Eureka! Old Men Say Man's Holy Books Can Hurt Women

Of course! :^)

By "Pam-like" I assume you mean clear-eyed, intelligent, realistic, no-nonsense, and erudite. :D

Farnaz:

Zen Buddhism, of course, is just Taoism in disguise. Just ignore the circular bits.

http://zenhabits.net/

Thanks for the links Farnaz. And Onofrio
makes the following excellent cinematic suggestion....

'Interesting times indeed, that mid-to-late third century. Someone should make epic cinema out of it - lots of dramatic potential there among the Gordians, Phil the Arab, martyr-making Decius, Shapur, Zenobia...'

Memories from the past - this brings to mind notably extravagant movies with a religious theme from a long distant early childhood, and well before.....

……Spartacus, Quo Vadis, Demetrius and the Gladiators, Sampson and Delilah, Ben Hur, The Greatest Story Ever Told, King of Kings, Sign of the Cross, The Ten Commandments, and David and Goliath - to name a memorable few.

I personally never took Charlton Heston as a credible Moses, although Victor Mature was a pretty good Sampson. They both seemed to find a thematic Hollywood niche in several of these productions…….

That now classic movie theater is preserved as an historical site and still serves as a venue for movies and live concerts, I’m pleased to say.

Regards, Persiflage

Back to the topic and worth a repeat and added comments:

from :
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

"How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:

Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression.

They were:

Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.

Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.

They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.

They could not testify in court.

They could not appear in public venues.

They were not allowed to talk to strangers.

They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. "

In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light."

Again as the author has noted, contemporary Islamic discrimination against women is basically the same as that taught in the OT/Torah!!!

Today's Islam should therefore be called that "Old Time Judaism" when it comes to women?? That phrase should go over well in Tehran!!!

Nite, Thoth, i-bis log(os)ing off for the
Nit. :

Farnaz Q

(T)Hoot(h) Koomi

(:^U

What a (T)Hoot(h) !!

*Muckenfussian* - now there's a coinage I'd like to bank.

Fussy Ann or Fushin (like Russian)?

Onofrio,

"Pam-like moment - O what the abcess-riddled pharaohs would have given for just one bout of decent dentistry!"
==========================
Pam-like, yes, indeed. Also, Muckenfussian. The archetypal cry of the dentally uninsured, the timeless tune heard heart beats to throbbing Thooth.

:>

Farnaz,

"Kabbalah quickens Kweasiness un peut pour moi, kwirky, je (ditto Scholem). Kwint essential emanating maddens, fret some. Tales abound...:"

I understand.

Am not an attendant lord m'self, in that s(e)phere. I stick to my glyphs, duncelike. Many Nilopundits, theopneumospeculationists, and sundry spacey sophists (eg. la Blavatsky, et autres) know them not, and thereby swing awry into flaky-shaky parts (no apologies to B.R.Cyrus).

Trump-cardery a la Sud.

Pam-like moment - O what the abcess-riddled pharaohs would have given for just one bout of decent dentistry!

This here Major Tom is ground controlled, and stepping through the floor... :^)

Hi Onofrio,

Hokmah or Chokmah--Six of one, etc., Sephirotically speaking. :

Kabbalah quickens Kweasiness un peut pour moi, kwirky, je (ditto Scholem). Kwint essential emanating maddens, fret some. Tales abound...:

Persiflage,

As you no doubt know, Jung was very interested in the Kabbalah. Lotsa stuff on this attraction. Here's a link to an interesting article.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3AtJlt5y-W4Q4J%3Awww.junginstitute.org%2Fpdf_files%2FJungV7N1p33-54.pdf+jung+and+kabbalah&hl=en&gl=us&pli=1

On another note (b flat or f sharp), tree of life and other Kabbalah symbols have a broad wing span: Hinudism, Islam, Christianity, as you see...And, of course, Madame Blavatsky, in whom I once had a passing interest.

Still playing in a minor key, the work Shekhina is feminine in Hebrew, but, note, it does not occur as noun in Tanakh.

An okay link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Tanksfordemlynx.

The one to the Penchansky book was particularly sweet. Aside: that book actually crossed my desk at work. Unfortunately, it wasn't a sample, so I had to put it into stock. Noted for later purchase.

And here it is in your link :^)

I resist Chokmah on the grounds that among anglophonic hordelings initial 'ch' is almost universally voiced as in Chopra. I feel that 'h' as in HELP is less grating, though not thereby more accurate...

But as you wish...Chokmah.

_abbalah - K or Q? ;^)

Chokmah is feminine in Proverbs, btw.

Persiflage,

"Plotinus was betimes known as an antagonist to Gnostics, because of their expressed antipathy for the material world and otherwise contra-Platonic sentiments."

I know. My (not-pre) judices about Gnosticism have been shaped by my fond regard for Plotinus :^) Gnosticism = a default into which I fall too easily. For me, Plotinus exorcised a lingering Christo-Gnostic sarcophobia (say what?). In its place? An irenic sarcoscepticism, or thereabouts.

Interesting times indeed, that mid-to-late third century. Someone should make epic cinema out of it - lots of dramatic potential there among the Gordians, Phil the Arab, martyr-making Decius, Shapur, Zenobia...

Madam Blavatsky, anyone?

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v14/ph_056.htm

Btw., S/be "Chokmah," probably.

Onofrio,

Hokmah in Proverbs:

http://books.google.com/books?id=BDq7AUgIYacC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=hokmah+feminine&source=bl&ots=ZuDpyL5JR4&sig=0JbtYtqY1gCoafQr-J6JyIlRGJo&hl=en&ei=7qNvSr7LNojOM-HsvOIO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

Had another source, but has vanished from bookmarks. Whatever could it mean?

Tree of Life Symbology

Item will come up first on search. Contains info. on significance of ancient Egyptian T of L, Onofrio! Good site.

http://www.symbols.net/treeoflife/

"Esoteric," actually. :( Must contact Spelling Emanation.

Dear Estoteric Theosophists,

It is my understanding (and Gershom Scholem's) that in the Zohar, Hokmah represents wisdom (God manifests as ideal, wise, enshrined). With the Bina differentiated intelligence begins. On another note, from the Zohar down through Luria, everything is connected to Yerushalayem (Jerusalem) and the return of the Jewish people from exile.

See Gershom Schlolem. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism

Scholem. On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism

Also, recommended:

Moshe Idel. Kabbalah: New Perspectives

Thanks CCNL, I needed that.

....and the adverb persistent? No excuse:)

"kabbalism kab'ba·lism n.

kabbalist kab'ba·list n.

USAGE NOTE There are no less than two dozen variant spellings of kabbalah, the most common of which include kabbalah, kabala, kabalah, qabalah, qabala, cabala, cabbala, kaballah, kabbala, kaballah, and qabbalah. This sort of confusion is frequently seen with Hebrew and Arabic words borrowed into English because there exist several different systems of transliterating the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets into Roman letters.

Often a more exact or scholarly transliteration, such as Qur'an, will coexist alongside a spelling that has been heavily Anglicized (Koran). The fact that the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets do not as a rule indicate short vowels or the doubling of consonants compounds the difficulties. Spellings of kabbalah with one or two b's are equally “correct,” insofar as the single b accurately reproduces the spelling of the Hebrew, while the double b represents the fact that it was once pronounced with a double b."

Please excuse the persistant mis-spelling
e.g. Kabbalah.

Onofrio,

An ancient work below that may shed light on the connection between Gnosticism and Kaballah. According to noted authority Gershom Sholem early Jewish Gnosticism likely gave rise to it's following Christian forms.

Plotinus was betimes known as an antagonist to Gnostics, because of their expressed antipathy for the material world and otherwise contra-Platonic sentiments.

Interesting times, they were!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahir

Test

Hi Persiflage,

Thanks for the links and the observations on the various pleromic fonts of being. Valentinus-brand Gnosticism is truly a heady brew! :^)

I particularly like your characterisation of the Trinity as a "mysterious mobius strip". Zesta!

I didn't know Hokmah was masculine in the Kabbalah. I was thinking about lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Being sans Hebrew and sans meet circumspection, I may have become confused about names and genders. (:^( Help, Farnaz!

Proverbs' Wisdom appears goddess-like to me - like Athena, like Maat. And she is there even before *the Beginning* as the prime agent of the One. So much for the male co-eternal second hypostasis!

Ah, the Pleroma! I still gnaw on the glimpse Plotinus gave me of that fullness...

Hail Onofrio!

My earlier link on Valentinian Gnosticism shows a definite diagrammatic affinity with the Sephirot of the Kaballah that you point out, with both systems of belief very likely having their roots in mystical Judaism.

In viewing Kaballah and the three Supernals, Keter is the first emanation and subtle beyond knowing, while Chokmah is masculine and Binah is feminine.

In my view, what orthodox Christianity seems to lack (aside from a true feminine side to the divine) is the recognition of an original monistic source for the Trinity itself. Consequently, the nature of the Trinity remains a mysterious mobius strip of faith that required continuous reification over the centuries.

That which gives rise to manifest reality is the Ain Soph in Kaballah and for the Gnostics, God is the Pleroma.

Brahman/Atman is the sole reality for Hinduism. Each religious disposition seems to comprehend this original Source differently and with differing levels of potential approachability.

Best regards, Persiflage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_mythology

As per www.answers.com

"In her role as mother goddess, Asherah is often confused with another Canaanite goddess – Ashtoreth (Astarte), who seems to have replaced Asherah in the 1st millennium B.C. As goddess of fertility, Asherah takes the form of a tree, symbolizing the Tree of Life on which the animal kingdom feeds. Her sacred emblem in this role is a tree or a wooden post which is a stylized form of a Tree of Life. Such a post is called Asherah in the Bible.

The cult of Asherah as goddess of fertility connected with sacred trees was pervasive in ancient Israel. It was already practiced in the times of the Judges (Judg 6:25-28) together with the cult of Baal, and continued under the direction of some of the kings of Israel themselves (I Kgs 16:33; 18:19, II Kgs 12:6; 13:6; 17:10). During the religious reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, kings of Judah, the trees of Asherah were cut down (II Kgs 18:4) including the one installed by King Manasseh inside the Temple (II Kgs 21:7; 23:6).

The cult of Asherah probably had elements of divination and was quite promiscuous (Hos 4:12-13).
"

Persiflage,

Thee:
"One can't help but notice that the Trinity itself is conspicuously lacking a clearly demarcated female element."

Hear, hear! Any truly divine trinity would have to include the divine feminine, methinks. I understand some Christians have tried to feminise the Holy Spirit, though orthodoxy resists.

Thee:
"A far cry from the Sophia-centered wisdom of the Gnostics."

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Hagia Sophia - Holy Wisdom - is honoured virtually as an hypostasis (though full hypostatisation is, of course, anathema). The post-Marxist Russian Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov tried to articulate a subtle Sophiology that feminised the underlying unity of the three male hypostaseis of the Trinity, sort of smuggled Sophia in as their shared ousia (or something like that - the distinctions are very fine in all that Greek hair-splitting). Of course, the autodogmatons of his church sniffed heresy, and weighed in. I find his book on Sophia quite tragic. Bulgakov weaves an intricate knotwork of doctrine, metaphysics, and deep spiritual yearning. Ultimately, he describes a Sophia that OUGHT to be personal, but ends up merely an It, because Bulgakov can't break with the monolith of the all-male Trinity.

Always just short of divinity, Sophia.

Yet the ghost of Sophia haunts sacramental orthodoxy, both Roman and Eastern, in the form of Mary - Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Theotokos, Madonna, Isis encrypted.

And she's there in Judaism too, I believe, as Hokmah. Asherah encrypted, after the felling of her poles?

The discrimination of women started way before the RCC (and Gnosticism). Said church simply followed the ways of the Greeks, Jews, Romans, et al.

e.g.
http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F2004WS267/AnnaCho/finalHISTORY.html

and from

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

"How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:

Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were:

Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.

Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.

They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.

They could not testify in court.

They could not appear in public venues.

They were not allowed to talk to strangers.

They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. "

In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light."

CCNL1 wrote:
"For more on Gnostism and Women see:..."

Inasmuch as cutting and pasting from the work and thinking of others seems to be your only well-developed skill, how about cutting and pasting the correct spelling: Gnosticism.

The discrimination of women started way before the RCC. Said church simply followed the ways of the Greeks, Jews, Romans, et al.

e.g.

http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F2004WS267/AnnaCho/finalHISTORY.html

and from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

"How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:

Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were:

Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.

Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.

They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.

They could not testify in court.

They could not appear in public venues.

They were not allowed to talk to strangers.

They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. "

In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light."

See below the Valetinian Gnostics and their egalitarian view of women - quite a departure from the mainstream/orthodox Christianity of the day.

The Roman Catholic church in particular continues with the male-centered hierarchies of some 2000 years ago.

One can't help but notice that the Trinity itself is conspicuously lacking a clearly demarcated female element. A far cry from the Sophia-centered wisdom of the Gnostics.

For a comprehensive catalog of the various heresies and heretics persecuted and prosecuted by the Catholic Church over the ages, from Cathars to Bogomils to Savanarola to Joan of Arc and beyond, see 'The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics' by Chas S. Clifford.

The once mighty and revered Knights Templars of early Crusades fame were even run to ground for their vast accumulated land holdings and wealth. When Popes and Kings conspire, heads roll.......

The Vatican may still have their cut of that ill-gotten loot, for all we know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

For more on Gnostism and Women see:

http://rane.agog.net/writings/womenchristianity.html

Gnostism and Women - Part 2

"Mary is seen directly in the middle of this conflict in a few Gnostic texts whose view of women is not accepting, but more traditional. The male disciples are seen as more worthy than the female disciples, i.e. Mary. In the first passage, Mary’s place as a disciple is initially at risk:

“Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her, in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Back to the topic:

Gnostism and Women- Part 1

“And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended]. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her?”

Sex object or an equal? Or maybe an angel aka "pretty thingie" for those lonely nights in Palestine.

Farnaz,

Thanks for the quantum poetry link - here's
a link in return.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical-physics/importance-philosophy-mathematics.htm

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

It does, of course.

PAMSM sez:

The best thing about your links,

'reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.'

I had considered dedicating that very line to you, but knew you would find it like water with a divining rod! And that is the actual truth.

Who says there's no synchronicity?? Something I still believe in.....

regards. Persiflage

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Maybe it is false ego that Buddhism seeks to erode.?"

For sure. I offer my mono-clap as proof of my own abject ignorance about these things, and to affirm that I, in fact, am clown at best, and as far from enlightenment as can be.

And unlike your sharp acquaintance, I am no logician.

I do respect those near-bodhisattvas who - out of sheer compassion - bear with me and those of my ilk, chattersome gibbons all.

As for my several false egos, they will cease soon enough. No need to beat the cosmos to it, that sow that devours her piglets.

And after that...

In random fandom,
Onofrio

Farnaz,

Your *surface* reading of Horus and Seth was impressively to-the-gist, I thought, and fair enough. Those questions you posed were all worth putting to the texts. As for making the past usable; we all *make use* of it, more or less, even those who strive most earnestly to mediate its otherness in its own terms.

For my part, I do not consciously apply any particular methodology in my encounter with these texts. I'm afraid Onofrio's is a fairly naive reading that attempts to divine ancient mindsets in terms he can comprehend, thence perhaps to share his impressions (fictions?) with others. No particular purpose in mind, other than a sort of seat-of-the-pants mediation of the ancient Other. Perhaps *quixotic-eclectic-amateur-shopworn-orientalism* would sum up the approach.

The metaphysicals--Donne, Marvell, et al-- sang scientific song. Elegance/economy there is in DNA, "Donne, the delight of Phoebus and each muse," Picasso, Art Tatum.

Margaret Geller, astro-physicist, won a MacArthur at the age of thirty-five for mapping the universe, supporting the "Bubble Theory."

As it turns out, Geller had been a devotee of bubbles since childhood. Mystified, she observed them, wondered at their origins, pondered their disappearing, reappearing, etc.

Much math there is in music, art, poetry....

Persiflage,

Stumbled upon this blog, "Quantum Art and Poetry":

http://quantumartandpoetry.blogspot.com/2008/11/quantum-atom-theory.html

Science Poems (Sort Of)

"Faith" is a fine invention

"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see—
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.

-Emily Dickinson
==========

No Labor-Saving Machine

No labor-saving machine,
Nor discovery have I made;
Nor will I be able to leave behind me any wealthy bequest to found ahospital or library,
Nor reminiscence of any deed of courage, for America,
Nor literary success, nor intellect--nor book for the book-shelf;
Only a few carols, vibrating through the air, I leave,
For comrades and lovers.

-Walt Whitman

Onofrio,

As I've said before, I know what is the sound of one hand clapping, because I can actually do it! :^)

I mentioned this koan to an acquaintance who had never heard of it. (Yes, there are such people.) He is also one of the smartest, quickest persons I know. He proceeded to clap with one hand. Logic.

Then there is another popular answer. One hand clapping is two hands clapping, since only one hand may actually move. Or, even if both hands move, each one produces a clap. Logic, maybe. Some say that intuition came first, then logic.

Thinking about it in this second way can add to a sense of one's completeness, I've found sans the raptures, altered states, etc., that some who have lived with this koan describe. I don't doubt their experiences. You know it is interesting how many doctors, persons of applied science have become poets, writers.

Recently, a friend calling from India read to me something on the Buddhism's comprehension of the self. The gist was that Buddhism does not wish to annihilate the self, for it is true self that the practitioner seeks--in the process of attaining selflessness. A paradox suitable for Persiflage, methinks. I've noticed, though, that the words "completeness," "complete" (adj.) occur frequently in Buddhist thinking on the self. One is striving for completeness. Maybe it is false ego that Buddhism seeks to erode.?

Randomly yours,
Farnaz

Persiflage,

Many thanks for sharing the White Buffalo Calf story. A bison horizon indeed :^) I find that such imagery has a long and fruitful half-life in my consciousness. Dang, magical thinking again! (:^U

The mindsets of the indigenous peoples in our homelands are similar in many ways, certes, as are their predicaments at the hands of our Anglophone civilisation. Can treat its own pretty roughly too.

Yet gems survive.

Persiflage,

Judging from your posts, I think you're correct when you say that you and Carstonio have more in common than not.

On the Other hand, there is an Other hand. Maybe. &] The uncanny, the inexplicable, not to mention the monistic. It just be's that way sometimes. And then there is that cat de Schrodinger.

In sum, et je vous demande pardon:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Onofrio,

Horus and Seth, like David and Jonathan, have been much discussed in the literature on homosexuality. In the Tanakh, there is nothing quite so direct in J's love for D as there is elsewhere in the attraction (?) btw. Horus and Seth. In this scholarly literature, the surface-level only is considered.

What do you make of this? Do you think surface-level readings such as the one I posted earlier are fair?

I confess I have doubts. On the other hand, I wonder if some of these revisionist (?) readings are a way to create a usable past. Dunno.

Your thoughts?

Pamsm,

Thee:
"While you post about magical things, my sense is that it's all for fun, and that at bottom, you're pretty near as realistic as I am. Am I wrong?"

Pam, I am quite serious, but with a wink. I actually don't know enough to be as realistic as you, so I try to learn from you. And I also have a lot of time for Persiflage, who ever belies his moniker. I try to learn from him too.

Being a fool means you can eat at every table.

I suppose I am basically a sort of sceptic. I don't deny that we obtain real *knowledge* about ourselves and our world through empirical observation and scientific method. And I'm also aware that the *consciousness* and *senses* which mediate this *knowledge* are fragile and mutable, even at their empirical best *seeing through a glass darkly*. That said, they are our given tools. Perhaps there are ways we can use them better, improve them, which I think is the territory that Persiflage has reconnoitred with such erudition.

I enjoy carefully considered *Hoodoo in the gaps* speculation, while not losing sight of the distinction between that and the middling consensus of what constitutes *reality*. I believe madness should only be moderate, not absolute ;^) Ditto for sanity.

As I've said before, I know what is the sound of one hand clapping, because I can actually do it! :^)

Hi Pam,

Long time! Good to see you back.

Farnaz

Hi Onofrio,

Thanks so much for your learned reply! I'm sure translation problems abound, and, of course, there is allegory, metaphor. But I'm referring to the surface level: Horus naively lies down with Seth, protests that Seth "used him as a woman."

He did not want sex, but he wanted something? There was something, strictly on the surface level, fondness of Horus for Seth? Of a younger for an elder... It could, on the surface level, be read as a cautionary tale, but why caution unless there is something to caution against?

Have been catching up on your posts--terrific, as always. Am seeking the homunculi in charge habitable apartment living, the better to toss the long unused. Can one conjure them?

Farnaz :)

Carstonio and Persiflage,

Am catching up on your chat. Much to consider!
Hope CollinNick drops by. Would love to hear his take on the topic.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

"On homoerotic of Horus and Seth....Horus does lie down with Seth....He is not forced."

True, the sex seems to be consensual, something of a rapprochement between the rival powers. But Horus is the passive partner in the coupling, thereby assuming a submissive role in relation to Seth. According to Egyptian notions of Maat - the right order of things - such submission is problematic for Horus, since he is the very embodiment of kingly power. Isis understands this, and devises a ruse for using the liaison against Seth, turning Seth's own semen against him. In Egyptian, the word for semen puns with that for poison.

The 'Negative Confession' in the BD includes a denial of having had homosexual relations. The semantics are ambiguous; they may relate more to coercive acts, or infidelity, than to homosexuality per se.

In the stories about Horus and Seth, the homoerotic episodes are a metaphor for the deep underlying affinity between the apparently polar opposites, as well as the problems of power relations between them. There is a scene in the Amduat (a royal afterlife 'book', Dyn.18) that shows Horus and Seth as a single being with two heads! So it's not surprising that the Egyptians would imagine the union between this pair in sexual terms.

Onofrio,
Thanks for the welcome back. While you post about magical things, my sense is that it's all for fun, and that at bottom, you're pretty near as realistic as I am. Am I wrong?

For those who are truly magical thinkers, if you're going to postulate sixth senses and such, please include the methods (in scientific terms) by which these work.

CCNL speculates:
"Hmmm, PAMSM makes a sudden appearance after some absence on her part. Another probability wave by chance??"

Sorry to disappoint you, CC, but I am me, and only me. I left because, for a long stretch, nothing of interest was being discussed. The topics at hand were, as I recall, brown spaniels and getting geraniums to bloom. This is a forum about faith, and not a kaffeeklatsch.

But beyond the boredom, there was you and some other idiot fighting over your penchant for trying to meld all posters into one. Endlessly. I see that some things never change... you may drive me away again.

Persiflage,
Best thing from your links:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Carstonio,

More from previous post. Like you, I, too, have had a sense of foreboding that came to nothing. However, with respect to death, there were a total of four experiences. In two cases, I chalked it up to "observation." In the third and fourth? There was nothing except the certainty that death was imminent. The first case was accompanied by a whole host of phenomena that were beyond empirical explanation.

I am an empiricist by nature, a doubter by experience and training. And, IMHO, doubt must accompany everything.

What do you make of CCNL's postings from "Biocentrism"? And then there is that old cat, splattered or not, Schrodinger's favorite, brought to us by Persiflage.

Onofrio,

On homoerotic of Horus and Seth....Horus does lie down with Seth....He is not forced.

Onofrio,

Thanks for the poem!

In honor of bosons, bisons, women and myth,
a genuine American aboriginal creation myth is offered here.
_______________

'White Buffalo Calf Woman
and the Mother of Life'

White Buffalo Calf Woman's legend is ancient, arising about 2000 years ago, and is central to the spiritual practices of numerous Native American nations. Various, but similar, versions of the legend of White Buffalo Calf Woman are told.
==================

As narrated by Joseph Chasing Horse, Traditional Leader of the Lakota Nation.

'It was told that next time there is chaos and disparity, she would return again. She said she would return as a White Buffalo Calf. Some believe she already has.

In the Words of Chief Arvol Looking Horse, 19th Generation Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe of the Lakota Nation....

.....While two warriors were out hunting buffalo, a white buffalo calf appeared. As she approached them she changed into a beautiful young woman . . . which is how she came to be called the White Buffalo Calf Woman.

One of the young warriors offended her with his lustful thoughts, and White Buffalo Calf Woman asked him to approach. As he stepped forward, a black cloud descended over him and when it dissipated all that was left of him was his bones.

The other warrior fell to his knees and began to pray. The White Buffalo Calf Woman told him to return to his people, telling them she would appear to them in four days, bringing with her a sacred bundle.

And this she did, appearing to them as a white buffalo calf descending on a cloud. Stepping down, she rolled over on the ground, changing from white to black, then yellow, then red.

When White Buffalo Calf Woman arose she was once again the beautiful woman, cradling the sacred bundle in her arms.

Spending four days with the people, White Buffalo Calf Woman taught them sacred songs, dances, and ceremonies as well as the traditional ways.

White Buffalo Calf Woman instructed them to be responsible caretakers of the land and to be always mindful that the children are the future of the people.'

best regards, Persiflage

PS. Unable to retrieve P. Shelley's poem by the same title.

CArstonio, Persiflage,

Thanks for your thoughts. Carstonio, philosophers have replied to the tree /forest question with sound waves but it doesn't quite answer the question. To me the best answer to the question, as phrased, is that "sound" is an effect produced via waves on ears, one effect of a tree falling in a forest. Therefore, the answer is NO. The tree does not "make a sound." Arguably, the question is phrased incorrectly, as per the author of the text for which I provided a link.

A similar question is "Is water wet?"
===========================
Arguably, idealism is a part of everything. There is no such thing as a tree, the think in itself, any more than there is such a thing as the philosopher's beloved chair. There are, I think, categories of thought. What the all inclusive WE perceives are what are available categorically during any historical period.
===========================
Carstonio, on "intuition" and the like. It exists. Of the two cases I was referring to, I will refer to the latter. I had not seen for some time someone I had been close to. When I saw her, I was dead certain her health was worse than those around her knew. I felt death. The only other time I'd experienced this horrible feeling had been twenty years earlier. NO one believed me then.

The woman would not permit her son or me to take her to a doctor. I called him the next day, told him my thoughts, that we had to act, now. No luck. He sensed no emergency, and, besides, one could not force her. I called friends, told my husband, a scientist buddy, insisting that they make it a point to recall my narrative since I did not want to be with my knowledge. I was very afraid for her.

Four days after I'd seen her, she was rushed to the emergency room in the middle of the night. After an emergency procedure she rallied. It all seemed very strange to me, that she continued to live. I saw her as often as I could, and the prognosis was good, but my sense of foreboding remained.

Three weeks after I'd first seen her she was gone. She'd died. No magic. No miracles of science could save her. It is, I think, hubristic to assume we know everything. (I'm not saying you're hubristic.)

Ever tried your hand at Schrodinger's cat? (Apologies to Persiflage)

Farnaz :)

Ukba,

Thee, quoting Bart Ehrman, re Gospel of Thomas:
"But for women to achieve this salvation, they obviously must first become male. The knowledge that Jesus reveals allows for that transformation, so that every woman who makes herself male, through understanding his teaching, will enter then into the kingdom.” fascinating!

Indeed. Yet I find the implied inferiority of the female disappointing. Apparently, Jesus' power is not such that he redeems the woman as herself. No, she must lose her gender identity to attain the kingdom. Males, as *default* humanity, are under no such obligation. Enlightened, perhaps, for the Roman oikumene, but redundant for us, no?

And besides the necessity of being un-femaled, the woman's access to the KINGdom is mediated through a male (albeit a relatively beneficent one). No female sapiential Christ. One might counter that the Gnostic Sophia is evidence of a high view of women. But according to Gnostic mythos, it was because of Sophia's feminine *ofermode* of desire that Ialdabaoth - the tyrant of this cosmos - was born. The heavenly female failed, hence we are in chains. She is to be fully redeemed, certainly, but by a perfect MALE agency.

Methinks the Gnostics can be over-valorised in some quarters, out of an understandable desire to take orthodox/catholic Christianity down a peg or two.

It's still Christmongery.

Ah, Apophis hath appopriated me...I meant to write *appropriated*.

That's a miss, certes, for this misererist.

...and thereby, I suppose, appopriated, though not mis- ,I hope ;^)

Says he, unmisanthropic misererist.

Farnaz,

"Lots to think about with Horus and Seth a deux. Homoerotic, rape, both?"

Certainly. This is a major focus of te Velde's book.

The homoerotic congress of Seth and Horus seems in part to have been a metaphor for Might (Seth) seeking to subordinate Right (Horus - the catamite as inferior). Through her wily ways Isis (the mediator of legitimate authority) subverts Seth's attempt to dominate Horus, and thereby reinstates the proper balance of power between Right (superior) and Might (subordinate). Seth tries to inseminate Horus, but instead Horus (by Isis' tricks) inseminates Seth. The sign that this has been achieved is the rather comical image of the 'filled' moon growing out of Seth, i.e. that which he thought to dominate and consume (the moon = Horus' 'eye', his wholeness) he ends up giving birth to.

Truth will out and all that...

A vivid dream to be interpreted...

Carstonio,

I just wanted to express my appreciation for your discussion with Persiflage - such civilised clarity. I learn and learn. A pleasure to read. I salute!

Pamsm (nice to see you back)

As a *magical thinker*, I say thank you for your empirical good sense.

Persiflage (keep on keeping on)

As a sensible empiricist, I say thank you for your thoughtful, honest magic.

Nongod (hidden of the hidden)

As a fool (fond of Heraclitus), I say thank you for true contraries.

For when all mouths agree, the lie is alive.

Vive le Deux.

Persiflage,

Higgs boson.

That unbig bison
wipes the horizon
with a quantum besom
aiming to ease Om.

On the trajectories of religious dualism from Egypt and Iran, through Mithraism, Gnosticism, the Cathari, the 'heretical' Bosnian Church, and the Bogomils, I recommend 'The Other God' by Yuri Stoyanov (Yale 2000), available from Amazon.

Professor JD Crossan comments on Gnosticism here:

http://www.philosophyandscripture.org/Issue2-1/JD_Crossan/jd_crossan.html

Muckenfuss makes an excellent suggestion - resurrect the Gnostics and their philosophy to see what christianity might have been - had they not been persecuted and excised by the early Church as heretics that offended the burgeoning orthodoxy.

For example, see excerpts below from On Faith scholar Elaine Pagels and her work, The Gnostic Gospels. Historically, women seemed to fair far better vs the Gnostic view of celebrating the sacred.

The Vatican continues to turn it's holy pontifical silk and jewel encrusted backside to modern gnostics, spiritual survivors of the Albigensian Crusades and other failed Church efforts to completely expunge the Gnostics and other 'heretical' offenders from the face of the earth.

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/gnostic.html

UKBA wrote:

"Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of the life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

I have long felt that the Gnostic gospels should be required reading in high school.

Ashby's Law trumps Moore's Law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jul/24/bacteria-computer

Venturing into the ancient world and how people viewed women can shed some light on how far we’ve come. The saying 114 in the Gnostic gospel of Thomas seems to be odd to a modern ear and a controversial statement coming from Jesus:

Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of the life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Mary here could be Mary Magdalene, the text is not really clear. What is clear is that for a female to achieve salvation it is necessary for her to become male first.

Bart Ehrman ih his book ‘Lost Christianities’ writes concerning this verse: “It is virtually impossible to understand what the verse can mean without recognizing that in the ancient world, the world of this text, people generally understood gender relations differently than we do. Today we tend to think of men and women as two kinds of the same thing. There are humans, and they are either male or female. In the ancient world, genders were not imagined like that. For ancient people, male and female were not two kinds of human: they were two degrees of human.

“As we know from medical writers, philosophers, poets, and others, women in the Greek and Roman worlds were widely understood to be imperfect men. They were men who had not developed fully. In the womb they did not grow penises. When born, they did not develop fully, did not grow muscular, did not develop facial hair, did not acquire deep voices. Women were quite literally the weaker sex. And in a world permeated with an ideology of power and dominance, that made women subservient and, necessarily, subordinate to men.

“All the world, it was believed, operates along a continuum of perfection. Lifeless things are less perfect than living; plants less perfect than animals; animals less perfect than humans; women less perfect than men; men less perfect than gods. For some thinkers in the ancient world, the implications were clear: For a woman to be perfect, she must first pass through the next stage along the continuum and become man.

“And so, salvation for this gospel of Thomas … requires that all divine spirits return to their place of origin. But for women to achieve this salvation, they obviously must first become male. The knowledge that Jesus reveals allows for that transformation, so that every woman who makes herself male, through understanding his teaching, will enter then into the kingdom.” fascinating!

More on the recent history of women and Zen in the West and elsewhere .......a good resource for women and religion - with authors previously recommended by Farnaz, as I recollect.

http://books.google.com/books?id=WPILfbtT5tQC&pg=PA638&lpg=PA638&dq=D.T.+Suzulki+and+women&source=bl&ots=3NeQByudDL&sig=gsm1YZIMKilvYRfYW_DAjpzJAT4&hl=en&ei=NYJsSovUBZXKtge-8P2aAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

Women distinguish themselves whereever their presence is encouraged. Zen is an inclusive philosophy, although much of our notably secular life in the West falls far short of such inclusiveness, even today.

There are many female practitioners of Zen and Zen meditation. Apparently, something of value is to be found there for every such individual, regardless of gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
http://www.zenwomen.com/
http://www.greattreetemple.org/

More on Buddhism and women:

"Let's begin at the beginning, with the historical Buddha. As told in "The First Buddhist Women," the Buddha originally refused to ordain women as nuns. He said that allowing women into the sangha would cause his teachings to survive only half as long –- 500 years instead of a 1,000

The Vinaya-pitaka section of the Tripitaka (Pali Canon) records the original rules of discipline for monks and nuns. A bhikkuni (nun) has rules in addition to those given to a bhikku (monk). These include subordination to monks; the most senior nuns are to be considered "junior" to a monk of one day.

Some scholars point to discrepancies between the Pali Bhikkuni Vinaya (the section of the Pali Canon dealing with the rules for nuns) and other versions of the texts, and suggest the more odious rules were added after the Buddha's death. Wherever they came from, over the centuries the rules were used in many parts of Asia to discourage women from being ordained.

When the orders of nuns died out in India and Sri Lanka centuries ago, conservatives used the rules that called for monks and nuns to be present at nuns’ ordination to prevent the institution of new orders. Only recently has the ordination problem been solved by allowing properly ordained nuns from other parts of Asia to travel to ordination ceremonies. However, the establishment of nuns' orders in Tibet, where there had been no nuns before, for some time met with resistance. Even today, in some parts of Asia nuns receive less education and financial support than monks.

Can Women Enter Nirvana?

Buddhist doctrines on the enlightenment of women are contradictory. There is no one institutional authority that speaks for all Buddhism. The myriad schools and sects do not follow the same scriptures; texts that are central to some schools are not recognized as authentic by others. And the scriptures disagree.

For example, the Larger Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra, also called the Aparimitayur Sutra, is one of three sutras that provide the doctrinal basis of the Pure Land school. This sutra contains a passage usually interpreted to mean that women must be reborn as men before they can enter Nirvana.
"

Speaking of real-world mysteries:

Ref. The 'real' world and the Higgs boson.

Why and wherefore all this stuff? My house, my car, and me and thee??

To date, science has no explanation for how the stuff of the material universe comes together and stays together, even for a split second - this is kind of embarrassing, especially for particle physcists.

Thus do we have the as yet undetected 'God particle' or the elusive Higgs boson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

More on women in Buddhism - as always, Zen is ahead of the rest. One can range far and wide without finding a more astute view of existential reality, IMO.

Or as Prof. D.T.Suzuki once described it, the school of radical realism.

http://www.geocities.com/zennun12_8/chanwomen.html

Back to the topic with a "reiteration":

So what is the status of women in the "other great religions"??

Part 1 - Buddhism

"The egalitarian ideals of Buddhism appear to have been impotent against the universal ideology of masculine superiority. The doctrine of Karma and Rebirth, one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism, has been interpreted to prove the inherent superiority of the male.

According to the law of Karma, one's actions in the past will determine one's position of wealth, power, talent and even sex in future births. One is reborn a woman because of one's bad Karma. Thus the subordination of women is given a religious sanction.

It is not unusual even in Sri Lanka for women, after doing a meritorious deed, to aspire to be redeemed from womanhood and be reborn as a man in future. Despite the remarkable degree of sexual equality in Burman society, all women recite as a part of their Buddhist devotions the following prayer: "I pray that I may be reborn as a male in a future existence." [16] In Thailand in 1399 A.D., the Queen Mother founded a monastery and commemorated the event in an inscription in which she requested, "By the power of my merit, may I be reborn as a male..." [17].

Several examples could be quoted from the popular parlance of all three societies to show that even women, whatever their station, have accepted the idea of female inferiority and this has influenced the husband-wife relationship in varying degrees in the societies concerned. In Sri Lanka where this idea is least perceptible, it is considered becoming even in modern times to maintain a facade of husband domination. The wifely control is unobtrusive and subtle. This ambivalent attitude is more pronounced in Burma where women are a specially privileged lot. They control the family economy; socially, politically and legally they are on a par with men.

But the wife makes a show of deference to the husband which in itself is no measure of male dominance but an adaptation to a cultural norm.

On the other hand, the fact that men could have multiple spouses whereas the women were restricted to one, placed the husband in a privileged position. The reverse was true in Sri Lanka where polygamy was unknown except in the royal family, polyandry was practiced (though not widespread) till recent times.

In traditional Thailand the subordination of the wife in the family hierarchy was sanctioned by law. Till 1935 polygyny was legally recognized."

For added information see:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dewaraja/wheel280.html

Some links for magical thinkers, skeptics, doubters, realists, and those few blessed with extraordinary common sense - unless you've got all the facts, what do you really know for sure?

PS. A deer in the woods will probably hear a tree fall, unless it falls on him/her. But that's just an opinion.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_field

Thank you, Carstonio. I was beginning to think this comments thread was populated only by magical thinkers.

Of *course* the universe can exist without humans to perceive it - it clearly did so for several billion years, at the very least. How incredibly hubristic and anthropocentric to think otherwise.

Quite right about the waves generated by the falling tree. It's nothing to the natural world if there's no eardrum or brain to translate it to *our* idea of sound.

If an incredibly virulent virus were to wipe out all humans over the next six months, say, I've no doubt that the deer and the antelope would continue to cavort under the (newly visible) stars. Nothing might then exist capable of observing the universe, just as there was nothing (at least on Earth) capable of observing it a scant hundred thousand years ago - and I'm giving us a lot of probably undeserved credit to push it back that far.

Finely tuned for life? Nonsense. It is what it is, and what is possible, will happen. Who's to say that if it were tuned some other way, that some other sort of "life" might not be possible? And how "finely tuned" can it be, when it appears that only one body out of however many (including moons, comets, asteroids) populate our solar system? When most stars are either too large, or too small, to support a planetary system like ours?

We are a happy (for us), and possibly brief, accident. Be glad, but be humble. The stars don't care.

Farnaz,

"Many of us have had the experience of KNowing something was about to happen, perhaps existing alone with the sense of impending event. I've had this sort of experience twice. Predictably, no one took me seriously, but, most unfortunately, what I had "intuited," occurred."

I've had that happen once or twice myself, but I've also had such feelings and nothing happened. I strongly suspect that there is observer bias involved, where we tend to remember the incidents when such feelings were borne out by events and forget the incidents where they were not. In any case, the burden of proof is on any claim that such incidents are not coincidental. That doesn't mean we should assume that they're coincidental. What it means is that anyone can claim after the fact that they sensed that something was going to happen. We have no way of knowing whether that person is telling the truth, is honestly mistaken, or is deliberately lying.

This leads to my point earlier about the unfortunate tendency to make assumptive leaps to fantastic or nonmaterial causes for unexplained events. This tends to discourage scientific investigation into events. The ability of birds to migrate may seem magical without discoveries such as the ones outlined below:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090709-birds-magnetic-field.html

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

My literal answer is that the fall disturbs the air in waves, but that an ear and a brain are necessary to convert those waves into a hearing experience. It depends on whether you define "sound" as the waves in air or as the nerve impulses created by the ear.

One can discuss the philosophical implications of the tree premise, but my interest here is determining what is factually accurate about the universe. I'm not saying that one is more important than the other, but instead saying that they are distinct questions.

Farnaz wrote:

"consider the transformation of energy (not material) into matter and vice versa."

I am very interested in these transformations of energy and matter. I have spent a lot of time studying the ways in which the energy of spirits and "ghosts" can be measured/quantified. I began as a non-believer. Now....

Staying with the off-topic subjects:

According to Drs. Lanza and Berman in their new book,

"Biocentrism", the last frontier is Consciousness.

An excerpt:

"However, the Grand Canyon or Taj Mahal are only real when you get there." p. 160.
(ditto for trees falling in a forest)
"Third Principle of Biocentrism:

The behavior of subatomic particles- indeed all particles and objects- is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves." p. 93.

"So the table has been set in the public mind for biocentrism's jump to the reality that its all only in the mind, that the universe exists nowhere else.

Farnaz, regarding your link & trees falling in the forest - people deprived of one or more senses truly live in a different kind of world, full of hazards and heightened sensations that make Berkely's point - if you don't see it or hear it, it doesn't exist until you learn to rely on other senses.

Hi Farnaz,

Thanks for your thoughts. You said:

'Intuition: Many of us have had the experience of KNowing something was about to happen, perhaps existing alone with the sense of impending event. I've had this sort of experience twice. Predictably, no one took me seriously, but, most unfortunately, what I had "intuited," occurred.'

Indeed, intuitive (pre-cognitive) knowing seems to transcend the limits/laws of time and space as we know them. It brings to mind the ideas of synchronicity per Jung, and the nonlocality of quantum mechanics and Bell's theorem.

This and other faculties/qualities of the brain/mind have led a few folks to propose a new model of the human brain and how the brain functions. But wouldn't you just know it? It's called the quantum mind :)

And further, does the idea of 'objectivity' have any validity other than as a construct to offset 'subjectivity'. And if such is the case, then maybe neither of these widely overused terms accurately describes our experience/perceptions of reality per se.

This link really is worth reading through.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Hi Onofrio,

Thanks again for the BD thoughts, tecommendations, citations.

Lots to think about with Horus and Seth a deux. Homoerotic, rape, both?

Persiflage, Carstonio,

Free (non)material associations:

Setting aside quanta for the sake of my simplicity, consider the transformation of energy (not material) into matter and vice versa. Heat and cold are not visible, although their effects may be.

As science progresses, it becomes increasingly abstract, developing more and more models of that which we cannot see. Nevertheless, these models have applications. The precision with which the models describe "actuality" is open for debate.

Reification: There is no such thing as a "commodity," per Marx. It is all reification. Sizek shows that science developed with capitalism as the mind became used to simulacra.

Intuition: Many of us have had the experience of KNowing something was about to happen, perhaps existing alone with the sense of impending event. I've had this sort of experience twice. Predictably, no one took me seriously, but, most unfortunately, what I had "intuited," occurred.

Language (?): "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

Is water wet? (This is one of those other pain in the @%#! philosophical questions.)

CCNL1 (if that is your true identity)

I understood all too well that you are an old, inane drone. It is now apparent that you are an infantile old inane drone.

And everybody knows that you are the anti-DavidWaters. Your punctuation is a dead giveaway.

Shut up and act your age.

My test results indicate INTJ outcome - but want to change personality type as retirement approaches. Seeking more fun and less planning/organizing/stress, etc.

Is this possible? Am soliciting advice from retirees e.g CCNL, Arminius (wherever is he?) other members of over-the-hill gang.

http://www.personalitypathways.com/

Ref. INTJ

Wow! Some of us are in august company...

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

Ref. INTJ

Wow! Some of us are in august company...

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

Once again, off topic but an interesting one-

Hmmm, Carstonio, said quantum theory was (we are told) the theme of the party you and Muckenfuss attended with probability waves being a major party decoration. Must have been some kind of "Gib Gnab" party!!!! What sayest thou???

Carstonio,

I'm not a theist, and like the scientists that you mention, have not said anything with absolute certainty.

We're talking about cosmology here, but certainly not from a creationist point of view. I have no idea what your exposure to science may be, but this is my understanding of how our universe may be viewed by the current physics involved:

Our basic reality is space, with the vacuum or zero point field being the medium (because of absolute zero temp). This physical medium has the properties of super-fluidity and contains vast energies. It is the source of 'objective' phenomena.

Objects travelling in this medium exist for a time, but are in essence waves that propagate through the vacuum, become entangled, manifest particle-like qualities that give rise to phenomena - the standing wave of quantum physics. Eventually the particles are re-absorbed back into the vacuum, never losing their fundamental wave aspect at any time.

The 'intelligent design' factor may be seen in the postulate that the vacuum replicates endless continuous universes from past information - but this does not say that consciousness creates anything. Cycles and cosmic rhythms are the very nature of the vacuum itself.

And thus do we have the necessary initial conditions and physical constants for life to appear - again and again. This is also where the anthropic interpretation emerges.

At no time do objects actually exist independently - although they exist in a relative way that allows for our material existence, science, physical laws, etc. to develop.

What is it that causes this physical reality to appear? Obviously there is more than one theory, but some would refer to the 'observer effect' and more specifically, consciousness - this is a point of contention without a doubt.

You're correct in the view that science does not generally like the idea that consciousness is both pervasive and primary e.g. the panphysicm view.

On the other hand, certain mystics through the ages, and of the Eastern meditative schools in particular, have said right along what I just said here - reality consists fundamentally of basic space and conscious awareness....there is nothing else. That looks to be a long way from the scientific view, but maybe that distance is an illusion?

These discoveries of the meditative arts are testable and repeatable, and have been for centuries. That's not to say that science is going to develop cosmologies based on the fruits of meditation - I think they'll stick with math.

As Occam's Razor goes, you have to admit that space plus mind is the simplest explanation for all that we see before us :)

Please feel free to share your own cosmology......

Farnaz,

You're most welcome.

Further references in BD 78, 83, 86, 99, 110, 123, 134, 137b, 138.

Griffiths and te Velde are good guides to the (even) earlier material in Coffin Texts and Pyramid Texts.

For a positive view of Seth, see BD 39, in which he protects the sun god from the chaos serpent Apophis. Another inflection of the ageold archetypal combat:
Yahu-El vs the water monster, Baal vs Yam, Marduk vs Tiamat, Herakles vs Achelous and Hydra, Michael vs Satan, St George vs the dragon, Sigurd vs Fafnir, Beowulf vs Grendel's mother...

Carstonio wrote:
"I've tested as an INTJ and ISTJ at different times. "

AHA!!! Hail fellow, well met.

Hi Onofrio,

Thanks very much for the postings. :) Rather a different tone than that of the Ramesside text, no?

Googled a bit of BD.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

This is from the lengthy BD 17, which features a series of allusive explanatory glosses.

" 'I restored the Sacred Eye after it had been injured on that day when the Rivals fought.'
What does it mean?
It means the day when Horus fought with Seth when he inflicted injury on Horus' face and when Horus took away Seth's testicles. It was Thoth who did this [i.e. restored the Eye] with his fingers. "

-------------------------------------------------------
Translated by R.O.Faulkner

Farnaz,

Following up on BD references to the struggle Horus and Seth, as discussed below:

From BD 112 'Spell for knowing the Souls of Pe'

"And Re said:

'Look again at yonder black pig.'

And Horus looked at this black pig, and Horus cried out because of the condition of his injured Eye, saying:

'Behold, my eye is like that first wound which Seth inflicted on my eye!'

And Horus fainted before him [Re]. Then Re said:

'Put him on his bed until he is well.'

It so happened that Seth had transformed himself into a black pig and had projected a wound into his [Horus'] eye, and Re said:

'The pig is detestable to Horus.'

'We wish he were well,' said the gods.

That is how the detestation of the pig came about for Horus' sake, by the gods who are in his suite.
Now when Horus was a child, his sacrificial animal was a pig before his eye had suffered..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation by R.O.Faulkner.

"Is Doug_White the missing triplet in the Carstonio and Muckenfuss grouping??"

I don't remember encountering Muckenfuss before, and I was tempted to type that name with the F and M in each other's places just to be a smartass. In answer to the Myers-Briggs question, I've tested as an INTJ and ISTJ at different times.

Persiflage,

My last post was directed in part at your comment about physical laws allegedly being fine-tuned to allow life to emerge. From my reading, that comment appeared to enable to theistic position that life could not have come into being without a guiding intelligence. I'm not claiming that the position is false, I'm arguing against the assumptions involved.

"And there is absolutely no evidence that the universe would still be here if we (or some self-reflective intelligence) weren't here to witness it"

The universe continues to exist when individual humans die, so it's reasonable to suspect that this would also be true if humans didn't exist. You're right that we can't rule out the possibility of the universe being purely a mental construct. But what phenomena would that idea explain?

"It takes imagination to arrive at answers, explanations and theorems"

True, but it also takes a willingness to test one's answers against data, and a readiness to change one's answers in the face of contrary data. Without that testing, imagination is equivalent to reasoning from an armchair.

"What exactly is imagination? Is it physical or nonphysical, or merely a mental chimera? And intuition? Another conundrum....although one poster awhile back offered as how these were obviously byproducts of brain chemistry - easy to say, but very hard to prove."

To my knowledge, no scientist claims with absolute certainty that imagination and intuition are entirely rooted in brain chemistry. While I also make no such claim, I question the assumption that the chemistry is inadequate to explain either phenomenon. The claim that some sort of nonphysical existence is required is a huge assumptive leap.

"Science ideally has to live by this credo, but since we ordinary folk don't have to abide by the rules of experimental design, we have more latitude."

The idea of testing hypotheses is by no means limited to science. I see the knowing/not knowing principle I outlined as a universal responsibility to fact.

"bits and pieces of our material existence "

Again, that assumes that there is a reason to believe in or suspect a nonmaterial existence. Where does that idea come from? What are people perceiving that leads them to that belief or suspicion?

"To the best of our knowledge, something cannot come from nothing"

We cannot assume that, and I know of no scientist who would state that as a certainty. I usually hear that argument from creationists, which is ironic because they're using what they believe to be a scientific principle to argue against anything from science that contradicts Genesis literalism. From your posts, I doubt that you intend to advocate creationism, or even to advocate theistic cosmology in general.

Still, my overall point is that we should respect the gaps in human knowledge, resisting the temptations to treat our speculations as factual. Too often we view mysteries in terms of what we want to be factual or what we wish wasn't factual.

Off topic-

Hmmm, previously : ?

"I am curious. You have of course heard of Myers-Briggs and the Jungian sorter. Do you know what you are according to M/B? I am an INTJ.
Posted by: Doug_White | May 14, 2009

vs.

"Carstonio wrote:

"Intellectual responsibility means being clear on what one knows and what one doesn't know."

A simple, but profound comment. Are you also an INTJ?

Posted by: Muckenfuss | July 24, 2009 1:51 PM

Is Doug_White the missing triplet in the Carstonio and Muckenfuss grouping?? Most interesting!!! And are there more members? Stay tuned!!

Carstonio - I appreciate your point of view. I disagree regarding your 'belief' in an objective reality, alhough we do act as though we live objectively - predicting and shaping the future by every act.

Determinism works, but only sometimes, and then only at the macroscopic Newtonian level of large objects. It doesn't work at the sub-microscopic quantum level.

Chaos theory, as an example, takes another point of view, even in the visible world. And there is absolutely no evidence that the universe would still be here if we (or some self-reflective intelligence) weren't here to witness it - and if so, what kind of a universe would we imagine it to be? A real Catch 22.

It takes imagination to arrive at answers, explanations and theorems. Einstein was quite famous for his mental musings and graphically salient imagery.

What exactly is imagination? Is it physical or nonphysical, or merely a mental chimera? And intuition? Another conundrum....although one poster awhile back offered as how these were obviously byproducts of brain chemistry - easy to say, but very hard to prove.

I agree with you though, the divide between the material and nonmaterial universe may be artificial, and more of a construct than we typically know or recognize. At some level, probably consisting of an homogenous whole.

In a practical sense I also agree that we should declare what we know, and admit to what we don't know. Science ideally has to live by this credo, but since we ordinary folk don't have to abide by the rules of experimental design, we have more latitude.

BTW, I'm not faulting science for disecting reality - it's useful and logical method of viewing bits and pieces of our material existence in order to gain a bigger picture and better understanding. There are great practical benefits, which is not in dispute here anyway.

As I read through your posts, I'm not absolutely certain that we disagree on much of anything, other than my insistence that our cutting edge cosmology has a distinct mythical element to it. I stand by this view.

To the best of our knowledge, something cannot come from nothing - and yet, science likes to refer to our early Big Bang origins as a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum - which isn't. Something from 'something'?

It's odd that as a proof of efficacy, we employ an axiom conjured up by a 14th century English monk, is it not?? But of course, Copernicus, etc.

Logic is terrific, but non-logical mysteries abound. And I don't know anything - that isn't subject to change.

regards, Persiflage

Good stuff from DITLD in his last two posts.

TTWSY says:
"Moreover, the Old Testament is authenticated by Jesus, who is God, and nowhere were His recitations of the Exodus disputed."

And, conveniently, we know of Jesus (only) from the Bible, also the source of the Old Testament.

This is nothing more than the oldest tautology of them all - I know God is real because the Bible says so, and I know the Bible is true because it is the word of God.

Get better material.

There is an inner or internal "aspect" of religion, where we reflect on life, death, the soul, God, angels, Heaven, and how tiny we are in this vast universe.

And there is the outer aspect, what we do in the world to show our religion. In fact, the outer aspect of religion is one of the marks of culture.

Because we are physical things in the world, we must do things, we must go places, we must say things. We must stand or sit or kneel. We must dress a certain way. We must meet according to some schedule, in some designated place. If that place is a building, we must design it and build it, and then maintain it with funds that we must acquire. When we pray, we must say something; we must find words for our prayers.

And every religious group does all these things in different ways.

When you go to church, or mosque, or temple, you are actually going to a little theatrical production, one that you may even participate in. And each new generation, according to their traditions, continues their religious practices as they have been taught. But none of these particular religious traditions can have any real or cosmic meaning beyond the local setting in which they are considered customary. They are merely the checklist of the things that we must do, because we must do something. If participation enables inner reflection, then so much the better, but it does not change the arbitrary nature of our outer religious expression.

All of the differences among religious groups are, in fact, to some degree, political differences. Many settled religious practices were, in fact, settled by force, by political force, but sometimes, by brute military force, and by torture. We think these differences in religious practices are critically important, just as we may think that the invisible political boundaries between nations are critically important.

But, could God attach much importance to such things, or even notice them at all?

Carstonio wrote:

"Intellectual responsibility means being clear on what one knows and what one doesn't know."

A simple, but profound comment. Are you also an INTJ?

I should explain my Occam's Razor comment...I meant that the idea of consciousness having inherent existence is the scientific equivalent of intelligent design. Neither really answers the questions involved. Their purported solutions instead create more unanswered questions.

Persiflage,

"I think point of view has everything to do with everything - even knowing the nature of your own experience, which as you say is the only thing you can know for sure."

My point is that objective reality exists independent of human viewpoint - the universe would still exist if humans weren't around to form views about it. You might have a point if we were talking about views of the human experience, but the specific issue here is the nature and properties of the universe. Whatever those properties are, they aren't matters of human opinion.

"cosmology is not settled science in the same way. We are still abiding within the realm of myth - whether or not one can do the math."

Cosmology is distinct from myth in that it rightly treats meaning as a matter of human opinion. The field also rightly recognizes the scientific principle of falsifiability. Myth wrongly claims inherent meaning to events, and it wrongly rejects the possibility of evidence disproving its claims. By the latter, I mean that mythical claims are so broad that any possible evidence would be explainable under the myth.

"various versions of the anthropic view vs purely materialist views"

Why do you see those as opposites, as if one had to choose between one or the other?

"I believe you have to be willing to think outside the materialist box in order to appreciate other views. "

I'm not advocating materialism, I'm questioning the assumption of objective non-material existence, and the assumption of a material/non-material divide. One can question those without making the opposite assumptions.

And most importantly, the goal is to determine what is factual about the universe, independent of any particular human viewpoint as much as possible.

From the links you offered, quantum mysticism and panpsychism seem to have the same weaknesses as intelligent design. These ideas are unfalsifiable, they appear to be rooted in philosophical preference, they are essentially god-of-the gaps arguments in nontheistic settings, and they don't conform to Occam's Razor. Of course it's possible that consciousness may have inherent existence, but we have no basis for deeming that idea to be anything but speculation.

"It just fun and games, and the musings of philosophy e.g. the possible and the real."

The flaw there is that we can't rule out the possibility of anything, not even Ben Bernancke sprouting pink rabbit ears during a press conference. Speculation is not wrong as long as we clearly label it as speculation. Intellectual responsibility means being clear on what one knows and what one doesn't know. It means recognizing that no piece of speculation is any more likely than any other pieces.

This is in reply to TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2’s scripted recitations:

Our religious heritage comes from each previous generation. Each before the other passes it on to the next. Each one of us inherits, at any given time in history, and at any given location upon the earth, a religious and cultural setting, where the formation of an inner will comes into being, and operates to motivate our personalities. This setting is very different from place to place and from epoch to epoch, and is based on many, many things that have only a virtual existence; and by that I mean, things that have no existence at all, other than as markers, and interpretive categorizations within our own minds.

When we think in the present moment, we are speculating. And all of the thoughts and feelings and emotions and beliefs that have come into our minds prior to the current moment, all came to us by way of ever-changing contingencies. My religion is the product of contingencies and speculations; in fact, this is true for everyone.

If you believe in God, and if you are a Christian, you cannot believe that any person "set" on this earth, within the "setting" of their birth can be any more or less favored by God, merely by the "accident" of their birth. And therefore, to assert and assume the superiority of one religious truth over another is absurd, and that there must be something more than this ad-hoc and senseless paradigm.

No one knows God any more or less than I do, nor any better than anyone else does; this is an illusion. What you know is other people's written theology, which is nothing more than speculation about God, usually drawn up by a Committee of men. Theology written in this way is not even a pretense at seeking truth; it is almost always the product of a politically coerced compromise. Therefore, all theologies must, by their very definition, be untrue.

I consider thr "Catholic" and "Christian" point of view as promoted by TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2, to be shallow, insensitive, and inhumane. It is flawed thinking that man is better than woman and that woman must be subservient to man. From this religious confusion about sex comes disdain of the human body as sinful, and sex and sexuality as innately sinful. I do not believe that.

Isn't that really the great divide in America today and even in all the world? Isn't this difference of opinion what makes some people modern, and others "old-fashioned" and antiquated? Isn't that what all this fighting is really all about, that there is one group of people seeking to contain sexuality in themselves and in others, and another group of people who want to live and experience the lives that we were set upon this earth to live?

Correction to my last post - Origen was actually condemned for espousing the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, rather than a belief in reincarnation.

He was often equated with the Gnostics, who did in fact support the idea of metempsychosis (reincarnation) after Plato and other Hellenic thinkers....but it is unlikely that Origen himself believed in reincarnation because it defies several fundamental Christian principles - primarily, salvation through Christ.

This concept puts considerable pressure on Christian followers to 'tow the line' doctrinally, in this single (but quite inexplicable) life time.

It is fair to say that not only theism, but Christianity, requires a non-logical leap of faith to the supernatural that is not necessarily found in other of the world's religions.

As with all religions and religious theology, the idea of salvation offers many different versions under one broad concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

Christianty and making it up as you go:

The doctrine of reincarnation was an essential part of Christian dogma until the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 533 A.D.

Origen, one of the preeminent early Church Fathers and a theologian of great discernment, was declared guilty of heretical thinking because of his support of this doctrine.

The good guys don't always win, but the guys in power (and their agenda) generally come out on top - with the emphasis on guys.

So it goes with the continuous fiddling with Church doctrines over the centuries - all of course 'divinely inspired' by the Holy Spirit. No wonder theism has lost all credibility - particularly the Vatican brand.

Religion - madmade from start to finish and no gods necessary.

http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation3.html

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ONOFRIO
“SALVATION”
POSTED ON: | JULY 24, 2009 12:45 AM

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1259

“Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. Lumen Gentium LG 16).—Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"The purpose of the redemption was the salvation of men. Hence, Christ made known the truths which men must heed and obey. He established a Church to which He committed the care and the exposition of these truths, and, consequently He made it obligatory on all men that they should know and hear it (Matthew 18:17).

It is obvious that this Church, which takes the place of Christ, and is to carry on His work by gathering men into its fold and saving their souls, must be evidently discernible to all.

There must be no doubt as to which is the true Church of Christ, the one which has received, and has preserved intact the Revelation which He gave it for man's salvation.

Were it otherwise the purpose of the Redemption would be frustrated, the blood of the Saviour shed in vain, and man's eternal destination at the mercy of chance. Without doubt, therefore, Christ, the all-wise legislator, impressed upon His Church some distinctive external marks by which, with the use of ordinary diligence, all can distinguish the real Church from the false, the society of truth from the ranks of error.

These marks flow from the very essence of the Church; they are properties inseparable from its nature and manifestive of its character, and, in their Christian and proper sense, can be found in no other institution.

In the Formula of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), four marks of the Church are mentioned -- Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, Apostolicity -- which are believed by most theologians to be exclusively the marks of the True Church.

'Viewpoint has nothing to do with it. Either inherent meaning exists or it doesn't. The burden of proof is on any claim that it exists.'

Carstonio, I think point of view has everything to do with everything - even knowing the nature of your own experience,
which as you say is the only thing you can know for sure.

But my orignal point was simple - evolutionary theory has replaced mythos as a method for explaining human origins, but cosmology is not settled science in the same way. We are still abiding within the realm of myth - whether or not one can do the math.

From here one confronts various versions of the anthropic view vs purely materialist views, where the physical universe somehow emerges from nothingness and processes itself over 15 billion years until you and I appear - to observe and speculate about what we perceive.

I believe you have to be willing to think outside the materialist box in order to appreciate other views. If you want to stick with the Dawkins/Dennett view of things, that's perfectly alright too.

On the other hand, if after another trillion years this universe simply re-cycles itself, we'll know that there was more to the Big Bang than a big bang. If the vacuum theory is proven out, then nothing is lost, and sentient life is re-cycled according to what some define as holographic blueprints - and consciousness continues to evolve to higher and higher levels of refinement. See panpsychism below.

And lastly, everything may in fact be material in some way - however not in any way that we currently understand. We have no idea what the originating substrate of physicality is really capable of in terms of it's creative potential.

If intelligence is replicated with successive universes, this explains how the initial conditions and approximately 30 constants/physical laws are fine-tuned to such mathematically precise tolerances so as to allow life to emerge.

Please see my other links on a previous post re. the akashic field, and a couple more here. None of this has to do with supporting theistic views in any way. It just fun and games, and the musings of philosophy e.g. the possible and the real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/panpsychism

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

And now that that is settled, tell us again why the infallible Catholic Church hates gays.

And why any sensible person should care.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
PRIESTHOOD
POSTED BY JULY 24, 2009 3:08 AM

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm

No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God. Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God's call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.

“The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common priesthood of the faithful." Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community

In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis.”

Hence, a woman cannot be a representative of Christ. “(virtute ac persona ipsius Christi). Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ

Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers. In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.” Again the priest imitates the Heavenly Father.

The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a "sacred power" which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all."

Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.

The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”

Farnaz,

Thee:
"By any chance, do you know in which "chapter" I might find the two contending?"

There is no extended narrative of this struggle in the Book of the Dead. There are scattered allusions to it, here and there. The difficult BD 17, and BD 112 (= Coffin Texts II, 341a) spring to mind. From elsewhere I recall mention of the god Thoth intervening between the Two Fighters and reconciling them; mention of Horus having defeated Seth, and of Seth being mastered in relation to the Eye of Horus. I need to look up my own copy of the Book to give you chapter and verse. I'll get back to you...

In the meantime, I can recommend two excellent books that deal authoritatively with this topic:

Herman te Velde 'Seth, God of Confusion' (Brill 1977)

J. Gwyn Griffiths 'The Conflict of Horus and Seth, From Egyptian and Classical Sources' (Liverpool Univ. 1960)

Onofrio,

Thanks again. Many web references; mebbe I'll find something virtual. :)

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=the+contending+of+Horus+and+Seth+book+of+the+dead

Late/Early here in Brooklyn Land.

Am dreamward bound.

Goodnight,

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Right. In which text, then, pre-Plutarch, does one find the demonized Seth?"

The images and dramatic texts from the great Temple of Horus at Edfu (construction commenced under Ptolemy III Euergetes, 237 BC).

Try 'The Triumph of Horus' ed. A W Fairman for starters.

Earlier than that would require some digging...

Onofrio,

Thanks. Yes, I see numerous references to Horus and Seth in the Book of the Dead. The "Book" is online. By any chance, do you know in which "chapter" I might find the two contending?

Thanks again-
Farnaz

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

Your claim that God does not want women to be Priests, is silly. Such silliness undermines the credibility of your claims of Catholic infallibility. Basically, you are saying that God is petty, childish, and silly.

The God that you describe is tiny and feeble, certainly inferior to even an ordinary man.

So, what then is your point? How do you expect such pitiful arguments ever to convince anyone?

You are trying awfully hard, but I don't see any converts.

We've seen references - doubly cut-and-pasted even - to what is commonly known as the Egyptian *Book of the Dead*.

Just for the record, this title is a modern confection. The Egyptians themselves didn't use the terms *book* and *dead* to describe this text corpus. Their terms were, quite literally, *Texts for Emerging in the Daytime* (prj.t m hrw), rendered more floridly by (the regrettably popular) Budge as *Chapters of Going Forth By Day*.

Their earliest composition dates back at least to the start of the *New Kingdom* (c.1550 BC).

Here endeth the pedantry.

Mea culpa.

Right. In which text, then, pre-Plutarch, does one find the demonized Seth?

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Question re: The Contending of Horus and Seth
Ramesside text recounts (dis)possession duel?"

Correct. Ramesside indeed, language phase Late Egyptian (well on the way to Demotic and Coptic), script hieratic. The Anc.Eg. Divine Commedy: Horus a petulant mummy's boy; Seth a bufoon; Isis a manipulative minx; the gods a panel of ditherers.

"Deomon(ized) Seth Plutarch penned"
Yes, yet Plutarch was not the originator of said demonisation. Had transpired much earlier.

Interestingly, Seth-Baal was a dynastic patron of the Ramesside pharaohs, who were natives of the eastern Delta, from the vicinity of what-had-been Avaris, capital of the Hurrian-Canaanite Hyksos.

Apologies to Horus, Seth, Pharoahs, Chronology.
Am temporally dislocated.

Learned Onofrio,

Thanks for wonderful reply. Am dusting cobwebs from memory bin....

Question re: The Contending of Horus and Seth

Ramesside text recounts (dis)possession duel? Deomon(ized) Seth Plutarch penned?

TTWSYF wrote:
"Of course that doesn’t mean only members of the Catholic Church may enter Heaven. The ultimate path is a sincere love of God, and to do Good and avoid Evil. However, why walk on a road of broken glass barefooted, when you can ride in a limousine with all the amenities."

Pope Eugene, Council of Florence, 1445 wrote:
"Those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41]"

House divided? Semper eadem?

Compare and contrast...

TTWSYF,

Thee:
"Christianity didn’t denounce Judaism it compliment it, enhanced it and made it whole."

Nice bit of pious condescension there, TTWSYF.

The actuality, by and large, has been not only condescending, but downright stark:

"Those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41]" (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1445).

Through the centuries, plenty of Catholics have helped along the hellride this side of Judgement Day.
*If God is going to burn those Jews and heretics and pagans anyway, may as well give him a hand right now with an auto-da-fe! He loves a barbecue...*

Are you a fan of the *Novus Ordo* mass, TTWSYF? Or do you subscribe to the REAL Catholic Mass, with its Good Friday prayer for those "perfidious Jews".

Tough love, eh?

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Know this one, Onofrio? Says, if I'm not mistaken, that Horus = Jesus, Sut = Satan."

Aye, certes. Broadly true for later periods; most anciently, not quite so neat.

Certainly, by the Ptolemaic period (as seen in the great Temple of Horus at Edfu), Horus was all-goodness-and-light and Seth a *satanic* foe, necessarily defeated. But Seth had not always been utterly demonised. Most anciently, Seth and Horus were broadly Might and Right. The pharaoh had to maintain a balance between them to rule effectively. Par excellence, the pharaoh incarnated Horus - the cosmic god, whose eyes were sun and moon - yet also partook of Seth, who was the necessary transgression, coercive power, the breaker-in and breaker-out.

Seth had always been associated with the uncanny Other, which, though dangerous, was not utterly abominable. As such, Seth - the eternal *outsider* - was seen as the god of non-Egyptian peoples, particularly those of Canaan. He was syncretised with Baal who, as you know, has rather a lot in common with Christ. Yet, ironically, in Egypt itself Seth was not a dying-rising god - that was, of course, the province of Osiris, Seth's archetypal victim.

It was largely due to negative experiences of foreign rule post-Dynasty 20 (time of early Israel) that Egyptians turned Seth from necessary wild-man to diabolical fiend. Yet, even in Graeco-Roman times, Seth had his cult sites (eg. in the Dakhleh Oasis) and his followers. They were not *satanic* - like any local deity, Seth would have supervised proper conduct and standard piety in his domain. He also had an international profile among magic practitioners of all stripes, being equated with the Greeks' Typhon.

Personally, I think the Christ/Satan dichotomy owes as-much-or-more to Zoroastrian influence as to Egypt, though Horus vs Seth did exercise a powerful influence on the Christian imagination, certes, cf. Michael vs Satan in Revelation; St George vs the Dragon - both with Egyptian iconographic antecedents.

Once again, what many contemporary NT and historic Jesus exegetes(unlike the old, white European elders/patriarchs/males who authored the Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1909)
have concluded after exhaustive review of scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the 1st to 3rd century CE.

Matt 16:13-20 - not said by the historic Jesus. The passages basically made the gospel writer, Matthew, the real "rock" of the RCC. Or should we call Matthew, the Son of God? Or should it be as per Karen Armstrong, "Are we not all the Sons and Daughters" of God???

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb073.html

The Jesus Seminar (no need for a critique of the Seminarians, I have seen them all) voted 100% that Matt 16: 13,15 was not said by the historical Jesus. And the Seminarians are some of the top contemporary NT experts, most being professors of religion.

Once again, it does appear that the Jewish scribes borrowed heavily from:

42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)

"I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men and women.
I have not stolen grain.
I have not purloined offerings.
I have not stolen the property of the god.
I have not uttered lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not uttered curses.
I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.
I have made none to weep.
I have not eaten the heart [i.e I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse].
I have not attacked any man.
I am not a man of deceit.
I have not stolen cultivated land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have slandered [no man].
I have not been angry without just cause(?).
I have not debauched the wife of any man.
I have not debauched the wife of any man.
I have not polluted myself.
I have terrorised none.
I have not transgressed [the Law].
I have not been wroth.
I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.
I have not blasphemed.
I am not a man of violence.
I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace).
I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste.
I have not pried into matters.
I have not multiplied my words in speaking.
I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King).
I have never stopped [the flow of] water.
I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger?).
I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God.
I have not acted with arrogance(?).
I have not stolen the bread of the gods.
I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the Spirits of the dead.
I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.
I have not slayed the cattle belonging to the god.[26

And the borrowing continued for the likes of the P, M, M, L, and J.

Just in case Onofrio slept through this comment:

Carstonio and Muckenfuss?? Hmmm, girl/boy friends of ????

And Onofornio, we assume the rest of McCabe's analysis of Christianity meets with your approval i.e. you said nothing about the first two paragraphs of the summary of his book??? And again what degrees do you have??

Again the first two paragraphs of the summary of McCabes book, The Myth of the Resurrection?

"Did Jesus ever live? Was he the Messiah as Christianity has claimed? And what are the true foundations of the Christian religion? These are the fundamental questions posed by ex-priest Joseph McCabe (1867 - 1955), a prodigious scholar, translator, and lecturer, who tirelessly promoted scientific inquiry, skepticism, and anticlericalism in works that were exhaustively researched yet accessible to the general reader.

In these three lively, informative, and combative essays, McCabe takes us through the ancient Mediterranean world to show how Christianity appropriated the ceremonies and myths of paganism to elaborate the Resurrection story. McCabe cogently demonstrates that the Jesus of the gospels is not historical at all but a curious amalgam built up after his death. The gospels themselves are completely unreliable as biographies of Jesus."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ONOFRIO
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN
POSTED ON: | JULY 23, 2009 10:24 PM

IRT:
"Judeo-Christianity"
Slippery term there, Autoflagellant.
It syncretises Judaism and Christianity, even marries them, which is sheer fiction, all things considered. You know, history and all that...blood of millions...

ANS:
Judeo-Christianity is used in the sense that Christ came to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham and his people the Jews. Unfortunately for the Jews, some didn’t want to come along. Consequently, they are still waiting for a Savior, and a few started modifying their own tradition, a tradition so magnificently stated by the fiddler in the Fiddler on the Roof.

Christianity didn’t denounce Judaism it compliment it, enhanced it and made it whole.

Jesus came and established one Church. All who are baptized are members of God’s Church, and all who enter into Paradise must come through Christ’s Church which He established. God did not establish a multitude of different Church each contradicting each other in part or in whole. That would make His Church a contradiction of errors. However, Truth cannot contradict Truth.

Of course that doesn’t mean only members of the Catholic Church may enter Heaven. The ultimate path is a sincere love of God, and to do Good and avoid Evil. However, why walk on a road of broken glass barefooted, when you can ride in a limousine with all the amenities.

Thus, it is God’s Church that exalts human dignity but it is the rejection of Her precepts that demeans humanity. God so loved man that he sent His only Son to make reparation of man’s sin against Him.

Thus, in Luke 12; 22-40 it is written,:
And he said to his disciples: Therefore I say to you: Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. The life is more than the meat: and the body is more than the raiment.

Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they? And which of you by taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If then ye be not able to do so much as the least thing, why are you solicitous for the rest?

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labor not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. Now, if God clothe in this manner the grass that is to-day in the field and to-morrow is cast into the oven: how much more you, O ye of little faith?

And seek not what you shall eat or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high. For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom.

A modest proposal:

All children study comparative religion as myth.

People who wish to subscribe to any religion, may do so, after it has been vetted by knowledgeable, impartial sectarians :), and non partisans.

No religious institution will be permitted to lobby the Congress, on pain of being excluded from the curriculum, shut down in the US for twelve years, subjected to a fine of twelve billion dollars.

No tax exempt status. Period.

=============
Secular humanist organizations must do more than opine and discourse. They must take the message to the streets. Sell tee shirts to raise funds:

American flag logo + No Taxation without SEcularization.
=============

Fin

TTWSYF,

Sans all sense of debt, Mons Vaticanus has ransacked not only the House of Israel, but also the House of Pharaoh, the Esagila, the Academy, the Stoa, the Lyceum, the Museion ... the list goes on.

Know this one, Onofrio? Says, if I'm not mistaken, that Horus = Jesus, Sut = Satan.

Ancient Egypt, the Light of the World
By Gerald Massey

TTWSYF,

"Mary the Mother of God"

Well, as I've posted before now, and you have consistently ignored, *Mother of God* was originally an Egyptian title of my lady Isis, also known as *Mistress of Heaven*. I know what I write; I read the sacred signs...

Every time you venerate an image of the Madonna and Child, you are paying homage to Isis - the Mother of God - and to her son Harpocrates - Horus the Child, the sun-crowned God himself, the King-to-Be.

IHS - Isis, Harpocrates, Serapis: the Holy Family your fathers stole...

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Your thoughts on why Christians insist on "Judeo-Christian"?"

Nutshell: I think, at root, it's an attempt to deny that the hand that feeds has been bitten...hard.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN |
POSTED ON: JULY 23, 2009 3:22 PM

IRT:
“To stay on topic, why don't you tell us all about why women cannot be Priests in the Catholic Church? It is not as though we haven't heard it all a million times before. But go ahead, explain it again; maybe this time, someone will believe you.”

ANS:
The Catholic Church cannot change any of the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus, who is God, did not ordain women. Therefore, women are not permitted to be priest-- Scripturally and Traditionally.

Moreover, since it is explicitly been stated by God to St. Peter, “You are Peter and upon this Rock, I will build my church. (Matt 16: 13cf.) And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
That has been declared by the Pontiff, a teaching of Jesus; consequently there can never be a woman priest. It’s not up to the Church but God.

Moreover, the Church’s greatest creature God has ever created is a woman, the Mother of God. Therefore, woman is exalted above all the creatures God has created, however, Mary the Mother of God was never a priest and though she be the greatest creature of Creation, she will never be a priest.. The Church is bound by Tradition and Scripture to this precept.

Moreover, woman is the exalted temple of life; she can be a Mother, but a Man can not be a Mother. Both are equal in nature and dignity; each compliments each other, but they are different in their psychological and physical needs, and neither man, nor Court can change it. So is it the same for the Priesthood.

Farnaz wrote:
"Hammurabi hankerers, take note: Marduk was a resurrectional god....and not the only one...."

Hear, hear!

Some of the other contenders:
Dumuzi/Tammuz of Sumer/Akkad, Sandan of Tarsos, Melkart of Tyre, Eshmun of Sidon, and ...(drum roll)... BAAL of Canaan (coming to a high place near you!)

Perhaps the insistent polemic of the *OT* prophets against the latter had just a LITTLE to do with Jewish scepticism about Jesus the Dying-Rising-God-Man.

Could it be that Jews understood their own texts better than the Christmongers? (:^O

Christianity - a casserole of old-time Baalism and new-guise contra-Caesarism, generously seasoned with mystery cult. To be consumed, piping hell-hot...

Onofrio,

It syncretises Judaism and Christianity, even marries them, which is sheer fiction, all things considered.
===============
Yup. Ain't no such any mal as Judeo-Christianity. There is Judaism, and there is Christianity. Your thoughts on why Christians insist on "Judeo-Christian"? :)

TTWSYF,

"the continuous consensus of the Jewish people"

Hmm. The Vatican holds this *consensus* in high regard when it comes to Moses, yet casts it aside when it comes to the Nazarene...

Another one of those blessed paradoxes in which Christmongery is so abjectly steeped?

DANIEL12 wrote:

“The primary cause of the oppression of women is that men were and still are physically stronger than women. One can erect a structure and place it on top of this fact--a structure such as "religion", "history", "economics", "politics"--but man's physical strength stands ready beneath. And when we reflect that in our modern age man is perhaps physically stronger than in the past (because of better health, etc.) we have to ask what occurred to make the difference that women now, in the modern age, are freer than in the past.

My thesis, quite simply, is that women are freer now than in the past because men changed--and this change most certainly is not in the decline of the physical strength of men. Something else must have occurred--and my contention is that this change rather has been in the mind of men. Furthermore, this change has been necessary primarily because otherwise men would constantly be at one another's throats.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

I can agree in great part with the cause of the oppression as you describe in the first paragraph. But the thesis about why women are freer now is not that convincing in spite of your long reasoning to support it (five parts post, a record?).

How about the impact of the spread of the education and the arrival of the information age in many countries that has diminished the ability of men dominating illiterate women?

If you look at underdeveloped countries with lack of basic education and low penetration of books and Internet, in most of them the situation is almost the same as in medieval times. Mix lack of education with religion, culture and politics and you have a poisonous cocktail.

TTWSYF,

"Judeo-Christianity"

Slippery term there, Autoflagellant.

It syncretises Judaism and Christianity, even marries them, which is sheer fiction, all things considered. You know, history and all that...blood of millions...

It seems that when Opus Deists such as yourself want to appropriate something from other Christic streams, you use the term *Christian*. You in fact believe that only Catholics are true *Christians*, so in applying the term *Christian* to non-Catholics you insinuate that they are implicitly, unconsciously Catholic, or Rome-indebted. Sneaky, yea snakey even...

Likewise with Judaism. Officially, you ritually rue the *perfidious Jews*, who remain unconvinced by your god-man, yet when you want to appropriate some attractive aspect of Judaica, this term *Judeo-Christian* materialises, as if Jews were implicitly for-Jesus, unconscious proto, crypto, potential Christmongers.

Given that there is - in your Weltanschauung - only One True and Holy Catholic Church, you should stop using such ambiguous, weasel terms as *Judeo-Christian*. For one so catechetically, Thomistically certain, your imprecision in this regard is truly culpable.

(Penance - one night without the whip. Suffering is good for the soul...)

Hammurabi was okay in my book, although a bit of a ruffian at times. (Who isn't/wasn't?) Hammurabi hankerers, take note: Marduk was a resurrectional god....and not the only one....

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCLN1
“MOSES AND THE COMMANDMENTS”

The voice of tradition, both Jewish and Christian, is so unanimous and constant in proclaiming the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that down to the seventeenth century it did not allow the rise of any serious doubt. The following paragraphs are only a meagre outline of this living tradition.

Biblical Commission: Acta Apostolicoe Sedis (15 July, 1908); Rome (17 July, 1909).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm

“In accordance with the voice of the triple argument thus far advanced for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906, answered a series of questions concerning this subject in the following way:

The arguments accumulated by the critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name PENTATEUCH ARE NOT OF SUCH WEIGHT AS TO GIVE US THE RIGHT, AFTER SETTING ASIDE numerous passages of both Testaments taken collectively, the continuous consensus of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal indications derived from the text itself, to maintain that these books have not Moses as their author, but are compiled from sources for the greatest part later than the Mosaic age.

The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch does not necessarily require such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote all and everything with his own hand or dictated it to his secretaries; the hypothesis of those can be admitted who believe that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by him under the influence of Divine inspiration, to others, but in such a way that they were to express faithfully his own thoughts, were to write nothing against his will, were to omit nothing; and that finally the work thus produced should be approved by the same Moses, its principal and inspired author, and published under his name.”

The substantial Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch remains intact if it be granted that in the long course of centuries the work has suffered several modifications, as; post-Mosaic additions either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; the translation of certain words and forms out of an antiquated language into the recent form of speech; finally, wrong readings due to the fault of transcribers, which one may investigate and pass sentence on according to the laws of criticism.

The post-Mosaic additions and modifications allowed by the Biblical Commission in the Pentateuch without removing it from the range of substantial integrity and Mosaic authenticity are variously interpreted by Catholic scholars.

Persiflage,

"modern cosmology and related quantum physics are pointing to a distinctly nonmaterial component of reality"

Would you explain? While I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, from my limited knowledge I suspect that "nonmaterial" is merely an interpretation from outside the field of physics. Such an interpretation would appear to be driven by the baseless assumption that unexplained events amount to violations of physical laws. It's more likely that those events would have explanations in aspects of the universe we haven't discovered. If that is the case, then there would be only one type of reality.

Are you arguing that quantum physics may provide a scientific basis for the existence of gods? That may be possible but I don't see how, at least under the common definition of gods as outside space and time. That definition is inherently unfalsifiable.

"While the prevailing mindset of science is distinctly non-teleological e.g. a universe without inherent meaning or purpose, we can't say that that viewpoint will continue to persist indefinitely."

Viewpoint has nothing to do with it. Either inherent meaning exists or it doesn't. The burden of proof is on any claim that it exists.

"Nor can we say for certain that consciousness is not a permanent, immanent quality to be found throughout time, space, and beyond."

I know of no scientist who makes such a claim of certainty. Personally, I say that I can't be certain about anything except what I perceive with my senses at any given moment. Of course we can't rule out permanence for consciousness. But again, the burden of proof is on any such claim of permanence.

"by implication there does seem to be a transpersonal quality embedded in the vacuum."

Would you explain?

TTWSYF,

Thee:
"Nor did Catholicism borrow its tenants from Hammurabi, which are all over the place."

Hammurabi was a decent enough landlord, back in the day.

I didn't know he still had tenants. If they are indeed all over the place, as you say, I guess they would include a good number of Catholics ;^)

I understand Babylon Inc. still owns Vatican Hill...

To religious readers, religious posters and TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2:

85% of the US population is religious, mostly Christians that occupy most of the leadership positions in government, business and social worlds. From an statistical point of view means that in large part religious people in great part are “responsible” for the proliferation of STDs, pornography, same sex marriage, lust, contraception, adultery, fornication, divorce, shack-ups, abortion, black genocide, etc.

Have you ever read in the news about pastors, priests or rabbis caught with prostitutes or molesting minors? Have you read about high level politicians love escapades that factually deny the supposed belief in the sanctity of the religious matrimony? All this contribute to the social problems that you want to blame on to secularists or From the Secular World (FSW) as TTWSYF call us.

Think about this. Not all women that have abortions can be secularist. The numbers indicate a good participation from the pious religious souls -most of them Christian- in having the abortions in this country. Same apply to the rest of the TTWSYF's laundry list of social maladies.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCLN1
“MOSES AND THE COMMANDMENTS”

ANS:
Sorry, but the Ten Commandments have only one God, Who is a jealous God, and will have no strange gods before Him. Judeo-Christianity is, in no way, comparable to, or a borrowing of, Greek Mythology. There are no other Commandments that are comparable to the “Ten Commandments” given to Moses. Nor did Catholicism borrow its tenants from Hammurabi, which are all over the place.

One of your critic claims even all the Catholic saints are all fictitious. Hah! I believe that he himself may be fictitious.

“PROBABLY” used by some of your sources means it’s not certain; they are guessing against the plethora of proof historically recorded not by just the Jewish people but by those who encountered them and their God.

To dismiss the Scriptures, of which your sources say they are made up by speculation is extravagantly reckless. That’s a nice simplistic argument to say Scripture is a forgery as some of your sources say, but the argument has no substance to impugn the integrity of the Scriptures and the Judeo-Christian religion.

To believe speculation is an unmitigated attempt to discredit the presence of God and to make the Jewish people look like a bunch of saps. That is ludicrous. Try again with better sources.

Moreover, the Old Testament is authenticated by Jesus, who is God, and nowhere were His recitations of the Exodus disputed.

I’ve answered your citation on the Jewish Rabbi, David Wolper, before. He impugns his authenticity as a Jewish Rabbi. Consequently, he maintains the title of a Jewish Rabbi, while he claims the Jews’ traditions and beliefs are built on untruths, shams, and fabrications.

Being on the WP panel doesn’t insure one’s infallibility. Enlightenment advocates, Pagans Atheists and Agnostics drape the panel as well but they have no credibility when it comes to God and His Church.

Another Rabbi, Arthur Waskow, on the panel claimed Tiller, the Abortionist, who murderer some 60,000 unborn should be honored as a national hero.

“All honor to Dr. George Tiller, who joins the list of martyrs for ethical decency and human rights, killed for healing with compassion. He is a religious martyr in the fullest classical sense, killed in his own church as he arrived to worship, killed for acting in accord with his religious commitments and his moral and ethical choices.”—Waskow

Muckenfuss,

"The need for good dental insurance?"

THat's it!!!! NB, TTWSY, all of humanity needs to be insured against dental mishaps. This is regardless of ethnicity, religion, nonreligion, gender, sexual attraction, etc., political affiliation, preferences in pets, etc.

"TTWSY must consider that which all humanity shares....(What is it that all humanity shares?)"

The need for good dental insurance?

TTWSY must consider that which all humanity shares....(What is it that all humanity shares?)

Farnaz:

TTWSY does not have thoughts, he has reactions.

Wise, Muckenfuss,

Re: Your posting

If I'm not mistaken, yours is a view widely shared among "straight" folks. What does it all mean? Wonder if TTWSY has thoughts on this....

RAts! Domination takes frowny.
============================
Btw, TTWSY, I think you must consider the research that more than suggests gayness is not a choice. Who, in our homophobic world, would choose to be gay? Reconsider your thinking on suicides among gays. What do you think prompts them?

I cannot for the life of me understand why gayness poses such a threat to some. It is not "contagious." The notion that the entire world will become gay and no children born is groundless.

Gayness concerns sexual attraction; that's all. If gays are willing to accept straights, straights should, at least, return the courtesy.

Farnaz wrote:

"Third attempted reply (frowny)

...to be distinguished from domination (smiley)

Whew!"

Either way, there's nothing like having a nice round little butt to spank.

Muckenfuss,

Third attempted reply (frowny)

...to be distinguished from domination (smiley)

Whew!

Farnaz

Muckenfuss,

Continued: WaPo cut off part of my previous post.

Maybe, there's dominating (:]) to be distinguished from domination (:

PAMSM wrote:

"TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 writes:
"Twenty six million dead from AIDS. Fifty percent of all STD infected victims, in America = homosexuals. 70 percent of AIDS victims = homosexuals... Gay Marriage = Lust.= AIDS = STDs; Gay Sex = Conjugal Love said the secular Court."

Must be terrible to be so full of hatred."

You'll notice the old catamite forgot to mention that the OTHER 50% of all STD infected victims, in America, are straight.
Or that HIV infections are on the rise in the straight community, while declining in the Gay community...thanks to education about condoms, which the Death Pope recently forbade -again- in, of all places, Africa.

Hello, Muckenfuss,

"Interesting. I enjoy dominating men, but I never regarded it as having social significance. It seems to fill a very biological need for me."
===================
Hmmm...Point taken :). Maybe, there's dominating (:

PAMSM wrote:

"

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCLN1
“MOSES AND THE COMMANDMENTS”

IRT:

The “Ten Commandments” are not a copy of The “Code of Hammurabi,” or any other pagan codes. All civilizations must rely on the Natural Moral Law imbedded in the “Ten Commandments,” to maintain a harmonious social order. Consequently, some things in the “Ten Commandments,” will be, by necessity, in all societal legal codes because they are based on human nature. What is different in the “The Ten Commandments” is God and His relationship to man. He is not a God of War, Fertility, Appeasement or Vengeance, but a God of Love.

IRT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books/new-torah-for-modern-minds.html

“For instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,'' by Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern scholarship, it “SEEMS” unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in Palestine. “MORE LIKELY”{, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which “PROBABLY” grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was “PROBABLY” borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.”

ANS:
This is another of your sources that are more speculative than factual laced with "PROBABLYS" and "May Haves" and "More Likelys."

Here are the findings of the BIBLICAL COMMISSION: ACTA APOSTOLICOE SEDIS (15 JULY, 1908); ROME (17 JULY, 1909). First, you might check the Sources shown at the end that this Commission used in arriving at its conclusions. Moreover, the pros and cons are made and are shown as part of its conclusions.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm

1. The question as the theological certainty of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch.
2. Opponents of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
3. Abandoned theories
4. Present hypothesis of documents
5. Deficiencies of the critical hypothesis

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 writes:
"Twenty six million dead from AIDS. Fifty percent of all STD infected victims, in America = homosexuals. 70 percent of AIDS victims = homosexuals... Gay Marriage = Lust.= AIDS = STDs; Gay Sex = Conjugal Love said the secular Court."

Must be terrible to be so full of hatred.

“You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
~Anne Lamott

Farnaz:

Interesting. I enjoy dominating men, but I never regarded it as having social significance. It seems to fill a very biological need for me.

Part one.

The modern age. Halcyon days of Western civilization to be exact. Women with rights equal to men. And in this age there is much talk that religion over the centuries has oppressed women, worked to keep them subordinate to men. How true is this? What exactly would be a more accurate cause of the oppression of women over the centuries?

Perhaps religion has had a hand in the oppression of women, but we must go back to the beginning, to the raw facts of nature. And I think everyone can return to the raw facts--agree with them--especially when we dispense with metaphysics for a moment. The salient raw fact for our purposes here? None other than that men have demonstrated superior physical strength in comparison to women.

The primary cause of the oppression of women is that men were and still are physically stronger than women. One can erect a structure and place it on top of this fact--a structure such as "religion", "history", "economics", "politics"--but man's physical strength stands ready beneath. And when we reflect that in our modern age man is perhaps physically stronger than in the past (because of better health, etc.) we have to ask what occurred to make the difference that women now, in the modern age, are freer than in the past.

My thesis, quite simply, is that women are freer now than in the past because men changed--and this change most certainly is not in the decline of the physical strength of men. Something else must have occurred--and my contention is that this change rather has been in the mind of men. Furthermore, this change has been necessary primarily because otherwise men would constantly be at one another's throats. In other words, this change was necessary to subdue violence, and the expression of this change was articulated as moral law--moral law held to come from on high, whether it be by most powerful man of the tribe or cabal, or held to come from "God".

Part two.

Primary metaphysics is the expression of man wrestling with his violence, and it would be helpful to examine the earliest known languages with this thought in mind. My suspicion is that early language attempts were in the naming of primary physical facts such as water, fire, food, shelter, etc.--and intermingled with these physical facts a metaphysics engrossed with law, and based on the obvious violence of man toward man. In other words, religion was born--a combination of primitive law and man making supplications toward "higher powers" for the control of nature and the providing of primary physical needs (again, the language of food, shelter, water, fire).

So with all these considerations in mind we are prepared to examine exactly the role religion has played in the oppression of women. My contention is that religion is an expression of a fundamental change in man from beast to partially civilized creature. Man is not totally civilized in religious ages--in fact we can perhaps say that if he were he would not need religion--but he has taken a decisive step away from being a beast. And this change has been born by man for the greater good of man--this change has been effected by man himself upon himself. The age of religion we are prepared now to say is an age in which women are certainly still quite oppressed by men (as they obviously were in the man the beast ages), but men are in obvious contemplation of their own evil--good and evil are clearly in the minds of men.

Part three.

So what we can say so far is that if there is any freedom for women in the age of religion it is because men have given such freedom in the process of being engrossed with and taming their own evil. The shift in relationship between women and men in the age of religion is a shift in the way of man--and with woman in mind we can detect no change (the historical record does not show any), she does not demonstrate a shift in mind comparable to the shift in mind of man. In other words, woman has not changed. The change is in the mind of man. But one would not gather this from the interpretation of history by the modern feminist. No, according to the modern feminist not only did woman fight for, heroically, her own freedom, she fought against man who apparently is not only not Homo Sapiens but Neanderthal man. Certainly modern feminists are in the habit of calling even modern men Neanderthals as if not only have men not changed but are a completely different, and inferior species in comparison to woman.

But let us proceed further, examine the age following the religious age.--Namely the age born of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment. Certainly the Renaissance and names such as Leonardo and Michelangelo are important, but we are looking for the decisive change from the religious age to the modern--and once again, we can say Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, and of course, inevitably, and with the glory of Greece in mind (specifically Athens), democracy. So how did this change come about, who effected it? This change came about by the further thinking of men and of course was effected by men. Man changed himself again--as decisively as he embarked upon the religious age in his boat striving to avoid the flood of his own evil. Does it have to be put any clearer than that? But one would not know that from the modern feminist.

Part four.

The modern feminist has precisely the opposite interpretation of history I have just stated. According to the modern feminist man has demonstrated no change at all--in fact, and once again, he is not even Homo Sapiens but Neanderthal man. According to modern feminists the liberation of women has come about by themselves, by their heroic fight against men. That men finally gave women their freedom after milleniums of trying and succeeding in changing themselves is exactly the embarrassment of modern feminism, exactly what cannot be said. No, the modern feminist is engrossed with digging out of history women who challenged men, trying as best they can to see that it was not men who changed themselves and gave women their freedoms but that their freedoms were born of female heroes--heroines--, a list of something like Amazons stretching back into the indefinite past.

Preliminary conclusion: Religion is not only not the cause of the oppression of women but is a transition from more primitive man and his physical violence to modern man and rights for woman. Of course religion has oppressed women, but this is because man in his religion was still not sufficiently changed. He was contemplating and trying to overcome his evil, yes, but he still oppressed women. Now in the modern age man seems to have sufficiently tamed himself--and this is reflected in the decline of religion and freedom for women, true freedom. History as man changing from one state to another, and one of the proofs of change the emancipation of women.--And now we are poised to ask an unexpected question, a question which cannot exist without the correct understanding of history I have given: Has woman over the centuries changed at all? We have proof of man changing from largely beast to modern man but we see no comparable proof of woman changing. In fact, going by the historical record it would not be absurd to ask if woman is the same as she was thousands of years ago. But of course that woman has not changed at all for thousands of years seems absurd to common sense.

Part five.

Conclusion: We have a fertile question for science, and this question--based on the paucity of evidence for women changing over history as dramatically as men--is whether or not in the Darwinian sense the descent of man has been more rapid than the descent of woman. In other words the question is whether or not man changes at a more rapid pace than woman. Of course man does not wildly outstrip woman in his changes, but could it be in comparison to woman he changes at a noticeable and calculable rate? Of course we have to take into consideration that woman might have been changing at equal speed as man over history and was just not noticed for such because history has been written by men, but still...there is evidence of men developing at a more rapid rate than women.
Evidence such as women seeming to be more similar to one another than men are to each other...

Women represent an average in comparison to men. Men are more likely to have both higher math, musical and scientific reasoning skills and to be born with all sorts of genetic defects. A woman is more likely to be born without a genetic defect but she is also more likely to be born without the specialized gifts of math, musical skill and scientific reasoning. Just as an example of one of these skills--the musical--notice that women are good at singing but not good at playing instruments; the electric guitar has been around for sixty years and has overlapped with modern feminism but there is not a single woman stylist (instantly recognizable sound) on the electric guitar. Of course the names of a hundred men with their own sound can be reeled off. Women have language skills--what is in common. The skills just mentioned above are skills not in common. In other words it seems there is greater variety among men than among women--and does not greater variety increase the chance of successful transformation? Greater variety as proof of slightly more rapid pace of evolutionary development. But of course none of this can be speculated upon these days no matter how well we are doing in science. Better to just sit back and be in common and engage in the popular pastime of insulting religion.

Carstonio - Old wine in new wineskins?

Well, maybe so......in some ways it's difficult to give up one's metaphysical impulses altogether! Science is not free of metaphysics, but that's another discussion.

http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Hi Muckenfuss,
"Of course, not all men subscribe to the domination myth, and like everything else, all other destructive practices, the will to power is more profitably viewed as a social rather than a biological fact."

And does this apply to the need some men have to dominate other men?
---------------------
I hope so!

Carstonio - in fact, modern cosmology and related quantum physics are pointing to a distinctly nonmaterial component of reality – and some would consider that to be pure mythology.

The vacuum state from which everything is said to arise, is not real, but is virtual potential. In addition, this boundless virtual matrix is part of what some consider a metaverse.

Our local universe being only one of many in an endless succession of emerging universes that are pre-patterned based on former universes – information, according to this view, is cumulative and is never lost. It is simply stored in the vacuum state and recapitulated in the future - in a unique way.

While the prevailing mindset of science is distinctly non-teleological e.g. a universe without inherent meaning or purpose, we can't say that that viewpoint will continue to persist indefinitely.

Nor can we say for certain that consciousness is not a permanent, immanent quality to be found throughout time, space, and beyond. Add to the mythos.

The main difference between old cosmologies and new cosmologies - the old myths were definitely anthropomorphic by design, while new cosmologies clearly can't hold to that ancient paradigm.

And we certainly can't define intelligence in the same fixed way as did our pre-scientific forbearers. The new cosmologies are also exceedingly complex, and are not readily available to ordinary folks – there is no light reading to be found there!

However, sentient life is emergent, so one could say that life with meaning and purpose is coherently emergent with advanced life forms - whether by accident or design (?) humans are not separable from this matrix, except in so far as they have unique forms and functions....our constituent parts/our energy is not separable from the vacuum.

While this is not a form of intelligent design, by implication there does seem to be a transpersonal quality embedded in the vacuum. Personally I don't think the current material realist view will hold up over time.

Today this is the quasi-mythical view, but tomorrow, who can say??

Carstonio and Muckenfuss?? Hmmm, girl/boy friends of ????

And Onofornio, we assume the rest of McCabe's analysis of Christianity meets with your approval i.e. you said nothing about the first two paragraphs of the summary of his book??? And again what degrees do you have??

Again the first two paragraphs of the summary of McCabes book, The Myth of the Resurrection?

Did Jesus ever live? Was he the Messiah as Christianity has claimed? And what are the true foundations of the Christian religion? These are the fundamental questions posed by ex-priest Joseph McCabe (1867 - 1955), a prodigious scholar, translator, and lecturer, who tirelessly promoted scientific inquiry, skepticism, and anticlericalism in works that were exhaustively researched yet accessible to the general reader.

In these three lively, informative, and combative essays, McCabe takes us through the ancient Mediterranean world to show how Christianity appropriated the ceremonies and myths of paganism to elaborate the Resurrection story. McCabe cogently demonstrates that the Jesus of the gospels is not historical at all but a curious amalgam built up after his death. The gospels themselves are completely unreliable as biographies of Jesus."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

To stay on topic,why don't you tell us all about why women cannot be Priests in the Catholic Church. It is not as though we haven't heard it all a million times before. But go ahead, explain it again; maybe this time, someone will believe you.

Athena,

As per your reference (danke schoen by the way):

42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)

I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men and women.
I have not stolen grain.
I have not purloined offerings.
I have not stolen the property of the god.
I have not uttered lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not uttered curses.
I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.
I have made none to weep.
I have not eaten the heart [i.e I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse].
I have not attacked any man.
I am not a man of deceit.
I have not stolen cultivated land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have slandered [no man].
I have not been angry without just cause(?).
I have not debauched the wife of any man.
I have not debauched the wife of any man.
I have not polluted myself.
I have terrorised none.
I have not transgressed [the Law].
I have not been wroth.
I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.
I have not blasphemed.
I am not a man of violence.
I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace).
I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste.
I have not pried into matters.
I have not multiplied my words in speaking.
I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King).
I have never stopped [the flow of] water.
I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger?).
I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God.
I have not acted with arrogance(?).
I have not stolen the bread of the gods.
I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the Spirits of the dead.
I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.
I have not slayed the cattle belonging to the god.[26]

Farnaz wrote:

"Of course, not all men subscribe to the domination myth, and like everything else, all other destructive practices, the will to power is more profitably viewed as a social rather than a biological fact."

And does this apply to the need some men have to dominate other men?

Persiflage,

It's a mistake to compare modern cosmology to ancient mythology. Sure, at first glance they both seem to be attempts to explain phenomena. But the former rests solidy on scientific principles, with falsifiable hypotheses that allow for the prediction of new data. Ideally there is no cultural or emotional agenda involved. That's the whole problem with myth - its proposed explanations are based on what is appealing, either for satisfying desires or allaying fears. These are based on what their originators want or don't want to be true. But we have no basis for believing that the universe cares about human emotions. The idea that "everything happens for a reason" is merely an understandable but misguided denial of that indifference.

"the mysteries of gender equality may be unraveled to a degree by viewing past mythologies where eqalitarian treatment of women in society has been found, or is found today"
=============
Interesting. IN some AmerIndian myths, first comes gender-bending, then kinship confusion, then flood. But then there are matrilinear myths, complex gender myths, etc.

A number of AmerIndian tribes prize those persons whom we call "gay," "transgender," etc., value them especially.

Eucharist derives from mystery religions of region. Ditto "trinity."

Persiflage writes:
"And floods can and do occur, but everywhere? And why is this a seemingly universal mythic motif?"
====================
Almost universal but not quite are man-gods, demigods, sons of gods daughters of god, etc. Killed and tortured demi-gods, gods, sons, etc., not unusual.

Twins fighting in mother's womb pretty common.

Carstonio,

Some random thoughts - following your observations, we could presume that some (primitive) myths may have originated in actual events that were perceived as both cataclysmic and life-altering - even though actually occurring on a local scale. The ancients had no clear idea regarding the actual dimensions of our planet back in the day.

One function of myth is explanatory - as was often the case, God or gods were obviously responsible for these events & with good and sufficient reasons of their own. Somehow, humans and human behavior were to blame for their/our own unfortunate fate.

And floods can and do occur, but everywhere? And why is this a seemingly universal mythic motif?

Creation myths typically refer to remote events outside of real time, but without science, humans had no other alternative explanation aside from the awesome confabulations of myth - and yet, explain it we did, because it's apparently what we do! Mythology typically explains origins and/or foundational events, culturally speaking.

But mythology is not necessarily primitive or remote in time - our current (cosmic) mythologies are based on the discoveries of science and in particular, mathematics. On one hand, evolutionary theory has de-mythologized human origins, so this no longer falls into the category of modern myth (for many, but not all).

However, if we looked at our present state of cosmology and phyics, the mysteries of inflation theory and the quantum vacuum state, black holes, quantum nonlocality and quantum uncertainty, etc. we can understand how the relative simplicity of Genesis looks way more appealing to lots of folks!

IMO, the mysteries of gender equality may be unraveled to a degree by viewing past mythologies where eqalitarian treatment of women in society has been found, or is found today - inequality is by the same token founded on myths that arbitrarily divide genders by role, function, and even ultimate value to a society e.g. modern day China has been a good example of this (male-centered) orientation and there are plenty of others.

Myths are after all beliefs....writ large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

"The “Ten Commandments” are not a copy of The “Code of Hammurabi,” or any other pagan codes. All civilizations must rely on the Natural Moral Law to maintain a harmonious social order."

Actually, they were more likely a copy of the 42 Declarations of Purity in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

It's witching hour here, and I must to bed. Good night, friends and foes.

CCNL (or whomever)

Thee:
"McCabe reveals a series of shameless distortions by Christian apologists who, he argues, destroyed classical civilization and inaugurated the dark ages."

So old hat. Gibbon rehashed.

Look, I'm the first to take Christmongery to task; if you read my posts, you'd know that. But no careful historian would claim that "Christian apologists destroyed classical civilization and inaugurated the dark ages." That, sir, is sheer polemic bluster, trading in outworn cliches. The *dark ages*? Please!

Carstonio writes to Persiflage:

That's similar to the proposal by historians that King Arthur was originally a Briton chieftain whose exploits grew larger and more dramatic in the retelling.
==================
Well...On Arthur (Uther) Pendragon, the debate will probably never end. However, see Gildas (sixth century), available at Project Gutenberg. M'guess is there was such a chieftan, that his exploits, did, in fact, grow, morph, all over Europe, reaching mytho-epic proportions.

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Interesting! Of course, not all men subscribe to the domination myth,"

True. But it's something of a default setting, the all-too-easy way for too many.

"and like everything else, all other destructive practices, the will to power is more profitably viewed as a social rather than a biological fact."

I would say *both/and* rather than *rather than* :^) And even profitably! A distinction not writ in water, but less than a fence...

I think we men can learn otherwise, certes. Biology is not destiny; yet it remains something of a bully.

"have you read Sherry Ortner’s significant (seminal/germinal?) article “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” "

Farnaz! (:^U What do you think I am? Well read? :^) So not so. It is best to assume I am unread. The title promises a compelling read.

"There has been much archetypal musing viz Earth Mother Woman, not much discernible in WorkForce and other Emanations. Woman = Good, Man = Bad, err, no, don't think so, nope."

Agreed. We are all bad, it's just that men are more, um, demonstrative about it, eg. nukes - something only a phallocracy could conceive ...

Since Farnaz is a professed atheist and also Jewish by race/ethnicity. Being a said atheist, one of her favorite web sites is the Secular Web. http://secweb.infidels.org

An abstract of a book from the Secular Web's library:

"The Myth of the Resurrection

Joseph McCabe (author of "The Forgery of the Old Testament)

Did Jesus ever live? Was he the Messiah as Christianity has claimed? And what are the true foundations of the Christian religion? These are the fundamental questions posed by ex-priest Joseph McCabe (1867 - 1955), a prodigious scholar, translator, and lecturer, who tirelessly promoted scientific inquiry, skepticism, and anticlericalism in works that were exhaustively researched yet accessible to the general reader.

In these three lively, informative, and combative essays, McCabe takes us through the ancient Mediterranean world to show how Christianity appropriated the ceremonies and myths of paganism to elaborate the Resurrection story. McCabe cogently demonstrates that the Jesus of the gospels is not historical at all but a curious amalgam built up after his death. The gospels themselves are completely unreliable as biographies of Jesus.

Critically examining all the ancient sources, McCabe reveals a series of shameless distortions by Christian apologists who, he argues, destroyed classical civilization and inaugurated the dark ages."

Hmmm, McCabe came the same conclusions years before many of the current historic Jesus exegetes (e.g. the On-Faith panelists, Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen)

As noted previously:

"Did the Exodus Really Happen?

Knowing the Exodus is not a literal historical account does not ultimately change our connection to each other or to God.

BY: Rabbi David Wolpe

Three years ago on Passover, I explained to my congregation that according to archeologists, there was no reliable evidence that the Exodus took place--and that it almost certainly did not take place the way the Bible recounts it. Finally, I emphasized: It didn't matter.
Some argue that there is no evidence to back my assertion. Endlessly reiterated is the mantra "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." In other words, the fact that we have never found a single shred of evidence in the Sinai does not mean the Israelites were not there.

This is nominally true. We have found Sinai evidence of other people who predated the Israelites, and while it is improbable that 600,000 men crossed the desert 2,500 years ago without leaving a shard of pottery or a Hebrew carving, it is not impossible. (Together with women and children, that makes a couple of million, who could actually fill the distance between Egypt and Israel by standing in line.) One rabbi quoted to me the mystical tradition that one tribe was deputized to clean up every trace, which at least shows the Jewish tradition's unease with Sinai's preternaturally clean slate.

However, the archeological conclusions are not based primarily on the absence of Sinai evidence. Rather, they are based upon the study of settlement patterns in Israel itself. Surveys of ancient settlements--pottery remains and so forth--make it clear that there simply was no great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500-1200 BCE). Therefore, not the wandering, but the arrival alerts us to the fact that the biblical Exodus is not a literal depiction. In Israel at that time, there was no sudden change in the kind or the volume of pottery being made. (If people suddenly arrived after hundreds of years in Egypt, their cups and dishes would look very different from native Canaanites'.) There was no population explosion. Most archeologists conclude that the Israelites lived largely in Canaan over generations, instead of leaving and then immigrating back to Canaan."

Bottom line: No Exodus, no Moses, no Ten Commandments from on high!!!

Hi Carstonio,

I've read about Native American societies that were matriarchal and others that were gender-egalitarian.
===================
I may have phrased the point poorly. I know that this will to dominate is not evident in all societies. For instance, there is an African tribe that is matriarchal.

As for AmerIndian culture, there was, for quite awhile, an idealizion of the "exotic other" in US academics, which confused AmerIndian myth, some of which highly values the feminine, with AmerIndian societies.

At present, the suffering on the reservations makes such discussions very difficult. The cultures are fracturing apace.

I do not mean to suggest that all individual men seek to dominate women.

Farnaz,

With regard to T & R:
In all fairness, Farnaz, my nation's record is mostly a disgrace, not at all unlike the long, official soul-grind of those US reservations you mention. Some of our *remote communities* are previews of Hell, no exaggeration.

As for *teacher*: Thou art That, certes, truly, madly, deeply.

I salute!

Hi Onofrio,

Because we men seek to dominate everything, and women (and other men) are a portion of that all
================
Interesting! Of course, not all men subscribe to the domination myth, and like everything else, all other destructive practices, the will to power is more profitably viewed as a social rather than a biological fact.

But women may be part of that "nature," Nature, that Social Man seeks to control, the results of which are the imminent destruction of the earth. Never have we here in the states heeded the call of the AmerIndians on this, they who call to us still, in the wake of tornadoes, global warming, etc. (There was a tornado in Brooklyn!!!)

Btw., have you read Sherry Ortner’s significant (seminal/germinal?) article “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?”

BUT: There has been much archetypal musing viz Earth Mother Woman, not much discernible in WorkForce and other Emanations. Woman = Good, Man = Bad, err, no, don't think so, nope.

Farnaz

"is not the prior question why men, once organized into societies, seek to dominate women?"

Farnaz, that question is based on a false assumption that all men seek that, or that societies end up being dominated by men. I've read about Native American societies that were matriarchal and others that were gender-egalitarian.

Farnaz,

Thee:
"is not the prior question why men, once organized into societies, seek to dominate women?"

Because we men are "troglodytes from the alternate world" (thank you, TTWSYF).

Because we men seek to dominate everything, and women (and other men) are a portion of that all.

Thanks to that male drive we have machines, molto vivace, mere lust, manacles, and missiles...all for the lack of mammaries. There have been some collateral fruits too, en route, but the good earth could have done without all those cavalry charges and conquests. Overrated.

What price the hunter's elan?

Persiflage,

While you're right that there's no evidence for a worldwide flood, the Wikipedia entry suggests likely events that would have devolved into that myth over time. That's similar to the proposal by historians that King Arthur was originally a Briton chieftain whose exploits grew larger and more dramatic in the retelling. We can't rule out the possibility that a local or worldwide flood was deliberately caused by supreme beings, but the lack of evidence means that such ideas don't deserve serious consideration. Those ideas sound like desperate attempts to blame someone or something for the calamity, like abuse victims blaming themselves to feel in control of their situations.

Onofrio and Persiflage, Teachers,

Thank you very, very much for your wonderful postings. Native American flood myths are particularly interesting since they establish the in no way simple connection between Man and Nature, the ignoring of which has led to our present terrestrial undoing in the form of global warming, etc. Will post more on this at another time.
--------------
Onofrio, thanks very much for your thoughts on Austrialian T&R. Very few Americans, very few, are aware of it any more than they are aware that T & Rs exist all over the world.

Americans are equally unaware of the plight of indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, etc., not to mention our own Apartheid regime. There is nothing akin to a reservation in the US, not the South Bronx, nothing. They must be seen to be believed.

Indeed, Canada and Australia have not succeeded in genocide, while we are almost done. Reservation Native Americans who earn livings average 6,000 per year. They ingest poison in the interest of getting high. We have baseball teams with names like "Redskins."

Still, they attempt to get this government to honor its treaty agreements. It won't work. They need a much more aggressive strategy. Americans respond to aggression.

Btw., Americans, a gambling casino here and there will not stop the genocide.

T&Rs are hugely unsuccessful as numerous South African scholars have written. There is little truth, no justice, no accountability, and hence no reconciliation. What they enable is the continuation of the sins of the fathers.

Some South Africans have referenced a book you might want to take a look at: "The Sunflower," Simon Wiesenthal. It depicts an actual experience of the author, followed by the question, "What Would You Have Done?"

In answer, some of the world's greatest philosophers, theologians, human rights workers, some politicians, statesmen have written.
===========================
Still, seeking knowledge of Homunculi, but, today, Onofrio, is Boxing Day, Brooklyn style. This little known un holi day involves the dispensing of long unused stuff from apartments, the better to see it among any who might want it and in the interest of humans who dwell within said urban abodes.

CCNL (or whomever)

"And we know Moses was mythical"

Do *we* now? Or rather: (What) do *we* (k)now?

Semi-legendary, perhaps, but not much whiff of mythic...

Blanket minimalisation of *OT* historicity is so old hat, CCNL. Yesterday's mythmongery, certes.

Eh? Android?

Persiflage writes:

The problem begins when one takes these things literally - geological studies firmly prove there never was any such occurance e.g. and such is the case with myths from A-Z
===============
Yes, quite. We have discussed this. Flood myths, twins fighting in the mother's womb are mythic tropes the world over.

The Eucharist, however, is not. It was decidedly not Jewish. No Jew on the face of the earth would ever, at any time, have equated symbolically flesh with bread, blood with wine. Taboo. Jews, well before the first century could not ingest blood. There is a radical division between life and death to which the dietary laws refer.

See Tanakh. For the origins of the Eucharist myth, see, e.g., Marvin Meyer, Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World, available at libraries and at Amazon Books.

You may also read some of it on Google Books.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xMDHgzjSU_MC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=Marvin+Meyer+eucharist&source=bl&ots=M1oUwJDqmP&sig=gHoUagBoMC6rc7j_HQjy1SGeAWg&hl=en&ei=W35oSoWTOMm3twf-pvG9Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

The number of virgin birth myths is too numerous to post, ditto the number of man-god, son-of-god lore.

Onofrio has posted on a possible source for the trinity concept, a source, I've learned, that others also note.

To get to the bottom of it, we come to the quite possible non-existence of Yeshu Messiah (Jesus Christ), for which see the Infidels web site that CCNL1 posts. I should add that I referred him to that site, although he doesn't post on the myth of Jesus. Many, many books, articles have been written on said myth, have posted bibs several times, all in reply to CCNL1, of whom we are mightily tired.

Why is that? All of the foregoing, including the business of Hammurabi's code has been dealt with before in our many replies to the tedious ccnl1.

Now, he is, again, attempting to hijack this thread, indeed, the entire blog, with his cryptic agenda.

It would be a blessing if this were the last post on NT/"OT" fiction necessitated by CCNL.

Muckenfuss has wisely suggested ignoring him. If we don't, we will have to continue on with the same old, same old religious vitriol.

I do humbly inquire if we might choose not to go down this dark and irrelevant path along which we have wasted so much usable light. :(

Farnaz
===========================
As for Carstonio's question, is not the prior question why men, once organized into societies, seek to dominate women?

REF. Myths

Here's another.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Persiflage,

Thee:
"Fortunate it is that we can still gaze skyward!"

Aye, there's always starlight, moonshine, and the unconquered sun...

Namaste, teacher.

Regarding flood myths - take your pick...there's no shortage. When it rains it pours, the world over - mythically speaking.

The problem begins when one takes these things literally - geological studies firmly prove there never was any such occurance e.g. and such is the case with myths from A-Z.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

The idea of woman as corrupt and "the author of sin" predates Augustine - the Pandora story is a classic example. But I would like to hear some theories as to why so many religions give men authority and status over women. I've read claims that religion was created by men as a control mechanism. But that's too simplistic and conspiratorial - it falsely assumes that men in general seek to control women. Other theories I've read involve men in ancient times feeling relatively powerless and insignificant in the face of women's ability to bear children.

"the idea that these supposedly holy books deserve more respect than any other books lies at the heart, as Stanton said so long ago, of the misogyny that tramples women's rights around the world."

In principle, that totalitarian idea tramples everyone's rights. It's totalitarian because it teaches that some things should not be questioned. Everything should be open to questioning and scrutiny.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCLN1
“MOSES AND THE COMMANDMENTS”

IRT:

The “Ten Commandments” are not a copy of The “Code of Hammurabi,” or any other pagan codes. All civilizations must rely on the Natural Moral Law to maintain a harmonious social order. Consequently, some things in the “Ten Commandments,” will be in all societal legal codes because they are based on human nature, but what is different in the “Commandments” is God and His relationship to man. He is not a God of appeasement or vengeance, but a God of Love.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books/new-torah-for-modern-minds.html

“For instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,'' by Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern scholarship, it “SEEMS” unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in Palestine. “MORE LIKELY”{, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which “PROBABLY” grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was “PROBABLY” borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.”

Farnaz,

In appreciation for sharing your own adventures with the psyche, I thought you might find this essay on St. Teresa of Avila of some interest.

She was also a saint that our long-missing poster Pseudo found particularly appealing as an exemplar of Catholic mysticism.

as always, Persiflege

http://primal-page.com/bache3.htm

Hmmmm, "More pure quackery from by the troglodytes from the alternate world"???

Rabbi Wolpe who is an On Faith panelist and one of the many Conservative Jewish rabbis and professors who have exhaustively reviewed the textural and archeological evidence of the the OT is hardly a quack or troglodyte.

Those, however, who have read only the OT and accept its every word as the word of god must be considered a practitioner of voodoo akin to the NT voodoo of changing water and wine into blood and bread into flesh.

And from:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

"How We Detect The Forgery (of the OT)

THE Word of God a forgery! I can understand the bewilderment of a religious reader, but let him consider coolly what the statement means. It does not mean that God forged a book. It means that men forged a book in God's name. That can be examined dispassionately by anybody."

Onofrio,

Wonderful posts!! You're a truly remarkable fella. A great tale re. your sister's childhood experience.

I can imagine the gravitational pull of childhood memories, hearth and home....and travels to Hanging Rock.

Sadly, many of the similarly magical places in the USA have long been desecrated - clear-cut and paved over; replete with gambling casinos, skyscrapers, churches, and monolothic mountain homes with great vistas, reserved exclusively for the rich and famous. Fortunate it is that we can still gaze skyward!

And so it goes....

warmest regards, Persiflege

Hmmmm, "More pure quackery from by the troglodytes from the alternate world"???

Rabbi Wolpe who is an On Faith panelist and one of the many Conservative Jewish rabbis and professors who have exhaustively reviewed the textural and archeological evidence of the the OT is hardly a quack or troglodyte. Those, however, who have read only the OT and accepts its every word as the word of god must be considered a practitioner of voodoo akin to the NT voodoo of changing water and wine into blood and bread into flesh.

And from http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

"How We Detect The Forgery (of the OT)

THE Word of God a forgery! I can understand the bewilderment of a religious reader, but let him consider coolly what the statement means. It does not mean that God forged a book. It means that men forged a book in God's name. That can be examined dispassionately by anybody."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCNL1
POSTED ON: | JULY 23, 2009 2:03 AM

IRT:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

“Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, “PROBABLY” never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, “WAS MORE LIKELY” a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.”

ANS:
More pure quackery from by the troglodytes from the alternate world. The whole link is laced with “PROBABLYs” and “MORE LIKELYs.” Your references need to get a life. Only the foolish try to debunk thousands of years of history witnessed by millions of the Jewish nation and those who encountered their God.

Your sources can deny God's existence, but He still exists. They can use their finite intellects and claim the God who made them is a fantasy or at least an imbecile who has less intelligence than they, and they can claiming the Universe created itself, but to do so they have to contradict their own reason and eventually their own existence, and most end doing just that.

Onofrio (if indeed that is your real ID),
You noted: "The Hammer-rabbi analogy is a canard. As I've writ afore."
References from experts to support your contention??
And we know Moses was mythical so the initial premise of Moses receiving the Commandments from god is already in error.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=books&id=766

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

Onofrio (if indeed that is your real ID),

You noted: "The Hammer-rabbi analogy is a canard. As I've writ afore."

References from experts to support your contention??

And we know Moses was mythical so the initial premise of Moses receiving the Commandments from god is already error.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=books&id=766

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

Desolee, Hammurabi, no disrespect intended! Babylon too, is betimes unjustly maligned.

CCNL,

The Hammer-rabbi analogy is a canard. As I've writ afore:

So ancient Israel had a cultural context. And?

TTWSYF,

Ah, but you have no time for gyring eagles, nor the westering sun. They are no fit grist for your catechetical mill, that grinds exceeding fast, and exceeding rough.

Can you communicate outside your *feste Burg*. Or is it to be only slings, arrows, and boiling oil from your battlements?

Does not the thought of the eagle in a gyre, on the open heights, quicken your heart?

And who did the Jewish scribes who invented Moses borrow the Ten Commandments from???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1650nesilim.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#Government_and_law

query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=books&id=766

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

TTWSYF,

Further to your Catholicisation of the Decalogue:

Scroll down a bit for Dreaming context...

Onofrio reveres Bunjil, but Onofrio did not envisage Bunjil. Bunjil belongs to the Wurrundjeri. Them old fellas - with astonishing magnanimity, given the circumstances - don't mind that whitefella muses on Bunjil, not at all. But for a whitefella to 'own' Bunjil, as if he were the first to see, and know, and sing - that is not only incorrect and disrespectful, it's grossly UNJUST. It's as if the guest has decided he owns the house of the host, and so evicts the host.

Likewise for your Catholicism and Israel.

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT'S DUE.

That means NOT TO ME; NOT TO YOU...

TTWSYF

And those Ten Commandments are not 'From the Catholic World'. Appropriation is not origin.

No, the world they're FROM is that of the Tanakh, which although sort-of-used by Catholics as superseded backmatter, is actually the cultural product of ancient Israel.

News Flash to the Walking, Talking Catechismal Automaton:
Ancient Israel was not / is not Roman Catholic.

Back to your whip, JesusMaryJosephist...

Back to the topic:

Treatment of women in the other "great" religions:

Part 2:

"Women in Hinduism

by Bhumika Ghimire, Aug 23, 2007

Hindu women are still struggling for their rights.

Many people are aware of discrimination women face around the world. All major religions contribute to this cycle, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, all have bias against women. The only difference is that in some it is more pronounced than the other.

Hinduism has long tradition of celebrating goddess's who symbolize strength, knowledge and wealth. Yet the same religion and culture, for centuries, preached that women are feeble beings who should be controlled. Manu Smiriti, which is regarded as foundation of Hindu cultural life, advocates child marriage and denying women freedom to marry after their husband has died. It also preaches "wife burning", a horrid practice where wife is burnt alive in her husband's funeral pyre.

Although nowadays practice of wife burning seldom happens, child marriage is still a reality in many remote villages in India and Nepal. Widows remain at the mercy of their family and re-marriage is a rarity.

My grandmother was married by the time she was 6, to a person she didn't know and had never met. Think about it, being married at 6! No education, no time to dream about a future, a life time of responsibility and constraints.

It is true that Hindu women have come a long way since then but the fundamental belief of the community remains the same. People regard daughters as unwanted burden, which acts as a fuel to growing problem of female infanticide, women still have very little decision making capacity and they are expected to confirm to the draconian standards set by the elders.

This cycle of discrimination and seclusion will continue unless Hindu women stand up and refuse to accept the bias in religious texts and demand their rightful position in the community."

http://www.socyberty.com/Religion/Women-in-Hinduism.215453

Previous Hindu discriminations against women are reviewed at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/in3.htm

Warning: Not for the weak of heart.

TTWSYF,

Are you / have you been married?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“RELIGION AND THE SUPRESSION OF WOMEN”

IRT:
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "You may go over the world and you will find that every form of religion which has breathed upon this earth has degraded women."

ANS:
Let’s see how the Catholic Religion has degraded women, and what the Secular World, opposed to Religion, has done for women.

From the Secular World: (FSW)
From the Catholic World (FCW)

MARRIAGE:
FSW: The Sexual Revolution NARAL, NOW, NAMBLA;
Contraception, Adultery, Fornication, Divorce, Shack-ups, Abortion or Black Genocide.

Seventy percent of Black Pregnancies occur out of wedlock. Some fifty-five percent end in abortion.

FCW;
All human life is sacred. All men and women are created equal in dignity.

Marriage: Eph. 5: 21cf. “Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife.

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church…. Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it.”

FSW we are given:
GAY SEX
North American Men Boys Love Assoc.(NAMBLA), Pederasty, the exploitation of teens, and Pedophilia. The exploitation of children.

Twenty six million dead from AIDS. Fifty percent of all STD infected victims, in America = homosexuals. 70 percent of AIDS victims = homosexuals

FSW we are given:
Gay Marriage = Lust.= AIDS = STDs; Gay Sex = Conjugal Love said the secular Court.

FCW: The Ten Commandments Thou Shall Not Committee Adultery, Lie, or Murder, Children honor thy Father and Mother, No Divorce (till death do we part). No Adultery and Fornication. Abstinence = No AIDS, No STDs.

Is Fidelity in Marriage degrading to a woman? Catholicism calls for fidelity of the spouses, honor from their children, and for the parents to love their children. Is it detrimental for the parents to educate, house , clothe, and feed their children? That’s what the Catholic Church teaches you are obliged to do. It is the fulfillment of womanhood, not her detriment.

FSW we are given The SEXUAL REVOLUTION and THE CULTURE OF DEATH:
1. Abortion: a mother murders her unborn child.
2. Pornography, exploitation of woman,
3. Prostitution,
4. Carcinogenic contraception, the Pill.
5. Surrogate Motherhood.,
6. IVF: Murder of Embryos,
7. Abortion with out Parental Consent,
8. Breast Cancer,
9. Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR), exploitation of women, especial Third World Women by egg retrieval.

ESCR is a sin against God and humanity in the Church. All are violations of the Natural Moral Law and proscribed by the Catholic Religion.

Farnaz,

(Ah Onofrio, damnedly off-topic, as usual...)

Re 'Truth and Reconciliation',

In so many ways, an unrealised ideal. The situation for some remote communities is beyond dire. 'Samson and Delilah' gives a sense.

In terms of real justice for the dispossessed, the Mabo decision made some progress toward reversing the whitefella lie of 'terra nullius' that has been used to justify the misappropriation of country. Yet there is far to go.

My fellow whitefellas promise much, but deliver fitfully, undermine when we are most earnest, otherwise kill by wilful neglect.

There's a good deal of promise for the future, I think, in the advocacy of Noel Pearson and his Cape York Insitute - a force to be reckoned with, certes. There are ways forward, hope, beyond the 'newsworthy' horror stories.

The Yolngu from the 'Top End' spring to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yolngu

Persiflage,

Thee:
"My familiarity with the aboriginal theme on film extends to Peter Weir's work e.g. The Last Wave, & Picnic at Hanging Rock - very spooky stuff."

I thought you might like to know; that short 'Song of Wenberi' I posted below comes from a tribe that lived in the vicinity of Mt Macedon in Victoria, where Hanging Rock is located.

Here 'tis again:

"We all go to the bones
all of them shining white in this Dulur country.

The noise of our father Bunjil
rushing down singing inside this breast of mine."

Haunting.

Among the Wurrundjeri people to whom this song belongs, Bunjil is the eagle who manifests the creator god. I have been to Hanging Rock, and from up among its weird spires I've seen Bunjil "turning in a widening gyre". It would be easy to get lost up there, or fall down some sudden flue. It's a truly uncanny place that messes with your senses.

The place where I was brought up is named after the aboriginal term for the local rocky bluff, an outcrop of the coastal escarpment. I saw it every day of my childhood, the final stop of the sun before it descended into the western dark. In my teens I often climbed up there with some friends. We stood on the edge and found our pinprick homes in the coastal plain below.

I dream of this place, and often my waking thoughts turn to it. The aboriginal story connected with it tells of a warrior who ran off with another man's wife. The deserted husband pursued the warrior, who climbed a tree on top of this bluff to escape. The angry husband lit a fire beneath the tree, and the warrior was carried up in the flames to the sky.

All about the sun, methinks. It's carved in my mind like a glyph.

Hi Onofrio,

Wonderful tale of sister's supernatural healing! Alas, the Jailbird who came to me when I was five, in dream thought a real event, was not beneficent--althugh he did gently stop to see if I were awake before engaging me in combat.

When next morning, I ask-ed Farnaz mere, why she'd forsaken her first begotten daughter with monstrous Jailbird 'battled, she laughed, said I'd dreamed the striped startler; I didn't think so. (Still have doubts.)

The mise en scene was uncanny--part cartoon, part "actual."

Re: "Samson and Delilah." Has not yet opened here, but has been enthusiastically reviewed. Thanks for spreading the word!

One day, I would like to ask you about Truth and Reconciliation down under.

Persiflage:
Jamais dans l'harmonie, Persiflege
===============
Je ne pense pas! Ce n'est pas vrais. Vous etes un grand maestro!

Please do visit your friend. These things must not wait too long, and you sound like you'd like to see him, might enjoy one another! Cherishing memory-making potential, there. :) (Smile)

Farnaz

Muckenfuss,

Actually, my math is quite accurate.

The word "rib" is often mistakenly used in conjunction with the story of Adam & Eve. The Hebrew word written in the scriptures is "sidon", which means exactly what it sounds like ~ "side".

Farnaz and Persiflage,

Re homonculi, pointy-headed and otherwise:

Farnaz, I love your tale about the Jailbird :^) , and yours too, Persiflage, about that elusive homonculus.

As a child of four, in the throes of a fever, my sister saw small hooded beings standing around her bed, exhaling in unison.

The fever lifted.

It was 20 years after her childhood testimony that I discovered its meaning. With innocent candour, she had described perfectly a manifestation of Telesphoros, the convalescence-ministering child of Asklepios, always depicted as a small hooded-and-cloaked figure. No suggestion involved, not from storybooks or TV. Methinks it a genuine instance of mondo bizarro.

Long live the hoodoo.

Globealone wrote:

"God took half of Adam to create Eve. That would be a 50/50 split for you non-math majors out there. Furthermore, they were created, as men and women are, to "become one flesh"."

Your theology needs a little adjusting, to say nothing of your math. The story is that god created Eve from one rib taken from Adam's side. And that, for you, is substantially less than a 50-50 split.

By creating Eve for Adam, god expressed his agreement with the concepts of divorce and remarriage: Adam's first wife was Lilith, and when they split god made Eve for/from Adam. By doing so, assuming that god "ordained" marriage at all, god sanctioned divorce and remarriage.

Speaking of tee shirts...

Couple good one's I saw on the web:

ObamaCare ~ Bend over and cough.

ObamaBiden ~ Because everyone else deserves what you've worked hard for.

Change ~ It's all we'll have left when Obama's through

Farnaz - one of my classmates from those old parochial school days went into the seminary at the end of the 8th grade - emerged a Catholic priest, and eventually became the pastor of that very church and school of my/our childhood.

The neighborhood is now largely Hispanic - I haven't been there in easily 50 years, and he conducts many of the masses in Spanish, or so I'm told. We were in fact altar boys together.

I've often thought that maybe it's time for a visit - but no genuflecting!

Farnaz - one of my classmates from those old parochial school days went into the seminary at the end of the 8th grade - emerged a Catholic priest, and eventually became the pastor of that very church and school of my/our childhood.

The neighborhood is now largely Hispanic - I haven't been there in easily 50 years, and he conducts many of the masses in Spanish, or so I'm told. We were in fact altar boys together.

I've often thought that maybe it's time for a visit - but no genuflecting!

Susan,

You need look no farther than Adam & Eve for crying out loud to dispel your theory. God took half of Adam to create Eve. That would be a 50/50 split for you non-math majors out there. Furthermore, they were created, as men and women are, to "become one flesh".

It doesn't say anything about "one flesh" being 75% man and 25% woman.

Hi Farnaz - I think there must be the equivilant of homunculettes! On the other hand, how we conjure up the sometimes unusual beings that visit us late at night is among the greatest of mysteries.

Whether or not these magical creatures emerge from our imagination or from other realms still hasn't been established.

Gender equality can be found quite easily among many of our more diaphanous neighbors - all abiding closeby in much finer atmospheres, or so they say.

Queens and Kings can still be found outside of England!

Jamais dans l'harmonie, Persiflege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy

http://www.efairies.com/fairy_lore.htm

Persiflage,

On Catholic dream...My first thought/hope, too, was that it was a fragment of my long-past Catholic flirtation, but, alas, I realized immediately that it was not. There was nothing conventional in that thought experiment de moi. The priest, still a very good friend, is far more a philosopher/theologian than anything else. He did not/does not believe in the trinity, divinity of Christ, eschews angels, saints, etc., but is, nevertheless, emphatically not Crossanized. Feels, as I do, that Catholicism/Christianity lack an ethics such as Judaism has, etc. Ironically, he says that They are "incomplete, in part, evaisive."

You may ask in what sense he is Catholic. He could not answer you, and yet he is. He is also very hard-hitting. Not an inter-faithy type, though he is very learned. Stongly believes NT needs revision, big time.

Has good sense of humor, occasionally drinks a glass of wine. I wonder if you would like him. I think you would.

Dear Persiflage,

Regrets - My attempt at archetypal levity may have fallen short :(
==========================
Ah, dear me, must have writ badly, frown. No you did not miss the mark, la! You never do. Witty, eloquent, elegant, englightening, as always! Please forgive the New York style effusive praise, which, I fear may offend gentle southern you! Sadly, my smileys are not posting (why not?), which may have added to the missed communicating.

You see, I had never thought of the Jailbird as a homunculous before you posted here. But just a few months ago, I rethought him as a benevolent, loving figure awaiting me in the radiator of that long-left house. I felt infinite sorrow, his yearning, and yearning for him.

I'd never connected his pointy head with reveler's caps, such as I saw on the link you posted and other sites I visited briefly afterward.

I do wonder now what it may all have meant from a Jungian perspective, am very, very curious.

Also, are there no homunculettes?

Warmest regards,

Farnaz :)

PS. I have typed in smiley. Hope it appears.

Dear Farnaz,

Regrets - My attempt at archetypal levity may have fallen short :( However, on a brighter note, Jailbird could now be living in South Carolina, where steam pipes have given way to heat pumps.

During my parochial school days (1950 something), I personally hated the obnoxiously noisy steam registers! The nuns, hands folded piously and adorned all in black and white, seemed oblivious....

I think you're right about the tiny and tricksterish homunculi - primarily a mannish little creature living in the shadows.

In the imaginal realm, the noble elvish folk are much to be preferred, although regrettably without much use for humans - the Lord of the Rings notwithstanding.

Sometimes on these threads it's hard to know the serious from the not so serious :)

regards, Persiflege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf

Muckenfuss,

There appear to be Tibetan style practices here sans worship. Am piddling along with Jack Kornfield's insight meditation. No devotions in sight. :

NORRIEHOYT:

I should have said "Tibetan Buddhism, as it is practiced in Asia and the Orient,..."

Actually I know nothing about how Tibetan Buddhism is practiced in this country.

No Taxation sans Secularization?

Tee shirt slogan (needs improvement):

No taxation without secularization

NORRIEHOYT wrote:

"Good idea, but why Zen Buddhism (about which I know little) and not Tibetan Buddhism (about which I know a good bit)?"

Tibetan Buddhism worships Buddah, something he strictly forbade. Zen Buddhism does not. It is a philosophy, not a religion.

DITLD wrote:

"Your infallible Catholic Church?
I don't think so."

Infallibility within the RCC, whether papal or otherwise, didn't show up in church doctrine until 1870, long after the bulk of the RCC's errors had been committed.

As for the RCC being the "first" christer church, that is another of TTWSY's delusions. The first church was at Antioch, and it was decidedly NOT the evil, superstitious, corrupt and greedy RCC.

lets disregard the Bible for just one moment and examine men and women from a natural view point. Men and women are different in many ways ( take reproduction for one example ) yet we compliment each other perfectly. Taken in each others natural roles we combine to make new life, a child. Ours roles are different, one is not less important than the other, only different and used properly or in a complimentary fashion, they combine together perfectly. This is the model in nature. One is not better or more important than the other but our roles are different and complimentary. This is where true joy is found, in finding our naturally formed roles and letting them compliment each other to form a whole.
This is what the Bible affirms: complimentary roles, each of equal importance, significance and value yet still undeniably different. We are not the same and yet we compliment each other in perfect harmony. If we would embrace our differences and revel in our complimentary nature then we will find true fulfillment in our roles in perfect alliance with the natural order.

Some homunculi wear revel caps. Gee....

Back to the topic:

Are there no homunculettes?

Off topic but since suggestions for slogans for T-shirts have come up:

"Muckenfuss, Who Art Thou????"

Persiflage,

Ever-elusive and extremely fast, he actually escaped down a hole before I could catch up with him - it was said that the creation and control of a personal homunculus with access to special knowledge was the singular goal of many a magician. See Aleister Crowley..
============================
When I was five years old, the Jailbird, horizontally striped from pointed head to toe, filtered through the radiator, gently looked to see if I was awake (I wasn't), and then engaged me in fisticuffs.

I'll spare you the rest, but as far as I know, he never journeyed back pipe-wards. Yet, must it not be that he dwells now within the old house steam-giver, lonesome Jailbird, wise, lonely, pensive, awaiting me, who had, perhaps, misconstrued him?

Was/is the Jailbird a homunculus? If so, what does it mean that we were (are?) in discord?

Just asking....

Archetypally and with Profuse Apologies to Jung (and You),

Farnaz :0

PS. Have followed your advice, have fought off genuflective impulse when sighting churches, Catholic and other. The beau Jung sans merci hath got me in thrall....

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2

Most of the things that you say in these posts are untrue. In fact, you promote false doctrines with flamboyant pride. and a snarky superior attitude towards others and a mean delight at God's punishment due to all who disagree with you.

Your infallible Catholic Church?

I don't think so.

In fact, the Catholic Church, far from being infallible, barely staggers on, cradled in the kind and benovlent secularism of the Italian Republic. It continues, as it has now done for a very long time, without nuance or self-criticism, trundling along in its worn-out way, crumbling and faded with antiquity, a ramshackle vehicle, dilapidatedly creaking and clanging with age, a curiosity to many, an anguish to many, not necessarily dying, but just settling down for a very extended but gradual geriatric decline.

Globalone writes:

But where is the sexism and denunciation of women in the Song of Solomon?
===============================
When teeming world awakens to tranquility, Buddhist torches gently guiding (Tibetan, if possible, per Norrie Hoyt, since Tibetan is all I know anything about, and that, little enough), when sweet, peaceful, kind, and loving, might we not in harmony sing the Shulamite's song?

Just asking....

Song of Solomon 3

1 All night long on my bed
I looked for the one my heart loves;
I looked for him but did not find him.

2 I will get up now and go about the city,
through its streets and squares;
I will search for the one my heart loves.
So I looked for him but did not find him.

3 The watchmen found me
as they made their rounds in the city.
"Have you seen the one my heart loves?"

4 Scarcely had I passed them
when I found the one my heart loves.
I held him and would not let him go
till I had brought him to my mother's house,
to the room of the one who conceived me.

5 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires.

6 Who is this coming up from the desert
like a column of smoke,
perfumed with myrrh and incense
made from all the spices of the merchant?

7 Look! It is Solomon's carriage,
escorted by sixty warriors,
the noblest of Israel,

8 all of them wearing the sword,
all experienced in battle,
each with his sword at his side,
prepared for the terrors of the night.

9 King Solomon made for himself the carriage;
he made it of wood from Lebanon.

10 Its posts he made of silver,
its base of gold.
Its seat was upholstered with purple,
its interior lovingly inlaid
by [a] the daughters of Jerusalem.

11 Come out, you daughters of Zion,
and look at King Solomon wearing the crown,
the crown with which his mother crowned him
on the day of his wedding,
the day his heart rejoiced.

Muckenfuss request for T shirt slogan:
An excellent idea! Feel free.

Seasalt wrote:

"Faith, fortified by prayer, provides sustenance for the delusional."

With your permission, I am going to have this printed on a t-shirt, slightly altered to read "Faith and prayer sustain the delusional."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“GOD'S CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY”

IRT:
“Thus, intelligent men like Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Jimmy Carter are required to suggest that Moses, Paul and Muhammad were actually big supporters of equal rights for women.

The only trouble, in this religion-saturated view, is that subsequent, less enlightened male leaders have misunderstood and misinterpreted the teachings of the sage founders of various religions.”

ANS:
We have somewhere from 26,000 to 35,000 Christian denominations worldwide that contradict in part or in whole each other, notwithstanding the multiple and various kind of religions throughout the world that aren‘t Christian.

A church without God's gift of infallibility protecting its teachings is subject to error and consequently subject to teach error. Jesus, who is God, did not spend some 33 years on earth establishing a Church for all time that would teach errors after He returned to His Kingdom. Therefore, to claim God couldn’t figure that man, on his own, would fall into error, would be an insult to God’s intelligence.

However, God did figure it out, and did not leave His Church to man alone, or to have those who think they know more than God dictate the precepts of His Church. Namely. man has no authority over Scripture's meaning separated from God protecting it from error. That was tried at the Tower of Babel and failed. Sodom and Gomorrah tried the same thing and quickly were rebuked
.

God is Omniscient, and Prescient and His Wisdom is not comparable or limited to the fallible intelligence of man. Predicating God of error is to put God on the level of human intelligence.

Scripture reads, “With man nothing is possible, but with God, all things are possible." Thus, man does not interpret Scripture alone, but with the protection and guidance from error by the Holy Spirit through the Church God established.

This protection is a sign of the authenticity of the Catholic Church in its moral certitude and universal teachings of faith and moral beliefs. Therefore, Scripture is Sacred, and the Church's interpretation of it is infallible.

What many contemporary NT and historic Jesus exegetes have concluded after exhaustive review of scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the 1st to 3rd century CE:

Matt 16:13-20 - not said by the historic Jesus. The passages basically made the gospel writer, Matthew, the real "rock" of the RCC i.e. Matthew is another male who has caused significant grief for women.

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb073.html

"The commentary in The Five Gospels (p. 110) observes:(as do Professors Crossan and Luedemann).

The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 (and John 14:26) all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place—or ideas that were current—after Jesus' death: trial and persecution of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime. "

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb062.html

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“RELIGION AND THE SUPRESSION OF WOMEN”

“While religion is not the only source of women's subjugation, it has always been one of the major sources. However, the problem is not "male interpretation of religious texts" but religion itself. The problem is slavish, maddening belief in the "sacredness" of these texts.”

ANS:
Scripture is sacred because it is the revealed word of God. The authority of interpretation of Scripture has been given to the Catholic Church, and no other religion has that authority. Consequently, Jesus instituted the Catholic Church when he said to St. Peter, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build this Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16: 13cf.).”

Further, Jesus gave the key of the Kingdom (Matt 16: 19) to Peter,(the first Pope, Vicar of Christ, the Visible Head of God's Church on earth and the first Bishop of the Catholic Church), saying to Peter and his disciples, “Go forth and teach all nations what I have given you (Jn. 14: 26; Matt 28: 14). What ever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. What ever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven (Matt18:18),”

More so, God sent the Holy Spirit to protect His Church from all errors in the Church’s universal teachings and beliefs (Jn. 15: 26cf: Jn. 16: 13). Hence, only the Catholic Church has the infallible certitude in its moral teachings and universal beliefs.

Consequently, the universal interpretations of Scripture are protected by God and not man. They are sacred because the are the word of God.

Farnaz,

I vividly recall being steeped in Jungian archetypes some 35 years ago, and having a dream encounter with a genuine homunculus or the 'little man' of alchemical fame.

Ever-elusive and extremely fast, he actually escaped down a hole before I could catch up with him - it was said that the creation and control of a personal homunculus with access to special knowledge was the singular goal of many a magician. See Aleister Crowley.....

This brings to mind the gender issues to be found in magic, witchcraft, and other esoteric arts.

regards, Persiflege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus

The Abrahamic religions have endured a long time, though the time will come when they too follow the ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and Greco-Roman religions into extinction and become part of some future civilization's "Mythology". Whether that day will come in more than a thousand years or less I doubt any of us can predict. Probably no one will remember who Susan Jacoby is come that day, but I don't imagine A. Ross, CPA will be a household name either. Indeed, all of our discussions of the reality/unreality of this god so many people like to worship will probably be relegated to freshman college survey courses alongside of Plato's dialogues about the reality/unreality of the ancient Greek gods and goddesses. Time marches on.

Back to the topic:

An interesting website depicting female stereotypes and gender archetypes below:

http://www.friesian.com/gender.htm

Faith, fortified by prayer, provides sustenance for the delusional.

1,000 years from now, the world's religions shall still be flourishing because they help people ask important questions and give them road maps for finding answers.

OTOH, 1,000 years from now no one will remember what a bitter, closed, and hateful woman Susan Jacoby was, nor any of the rants engendered from her microscopic addle-minded groupies.

I have a tooth-ache. Have a nice day!

Added information about women's rights in Buddhism can be found at:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dewaraja/wheel280.html

Muckenfuss,

You wrote:

"I'd much rather see 'gay christians' and all gays of whatever persuasion embrace Zen Buddhism and simply ignore the christers -- except where politics and the Constitution are concerned."

Good idea, but why Zen Buddhism (about which I know little) and not Tibetan Buddhism (about which I know a good bit)?

Regards.

Back to the topic:

So what is the status of women in the "other great religions"??

Part 1 - Buddhism

"The egalitarian ideals of Buddhism appear to have been impotent against the universal ideology of masculine superiority. The doctrine of Karma and Rebirth, one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism, has been interpreted to prove the inherent superiority of the male.

According to the law of Karma, one's actions in the past will determine one's position of wealth, power, talent and even sex in future births. One is reborn a woman because of one's bad Karma. Thus the subordination of women is given a religious sanction.

It is not unusual even in Sri Lanka for women, after doing a meritorious deed, to aspire to be redeemed from womanhood and be reborn as a man in future. Despite the remarkable degree of sexual equality in Burman society, all women recite as a part of their Buddhist devotions the following prayer: "I pray that I may be reborn as a male in a future existence." [16] In Thailand in 1399 A.D., the Queen Mother founded a monastery and commemorated the event in an inscription in which she requested, "By the power of my merit, may I be reborn as a male..." [17].

Several examples could be quoted from the popular parlance of all three societies to show that even women, whatever their station, have accepted the idea of female inferiority and this has influenced the husband-wife relationship in varying degrees in the societies concerned. In Sri Lanka where this idea is least perceptible, it is considered becoming even in modern times to maintain a facade of husband domination. The wifely control is unobtrusive and subtle. This ambivalent attitude is more pronounced in Burma where women are a specially privileged lot. They control the family economy; socially, politically and legally they are on a par with men. But the wife makes a show of deference to the husband which in itself is no measure of male dominance but an adaptation to a cultural norm.

On the other hand, the fact that men could have multiple spouses whereas the women were restricted to one, placed the husband in a privileged position. The reverse was true in Sri Lanka where polygamy was unknown except in the royal family, polyandry was practiced (though not widespread) till recent times.

In traditional Thailand the subordination of the wife in the family hierarchy was sanctioned by law. Till 1935 polygyny was legally recognized."

Susan,

I'm not Catholic so I can't speak for the treatment of nuns or the Pope's interpretation of the Bible.

But where is the sexism and denunciation of women in the Song of Solomon?

And let's not forget that the single, greatest indicator of the health of ANY marriage, secular or otherwise, can be found by applying Ephesians 5:33 "So again I say, each man must love his wife and the wife must respect her husband."

I can't defend persons who interpret the Bible to fit their own agenda. So if there are priests or pastors preaching the Word in a way that makes women somehow less than men, they are wrong. But that, in no way, invalidates the Bible or what God desires of us.

Onofrio,

Thanks for the film recommendations and otherwise splendid posts! My familiarity with the aboriginal theme on film extends to Peter Weir's work e.g. The Last Wave, & Picnic at Hanging Rock - very spooky stuff. His film Gallipoli with the young Mel Gibson was exceptional.

Farnaz,

I remember you said you'd 'experimented' with Catholicism some time back. However, not to worry re. dreaming of fish symbols, praying hands, etc.

There are several possible explanations:

1) the power of suggestion 2)inadvertant glimpse of someone else's dream during the hypnogogic state 3) a vestigial memory & possible indication of your former life as an early Christian 4) discarnate spirit of Carl Jung avenging his bruised ego by 'fiddling' with archetypes behind a spirit curtain 5) last but least likely, a message from God.

Resist any tendency to genuflect or make the sign of the cross while passing a Catholic church :)

Back to the topic:

From : Dr. H. Wayne House, President and Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Oregon Theological Seminary, and Distinguished Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Faith Seminary, Tacoma, WA. and Adjunct Professor of Law, Trinity Law School of Trinity International University http://www.hwhouse.com/Current%20Articles%20Downloads/Theology/paul.htm

"This means, of course, that the passage (1 Cor 11:2—16) cannot be used as a source for determining Paul’s attitude toward the proper status and role of women. If the authenticity of 1 Tim 2:8—15; Tit 2:3—5; Eph 5:22—33; Col 3:18—19; and 1 Cor 14:33—36 (or 34—35 {1 Cor 14}) is similarly rejected on critical grounds, as I am inclined to do, then the genuine Pauline corpus contains none of the passages which advocate male supremacy and female subordination in any form. On the contrary, the only ‘direct Pauline statement on the subject is Gal 3:28, which insists on absolute equality in Christ."

From Professors J.D. Crossan and J. Reed's book, In Search of Paul, p. 111.

"In Paul's theology, Christian gender inequality can no more exist than can Christian class inequality. Females and males are therefore equal in family, assembly, and apostolate within Christianity. "

As with Islam, Christianity must clean up its books especially in regards to those passages that demean women. These passages should be deleted as they are outdated or historically and/or theologically wrong.

Persiflage,

Re: Dreaming

Fiddled a bit with one of your links before sleep knit raveled sleeve, dropping several stitches, IMO. Dreamed these words, heard them: "The fish, the Christ, the Fish, the Christ, Remember. Ichthus."

When I awoke, I found my hands half-clasped, each pulling to free itself, a process I facilitated forthwith.

Kindly interpret at your earliest convenience unless not convenient early.

Sincerely,
Farnaz :

PS. I don't hold you responsible for this.

Persiflage,

More on indigenous Australians,

Two films I would heartily recommend:

The 'now' is captured with heartbreaking clarity in Warwick Thornton's 'Samson and Delilah' released this year and winner of the Best First Feature award at Cannes.

The 'then' is memorably conveyed in Rolf de Heer's 'Ten Canoes' (2006).

Both magnificent...

Persiflage,

Than you for the Dreaming heads-up and links on the previous Jacoby. I have caught up with them, and appreciate your respect for blackfella wisdom :^)

It prompted me to review my own relationship to blackfella lore, here in my suburbanity. As usual when I think on such things, I mourn what has been extinguished by we whitefellas - the songlines, the connection with 'them old fellas' (the ancestors) immanent in 'country'.

This whitefella still feels like an intruder here, a trespasser. We know so little of 'country' and what it means to them old fellas. What's five generations to a thousand?

I have had a glimpse, through a mere chink, enough to realise how deep is our loss...a sort of fragmented whitefella Dreaming.

"We all go to the bones
all of them shining white in this Dulur country.

The noise of our father Bunjil
rushing down singing inside this breast of mine."

Song of Wenberi (of the Woiwurung, from around Mt Macedon, Vic.), translated by A.W.Howitt, 1887.

Hi Muckenfuss,

Re: Your post to me

ON the matter of Buddhism, it would probably be best if we all "converted," with no nonprofit status for meditation centers, no lobbying, except, perhaps, for the Congress to meditate.

As for a gay Bible, I don't know what sort of material may now be available. I know someone, a devout Protestant transexual, who works with gay, bisexual, and transexual youth. The amount of support, enrichment, available for these young people is growing by leaps and bounds, thank God. I'd be surprised if nurturing religious venues were not now in existence, providing more inclusive readings of the Bible.

At the synagogue we sometimes go to, the lesbian rabbi has attracted a sizable gay minority. Her "sermons" are sexually inclusive, fascinating. She is, though, truly brilliant.

Muckenfuss (if that is his/her real ID) noted:

...and restored this fragment
of manuscript found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showing that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

Added information about said passage which actually from the "Secret" Gospel of Mark

"The Secret Gospel of Mark refers to a non-canonical gospel which is the subject of the Mar Saba letter, a previously unknown letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria which Morton Smith claimed to have found transcribed into the endpapers of a 17th century printed edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch. The authenticity of both the Mar Saba letter and of the Secret Gospel itself are disputed."

http://www.answers.com/topic/secret-gospel-of-mark?initiator=CANS

On beloved youths in the Gospels:

If one reads the Fourth Gospel carefully, one becomes aware of a strong insinuation that the 'Beloved Disciple' is meant to be Lazarus of Bethany. Jesus is said to have felt special 'agape' love for both identities (and for Mary and Martha, the 'sisters' of Lazarus), and the Beloved does not enter the narrative until after Lazarus' 'resurrection'. The notion that the Beloved is John the son of Zebedee, one of the Galilean 'Twelve' is simply pious speculation, not supported by the Fourth Gospel itself. The Beloved Disciple is said to be known to the High Priest, which is far more likely to apply to a (rich?) young man from Bethany, right by Jerusalem, than to a fishmonger from distant Galilee. Also, the Galilee coda at the close of the Fourth Gospel has Peter refer to a strong rumour among Jesus' followers that the Beloved Disciple would not die. When one considers that Lazarus had already been 'resurrected' this makes a lot of sense when applied to him; less so the Son of Zebedee.

As for Mark's 'young man': the figure who flees Jesus' arrest naked, leaving behind his linen shift, is called a 'neaniskos' in the Greek text of Mark. The same term is applied to the figure, now clothed in white, who proclaims the original Christian kerygma to female (not male) disciples: 'He is not here; he is risen.'

Join the dots, follow the implications. The 'neaniskos' who fled Gethsemane naked = the clothed 'neaniskos' at the 'empty' tomb. Mark is quite clear. Luke and Matthew tweak the tale toward 'two at the tomb'. Thereby hang further tales...

In later tomb narratives, much is made of Jesus' burial linen lying inside the tomb, a sign that he had slipped this mortal coil and was now abroad in some new form. Shed linen = shed 'flesh'; nudity = transition to the new being; reclothing = new being achieved. All this is of a piece with the primitive Christian baptismal ritual, the initiation into the death of Christ. The baptismal postulant, like Mark's 'neaniskos', was naked.

A thematic constellation emerges: young men, tombs entered and exited, white linen shed and worn afresh, nudity, special 'love', initiation ... One is reminded of the Gadarene demoniac, naked among the tombs, but 'clothed and in his right mind' due to Jesus' intervention. So to the constellation we can add possession (enacting the crisis of foreign occupation in an individual body), and re-possession.

The plot was far thicker than we 'think' we know.

"This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions."

Give us a break!!!!

Jesus and "Saint" Paul are the source of much of Christianity's poor record with respect to human rights for women.

To wit:

Jesus accepted women to a degree but did he push for female rabbis/leaders e.g. the 12 male apostles?? Ditto for the disciples and writers of the Gospels!!!

Professor Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

continued below:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali covers the contemporary Islamic/"Mohammedic" situation in her book, Infidel.

The summary of said book explains why:

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue.

It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

And for those that are concerned about Hirsi Ali's visas: She was not honest on said visa forms because that was the only way she could escape the tyranny of male family members and the male Islamic Dutch terrorists. She explains this in her books.

And the mythical Moses had two wives but myths are not much in the area of role models.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=books&id=766

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

Hmmm, I thought Susan Jacoby said some months ago she would never again respond to comments in the comments section so is "her" comment below from the disgruntled imposter???

Farnaz wrote:

"Perhaps, it is you who needs to write a new Bible. The Gay Person's Bible? LOng overdue, IMO."

No, such a thing would have to be undertaken by a woman. Every heterosexual household has a woman in it, and she has lots of power. Not every such household includes a gay member. So right off the bat it would not be nearly the best-seller as it would be if written by a woman.

Since a woman was "the mother of god" (hold on, just had an attack of laughter) and since that same woman was also an early evangelist for the cause, a woman would be in better 'standing' for rewriting the principal christer text, attacking it as it were from within.

A Gay Bible would be attacked by every bible thumper in captivity as the work of satan (laughing again), and would never be translated at all, I imagine.

I'd much rather see 'gay christians' and all gays of whatever persuasion embrace Zen Buddhism and simply ignore the christers -- except where politics and the Constitution are concerned.

Hi Muckenfuss,

Have you perused these of T.W. Jennings:

Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative In The Literature Of Ancient Israel

The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament
=============================
Perhaps, it is you who needs to write a new Bible. The Gay Person's Bible? LOng overdue, IMO.

Farnaz

Susan Jacoby writes:

"While religion is not the only source of women's subjugation, it has always been one of the major sources."
=============================
Religion, in and of itself, carries ideology. One way or another, it works with economics and politics to preserve the status quo or turn back the clock.

In this country, the legislative lobbying efforts of the RCC and Protestant Fundamentalists are particularly troubling and violate the requirements of the nonprofit status they enjoy.

It is high time that OnFaith took up the issues of nonprofit status for religious institutions. Bloggers post on this again and again and again. Whence OnFaith's hesitation?

For Christians, this issue is only one about equality if Man's foolish pride comes into play. The Bible clearly defines what roles men and women are to fulfill respectively. God see's these roles as being completely equal in importance as He is the one who instituted them. However, that does not mean that men and women are to fulfill the same roles. Some roles are given only to men just as some are given only to women. Paul makes this argument time and again throughout his letters.
All Christians believe every human being is equally made in God's image and is as such worthy of respect. All Christians believe that all Christians are fully equal in Christ. This has never been indispute except in those fringe groups wrongfully calling themselves Christian.
However, this equality does not mean the roles are the same. And one can only call the roles God has given to women degrading or less than mens if they are viewing them from a human point of view and not as God sees them. And those that do this are essentially looking God in the face and declaring "You're not judging these roles correctly, let me correct you on that...because I know better than you do."
I suggest this is not the proper route to take with God.

Part one.

The reasons why over the centuries women have been deprived of rights? Religion, specifically the reason?

There are many reasons why women have suffered over the centuries--religions being only one of the reasons. But if a reason has to be picked it lies in the superior physical strength of men. Ironically women have suffered under the physical strength of men as much as they have been protected by such strength...but then again, in being protected they were being protected against other men.

Perhaps the only way really men were decisively protective of women over the centuries was in their capacity to be explorative, originally discovering the cave (perhaps)--leading the way in general. Hunting for meat. But it must be mentioned that the capacity of women for providing food has been downplayed when really they could get food in any way which did not involve hunting (it has been reported that men denied women the chance to hunt to retain male prerogative. How true that is I have no idea). And after all, in some societies women might have hunted...

In general we can say the revolution over the centuries in favor of women involved men being a little less savage and domineering--in other words, physical strength played down. And while religions often seemed--and were to a great extent--institutions pitted against women over the centuries (and here I should say the conversation should turn to the monotheistic traditions coming out of the middle east), they were also institutions in deep contemplation of the problems of men. Trying to get men to be a little bit less evil.

It seems on further examination that religions--the monotheistic ones out of the middle east--were and still are a transition period: women still subordinate to men, but much contemplation of man's wicked nature going on. As modern times are approached we can clearly see the transition period giving way to increased rights for women and religion not so necessary to keep men in check.

Part two.

One of the premises of modern times is that the physical strength of men is subordinate to the mind of man and that woman also has a mind which can flourish. Safeguards against the wickedness of men turn from religious admonition to police action (and military action declines also in favor of police action). In modern times it seems that men are not so evil after all, and rather than this optimistic view leading to increased violence on the part of man we have rather man with self-control and women flourishing with every bit of self-mastery by man.

It seems if there is a problem with man in relationship to woman in modern times it involves the problem of woman becoming master of her own body, and this leading to questions of what exactly this means, because in gaining mastery over her body woman is simultaneously gaining mastery over the genetic future of the human race--in other words, she decides when and how she will have children, and of course that cannot help but mean what children (whether to allow children with genetic defects to be born or not, etc.).

Supposing the human race becomes increasingly civilized the deep conversation of men with women will be a conversation which has always existed, but now it will become more sophisticated: Once again, this problem of what children, when to have them, how to have them--and even where (we can go anywhere around the world now, and of course choose between having the baby at home or the hospital).

Supposing men and women can figure that out, at the very least the future of the human race will be men and women making the decisions together. And it is kind of nice to have a woman around to make sure a man minds his manners....

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"If you knew anything about women's history, you would know that Elizabeth Cady Stanton,in the 1890s, wrote and edited a book called "The Woman's Bible,""...

You are right, I don't know a lot about women's history, but obviously the "Women's Bible" was a good idea, to which someone beat me! Ah, well. Still, the yarn would be much better if someone told the truth about the love affair between David and Jonathan, or Ruth and Naomi...and restored this fragment
of manuscript found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showing that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

Er... that should have been "as equals." Sorry for my bad grammar.

Dear Muckenfuss:

If you knew anything about women's history, you would know that Elizabeth Cady Stanton,in the 1890s, wrote and edited a book called "The Woman's Bible," which included contributions from many distinguuished female scholars and did reinterpret the Scriptures from a feminist perspective. And it did make a lot of money and was translated into many languages. Unfortunately, it also got Stanton written out of the suffragist movement, because orthodox Christian suffragists thought that women would never get the vote if they were seen as irreligious. And that's why Stanton was virtually written out of women's history until the second wave of feminism surfaced in the late 1960s. And that's why Susan B. Anthony, who kept quiet about her agnosticism, got her face on a dollar coin.

I have no interest in rewriting or reinterpreting the Bible. It's a very good yarn, and in the King James translation, a great work of English fiction.

This is why I left the Catholic Church and became a Goddess-worshipping Pagan. At least Wicca treats men and women as equally!

Here's a thought, Susan. You are intelligent and a writer. Why don't you completely rewrite the bible in view of the 20th- and 21st-century scholarly studies into the original bible, its origins, mistaken translations, misinterpretations, and the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, to say nothing of the Gnostic gospels. You'd make a fortune. You'd be widely despised in the US and certainly in Rome, but you would be loved by at least as many throughout the world, and you'd certainly be FAMOUS and very wealthy. You'd be translated into three dozen languages, I bet.

If you needed a collaborator, you could take on Daniel12. He loves to write. You could call it The Woman's Bible, or The True Bible or something eyecatching like Holy Liberation Bible. You'd probably get it done in five years, and think of all the publicity you'd get from the (continued) hate-mongering of the RCC and the fundamentalists.

By non-god, if I were a woman I'd do it myself!

"Are 'male interpretations of religious texts' to blame for the 'deprivation of women's equal rights?'"

DUH. Women AND a great many others.