This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This is based on The Da Vinci Code. Should be checked before put in the article.
Apparently is some kind of ancient ritual in which men intend to reach god through a sexual climax, with a woman. According to this ritualuch with god. The cult priest perform the ritual with the choosen woman, while he is watched by the rest of participants. This ritual can traced back to ancient Egypt. (Anonymous).
It's a bit over-simplistic. I like what's already in the article. Two main problems with the quote: -Observance isn't an essential part. Some schools had everyone participating in a more physical way, others limited it to two participants. -Egypt wasn't the only place it arose, and there isn't full evidence that later manifestations in different locations didn't evolve independantly. (Anonynous).
"However, it should be noted that this is not regularly practiced by Wiccans or part of Wiccan Doctrine or Dogma.[citation needed] Many wiccans would also find this practice rather taboo or digraceful.[citation needed] Rather, it is practiced by a few minor sects or individuals, similar to how some Christians might practice snake handling but it is hardly the standard Christian tradition.[citation needed]"
This should be removed as its a POV. A better statment would be to state that the practice isn't followed by all Wiccans and leave out the Doctrine and Dogma parts. SiLiCoNDragon 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In some cases, such as the "Sacred Marriage" of the king of a Sumerian city-state and the High Priestess of Inanna, it served a more practical purpose: since commoners frequently took this opportunity to have sex with their own spouses, it coordinated the births of children so that they would be born in the winter, when there was more time to take care of them.
Is there a source for this? It sounds very strange to me, because 1) I don't have any children but I am told they are in some ways more trouble at 2 than as infants (Can carry infants on a Cradle board, for example), 2) Winter was probably a bad time for nutrition, and 3) I doubt this would have a huge effect on birth rate (I don't know enormous numbers of people born near November 14). ArgentTurquoise 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
i did a report on this for my religion class and my teacher flipped out at me it was pretty funny
I doubt this would have a huge effect on birth rate (I don't know enormous numbers of people born near November 14)
is what that one person said, but it is a big effect.... and winter starts around december so it wood be about december 14th... which my birhtday is
While I freely admit that the Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick may not sound like the most reliable of sources, but he based it on real history books. I was just as astonished when I first read it, and so I checked out his sources, and one (I can't remember which, but it was reputable) had this in it. Lockesdonkey 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that chapter 74 of the Da Vinci Code was completly omitted from the film, and therefore, Ron Howard has made no film that references Hieros Gamos.-- Fhqwgads 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there examples of historical kings and Pharaohs marrying their own daughters or sisters in belief that this is a from of royal/divine marriage? In the sense of maintaining purity of bloodlines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.26.82 ( talk) 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need an image of incestous sexual act on this page? I mean, it's not just falling under "porn" category, but it's an incest too. I know Roman gods were almost always sister-brother marriages, but we don't need a picture of it here. 77.114.112.200 ( talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I also have a major problem with the use of these words in the article. I know this is a commonly held belief amongst western scholars (who are generally so hopelessly entrenched in their own socio-religious paradigm they cannot perceive things from any other perspective, so all is filtered through same), but it is neither true nor correct. The High Priestess and her attendants and noviciates were not, I repeat NOT, "prostitutes"!? This is a Roman Christian bastardisation and nothing more; and simply because it has been repeated ad nauseam does not make it factual. They were/are Priestesses, of a religion, very learned and sacred, and to see them in any other way is an absolute offence. For just part of her role were the rites of Sacred Union, and the Priestess was providing a religious service in doing so, not one of sexual-gratification as the Christian religious paradigm defines that. The modern, western mind has no popular conception of this office, but it exists and it always has, it is just not a Christian concept.
And my 'source' for all of the above? Being a Priestess of such a religion [ [1]], with the authority to speak on it's behalf. And after all that should be sufficient, for if some Archbishop wrote a section in an article on Christianity it would be accepted as authoritative. I expect the same courtesy ~ inasmuch as I expect to not have to write this again due to deletion, for this is about the third time I've put this in. Glorious Goddess ( talk) 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hieros gamos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This is based on The Da Vinci Code. Should be checked before put in the article.
Apparently is some kind of ancient ritual in which men intend to reach god through a sexual climax, with a woman. According to this ritualuch with god. The cult priest perform the ritual with the choosen woman, while he is watched by the rest of participants. This ritual can traced back to ancient Egypt. (Anonymous).
It's a bit over-simplistic. I like what's already in the article. Two main problems with the quote: -Observance isn't an essential part. Some schools had everyone participating in a more physical way, others limited it to two participants. -Egypt wasn't the only place it arose, and there isn't full evidence that later manifestations in different locations didn't evolve independantly. (Anonynous).
"However, it should be noted that this is not regularly practiced by Wiccans or part of Wiccan Doctrine or Dogma.[citation needed] Many wiccans would also find this practice rather taboo or digraceful.[citation needed] Rather, it is practiced by a few minor sects or individuals, similar to how some Christians might practice snake handling but it is hardly the standard Christian tradition.[citation needed]"
This should be removed as its a POV. A better statment would be to state that the practice isn't followed by all Wiccans and leave out the Doctrine and Dogma parts. SiLiCoNDragon 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In some cases, such as the "Sacred Marriage" of the king of a Sumerian city-state and the High Priestess of Inanna, it served a more practical purpose: since commoners frequently took this opportunity to have sex with their own spouses, it coordinated the births of children so that they would be born in the winter, when there was more time to take care of them.
Is there a source for this? It sounds very strange to me, because 1) I don't have any children but I am told they are in some ways more trouble at 2 than as infants (Can carry infants on a Cradle board, for example), 2) Winter was probably a bad time for nutrition, and 3) I doubt this would have a huge effect on birth rate (I don't know enormous numbers of people born near November 14). ArgentTurquoise 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
i did a report on this for my religion class and my teacher flipped out at me it was pretty funny
I doubt this would have a huge effect on birth rate (I don't know enormous numbers of people born near November 14)
is what that one person said, but it is a big effect.... and winter starts around december so it wood be about december 14th... which my birhtday is
While I freely admit that the Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick may not sound like the most reliable of sources, but he based it on real history books. I was just as astonished when I first read it, and so I checked out his sources, and one (I can't remember which, but it was reputable) had this in it. Lockesdonkey 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that chapter 74 of the Da Vinci Code was completly omitted from the film, and therefore, Ron Howard has made no film that references Hieros Gamos.-- Fhqwgads 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there examples of historical kings and Pharaohs marrying their own daughters or sisters in belief that this is a from of royal/divine marriage? In the sense of maintaining purity of bloodlines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.26.82 ( talk) 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need an image of incestous sexual act on this page? I mean, it's not just falling under "porn" category, but it's an incest too. I know Roman gods were almost always sister-brother marriages, but we don't need a picture of it here. 77.114.112.200 ( talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I also have a major problem with the use of these words in the article. I know this is a commonly held belief amongst western scholars (who are generally so hopelessly entrenched in their own socio-religious paradigm they cannot perceive things from any other perspective, so all is filtered through same), but it is neither true nor correct. The High Priestess and her attendants and noviciates were not, I repeat NOT, "prostitutes"!? This is a Roman Christian bastardisation and nothing more; and simply because it has been repeated ad nauseam does not make it factual. They were/are Priestesses, of a religion, very learned and sacred, and to see them in any other way is an absolute offence. For just part of her role were the rites of Sacred Union, and the Priestess was providing a religious service in doing so, not one of sexual-gratification as the Christian religious paradigm defines that. The modern, western mind has no popular conception of this office, but it exists and it always has, it is just not a Christian concept.
And my 'source' for all of the above? Being a Priestess of such a religion [ [1]], with the authority to speak on it's behalf. And after all that should be sufficient, for if some Archbishop wrote a section in an article on Christianity it would be accepted as authoritative. I expect the same courtesy ~ inasmuch as I expect to not have to write this again due to deletion, for this is about the third time I've put this in. Glorious Goddess ( talk) 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hieros gamos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)