Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Gary wrote: "Graham wrote: "Religion like science can be used to heal as well as harm."How can religion heal?"
Participating spiritaully in something larger than yourself can be really fufilling. Faith can make a person stronger, more understanding, and better adjusted to change. Not all individuals, and not in all situations, but faith does have that potential. In some cases, a religious expreience can be just as refreshing as seeing a therapist.
I personally am not religious, but I have seen ways that people can use it to better themselves.
Ashanti wrote: " religious expreience can be just as refreshing as seeing a therapist. "but doesn't provide a long term solution, you see a therapist and eventually, you learn how to deal with the world on the the worlds, and your own, terms, and no longer need to see a therapist, religion keeps hold of you for good, unless you learn to overcome your need for it, and learn to deal with the world on its and your own terms, rather than how the religion tells you to. A therapist doesn't tell you what to think, they help you work through your own thoughts, and you chose it, maybe at the recommendation of others, but you chose it, most people are indoctrinated into their religion from a young age. Some people get past that indoctrination, to find their own way with faith, like Shannon, or to reject the irrationality of faith completely.
And really, I can turn that sentence around, seeing a therapist can be just as refreshing as a religious experience, thus proving that you can get nothing good, in relation to therapeutic experience, from religion that you cannot get through secular means.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I think societies' morality or lack thereof is likely more consistent than we realize. However, having said that, I also think we've made great gains. And, I don't have kids."Well..."
This reminds me of when an older woman I worked with told me 'She wouldn't want to raise a kid today.'
Which lead me to ask when was a good time to have raised a kid? When was this past golden age that people mention?
The world has always been bad, violent and weird. Nowadays isn't worse, just different.
Kids can play 'Grand theft Auto 12', but on the bright side, most kids will live past their fifth birthday, have little chance of being eaten by a bear or being lynched if they are black.
and if you're a girl, you can vote and own land.
Travis wrote: "The world has always been bad, violent and weird. Nowadays isn't worse, just different. Kids can play 'Grand theft Auto 12', but on the bright side, most kids will live past their fifth birthday, have little chance of being eaten by a bear or being lynched if they are black and if you're a girl, you can vote and own land. "
Very true ... in some countries, at least.
Very true ... in some countries, at least.
Hazel wrote: but doesn't provide a long term solutionThat's making an awfully big assumption. Positive changes inspired by faith can be permanent, I have seen it.
A therapist doesnt tell you what to think, they help you work through your own thoughts...and you chose it
A good religious leader doesnt shove things down your throat either. He merely counsels someone in a sphere that they are comfortable with. Many religions want their follwers to worship by their own volition, because faith forced isn't real faith. Again, I am not saying this is the reality of what's out there, I'm just saying that its possible.
...some people get past that indoctrination, to find their own way with faith"
And is that so bad really? Who are we to condmen the choices of others if its not hurting anyone else? Religion as an institution has many flaws, but the faith behind the pagentry can be lovely to witness.
I think there is a transcendence of the individual to a state that feels connected to everything around you that is cherished amoung believers. Others might be able to find this transcendece listening to music or going on a hike, but again these are choices (ideally) made by the individual. Not everyone likes shellfish, tomatoes, or olives, but everyone likes feeling full. We have options about what to eat, and in that same way we choose how to feel connected to our world. Some aspects of faith are attaiable secularly, but some people just have different preferences.
Ashanti wrote: "Hazel wrote: but doesn't provide a long term solutionThat's making an awfully big assumption. Positive changes inspired by faith can be permanent, I have seen it.
A therapist doesnt tell you wh..."
I think the point people are trying to make is that all the things people claim religion brings to this religion/science partnership can be gotten elsewhere and so it's not really an equal balance.
On a different note ... but a similar note ....
I picked up and watched a DVD today, I Am, by Tom Shadyac. I'm not a science person, so I can't speak to the science that was discussed. I wonder about some of it. Accuracy? I'm not sure how I feel about the DVD. I need to ponder it. I don't know what it means, exactly, in an understanding of the world and humans and science and ... our connectedness. One of the scientists said something like ... it doesn't necessarily need to lead to religion or spirituality but connectedness.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone else has watched it.
I picked up and watched a DVD today, I Am, by Tom Shadyac. I'm not a science person, so I can't speak to the science that was discussed. I wonder about some of it. Accuracy? I'm not sure how I feel about the DVD. I need to ponder it. I don't know what it means, exactly, in an understanding of the world and humans and science and ... our connectedness. One of the scientists said something like ... it doesn't necessarily need to lead to religion or spirituality but connectedness.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone else has watched it.
Gary wrote: "The first thing I would say is that grow uncomfortable with the idea that a girl wearing "revealing" clothes or that bare skin is a bad thing, this seems to me to be the traditional patriarchal religious society once more placing modesty as the responsibility of the girl and implicitly excusing men for their behaviour because they were seduced. The idea of clothing and make-up "sexualising" our little girls has as its cousin the idea that if a woman wearing a revealing outfit was raped then she deserved it. "Hurrah Gary thank you for say this. The responsibility of sexual assault is all on the attacker.
Shanna wrote: "The responsiblity of sexual assault is all on the attacker. "Always. Every single time.
Shannon wrote: "I occurs to me that I wasn't clear ... regarding what some parents discuss regarding morality and immorality and schools."In my opinion the objectifying of women in our society has very little to do with their "sexualisation" or their looks, but everything to do with what the average person sees as gender roles. This is fairly ubiquitous as you will see similar effects whether women wear bikinis or a fully covering niqab. If culturally women are expected to be nothing more than daughters, wives and mothers then they will be viewed as objects.
In my opinion western monotheism has been at the very core of this attitude and central to its persistence to this day. In the eyes of Islam and strict Christianity women are lesser beings, in the Bible women never take a positive role beyond wife or mother and even then both are treated as inherently flawed. Women are admonished in scripture to be obedient, humble, modest and overall quiet. Now you may indeed say that moderate Christianity has a more egalitarian attitude, but the problem with that is that it doesn't really make these attitudes go away, it just drives them into the collective subconscious. You just need to look at Hollywood, the supposed den of permissiveness and rampant liberalism, and apply the Bechdel Test (http://bechdeltest.com) to films.
To supplement that just look at the GOPs recent activity on abortion and contraception. All of it is informed by a religious morality and all of it relegates women to little more than available incubators for men. The entire "pro-life" claim is a lie too as they have also been working to ban abortions even in cases were the mother's life is at risk. Outside of the legislation you've got assholes like Limbaugh who voiced the common perception that if a woman doesn't fit into the virgin/wife/mother trinity she's a whore. Yes he's a horrible person in general, but his attitude just indicates the prejudices that likely lie more obfuscated in others.
Now whether the misogyny came first and patriarchal monotheism is just a facilitator, or whether patriarchal monotheism naturally leads to misogyny as everyone is ultimately inferior to the "Lord" and "Father", its a bit of a chicken and egg situation.
God is routinely portrayed as male (which makes no sense as the entire point of a male gender is to seed a female who is the creator of life). Christianity goes on to then create Eve as an afterthought to keep Adam company, then blames Eve for seducing Adam and causing the fall from grace that then gets her entire gender forever enslaved to male whim. Within the first book of the bible women are already treated as responsible for the wrongs of men. Sound familiar.
Now I know the problem of misogyny is much wider than religious influence, but it is at once both a hard influence to undo and yet also a quite straightforward one to denounce.
Personally though I still sometimes find myself amazed and confused that any woman would willingly call themselves Christian, but then again I know Christian homosexuals too. :-)
Victoria wrote: "FYI I homeschooled my kids, teaching them science and literature and a number of things I thought were important. But the main thing I taught them wasn't taught at all. I just told them to read and study whatever they wanted to. Reading levels didn't matter. Appropriate ages were just myths. They weren't bored because they picked the subjects. And they wound up self-reliant researchers who could learn whatever they set their minds to. Which, to my way of thinking, is far more the purpose of school than anybody's curriculum. "That sounds great Victoria, and personally I can't see the problem with that in principle. Perhaps the only concerns I would have would be the risk of popular opinion eclipsing scientific consensus, and the lack of social education that a school environment exposes a child to. Yet both issues are not insurmountable and I also know that I am disappointed by many school curricula, that few schools seem to provide adequate protection and support to stop bullying and dysfunction of that social experience.
Personally I am deeply suspicious of any system which gets religious adherents of a specific religion to teach religious education. :-)
Saying that, I was brought up in almost the same way. I was encouraged to read and investigate in the same way and thus ended up with what was said to be a fully adult reading age at the age of 10.
This actually had two problems for me, the first being that I then found school so easy that I got bored and into trouble, the second was that I applied what I was taught to my intrinsic faith and ended up losing it instead of confirming it which brought me into conflict with my family.
Shannon wrote: "The most important things to "teach" are to have a love of learning, to be active participants in one's education, to become self-reliant researchers ... people who want to learn and who question and who dig for answers."QFT
Ashanti wrote: "Participating spiritaully in something larger than yourself can be really fufilling. Faith can make a person stronger, more understanding, and better adjusted to change."Equally faith can make people feel devalued, guilty, dirty, even worthless and it can make people more prejudiced, more close minded and more hateful.
I would say that this is not an example of religion healing, it is a person using whatever tool they can to heal themselves. Can religion be used in this way, yes, but that doesn't mean that without it other less dangerous and prejudicial methodologies could be used to equal or even better effect.
I have had to help a few people who have suffered deeply because of their faith and what they were taught. I know of some who retain their faith and the deep trauma that it still causes them and some who became victims of their faith being used to manipulate them and retain the resultant emotional scars to this day.
So religion can just as easily harm as heal, so those that use religion for good for themselves or others deserve the credit, not religion itself.
Ashanti wrote: "That's making an awfully big assumption. Positive changes inspired by faith can be permanent, I have seen it."The point is "inspired" by faith. The change needs to come from the person. Can religion inspire positive change, yes. However, it can also inspire a lot of negative behaviour and attitudes. The problem being that because it is all based on faith, there is no way to discern between good and bad influence of religion accept by using things outside of religion such as personal ethics and conviction. At that point you may as well use the personal ethics and conviction.
I have seen the cost of religion as well as its successes, and I am afraid I have seen more costs. Now you may think that this may be observational bias, but I have considered that and I have to say that the statistics don't support religion being as positive an influence as it is repeatedly claimed, and sometimes may be quite the opposite.
Ashanti wrote: "A good religious leader doesnt shove things down your throat either."
Depends on your definition of 'good'. I have met ethical religious leaders and religious leaders that were good at manipulating and coercing without "shoving" anything.
The difference between a therapist and a religious leader is that one is trained with knowledge based on observation and testing and who's job is to try to help people with problems, the other has a set of beliefs and their job is to propagate those beliefs.
The worse part here is that yes there are good and ethical religious leaders, I have met them myself, yet because they based their attitudes on belief they could tragically inflict harm on the very people they honestly try to help.
For example not all priests who try to make gay people straight are really homophobic. They just try to honestly help people who feel that they want to change themselves because they cannot live up to the ideal of their religiously influenced society. Whereas a therapist, armed with our current knowledge of biology and psychology would most likely try to get that person to accept themselves and let them realise that they can be happy and healthy without being forced to change themselves.
Ashanti wrote: "Many religions want their follwers to worship by their own volition, because faith forced isn't real faith."
How can faith not be forced in some manner? There is no logical or rational basis for faith or it wouldn't be faith.
Faith is based on the authority of others, whether its parents, priests or scripture. Authority without rational principle is simply forcing an idea on another, whether subtly by the bribery of comforting ideas of protection and safety or overtly by claiming potency or penalty for lack of worship.
Ashanti wrote: "And is that so bad really? Who are we to condmen the choices of others if its not hurting anyone else?"
Good point, unless of course that leads to the condoning of hurting other people, implicitly or explicitly. So when you claim that god exists and biblical scripture is divinely inspired you support those who then use that scripture to condemn women, homosexuals or even non-believers. Belief that belief and faith is a virtue and intrinsically superior harms everyone who does not share that view.
Acceptance of non-theism is worse than the acceptance of race, gender or even homosexuality in the US and even in Western Europe that influence is there. This disenfranchises those that do not follow faiths from the chance of serving in public office or often even prejudices against them in public discourse.
When it comes down to it, unfounded belief is basically the idea that ones own ideas are intrinsically superior to the ideas of others without the need for evidence, rationale or explanation. Therefore belief is intrinsically harmful to others by its nature.
Ashanti wrote: "Religion as an institution has many flaws, but the faith behind the pagentry can be lovely to witness."
The HIV virus is a beautifully intricate structure, but I would eliminate it if I could.
(Argument from beauty)
Ashanti wrote: "I think there is a transcendence of the individual to a state that feels connected to everything around you that is cherished amoung believers."
The sense of community and belonging intrinsic to our evolution has indeed been subverted by many religious memes. It has also been subverted by various non-religious organisations and cults. Part of military training deliberately accesses this state to make an efficient and high morale fighting force.
Just because people feel good when they participate doesn't make it a good thing. In fact historically such movements are often highly negative in the end.
Ashanti wrote: "Not everyone likes shellfish, tomatoes, or olives, but everyone likes feeling full."
From that analogy religion would be eating what you are told, based on the preference of the person telling you, whether you like it or not or whether its even good for you. You might be violently allergic to shellfish but since this is the "shellfish" religion then you either change to survive it or you suffer the consequences.
Some people of course would be happy for you to choose what you want to eat, even if the things you are eating may be unhealthy or even poisoned, and quite happy for those people advocating the food to make any claim they like about the contents. "Carrots make you see in the Dark", "Eating puppies makes you live forever."
Then the people who have tried many different dishes and have decided to follow a diet based on not just what tastes good, but what is provably safe to eat, are viewed with suspicion.
Ashanti wrote: "Some aspects of faith are attaiable secularly, but some people just have different preferences. "
That is all very good when this preference effects no one but religious apologists always seem to forget that people actually believe their beliefs and those beliefs then informs their actions and their treatment of others.
Is it ethical to allow people to believe whatever they like unchallenged?
Is it ethical to allow those people to indoctrinate others in their unfounded and unproven beliefs?
Is it ethical to allow those people to teach those beliefs to children (their own or others) who trust in their parents and teachers to teach them truth?
Is it ethical for people to teach their children that they are evil?
Is it ethical for people to teach their children not to accept potentially life saving medical treatment?
Is it ethical for people to physically mutilate their children in the belief that it saves their soul?
At what point do you say that somebody needs to justify their beliefs before acting on them?
Where in the sand is the line drawn?
some extracts from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hin...
Which tries to explain what hindu religion is ...
Hinduism is certainly monotheistic. The Hindu Texts say: the Supreme Being ("Brahman") is formless, nameless and also without attributes of any kind. In the Texts, the Supreme Being is referred to as "It" or "That". Because this is an abstract concept, it has been made easier to understand for those who cannot easily think in abstract terms by speaking of different manifestations of "It" or "That". This has been done by deifying or personalizing different forces as "manifestations" of the Almighty.here is more. Hinduism is so catholic a religion that it actually gives the authority to everybody to create his or her own "manifestation" of the Formless and Nameless Almighty. If someone said he was happy to consider a piece of stone or a tree or a lump of clay or anything else to be his preferred form or manifestation of the Almighty, Hinduism permits it without calling it sacrilege or blasphemy. Every person is free to worship according to his own particular set of values, conditionings and beliefs. If I worship a piece of stone as the Almighty, I am actually worshipping the Almighty itself in the form in which I find it easy to comprehend the Incomprehensible, the Formless, the Nameless, the Attributeless, the Infinite. I believe in the Yama principles set out above, I believe in the law of Karma and rebirth and I use my finite mind-intellect equipment to fix itself on the Infinite by means of a symbol (or, if I can be comfortable with an abstract and undefined concept, I transcend the requirement for a symbol). Ergo, I am a Hindu. It is as easy as that.
"Ekaiva Shaktihi Parameshvarasya
Bhinnaa Chaturdhaa Viniyoga Kale
Bhoge Bhavaani Purushaseshu Vishnu
Kope cha Kaali Samarecha Durgaa"
[Rough transliteration: "The one and indeed one only Force of the Supreme Being manifests Itself in four ways according to circumstances: During peace and prosperity, It is Bhavani, in Its Male Form, It is Vishnu, in Anger It is Kaali and in War It is Durga"]
So Hinduism is a very humanistic religion. It permits the individual enormous liberties, within a few rational and humane boundaries. As a result, many schools of philosophy have blossomed within its benevolent fold. Hinduism is therefore essentially a convenient word or a convenient concept to denote diverse ways of life that are all good, noble, pure and morally and spiritually elevating.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I occurs to me that I wasn't clear ... regarding what some parents discuss regarding morality and immorality and schools."
In my opinion the objectifying of women in our society ha..."
Hmmm.... Maybe. I don't know. I'll think on it.
Regarding the following ...
"...in the Bible women never take a positive role beyond wife or mother and even then both are treated as inherently flawed. Women are admonished in scripture to be obedient, humble, modest and overall quiet."
For the most part, you're right. Yes, when it comes to the Old Testament, you're right. I'm scanning my brain .... Don't think I can come up with one. You're right. But ....
Now, I'd love it if people wouldn't misconstrue what I'm about to say. Because, in large part, I agree with you; however, .... When it comes to the New Testament, while there are many instances in which people like Paul wax poetic, not, on the virtues of women, which fit the wife/mother/virgin/humble/quiet idea, there are women who don't, in my opinion. Of course, I'm guessing you guys will tell me I'm wrong.
So, .... Mary, the mother of Jesus, .... Whoa! I know. Virgin, blah, blah. First of all, I think we know that the word in Hebrew means a young woman or something like that, right? But, here's the thing. Have you read the prayer Mary allegedly made after being told she's going to have a baby. I watched a show on the History Channel once about women in the Bible. One of the religious scholars talked about this prayer and how totally and completely radical it was ... at the time. Of course, this was only her take on it. But, if found it somewhat fascinating. Martha and Mary. Wives/mothers/virgins/quiet...? Sisters. Yeah. I'm guessing someone is going to say ... even though Jesus reportedly told Martha it was more important to listen to his teachings than to worry about housework, he was asking for her obedience or something, right ...? Still, the Martha/Mary thing doesn't, in my mind, play out as many things do regarding women in the Bible. Mary Magdalene? I don't think she fits the wife/mother/humble and quiet stereotype. And, the whole idea of her being a prostitute, to my knowledge, isn't backed in scripture. That idea came from the male leadership in the Roman Catholic Church later.
As I said, you're largely correct ... even overwhelmingly. However, I do believe there are instances and women in the New Testament that don't quite fit. However, taken as a whole, and this is where I don't want to be misunderstood, if at all possible, the Jewish and Christian (as well as Muslim) faiths are indeed misogynistic.
In my opinion the objectifying of women in our society ha..."
Hmmm.... Maybe. I don't know. I'll think on it.
Regarding the following ...
"...in the Bible women never take a positive role beyond wife or mother and even then both are treated as inherently flawed. Women are admonished in scripture to be obedient, humble, modest and overall quiet."
For the most part, you're right. Yes, when it comes to the Old Testament, you're right. I'm scanning my brain .... Don't think I can come up with one. You're right. But ....
Now, I'd love it if people wouldn't misconstrue what I'm about to say. Because, in large part, I agree with you; however, .... When it comes to the New Testament, while there are many instances in which people like Paul wax poetic, not, on the virtues of women, which fit the wife/mother/virgin/humble/quiet idea, there are women who don't, in my opinion. Of course, I'm guessing you guys will tell me I'm wrong.
So, .... Mary, the mother of Jesus, .... Whoa! I know. Virgin, blah, blah. First of all, I think we know that the word in Hebrew means a young woman or something like that, right? But, here's the thing. Have you read the prayer Mary allegedly made after being told she's going to have a baby. I watched a show on the History Channel once about women in the Bible. One of the religious scholars talked about this prayer and how totally and completely radical it was ... at the time. Of course, this was only her take on it. But, if found it somewhat fascinating. Martha and Mary. Wives/mothers/virgins/quiet...? Sisters. Yeah. I'm guessing someone is going to say ... even though Jesus reportedly told Martha it was more important to listen to his teachings than to worry about housework, he was asking for her obedience or something, right ...? Still, the Martha/Mary thing doesn't, in my mind, play out as many things do regarding women in the Bible. Mary Magdalene? I don't think she fits the wife/mother/humble and quiet stereotype. And, the whole idea of her being a prostitute, to my knowledge, isn't backed in scripture. That idea came from the male leadership in the Roman Catholic Church later.
As I said, you're largely correct ... even overwhelmingly. However, I do believe there are instances and women in the New Testament that don't quite fit. However, taken as a whole, and this is where I don't want to be misunderstood, if at all possible, the Jewish and Christian (as well as Muslim) faiths are indeed misogynistic.
Gary wrote: "QFT"
I can guess what you mean by this, but .... While I've figured out things like LOL and Lmao, I've not run across QFT.
My guess is ... Quite F'ing True ... but that's just a guess.
?
I can guess what you mean by this, but .... While I've figured out things like LOL and Lmao, I've not run across QFT.
My guess is ... Quite F'ing True ... but that's just a guess.
?
Anjali wrote: "Hinduism is certainly monotheistic."I have spoken to Hindus that would disagree with you, claiming a more animistic or polytheistic faith.
Anjali wrote: "Every person is free to worship according to his own particular set of values, conditionings and beliefs."
What if they do not wish to worship? What if they feel that the idea that we are intrinsically inferior just makes it easier to see others as inferior and inconsequential and the idea that we should all be on our knees thanking some force for our meagre existence is an insult to human dignity?
Anjali wrote: "I believe in the law of Karma and rebirth."
So you believe that injustice will be rectified as a natural order of the universe and that death is not permanent?
Though I understand the concept of karma in the context of society, if karma exists then why fight injustice if it will be sorted out anyway? If death isn't permanent then how can killing something be particularly bad?
Anjali wrote: "So Hinduism is a very humanistic religion. It permits the individual enormous liberties, within a few rational and humane boundaries. As a result, many schools of philosophy have blossomed within its benevolent fold. Hinduism is therefore essentially a convenient word or a convenient concept to denote diverse ways of life that are all good, noble, pure and morally and spiritually elevating. "
I cannot see how any religion that teaches that their is something infinitely more important than our fellow humans can be "humanitarian", especially when it holds that injustice will always be addressed and death is not really a bad thing to happen to someone.
In my opinion karma is a good starting point for an ethical comprehension of society but not a law of the universe. The same as the Christian "Golden Rule" if we want the protections and benefits of an ethical society then we each also need to act ethically ourselves. However, both Karma and Christianity get diverted into serving religion instead of serving each other. As for death, reincarnation means that we are continually reborn, and Christianity teaches that we will be resurrected as we are now in the new paradise. Though both can be comforting ideas, lessening the sting of death also makes death more acceptable. As far as I know human death is the cessation of a human mind, therefore killing of a human - except under the direst of conditions - is the most horrible act one can commit.
The problem with Mary Magdalene it we don't which role she fit, if, indeed she did fit one. The bible doesn't see fit to tell us. I think there is some reference to her being wealthy and financially supporting Jesus and the Desciples, am I right I maybe misremebering that from a doco, which I suppose is kind of motherly IDK.
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "QFT"I can guess what you mean by this, but .... While I've figured out things like LOL and Lmao, I've not run across QFT.
My guess is ... Quite F'ing True ... but that's just a gue..."
Quoted for truth. I think
Shanna wrote: "I think there is some reference to her being wealthy and financially supporting Jesus and the Desciples, am I right I maybe misremebering that from a doco, which I suppose is kind of motherly IDK. "
Yeah.... I'm not sure. I'd have to pull out my Bible. I know my mother has often talked of this ... regarding Mary Magdalene and other NT women, that they had allegedly had money and reportedly financed Jesus and his teachings. I don't know where she got that, though ... from the Bible or other sources.
I'm actually not sure that it's maternal ... motherly. I mean .... There are things that are left out, for sure. Like, in a time when people married, you have all sorts of people mentioned, Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, etc... who are mentioned, yet, their "spouses" aren't. Does that mean they weren't married? If so, how radical was that, given the time period? Let's say women like Mary Magdalene weren't married. A single woman, reportedly following and financing Jesus. In my mind, that makes her as much of a rebel as Jesus allegedly was ... which, again, in my mind, is pretty cool and not exactly motherly. But, we don't know for sure ... that's for sure. I just don't know that all the women in the Bible fit the stereotype ... seductress or mother.
Yeah.... I'm not sure. I'd have to pull out my Bible. I know my mother has often talked of this ... regarding Mary Magdalene and other NT women, that they had allegedly had money and reportedly financed Jesus and his teachings. I don't know where she got that, though ... from the Bible or other sources.
I'm actually not sure that it's maternal ... motherly. I mean .... There are things that are left out, for sure. Like, in a time when people married, you have all sorts of people mentioned, Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, etc... who are mentioned, yet, their "spouses" aren't. Does that mean they weren't married? If so, how radical was that, given the time period? Let's say women like Mary Magdalene weren't married. A single woman, reportedly following and financing Jesus. In my mind, that makes her as much of a rebel as Jesus allegedly was ... which, again, in my mind, is pretty cool and not exactly motherly. But, we don't know for sure ... that's for sure. I just don't know that all the women in the Bible fit the stereotype ... seductress or mother.
Shanna wrote: "My guess is ... Quite F'ing True ... but t..."
Ahahahaha! I just googled it. I think you're right. However!
I also found "Quack for Trains" ... I don't think he meant it that way.
And ...
"Quit Frickin' Talking"
Ahahahaha!
We'll have to see what he says. Needless to say, I didn't find Quite F'ing True!
Ahahahaha! I just googled it. I think you're right. However!
I also found "Quack for Trains" ... I don't think he meant it that way.
And ...
"Quit Frickin' Talking"
Ahahahaha!
We'll have to see what he says. Needless to say, I didn't find Quite F'ing True!
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I occurs to me that I wasn't clear ... regarding what some parents discuss regarding morality and immorality and schools."In my opinion the objectifying of women in o..."
Then you get into that christianity, the moral code of a huge chunk of the world, is based around their deity knocking up a married woman.
Adds a touch of irony to that whole 'family values' thing.
wasn't she supposedly unmarried at the time? There's no way any woman who was married would have been a virgin, when traditionally they're "deflowered" on the first night.Makes you wonder if the marriage was a quick fix to her being pregnant pre-marriage... Joseph did the nasty before the nuptials, and they came up with a story that has since got way out of hand ;P
Shannon wrote: "Now, I'd love it if people wouldn't misconstrue what I'm about to say."I'll do my best not to! :-)
Shannon wrote: "the virtues of women, which fit the wife/mother/virgin/humble/quiet idea, there are women who don't, in my opinion."
None that I can think of, Eve is created second, yet sins first, women seduce men into incest, being a whore is both an exclusively female insult and never places any blame on the male customers. Similarly being "barren" is an exclusively female crime.
Apart from that I can't see any woman who does anything apart from submit who is not considered wicked. Delilah, Jezebel etc. God even considers females as legitimate war booty (Deuteronomy 20:13-14, 21:11-14)
So if there is a positive female role model who isn't just humble and obedient I cannot think of it myself.
Shannon wrote: "First of all, I think we know that the word in Hebrew means a young woman or something like that, right?"
Indeed. The problem is that the gospels were written in Greek so they do specifically state that Mary was a virgin and that she did not know the touch of a man. However, this is to be expected as the miraculous virgin birth was a key component of many mystery religions at that time.
The part that makes it farcical is that in order for the New Testament authors to confirm that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy they included two (different) genealogies that claim his descent from David to confirm that the Messiah was indeed of that house. However, both genealogies are patrilineal and trace his ancestry through Joseph despite Joseph also being claimed not to be the father.
Shannon wrote: "Have you read the prayer Mary allegedly made after being told she's going to have a baby."
Do you mean Luke 1:46-55? This is the only prayer I can think of and apart from praising the lord and a bit of social justice (the poor are fed and the rich go hungry) the basic message is "he that is mighty hath done to me great things", those great things being knocking her up, which once again is just the ultimate iteration of women serving nothing more but the function of mobile incubators for powerful males.
Shannon wrote: "One of the religious scholars talked about this prayer and how totally and completely radical it was ... at the time."
Well if you can confirm which prayer that you are referencing I would appreciate it, as I didn't see much that was radical, even for the time, except that bit about social justice which was later repeated by Jesus.
I also must comment (though I realise it beside your point) that again it seems that theists often make great noise about how revolutionary the reformers ideas are at the time, and yet then fail to appreciate that context when it comes to translating religion to modern times. In my opinion, if the bible was a "good" book at all then its values should be timeless.
Shannon wrote: "even though Jesus reportedly told Martha it was more important to listen to his teachings than to worry about housework, he was asking for her obedience or something, right ...?"
I am not sure what you mean here. In Luke Martha is busy with her tasks and does not attend the Lord and when she complains she has been left to do the work Jesus tells her that Mary has chosen the better thing. In John Martha apparently goes out to meet Jesus on arrival, while Mary comes when she is called. Both accounts are consistent with the master/slave relationship that typifies most male/female relationships in the bible. (Slaves are told in the bible to obey their masters just as women are told to obey their husbands).
Shannon wrote: "Mary Magdalene? I don't think she fits the wife/mother/humble and quiet stereotype."
In what way. As far as I recall the main features of Mary Magdalene (outside of the Apocrypha) was that she may have been cleansed of Seven demons before following Jesus and her only other real function was to be one of the various alleged witnesses of Christ's resurrection. (I know it was a later Pope that drew the connection between being demon afflicted and being a whore.) Still the general idea is still of a woman taking her place often after being considered sinful.
Shannon wrote: "I don't want to be misunderstood, if at all possible, the Jewish and Christian (as well as Muslim) faiths are indeed misogynistic. "
Indeed, and I can see you recognise that trend. The thing that I find though is that a lot of the misogyny is related to the idea of sex being bad, which leads to the whole modesty issue and is at the core of both the misogyny and homophobia of the bible and other religions.
Obviously, Christianity pretty much states sex as being the "original sin" now whether that led to the ideas about female fidelity or concerns about female fidelity led to the idea of sex as bad is debatable, but I know of a few historians that claimed a link between sex and the ascendency and dominion of the Christian Church i.e. by indicating lust and sex were evil and that only sex within the sacred institute of marriage was permissible, hence the Church by regulating the state of holy matrimony would exert great control over people, particularly otherwise unruly nobles and lords. The entire Anglican Church was started primarily just so Henry VIII could divorce and rewed.
This whole idea explains a lot about Christianity and a lot about modern attitudes. The Catholic position on sex is the most blatant, basically if sex is anything but potentially making another new little Catholic then it should be reviled. Sex outside of Catholic Matrimony carries the risk of the child growing up in another faith, meanwhile contraception of any kind or abortion or non-propagative sex such as homosexual sex are viewed as lustful and sinful. It is perhaps small justice that belief in miracles stops a Catholic injunction against the old or the infertile.
Shannon wrote: "I can guess what you mean by this, but .... While I've figured out things like LOL and Lmao, I've not run across QFT.My guess is ... Quite F'ing True ... but that's just a guess."
Apologies "Quoted for Truth"
Shannon wrote: "I just don't know that all the women in the Bible fit the stereotype ... seductress or mother. "No that's fair, it's just all the others tend to fall into the "wicked", or appropriately docile category.
Unfortunately I haven't yet found any reference that clearly shows Mary Magdalene as doing anything herself.
Travis wrote: "Then you get into that christianity, the moral code of a huge chunk of the world, is based around their deity knocking up a married woman."According to scripture I think she was betrothed when she became pregnant and Joseph was going to set her aside until an angel came down with an explanation (and perhaps a fruit basket) from god.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "First of all, I think we know that the word in Hebrew means a young woman or something like that, right?"
Indeed. The problem is that the gospels were written in Greek so they do specifically state that Mary was a virgin and that she did not know the touch of a man. However, this is to be expected as the miraculous virgin birth was a key component of many mystery religions at that time. "
Well, yes and no. This would be one of the inconsistencies that appear in the Bible. I know atheists in this thread have pointed out inconsistencies in the Bible before. Not sure if this one was touched upon.
I don't believe all of the gospels cite Mary as a virgin and Jesus as the Divine son of God through a virgin birth. I'm quite sure Mark does not. In fact, also flying in the face of Roman Catholic ideology, I think the Gospel of Mark discusses Mary's children and Jesus' siblings. I want to say another gospel follows Mark in this, but I can't remember which. Luke doesn't, for sure. I think Luke is the one that really, really gets into the virgin birth idea.
Now, interestingly and sadly, I there is an actual possible rape connection. We did some talking about rape yesterday and there's talk of Joseph and God knocking Mary up. Well ....
Do you get the idea that I watch a lot of shows on the History Channel?
I was watching a show on the History Channel about the Bible, maybe the same one that talked about Mary's prayer, and they talked about a rumor at the time that "Christianity" was first starting. It was years ago. I can't remember all of the particulars, which stinks. But, the scholars were saying there was talk at the time that Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier. How they know this ... that there was talk at the time ... I don't know. I know a bunch of you say there wasn't written documentation to prove Jesus' existence ... at least by good sources at the time of his life. So, what's their proof and is it valid? Again, I don't know. But, they claimed there was this rumor at the time ... down to the name of the soldier who raped her. The name escapes me. But, I have this weird and vague recollection of their finding a grave or burial site ... a stone marker ... or something of a Roman soldier ... by the same name ... who was in Judea at the time of Mary's impregnation. Again, does that prove anything, even if true? No. And, I think I remember feminist scholars discussing this on the program ... the virgin mythos as opposed to a woman who had violated, etc.... Also, I believe some said it was a way to disprove the idea that Jesus was divine and put down the new "Christian" movement. The rumor ... Jesus was the product of rape, the son of a Roman, not the son of God. I don't know ....
It's more than a bit fuzzy, I'm afraid. But, it was new to me. Not something that was addressed in the confirmation classes my mother forced me to attend.
Indeed. The problem is that the gospels were written in Greek so they do specifically state that Mary was a virgin and that she did not know the touch of a man. However, this is to be expected as the miraculous virgin birth was a key component of many mystery religions at that time. "
Well, yes and no. This would be one of the inconsistencies that appear in the Bible. I know atheists in this thread have pointed out inconsistencies in the Bible before. Not sure if this one was touched upon.
I don't believe all of the gospels cite Mary as a virgin and Jesus as the Divine son of God through a virgin birth. I'm quite sure Mark does not. In fact, also flying in the face of Roman Catholic ideology, I think the Gospel of Mark discusses Mary's children and Jesus' siblings. I want to say another gospel follows Mark in this, but I can't remember which. Luke doesn't, for sure. I think Luke is the one that really, really gets into the virgin birth idea.
Now, interestingly and sadly, I there is an actual possible rape connection. We did some talking about rape yesterday and there's talk of Joseph and God knocking Mary up. Well ....
Do you get the idea that I watch a lot of shows on the History Channel?
I was watching a show on the History Channel about the Bible, maybe the same one that talked about Mary's prayer, and they talked about a rumor at the time that "Christianity" was first starting. It was years ago. I can't remember all of the particulars, which stinks. But, the scholars were saying there was talk at the time that Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier. How they know this ... that there was talk at the time ... I don't know. I know a bunch of you say there wasn't written documentation to prove Jesus' existence ... at least by good sources at the time of his life. So, what's their proof and is it valid? Again, I don't know. But, they claimed there was this rumor at the time ... down to the name of the soldier who raped her. The name escapes me. But, I have this weird and vague recollection of their finding a grave or burial site ... a stone marker ... or something of a Roman soldier ... by the same name ... who was in Judea at the time of Mary's impregnation. Again, does that prove anything, even if true? No. And, I think I remember feminist scholars discussing this on the program ... the virgin mythos as opposed to a woman who had violated, etc.... Also, I believe some said it was a way to disprove the idea that Jesus was divine and put down the new "Christian" movement. The rumor ... Jesus was the product of rape, the son of a Roman, not the son of God. I don't know ....
It's more than a bit fuzzy, I'm afraid. But, it was new to me. Not something that was addressed in the confirmation classes my mother forced me to attend.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "One of the religious scholars talked about this prayer and how totally and completely radical it was ... at the time."
Well if you can confirm which prayer that you are referencing I would appreciate it, as I didn't see much that was radical, even for the time, except that bit about social justice which was later repeated by Jesus.
I also must comment (though I realise it beside your point) that again it seems that theists often make great noise about how revolutionary the reformers ideas are at the time, and yet then fail to appreciate that context when it comes to translating religion to modern times. In my opinion, if the bible was a "good" book at all then its values should be timeless."
I'm going to comment on the last part first. Indeed, I agree, it is beside my point. I'd just like to clarify that ... my stating not all the females in the NT, in my opinion, fit the mother/virgin stereotype is not an attempt at a theist argument and a way of proving the Bible is good. Not even close. I know you said it was beside my point, but putting the "typical" theist argument in a response after my words, sort of makes it look like that might be my argument. It really isn't.
Anyone who has read my posts regarding the Bible knows I find some stories within the Bible to be valuable ... to have lessons ... but ... I've said I don't believe it to be the word of God. I don't believe it to be a "good" book.
Now, what prayer am I referring to? Well, .... First, again, I want to clarify. My recalling that program from the History Channel was merely that. Me recalling something I watched. I'm actually not making an argument for Christianity or religion or the "goodness" of the Bible or the rebelliousness of Mary. It was just me saying ... you know ... when it comes to the fallen woman vs. the virgin/mother stereotypes found in the Bible, I saw an interesting program, that I can't remember all the particulars about, that said Mary's prayer was pretty radical. That's all.
But, given your question, I just cracked open my Bible.
Yeah, I'd say the payer the people on the program referenced had to have been the prayer in Luke. The other three gospels don't have one. So, I read the prayer. And, I'm trying very hard to remember the points that were made in the program. Obviously, to truly know what was said, you'd have to find and watch the program ... and ... I don't remember the name. Looks like we're up the creek on that one.
However, this is what I think I remember ....
Yes, you're right. The first part addresses the mightiness of God. Not radical.
One thing, I believe, that they talked about was the "humbleness" line. I think they were talking about Mary's humble state. She wasn't wealthy, she had no power, etc.... However, she believed she was being used by God, etc.... I think they talked about that being a radical idea. (Please remember ... this isn't my argument. This is my recollection of the program.)
Then, there's the part about ...
"He (God) has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble."
From what I remember, one of the people on the program said this could be read as a call to overthrow the Romans ... which would have been rebellious, especially coming from a Jewish woman at the time.
Then, it says, "He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty." Yes, that reads like social justice. I don't know that the people on the program went there. They might have. But, I think they were going at it, hmmm, in a more ... holy carp, here's this Jewish woman, a young girl, frankly, who ... if she said and believed these things, would have been seen as a rebel with rebellious ideas.
That's what I remember ... but ... it was awhile ago ... and ... I didn't take it as the full truth and didn't try to commit it to memory, etc... I just remember thinking ... wow ... that's interesting ... I've never heard that take on it before.
When I had to go to church in middle school and take confirmation classes and when I went to church from time to time in my 20's, I don't remember hearing that take on Mary or that prayer. What I remember hearing in church was ... Mary was meek and mild and accepted what God wanted without question. We should all be as meek and mild and obedient. That's what I got from the church.
So, there I was one night, unable to sleep and watching shows on the History Channel, and saw people saying ... meek and mild and obedient ... to heck with that ... the woman was a rebel. That perked my interest. It definitely wasn't the theist argument I heard pastors make. Not even a little bit. Given the fact that pastors tended to see me as dangerous and subversive, you truly don't know the half of it, I liked the idea that Mary might have been one to shake up the powers that were.
Well if you can confirm which prayer that you are referencing I would appreciate it, as I didn't see much that was radical, even for the time, except that bit about social justice which was later repeated by Jesus.
I also must comment (though I realise it beside your point) that again it seems that theists often make great noise about how revolutionary the reformers ideas are at the time, and yet then fail to appreciate that context when it comes to translating religion to modern times. In my opinion, if the bible was a "good" book at all then its values should be timeless."
I'm going to comment on the last part first. Indeed, I agree, it is beside my point. I'd just like to clarify that ... my stating not all the females in the NT, in my opinion, fit the mother/virgin stereotype is not an attempt at a theist argument and a way of proving the Bible is good. Not even close. I know you said it was beside my point, but putting the "typical" theist argument in a response after my words, sort of makes it look like that might be my argument. It really isn't.
Anyone who has read my posts regarding the Bible knows I find some stories within the Bible to be valuable ... to have lessons ... but ... I've said I don't believe it to be the word of God. I don't believe it to be a "good" book.
Now, what prayer am I referring to? Well, .... First, again, I want to clarify. My recalling that program from the History Channel was merely that. Me recalling something I watched. I'm actually not making an argument for Christianity or religion or the "goodness" of the Bible or the rebelliousness of Mary. It was just me saying ... you know ... when it comes to the fallen woman vs. the virgin/mother stereotypes found in the Bible, I saw an interesting program, that I can't remember all the particulars about, that said Mary's prayer was pretty radical. That's all.
But, given your question, I just cracked open my Bible.
Yeah, I'd say the payer the people on the program referenced had to have been the prayer in Luke. The other three gospels don't have one. So, I read the prayer. And, I'm trying very hard to remember the points that were made in the program. Obviously, to truly know what was said, you'd have to find and watch the program ... and ... I don't remember the name. Looks like we're up the creek on that one.
However, this is what I think I remember ....
Yes, you're right. The first part addresses the mightiness of God. Not radical.
One thing, I believe, that they talked about was the "humbleness" line. I think they were talking about Mary's humble state. She wasn't wealthy, she had no power, etc.... However, she believed she was being used by God, etc.... I think they talked about that being a radical idea. (Please remember ... this isn't my argument. This is my recollection of the program.)
Then, there's the part about ...
"He (God) has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble."
From what I remember, one of the people on the program said this could be read as a call to overthrow the Romans ... which would have been rebellious, especially coming from a Jewish woman at the time.
Then, it says, "He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty." Yes, that reads like social justice. I don't know that the people on the program went there. They might have. But, I think they were going at it, hmmm, in a more ... holy carp, here's this Jewish woman, a young girl, frankly, who ... if she said and believed these things, would have been seen as a rebel with rebellious ideas.
That's what I remember ... but ... it was awhile ago ... and ... I didn't take it as the full truth and didn't try to commit it to memory, etc... I just remember thinking ... wow ... that's interesting ... I've never heard that take on it before.
When I had to go to church in middle school and take confirmation classes and when I went to church from time to time in my 20's, I don't remember hearing that take on Mary or that prayer. What I remember hearing in church was ... Mary was meek and mild and accepted what God wanted without question. We should all be as meek and mild and obedient. That's what I got from the church.
So, there I was one night, unable to sleep and watching shows on the History Channel, and saw people saying ... meek and mild and obedient ... to heck with that ... the woman was a rebel. That perked my interest. It definitely wasn't the theist argument I heard pastors make. Not even a little bit. Given the fact that pastors tended to see me as dangerous and subversive, you truly don't know the half of it, I liked the idea that Mary might have been one to shake up the powers that were.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "even though Jesus reportedly told Martha it was more important to listen to his teachings than to worry about housework, he was asking for her obedience or something, right ...?"
I am not sure what you mean here. In Luke Martha is busy with her tasks and does not attend the Lord and when she complains she has been left to do the work Jesus tells her that Mary has chosen the better thing. In John Martha apparently goes out to meet Jesus on arrival, while Mary comes when she is called. Both accounts are consistent with the master/slave relationship that typifies most male/female relationships in the bible. (Slaves are told in the bible to obey their masters just as women are told to obey their husbands)."
Well, I had the feeling this would be the typical atheist argument. ;)
You know, you might be right, on the other hand ....
Would it have been more typical and acceptable, at the time ... and now, in certain churches and societies, for the women to have tended house and left the religious learning and study and thought to the men? I think so. Now, interestingly, when given two women ... one who was focusing on the homemaking, a typical role for women at the time, and another who was listening to a rabbi, we have Jesus reportedly saying ... Mary made the better choice.
Now, yes, as I guessed, I think you see that as a call to obedience. Obedience. Master. Slave. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not.
Regarding the death of Lazarus, yes ... Martha reportedly goes out to meet Jesus. Mary goes when called ... master/slave ... obedience. Since my Bible was out, I looked this up in John ... thanks for the reference, I wouldn't have known which gospel to go for off the top of my head. It states, "And after she (Martha) has said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. 'The Teacher is here,' she said, 'and is asking for you.' When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him." I don't know that those words read ... master/slave ... to me. Granted, after that, she is said to have run to him and fallen at his feet, crying. One could argue that's a subservient position. Master/slave. Maybe so. Truly. But, it could also be a woman whose brother is dead and can't stand due to grief.
I really don't know. I mean, I can see truths in both arguments. I can see it as forward thinking ... this idea that women, who were not related to this Jewish man, this Jewish rabbi, were able and encouraged to follow him, learn from him, question him, touch him. I do think that was pretty radical ... either in deed, idea or both. But, at the same time, I can see where you're coming from ... especially given the direct statements of master/slave relationships that are made in the Bible in general and that are made by Jesus.
One thing I do know. I'd love to ditch the idea of typical arguments made by "-ists" and talk about/recognize our own thoughts and ideas.
I am not sure what you mean here. In Luke Martha is busy with her tasks and does not attend the Lord and when she complains she has been left to do the work Jesus tells her that Mary has chosen the better thing. In John Martha apparently goes out to meet Jesus on arrival, while Mary comes when she is called. Both accounts are consistent with the master/slave relationship that typifies most male/female relationships in the bible. (Slaves are told in the bible to obey their masters just as women are told to obey their husbands)."
Well, I had the feeling this would be the typical atheist argument. ;)
You know, you might be right, on the other hand ....
Would it have been more typical and acceptable, at the time ... and now, in certain churches and societies, for the women to have tended house and left the religious learning and study and thought to the men? I think so. Now, interestingly, when given two women ... one who was focusing on the homemaking, a typical role for women at the time, and another who was listening to a rabbi, we have Jesus reportedly saying ... Mary made the better choice.
Now, yes, as I guessed, I think you see that as a call to obedience. Obedience. Master. Slave. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not.
Regarding the death of Lazarus, yes ... Martha reportedly goes out to meet Jesus. Mary goes when called ... master/slave ... obedience. Since my Bible was out, I looked this up in John ... thanks for the reference, I wouldn't have known which gospel to go for off the top of my head. It states, "And after she (Martha) has said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. 'The Teacher is here,' she said, 'and is asking for you.' When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him." I don't know that those words read ... master/slave ... to me. Granted, after that, she is said to have run to him and fallen at his feet, crying. One could argue that's a subservient position. Master/slave. Maybe so. Truly. But, it could also be a woman whose brother is dead and can't stand due to grief.
I really don't know. I mean, I can see truths in both arguments. I can see it as forward thinking ... this idea that women, who were not related to this Jewish man, this Jewish rabbi, were able and encouraged to follow him, learn from him, question him, touch him. I do think that was pretty radical ... either in deed, idea or both. But, at the same time, I can see where you're coming from ... especially given the direct statements of master/slave relationships that are made in the Bible in general and that are made by Jesus.
One thing I do know. I'd love to ditch the idea of typical arguments made by "-ists" and talk about/recognize our own thoughts and ideas.
Gary wrote: "Unfortunately I haven't yet found any reference that clearly shows Mary Magdalene as doing anything herself. "
I feel like I'm in a Bible study class. Just dug out the Bible Dictionary my mother gave me years ago, and I never looked at until Shanna brought up the slavery issue awhile ago.
Mary Magdalene ... Not much is given ...
*Was thought to have had seven demons, as you mentioned
*Ministered to the needs of Jesus (Luke 8:2)
*A witness to the crucifixion
*Buried Jesus and found the empty tomb
*"An apparition of the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene alone is related in MK 16:9 and JN 20:1-18."
Again, as Shanna and I discussed, why do we have the feeling she used her money to support Jesus? I don't know. This Bible Dictionary doesn't mention it. Is that in the Bible? ?? Could that idea come from gnostic books? I believe there is a Book of Mary. Right? Hold on. I have a book I've never read by Pagels. Wonder if I can find it?
So, I have Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. I've not read it, but I just looked at all the Mary Magdalene references. Pagels states, "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, also discovered in Egypt, but in 1896, about fifty years before the Nag Hammadi find ..." (51). She also mentions that some believe she, Mary, was a disciple of Jesus. I don't know. And, we've mentioned here that ... we don't know who wrote the gospels, etc.... I know little to nothing about the Gospel of Mary that was found. When was it written? By whom? Did she really become a teacher within the movement? I'm guessing maybe. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. However!! Not always. Maybe she wasn't. I have to say though, at that time, when gender roles were set, for sure, and women weren't supposed to be religious leaders, I wonder at the reasoning for anyone writing a "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" ... that would be pretty radical, right? Don't know.
Okay, now Pagels is talking about part of the gospel found in Egypt. She says, "Then Peter says to Mary: 'Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember -- which you know but we do not, nor have we heard them.' Peter apparently expects to hear things that Jesus had said at times when he himself was absent. But Mary startles Peter by saying that she knows not only what Peter did not happen to hear but also what Jesus chose not to tell him: 'What is hidden from you I will tell you.' ..." (104) Etc....
Anyway, first, I know we're starting to talk about gnostic books that aren't recognized. That could be problematic for some. Personally, I don't have a problem in finding truths in various religious books, Christian or otherwise, gnostic books, or regular novels ... To Kill a Mockingbird, for example. The question here would be authentication and whether or not Mary Magdalene was actually a leader and religious teacher within the movement. I don't know the answers to those questions. And, while people have tried to prove the existence of Jesus, through documents at the time, etc..., I wonder if anyone has tried to prove the existence of Mary Magdalene. Ha! That would be something, wouldn't it? Of course, that might be more challenging to prove. Did they write about women in the historical record, as a general rule? I don't know.
Now, the final thing I have to say about Mary deals with the "gospel" according to my mother. As I've mentioned, she wasn't religious, at all, when I was born and was very young. But, given something I said to her when I was around 4 or 5, she decided to learn about and get one with God. Anyway, I remember her telling me, while I was growing up, that Mary, the mother, Mary Magdalene, and another Mary, I think, were amazing ... 10,000 times more brave than the disciples. There Jesus was ... being questioned and whipped and sentenced to death ... and the men ran away ... yellow cowards. Peter denied Jesus. But, Mary, Mary, and Mary ... they were there ... watching Jesus die ... associated with him ... claiming him. Of course, it occurs to me ... I think my mother left something out. Wasn't a man there? I think I'm remembering Jesus reportedly saying to a man ... this is your mother ... woman, this is your son. Anyway, my mother's spin on the thing was that the women at the crucifixion were much more rebellious and brave than the men who ran ... but ... that's just the "gospel" according to my mom.
I feel like I'm in a Bible study class. Just dug out the Bible Dictionary my mother gave me years ago, and I never looked at until Shanna brought up the slavery issue awhile ago.
Mary Magdalene ... Not much is given ...
*Was thought to have had seven demons, as you mentioned
*Ministered to the needs of Jesus (Luke 8:2)
*A witness to the crucifixion
*Buried Jesus and found the empty tomb
*"An apparition of the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene alone is related in MK 16:9 and JN 20:1-18."
Again, as Shanna and I discussed, why do we have the feeling she used her money to support Jesus? I don't know. This Bible Dictionary doesn't mention it. Is that in the Bible? ?? Could that idea come from gnostic books? I believe there is a Book of Mary. Right? Hold on. I have a book I've never read by Pagels. Wonder if I can find it?
So, I have Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. I've not read it, but I just looked at all the Mary Magdalene references. Pagels states, "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, also discovered in Egypt, but in 1896, about fifty years before the Nag Hammadi find ..." (51). She also mentions that some believe she, Mary, was a disciple of Jesus. I don't know. And, we've mentioned here that ... we don't know who wrote the gospels, etc.... I know little to nothing about the Gospel of Mary that was found. When was it written? By whom? Did she really become a teacher within the movement? I'm guessing maybe. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. However!! Not always. Maybe she wasn't. I have to say though, at that time, when gender roles were set, for sure, and women weren't supposed to be religious leaders, I wonder at the reasoning for anyone writing a "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" ... that would be pretty radical, right? Don't know.
Okay, now Pagels is talking about part of the gospel found in Egypt. She says, "Then Peter says to Mary: 'Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember -- which you know but we do not, nor have we heard them.' Peter apparently expects to hear things that Jesus had said at times when he himself was absent. But Mary startles Peter by saying that she knows not only what Peter did not happen to hear but also what Jesus chose not to tell him: 'What is hidden from you I will tell you.' ..." (104) Etc....
Anyway, first, I know we're starting to talk about gnostic books that aren't recognized. That could be problematic for some. Personally, I don't have a problem in finding truths in various religious books, Christian or otherwise, gnostic books, or regular novels ... To Kill a Mockingbird, for example. The question here would be authentication and whether or not Mary Magdalene was actually a leader and religious teacher within the movement. I don't know the answers to those questions. And, while people have tried to prove the existence of Jesus, through documents at the time, etc..., I wonder if anyone has tried to prove the existence of Mary Magdalene. Ha! That would be something, wouldn't it? Of course, that might be more challenging to prove. Did they write about women in the historical record, as a general rule? I don't know.
Now, the final thing I have to say about Mary deals with the "gospel" according to my mother. As I've mentioned, she wasn't religious, at all, when I was born and was very young. But, given something I said to her when I was around 4 or 5, she decided to learn about and get one with God. Anyway, I remember her telling me, while I was growing up, that Mary, the mother, Mary Magdalene, and another Mary, I think, were amazing ... 10,000 times more brave than the disciples. There Jesus was ... being questioned and whipped and sentenced to death ... and the men ran away ... yellow cowards. Peter denied Jesus. But, Mary, Mary, and Mary ... they were there ... watching Jesus die ... associated with him ... claiming him. Of course, it occurs to me ... I think my mother left something out. Wasn't a man there? I think I'm remembering Jesus reportedly saying to a man ... this is your mother ... woman, this is your son. Anyway, my mother's spin on the thing was that the women at the crucifixion were much more rebellious and brave than the men who ran ... but ... that's just the "gospel" according to my mom.
"Again, as Shanna and I discussed, why do we have the feeling she used her money to support Jesus? I don't know. This Bible Dictionary doesn't mention it. Is that in the Bible? ??"
Duh.... The answer is Luke 8:2 ... just thought to actually read that.
Duh.... The answer is Luke 8:2 ... just thought to actually read that.
Picked up The Case for God today; it was mentioned recently. I read the last chapter this afternoon and the introduction this evening. I'm weird like that sometimes. It's pretty interesting.
I can't say that I've wrapped my brain around all of it as yet. But, it's rather thought-provoking ... and addresses some of our recent discussions, which I found fascinating. And, after reading the introduction and thinking back to my posts about Mary Magdalene, well .... I don't much care whether or not it can be proven that she existed or whether or not she did exist. I think it's pretty amazing that there were stories about a woman who was willing to step outside the norm and be a leader in a time when that, for all intents and purposes, was not done. Awesome ... as in, inspiring awe.
Pretty darned interesting, though I'm just at the start ... well, start and end. I'm glad the book was mentioned!
I can't say that I've wrapped my brain around all of it as yet. But, it's rather thought-provoking ... and addresses some of our recent discussions, which I found fascinating. And, after reading the introduction and thinking back to my posts about Mary Magdalene, well .... I don't much care whether or not it can be proven that she existed or whether or not she did exist. I think it's pretty amazing that there were stories about a woman who was willing to step outside the norm and be a leader in a time when that, for all intents and purposes, was not done. Awesome ... as in, inspiring awe.
Pretty darned interesting, though I'm just at the start ... well, start and end. I'm glad the book was mentioned!
But it's those stories of "abnormal" women , Mary Magdalene, Salome, Eve, Lilith ect ect that have been used to keep women in line not to free women
Shanna wrote: "But it's those stories of "abnormal" women , Mary Magdalene, Salome, Eve, Lilith ect ect that have been used to keep women in line not to free women"
Hmmm.... I guess it depends on how one reads the story and on one's perception. When I read about Mary Magdalene in the past and thought about her ... when I read about her today and thought about her, I didn't think ...
"Holy cow, Shannon! You'd better be a good girl and obey the church and get yourself in line."
Just sat here and chuckled a bit.
When I read stories about her and think about her, I think about a woman who dared to step outside the norm. I think about strength. I think about a quote I picked for my GR page.
“My darling girl, when are you going to realize that being normal is not necessarily a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage."
― Alice Hoffman, Practical Magic
It inspires me.
It has nothing to do with Christianity and the tenants of Christianity. It's not about an argument for religion. It's about reading a story and my perceptions of the story. Some might view it differently. That's fine. For me, though, I feel somewhat supported in my willingness to be myself, regardless of what society says I should be, and in my support of others in being who they are. I also feel inspired to continue on that path.
But, like I said, that's me and my reading of it.
Hmmm.... I guess it depends on how one reads the story and on one's perception. When I read about Mary Magdalene in the past and thought about her ... when I read about her today and thought about her, I didn't think ...
"Holy cow, Shannon! You'd better be a good girl and obey the church and get yourself in line."
Just sat here and chuckled a bit.
When I read stories about her and think about her, I think about a woman who dared to step outside the norm. I think about strength. I think about a quote I picked for my GR page.
“My darling girl, when are you going to realize that being normal is not necessarily a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage."
― Alice Hoffman, Practical Magic
It inspires me.
It has nothing to do with Christianity and the tenants of Christianity. It's not about an argument for religion. It's about reading a story and my perceptions of the story. Some might view it differently. That's fine. For me, though, I feel somewhat supported in my willingness to be myself, regardless of what society says I should be, and in my support of others in being who they are. I also feel inspired to continue on that path.
But, like I said, that's me and my reading of it.
Well you wouldn't, but you don't hold yourself accountable to organised religion, you have you own take on things. :-D
But for all the women that do subscribe to a traditional christianity these "examples" are regarded as monstrous for usurping the "natural" order or, at best, deficient in their humanity, reinforcing the call for men to control women lest they too, become a problem.
Shanna wrote: "Well you wouldn't, but you don't hold yourself accountable to organised religion, you have you own take on things.
:-D"
That reminds me of a conversation I had once with an extremist; I guess I should say fundamentalist. She said I'd always had a problem with submission and obedience. I agreed. She said I'd come under my husband's authority once I got married and would have to submit to him. I said, "Here's to my never getting married then."
Anyway, here's to people thinking for themselves ... whether spiritual or not.
:-D"
That reminds me of a conversation I had once with an extremist; I guess I should say fundamentalist. She said I'd always had a problem with submission and obedience. I agreed. She said I'd come under my husband's authority once I got married and would have to submit to him. I said, "Here's to my never getting married then."
Anyway, here's to people thinking for themselves ... whether spiritual or not.
Shannon wrote: ""Again, as Shanna and I discussed, why do we have the feeling she used her money to support Jesus? I don't know. This Bible Dictionary doesn't mention it. Is that in the Bible? ??"Duh.... The an..."
Whoa, are we saying Jesus had a 'sugar mama' keeping him in a lifestyle he could grow accustomed to?
I think I hear funky 70's music in the background all of a sudden.
Shanna wrote: "But it's those stories of "abnormal" women , Mary Magdalene, Salome, Eve, Lilith ect ect that have been used to keep women in line not to free women"Yeah, it's funny that the woman who are independent or seem to be thinking for themselves are the 'bad' girls, yet Mary, who got knocked by a guy, not her husband, is considered the ultimate 'good' girl.
AWESOME Discussion! Just eavesdropping but cannot contain myself any longer. Shannon, my fave degrading woman story in the Bible is Lot. Remember when his wife looked behind her and saw Sodom and Gomorroh burning then turned to salt? The story continues with Lot's two daughters getting him drunk and then seducing him to bear their children, as if he was a victim by them.
Russ wrote: ""
People seem to forget that 9/11 was also an 'act of faith'.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Well you wouldn't, but you don't hold yourself accountable to organised religion, you have you own take on things. :-D"
That reminds me of a conversation I had once with an extremi..."
Heck, I'm just impressed you got through a conversation about submission and obedience without once mentioning Sean Bean.
Dina wrote: "AWESOME Discussion! Just eavesdropping but cannot contain myself any longer. Shannon, my fave degrading woman story in the Bible is Lot. Remember when his wife looked behind her and saw Sodom an..."
That was a horrifying story. Nasty. For sure. I'm totally aware of the fact that there are some (a lot of) truly despicable, by my set of morals, stories in the Bible.
Sort of like with Greek myth ... though I'm never sure whether or not I'm using the Greek or Roman names. The whole Zeus thing, having sex with women ... I think unwillingly sometimes ... so, in those instances it was rape, while in animal form. Nasty. But, then, you've got some other stories ... like ... what was her name ... Her daughter was taken and she wouldn't give up looking for her. I remember getting into that story when I was little ... appreciating the loyalty and determination.
That was a horrifying story. Nasty. For sure. I'm totally aware of the fact that there are some (a lot of) truly despicable, by my set of morals, stories in the Bible.
Sort of like with Greek myth ... though I'm never sure whether or not I'm using the Greek or Roman names. The whole Zeus thing, having sex with women ... I think unwillingly sometimes ... so, in those instances it was rape, while in animal form. Nasty. But, then, you've got some other stories ... like ... what was her name ... Her daughter was taken and she wouldn't give up looking for her. I remember getting into that story when I was little ... appreciating the loyalty and determination.
Travis wrote: "Whoa, are we saying Jesus had a 'sugar mama' keeping him in a lifestyle he could grow accustomed to?"
Well, now, Travis, I'm not sure I'd phrase it that way, but ....
In answer to your question, Luke 8:2 says at least three women supported him. It states,
"The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their means."
So, yeah .... It seems to me that the women were bankrolling them, allegedly.
Well, now, Travis, I'm not sure I'd phrase it that way, but ....
In answer to your question, Luke 8:2 says at least three women supported him. It states,
"The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their means."
So, yeah .... It seems to me that the women were bankrolling them, allegedly.
Travis wrote: "Heck, I'm just impressed you got through a conversation about submission and obedience without once mentioning Sean Bean. "
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
(You never answered the question, Travis, I don't think. How did you know about that book ... 50 Shades of Gray or whatever it is? And, did you read it?)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
(You never answered the question, Travis, I don't think. How did you know about that book ... 50 Shades of Gray or whatever it is? And, did you read it?)
Travis wrote: "Russ wrote: ""
People seem to forget that 9/11 was also an 'act of faith'."
I don't think they do but they like to apply the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" to it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Even though I've taught in public schools for the past 15 years, I agree with you, in large part, and applaud you. You didn't mention this, Victoria, but traditional schools just don't fit the needs of all students. Something you did mention is very accurate, in my opinion. The most important things to "teach" are to have a love of learning, to be active participants in one's education, to become self-reliant researchers ... people who want to learn and who question and who dig for answers. Sadly, I think that sometimes becomes lost. I try not to lose sight of those things, but there are times .... Prepping for the test, getting through the chapter, covering all the books, sometimes makes it hard to see the forest for the trees.