How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Women & Philosophy   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Women & Philosophy

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


75 posted 07-14-2006 07:17 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

came back to this interesting thread...

yanno, I've been thinking a lot about this subject since you began this thread Karen and my thoughts have been this...

and I apologize for getting off track...but, think about the many many women who were burned at the stake for having an opinion, or before that, wanting to participate in religious practices, but were banned from them simply b/c they were women?  Shheesh, and I say, that wasn't, to me normal, for the men of that time to do...opening up another question, why did they do it...?  If in fact they so believed in God, were men of the cloth, wouldn't they have realized that God made one (for) the other, not one to control the other, serve the other, with no voice?  Doesn't make sense to  me?  What  

And b/c there is proof of this in early religious practices, (surpressing women), and the bible was written by men, well, I supppose you know where this is going?  My question is...then how can we possibly believe & trust men of such shallow minded calaber?  I don't believe for one minute that women were created to serve men, to walk behind them, to fear gaining an education, or contributing to religious cerimonies...and I don't believe men are any less either...but equal, human beings who could learn so so much from one another, if they'd realize that?  Can you imagine, how much farther ahead, intellectually we'd be, if we'd listen, allow, and not take another person's ideas personal...not falling into society's expectations?  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


76 posted 07-20-2006 12:49 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

shaking head...


LeeJ,

It sounds like you've had too big a dose of DaVinci Code-style "let's make religion a scapegoat" philosophy of feminism.


Yes there was abuse in the past.  But there's a lot you should also consider that you're not acknowledging.  Give me some time, and I'll respond more fully.


respectfully,

Stephen.


LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


77 posted 07-20-2006 09:40 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

no Stephanos

but yes, I did read the book, and it is my second favorite book that I've read...but no

I've known this and pondered it for years...why were women surpressed so back then?, why were they kept from reading their Bible, why were their thoughts & ideas feared, surpressed?  

That is why I find it difficult to believe in the Bible, God wouldn't have wanted that for women...he gave them the greatest gift of all...giving life...yet, human men, took their freedom away?  Why?

Religion isn't the scapegoat, it is though, the political basis for most wars, right?  And in the name of their religion, they persecuted women, burned them to the stake, calling the witches, because they had vocalized their views, opinions, and probably had much to offer at the table, other then swollen hands from cooking all day...

[This message has been edited by LeeJ (07-20-2006 10:52 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


78 posted 07-21-2006 02:19 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LeeJ:
quote:
I did read the book, and it is my second favorite book that I've read

Call me if you need to borrow some reading material.             

I won't hold that against you.  I read it too.  Entertainment-wise? ... fair.  Historically accurate? ... anything but.  It's such a mixture of truth and error, that I think for those who take Brown's statement at the beginning of the book seriously, it can be extremely misleading.


But rather than digress to the Davinci Code, I'll just respond to your statements ... which will inadvertently answer certain questions about Dan Brown's book as well.

quote:
I've known this and pondered it for years...why were women surpressed so back then?

Biblically speaking, the sad history of women being oppressed, was the result of sin.  God pronounced judgements upon the serpent, Eve, and Adam.  While speaking to Eve, God said prophetically that "... your desire will be for your husband.  And he will rule over you.".  That is an interesting statement.  The Hebrew word for desire "Teshuqah" most often means an agressive desire, even a desire to conquer or overcome.  And the word for "rule" is the Hebrew "Mashal" which most often means to rule by force or strength.  


In these descriptive statements, God anticipates the lamentable history of humanity where men would abuse authority, and women would often react in defiant resistance and indepedence.  In this one little sentence God predicted the rampant errors of male chauvinism AND rabid feminism.  But again, this was not prescriptive on God's part, but rather descriptive of the results of sin.  When selfishness rules, authority almost always becomes oppressive and submission becomes a burden which seems less desirable than rebellion.  God was not advocating this, only telling what would be.


That's the original reason.  But it really shouldn't surprise you, since sin and selfishness are central to the very definition of "oppression".  


But much can also be said, about secondary reasons as to why these have occurred.  These kind of answers are equally valid, and would naturally involve psychology and anthropology, and would be concerned with historical particulars.


Historical particulars ... hmmmmm.  Remember that.  Let's continue.

quote:
Why were they kept from reading their Bible


I'm really not aware of a historical instace where women were prevented from reading their bibles ... Although I can think of times when those in religious authority prevented masses of "commoners" from reading the scriptures.  This was done most often to cover up practices and abuses which were at best unsupported by, and at worst condemned by the Bible.  The Bible condemns hypocrisy and they didn't want to be found out.  "We'll just tell you the parts of the Bible we want you to hear".


If there are instances where only women were prevented from reading the bible, then maybe you could educate me here.


quote:
That is why I find it difficult to believe in the Bible, God wouldn't have wanted that for women.


Why would anything of the sort make it diffiuclt for you to believe in the Bible?  If women were prevented from reading it, it must have contained something which their oppressors wanted to withhold from them.  If the Bible only reinforced the ancient practices of male oppression, rather than mitigating them, it would make no sense for men to keep such a text from women.  It would be an indoctrination tool to buttress the status quo.


I'm not saying that the Bible really was kept from women, I'm only following your line of reasoning.  If it had been kept from women, I would suspect that it held some key to their liberation.  And in fact, that may be closer to the truth than the myth that the world was "matriarchal" and feminine-friendly until chauvinistic Christianity came along and introduced patriarchal domination.  


The real situation was that the ancient world, during the time of Christ, was very hostile to women.  It was common in Rome to view women as property.  The Bible teaches that women are created and loved by God as his precious workmanship.  It was common in Rome to keep a domestic "wife" for doing all the common work, and a "mistress" for sexual frivolities.  The Bible teaches that there is no higher union on Earth than marriage ... that wives are worthy of faithfulness and respect ... and that sexual immorality is sinful and degrading.  It was common also that women were used for prostitution both religiously and recreationally.  The Bible teaches that women are worthy of respect, and should not be subjected to such degrading things.  


If the truth be told, Christianity greatly mitigated the misogyny of it's time.


However, it did teach a certain authority structure within the Church and within the home.  It's too bad that that "baby" gets tossed out with the bath, and that it's assumed that such an arrangement of authority means that women are "less".  I think that those aspects of Christian teaching are greatly misunderstood and caricatured in their descriptions (and practices at times).  Unfortunately the beauty of such a thing is not recognized.  My wife and myself practice the Biblical view of authority and roles between husband and wife, and our marriage is the better for it.


So bottom line is that you're right!

... God only wanted what is best for women and men.  And the path to such a peace is given in the Bible.  The abuses you describe are often done in a perversion of Biblical teaching, if not in direct contradiction to it.  


But Dan Brown (excuse my Rant!) and others like him, keep perpetuating the historical reconstructionism of a placid matriarchal world crushed by the rough and unenlightened hands of male-dominated Christianity.  That, LeeJ, is propaganda.  And as I know that you're one to think for yourself and not swallow everything that comes along, I hope you end up thinking outside that box.          


quote:
Religion isn't the scapegoat, it is though, the political basis for most wars, right?



Not sure that that can be said.  Though ideologies of all kinds (our most strongly held beliefs) are likely to be behind war, since we are often the most willing to defend what we are passionate about.  But that's a whole other thread.


quote:
And in the name of their religion, they persecuted women, burned them to the stake, calling the witches, because they had vocalized their views, opinions, and probably had much to offer at the table, other then swollen hands from cooking all day...



The nebulous "they".  Who are "they"?  One irksome characteristic of this view, is that it is lacking in the historical particulars for support.  Or at least that's the way I hear it described so often.  The more general, the better.  I get images of stern dark mitred faces above long raven robes with crosses and daggers dangling above their helpless but spiritually enlightened victims.  It's movie material!  It's Silas!  


lol.


Seriously, I guess you're referring to the Salem witch trials?  I would say that that was more of a religious-based persecution than a gender-based one.  It just so happens that witchcraft is predominately female.  Though there were male "witches" put to death as well.  


The propriety, justice, or even theological accuracy of the mindset which gave rise to the Salem witch trials could be discussed in another thread, it would doubtless be very interesting.  But I don't think it's of any great use for your purpose here.


And I do value your opinion, and what you "bring to the table".  But, if you can excuse the traditional-role sterotype, I'll bet you're a mean cook too!  


Stephen.          
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


79 posted 07-21-2006 05:35 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

"Biblically speaking, the sad history of women being oppressed, was the result of sin.  God pronounced judgements upon the serpent, Eve, and Adam.  While speaking to Eve, God said prophetically that "... your desire will be for your husband.  And he will rule over you."

Oh Stephen...let us take a vote.

I can't believe that you actually "went there."

I shake my head.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


80 posted 07-21-2006 09:39 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

Stephanos,

I believe upon reading any book, any article, you are in fact reading someone else’s opinion, and felt it so important to be open minded in that respect, it was one of my son’s teachings, so yes, your perception of me is correct, thank you.

Curiosity, to me, (who said, it is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education?)is perhaps a road to more knowledge…and I’m hungry for knowledge.  One must deciper for himself/herself what is fact, and what works for them, but certainly not expect others to maintain their beliefs, because it might cause them to stagnate their learning ability and fulfill their capacity…to me anyway.

Is the Di Vinci Code Legitimate?  Who’s to say, as it does offer some very interesting & truthful facts, and certainly scares the heck out of fundamentalists, otherwise they wouldn’t be so threatened by it and try so darn hard to disprove or prove it.  It’s just a book and the last time I looked this was a free nation, able to read and discover on their own.
  
And I ‘d like to mention, that Brown’s book is certainly far from being the first concept of that subject.  My art teacher back in 12th grade issued the theory to us then, including the painting which you can’t deny, as well as literature to read and study.  
  
Remember, artists back then were extremely censored from any propaganda (as their religious leaders viewed in their writings and paintings and were banned from socity or worse) so they painted in codes…or wrote in codes.  

While I’m inclined to agree with you in your statement, there is also much truth to Brown’s concept, and let me remind you again, that he is certainly far from being the first writer on this subject.  Men have indeed questioned these issues way back through history.

********************************

1st  and foremost I’d like to apologize, Stephenos, I remember reading or hearing that Women were exempt from reading the Torah, but in fact I must be wrong, as I can find nothing on that subject now, but I have found similar material which does verify the suppression of woman caused by religions and their religious leaders, etc.

I do believe the Bible is in it’s own entity, a sacred book, and a much needed tool to live life by, for man does need rules to govern him, without them, everything would be chaoitic. And also believe that is where each and every religion started from, at least someone in the beginning was smart enough to recognize they needed rules to survive (each other).

All three parts of man was blemished by the fall: 1st, his soul was contaminated; 2nd, his body was transmuted into sinful flesh ;  3rd, his spirit was deadened. It IS important that we recognize the tactics put into motion by God’s enemy to corrupt man’s soul (his mind, emotion, and will), and maybe just maybe since if I believe in God, then I also believe in the devil, and one common denominator is the fact that there is a negative and positive energy in all things...just like a battery.
  
Stephenos, I have a really difficult time believing that an entity designed all this, our entire solar system and beyond, all the animals, the perfection of the lands, it’s waterways and seas, that is so in sync, so faultless, including the balance of everything which is needed for the next thing to survive.  Then, to boot, he designed and invented man…the intensity & complexity of structure alone is miraculous, which works ingeniously...along with the spirit and mind, of which we only use, I believe 1/3 of?  

Also, over one apple, man was contaminated and made to suffer for the rest of man’s existence and will most likely be his own demise.  I mean, dude, just look at our history’s wars from the beginning, led by men, over land and religious indifferences…???  (a little humor there)  

The brutality of man to inflict pain, torture, corruption, simply to sustain power and justify it?  Look at man’s intolerance alone, my goodness, the extreme lefts and rights as an example, the fear of being told we’re wrong, and admitting it…or to persecute another human being because of his/her beliefs.  

Society, to me, is a very complex and confused breed and so far behind their capacity, mentally and our social beliefs?  

We are men who thrive on conditioning, and wouldn’t know what in the heck to do, without someone else telling us what to do, how to do it, and look to others and to society for approval to be happy…not to mention, what to believe.  We believe what we’re told as pure unadulterated fact, when we largely need to seek answers…go beyond the answers.

The great artists had so many mental disabilities…because they were banned from society, because their genius was believed to be diverse and if a society cannot explain that difference, then it is given a negative label.  

Even today, people fear intelligence, fear saying to themselves and to others, hey I was wrong…they will stand by corruption because they fear taking a stand on their own, and being mocked or disliked for their beliefs????  How primitive?  How old is man and we haven’t changed a whole lot in that respect? We’re stagnated within our own conditioning…by money, material wealth, politics, greed, corruption, etc.

When it comes to authenticity of the Bible, well, I have a problem with it, due to it’s origin, which is man, who is in fact, by nature overpowered by the thought of power itself, inclined to persue desires of the flesh…Money, sex, control, wars are power.  

Man is deceiving by nature, to obtain all of these “things” I mean for example, what religion in it’s right would allow their religious leaders to violate children for years and still they have followers and contributers?  And that is just one example.

Even Jesus Christ denied the censored doctrine of the churches. Most of these writings have been censored, ignored by controlled orthodoxy, and even denied in an attempt to disprove the fact that mankind has always been able to metaphysically contact the higher sources, and even prophesy, or speak on behalf of those forces.

The Bible states in the New Testament that the human race will see visions, prophesy, speak, and act on behalf of God and that these actions were never indigenous to the biblical men of old. Making this statement within the Bible itself, proves that the Bible was never intended to be the only canonized, holy word.

When we have read and listened, we have denied most of the metaphysical musings of mankind as poetry and general literature, keeping holy only that which was decided for us by men????

The Nag Hammadi Texts and Dead Sea Scrolls have never been consecrated, although the thinking mind and spirit cannot deny the virtue of their metaphysical content.

Documents such as The Book of Enoch have been omitted from the Bible. This is an amazing fact considering the Old Testament records Enoch having walked right with God and was taken into the clouds without dying. The Book of Enoch discusses the nature of mankind in accordance with the nature of angels and their plight, and the interweaving of the race of angels with the race of mankind.

The Lost Books of the Bible openly discusses issues such as the afflictions of mankind at the hand of the dark angels, and the Forgotten Books of Eden explains at length upon the original spiritual affliction of this race of mankind through the deception of Adam and Eve.

The Secret Doctrine, by Helen Blavastky, a commentary of The Dzyan Chohan (claimed to have originated in Atlantis), openly expounds on the nature of mankind in relation to the cosmic and universal forces, especially mankind's relationship within the oneness of the higher forces. The Nag Hammadi Texts and Dead Sea Scrolls have never been canonized, although the thinking mind and spirit cannot deny the virtue of their metaphysical content.

The persecution of people for being witches, which began in the Medieval period, increased during this time. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued a bill declaring that Germany was full of witches. Two German inquisitors, Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Krämer, published the now infamous Malleus maleficarum (The Hammer of the Evildoers) in 1489. It became the authoritative guidebook for three centuries, followed by judges and church authorities alike.

Anti-witch endeavors continued into the 1600s and 1700s, and carried out by the Protestant authorities as vigorously as Catholic ones, in both the Old World and the New World. In New England in 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft by the Puritans in Salem, Massachusetts, were hanged. One man, who was more then eighty years old, was actually pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to be tried for witchcraft. Hundreds were accused of witchcraft; dozens jailed for months without trials, including children.

In the areas of education, women were traditionally exempt, and often discouraged from any study beyond an understanding of the practical aspects of the Torah, and the rules necessary in running a Jewish household, both of which they have an obligation to learn. Until the early 20th century, women were discouraged from learning Talmud and other advanced Jewish texts. Women were exempt from having to follow most of the set daily prayer services, and most other positive time bound mitzvot ("commandments"), such as wearing tefillin. (There are a number of notable exceptions). As such, the halakha (traditional law codes) specify that women are not eligible to be counted in a minyan for purposes of time-specific prayer, as a minyan.

Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much of the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression.
1. Unmarried women were not allowed to leave their homes
2. They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
3. They could not testify in court.
4. They could not appear in public venues.
5. They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
6. In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light:

Stephanos, I don’t know if the authenticity of the Bible is true or false or in-between…amd actually, I don’t really care…and won’t really know until the day I die, will I? No one really does, …but even more so, then debating religion and/or doctrines of religions…is man’s faith…isn’t that virtually the root of God’s grace?  

Why, just think about it…man has killed other men over this difference of opinion for thousands of years...and have we really come changed anything other then our fashions and form of travel?

We still get involved in perfectly normal conversations which lead us into heated arguments and condescensions of anger out of fear of simply looking like a fool, (well so what, sighs) which in truth, starts wars between men? More sighs...and shaking my head...

To me, that is so juvenile, so, such a waste of time of God’s perfection, and gift of life and lives..

Stephanos,

I believe upon hurting another person, either physically, or mentally, with words, by torture, and/or by murder, your not only upsetting that one man’s life, but the entirety of his family, friends, who are grievously effected by his demise. These people are in turn horrifically changed along with their lives, and the lives of the persecutor, as well, including his families, friends, and maybe, just maybe, therein lives a horizon of answers??????  

Until we realize, that our actions and decissions effect the lives of others so drastically, there will not be change...how can there be, when we constantaly inherit the dark sides of man, instead of learning something new...really really loving people and allowing.

Take for instance, the man who is murdered by another man.  The murdered man’s son, grows up living to revenge his father’s death…now, take into account the wife, her family, the son’s family, their children…the murder himself, and his family, his wife’s family, their children?  

Look at all the people whose journey might have been different if it hadn’t been for that one man’s action of murder, which has now stagnated how many generations from intellectual growth and much more importantly, how come we haven’t realized this yet in society?  

We're the same greedy people who will sometimes do anything for money, power, sex, and convince ourselves that we are justified in doing so.  We even take our own children's demise and turn it into a gain for us...does that bring them back?  No, but people sue every single day for gain of material wealth?

We are so primitive and so youthful...we should be so much farther along.

How come we have not taught this within our schools…to me, our educational system is so pre-historic.  We could be so much better?

Stephanos,
I hope you know, there is nothing in this comment, that is directed at you to disvalue your beliefs or integrity or change your mind, what-so-ever, however, it is in fact me, the who of who I am, and what I believe....

I appreciate your kindness in sharing and expressing your beliefs as well…thanks so much for taking the time to do so.

Anatole France said...
The whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards

Now, excuse me while I go sing a chord from
"I AM WOMAN"  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


81 posted 07-21-2006 05:51 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I can't believe that you actually "went there."

I shake my head.

Karen.  Is that supposed to mean that the story itself is "androcentric" in your estimation?    


I honestly don't think so, since the judgement and consequences of sin was across the board ... touching Adam and Eve, as it were.  And I did mention the descriptive (rather than causative) quality of the voice of God in the passage.  I'm really surprised that you're surprised at my statement that one of the greatest ills in the world (practical misogyny) wasn't rooted somehow in the first few pages of Genesis.


Of course, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.  Do tell.


respectfully,

Stephen.


(And LeeJ ... I'll be back.  No time to respond right now.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


82 posted 07-21-2006 09:37 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

shaking my head but laughing this time S...

I think you'd agree that we'd have to first agree on whether or not that story is true to argue the point.

And yanno I ain't no literalist.

Quaint little allegory though.

Now admit it, you were just picking a fight for old time's sake, huh?

So...in other words, you can go there if ya want. My thoughts on the subject can be found in a certain little poem in Mature Content. bwahahahahahahaha evil woman me
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


83 posted 07-25-2006 07:06 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ



Karen, your evil, evil, evil...in a good hearted humorous way...
and you make me smile...
would love to be a fly on the wall in your home...your a hoot

thank you for opening this thread, the Amazon's would love ya...

love ya gal...
me
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


84 posted 07-25-2006 08:08 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LeeJ:  
quote:
I believe upon reading any book, any article, you are in fact reading someone else’s opinion, and felt it so important to be open minded in that respect ...


and


Curiosity, to me, (who said, it is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education?)is perhaps a road to more knowledge…and I’m hungry for knowledge.



Being open minded ... Curiosity ... both are good things.  I certainly don't discourage them.  But testing whether something is really true is part of that process.  You are hungry for "knowledge".  But I don't think you would say that you are hungry for false knowledge.  I'm wondering, are you just as curious about the possible problems with the main views as expressed in works like The DaVinci Code?  Are you just as open-minded to the refutation of the anti-Christian "facts" set forth in the novel?


quote:
Is the Di Vinci Code Legitimate?  Who’s to say, as it does offer some very interesting & truthful facts, and certainly scares the heck out of fundamentalists, otherwise they wouldn’t be so threatened by it and try so darn hard to disprove or prove it.  It’s just a book and the last time I looked this was a free nation, able to read and discover on their own.



Interesting indeed.  But I've found that much in TDC is not at all truthful.  And that's really my challenge to you.  If you're really "open minded" (and I believe you are), why not try to read one of the refuting books about the Davinci Code?  And no, they're not all written by fundamentalists.  Scholars of all ilks (religious and non-religious) take issue with Dan's book, not because he doesn't have the right to write fiction, but because he plainly states in his preface that his data is factual.  And it really is so far from that, as to be almost comical at times.  


It's funny how you say that fundamentalists must be "scared" of this book, as evidenced by their refutation.  But I'm quite sure that if fundamentalists didn't respond, the claim would be made "See ... It is true, otherwise they would have responded.  They didn't respond because they weren't able to."  Isn't that a no-win situation?  


I admit there's an overly anxious way of responding that might betray a lack of confidence in the truth, or an unseemly intimidation.  But there is also a way of responding which is just natural for those who are concerned about truthful claims.  And I think there's much written out there that falls under that heading.  


Yes, it's "just a book".  And who is questioning your "freedom" or prerogative to "discover on your own"?  You can hardly post your ideas in a philosophy forum and not expect critical analysis, cross-examination, or even outright disagreement at times can you?  Whatever the truth is, it can take a few challenges.  Likewise, I have no problem with you testing what I say.


quote:
Brown’s book is certainly far from being the first concept of that subject.  My art teacher back in 12th grade issued the theory to us then, including the painting which you can’t deny, as well as literature to read and study.


Oh, I'm well aware that the ideas aren't new.  Some of these ideas do go back to the 2nd / 3rd centuries A.D., though some of them originated much later.  Dan Brown just does a nice job of summarizing them, in the form of pop-fiction.  I'm simply making comments on their historical accuracy.  I'm not trying to say these ideas are recent.  But I will be making a case that such ideas, as concerning the early Christians and Jesus Christ, ARE later than the orthodox ones as recorded in the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  More on that later ...

quote:
Remember, artists back then were extremely censored from any propaganda (as their religious leaders viewed in their writings and paintings and were banned from socity or worse) so they painted in codes…or wrote in codes.



I do, as do most scholars of art, doubt the veracity of Dan Brown's claims about DaVinci and his art.  However, even if I grant that such things are true ... I'm still left with the dilemma of choosing between a view of Jesus that has its roots much later than the earliest writings, and what the canonical gospels say.  If I already reject the gnostic writings because of their late dates, and dubious authorship, why would the hidden "codes" of a 15th century artist and inventor pull any weight?  that's 15 centuries removed from the events themselves.  


quote:
Stephenos, I have a really difficult time believing that an entity designed all this, our entire solar system and beyond, all the animals, the perfection of the lands, it’s waterways and seas, that is so in sync, so faultless, including the balance of everything which is needed for the next thing to survive.  Then, to boot, he designed and invented man…the intensity & complexity of structure alone is miraculous, which works ingeniously...along with the spirit and mind, of which we only use, I believe 1/3 of?



You're going to have to help me out here.  You began this by saying that you "have a difficult time believing that an entity designed all this", and then followed with a fine description of the design argument with terms like "perfect", "in sync", "balance", "intensity", "complexity", "ingeniously".


What's up here?  Either I'm totally misunderstanding you, or the head of your paragraph is totally incongruous with the body, like a priest wearing a skeptic's hat.      


quote:
Also, over one apple, man was contaminated and made to suffer for the rest of man’s existence and will most likely be his own demise.  I mean, dude,  just look at our history’s wars from the beginning, led by men, over land and religious indifferences…???



It was the "fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil", not just some apple.     .  My point is, the fruit is representative, symbolic of something else: a choice that cut into the heart of our very being dividing us asunder, and introducing rebellion and the illusion of autonomy.  And all the sad choices you describe in your commentary of the world's depravity, flow from that kind of choice, again and again and again.  I don't disagree with you about these things.  You're only describing The Fall, and you're only echoing Paul's description in Romans chapter one.  (Read that if you get a chance).


quote:
When it comes to authenticity of the Bible, well, I have a problem with it, due to it’s origin, which is man, who is in fact, by nature overpowered by the thought of power itself, inclined to persue desires of the flesh…Money, sex, control, wars are power.



The Bible's origin is not man, but God.  The real question is, is God able, in spite of man's sinfulness, to give us a reliable revelation of his own mind and will.  It's really a matter of faith in God, when people say that they can't believe the Bible because humans wrote it.  One evidence that the Bible is of a "different spirit" is that it doesn't glorify things like money, lust, control, power, war, which you mentioned.  If the bible is written by men who want power and thrive on corruption, I say it is the most backward path that sinners could take to such an end!  So much of what is written condemns and hinders the very things you are describing.  You even called it "desires of the flesh" a phrase right out of the Bible.  It really fascinates me that you're almost paraphrasing the Bible verbatim, and yet use the very things the Bible condemns to deny the sacred origin of it.  


LeeJ, that's strange isn't it?  You ought to ponder that a little.  You may end up affirming it's divine origin after all.


quote:
I mean for example, what religion in it’s right would allow their religious leaders to violate children for years and still they have followers and contributers?  And that is just one example.



Men are imperfect, even in the Churches.  Do you deny that a "religion" can fall away from it's own original, or pure standard?  The Bible also speaks against such things as this.  It also speaks against covering up evil, and not dealing openly with it.  Go figure.


In all of these cases you are quoting an apostasy of sorts, a falling away, not something which should rightly cast doubt on origins beginnings or truth claims.  


There are also many righteous in the Church who have been anything but a bad example, who have exemplified a "Christ-likeness".  Why do you fail to mention them?


quote:
Even Jesus Christ denied the censored doctrine of the churches. Most of these writings have been censored, ignored by controlled orthodoxy, and even denied in an attempt to disprove the fact that mankind has always been able to metaphysically contact the higher sources, and even prophesy, or speak on behalf of those forces.


Are you referring to the writings, such as the later "gospels" of Thomas, Barnabas, Peter, among others?  These are known as "psuedepigraphal" writings.  And the process you are referring to is canonization which involved answering the question of which documents were authentic or not.  Such a determination had to happen, as the diversity of beliefs and claims multiplied through new writings.  But it was not, as The Davinci code attests, an arbitary political move to garner power and selfish motives.  


Canon means "rule" or "measuring rod".  And essentially it involved criteria by which writings were judged.  The criteria included 1) Apostolicity- whether or not a document was really written by an eyewitness of Jesus, or someone who directly knew an eyewitness. 2) orthodoxy- whether or not a document was in agreement with what had already been establish and revealed as truth about Jesus. and 3) catholicity- whether or not a document was widely circulated and already recognized in the Churches as a wider community. Fringe usage by small groups who accepted a document not widely read, became suspect of something spurious.  And since documents sometimes failed to exhibit all of these characteristics all the time, a “two out of three” apporach was used, if I’m not mistaken.  


So there were valid reasons why these documents you mention were rejected.  Later dates, dubious authorship, and unorthodox teachings.  And I would be happy to discuss with you any particular document you had in mind.  But I assure you that Dan Brown's statement that the gnostic writings are the "earliest" documents about Jesus, is easily refuted.  This idea is rejected as false by virtually ALL New Testament Scholars Christian and non-Christian.


And you needn't go beyond orthodoxy and the canonical writings to affirm teaching that we may be in "contact" with higher beings, or the reality of prophecy, or mystical experience in God.  Through faith, prayer, and communion with God, these things are possible.  What the Bible does condemn, is the practice of blindly seeking spiritual power, outside of God's directives ... in essence sorcery, or divination, or witchcraft.  Without God's leading, the spiritual realm is dangerous.  It’s not that the Bible condemns supernatural experience per se, but only certain modes of it.

quote:
The Nag Hammadi Texts and Dead Sea Scrolls have never been consecrated, although the thinking mind and spirit cannot deny the virtue of their metaphysical content.



Yes, Dan Brown mentions the “Dead Sea Scrolls” as containing documents which the Church suppressed ... documents with the “other” story of Jesus.  But actually the DSCs contain only earlier Jewish documents.  NOTHING has been found in those scrolls about Jesus, or the apostles, or any of the events surrounding them.  Dan has just tried to slip that in, and hope no one noticed that it is blatantly false, I suppose.  


As for the Nag Hammadi, it contained 50 or so “GNOSTIC” writings, which were rejected for dubious authorship, unorthodox teaching, and later dates.  These documents are the ones I mentioned earlier which were rejected because they can boast no convincing connection with the historical events of Jesus Christ.


quote:
Documents such as The Book of Enoch have been omitted from the Bible. This is an amazing fact considering the Old Testament records Enoch having walked right with God and was taken into the clouds without dying.



The problem with the book of Enoch, has nothing to do with Enoch.  It has to do with it’s claims of authorship, and date.  Scholars date the book (which may have even been a later compilation) at 150 - 80 B.C.  Obviously the old testament “Enoch” did not write this, which is why the Jews naturally reject it as canonical, and the majority of the Christian church has followed their lead.  


quote:
The Book of Enoch discusses the nature of mankind in accordance with the nature of angels and their plight, and the interweaving of the race of angels with the race of mankind ....

and

The Lost Books of the Bible openly discusses issues such as the afflictions of mankind at the hand of the dark angels, and the Forgotten Books of Eden explains at length upon the original spiritual affliction of this race of mankind through the deception of Adam and Eve.


Yes, apocryphal (or psuedepigraphal) works, often had quite a blend of orthodox and heterodox teaching.  That’s not surprising since heresies are offshoots of orthodoxy, and usually get their strength from the strands of accepted truth.  If it was all new and strange, it wouldn’t gather much of a following.  But you don’t need to point out truth in these false works to me.  I acknowledge that it is there, along with what is false.  I just deny that these works are divinely inspired, for the reasons I gave you earlier.

quote:
In New England in 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft by the Puritans in Salem, Massachusetts, were hanged.


That was my point earlier ... Persecution of witches was religiously based, and had little to do with sexism.  The fact that most witches were female is incidental.  

And even if the acts of punishment (civil and religious) were wrong, it does not therefore follow that witchcraft is sound practice and belief.  People can often be right in their conclusion, and wrong in their response.

quote:
In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light:

Nice try.  The Hebrew scriptures do record the ill-treatment of women descriptively as having happened historically.  But in its positive ethical teachings, the Bible does NOT cast women in a negative light.  And though it’s a far cry from contemporary feminism, the Hebrew (and Christian) teachings were very honoring and liberating for women.  

quote:
Stephanos, I don’t know if the authenticity of the Bible is true or false or in-between…amd actually, I don’t really care…and won’t really know until the day I die, will I?


I don’t think anyone has to wait until they die, to know what they perhaps should have discovered long before.  But you are correct that those who didn’t know, will know then.  The question is whether the postponing of such knowledge will be harmful or not.  

quote:
No one really does, …but even more so, then debating religion and/or doctrines of religions…is man’s faith…isn’t that virtually the root of God’s grace?
  
How do you know that “no one knows”?  

You are right to mention faith as the key to knowledge ... however the common view that faith is groundless belief, is wrong.

quote:
Stephanos,
I hope you know, there is nothing in this comment, that is directed at you to disvalue your beliefs or integrity or change your mind, what-so-ever, however, it is in fact me, the who of who I am, and what I believe....

I appreciate your kindness in sharing and expressing your beliefs as well…thanks so much for taking the time to do so.


Lee ... I hope you know there is nothing in this comment that is directed at you to disvalue you ... though I’ll not hide the desire to change your mind on some things, and on other things show you that your thinking is more “biblical” than you know.  Enjoying the conversation.  


Later,

Stephen.    
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


85 posted 07-25-2006 08:57 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Karen:
quote:
shaking my head but laughing this time S...


Thank you for letting me know you're laughing.  whew ... I thought I might be in trouble.    

It is good to hear you laugh.


quote:
I think you'd agree that we'd have to first agree on whether or not that story is true to argue the point.



Not at all.  I always like to ask whether or not it fits the data we have ... whether or not it makes sense of what we are seeing.  You can discuss those kinds of things, without affirming it as true, ipso facto.  Actually I think that's how truth works on us.  It "dawns" on us, or creeps up on us, or whatever.  And I think asking questions is a part of that process.  


quote:
And yanno I ain't no literalist.



And yanno, I don't think you have to be.  I'm not either.       I only try to be literal where the Bible is literal, and figurative where it is figurative.  We don't always get that right, I'm sure.  But regardless of whether you believe the simple Genesis story to be exact in all it's details, or merely a creative story to convey truth, one may still see the effects of a "fall" into de profundis.  As much as philosophers have discussed "The problem of evil", I think that quaint little story is pretty profound, despite its rustic charm.    


quote:
Now admit it, you were just picking a fight for old time's sake, huh?



I thought it was you who picked the fight!  lol.  That's okay, I like a good fight every now and again, as long as it's fair.  
  

Stephen.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


86 posted 07-25-2006 11:12 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

Hey, Stephanoes,
I'm happy to see you...
first and foremost, Its important you understand that Karen, cracks me up...even in the saddest of times, she finds humor, and that to me is an amazing quality...I wasn't laughing at you...or mocking you.

Karen to me, is very special and I respect her poetry and grand sense of humor, enjoy her, and admire her.


Now,

Stephanoes, I don't believe they are anti Christian facts...really I don't..my boses church, (Catholic) placed TDC along with a lot of other material of the like, in front of their church encouraging people to read, research and come to their own conclusions...now, that's my kind of church!

This issue here with me is not the Di Vinci code...loved the book, as it has become the most widely read books in the U.S....Stephanoes, do you really think God is intimidated by that book? I dont' believe its Anti Christian, I believe its a Christian's impression of his own faith?  maybe not, but honestly, who really cares...?

I can stand at the scene of an accident right along by your side, we see the same accident, but when the police arrive, we each give the officer a totally different description of the entire ordeal.

That is my belief with any book, including the Bible.  Love the Bible, but more so, I love Christ and His father....and don't wish to debate TDC cuz to me, it's not realatove or essential to my afterlife, regardless who is right and who is wrong...but I will stand by my convicions when stating again...

No one knows for certain. And I apologize, I don't think of fundamentalists as a dirty word, as people who really and truly believe they're way is the ONLY right way, and they won't allow any other way of thinking...

Religion and Science to me, are so closely tied, without one, the other couldn't be.

and yes, it's a no win situation, but why does any one of us has to win...???

why can't we just allow each other our beliefs, our faith...and respect that...without shaking our heads?

if I were you, I wouldn't be concerned about truthful claims until the day we meet those truths...yanno?  

I mean, does it really matter now, as long as we try hard to love each, to live our lives together, in some form of peace, respect for one another, remembering, we are we, and what we do, say, think, so strongly affects the lives of others...

And no Stephanoes, I don't expect to post my ideas, without critical analysis, cross-examination, or disagreement, I want so badly to allow others, to me, that is most important for me and them, its the only way we learn.  

To me, Stephanoes, it is who I am, and quit frankly, it is the only truth, that I'm here this moment...and in that moment, if I give others my concern, consideration, trying to help them when I can, hoping for them a wealthy life in spirit, then what else is there?

I care not in the least to test what you say....I've done that testing all through out my life, and this is what I've come up with and what works for me...lived with a man in marriage, whose entire family wanted me to believe like you did, and it didn't work for me.  

I continued to test, to study different religions, teach Sunday School, was a youth group advisor, and they were some of the memorable moments in my life, but it wasn't what "I" needed.

Stephanoes, you seem irritated, because I don't believe in the Bible...and even more angry at Brown? I don't understand that debate. Why does it matter so much?...I don't choose between the dilemma of what to believe about Jesus...but I will say this...

I think, it's an awesome concept that Jesus was given the experience to know the purity of a physical relationship between a man and a woman.  Why not, and more so, his seed might be walking the earth at this moment...how utterly awesome!

Without insult or injury to you or anyone else...I've been to the root of religions...
Reformed, Catholic, Mennonite, Baptist, Revised Baptist, Luthern, and they were all so conviced that "their" religion was the ultimate word????...which is ok, but not for me.

Its my choice and do refer to the Bible within my own personal life...it's a grand book to live by...

I believe any one should wear a hat of question...as we are infinate in his image...are we not, and that curiosity might open doors?

And I promise, I know what the apple symbolized...(sigh) and you are correct, it does not glorify material wealth...

who decides a sinner?  who judges a sinner?  who defines what path to take...?  I say, all I have to do, is look into a mirror and before me is my judge, & all I should worry about when it comes to sin...and the heck with anyone else...I've not walked in their shoes, and no matter their face, I don't know what really lives inside...it is I..that must do good, and to the best of my ability, regardless what anyone else thinks...

and I don't care what that man's faith is over there...all I care about is that he gives me the same consideration and allowances that he would want for himself, in the very privet world he has built for himself...it takes a lifetime to accomplish that....and then some.

Stepanoes, what you believe is sacred, and very personal to you, as my belief is to me.  The fine line is when we tell others, "You ought to do this, you ought to do that, you ought to believe this way or that...which is wrong...we don't own people, not even our children.

Yes, most certainly I can agree that a religion can fall away, and in the same, as you say, men are imperfect, and will fall away by desires of power...material things...religions and disagreements of such...just look at history...look at the wars...the torture, the senslessness of killing...over disagreements of religions...sheesh, when will people grow up?  

I don't believe that is what God wants, the wars, the killing, the persecution, arguments over beliefs...and I believe Stephanoes, when it comes to religion we haven't progressed, but stayed the same...as thousands of years ago.  

In all honesty, and meaning no insult...I don't really care which documents are truth, perphaps when I die, if I'm granted a heaven, then, God will reveal all the answers to me then...until then...my choices are the "free will" & gift from God...which only I will have to answer for....

the fact that most witches were female is not incidental...there I disagree with you...sorry kiddo. (and thats an affectionate kiddo, no matter your age)

they were women who spoke out, who perhaps had insight, and a higher degree of perception, and yes there were some men, convicted of the same crime, but basically it was due to fear,  because those people did not believe in the same rules and regulations, they had no right

Yes, I am to, enjoying this conversation, thank you, as I'm overwhelmed that you took the time to explain, and share your beliefs & research with me.  Many thanks and in appreciattion...

Just hope you still like me, and won't burn me at the stake, I'm having company for dinner, yanno? What will they do if I'm not there?

sincerely
Lee J.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


87 posted 07-25-2006 11:46 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Perhaps, Lee, you might like to start a new thread?

Women In Religion?

I forgot to leave you a hug.

That was a very sweet thing to say 'bout me, Lee.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


88 posted 07-26-2006 01:12 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I would rather ask Leej why she seems to center upon only the Christian and biblical world and then seems to generalize what she gets thereof upon basically all history.  There are many other religions and cultural atmospheres in history than just the Christian and biblical.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


89 posted 07-27-2006 02:28 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LeeJ:
quote:
Karen to me, is very special and I respect her poetry and grand sense of humor, enjoy her, and admire her.



I do too!  You need not explain yourself here, I didn't interpret your response as an insult.


quote:
Stephanoes, I don't believe they are anti Christian facts...really I don't..my boses church, (Catholic) placed TDC along with a lot of other material of the like, in front of their church encouraging people to read, research and come to their own conclusions...now, that's my kind of church!



That's a very post-modern style statement ... because there's much that the bible says, which if were not factual, would prove it's central message false.


The Bible makes very definite and historical claims about Jesus and the early church, and TDVC paints another story entirely, even calling the story of the Gospels as a deception.  That is indeed "anti-Christian".  
  

There are "anti-Christian" statements, unless you believe that Christianity means to believe whatever you want to about Jesus Christ.


That's not closed minded, that's just a recognition that the Bible has a definite body of teaching, which may be either refuted or supported.  


And I'm all for the exploration of issues, such as the claims of the Davinci Code.  Yes of course, every one should find out the truth for themselves.  But I'll bet you anything, that your bosses Church takes a definitive stand on the issues raised by the DVC.  Ask your boss about that and get back with me.  Of course I'm just assuming your bosses church is not a Gnostic temple in disquise.        


quote:
Stephanoes, do you really think God is intimidated by that book?


No, I don't.


quote:
I dont' believe its Anti Christian, I believe its a Christian's impression of his own faith?  maybe not


You're right in saying "maybe not".  Dan Brown is not a Christian if he believes what he writes.  


quote:
Honestly, who really cares...?


Honestly, I do, as do many others.  


This gets into the distinction about what it really means to be a Christian.  Though Dan Brown and others may claim to be "Christian", they reject the very centralities which define it.  A Christian is someone who thinks that Jesus the Son of God literally and historically lived breathed and walked the earth, declared the Kingdom of God through miracles and teaching, died for our sins, and rose again from the dead.  Therefore a Christian must indeed "care" if those things be true, or a deception as Dan Brown claims.  


Also, I would say that the reason I care, is that as a Christian, I think what we believe about Jesus Christ is essential to our salvation.  And though thankfully many people recognize the dubious nature of Dan Brown's book as fiction, there are some who take it more seriously even to the point of basing their beliefs upon it.  So, it is also for the sake of others that I care.  


quote:
I can stand at the scene of an accident right along by your side, we see the same accident, but when the police arrive, we each give the officer a totally different description of the entire ordeal.



I have been at the scenes of several auto accidents.  I am also an RN who sees patients who have been in accidents, and the remarkable thing about eyewitness reports is that they are amazingly similar, though they have different perspectives.  


Four guys named Matt Mark Luke and John claimed that a Black Taurus hit a White Prism, though their stories differ somewhat in minor details.  Dan Brown is saying something far  different, that the accident (crucifixion) really didn't happen at all, something that secular historians don't even doubt.  


quote:
No one knows for certain.


How do you know this for certain?


quote:
if I were you, I wouldn't be concerned about truthful claims until the day we meet those truths...yanno?


Lee, I have met those truths in significant ways experientially.  I don't think the "truth" is something that has to wait until judgement day.  Nor do I think it is undecipherable from our past.


quote:
Stephanoes, you seem irritated, because I don't believe in the Bible...and even more angry at Brown? I don't understand that debate. Why does it matter so much?...I don't choose between the dilemma of what to believe about Jesus.



No Lee, I'm not mad.  I am zealous that you would know the truth, and perhaps that can be mistaken for anger.  


I've already explained above why it "Matters so much".  


Did you know that the Apostle Paul wrote this?:


"I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (2 Corinthians 11:2)


and ...


"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"


It seems like it was considered "important" in the early Church at least.


quote:
I think, it's an awesome concept that Jesus was given the experience to know the purity of a physical relationship between a man and a woman.  Why not, and more so, his seed might be walking the earth at this moment...how utterly awesome!



What is the "cost" of such a concept though, in terms of Christianity?  If that's what really happen, then he didn't die for our sins, and there is no ressurrection, and he is not "divine" but rather only an amiable person.  That's a lot to give up isn't it?  Why would it be "utterly awesome" to think that an ancient man has descendants alive today, if that man was merely another man?


Why wouldn't it be even more awesome to think someone could love you and I enough to abstain from lawful things like marriage, chidlren, and family-life, just so our great and fearful sin-debt could be paid.  He's not anti-marriage or anti-family.  He's called the bridegroom, and the Church his bride.  And believers are called the "Family of God".  


It's not that I think that's not good, I am thankful for marriage and children in my own life.  I just think that Jesus withheld himself from a good thing, for a much better one.


quote:
I don't believe that is what God wants, the wars, the killing, the persecution, arguments over beliefs...and I believe Stephanoes, when it comes to religion we haven't progressed, but stayed the same...as thousands of years ago.  


I agree with you here.  But one may hold absolute beliefs, and convey that to others, without being nasty.  Firm in convictions, light in touch, is my motto.


I will say however that a falling away from definite belief is not "progress" in religion, but a regression.  It is not the answer to anger over absolutes ... the problem is our anger and reaction to it, not the definitive nature of religious belief.


quote:
the fact that most witches were female is not incidental...there I disagree with you...sorry kiddo. (and thats an affectionate kiddo, no matter your age)


I meant that witches were not persecuted primarily because they were women, but because they were witches, as evidenced by the persecution of male "warlocks" as well.  Explain why you disagree with that, older kiddo. (wink)


quote:
Just hope you still like me, and won't burn me at the stake, I'm having company for dinner, yanno? What will they do if I'm not there?



Eat more?





just kidding.  Of course I still like you.



Stephen.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


90 posted 07-27-2006 06:54 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

Hey, good morning

Ess & Stephanos

many thanks for your responses, but if you both don't mind, going to take this over to the new thread I started..."Woman & Regligon or Open forum, any topic goes....for instance, how perhaps Religion has affected/effected your lives?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


91 posted 07-31-2006 12:28 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

For those that like DaVinci Code  try this site.  You can create your own Dan Brown Novel each time you click "refresh"  
patience_iago
Member
since 08-30-2006
Posts 54


92 posted 10-18-2006 07:33 PM       View Profile for patience_iago   Email patience_iago   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for patience_iago

"Do you think there are fundamental differences in the roles of gender that predisposition men to be better at argument and philosophy?"

Yes, i believe this is true, and it may go back to basic fundementals of socialogy. Men are kind of taught since birth to be the strong ones, who take care of their families, they dont cry often, they arent scared very often, it has most always been this way. So men feel the need to be right which is where some get into their arrogant ways (SOME not all), therefore i believe when it comes to arguement they just feel the need to be right, and this comes off so strongly, the confidence, shakes us off a bit from our arguement. Afterall, when someone is very confident it can sometimes intimidate you.

I am having a horrible time putting this into the right words and i hope no one exaggerates this or takes it out of context.

"There are some days where i believe i might die of an overdose of satisfaction"
-Dali

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Women & Philosophy   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors