Ya gotta feel bad for Serket. Not only does she have to go through eternity with a scorpion on her head, but on the scale of Egyptian gods, she's beneath Neith.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her:
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. Go thou unto Elizabeth and, doing lunch with her, be sure and eat the lettuce. and the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 10:07:01 ago (+1/-0)
You may have taken a little creative freedom with v. 37! Haha.
I'd been thinking more about the identity of the Father with the Son. It can help shed a little light on the fact that the 'incest' in these hierarchies (probably) isn't like human siblings (in the metaphysical sense, and once we get beyond primitive religion), no more than we are required to think that Mary exists in an incestuous relationship with two persons of the Trinity.
You may have taken a little creative freedom with v. 37
Correct. But only a little. Using absurdity to highlight the absurd.
If you accept that God created the heavens and the Earth, all things seen and unseen, the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field, by simply willing them into being, then causing a teenage girl to become pregnant without the carnal act is actually pretty small potatos as miracles go.
If Athena can spring fully formed from the forehead of her father Zeus...
This has mostly been my line with the never-ending debate about the resurrection of Jesus. Well, whether or not that seems plausible to you depends upon the prior belief in God. Once you believe in the God - let's just say the God of classical theism, despite the also never-ending debate about the problems therein - getting a so-called miracle is really a 'so what' affair.
The real trouble occurs with the gates this opens up. It becomes increasingly difficult to deny the miracle claims of others who also have theories based on a similar kind of deity (or deities).
Things then move on to an attempt to establish how much more rational your miracle claims are, but interestingly, in order to have that debate requires arguing from the basis of a different epistemology. How do you objectively determine a way of comparing the likelihood of this miracle versus that miracle without importing criteria that undermine the epistemic basis for your belief in miracles in the first place? For example, many Christians will want to say that their miracle claims (e.g., the death and resurrection of Jesus) have a much more 'rational justification' than other miracle claims. But look at their arguments. The arguments are always (or often) some Bayesian cumulative case about the probabilities of this or that thing making the resurrection likelier. Well, if we're going that route, now tell me what the probability is for the Christian belief system as a whole to be true. What's the probability that your version of God is the right one? What's the probability that a creator God exists that personally interacts with the universe, or who performs miracles? It's likelier because the tomb was empty! Wonderful, but now deal with the fact that if we are arguing on the basis of physical facts (like empty tombs), someone can easily say that sort of analysis makes the probability of a resurrection zero. "But, an empty tomb!" says the believer. To which someone can say, "But the impossibility of bodily resurrection!"
[ + ] Trope
[ - ] Trope 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 23, 2023 22:39:32 ago (+1/-0)
Apophis looks pretty cool.
[ + ] Sleazy
[ - ] Sleazy [op] 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 23, 2023 22:58:52 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PhantomXLII
[ - ] PhantomXLII 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 23, 2023 23:04:22 ago (+1/-0)*
Got curious, found it.
https://youtu.be/cLomnZIvoFs
Edit: Also, lol, IMPREGNATED VIA TAINTED LETTUCE.
Y'all keep an eye on that fucking lettuce. Disguises itself as crunchy water, could be a rapist.
Edit 2: Check noses on Hotep and Hoi or whatever the "Egyptian" priests are. (((Hyksos))) bastards.
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 23, 2023 23:59:22 ago (+1/-0)
And that’s an INSANE level of incest. Like incest on top of incest. Is this a jewish family tree?
[ + ] Clueless_Enigma
[ - ] Clueless_Enigma 0 points 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 02:39:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 0 points 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 12:33:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 02:31:55 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Puller_of_Noses
[ - ] Puller_of_Noses 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 09:26:17 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.8 yearsJul 23, 2023 23:01:22 ago (+2/-2)
Either way, Egyptians were into incest.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 00:24:50 ago (+1/-0)
The weirdness isn't lost in the Trinity of Christianity. Who impregnated Jesus's mom?
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 2 points 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 02:42:58 ago (+2/-0)
35 And the angel answering, said to her:
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. Go thou unto Elizabeth and, doing lunch with her, be sure and eat the lettuce. and the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
— Luke 1:26–38
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 10:07:01 ago (+1/-0)
I'd been thinking more about the identity of the Father with the Son. It can help shed a little light on the fact that the 'incest' in these hierarchies (probably) isn't like human siblings (in the metaphysical sense, and once we get beyond primitive religion), no more than we are required to think that Mary exists in an incestuous relationship with two persons of the Trinity.
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 1 point 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 10:55:43 ago (+1/-0)
Correct. But only a little. Using absurdity to highlight the absurd.
If you accept that God created the heavens and the Earth, all things seen and unseen, the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field, by simply willing them into being, then causing a teenage girl to become pregnant without the carnal act is actually pretty small potatos as miracles go.
If Athena can spring fully formed from the forehead of her father Zeus...
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 1.8 yearsJul 24, 2023 12:13:49 ago (+0/-0)
This has mostly been my line with the never-ending debate about the resurrection of Jesus. Well, whether or not that seems plausible to you depends upon the prior belief in God. Once you believe in the God - let's just say the God of classical theism, despite the also never-ending debate about the problems therein - getting a so-called miracle is really a 'so what' affair.
The real trouble occurs with the gates this opens up. It becomes increasingly difficult to deny the miracle claims of others who also have theories based on a similar kind of deity (or deities).
Things then move on to an attempt to establish how much more rational your miracle claims are, but interestingly, in order to have that debate requires arguing from the basis of a different epistemology. How do you objectively determine a way of comparing the likelihood of this miracle versus that miracle without importing criteria that undermine the epistemic basis for your belief in miracles in the first place? For example, many Christians will want to say that their miracle claims (e.g., the death and resurrection of Jesus) have a much more 'rational justification' than other miracle claims. But look at their arguments. The arguments are always (or often) some Bayesian cumulative case about the probabilities of this or that thing making the resurrection likelier. Well, if we're going that route, now tell me what the probability is for the Christian belief system as a whole to be true. What's the probability that your version of God is the right one? What's the probability that a creator God exists that personally interacts with the universe, or who performs miracles? It's likelier because the tomb was empty! Wonderful, but now deal with the fact that if we are arguing on the basis of physical facts (like empty tombs), someone can easily say that sort of analysis makes the probability of a resurrection zero. "But, an empty tomb!" says the believer. To which someone can say, "But the impossibility of bodily resurrection!"