Whip My Roman Sex Gods: "Valentine's Day", Goat Blood and the Sex Lottery

[PostmodernProph]

yeah dood, since I was a teenager, which was before dirt was invented.

well if you think dirt was invented you aren't that old....now me, I'm old.....God and I argued about what color grass should be.....he wanted green......

 

[Pogo]

the point is, giving people something else to celebrate instead of a pagan ritual is not "christianization"......it reminds me of liberals who think we need to take evergreens and santa claus out of the class room because its a promotion of Christianity.....

Evergreens and Santa have nothing to do with Christianism. Nor have I ever heard of anyone, politically minded or not, suggesting removing them for that or any other reason.

lol.....when the public schools ban the mention of Christmas did you think there were nativity scenes lying around that had to be removed?......they are removing Christmas trees and fat red elves and wrapped presents.....

Bullshit.

I will agree that they have nothing to do with Christendom.....in fact, that was my point....its just that liberals, being liberals, aren't bright enough to realize that......

This is not a political topic. Thanks for playin' and better luck next time.

 

[PostmodernProph]

you'll eventually quote something I wrote there anyway.

sweet!.....are you the guy who originally claimed Horus was born of a virgin, just like Jesus?.......everybody quotes you, you're famous.....dumber than ****, but famous.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Bullshit.
.

omigorsh, may I quote you on that?....I've always wanted to win an argument and now someone has finally shown me how!.......

 

[Pogo]

you'll eventually quote something I wrote there anyway.

sweet!.....are you the guy who originally claimed Horus was born of a virgin, just like Jesus?.......everybody quotes you, you're famous.....dumber than ****, but famous.....

Excuse me but you've presented absolutely nothing in this thread beyond "Is not!" and "Luburruls!"

Poster please. Gainsayers are a dime a dozen with eight cents change.

 

[Ringel05]

Horus, Osiris et al become "Jesus".

And this is provable...... how?

Oh yeah, some cultural anthropologist decided to randomly connect non-existant dots (perceived correlations) in a vain attempt at an unprovable postulation....... And you take this as gospel..... Thought you were smarter than that. Proof that preconceptions/biases/belief mechanisms affect even the highly educated.

 

[Pogo]

Horus, Osiris et al become "Jesus".

And this is provable...... how?

Oh yeah, some cultural anthropologist decided to randomly connect non-existant dots (perceived correlations) in a vain attempt at an unprovable postulation....... And you take this as gospel..... Thought you were smarter than that. Proof that preconceptions/biases/belief mechanisms affect even the highly educated.

"Provable"??

Again, this is the Religion forum... "proof" is not an ingredient in this particular pudding any more than "liburruls" is. This particular cherrypicked detail was a minor aspect of the point of one religion co-opting the existing practices of a previous, based on parallels exhibited by historical empirical observation.

There's no reason to get defensive; 'proof' is neither possible nor expected in these matters. That's why we call it "faith". Again, this is not the politics forum; we're not quoting some politician here. There is no "film at 11". Still, certain practices, certain aspects of gods, certain mystic philosophies, obviously have their forebears to which they owe a great creative debt, and the family resemblance is obvious... the evolution of Lupercalia and related fertility rites into the mythical "St. Valentine" being the example here. The association of sex and fertility is the constant; the names of the characters and the character of the characters is the only thing changed, but the origin is common to both/all.

None of this involves Osiris or Horus. That was a poster trying to deflect an inconvenience.

What I present in these threads is a window to those ancient historical roots. The same window that's had heavy curtains pulled over it, even on pain of torture and death, by the same institution that co-opted them in an effort to bury them. Whether that correlation is accepted or not is ultimately up to the reader. Truth will out, but only if allowed to breathe.

 

[Ringel05]

Horus, Osiris et al become "Jesus".

And this is provable...... how?

Oh yeah, some cultural anthropologist decided to randomly connect non-existant dots (perceived correlations) in a vain attempt at an unprovable postulation....... And you take this as gospel..... Thought you were smarter than that. Proof that preconceptions/biases/belief mechanisms affect even the highly educated.

"Provable"??

Again, this is the Religion forum... "proof" is not an ingredient in this particular pudding any more than "liburruls" is. This particular cherrypicked detail was a minor aspect of the point of one religion co-opting the existing practices of a previous, based on parallels exhibited by historical empirical observation.

There's no reason to get defensive; 'proof' is neither possible nor expected in these matters. That's why we call it "faith". Again, this is not the politics forum; we're not quoting some politician here. There is no "film at 11". Still, certain practices, certain aspects of gods, certain mystic philosophies, obviously have their forebears to which they owe a great creative debt, and the family resemblance is obvious. The evolution of Lupercalia and related fertility rites into the mythical "St. Valentine" being the example here. The association of sex and fertility is the constant; the names of the characters and the character of the characters is the only thing changed, but the origin is common to both/all.

What I present in these threads is a window to those ancient historical roots. The same window that's had heavy curtains pulled over it, even on pain of torture and death, by the same institution that co-opted them. Whether that correlation is accepted or not is ultimately up to the reader. Truth will out, but only if allowed to breathe.

I'm not getting defensive, just it appeared you were taking the "Church of the Naturalist" approach that some here are bowing in worship to, was calling you out on it. As for your claim that "the names of the characters and the character of the characters is the only thing changed, but the origin is common to both/all." is either a product of faith or hubris which is painfully evident in this sub-forum on both sides.
Obviously there are those who cannot separate politics from any and every aspect of their lives, a brief perusal of this board confirms that.....

 

[Pogo]

And this is provable...... how?

Oh yeah, some cultural anthropologist decided to randomly connect non-existant dots (perceived correlations) in a vain attempt at an unprovable postulation....... And you take this as gospel..... Thought you were smarter than that. Proof that preconceptions/biases/belief mechanisms affect even the highly educated.

"Provable"??

Again, this is the Religion forum... "proof" is not an ingredient in this particular pudding any more than "liburruls" is. This particular cherrypicked detail was a minor aspect of the point of one religion co-opting the existing practices of a previous, based on parallels exhibited by historical empirical observation.

There's no reason to get defensive; 'proof' is neither possible nor expected in these matters. That's why we call it "faith". Again, this is not the politics forum; we're not quoting some politician here. There is no "film at 11". Still, certain practices, certain aspects of gods, certain mystic philosophies, obviously have their forebears to which they owe a great creative debt, and the family resemblance is obvious. The evolution of Lupercalia and related fertility rites into the mythical "St. Valentine" being the example here. The association of sex and fertility is the constant; the names of the characters and the character of the characters is the only thing changed, but the origin is common to both/all.

What I present in these threads is a window to those ancient historical roots. The same window that's had heavy curtains pulled over it, even on pain of torture and death, by the same institution that co-opted them. Whether that correlation is accepted or not is ultimately up to the reader. Truth will out, but only if allowed to breathe.

I'm not getting defensive, just it appeared you were taking the "Church of the Naturalist" approach that some here are bowing in worship to, was calling you out on it. As for your claim that "the names of the characters and the character of the characters is the only thing changed, but the origin is common to both/all." is either a product of faith or hubris which is painfully evident in this sub-forum on both sides.
Obviously there are those who cannot separate politics from any and every aspect of their lives, a brief perusal of this board confirms that.....

Sorry, I don't have any idea what the "church of the naturalist" is...

I relate these things from decades of study in anthropology, mythology and religion. And these last couple of days I do it from memory as I'm away from home and my library -- which I trust a wee bit more than Wiki.

 

[Ringel05]

"Provable"??

Again, this is the Religion forum... "proof" is not an ingredient in this particular pudding any more than "liburruls" is. This particular cherrypicked detail was a minor aspect of the point of one religion co-opting the existing practices of a previous, based on parallels exhibited by historical empirical observation.

There's no reason to get defensive; 'proof' is neither possible nor expected in these matters. That's why we call it "faith". Again, this is not the politics forum; we're not quoting some politician here. There is no "film at 11". Still, certain practices, certain aspects of gods, certain mystic philosophies, obviously have their forebears to which they owe a great creative debt, and the family resemblance is obvious. The evolution of Lupercalia and related fertility rites into the mythical "St. Valentine" being the example here. The association of sex and fertility is the constant; the names of the characters and the character of the characters is the only thing changed, but the origin is common to both/all.

What I present in these threads is a window to those ancient historical roots. The same window that's had heavy curtains pulled over it, even on pain of torture and death, by the same institution that co-opted them. Whether that correlation is accepted or not is ultimately up to the reader. Truth will out, but only if allowed to breathe.

I'm not getting defensive, just it appeared you were taking the "Church of the Naturalist" approach that some here are bowing in worship to, was calling you out on it. As for your claim that "the names of the characters and the character of the characters is the only thing changed, but the origin is common to both/all." is either a product of faith or hubris which is painfully evident in this sub-forum on both sides.
Obviously there are those who cannot separate politics from any and every aspect of their lives, a brief perusal of this board confirms that.....

Sorry, I don't have any idea what the "church of the naturalist" is...

I relate these things from decades of study in anthropology, mythology and religion. And these last couple of days I do it from memory as I'm away from home and my library -- which I trust a wee bit more than Wiki.

Wiki is not accepted as a legitimate research site by most accredited universities so I take Wiki with a block of salt. The Church of the Naturalist is my designation for those who practice rabid secular naturalism.
I'm familiar with the claim that you made but also understand it's a postulation put forth by some archeologists based on what appears to be correlative evidence. There is no empirical evidence making it nothing more than pure speculation, believing it is true classifies said belief as faith based, basically along the same vein as the Ancient Aliens "scientists" (tongue in cheek). Unless we develop time travel we will never be able to provide empirical evidence.

 

[PostmodernProph]

you'll eventually quote something I wrote there anyway.

sweet!.....are you the guy who originally claimed Horus was born of a virgin, just like Jesus?.......everybody quotes you, you're famous.....dumber than ****, but famous.....

Excuse me but you've presented absolutely nothing in this thread beyond "Is not!" and "Luburruls!"

Poster please. Gainsayers are a dime a dozen with eight cents change.

well, if you are stupid enough to try, give me a parallel between Horus and Jesus.....I will be glad to prove you are wrong.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

based on parallels exhibited by historical empirical observation.

??...not at all....rather, based on pure fabrication and misrepresentation of the actual historical observation of the ancient mythology.....such as pretending Horus' mother, the wife of the deceased Osiris was involved in a "virgin" birth.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

are these the parallels, which if I search Google, I will find things you've "authored"?.....

Jesus & Horus - The Zeitgeist Parallels

 

[PostmodernProph]

In reality, the claim that Horus was born in a cave of a virgin on December 25 and placed in a manger is based on an interpretation of a document dating from 1000 AD describing an Egyptian celebration in which on the spring equinox a golden "sun" was carried out of its shrine by virgin priestesses and presented to celebrate the awakening of the sun after its winter in the underworld, which it had entered at the winter solstice.......
Was Horus Born on December 25th of a Virgin? | Sun God of Egypt

 

[PostmodernProph]

28.Both were crucified.
29.Both were crucified next to two thieves.
30.Both were buried in a tomb.
31.Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days).
32.Both had their resurrection announced by women.

except...
Legends of the Gods, The Egyptian Texts: Introduction: Summary: VIII. The Legend of the Death and Resurrection of Horus, and Other Magical Texts

Horus wasn't crucified, he was stung by a scorpion.....there weren't any thieves......he wasn't buried.....he never made it to hell, as he was supposedly still on the boat traveling to the underworld when the gods heard Isis' pleas and sent him back.......

other than that, you still have the irritating discrepancies that Jesus died to save the world from the consequences of disobedience, while Horus died because Set wanted to bang his mother.....and while the resurrection of Jesus gave his followers eternal life in heaven, Horus' resurrection gave his followers a poem they could recite if their kids were bitten by a snake and maybe it would help them survive.....

apart from all that and a handful of other discrepancies, yeah.....same same....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'm curious, Pogo....do you have any parallels that would stand up to scrutiny?.......

 

[Pogo]

I'm not getting defensive, just it appeared you were taking the "Church of the Naturalist" approach that some here are bowing in worship to, was calling you out on it. As for your claim that "the names of the characters and the character of the characters is the only thing changed, but the origin is common to both/all." is either a product of faith or hubris which is painfully evident in this sub-forum on both sides.
Obviously there are those who cannot separate politics from any and every aspect of their lives, a brief perusal of this board confirms that.....

Sorry, I don't have any idea what the "church of the naturalist" is...

I relate these things from decades of study in anthropology, mythology and religion. And these last couple of days I do it from memory as I'm away from home and my library -- which I trust a wee bit more than Wiki.

Wiki is not accepted as a legitimate research site by most accredited universities so I take Wiki with a block of salt. The Church of the Naturalist is my designation for those who practice rabid secular naturalism.
I'm familiar with the claim that you made but also understand it's a postulation put forth by some archeologists based on what appears to be correlative evidence. There is no empirical evidence making it nothing more than pure speculation, believing it is true classifies said belief as faith based, basically along the same vein as the Ancient Aliens "scientists" (tongue in cheek). Unless we develop time travel we will never be able to provide empirical evidence.

I think we're saying the same thing then. Although I have to add, never heard of "secular naturalism" either. Heard of "secular humanism" but for me this is simply ancient history, but I doubt such terms had been invented when I started self-educating which was somewhere around the Johnson Administration. And you know he was right after Lincoln, so that's a long time ago

 

[Pogo]

28.Both were crucified.
29.Both were crucified next to two thieves.
30.Both were buried in a tomb.
31.Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days).
32.Both had their resurrection announced by women.

except...
Legends of the Gods, The Egyptian Texts: Introduction: Summary: VIII. The Legend of the Death and Resurrection of Horus, and Other Magical Texts

Horus wasn't crucified, he was stung by a scorpion.....there weren't any thieves......he wasn't buried.....he never made it to hell, as he was supposedly still on the boat traveling to the underworld when the gods heard Isis' pleas and sent him back.......

other than that, you still have the irritating discrepancies that Jesus died to save the world from the consequences of disobedience, while Horus died because Set wanted to bang his mother.....and while the resurrection of Jesus gave his followers eternal life in heaven, Horus' resurrection gave his followers a poem they could recite if their kids were bitten by a snake and maybe it would help them survive.....

apart from all that and a handful of other discrepancies, yeah.....same same....

So you got all hung up on Horus and went oblivious to the larger point, which is the general concept of god-as-sacrifice... which is itself an insignificant piece of the main point, which is the new religion co-opting the old. Guess that was inconvenient.

It's cute that you like to bring your own strawmen to play with. Nobody brought up crucifixion and your quote is one you brought in yourself. Most of us keep these internal ruminations in our own head until we come up with a conclusion -- THEN we post. But you can't argue against a point nobody made.

 

[Pogo]

sweet!.....are you the guy who originally claimed Horus was born of a virgin, just like Jesus?.......everybody quotes you, you're famous.....dumber than ****, but famous.....

Excuse me but you've presented absolutely nothing in this thread beyond "Is not!" and "Luburruls!"

Poster please. Gainsayers are a dime a dozen with eight cents change.

well, if you are stupid enough to try, give me a parallel between Horus and Jesus.....I will be glad to prove you are wrong.....

And what would be the point?

 

[Capstone]

I'm getting a 4 foot blow up sex teddy bear or my old lady.

I sure hope there's a typo in this one.

Freudian typos are the worst.