do a little web searching. It took me about an hour. I dug deep. Know what I found out? About half of all sources say he was and half say he wasn't. Interesting. Of course, everyone that says he wasn't seem to have a religious agenda.
One thing most sources agree on, Isis "magically" conceived Horus AFTER her husband, Osirus, was killed. No source, that I've found, claim Isis ever boffed her husband, or anyone else for that matter.

So, as I said, whatever floats your boat.

However, the resurrected form was Horus, who had previously been considered a sun-god, having been identified with Ra as Ra-Herakhty, and the solar death-resurrection cycle over a year involves a whole entity, said to be composed of 12 sections - the zodiac.[citation needed] Consequently, it became said that before resurrecting Osiris/Horus, Isis put together 12 of the 13 parts, but was unable to find the 13th, which was said to have been destroyed completely. As Set was considered to be homosexual (due to having originally been the god of the desert, and thus thought of as infertile), it was said that a manifestation of Set - the Oxyrhynchus fish (a fish with an unusual curved snout resembling depictions of Set), had swallowed the part that was Osiris' penis. The Trundholm sun chariot pulled by a horse is believed to be a sculpture illustrating an important part of Nordic Bronze Age mythology. ... Zodiac signs, 16th century , medieval woodcuts The zodiac (from Greek zoon, animal) is an imaginary belt in the heavens extending approximately 8 degrees on either side of the Suns apparent path (the ecliptic), that includes the apparent paths of the Moon and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. ... Homosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by esthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for another of the same sex. ... A dune in the Egyptian desert In geography, a desert is a landscape form or region that receives little precipitation - less than 250 mm per year. ... Fertility is the ability of people or animals to produce healthy offspring in abundance. ... Oxyrhynchus (Greek: Οξ��υγχος; sharp-nosed; ancient Egyptian Per-Medjed; modern Arabic el-Bahnasa) is an archaeological site in Egypt, considered one of the most important ever discovered. ... The penis (plural penises or penes) is, in addition to the scrotum, one of the external male sexual organs. ...


This new description lead to a new description of how Osiris/Horus was resurrected. It was said that Isis made wax models of each dismembered part and gave them to priests to worship, and fashioned a new penis for Osiris/Horus. Isis and Nephthys then were said to have applied sufficient magic to make the penis function, and so Isis had sex with the dead body and new penis, resulting in Horus' birth. An alternative version not requiring a magic penis has it that she impregnated herself from semen removed from his testicles [1].

Yeah, I went to crazy places like museums and universities. As well as crazy places like reglious sites. The opinions you mentioned above were definatly in the minority, and so I'll tend to discount them. Most places, religious or not, agreed that Isis "magically" impregnated herself w/ Horus. Don't want to believe that? Like I said, dig a little deeper and uh....whatever floats your boat.

Going to any ONE website has a really great chance of giving you a skewed viewpoint. Check out at least a dozen or so.

How about some links? You have to supply some to support your side.

Yeah, I went to crazy places like museums and universities. As well as crazy places like reglious sites. The opinions you mentioned above were definatly in the minority, and so I'll tend to discount them. Most places, religious or not, agreed that Isis "magically" impregnated herself w/ Horus. Don't want to believe that? Like I said, dig a little deeper and uh....whatever floats your boat.

Going to any ONE website has a really great chance of giving you a skewed viewpoint. Check out at least a dozen or so.

How about some links? You have to supply some to support your side.

why is that? why does one "have to supply some to support your/their side"? in fact, why do you provide url links that you think supports your side? i never read links posted on forums. we all have souped up search engines and we could all just let our search engines do the debating here for us. but is not the real sport in all of this the act of debating ones point using ones own cognitive thoughts? i enjoy forums because they allow me to exchange real ideas on real issues with real people. i can question your thinking and you can question mine, but i cannot question a website link. whoever wrote the crap is not here for me to question or him to defend. i'll copy/paste text from time to time where it's neccessary to settle an argument about wording. i do that with the constitution often when someone misquotes it. but i don't let others, especially a website or youtube video make my arguement for me. why do you let others make your argument? do you lack faith in your convictions that you need "support for your side"? really doesn't matter how much support you can garner through your search engine does it if someone matches you link for link. just shows you're fast on the mouse click.

why is that? why does one "have to supply some to support your/their side"? in fact, why do you provide url links that you think supports your side? i never read links posted on forums. we all have souped up search engines and we could all just let our search engines do the debating here for us. but is not the real sport in all of this the act of debating ones point using ones own cognitive thoughts? i enjoy forums because they allow me to exchange real ideas on real issues with real people. i can question your thinking and you can question mine, but i cannot question a website link. whoever wrote the crap is not here for me to question or him to defend. i'll copy/paste text from time to time where it's neccessary to settle an argument about wording. i do that with the constitution often when someone misquotes it. but i don't let others, especially a website or youtube video make my arguement for me. why do you let others make your argument? do you lack faith in your convictions that you need "support for your side"? really doesn't matter how much support you can garner through your search engine does it if someone matches you link for link. just shows you're fast on the mouse click.

why is that? why does one "have to supply some to support your/their side"? in fact, why do you provide url links that you think supports your side? i never read links posted on forums. we all have souped up search engines and we could all just let our search engines do the debating here for us. but is not the real sport in all of this the act of debating ones point using ones own cognitive thoughts? i enjoy forums because they allow me to exchange real ideas on real issues with real people. i can question your thinking and you can question mine, but i cannot question a website link. whoever wrote the crap is not here for me to question or him to defend. i'll copy/paste text from time to time where it's neccessary to settle an argument about wording. i do that with the constitution often when someone misquotes it. but i don't let others, especially a website or youtube video make my arguement for me. why do you let others make your argument? do you lack faith in your convictions that you need "support for your side"? really doesn't matter how much support you can garner through your search engine does it if someone matches you link for link. just shows you're fast on the mouse click.