The Masculine Cross: A History of Ancient and Modern Crosses and Their Connection with the Mysteries of Sex Worship; Also an Account of the Kindred Phases of Phallic Faiths and PracticesAnonymous
Religion
The Masculine Cross: A History of Ancient and Modern Crosses and Their Connection with the Mysteries of Sex Worship; Also an Account of the Kindred Phases of Phallic Faiths and Practices
Anonymous
Crosses; Phallicism
The reply to the objection that one and the same word is not likely to
have been used by the same or contemporaneous writers in two different
senses, and that the word has a uniform traditional interpretation, is
that in the Hebrew, as in the English, considerable ambiguity occurs, and
that the same word sometimes has two meanings of the most distinct and
irreconcilable character. As regards the second objection, says Dr. Beke,
which is based on the unbroken chain of tradition for about two thousand
years, it can only hold good on the assumption that the originators of the
tradition were infallible. If not, an error, whether committed
intentionally or unintentionally in the first instance, does not become a
truth by dint of repetition; any more than truth can become error by being
as persistently rejected. The Doctor contends that when the Jews became
intimately connected with Egypt, and witnessed there the adoration of the
sacred bull Apis, they fell into the error of regarding as a golden calf
the _egel_, or conical representation of the flame of fire, which their
forefathers, and after them the Ten Tribes, had worshipped as the
similitude of the Eternal, but of which they themselves, as Jews, had
lost the signification. If this was the case, it is only natural that the
error should have been maintained traditionally until pointed out.
So stands the argument with regard to the theory of its being a golden
cone, and not the figure of a calf that Aaron made out of the people's
ornaments, and the worship of which so naturally provoked the wrath of
Moses. There is much to be said in its favour, though not enough, perhaps,
to make it conclusive. The propounder of it expressed his regret that he
was under the necessity of protesting against the allegation that he had
imputed to the Israelites what he calls the obscene phallic worship. "Most
expressly," he says, "did I say that the molten golden image made by Aaron
at Mount Sinai was a plain conical figure, intended to represent the God
who had delivered the people from their bondage in the land of Mitzraim,
in the form in which alone He had been manifested to them and to their
inspired leader and legislator, namely that of the flame of fire." This is
perfectly true, but those who are intimately acquainted with the phallic
faiths of the world will find it difficult to disassociate the conical
form of idol from those representations of the human physical organ which
have been found as objects of adoration in so many parts of both the
eastern and western hemispheres.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account