The Great Virgin Mother Isis - Ancient Mythology is not a Cheeseburger

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If it is to the idea, then show me, using reliable scholarship.

I have seen no indication you have any understanding of the meaning of the word 'scholarship' . All I see is an under educated autodidact with an attitude..

I have no interest wasting my time trying to teach you on this medium. I might have some success on a one-on-one over a few months. Unlikely though,you seem convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong.,

Why am I so hostile? My discipline is Social Anthropology,which I spent 5 years studying at university. Some of my studies covered mythology. Your undisciplined approach,citing a few atypical sources with perhaps one of scholastic merit,is irritating to me. My fault,not yours. I guess I should be more tolerant,but I really can't be bothered.

[michaelsherlock]

I have seen no indication you have any understanding of the meaning of the word 'scholarship' . All I see is an under educated autodidact with an attitude..

Using primary sources coupled with highly recognized scholarly appraisals to argue a case is, at least I thought, an appropriate way to examine an idea!

I have no interest wasting my time trying to teach you on this medium. I might have some success on a one-on-one over a few months. Unlikely though,you seem convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong.,

Not at all. I could well be wrong. But you have not presented anything in the way of a rebuttal, minus the abusive ad hominem attacks, attacks which are quite uncharacteristic of a learned mind, in my humble opinion.

I appreciate your near offer to educate me, but having grown up in a welfare district, under the sole supervision of a father who 2 years prior to my birth, spent the majority of his young adult life, in maximum security prison (a good father though), I know how to hurl colorful abuse and mindless personal attacks quite well on my own. But thank you for your offer OB1!

Why am I so hostile? My discipline is Social Anthropology,which I spent 5 years studying at university. Some of my studies covered mythology.

Ok, now we are whipping out the papers and comparing their lengths! I also went to University and studied Law, Political Science and Sociology, during which time I studied mythology, in particular from a functionalist point of view, which I found fascinating. I particularly liked Levi-Strauss' idea that mythology serves the function of mediating, explaining and reconciling duality, duality like, virginity and motherhood, for example! So yes my learned friend, I too have been indoctrinated.

Your undisciplined approach,citing a few atypical sources with perhaps one of scholastic merit,is irritating to me.

Atypical sources. You mean like Plutarch, Herodotus, Apuleius, Morford and Lenardon, Rosalie David, Dr Reginald E. Witt, Dr Jenny March, Dr G. Johannes Botterweck, etc...

Ok, I am open to your ideas. What are typical sources? Who would be acceptable to you? And one more question; did you actually read the article through? It seems that you believe that I used Joseph Campbell to establish a factual point, when I only used him in two places, one to relate a Buddhist parable relevent to the common misunderstanding of mythology, and two, as a final rhetorical quip on the Isis and Mary comparison. Yet, you seemed to have zoomed in on him, and assuming you actually did study at University, you would know that he is not the most respected professor of mythology, for the reason that he assumes a single, almost metaphysical mold to the human spirit, in otherwords, he tends to oversimplify with assertions, rather than proofs, in much the same way as Max Muller did with his Solar paradigm.

My fault,not yours. I guess I should be more tolerant,but I really can't be bothered.

You need to work on your character. It is certainly something to be bothered with, for if that is lacking, then you mean nothing, to no one, not even yourself, and no amount of information can help you with that. That is a personal journey, one which mythology has symoblically described in many myths!

Anyway, kind regards. Michael.
[/quote]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Michael;I'd prefer you didn't preach at me, there's a good chap. I really don't care about your personal values ,and find your judgment of mine and of my character facile and impertinent.

Yes I read your paper and the article linked and do not agree with your conclusion. We may need to agree to differ. I have no intention in trying to teach you; THAT would be presumptuous, based on what you have said about your scholastic background. My apologies,;I really did not get that impression from your paper.

My own approach is based on structural functionalism. However, although aware of the universality of many myths, I am very careful about conflating correlation and causation,which is what I think you have done. (if I accepted your premise,which I do not) Isis was the sister-wife of Osiris,therefore not a virgin by definition.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

PS am I suffering from toxic disinhibition? I'm suspicious of self-diagnosis and don't know you well enough to trust your assessment. OF course I concede it's possible,even likely,although I can be almost as obnoxious in person.

I assure you I'm acutely aware of my many faults. I'm also acutely aware of how little success I've had over a lifetime (I'm now 64) in changing the things I don't like about myself. Here,on this forum,my only obligation is to obey the rules. I am here because it suits me,not to meet the expectations of strangers.

[michaelsherlock]

Michael;I'd prefer you didn't preach at me, there's a good chap. I really don't care about your personal values ,and find your judgment of mine and of my character facile and impertinent.

Sorry Paddy, didn't mean it to be judgy! Just thought you might not have realized how your abuse can affect others. Sorry.

Yes I read your paper and the article linked and do not agree with your conclusion.

Perfectly acceptable. If you have any specific reasons, backed with reliable scholarship, I would be interested to know.

We may need to agree to differ.

Not necessarily. Try to bring me over to your point of view, or at least share it, backed with reliable scholarship.

I have no intention in trying to teach you; THAT would be presumptuous, based on what you have said about your scholastic background.

Everyone can learn from everyone (bar fundies), in my "hippy" opinion.

My apologies,;I really did not get that impression from your paper.

No need for apologies.

My own approach is based on structural functionalism. However, although aware of the universality of many myths, I am very careful about conflating correlation and causation,which is what I think you have done.

Fair enough. We all see things differently based on our subjective experiences in life.

(if I accepted your premise,which I do not) Isis was the sister-wife of Osiris,therefore not a virgin by definition.

So then, Mary, being the wife of Joseph, was not deemed a virgin either? According to your formula, wife equals non-virgin. Say for example that in the distant future, the Gospels of John and Mark were the predominant sources of the Christ myth, as for whatever reason the rest of the New Testament was abolished, yet there still remained ruins of churches and extra-biblical texts, which applied the virgin mother epithet to Mary, would it be accurate to say that Mary was never associated with such an epithet (Virgin mother)? For this seems to be the case with Isis, plus her well documented amalgamation with other Hellenistic, and other cultural Goddesses, who did expressly bare that title.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

PS am I suffering from toxic disinhibition? I'm suspicious of self-diagnosis and don't know you well enough to trust your assessment. OF course I concede it's possible,even likely,although I can be almost as obnoxious in person.

That was funny.

I assure you I'm acutely aware of my many faults. I'm also acutely aware of how little success I've had over a lifetime (I'm now 64) in changing the things I don't like about myself. Here,on this forum,my only obligation is to obey the rules. I am here because it suits me,not to meet the expectations of strangers.

Understood.