RE: Could an aetheist do this?

RE: Could an aetheist do this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 11:38:39 AM)
It's a very long time since I was reading Egyptian mythology, but wasn't retrieving all of the bits* of his dad and then reassembling them Horus' first big quest, before he goes after Set? *(apart from his dick, which was lost: I think a crocodile ate it or something)

vincentML -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 11:42:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I was, in fact, referencing the all-seeing eye of Osiris, an Egyptian god. Except it's not the Eye of Horus. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr As far as pyramids being religious symbols ... maybe not entirely but, their kings were entombed beneath them; kind of like modern-day religious having headstones with crosses (or, just crosses, themselves) or Stars of David. I would have to do some research but, I'm pretty confident that the pyramid represented some importance regarding afterlife. While it is generally agreed that pyramids were burial monuments, there is continued disagreement on the particular theological principles that might have given rise to them. ~Wikipedia Some people think the shape represents the spreading rays of the sun, but that remains conjecture. K. Or maybe it was an engineering imperative???? Needing the incline to raise those massive stones??

Powergamz1 -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 11:43:18 AM)
The hawk god Horus had 2 eyes, one was given to Ra, the other might have manifested through Isis, the companion of Osiris. In any case, that level of Egyptology wasn't widely available in the West until long after the dollar bill was designed, and the eye of Horus looks nothing like the detailed human eye in the picture. As far as religious artifacts go, the question would seem to hinge on whether the designer meant it to represent Providence, or providence. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic according to some "mythology", Horus offered it to Osiris.

Kirata -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 11:51:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr It appears to be an Egyptian site. Actually it's a tourist agency in Lubbock, TX. K.

Kirata -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 11:53:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's a very long time since I was reading Egyptian mythology, but wasn't retrieving all of the bits* of his dad and then reassembling them Horus' first big quest, before he goes after Set? It was Isis who recovered Osiris and impregnated herself, giving birth to Horus. K.

Moonhead -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 11:57:58 AM)
That's a "no", then. Oh well.

Lucylastic -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 12:01:24 PM)
It also depends on which mythology you read...Horus offered up his eye to attempt give Osiris a whole body to be restored in the afterlife. Osiris obviously had very strong swimmers to have impregnated Isis:) Gotta love Mythology

Moonhead -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 12:08:57 PM)
Yep indeedy. There's all sorts of mad cool mythology out there.

Kirata -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 12:16:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Gotta love Mythology Well you might, in this case. It is a resurrection myth in which masculine evil is overcome by the feminine. K.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:04:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Gotta love Mythology Well you might, in this case. It is a resurrection myth in which masculine evil is overcome by the feminine. K. Isn't all religion just mythology that people choose to believe?

Kirata -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:04:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Or maybe it was an engineering imperative???? Needing the incline to raise those massive stones?? That constructon method is an archeological speculation. I doubt there's an engineer anywhere in the world who believes it. K.

cordeliasub -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:06:14 PM)
I should probably know this, but when was "In God We Trust" put on our money? I ask because I remember when a bunch of people where I attended church at the time got all up in arms about the possible removal of "under God" from the pledge. The spin on it in Christian news was of course panic-ridden. THEN I did a little reading at an agnostic's friend's suggestion. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that "under God" wasn't even IN the original pledge. No Christian pundit mentioned THAT little tidbit. That makes me think of one of my general pet peeves with Christian panic news. I remember a case where a student "was prhibitied from having his Bible." Sounds like discrimination, right? Well.....looking at the WHOLE story, this student was frequently belligerent with other students using it, AND the class in question was a MATH class, where he was not following directions - reading it while he was supposed to be doing math classwork. So....not quite discrimination, just a bratty kid disrespecting the teacher. Same with the poor kids who were not allowed to give the teachers donuts because they had verses on them....Said kids went into the teacher's lounge, which was prohibited. This group had also TWICE been hading out those little plastic fetuses to other students during school time, after being told they were not allowed to do so because of the disruption it caused. Again, not discrimination, but kids not being respectful. Now call me crazy, but if these kids are so Christian....why weren't they respecting their elders? But I digress. I don;t really care what is on money. The idea that this country is somehow "more holy" because the word God is or isn't on money is laughable. And because faith is a personal, internal thing anyway, it's not like taking the word off my 5 dollar bill is going to rip God out of my heart or something. In other words - I think if some of the more extreme religious people are really THAT concerned with the spiritual state of America, they might want to try loving their neighbors as themselves instead of having loud angry rallies and threatening poor scared pregnant girls.

Kaliko -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:09:50 PM)
"In God We Trust" first started to appear on U.S. money during the Civil War era, largely because of the nation's increasing religious sentiment. The motto was used for the first time on the copper two-cent piece in 1864. But it was not until 1956 that Congress passed a law declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States. The motto was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the $1 silver certificate." http://www.philadelphiafed.org/education/teachers/publications/symbols-on-american-money/ (I didn't know it is our national motto.)

njlauren -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:11:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I noted that the missionary position is not in Catholic teaching This appears to contradict your statement in Post 63 that "a major church" claims "that the sex act other than in the vagina in the missionary position is sinful." In another post, I mentioned where I got that, from a catholic website where a priest told a questioner to use the missionary position, and I assumed he was speaking of official church teaching..on the other hand, doing some research, while never official teaching, apparently from the middle ages on, Priests would tell people to use the missionary position, implying it was somehow holier (pretty easy to find, do a google on it0.

njlauren -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:14:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 It is actually a little more nuanced than that. If anyone who is knowledgeable about Catholicism should come along, I'm sure they'll be able to cite the right document. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren <SNIP> On the other hand, the no sex except in the vagina is teaching, pure and simply, and everything else is banned. It isn't all that nuanced, according to Catholic teaching, the exact words are the sex act must be 'open to life', which can only mean one thing, that it has to be an act that ultimately can result in the creation of a child. NFP uses a woman's fertility cycles to avoid getting pregnant, but because it uses the 'natural' mechanism, there is a shot at getting pregnant..which oral, anal and any kind of manual getting off doesn't do.

Kirata -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:18:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Isn't all religion just mythology that people choose to believe? I can give you two answers to that question. And while I can make a case for both of them, I doubt it would be worth arguing over. So please just take them as me responding to your query as I see things. Firstly, myths are symbolic. Their purpose is to convey a truth, not to be believed as truth. Secondly, theology is to religion as theory is to practice. Your religion is what you practice, not what you believe. K.

njlauren -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 You are making statements that are patently untrue. The person who started the topic has directly told you they were talking about procreation, I've directly told I was talking about procreation, anyone who wants to scroll up can see that the topic is sex for procreation vs. sex for pleasure. If you were in the least bit interested in discussing that topic, why haven't you bothered to look in the actual Catholic document that is so well known that even atheists know it off the top of their heads, instead of continuing this pattern of misrepresenting Catholicism, and not backing it up with sources? quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You must be using a different browser, mine doesn't show a single word anything like 'missionary position' in anything I wrote on post 90. You're playing head games at this point. You waded into a discussion about the missionary position and offered the encyclicals as potential sources about sex teachings. Now you're engaging in Clintonesque microparsing to wriggle away. Clever but not an invitation to take you seriously. quote: not in the Catechisms taught to children in CCD. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the flimsy books kids get in CCD (which I think is called RE now). It's a massive, official compendium of Catholic beliefs. Powegamz is correct, I used the term missionary position, he didn't.....and I thought that was part of the official teaching, it isn't...one of the things you have to be careful about with church teaching is that there is the official dogma, and then there is what often is passed out there as dogma by priests or by common myth. Talk to older Catholics, and they will tell you that priests often told couples beyond child reading age that they shouldn't have sex any more.......it was until the 1970's encyclical on sex in marriage that the church acknowledged the role of sex in maintaining a strong marriage, and said document also acknowledged that the church had often had an almost psychotic view of sex, often negative. It was never official teaching, but then again, neither was the earth centered solar system.

njlauren -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You are making statements that are patently untrue. Examples? quote: The person who started the topic has directly told you they were talking about procreation, I've directly told I was talking about procreation, anyone who wants to scroll up can see that the topic is sex for procreation vs. sex for pleasure. Within the broader topic of procreation, Lauren made a very specific claim: The Catholic Church forbids sex in any form but the missionary position. She caught my attention, since I'd never heard that claim before. As it happens, I've noticed lately a tendency of some posters to claim that the Catholic Church teaches x, y, or z but then to fail to back up the claim. And, yes, I wondered if this was another such instance. Hence my questions about sources. Lauren seemed to disown her claim in Post 98. What point you were trying to make by bringing up the encyclicals remains unclear to me. quote: If you were in the least bit interested in discussing that topic, why haven't you bothered to look in the actual Catholic document that is so well known that even atheists know it off the top of their heads, instead of continuing this pattern of misrepresenting Catholicism, and not backing it up with sources? I wasn't interested in the broader topic of contraception, because the church's teaching (which long predates Humanae Vitae) is ancient news for me. What intrigued me was the new twist that the church had forbidden anything but the missionary position, so that's what I zeroed in on. How am I misrepresenting Catholicism? I would also suggest you do some research, because while the missionary position was not church teaching, which was my mistake from something I had read, it also apparently was something that was commonly told to people, even if not teaching. One of the reasons encyclicals are written is to explain teaching, when they feel that people, including priests, are confused or don't know what it is..it is why the encyclical on sex in marriage was done in the 70's, because there was a lot of misinformation out there...one of the reasons you will hear people, Catholic and not, saying things are teaching that aren't is because they have been told it was teaching, often by clergy.......again, it is why encyclicals are other there.

Kaliko -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:24:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 It is actually a little more nuanced than that. If anyone who is knowledgeable about Catholicism should come along, I'm sure they'll be able to cite the right document. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren <SNIP> On the other hand, the no sex except in the vagina is teaching, pure and simply, and everything else is banned. It isn't all that nuanced, according to Catholic teaching, the exact words are the sex act must be 'open to life', which can only mean one thing, that it has to be an act that ultimately can result in the creation of a child. NFP uses a woman's fertility cycles to avoid getting pregnant, but because it uses the 'natural' mechanism, there is a shot at getting pregnant..which oral, anal and any kind of manual getting off doesn't do. From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "A couple need not desire or seek to have a child in each and every act of intercourse. And it is not wrong for couples to have intercourse even when they know the wife is naturally infertile, as discussed below. But they should never act to suppress or curtail the life-giving power given by God that is an integral part of what they pledged to each other in their marriage vows. This is what the Church means by saying that every act of intercourse must remain open to life and that contraception is objectively immoral." My take on all of this, including what I posted previously, is that the Catholic church doesn't actually forbid sex acts other than intercourse, though some people may choose to interpret things that way, but when the big moment happens, he better be depositing his gift of life directly inside her vagina.

njlauren -> RE: Could an aetheist do this? (6/2/2013 1:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub Not Catholic here, Baptist (and we are supposed to be the worst of the worst depending on who you talk to) Our pastor did a month long study of Song of Solomon extolling the beauty of sex. He was very open, and I remember him using that verse about the marriage bed being undefiled and saying that if what is done in that bed is pleasing to both people then God smiles on it. He even said "even if that means the couple wants to swing from chandeliers and wear handcuffs." Of course, I was about 21 and not married yet and had never even heard of BDSM or anything, but I remember a 50 something year old lady sitting in the back with her husband shouting "AMEN!" And before anyone asks, no, he did NOT address homosexuality at all. That wasn't the point of the sermon series, and the couple in Song of Solomon are a man and woman, so no...it was neither pro nor anti gay...it was a study of Song of Solomon. So no....not all religious people and churches are uptight about sex,,,even kinky sex. Intelligent people are capable of NOT generalizing. And I'm still looking for a crucifix on that dollar bill. nope, not all are, but I think you also have to look at the broader picture to understand that religion has had a lot of trouble with sex and sexuality. Put it this way, there are Catholic priests, some of whom I have become friends with, who basically outright tell their flock that the vatican is full of a bunch of old farts who don't have a clue what sex is, how powerful it is, it is all theoretical to them, and that their stance on birth control and on non vaginal sex is not scripture, but rather was based in a very, very negative view of sex passed down through the centuries of the church, going back to church fathers like Jerome and also based in neo platonic ideals of ascetism and stoicism.......and what they tell their married couples is if it furthers their love for each other, go for it, and that he doubted God cared if they used birth control...... Saying all religion or all religious are prudish or backwards is going to fail, as most 'all' statements do.....but that doesn't mean that religions role with sex has been a a positive one, much of what you are seeing is of recent origin, in part because the people in the churches have come to their own understanding.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875