“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

[Ed1]

.

[Marcus]

You do not comprehend my purpose here. My purpose is to make a record, online of what is actually happening, for true seekers of truth. What I do here is not to convince non-believers in what I do of any sort. It is to leave a record for those that it will ultimately help in the process of time to find truth.

You've been talking to Rosebud!??

You are not understanding one bit of what I'm saying, just like Shulem, because you think you can see into my head, and you think that I do not know what I'm doing, and you think that I somehow think that my methods are equivelent to science, and are able to be judged by secular methods.

No, I am not thinking I can see into your head, I am simply reading your work. You are mis-using vocabulary that has specific scientific meaning. If you want to apply a different meaning to these words, you will need to clearly indicate that.

You are not understanding one bit of what I'm saying, just like Shulem, because you think you can see into my head, and you think that I do not know what I'm doing, and you think that I somehow think that my methods are equivelent to science, and are able to be judged by secular methods. My methods are application of secular things in a religious realm, or as some have put it, in a different magisterium, where the various magisteria, or realms of knowledge, do not overlap.

ok. Then don't mis-use words with specific and universally accepted scientific meaning without asterisking the terms and providing a glossary of your alternate definitions.

Or maybe, its better to say that the Egyptological or secular things can be used in the other realm of the religious, but it doesn't go the other way.

No, I disagree. If you use secular concepts, you can't pick and choose. All of a concept applies, or none of it.

When I blaze a new trail, it is to establish a new way of doing things in the realm of the relgious. It doesn't qualify as science, and can't, and doesn't qualify in any secular sense as anything that can or would be accepted by secularists, and I don't know that it was ever proposed that it ought to be (by me), at least not in recent times.

Your use of scientific vocabulary implies that, however.

. My conclusions are driven by evidence, instead of trying to prove something. Because I can't get through to the apologists of today, perhaps I will get through to some of tomorrow. And they will need a record to find what I have done. I am not looking for your acceptance of my definition of evidence, either.

Then that is another word you will need to asterisk and provide your alternate definition for.

Believers are not necessarily scientists when doing religion, and can't do anything scientifically when doing religion, or rather perhaps, cannot do it when they are not doing science.

Agreed.

Nevertheless, they can apply scientific principles to things of belief in a religious realm.

You just disagreed with your own statement above.

I don't need your permission to reverse-engineer something in a religious realm.

of course not, no one is talking about "permission." However, you will receive pushback if you mis-use the term and no one needs permission to do so.

the religous is beyond science, and therefore is beyond the ability of science to falsify. Assuming that because science doesn't uphold the religious constitutes the falsification of the religious is not honest.

That is not what is happening here.


These are my comments on your work, Ed1. This is Celestial, so I would appreciate it if you would remind yourself of the rules if you'd like to respond. Shulem has mentioned that several times as well.

[Ed1]

.

[Marcus]

No, I am not thinking I can see into your head, I am simply reading your work. You are mis-using vocabulary that has specific scientific meaning. If you want to apply a different meaning to these words, you will need to clearly indicate that . . .
ok. Then don't mis-use words with specific and universally accepted scientific meaning without asterisking the terms and providing a glossary of your alternate definitions . . .
No, I disagree. If you use secular concepts, you can't pick and choose. All of a concept applies, or none of it.

Now we have the word police. I don't "need" to do anything. I don't need to "choose" anything. You are an adult human, and know the English language.

More or less!

So think in terms of what I am talking about, applied to a religious context that draws upon Egyptological knowledge, and use your own intelligence.

My own intelligence tells me that when a person uses vocabulary incorrectly, the meanings they want to imply are incorrect and irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't need to coin new words with asterisks to comment. I am a software engineer, and have been for decades and don't need to be lectured on what reverse engineering means.

my actual suggestion was "If you want to apply a different meaning to these words, you will need to clearly indicate that..." but of course, no, you don't need to do that. If you stand by your definition of reverse engineering, fine. I stand by my opinion that you are mis-using the term. Your appeal to authority only makes that more clear.

When my name comes up in Google searches, and people see the threads I am involved in, they will search out my work, when they are true-in-heart seekers of knowledge, to have the other side of the story, the side of the story both the critics and the apologists are not putting out, and if it makes sense to them, then they have their answer, which builds their faith. Once in a while I pipe up on these subjects, with no expectation of the least bit of acceptance from the usual crew here, for the purpose that those people find what they are looking for. And secondarily, to once in a while answer the assertions of Paul Osborne and a few others on here when I feel like it. If there is anything I pick and choose, it is how, when and who I respond to if at all. Most of the time I don't respond, and just let Paul's keyboard click.

You people are not my community. You people drove me away, to know that this will never be my community. I am not your friend, because you people are not mine.

Interesting. I haven't observed all of your intéactions here, but I have tried to read some back threads; all I see is a very angry and abusive person losing their cool when their anger and abuse are noted.

And I will never seek community here again, except from my actual friends in real life that actually respect me without agreement with me, not just online but in real life, Philo Soffe and Kishkumen, who treat me with dignity and the respect I would expect from fellow humans that I could actually go to dinner with and get a burger with.

Ed Goble

i'm glad you've found friends.

I do notice that you haven't really commented on my comments about your paper, in other words, the actual topic of the thread. I put some effort into reading it, so it's unfortunate you don't seem interested in feedback or even conversation. I was warned you might not like any feedback, so I only put a few things in. There seems no purpose in posting the rest, as it really seems like you only post here to incite a response so you can get angry. That's too bad.

[Moksha]

... but in real life, Philo Soffe and Kishkumen, who treat me with dignity and the respect I would expect from fellow humans that I could actually go to dinner with and get a burger with.

Ed Goble

I can imagine what a hoot it would be for not only you but the entire diner when Kerry gets going on a story!

[Father Francis]

Ed, how many times can you throw Joseph Smith under the bus an still claim to be a Mormon?

[Shulem]

You can go on and on. You only have part of the recipe, and to tell me that I cannot use or be informed by information that is relevent to what I am researching in the religous realm that originates from another is patenty absurd.

Religion is the source of much division and misery in our world. The mental gymnastics required to defend the Book of Abraham is over the top and could be likened to a magical circus performance wherein nobody outside of the Mormon faith could ever accept it as credible. I view Book of Abraham apologetics as a kind of cartoon or a dream state of mind. It’s not rational. It’s not logical. It’s not reasonable. It’s not anything that anyone outside of Mormonism can ever accept. I am not concerned in the slightest about any of Smith’s Abrahamic works being vindicated or proven correct. I know 100% that he was wrong, wrong, wrong -- and I bear you that testimony as I tap the keys and peel off yet another post. What will it take to reach you? What will it take to help you come to reality and face the truth? When will you free yourself and step out of that box?

[Moksha]

You can't make a cake out of the Book of Abraham, because you live off of eggs and sugar exclusively, and you worship them, being unable to comprehend the other ingredients for reality in the recipe. They are your god to the exclusion of that which is not discerned in the same manner.

Hey, Mormonism also has tuna casserole and funeral potatoes. Just remember these ingredients are separate in entity, but one in purpose to nourish and strengthen.

[Moksha]

What if the Mormons of Kirkland had approached Reformed Egyptian in this manner using Reformed Coptic as a reference? Would this have necessitated the invention of Reformed Coptic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-K5OjAkiEA

Zubzool, eh?

[Shulem]

And secondarily, to once in a while answer the assertions of Paul Osborne and a few others on here when I feel like it. If there is anything I pick and choose, it is how, when and who I respond to if at all. Most of the time I don't respond, and just let Paul's keyboard click.

I understand. I trust you understand the same works in reverse.