Archaeologically Dating the Exodus to Amenhotep III

by LorenzoSmithXVII 180 Replies latest admin removed

  • LorenzoSmithXVII
    LorenzoSmithXVII

    Viviane33 minutes ago

    Instead of focusing on the "limp dicks" out here, you should embrace the power of your own womanhood! A strong woman doesn't need a man to fulfill her. A strong woman knows "It's not about the size of the ship, but the MOTION OF THE OCEAN!!" (HAHAHAHAH!)

    But you're the limpy gimpy that keeps wanting to use your penis in a laughable attempt to assert dominance over me. Why are you now asking to change the subject to discussing actual men?

    =========

    Okay. I can see where this is going. I was going to say the typical drag queen response to a woman which is: "HONEY! I'm more man than you'll ever have and more woman than you'll ever be!" Hahahahaha! But that's just silliness, but funny! But what you don't get is I don't have to try to exercise dominance over you because we're not in the same room. Your comments confirm you know nothing. I can't take a single thing you say with any seriousness. But you have a sense of humor, so I like that. But otherwise, you are clueless what I'm doing or why I'm here. Trust me. You're out of your depth here. But go ahead and entertain us with your foolish commentary. I'll respond, whatever.


    Have a nice day, sweetie.


  • LorenzoSmithXVII
    LorenzoSmithXVII

    Vidiot17 minutes ago

    Didn't people in the Middle Ages occasionally use "eunuch" as a euphemism for a non-practising homosexual, since (like a literal castrati) he wasn't interested in women?
    Interesting. I suppose that is possible and it can be researched. But I personally have no specific knowledge of that assertion. The Bible uses the term to include someone in our culture we consider to be "gay" but it condemns sodomy. From my research, gay relationships between persons of the same sex was to have the nature of a close relative, like a brother or a cousin, but non-sexual.

    In other words, a relative is a unique thing and you have a unique relationship with them. Persons of the opposite sex can have a close, but non-sexual relationship. Like I have a female cousin with whom I hang out with all the time and go gambling with, but she's married. Otherwise, another male is off limits and inappropriate. Persons of the opposite sex can live together if they are relatives. Sisters and brothers can live together, cousins can live together. They hug and kiss but are understood not to have sex with each other. Apparently in the Jewish culture that is the cultural relationship gays or eunuchs were expected to have for each other. Sex was out, so you loved that person like a brother or cousin. But that meant you could spend all your time with them, go out and eat with them, live in the same house with them, buy property with them. You wouldn't be LONELY and you could love them as much as you wanted to, like a favorite cousin. Just were not supposed to take that to a sexual level. Anyway, that's my current misconception of that issue... smile.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    Lorenz: According to Sigmund Freud's research on human sexual behavior, he long ago discovered that gay men are smarter than the average straight man. I found that interesting.

    I am entering into this discussion late...I apologize, just ignore me if you don't like interruptions and I will go sit down. I just want to make a wee little comment and then I will go away.

    I find it interesting that there are people who give Freud's "research" any credibility at all. The research that Freud did is no longer considered by the scientific community to be valid. The only contribution of any significance that Freud made was that he is seen as the "father of psychology", certainly not that his conclusions or research were reliable or valid.

    The only people that hold onto his culturally biased conclusions are people who also are interested in advancing patriarchal notions of what they believe. People who quote Freud in order to bolster their biased ideas are only quoting him out of ignorance and hoping nobody notices.

  • LorenzoSmithXVII
    LorenzoSmithXVII

    Thanks for that information Orphan:

    I found this information about possible homosexuality in Egypt. I share this because of the "eunuch" issue, reflecting back on the reference that the wife of a eunuch tried to have sex with Joseph. It is a critical reference for two reasons. One, of course, is there is a suggestion the "eunuch" was not actually castrated. The other issue is again showing a "eunuch" in a high court position. The context that he was "gay" is consistent with his not being attracted to his wife and not satisfying her sexually, which made her horny as hell and thus targeted Joseph.

    Here's an interesting reference about two possible "eunuchs" in Egypt who held high position in the court but apparently were lovers?

    Nyankh-khnum and Khnum-hotep[edit]

    The best known case of possible homosexuality in Ancient Egypt is that of the two high officials Nyankh-Khnum and Khnum-hotep. Both men lived and served under pharaoh Niuserre during the 5th Dynasty (c. 2494–2345 BC).[1] Nyankh-Khnum and Khnum-hotep each had families of their own with children and wives, but when they died their families apparently decided to bury them together in one and the same mastaba tomb. In this mastaba, several paintings depict both men embracing each other and touching their faces nose-on-nose. These depictions leave plenty of room for speculation, because in Ancient Egypt the nose-on-nose touching normally represented a kiss.[1]

    Egyptologists and historians disagree about how to interpret the paintings of Nyankh-khnum and Khnum-hotep. Some scholars believe that the paintings reflect an example of homosexuality between two married men and prove that the Ancient Egyptians accepted same-sex relationships.[2] Other scholars disagree and interpret the scenes as an evidence that Nyankh-khnum and Khnum-hotep were twins, even possibly conjoined twins. No matter what interpretation is correct, the paintings show at the very least that Nyankh-khnum and Khnum-hotep must have been very close to each other in life as in death.[1]



  • Viviane
    Viviane
    But what you don't get is I don't have to try to exercise dominance over you because we're not in the same room. Your comments confirm you know nothing. I can't take a single thing you say with any seriousness.

    Internet bullying is a well known phenomena:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying

    You're attempting it, suggesting I go suck a dick, attempting to use misogyny to "put me in my place", etc., but you're not actually doing it. That's the part where you are impotent and obviously compensating for something.

    http://psychology.about.com/od/cindex/g/compensation.htm

    This is all obvious from your inability to stay on topic, to present your evidence and discuss the facts. You're attempting it with others, but giving me most of your attention for whatever reason. You're deflecting, attempting to put down and discredit those who are showing your arguments to be bunk and trying to puff up how awesome you are.

    It's sad.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury
    Simons banhammer needs a recharge..... it obviously fizzled as Lars is still spouting his bullshit and pissing all over this board.
  • LorenzoSmithXVII
    LorenzoSmithXVII

    Hi Viv:

    Viviane20 minutes ago

    But what you don't get is I don't have to try to exercise dominance over you because we're not in the same room. Your comments confirm you know nothing. I can't take a single thing you say with any seriousness.

    Internet bullying is a well known phenomena:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying

    You're attempting it, suggesting I go suck a dick, attempting to use misogyny to "put me in my place", etc., but you're not actually doing it. That's the part where you are impotent and obviously compensating for something.

    http://psychology.about.com/od/cindex/g/compensation.htm

    This is all obvious from your inability to stay on topic, to present your evidence and discuss the facts. You're attempting it with others, but giving me most of your attention for whatever reason. You're deflecting, attempting to put down and discredit those who are showing your arguments to be bunk and trying to puff up how awesome you are.

    It's sad.


    Viv, the very FIRST thing you ever posted to me was that Israel Finkelstein was cute and he could excavate you any time. I've always had a crush on Israel Finkelstein because he is very cute to me as well. So we have that in common, Israel Finkelstein penis fantasies. We both can fantasize on how gorgeous it must be.

    Interesting you'd be so blunt as to articulate I was suggesting you use your mouth to perform oral sex. Perhaps I was, but I'd forgotten all about analingus. Now, I wonder why you reminded me of that? Try and visualize that with the right lip stick.


    ANYWAY, I had decided to give you a little break since you're so clueless. I'm going to help you learn how to be a better poster. Here is just a tip for you. An example.


    If I make a simple statement like: Martin Anstey interprets the "70 weeks" prophecy to begin in 455 BCE in the 1st of Cyrus, and thus believes the Persian Period is 82 years too long.


    Then that's just a statement. There's nothing to rebut or comment on. I'm just being informative. If you confuse that as an assertion then you just sound stupid. You don't get the point. I'm not promoting anything, I'm just making a statement. I didn't even say I agreed with him. See?


    You have to figure out what is a simple statement and what is an assertion or an interpretation.


    Or if I say, Syncellus understood the pharaoh of the Exodus to be Amenhotep III. I make that statement to make a later point. But the statement itself is just a statement of fact. There is no real comment about that unless you believe that is not a true statement. But since it is, there is no point in commenting on it.


    So if something is self evident. Don't be stupid enough to contradict it simply because you need to be contrary.

    But let me share something else with you. I came upon hard times once and I ended up deciding to accept money for oral sex. I was living as a woman at the time. When you're having hard times and back then 25 cents would buy you a chicken pot pie, if you get $20 for oral sex, that's a lot of money! I found out quickly that lots of businessmen and young college students would pay for oral sex. They all smelled like they were fresh out of the shower. At any rate, soon the sexual encounters became addictive. I got more addicted to the sexual experiences than to the money. Pretty soon, that's all I wante to do was to experience a man's orgasm. Somehow, it relates to his "nakedness." I used to call it "soul gazing" because the moment they let go you can peer into their soul. They show you a very unique part of themselves. Every man has a different orgasm. Some men push it out and some men try to hold it back. It was very beautiful.

    Noting that, it wouldn't occur to me that sucking a man's penis was misogynic. It's intimate and wonderful and that's how I tend to express myself with handsome, straight men. I even pay for it. The fact that you see it as oppressive, suggests to me that you have some psychological problems and sexual hang-ups that I don't have.

    Anyway, it is clear now you're a bit of a psycho so I definitely will stay on point from now on. Sorry if I've offended you in the past.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    I know that this isn't my fight...but...today I happen to be in a bit of a pissed off mood and this seems like a good place to misplace my irritability.

    Lorenz: Noting that, it wouldn't occur to me that sucking a man's penis was misogynic. It's intimate and wonderful and that's how I tend to express myself with handsome, straight men. I even pay for it. The fact that you see it as oppressive, suggests to me that you have some psychological problems and sexual hang-ups that I don't have.

    You are full of crap. Your comment to Viv "Opening your mouth to speak has proven to be very dangerous. Maybe you should find something else to do with your mouth that is not so controversial, dear (smile) I'd be glad to give you a few suggestions.." was anything but "wonderful". Your comment WAS meant to be oppressive and demeaning.

    Don't sugarcoat it now and twist it around to seem like Viv is the one with a problem. The people reading this are not stupid and can see through your manipulations and crap. Get off the pot and be honest - you meant that statement to be derogatory towards Viv, and now you try to say that you think that sucking cock is a good thing. Well, yeah..if the shoe fits.



  • Viviane
    Viviane
    Viv, the very FIRST thing you ever posted to me was that Israel Finkelstein was cute and he could excavate you any time.

    In case you aren't aware, saying I find someone hot is not an invitation for another person to suggest I put dicks in my mouth rather than talk.

    There is no way weasel out your overt sexually inappropriate comments or misogyny. You've made it clear exactly what sort of person you are.

    Anyway, it is clear now you're a bit of a psycho so I definitely will stay on point from now on. Sorry if I've offended you in the past.

    You've nowhere near what it takes to offend me. Don't fret over it.

  • CalebInFloroda
    CalebInFloroda

    More of Caleb's reactions

    TO THE INSPIRED WORKS OF THE GREAT LORENZO

    Israel Finkelstein penis fantasies. We both can fantasize on how gorgeous it must be.

    And this has to do with using archaeology to best figure the date of the Exodus, how?

    Martin Anstey interprets the "70 weeks" prophecy to begin in 455 BCE in the 1st of Cyrus, and thus believes the Persian Period is 82 years too long.

    Are we still talking about penis fantasies in this sentence?

    I'm just being informative. If you confuse that as an assertion then you just sound stupid. You don't get the point. I'm not promoting anything, I'm just making a statement. I didn't even say I agreed with him.

    Are these the words of Lorenzo on the Bible or Donald Trump's on Bill Cosby?

    There is no real comment about that unless you believe that is not a true statement. But since it is, there is no point in commenting on it.

    This statement requires a pain killer to comprehend.

    Syncellus understood the pharaoh of the Exodus to be Amenhotep III. I make that statement to make a later point. But the statement itself is just a statement of fact...I came upon hard times once and I ended up deciding to accept money for oral sex. I was living as a woman at the time....25 cents would buy you a chicken pot pie, if you get $20 for oral sex, that's a lot of money!...Every man has a different orgasm....Anyway, it is clear now you're a bit of a psycho so I definitely will stay on point from now on. Sorry if I've offended you in the past.

    This statement is a lie! It's obvious from this post how much you enjoy going off point...

    And pot pies were never ever 25 cents!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit