ciao Mary!

the fact that there are people who don't know, is the reason why others who say such foolishness make me so upset. Personally I'm not interested in the man who wrote those things on the web, I'm more interested in those who don't know anything about AE who can get distorted and wrong informations and ideas. I know that many of those are self able to look for further infos and build a more clear and correct knowledge, but others cannot....I'm also referring to young guys....not everybody is as smart as our Psusennes I is, and I do worry a lot about the others who are not so lucky....
This is such a delicate argument....there are people who can get easily involved in the wrong way(I'm talking in general), maybe just because they are passing through a difficult period of their lives. Even the strongest person can become very weak and in this situation it's easy to see things not in the right way. Against this behaviour, which is human and can happen to everybody, it is important to be aware that all kind of problems should be faced in the most objective manner.....so it's not only referred to AE!!!
I don't know if I well explained my thought....it's really difficult for me, using another language, please don't misunderstand me!

Thank heavens Isis thought out side the box that Osiris/OsirUS had the chance of rebirth as Apis being Serapis being of Osiris as a living "MAN". Reason why he gave you both Ramsekh and Psus two heads! Because you are both too stupid on knowing how to use just one! And still not as smart as Woman/Isis on knowing how to use one or the other.

You both take it as offense if another has concluded their studies beyond your comprehension. You both appear that you haven't concluded your own studies to give such an opinionated statement as to say, because you haven't reached a conclusive to your own, doesn't mean another has to stay at a dead end to a subject. And to look to another culture for clues doesn't make it irrelevant because it elludes your own understanding. Your understanding being that the ideas that are presented are as alien to your self as aliens is as a subject that "MAN" doesn't understand.

And since you confess its your educated knowledge on the subject, clarifies your reason that would lead to invalidate another? I guess you forgot or don't get it when it comes down to Ancient Egypt! Consider Chemmie in meaning is a "evolving" (the key word here) science. Being the bases for your world to be ever evolving. And considering our world is based on Kemetic influences, who is to argue knowledge as of facts but you both. As Ankhesenpa-aten mention about fiction, science fiction being the hypotheis and general laws that are subject to verification with actual (Isis representing what has been manifested) and imaginary (Nemphthys domain which is of the unmanifested) scientific developments that eventually do become a reality. Its been proven!

So maybe the wording doesn't please you on anothers interpretation of something you consider not disribed well that needs further studing. That maybe so, but what if the author has as much studing as you and has come to an end and assume YOU KNEW?! Making an ass of you and me is to assume that I have you by the balls as if you were Set!

You are talking out of your *** just as much as the author who wrote that site.

I've always wanted to have a go at trying to impersonate these ridiculous threads that make no sense that others are intent on writing (*cough* Bel. . .), but really I would find it quite difficult to do that. People who try to re-enact the Egyptian religion infuriate me- and I am not afraid to say that. I was just kicked off another Forum because I was getting the upper hand on an argument about this reconstructional Kemeticism.

Most of these modern 'living-faiths' just throw together random aspects of the Egyptians' fantastic religion in order to form a modern religion that would have horrified the priests of Egypt. I only hope that those Kemetics here follow their religion with the respect that it deserves (I do not follow reconstructional Kemetics).
For your information, SerqSekhet, I do have strong opinions. I use evidence to support my claims. I read the actual Egyptian text itself instead of relying on misleading translations. I do not know from where you obtained those faulty quotes from the Book of the Dead, but I presume (as you have given plate numbers) that they are from the Papyrus of Ani. Chapter XV is however on plates 1 and 2, and does not contain your quoted text in any form. As chapter XV is a hymn to Khepara (lord of the rolling sun) the references that exist to his mother's back (the sky) and the other celestial Gods are hardly surprising. The next quote from Plate XXV is not evidence for Alien forms, as it refers to the idea of Ani becoming the God Osiris. The final quote has been wildly altered- the only vaguely similar lines is "I am a shining being (with God determinative- i.e. a God) endowed as greatest of all shining beings". This makes perfect sense as it is describing how Ani shall be crowned as Osiris- king of the Underworld. He is described earlier as being clad in white sandals and white robes- and as he is a God it is unsurprising that he has a brilliant glowing aura.

We can go down this road if you like- you might as well start arguing that all references to Gods amongst all religions are in fact alien intervention, for all I care. This would 'explain' the divine rays of blinding light described in a great number of religious texts (the conversion of Saul, the story of Onishuyuma etc.), but I would like to do so in a civil manner. You said yourself that science cannot prove either of these two theories to be correct- but which is more likely? Besides- surely believing what you do counters your religious beliefs anyway. If a Christian started claiming that God was not all-powerful and omnibenevolent- but an Alien instead I am sure that that would not go down particularly well with the Church. You say that predictions always become reality (Isis proves it or something?)- But in this case we are predicting the past. And we cannot change the past.

I suggest that you re-check your sources before you start claiming that Ramsekh, Maatkara or myself are deluded. Please; I want to have a fun debate, because it's fun. If however you want to play properly then use sources that I can check (quote the correct chapters this time- or link to a website), and prepare to accept that others have different viewpoints that you might be able to change- if you put up a convincing argument. I don't want this topic to be blocked, and I certainly don't want to get you or myself banned.

Let us continue this debate- any valid additions or points are most welcome.

Yeah, Psusnnes I is right.
We are here to debat, we have no need to fight....others are already doing it somewhere else and it's not getting fine, nor leading to anything important, nor solving any problem....
BUT to do that, one has to be ready to accept that other points of view can be different from his ones.
If you are not able to accept this, you are not able to discuss and to confront with others, this can also underline the weakness of your theories....

If this discussion has to do with your personal beliefs, SerqSekhet, I wish to drop, but at least I wish you are well aware of the fact that one thing is what you personally believe and the other is what science proved and that these two have nothing to do with each other.

hugs

If computer permitting... I'll ask you a few questions since your thinking lacks to surpass your limitations to attain a higher level of being. And since you give attemts to control things by logical reasoning alone. I doubt if any universal (sahu) or higher energy force can sway your mind (khu).

My source is from a BOOK! Not from the computer. The Egyptain text transliteration and translation from papyrus of Ani the Book of the Dead by E.A.Wallis Budge. Maybe you should read it I mean really read it
As well whom is to say you are right other than maatkara. Whom either of you I doubt have seen or held fresh papyrus that came forth from the Nile. And if you have, I don't understand why you stay with stagnate ideals When its clearly shown that the fauna of all this is around is responsible for its existance. As simply as the papyrus when green to influence the shape of the pyramids to holding the words of the gods that were held within the pyramids. BUT YOU PROBABLY DON'T SEE THAT! So why should I really bother?

For I don't really care what "MAN" has created along the lines of theology. As far as I'm concerned; Man is tall like a tree, can fall like timber, be beaten in to a pulp to be made into paper to being called a book! And that is my truth.

I'm here for other reasons such as to seek and destroy the act/ritiual that is called FGM! I don't care about the trivial idealogy you wish to create.
Instead of being a thorn Psus, why not be some help to me? You profess you have well educated knowledge of hieroglyphs, answer me this; When a glyph is to translate, to specified to indicate its a woman the scribe is the glyph 't' the bread creast (that little domie dude) is always added to the woman's glyph. Why and what is the reason that this glyph is use to identify woman among heiroglphs when reading or writting (drawing) them?

If you have been an egyptian major for a long time you may understand this riddle:
If Dr. Hawass was a product of the Sphinx, what would he be?

Answer;
He be a fur ball with appendages!

To the DEAD its funny! If you have the knowledge you say Psus you possess, you would be able to understand it.

SerqSekhet,
sometimes I have difficulties in understanding what you write.....maybe it's because I'm not english native speaking, but I do have the feelings that your ideas are quite confused.
It still looks like if you don't want to have a normal discussion but just to impose your thought. If so, we are talking in two different levels and I am not here to state or to know which one is the best. I'm not interested in such a discussion.
The fact that you found only me and Ramsekh supporting Psusennes I is probably because we are actually the only two who want to have a change of opinions with you...I don't see anybody supporting you,indeed....
You act as if you are the only one who owns the secrets.....this underlines the fact that I have nothing to share with you, because you already know everything and also better than me. I only wonder how can you fight FGM with this strange behaviour.....you perfectly know that everybody here may agree with this aim, but I don't see a real interest in trying to see things in a clearer way: You have your own scheme and don't want to change it and if things don't fit in it, you simply state they are not telling the true....
To try to help solving the problem of the myth of FGM, you should face it using science, history, try to find the way to explain that this is unhuman. In few words, you should have a stronger base to work on, but it seems you don't have it even for your-self....how do you think to fight a use that lasts from centuries, so deeply radicated in their culture, which have strong religious base?
My impression is that you simply try to substitute other believes (right or wrong, it doesn't matter to you) with yours.

The "T", the bread you are referrig to, is not ALWAYS with the hieroglyph of a woman.The woman is used as a determinative for feminine gender. The "T" is just a "T" as a sound and is not forcely used only to indicate a feminine gender: the name of "Ptah" has that sound and so also that bread, but this doen't mean it's a female god....Honestly I don't understand your question.
And about your riddle...why don't you try to involve everybody, since you are writing on this community? I personally wish to join your party!!!

I have gone into mega-pedant mode here so beware:

"ger" does not mean "silent!". It is a verb. It means "to be silent" or "to cease". As in G.E.G Lesson II question AII: "When the man speaks the woman is silent". Furthermore it should be written "gr". If you want to turn it into an imperative (i.e. Shut up!) then it should be "gr=y", as the imperative plural ending is the two reeds (y).

You clearly are only up to exercise II in Gardiner's so I shant tease you. The imperative is probably "To advance of a question" for you. It comes up in lesson XXIV. Do not patronise us. German comes from Latin, not Egyptian. Your name suggests that you only joined this forum to try to annoy others and provoke violent reactions.

Well go on. Make your point and then argue it, rather than just spewing nonsensical rubbish at us.