Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 03-21-2013, 07:00 PM

Gday Robert,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

The official Catholic dogma is not the only use of immaculate conception, which is also popularly understood to refer to the insemination of Mary by God. Quibbles about whether Christians actually believe that the conception of Christ was immaculate are a side issue.

Popularly understood only by those who are mistaken.

The Immaculate Conception does not refer to Mary conceiving Jesus, even if many people incorrectly think it does.

The Immaculate Conception is a recent dogma that refers to Mary being conceived (by Anne IIRC) without original sin.

Many people confuse the two, including many Catholics, AcharyaS, and yourself.

Kapyong

Robert Tulip · 03-21-2013, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

whether Robert has any evidence from Egyptian sources that back up his claim that Isis was always viewed as a perpetual virgin. Jeffrey

I already responded on this. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. See debate link below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

this has been the subject of extensive debate.

More directly, see http://freethoughtnation.com/contrib...in-mother.html

Robert Tulip · 03-21-2013, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

people confuse the two

But Kapyong, we are talking about farcical and baleful myths.

I am well aware of catholic dogma, I just do not take it seriously. The fact that the immaculate conception of Horus is not the same as the Catholic dogma of Mary as the fourth person of the trinity is a side issue. Catholics have no monopoly on these terms.

The core error in the wiki was its assertion that Egyptians did not consider Isis as a perpetual virgin, and its failure to reflect that Isis and Horus provide the type upon which the Christian Madonna and Child iconography is based.

All this immaculate conception rubbish is purely and entirely mythical, and aims to support the old misogynistic catholic identity drawn between sin and sex. It is contemptible.

outhouse · 03-21-2013, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

All this immaculate conception rubbish is purely and entirely mythical, and aims to support the old misogynistic catholic identity drawn between sin and sex. It is contemptible.

While this is correct.

When it comes to Isis and Horus, there is difference between influence and foundation.

To date no credible argument has been made for a foundation to the mythology in the NT. No scholar denies influence.

Zwaarddijk · 03-22-2013, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

whether Robert has any evidence from Egyptian sources that back up his claim that Isis was always viewed as a perpetual virgin. Jeffrey

I already responded on this. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. See debate link below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

this has been the subject of extensive debate.

More directly, see http://freethoughtnation.com/contrib...in-mother.html

How appropriate to refer to a forum where dissent is punished by banning.

Iskander · 03-22-2013, 01:26 AM

Extracted from, Egypt and western Asia in antiquity Ferdinand Justi, ph. d.

Quote:

Osiris and Isis engendered in a mysterious way the birth of their child Horus.

Typhon puts to death Osiris, having induced him by deceit to lie in a coffer, which he then shut and threw into the Nile. The coffer floats down the Nile, and on the third day is found by Isis and concealed.

While she is with her son Horus at Butu, Typhon discovers the dead body, cuts it into fourteen pieces, which he casts about in different parts of the country. The severed members are the branches of the Nile in the Delta. The place when- the Delta begins is called the ' dividing of Osiris ' (Kerk-asar) ; and on the extreme western and eastern months of the Nile lie the towns of the right and of the left Leg, Hauar-ament on the Canopic branch, and Ilauar (Avaris) on the Pelusian. Isis builds a tomb lor each member. Osiris, abiding in the underworld, joins himself after the burial to Horus, in order to aid him in the conflict with Typhon.

The meaning of this myth is obvious. Osiris, originally a God of the Dead, under the influence of the religion of Heliopolis becomes the sun, which every evening dies beneath the power of Typhon, the night. Commiserated by Isis, he wakes every morning as Horus, who, as avenger of his father, vanquishes the darkness.

The contest takes place in the twilight hidden from the eyes of men, who behold only the result of the victory,—the rising of the new sun

Zwaarddijk · 03-22-2013, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

That is a flatly ridiculous comment. The Torah is chock full of allegory, such as the snake in the garden as Satan, the snake on the pole as a Gnostic image of time, the six days of creation as a longer period, a day as a millennium in Psalm 90.

Recall that Augustine called Christians who fail to see obvious allegory idiotic.

What relevance does what Augustine thought about the Torah's content have on whether it was intended as allegory or not? Keep in mind, neither me or spin are catholics, we don't consider Augustine an authority on what the bible *actually* means. Do you seriously think someone had handed down a genuine tradition all the way from the authors of the Torah that they indeed had intended for it to be understood allegorically?

Given the wide variety of beliefs around the world, it would not be surprising if the authors of the Torah believed in the literal meaning of the narratives we have inherited from them. Of course later generations have considered them allegories - and there's been more than a handful very different allegorical interpretations of it. Maybe Augustine had in his hands a written statement from the Jahvist and Elohist as to the actual intended meaning of Genesis 1-3?

Iskander · 03-22-2013, 07:02 AM

Spin, you should not use this forum to fight your private battles and derail this thread.

I formally and respectfully request of the administration of this forum to implement the fair management we all expect.
We should all be equal under the law

spin · 03-22-2013, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

freethinkadouche

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It always amuses me when one shows oneself such a dullard to think they can score intellectual points by such novel games with names. This gets a well-earned doh!

Are you confirming that Dave31 … thought I was a sockpuppet for Zwaarddijk and banned me from the Freethought Nation forum? … will he freely reinstate my membership to that forum?

What Napoleonic arrogance! Spin calls me a “dullard” for doing barely a tiny fraction of what he himself does! Spin asserted in this thread that Dave31 is freethinkaluva, so his vaginal irrigation comments are obviously directed at Dave. After seeing the intense rude idiocy of Spin's comments here, it is hardly surprising spin was not given carte blanche to continue his obnoxious behaviour at Acharya’s own website. No one mistook him for Z.

Will you or will you not explicitly confirm that Dave31 is freethinkaluvva?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Since spin says that playing with names is the mark of a dullard, how does he explain his vaginal irrigation play on name?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

when the Hebrew bible is "allegorical", it plainly lets you know full well that it is being allegorical

That is a flatly ridiculous comment. The Torah is chock full of allegory, such as the snake in the garden as Satan, the snake on the pole as a Gnostic image of time, the six days of creation as a longer period, a day as a millennium in Psalm 90.

Umm, perhaps a talking snake is not in your face. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Recall that Augustine called Christians who fail to see obvious allegory idiotic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ”Saint Augustine of Hippo”

It is too disgraceful [to] ... hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters... with the book of Genesis, I have... set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You can think [the four living creatures are allegory for the stars Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut] … provide that trail of epistemology that requires us to take your claims seriously

This claim is obvious except to the ignorant, the obtuse, the hard of heart and the blind. Here is the trail. Aldebaran is the eye of the bull. Regulus is the heart of the lion. Antares is the heart of the scorpion or eagle. Fomalhaut is the brightest star near the man. These four bright stars on the path of the sun are right angles apart. We therefore see the four living creatures, the bull, lion, eagle and man, as described in Ezekiel and Revelation, as the symbols of the four evangelists in the mandorla. Christ in Majesty, surrounded by the four living creatures is stellar allegory. You have to be either brainwashed by dogma or sublimely ignorant not to be able to see this.

You were crapping on about Ezekiel and now you show me symbols given to the four gospels. The discussion regarded your connection of stars to the imagery from Ezekiel, when the Ezekiel material is dependent on a long string of fore-runners, such as the sphinx, which features human head, eagle wings and lion body, at least the Naxian sphinx. The creatures that flanked gates in Mesopotamia had heads of humans, wings of eagles and bodies of bulls. Multi-specied creatures were the norm for the times prior to the writing of Ezekiel. Many cylinder seals from Assyria and Babylon featured such combinations. You might be able to make a case that somewhere in the ancestry of the combination of the figures there was astrological content, but you have to be clairvoyant to claim that Ezekiel had an astrological intent behind his four-fold creatures. Your assertion here is a flight of fancy, which has no evidence behind it other than mere appearance. You're off in la-la-land as usual.

Iskander · 03-22-2013, 08:46 AM

Quote:

The ' Book of the Dead,' which contains the ' Negative Confession' of the defunct before the tribunal of Osiris. The code of morals therein revealed includes, not only the Decalogue, but many rules governing good feeling and gentlemanly breeding.

The staging of Hades is represented in a similar manner among other nations ; and as opinions concerning the underworld are often derived from burial regulations, the ease with which religious ideas are interchanged renders the influence exercised by Egyptian conceptions as natural as it is indisputable. The Greeks borrowed directly from the Egyptians, as they themselves acknowledged. Diodorus, in describing the burial of Apis, draws attention to this matter... likewise in the Old Testament, in ''the writing of Hezekiah " (Isaiah xxxviii. 10; Job xvi. 16. The Assyrians, too, imagined that before "the land where; man seeth naught" lies a slimy stream, the Acheron

EGYPT AND WESTERN ASIA IN ANTIQUITY
FERDINAND JUSTI, PH. D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2013, 07:02 AM	#728
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Spin, you should not use this forum to fight your private battles and derail this thread. I formally and respectfully request of the administration of this forum to implement the fair management we all expect. We should all be equal under the law

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.