Like I always say, What you get tattooed is what you need protection from"
Hehe.In Glasgow,thus far,I haven't noticed many panthers,yet the plack panther is a common tattoo.An oblique point perhaps but this could be taken further.My daughter got a large ribbon bow,tattooed on her lower back yesterday,I am unaware,as is she,that she feels threatened by ribbons or bows.Her son's name is on her arm.He is not threatening either. It seems a bit of a Freudian perspective to think this way.Tattoos can be totemic also: referring to 'the inside reflected on the outside' totemic or tribal symbols are not always a protection from, but can be a protection of/by and for,as well as a symbol of pride.
--------------------------------------------------
Divine Authority, so much more to discuss there:The infallibility of the messenger of the divine.Organised religions and their Holy Heirarchies.Intercession with the divine as a right of the initiate/priesthood over and above the common man/leity.The Divine right of Kings.And so on.More later.
Divine Authority
-
hedge*
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:26 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: sitting on top of my mushroom
OOooooh I LOVE the story of Rumplestiltskin.
Naming things does hold power. When you name something you are shaping it to inspire certain feelings and emotions in other people - whether it be an object or a person.
How many times will you have had a bad experience with someone - lets say we call them George - only to be reminded of that person when you later meet someone else called George?
Quite often I bet.
Names holding power are rather well documented throughout history but alack and alas apart from old Rumpy and the Djinn - I can't name another example.
Welcome to my paradox.
Naming things does hold power. When you name something you are shaping it to inspire certain feelings and emotions in other people - whether it be an object or a person.
How many times will you have had a bad experience with someone - lets say we call them George - only to be reminded of that person when you later meet someone else called George?
Quite often I bet.
Names holding power are rather well documented throughout history but alack and alas apart from old Rumpy and the Djinn - I can't name another example.
Welcome to my paradox.
There ofcourse the story of Isis and Ra.
And I don't care that it was in fiction because it's a valid point. In Warlock(with Julian Sands) after compiling the Grand Grimoire it teaches him God's "true name" and speaking it backward would undo creation.
Doing things backward is also an ancient concept for undoing.
There's also the concept that the Egyptians had, there's no doubt in my mind that others had it too, but a name was part of what made a person exist, the name was the last thing to leave this plane and aslong as the name was remembered such and such would never truly be dead/gone in a way. Which is also a very modernly used concept.
And I don't care that it was in fiction because it's a valid point. In Warlock(with Julian Sands) after compiling the Grand Grimoire it teaches him God's "true name" and speaking it backward would undo creation.
Doing things backward is also an ancient concept for undoing.
There's also the concept that the Egyptians had, there's no doubt in my mind that others had it too, but a name was part of what made a person exist, the name was the last thing to leave this plane and aslong as the name was remembered such and such would never truly be dead/gone in a way. Which is also a very modernly used concept.
-
amunptah777
Sobek,
On the contrary...an ill feeling is not what is created...more like a permanent life insurance policy...something you never have to worry about again.
Say one is predisposed to get a dead lovers name tattooed...the person never again has to feel as though they have guilt or worry about how the dead person was treated in their life, because they've warded the name.
In the same vein, I give christian symbols for free so the person getting tattooed can feel free to "sin"...to not worry about "salvation" or a "savior"...a "trinity" "heaven" "hell" and the like.
It's not holding on to something...it's letting it go.
Eretik, like I said, the article isn't much in the way of information, but an interesting read...the scholastic paper to which I am refering has since been moved or deleted...alas.
I'm sorry guys, this is a Kemetan Priest, talking about tattooing from the standpoint of the Ancient Kemetans.
It's simply a done deal as far as I'm concerned.
My only thought is, if you disagree, don't get a tattoo from me.
Thet
On the contrary...an ill feeling is not what is created...more like a permanent life insurance policy...something you never have to worry about again.
Say one is predisposed to get a dead lovers name tattooed...the person never again has to feel as though they have guilt or worry about how the dead person was treated in their life, because they've warded the name.
In the same vein, I give christian symbols for free so the person getting tattooed can feel free to "sin"...to not worry about "salvation" or a "savior"...a "trinity" "heaven" "hell" and the like.
It's not holding on to something...it's letting it go.
Eretik, like I said, the article isn't much in the way of information, but an interesting read...the scholastic paper to which I am refering has since been moved or deleted...alas.
I'm sorry guys, this is a Kemetan Priest, talking about tattooing from the standpoint of the Ancient Kemetans.
It's simply a done deal as far as I'm concerned.
My only thought is, if you disagree, don't get a tattoo from me.
Thet
My ex partner is a tattooist,I've lost count of the clientele I've spoken with/sat with, while ink work is done.[I can get mine done free.] Very few were getting a 'ward' or being tattooed through a fear complex. I took a 'straw poll' - of all my immediate friends and family,yesterday, [only 2 out of many are inkless.] None of those who are inked agreed that they were getting/had tattoos done because of this 'theory' of yours Amunptah.I have asked 17 of them,so far and if I'm out at the weekend I'll ask a lot more.Unless there are lots of 'exceptional' people here,in Glasgow,then the theory is not holding up.I explained my reasons,for mine,previously and unless you presume to know my mind better than I do, perhaps you should accept that not everyone is inked for the reasons you claim.I once wrote a paper on 'the historical,social and cultural significance of tattooing'as part of a Sociology presentation at Uni.
------------------------------------------------
Back on topic. Sorry.Hatshepsut, her name was removed from all public records,she was 'struck off' in disgrace, that is a term still in use for dishonourable discharge from public authority/office.
The power of the name is why in Judaism, God is written G_d.The word for 'name of God',is Hashem and the vowels of Gods name are left unwritten: hence YHVH,in the tetragrammaton : Yod Heh Vau Heh.
At uni we had to study 'the divine right of kings' as written by Hobbes and also the Locke and Payne rebuttals of this concept.It was heavy going.lol. but this was an important part of social history: the reasoning behind the English/French and American Revolutions/Civil wars.Parliament and government by democracy was empowered by the disenfranchising of the assumed divine authority of monarchy.
------------------------------------------------
Back on topic. Sorry.Hatshepsut, her name was removed from all public records,she was 'struck off' in disgrace, that is a term still in use for dishonourable discharge from public authority/office.
The power of the name is why in Judaism, God is written G_d.The word for 'name of God',is Hashem and the vowels of Gods name are left unwritten: hence YHVH,in the tetragrammaton : Yod Heh Vau Heh.
At uni we had to study 'the divine right of kings' as written by Hobbes and also the Locke and Payne rebuttals of this concept.It was heavy going.lol. but this was an important part of social history: the reasoning behind the English/French and American Revolutions/Civil wars.Parliament and government by democracy was empowered by the disenfranchising of the assumed divine authority of monarchy.
-
amunptah777
On divine authority/rights of kings.
The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of political absolutism. A general term used for the ideas surrounding the authority and legitimacy of a Monarch, the doctrine broadly holds that a monarch derives his right to rule from the will of God, and not from any temporal authority, including the will of his subjects, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. Chosen by God, a monarch is accountable only to Him, and need answer only before God for his actions. The doctrine implies that the deposition of the king or the restriction of the prerogative power of the crown runs contrary to the will of God. However, the doctrine is not a concrete political theory, but rather an agglomeration of ideas. Practical constraints have placed very considerable limits upon the real political power and authority of monarchs, and the theoretical prescriptions of the Divine Right have seldom translated literally into total absolutism.
Such doctrines are, in the English-speaking world, largely associated with the early House of Stuart in Britain and the theology of the Caroline divines who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I of England (James VI of Scotland), Charles I and Charles II of England. The English textbooks of the Divine Right of Kings were written in 1597-98 before his accession to the English throne by James, whose Basilikon Doron, a manual on the duties of a King, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, who died young. A good King
"acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be countable. The idea of the divine right to rule Has appeared in many cultures Eastern and Western spanning all the way back to the first God king Gilgamesh"
---------------------------------------------------------
Locke and the Enlightenment
Many of the ideas in The Rights of Man are derived from the concepts of the Age of Enlightenment. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government particularly influenced Paine who ascribes the origins of rights to nature. Paine emphasises that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges.
Paine writes,
“It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect - that of taking rights away. "Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. â€
“The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.â€
According to Paine, the sole purpose of the government is to protect the irrefutable rights inherent to every human being. Thus all institutions which do not benefit a nation are illegitimate, including the monarchy (and the nobility) and the military establishment.
Commentary
Paine’s influence was perceptible in both the great revolutions of the eighteenth century. The Rights of Man is dedicated to U.S. General George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette acknowledging the importance of the American and the French Revolution in formulating the principles of modern democratic governance. The Declaration of the Rights of Man can be approached from his most telling points:
Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility.
The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.
The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; neither can any individual, nor any body of men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it.
These three points are similar to the "self-evident truths" expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence.
Aristocracy
The Rights of Man primarily opposes Burke's projected notion of hereditary government. Burke's conservative notion of power centers in the idea that a dictatorial government of the people is necessitated by the corrupt nature of human beings. A staunch supporter of the aristocracy as well as a disbeliever of true democracy, Burke suggests that true social stability would arise if the poverty-ridden majority were to be governed by an exclusive minority of wealthy noblemen. According to Burke, the lawful inheritance of wealth or religious power ensured the propriety of power being the exclusive domain of the elite.
Paine, scathingly critical of Burke, uses sarcastic humour to refute his points. Paine's arguments denounce Burke’s assertion of hereditary wisdom and judge his declarations as most offensive.
“Notwithstanding the nonsense, for it deserves no better name, that Mr. Burke has asserted about hereditary rights, and hereditary succession, and that a Nation has not a right to form a Government of itself; it happened to fall in his way to give some account of what Government is. 'Government,' says he, 'is a contrivance of human wisdom.'. . . Admitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must necessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights (as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary.â€
Heredity
In the Reflections on the French Revolution, Burke traces the legitimacy of an aristocratic government to the Parliamentary resolution declaring William and Mary of Orange and their heirs to be the true rulers of England. Paine asserts that the institution of Monarchy should not be traced back to 1688 but to 1066 when William of Normandy forcibly imposed his rule on England. Paine declares Burke’s argument null and void since the appeal to precedent and tradition is merely an appeal to the invading looters who deprived the original Anglo-Saxons of their right to freedom.-----------------------------------------------------------
The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of political absolutism. A general term used for the ideas surrounding the authority and legitimacy of a Monarch, the doctrine broadly holds that a monarch derives his right to rule from the will of God, and not from any temporal authority, including the will of his subjects, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. Chosen by God, a monarch is accountable only to Him, and need answer only before God for his actions. The doctrine implies that the deposition of the king or the restriction of the prerogative power of the crown runs contrary to the will of God. However, the doctrine is not a concrete political theory, but rather an agglomeration of ideas. Practical constraints have placed very considerable limits upon the real political power and authority of monarchs, and the theoretical prescriptions of the Divine Right have seldom translated literally into total absolutism.
Such doctrines are, in the English-speaking world, largely associated with the early House of Stuart in Britain and the theology of the Caroline divines who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I of England (James VI of Scotland), Charles I and Charles II of England. The English textbooks of the Divine Right of Kings were written in 1597-98 before his accession to the English throne by James, whose Basilikon Doron, a manual on the duties of a King, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, who died young. A good King
"acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be countable. The idea of the divine right to rule Has appeared in many cultures Eastern and Western spanning all the way back to the first God king Gilgamesh"
---------------------------------------------------------
Locke and the Enlightenment
Many of the ideas in The Rights of Man are derived from the concepts of the Age of Enlightenment. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government particularly influenced Paine who ascribes the origins of rights to nature. Paine emphasises that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges.
Paine writes,
“It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect - that of taking rights away. "Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. â€
“The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.â€
According to Paine, the sole purpose of the government is to protect the irrefutable rights inherent to every human being. Thus all institutions which do not benefit a nation are illegitimate, including the monarchy (and the nobility) and the military establishment.
Commentary
Paine’s influence was perceptible in both the great revolutions of the eighteenth century. The Rights of Man is dedicated to U.S. General George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette acknowledging the importance of the American and the French Revolution in formulating the principles of modern democratic governance. The Declaration of the Rights of Man can be approached from his most telling points:
Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility.
The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.
The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; neither can any individual, nor any body of men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it.
These three points are similar to the "self-evident truths" expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence.
Aristocracy
The Rights of Man primarily opposes Burke's projected notion of hereditary government. Burke's conservative notion of power centers in the idea that a dictatorial government of the people is necessitated by the corrupt nature of human beings. A staunch supporter of the aristocracy as well as a disbeliever of true democracy, Burke suggests that true social stability would arise if the poverty-ridden majority were to be governed by an exclusive minority of wealthy noblemen. According to Burke, the lawful inheritance of wealth or religious power ensured the propriety of power being the exclusive domain of the elite.
Paine, scathingly critical of Burke, uses sarcastic humour to refute his points. Paine's arguments denounce Burke’s assertion of hereditary wisdom and judge his declarations as most offensive.
“Notwithstanding the nonsense, for it deserves no better name, that Mr. Burke has asserted about hereditary rights, and hereditary succession, and that a Nation has not a right to form a Government of itself; it happened to fall in his way to give some account of what Government is. 'Government,' says he, 'is a contrivance of human wisdom.'. . . Admitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must necessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights (as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary.â€
Heredity
In the Reflections on the French Revolution, Burke traces the legitimacy of an aristocratic government to the Parliamentary resolution declaring William and Mary of Orange and their heirs to be the true rulers of England. Paine asserts that the institution of Monarchy should not be traced back to 1688 but to 1066 when William of Normandy forcibly imposed his rule on England. Paine declares Burke’s argument null and void since the appeal to precedent and tradition is merely an appeal to the invading looters who deprived the original Anglo-Saxons of their right to freedom.-----------------------------------------------------------
From my studies, that isn't why Isis can fix him, It was Isis love and devotion to Osiris that gave her the strength to breathe life back into him after she put him back together. Isis nature is to love and heal all things, she takes selflessness to a new level.
The story of Ra's name was an endeavour of Isis love and devotion yet again, but in this story it was to save Horus from the other gods. By tricking Ra into revealing his true name gave her power over him, and thus Ra made her promise not to reveal his name to anything else for his total protection of her son, Horus.
The story of Ra's name was an endeavour of Isis love and devotion yet again, but in this story it was to save Horus from the other gods. By tricking Ra into revealing his true name gave her power over him, and thus Ra made her promise not to reveal his name to anything else for his total protection of her son, Horus.