that for the culture we're discussing this WAS their reality. Were a bunch of people to begin developing a cult based on ancient Egyptian beliefs today, it might be possible to consider them psychotic, but back then that was the real deal.
So you're saying in that age Egyptian Gods, the Egyptian afterlife, and the divine right/immortality of the Pharaohs was real? When exactly did all that magic wear off, that there's absolutely no evidence of it having ever existed? Believing yourself to be a God-Thing = as clear an example of psychosis as there could ever be, regardless of whether or not you're surrounded by people of a similar mind. Yes, in ancient Egypt people could well have been generally convinced that the Pharaohs were everything they believed/claimed themselves to be. Fact of the matter is though, as we all know now, that they were being lied too through the nose and exploited by those with no right, divine or otherwise, to treat other people like lesser beings.

You might as well include every church or palace ever built in your belief that large construction projects are frivolous and cruel
I do in fact feel a great number of the religious power-trips we call Cathedrals are demonstrations of cruel waste and frivolity, coupled with an insidious effort to dominate the minds of the masses for political and financial reasons. As beautiful as many of the great cathedrals are, they were often constructed at great expense while communities suffered and starved, all while equating God with opulence and subjugation in much the same way as the Egyptians.

The pyramids were important to the people who built them...
again, through what lens into the past are you gathering this insight? They were surely important to the class who saw them as a route to immortality, but can you be so certain the average Egyptian Joe, slaving away either figuratively or literally, was thinking about how vitally important his work was?
That You, in the context of your 21st century life, can't imagine a life where building such a structure is indeed important,
can you imagine a life where building such a structure was important? As a free-thinking person, if a cadre of cops approached you and said 'right, time to pay your labor-tax, you'll spend the next five years or so dragging steal beams to President Obama's Space-Tomb where he'll be preserved for a thousand years to rise again as Lord of the Galaxy', would you be OK with that? Of course you wouldn't. It's a ludicrous notion and not worth your time in the slightest. Now if you lived in a society where you were strictly taught from birth to believe that all presidents MUST have a Space-Tomb built less it anger Reagan the Gatekeeper and bring doom upon your soul, and you joined the project to build the Space-Tomb knowing no better than to think it an entirely reasonable idea, is that less of an injustice or more?
diminish their sociological and technological achievements merely by waving them away as "frivolous and cruel" simply because they contradict your modern context.
I don't deny for a moment that the pyramids are an impressive feat of technology and design for the period. I'm not 'waving that away'. They are however entirely frivolous projects... not in 'my modern context', but in the factual context of reality. The pyramids served no functional purpose. They were an ego-project and power display. And then we get to the heart of what I'm trying to say:

The building of the pyramids- regardless of the labor practices- were an important step to where mankind is today. Their relevance should be duly noted...and indeed they are.

Why? How? What contribution, beyond being generally impressive, have the pyramids made to mankind? Why do you consider them such an important step in the journey of mankind? Why are they symbols of progress and not of the dangers of granting others power over your ideals? This is what I call the 'romantic' feelings Americans have to the pyramids. This notion that they're some kind of cornerstone in the foundation of civilization, some great feat and amazing accomplishment representative of our own greatness as a species... when in all reality they're the physical evidence of oppression at a daunting scale.
 
So you're saying in that age Egyptian Gods, the Egyptian afterlife, and the divine right/immortality of the Pharaohs was real? When exactly did all that magic wear off, that there's absolutely no evidence of it having ever existed? Believing yourself to be a God-Thing = as clear an example of psychosis as there could ever be, regardless of whether or not you're surrounded by people of a similar mind. Yes, in ancient Egypt people could well have been generally convinced that the Pharaohs were everything they believed/claimed themselves to be. Fact of the matter is though, as we all know now, that they were being lied too through the nose and exploited by those with no right, divine or otherwise, to treat other people like lesser beings.

You're doing it again: you're interpreting what happened between 3,000 and 6,000 years ago with a modern mind set. What we consider psychotic, we consider simply because it is outside the reality we live in today. Were someone from the 10th century to turn up today and demand we start burning women at the stake we'd consider them psychotic. Were the Inquisitors psychotic? They were certainly fucked up, but they were behaving very rationally according to the mores of the time. Likewise, those Egyptians were behaving rationally according to their culture. The children born to be Pharaohs were indoctrinated into believing they were human gods, and the people in their realm believed the same. There was no psychosis, that was the reality FOR THEM. I'm not saying it was real.

We have the same thing today. Christians believe that a man died and was resurrected, and that he was a god, and that he will return and there will be an apocalypse, and a heap of other psychotic beliefs. There are numerous other religions on the go at the moment, and all their followers have similarly bizarre beliefs. Are ALL living religious people psychotic?
 
First do you really think that the life of an ordinary Egyptian at that time was one of ease and leisure? Do you have any Fing idea how hard FARM work is without machines?

It was REAL to the ancient Egyptians. Look at all the stories of Christian martyrs, those folks endured painful deaths, in order to not deny their belief. You may see it as being exploited but they didn't. STOP giving folks from past times a modern, western philosophy, it is just silly to expect that they would think like we do.

We have spent centuries moving from the 'divine right of Kings'.

One of the problems that many in the west have with Islam is the difference in attitude toward government. Most cannot imagine a government that is not religious. Someone in 900 Leon would have the same problem.
 
Are ALL living religious people psychotic?
No. They're just following a doctrine which often has a strong foundation in distinct psychosis, being administered by individuals who indeed often are psychotic, if not just sociopaths of varying degrees. The Vatican, for example, is as obvious a loony-bin as there has ever been, with the distinction that the crazed who dwell there are praised, granted power over the ideals of others, and have been off-med for far too damn long. Most long-standing religious institutions have their historical roots in batshit-crazy and brutalizing fuckwads, who mistaking their mental illness for divine inspiration subjugated vast masses of people. How do you think the Pharaoh's and their doctrine came into power? Of course it began, as it almost always does, in Madness.

You're doing it again: you're interpreting what happened between 3,000 and 6,000 years ago with a modern mind set. What we consider psychotic, we consider simply because it is outside the reality we live in today.

Can you explain to me, as a modern man discussing the modern interpretation of the pyramids, why we shouldn't consider them in the 'modern' context, given all we've learned since then? Yes, thousands of years ago having thousands of people slave away on your personal super-tombstone might have been considered the 'it' thing, and not at all psychotic. In the age of the Roman empire it was considered a decent pastime to gather and watch men kill each-other, or women have sex with bulls, or a dozen children being torn to shreds by horny baboons. In Victorian times it was alright to wed off a 13 year old to a 56 year old, even if it was against the kid's will. A couple of decades ago it was alright to treat a person like they were Sub-Human because their skin was of a different color. I'm of the opinion that what's right and what's wrong, though relative to an extent, is not nearly so relative as you seem to be suggesting, regardless of the age in question.


Were the Inquisitors psychotic?
For the most part? Abso-fucking-lutely.
 
First off, we have no window into the soul of an Egyptian laborer. My opinion that life for an Egyptian labor working on the pyramids would have been exceedingly hard and likely unpleasant is based upon the fact structures of epic proportion were constructed in relatively short order using bronze-aged tools and techniques. You don't get massive construction projects done without a whole lot of pain and suffering in today's world. To believe they got it done in the ancient world without an abundance of pain and suffering strikes me as entirely asinine.

Indeed. Did I ever say there wasn't pain and suffering involved? No. just that the work may not have been viewed as cruel and frivolous by the people doing the work.That YOU view it as cruel and frivolous does not mean it was to them.

again, through what lens into the past are you gathering this insight? They were surely important to the class who saw them as a route to immortality, but can you be so certain the average Egyptian Joe, slaving away either figuratively or literally, was thinking about how vitally important his work was?

I think the head of Egyptian Antiquities has some lens into the past...and he says:

In excavations at Abusir, I discovered two important scenes in blocks. One scene shows the king and his workmen dragging a capstone; other scenes depict people dancing and singing. My interpretation is that when the king finished building the Pyramid, he had his workmen place a capstone sheathed in gold on top. Then everyone danced and sang—one million individuals celebrating—because the Pyramid was a national project. Every household in every village, in the north and south, participated in building it. (If you thought today of building a pyramid, you'd never do it, because you don't have what drove the Egyptians. Pyramids were built in Eygpt, because the ancient Egyptians made technology for the afterlife, while we make technology for our life today.)
Content from External Source
Its a "ludicrous notion" to you...now...but 3000yrs ago it clearly wasn't ludicrous to them.


I don't deny for a moment that the pyramids are an impressive feat of technology and design for the period. I'm not 'waving that away'. They are however entirely frivolous projects... not in 'my modern context', but in the factual context of reality. The pyramids served no functional purpose. They were an ego-project and power display.

no- thats your interpretation of what they were. it WAS a functional purpose to lead to the afterlife- You can denigrate ancient Egyptians belief system all you want- but to them they served an extremely important functional purpose.


Why? How? What contribution, beyond being generally impressive, have the pyramids made to mankind? Why do you consider them such an important step in the journey of mankind? Why are they symbols of progress and not of the dangers of granting others power over your ideals? This is what I call the 'romantic' feelings Americans have to the pyramids. This notion that they're some kind of cornerstone in the foundation of civilization, some great feat and amazing accomplishment representative of our own greatness as a species... when in all reality they're the physical evidence of oppression at a daunting scale.

But they ARE a great a feat and an amazing accomplishment and a tribute the ingenuity and technical prowess of man. The mathematics and architecture involved helped lay the foundations for the all else that followed.


You assume the workers didn't want to participate and they were all oppressed. But that is merely your modern assumptions built on your preconceived notions. As the BBC puts it:

The pyramids were built, not by the gangs of slaves often portrayed by Hollywood film moguls, but by a workforce of up to 5,000 permanent employees, supplemented by as many as 20,000 temporary workers, who would work for three or four months on the pyramid site, before returning home.
Content from External Source
 
Can you explain to me, as a modern man discussing the modern interpretation of the pyramids, why we shouldn't consider them in the 'modern' context, given all we've learned since then? Yes, thousands of years ago having thousands of people slave away on your personal super-tombstone might have been considered the 'it' thing, and not at all psychotic.

Because you say they are monuments to oppression. But if the people who built them did not consider themselves oppressed then your opinion is not based on the facts on the ground.
 
But if the people who built them did not consider themselves oppressed then your opinion is not based on the facts on the ground.
So oppression requires understanding? If someone is ignorant of their oppression, its not happening? Women who are raised to honestly believe their periods are indicative of an evil within them which only a man can hold in check aren't being oppressed?
 
Why do you get the right to call them oppressed? It is like folks that condemn Muslim women for wearing a veil and conservative clothing. Many Muslim women feel that the 'glorification of the female body' is a type of oppression. Who is right?

We think that women in multiple wife families are oppressed, but interviews with them do not always show that.

I have had a similar argument with friends that look at the wages and work hours of Chinese factory workers and are horrified at it. However, the Chinese feel that they are good jobs and they will line up for them like we do for concert tickets.

In the Bible is says "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." It doesn't say that the child is wrong, but that with age, you learn more. The same is with us.
 
I'm surprised Cairenn. I understand entirely how some women could view the hijab (Mick, you should note your spell-check doesn't recognize 'hijab', and offers 'hijacker' as a correction...) as empowering over degrading, especially in a western society where female degradation is increasingly glorified. That's -their choice- however. There's a stark difference between growing up feeling your cultural clothing is a source of empowerment and identity, and growing up being taught to hate your vagina one week of every month, to be taught to believe you're inherently wicked at your core for no other reason than having a vagina, and to live the life of a slave to be sold because of it. I'm sorry, but that's OPPRESSION. I don't give a flying fuck if there's a long-standing cultural tradition in that a particular woman's family of sexual, physical, and mental abuse, I'm still going to call it for what it is.

I have had a similar argument with friends that look at the wages and work hours of Chinese factory workers and are horrified at it. However, the Chinese feel that they are good jobs and they will line up for them like we do for concert tickets.
.......



please, please watch these before arguing in favor of Chinese labor practices again. No one, and I mean no one, should have to live the way some of these laborers have to live. Manufactured Landscapes is an excellent film, more-or-less silent, featuring many beautiful glimpses of industrial horrors of tremendous scope. He spends a fair deal of time in Chinese factories.

manufacturedlandscapes.photo01.jpg
factory housing.
 
Back
Top