youngalexander

I came into this debate after you asked about location as a 'meaningful question', stated that you found Plutarch's Isis and Osiris understandable and asked
That was my brief. I am not here to argue anyone's brief but mine.

I have already shown that with respect to Isis & Osiris that at least one pagan Empedocles (according to Plutarch) placed their activities - everywhere. Which logically means nowhere specific.

Subsequent to your response I pointed out that Section12 had a few non location specific statements. Furthermore, that these seemed to conflict with subsequent expositions of Osiris' characteristics.

Let us return to Section12. GDon, this goes towards explaining why I have difficulty understanding theists.
What is one to make of this? Ah, but our watchword is 'location'. OK, so where is this located? I would hazard - a lunar eclipse. Did I guess right? There is no way of telling. Surely some bright eyed theist may come along and exclaim what a dalt I am, and it really means...

That is the sort of thing that makes us atheists scratch our heads. WTF?

Where?
Where? Is this the same as previous? Cronus, heaven, aer, earth - whatever!

Yet Plutarch does not have these problems. Why, because he is not a literalist, looking for locations. How do I know this? Look at Section 11:
So he does.

GakuseiDon

Well, no it isn't. The question of location is (1) whether we can place where the author intended the action to take place, (2) whether this supports Doherty's "unseen spiritual realm".

Plutarch writes:

Empedocles says also that the demigods must pay the penalty for the sins that they commit and the duties that they neglect:

Might of the Heavens chases them forth to the realm of the Ocean;
Ocean spews them out on the soil of the Earth, and Earth drives them
Straight to the rays of the tireless Sun, who consigns them to Heaven's
Whirlings; thus one from another receives them, but ever with loathing;

From what I've read, Empedocles considered himself to have been a "daemon", or demigod. Demigods and heroes were people who became daemons at some stage. Here he is saying that they are punished by being passed from one element to another. When he says "ocean", "earth" and "sun", he appears to actually mean that. Certainly there is nothing there to support an "unseen spiritual realm".

And yet, Plutarch tells us what it means. Check directly above it, and Plutarch provides the context (my emphasis):

Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related... Nor, again, do they believe that the sun rises as a new-born babe from the lotus, but they portray the rising of the sun in this manner to indicate allegorically the enkindling of the sun from the waters. So also Ochus, the most cruel and terrible of the Persian kings, who put many to death and finally slaughtered the Apis and ate him for dinner in the company of his friends, the Egyptians called the "Sword"; and they call him by that name even to this day in their list of kings.57 But manifestly they p31do not mean to apply this name to his actual being; they but liken the stubbornness and wickedness in his character to an instrument of murder. If, then, you listen to the stories about the gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically

I think that you will agree that Plutarch says that the Egyptians themselves didn't take the stories literally. The names were given to people based on their character -- someone was called "Sword" because of his character.

Plutarch ends that section by continuing on about Osiris -- whom he undoubtedly places on earth:

One of the first acts related of Osiris in his reign was to deliver the Egyptians from their destitute and brutish manner of living.68 This he did by showing them the fruits of cultivation, by giving them laws, and by teaching them to honour the gods. bLater he travelled over the whole earth civilizing it...

As I've said before, the locations for the myths were: either on earth, or they didn't happen at all (e.g. allegorical or poetic). There is nothing to support Doherty's view that the myths of the gods were supposed to have taken place in an "unseen spiritual realm", AFAICS.

mountainman

Well there is the record of Julian in his
work The Caesars where he depicts a
"Saturnalia Party" beneath the orb of the
moon, yet accessible to men.

In which century are you seeking such citations?

GakuseiDon

Julian may be a bit late since he lived after Neoplatonism came in vogue, but I'd be interested in pursuing it even so. But a satirical story perhaps isn't that useful -- do you have any information on how Julian actually viewed the universe?

jakejonesiv

Yep

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

In the Zodiak, of course.

Jake Jones IV

mountainman

Apart from the source cited, only the following sources (online):

1) Oration to the Sovereign Sun
2) Oration upon the Mother of the Gods
3) Julian's Obituary by Ammianus Marcellinus

There is a 3 volume Loeb series on Julian also, and probably many
recent works to be considered.

Julian speaks of the "divine" Iamblichus, who respresented the neo-
pythagorean lineage in the fourth century. This lineage can be tracked
directly back to the second and third centuries, possibly the first.

Julian reveres the philosophy and actions of Marcus Aurelius, who writes
in his meditations as a Stoic philosopher, and who is elevated above all
other emperors in the eyes of Julian (and others) for his philosophy and
writings.

rlogan

The only three specific names you put here have unanimously rejected exactly what you accuse them of above.

My specific response to you was that my eyes "glaze over" when Doherty talks about this garbage and I find any attempts to put religious gibberish into an analytical framework unproductve.

Both Vork and Toto have expressly disavowed it as well so the only question here is your relentless obsession with pretending any of us are these straw men you seem to need so badly.

Doherty makes a lot of sense in talking about early Christianity having separate themes merging into one as opposed to a single theme branching off to many; how the epistles differ from the Gospel Jesus and so forth.

The other posters here "get it".

Join the party.

jgibson000

We do? Once again, do you have some mind reading capacity we should be aware of? Or do you just like to pretend you know things you don't know?

Jeffrey Gibson

rlogan

You are confused about what I mean by "getting it". The "it" refers to what I have posted on the matter which has me not caring about "where" the location of mystical gibberish occurs.

I'm thinking you misunderstood and thought I was saying that everyone should agree with Doherty on the points that I am in substantial agreement with, in contrast to the mumbo-jumbo I don't give a shit about.