This is probably just Set sexually assaulting Horus again, and Horus catching his semen and wiping it on some lettuce, which we all know is Set’s favourite.* Things should calm down when they’ve settled it with a boat race, like they did last time.
Perfectly reasonable explanation. Not like these newer religions. Some of them claim to eat the flesh and drink the blood of their God, then sing songs about it. Or they’re huge fans of cutting bits off boys’ penises. Cannibalistic creeps and weirdos. Keep fighting with each other about their favourite demi-god. Why anyone takes them seriously is beyond me.
If only Loki could show up, transform in a female horse, and let the male horse from the other side fuck him and impregnate him…then we could all Sleipnir better at night.
The battle of Armageddon is one of those things that gets floated in abrahamic circles but isn’t really textually supported, mostly because it’s a prophecy that entered them from the outside, the prophecy originates in the aftermath of an especially gruesome battle fought between the Hittites and Egyptians. It was so brutal that the locals began saying that the next time something like that happened it would be the end of the world and the “prophecy” just spiraled from there.
It’s like the antichrist, yes some theological text is out there on the subject, yes there may be some vague “prophecies” about it, but if someone is significantly invested in it pertaining to near future events, they’re either a lunatic or someone who’s learned to make a steady living off the backs of lunatics.
They’re literally just death cultists, and I don’t mean like the fictionalised trope of worshippers of archliches and what not, I mean they worship the day of all ends and especially worship the notion that it will come soon and let them point and laugh at all the people who actually went about living in virtue regardless of if it would or wouldn’t happen, as the fucking book it’s loosely atested in intends for you to do.
I swear to god there is nothing more destructive you can bake into a religion or ideology than some vision of a prophetic future day of great upheaval and vindication, because then the adherents will develop a cancer of inactivity in doing the good work because, “hey, the day of prophecy is coming any day now! Why waste all this effort on building a world where it isn’t needed?”
To my understanding what you say gives an explanation on how these “prophecies” came to be and a very interesting analysis on death cultists. It is a comment that doesn’t explain the statement:
Technically none of them
Within the bible (admittedly I am familiar with this text only, out of the three of) the apocalypse starts in the area, and for very good reasons since they all originated in West Asia. Of course we can argue for ages about toponyms and interpretations but technically you can find these relevant verses in the bible (if I remember correctly book of Ezekiel, Isaiah - please don’t make me double-check lol).
How many world religions say the apocalypse starts in Palestine? Only 3 right? We’re fine.
Only the infidel religions.
This is probably just Set sexually assaulting Horus again, and Horus catching his semen and wiping it on some lettuce, which we all know is Set’s favourite.* Things should calm down when they’ve settled it with a boat race, like they did last time.
Perfectly reasonable explanation. Not like these newer religions. Some of them claim to eat the flesh and drink the blood of their God, then sing songs about it. Or they’re huge fans of cutting bits off boys’ penises. Cannibalistic creeps and weirdos. Keep fighting with each other about their favourite demi-god. Why anyone takes them seriously is beyond me.
If only Loki could show up, transform in a female horse, and let the male horse from the other side fuck him and impregnate him…then we could all Sleipnir better at night.
Technically none of them
The battle of Armageddon is one of those things that gets floated in abrahamic circles but isn’t really textually supported, mostly because it’s a prophecy that entered them from the outside, the prophecy originates in the aftermath of an especially gruesome battle fought between the Hittites and Egyptians. It was so brutal that the locals began saying that the next time something like that happened it would be the end of the world and the “prophecy” just spiraled from there.
It’s like the antichrist, yes some theological text is out there on the subject, yes there may be some vague “prophecies” about it, but if someone is significantly invested in it pertaining to near future events, they’re either a lunatic or someone who’s learned to make a steady living off the backs of lunatics.
They’re literally just death cultists, and I don’t mean like the fictionalised trope of worshippers of archliches and what not, I mean they worship the day of all ends and especially worship the notion that it will come soon and let them point and laugh at all the people who actually went about living in virtue regardless of if it would or wouldn’t happen, as the fucking book it’s loosely atested in intends for you to do.
I swear to god there is nothing more destructive you can bake into a religion or ideology than some vision of a prophetic future day of great upheaval and vindication, because then the adherents will develop a cancer of inactivity in doing the good work because, “hey, the day of prophecy is coming any day now! Why waste all this effort on building a world where it isn’t needed?”
To my understanding what you say gives an explanation on how these “prophecies” came to be and a very interesting analysis on death cultists. It is a comment that doesn’t explain the statement:
Within the bible (admittedly I am familiar with this text only, out of the three of) the apocalypse starts in the area, and for very good reasons since they all originated in West Asia. Of course we can argue for ages about toponyms and interpretations but technically you can find these relevant verses in the bible (if I remember correctly book of Ezekiel, Isaiah - please don’t make me double-check lol).