»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Women and Religion - Open Thread
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Women and Religion - Open Thread |
|
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296
|
I'm opening this thread up to everyone, and it doesn't matter if we veer off topic, I'd like to see others express on religion, their ideas, beliefs, and how they practice...Christian or non-Christians are welcome to participate. Perhaps we could start with how Religion has effected your lives? we can discuss the Di Vinci Code, why you did or did not like it... or anything else you'd like to question... or just rant and rave, not at each other, but about something that might be bothering you.... Lets see where we go...come on in, sit down, put your feet up and let it roll... [This message has been edited by LeeJ (07-27-2006 06:56 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Lee J. - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well...we could start with Genesis. I happen to know this quaint little allegory...  and I'll be thinking on how to phrase my questions--frown. I sure do miss my "alone" time.  So I'll be back--my son the phone Nazi is starting to pace. Sheesh. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. "22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. "23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man." Here are a few questions I have to begin with: What does Eve coming from Adam betoken? Why was Eve created differently than how Adam was (from Adam's rib instead of just taking dust from the earth)? If man is the "whole" and woman but a "part" thereof, how is that not "androcentric" and inferiorizing to the woman? How can woman be said to be treated equally in biblical lore if she is said only to come from a part of the body of man, instead of a body of her own, and from a small part at that? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
because women are a revision/upgrade? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
A boost to Adam's Ego? |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Two answers ... one of which contemporary thought is accepting of. The second is very much criticized by contemporary thought (though often misunderstood, I think). 1) Since she was “taken” from Adam, it denotes that Adam and Eve are essentially "one". They represent two complementary parts of a whole, without which the race could not be extended. They are equal both in value and beauty, as creations of God. 2) It denotes that there is a proper authority flow within marriage, not making the woman less in value but defining roles set by God. quote: Since Eve was not made “from the dust of the Earth” as the other animals were, I think this underscores the special relationship between man and woman as “bone of Adam’s bone, and flesh of Adam’s flesh”. Also, since she was made differently from Adam, this could denote a divinely intentional difference between men and women. While contemporary thought makes the mistake of viewing man and women as just two more species of animals, or either the very same thing, the Bible maintains both the intimacy between men and women, AND their glorious differences. quote: As I read the story there are no references, or even hints of Adam being “whole”, and Eve being only “a part”. In fact I could make an argument in the other direction, since the story says that Adam was incomplete until Eve was created: “ It is not good that man should be alone” (verse 18). So Adam would be the one who was not, at first, “whole”. I could also ask why Adam was made from dirt, and Eve from something more palatable like a rib (there’s a joke in there somewhere). So maybe this story is an example of Matriarchal domination and is actually feminocentric! LOL. But I would never suggest such a ridiculous thing, using a few anecdotal observations from the text. Much can be “read into” the text due to the ultra-feminist mood that’s become well known, which villifies the Bible as being a sexist text. quote: How can man be said to be treated equally in biblical lore if he is said only to come from dirt, instead of from a body? LOL. See how that works Essorant? You’re nitpicking the text rather than taking a broad view. Besides you fail to note that Eve was not at all a “part”, but had a complete body of her own. And the part about bigness and smallness? Come on, who devalues an oak tree because it came from an acorn? Using “size” in this instance is kind of sneaky, since it implies a “small” view of womankind, but it doesn’t make sense even on your own terms ... How large was the “dust” Adam was made of? I would suggest you quit trifling, and get to the larger issue  which is mainly the Bible’s unhidden and uncryptic teaching about the authority structure within marriage and the Church. The Bible does not teach a lesser view of women, but it does teach a proper authority structure within marriage and the Church, and that’s what many people have a problem with. I will give you this positive challenge, by stating that male-domination (the main claim and offense of feminism) has been to some degree sadly true especially in ancient history. I explained in another thread that it has been due to sin, the misuse of both authority, and a taking advantage of the gentler and softer nature of women. [And Yes, I note that “gentler” is a crass generalization on my part, but a true one]. This Male abuse, was rampant in the ancient world, as women were viewed as less than human, and most often as “slaves” or “property” in many cultures. Thus, my challenge to you is in stating that though the absolute egalitarianism and leveling of men and women so popular in post-modern culture is not supported in the Bible, it’s teaching (that women as well as men were a special creation loved by God) was a very liberating thing in these ancient cultures. Women’s “rights” have often been advanced by Biblical priniciples, and male domination has been mitigated because of the views of scripture. It is no less liberating today, and I'll get into that later. LR: quote: I have to laugh at that LR, since that idea would be a boost to feminism ... You may say it in jest, but that’s the same kind of reasoning that’s been used thus far to show that the bible may indeed be a “Man-Mongering-Manual from Mesopotamia”. More later (I get the feeling that this thread will not end anytime soon, given it’s emotional and controversial nature). Be “gentle” on me. (grin) Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Good Grief. I hop from one thread where there is reference to witch burning, and tsk to me already in this thread, as I should have been more specific about where I'd prefer discussion to begin. I said there was a quaint little allegory I'd like to start with and I did say Genesis, but I should have more correctly stated, Genesis Rabbah. That's right, before I talk about Eve, I'd um, like to hear and learn more about Lilith. (I, myself, need to learn more about the origin of this legend, as I have inadvertantly misinformed others through my sometimes playful and sometimes vitriolic poetry. Mea Culpa) Perhaps with the help of my more academically inclined friends (Stephan? You listening?  ) we can dispel some of the nonsense written about this mystery woman that has been so little understood, reviled, and decidedly ignored.Note that the topic is Women and Religion--not Women in The King James version of the Bible. (Sorry m'bud, but you're gonna have to step outside of the Bible box for that one.) Please respect that some people include writings as scripture that are not necessarily Canon. Please respect that there are agnostics and atheists who might prefer to join this discussion as light-hearted analyzation of what they would term superstition. (They might even brush their teeth left handed too.) So, now can we proceed to hopefully educate each other in a manner of respect and tolerance, and hopefully, if not shared beliefs, then healthy curiosity. In other words, I'll cease to participate in the thread if I think there is Christian bashing going on (some of my best friends are Christians, REALLY! )And I think the burning times should have ended with bra burning in the early seventies. So no witch burning either. I think the Jews have had enough of persecuation as well. The atheists and agnostics don't need my protection, so you can go at 'em, I don't mind--I just want a percentage of the advance ticket sales for the fight. (Now that was just some good-natured sarcasm for my buddy Brad.) gleeee? So let's proceed, and I will try to go back to sleep so that I can attempt to maintain a two day lucid streak. I will try to catch up on what has already been said in the morning when I have coffee to help stoke those synapses to firing, but I simply cannot discuss Adam & Eve with no mention of Lilith. I hope to learn a lot from this thread, and I would love for others to join in as well with thier particular religious slants. I also hope that this doesn't turn into a pep rally for personal religious agenda--I think that sort of thing has done enough damage both historically and in the present time. Now if you'll excuse me, my shadow just tapped me on the shoulder, and I think I will follow her to bed. *winks to Ron* Now go to sleep guys...Lilith awaits. bwahahahahaha  |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Stephen, Question…Did you read the TDC? Also, I want to make it perfectly clear, I’m not trying to change any one else’s belief, simply share mine, and what works for me. Is the Bible authentic? I believe in an all supreme being (God), who created our world, and everything in it…but I also believe in Scientific & Archaeological theories…which to me, associates, with the Bible…along with many other religious theories. I do believe in Jesus, as he was referred to in many other religious accounts. I believe there is some truth to all stories of the Bible, but is not specifically the holy truth. Also… Scientists, are coming on board with the insight of a God created world which does parallel Biblical stories…(Stephen, please read that statement again) but, the Bible was written by men…and men are by nature, desire driven…to include, ego, power, & tempted by material wealth. No human being likes to be wrong or admit they are wrong, even when proven wrong, that is why religion is needed, along with priests, including their laws and our criminal laws are needed, which can be corrupt... Fear of being wrong, one of the most difficult acceptances in man’s behavior, which stagnates man’s progression, when challenged, causes anger, causing men to be devoid of good sense and/or judgment…which closes doors in the mind, resulting in an inability to ascend further to a cerebral thought pattern of any other concept but theirs…which is so sadly stagnating to the growth of humans and creates man’s separation from others, society cruelly banning people from societies, rage, murders and the dreaded wars, adding man’s need to look for the approval of others to be happy, not to mention, conditioning passed down by our parents, their parents and so forth. We are so afraid to defy their culture and find our own ways. “Who would lose, Though, full of pain, this intellectual being, Those thoughts that wander through eternity? Milton.” Man possesses this incredible yearning to believe in “something” since the beginning of his origin, and is constantly searching for the ultimate truth or an ultimate and divine power, creator of himself, something above himself. Without that man feels alone, and forlorned…pessimistic sense of inadequacy, despondent I believe, God and Jesus, are something way beyond anything that we are able to comprehend, (we only utilize 1/3 of our brain) way beyond the Bible, due to man’s inabilities to perceive other dimensions, phenomenon’s, and believe me, there are things that go, beyond our comprehensions…why does it say, “Watch and Learn from the Beasts of the Field)? I mean, think about their perceptions, what they can comprehend and how they communicate? Not to mention, we all know their purpose is to propagate to continue the species. So, that was the reason for the Bible…man’s interpretation of his perceptions of God’s creations and Jesus’ words, (which were metaphoric) and could only be interrupted in a limited ability back then, due to man’s intellectual comprehension…to explain what they saw. They were very primitive in thought patterns…perspectives, and perceptions. (And please note, I’m not totally dismissing the Bible’s words). TDVC paints only the story that Jesus and Mary were married, and they had children. It accepts the possibility of Jesus and Mary’s life together as man and wife. Stands to reason, cultures then would have spat upon the idea of a woman being worshiped by a man of his status. I also believe that God has come to many of us, in spirit, not only the disciples…and revealed things to us…throughout the ages. We are a body of God/Christ What I can’t comprehend is why, people are so afraid of the idea that Jesus not only took Mary as His Wife, but had children, and confided more in Mary then any other disciple? He was a Man? Stephanoes…”Anti-Christian” statements can put a fine line on a subject or a wide open subject with no lines…I don’t believe TDC is anti Christian. Yes, the Bible is a great body of teachings, but has also been intergraded in so so many other different religions…each claiming “theirs is the absolute truth and word”, adding their own man made rules…and Stephen, I apologize, but if we don’t consider other solutions and theories, how can that not be closed minded off mind, unable to consider and think for themselves? I can’t trust totally in such a primitive concepts, and one reason is, due to woman’s persecution during time. I believe also, that was totally man’s ego to control. Stephanoes, Culture eats strategy and can make man passive/aggressive. My bosse’s church is a Roman/Catholic Culture…but they believed people should explore TDC and come to their own conclusion…decide for themselves…and that kind of thinking we need more of. And by the way, there are some very interesting concepts in the Gnostics… And now, without insult to you, I ask you this question…who are you to make a statement that Dan Brown, or me or anyone else is not Christian…you don’t know…how a person walks his life…this is exactly a perfect example of what is not Christian to me… Allowance and tolerance, which is love and the understanding that each needs to walk their own path both spiritually and emotionally, and mentally. Perhaps you are further ahead then I am, but the fact of the matter is, to feel as you do is judging….isn’t it? This is an example of conditioning by your parents culture…and you actually fear if you explore other concepts, you’ll burn in hell????? I think God wants (us) to explore, as long as you live your life, to the best of your ability and realize, how we are all so connected, meaning, if you say things to hurt others, your creating a grave possibility to change that person’s purpose, by hurting them so much, they may stray from their path. And if they do, that to, could be your own hell. I appreciate, Stephanoes, your love and concern for me to know the truth…and believe you are not angry…just frustrated…remember, I was married to a man who was Mennonite, now reformed Baptist…so I know all of what your feeling….and you mean more then well, as you are devoted to your belief. I don’t consider exploring other theories akin to Eve being deceived by the serpent. I consider myself a Christian and I love Christ/God/people/ and you. I don’t believe there is a cost to consider that Jesus was given the absolute gift of knowing love between a man and a woman, that gift that God gave Adam and Eve. And your welcome to quote the Bible to me, honestly, I understand your belief, just please love me for mine. You see, Christian churches and beliefs are also very political…they own their own special interest groups and they also by votes in the name of stem cell research and abortion…and vote on those issues…for the man that promises not to diverge from those laws. I like your motto  a lotI believe, kiddo (wink) witches were considered to be so, if they delved from religious beliefs, or did not go along with society…and yes, I know men were also considered warlocks, but, a woman who has an opinion, well, whoa. So, there ya go, Stephen… Let me ask you another question… Lets pretend, for experimental purposes that you and I are dating…we love each other very deeply…ok? We are considerably compatible & chemically charged you and I have both been searching for each other for years...we are morally compatible, and there is great trust for one another, not to mention, we both feel confident that we have much to learn from one another, we are good for each other, love the same music, both love to read, swim, are summer people and beach and water people, we both have the same hunger for knowledge, love to dance, golf, adventure…travel, people, a great awareness beyond our comprehension…and we both share compatible dislikes for things...I mean, we're almost twins....and are willing to explore this compatibility in a marriage…Would you hold back, because I didn’t believe in God the same way you do, or go to your church, or would you try to control me, to bring me over to your side, instead of allowing me my beliefs, would you continue to go to your church without me there, without worry, in confidence, and more so, with support and understanding that I do need my own identity? Or would you not even consider the relationship at all because I believe in something other then you? Note, I’m not stating your wrong and I’m right…I just know what religion and fundamentalism had done to my life in the past…some good, some bad…and I’m comfortable with God, my life, belief, and have never felt closer to God then I do now, its just in a different belief then yours, and I don’t believe I’ll go to Hell for that believe and hunger for knowledge, curiosity and open ness. I also suggest this, don’t worry about me, don’t worry about Brown’s concept…look at how his book brought us together to discuss this and consider, allow, and be tolerant of each other, we will both walk away richer, and so will a lot of others who discussed this book. Hugs to ya and thank you for this oportunity to express my feelings on the subjet....Stephenos  [This message has been edited by LeeJ (07-27-2006 11:15 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Essorant, the real story of Adam and Eve was that Adam, feeling lonely, asked God for a companion. God replied that He would create one called Woman, who would be beautiful, kind, understanding, supportive and always willing and eager to please him....and it would only cost Adam and arm and a leg. Adam replied, "Gee, that's kind of steep. What have you got for a rib??"  On the other hand, my girl claims that Man was created first because God wanted to practice before He got it right. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between?  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
There were parts of your argument that were downright cute. And pardon me if I don't address your exchange with Stephen, Lee--he and I already had the same argument a longgggggggggg time ago, (and I think, if I recall correctly, he agreed to stop changing the dials on my radio--grin--let Stephan explain that one to ya.) But call me stubborn, as I am still unwilling to make the leap from Mesopotamia to the New Testament, and the teachings of Christ to Paul's interpretation to found Christianity as we know it today. If we are going to discuss women and religion, I was really hoping to start with Goddess worship--which certainly predates both Christianity and Judaism, as well as Mithraism. (Any practicing Mithraist can hereby feel welcome to shoot the bull with us. GROAN...  )er..sorry, bout that. Somebody please concede Goddess worship as the oldest religion that produced archeological proof, so that we might further explore when the subjugation of women was written into "spiritual law"--most conveniently by men, I might add. Oh. I just did. Now, if we go back to Mesopotamia legend and folklore, there we find the first whispers of Lilith and the taint of women as unclean vessels began--UNLESS they submitted to man. Um, I am open to any other theories as well here. And? If yer really hooked on that DaVinci Code thing, it might intrigue you to know that the Goddess is suspected to be the Goddess Venus, as represented by the five pointed star, or pentacle--neat, huh? See how that fits? I'm afraid I'll have to recuse myself from analyzation of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code as I found it unreadable. I much preferred Holy Blood, Holy Grail. (yep, I been studying that stuff for a while) This will be a very long thread, methinks. And don't mind me, I tend to think by talking to myself. Please proceed. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
HAH, you think, "you think" by talking to yourself...then we both think outloud...  Karen I'd love to discuss Lilith, but never heard the concept before...wanted to continue the discussion with Stephen, overflowing from your thread "Women and Philosophy". So, don't think I'm ignoring your wanton to discuss Lilith and the Godesses, Just cannot comment as I've not had to much experience with them... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos "1) Since she was "taken" from Adam, it denotes that Adam and Eve are essentially "one". They represent two complementary parts of a whole, without which the race could not be extended. They are equal both in value and beauty, as creations of God." I don't follow your reasoning very well Stephanos. A rib is not equal to the rest of the body. It is smaller on all scales. That doesn't mean it is not important to the body, but it is not "equal" to the rest of the body. The comparison of Adam to dust doesn't include comparing man and woman. But comparing the body of man to the rib of man does, because one is supposedly the rib turned into a woman and the other seemingly the rest of the body. Rib + rest of the body = the body. But the rib seems in no means equal to the rest of the body. Take away a rib and the body may lack very little. This is how it seems unequal to me. God could be portrayed as doing the same thing with dust to create woman, but instead the reference is to a lesser part of the body (a rib) compared to a more part of the body or the rest of the body of Adam, or Adam himself. You can hardly call a rib "a half of the body" And even if it were, Adam being treated like the original and woman just a secondary extraction thereof, plucked out of the male, and for the sake of giving the male company, treats the male as the foremost and the center and greater part, while woman supposedly should support him like a "rib" of his rib-cage. However, I wouldn't say that the bible is "extreme" about this aspect. I don't think the bible dwells or is explicit with an expression suggesting man is more than woman. But it is there: man is treated as the "more" part of the body, and woman the "less" part--the rib. "2) It denotes that there is a proper authority flow within marriage, not making the woman less in value but defining roles set by God." That man gets primary authority and woman secondary? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: Actually I never said I'd quit trying to persuade you to change the dial yourself. quote: Karen, it's only a "leap" if you put it like that. Between Mesopotamia and the New Testament lies the Old Testament. And I thought the link between the Jews and ancient Mesopotamia is pretty well established. And the link between the OT and NT is the easiest of all. No one really doubts that the earliest followers of Jesus were Jews. I would never call you stubborn ... but I would like you to elaborate further on why you're "unwilling to make the leap", giving some reasons. quote: My understanding (though I may be wrong) is that the earliest religions were tribal groups who worshipped animistic, as well as both male and female "gods". Godess worship arose from an identification of the female with fertility. And more often than not, godesses had their male counterparts. But since these modes of worship were both male and female in expression, and since such tribes were almost always ruled by male "chieftains", I hardly think that these ancient religious practices illustrate the feminist ideal you might be looking for. Besides that there's pretty good reason to believe that in many instances of ancient paganism, women were pretty much made to play the part of temple prostitutes, in "fertility" rites. That doesn't sound to friendly to the sisterhood to me, but very degrading to women, and catering to male desire. This is an area however that I need more study in, and I would be glad to consider anything you have to say. Lastly, can I ask you to be more specific when you mention "subjugation of women being written into spiritual law by men"? What exactly are you referring to? As far as Lilith goes, as much as I understand it, she originated as a part of mesopotamian demonology. Not much evidence exists for her "godess" status, though some later took that path. Of course I may be wrong here, and am open to any evidence to the contrary. Here's a good summary of Lilith at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith and Lee ... I'll soon respond to your reply. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
So it's symbolist literature when the deity is a feminine face of God? How convenient. Can I bat my evil eyelashes at ya? And I am merely trying to establish a timeline, so don't get all freaky on me already. It just helps ME to put it in perspective... and there ARE other belief systems, and I am happy, nay, EAGER to hear about the role of women in all. If I am not jumping with joy at the Adam and Eve thing, it is because to my point of view, is an allegory as well. What I find interesting about Lilith is her exclusion from scripture and ultimate dismissal as folklore, as well as the demonic taint given to her as though a warning as to what can happen to women who say "No." tsk. That just reeks of a power grab to me. Especially when Goddess was heretofore, (or is it theretofore?) the mainstream religion. Okay, my point of view on the Adam and Eve thing, and you know this already because we have corresponded regarding this before is that it is indeed an accessible analogy for us feeble minded humans. Adam would represent not 'just' man, but the active principle of creationism--Eve would be more precisely the receptive. If you look at the Jewish Star of David, it depicts just that in the interlaced triangles. The one pointed UP, would represent Adam, or active principle, and the one pointed down, (yoni) would be the receptive principle. The circle symbolizes the holy infinite. I do not believe (despite what I say in some of my poems) that there was any treachery involved in "Fall". I think what occurred was a natural evolution and instinct to procreate. "Go forth and multiply." Kind of difficult to do when one is innocent in matters of sexuality. So y'see, there are parts of scripture that I dismiss as well, because interestingly enough, the allegory places shame on the sexual act. And that's where the priests come in... With all your wisdom get understanding? gleeeeeeeeeeeeee Phil + Sophia = Philosophy? (thanks for that one, Ess?) Lovin' this stuff by the way. And thanks for showing up, lovie. "I was beginning to think nobody wanted to play wif me," sighed Lilith. (and btw, I did not lift that bit from The DaVinci Code either--if you can't tell, the DaVinci Code frenzy annoys me somewhat, prolly 'cause it took ideas I have studied for a long time and made it the flavor of the month. I hate when that happens--yet I am conversely grateful for the opportunity to discuss a subject that is dear to me.) |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
OH. And I really don't mind the framework of Goddess as symbolism for fertility. Since you brought it up, that bit about not spreading thy seed on the ground has not a thing to do with masturbation to my point of view. It came from the incorporation of a necessary man's law into God's law. (Similar to the manner of the Hammerabi codes) in the OT as well. What we had going on here was offering of grains to the Goddess, simply poured upon the ground, which, as society evolved from hunter and gatherer nomadic culture into the Agricultural Age necessitated some new customs. Grains spread willy nilly on the ground could and did corrupt crops, so therefore, the offerings need be contained to ensure successful yield. And nope, I didn't make that one up either. I cite "The Babylonians"--H.W.F. Saggs, first publication in Great Britain in 1962, by Sidgewick & Jackson under the title, "The Greatness That Was Babylon." I can find the passage for you in a bit. and smiling, it's a very handsome book too, and was the pride of my brother, so now I'm all misty eyed too. I almost thought I heard him pounding a table when I pulled it off the shelf. and folks, forgive me if you've heard this stuff from me before. I just have difficulty remembering if I posted in the forum or in one of my ramblin' emails. I hope it's not a bore. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Essorant, you're still "reading" something into the text. Eve is not said to be a part of Adam, but made from a part of Adam. To your western mind, a rib may be in size "smaller" but think poetically a moment, it is also the part closest to Adam's heart. Eve was already intended by God, and "in" Adam. The rib to me betokens something very precious and intimate. Again, I'm sorry you've taken issue with the text, but I think you are only taking something anecdotal and making it into an issue. No matter what you say, I could still do the same thing with the dust. Adam was made from dust, while Eve was made from a rib. Of course you find reasons to object to that, as I do too! But my point is, is that kind of reasoning is no different than what you are doing with the text. Look at the larger picture. quote: To the ancient writer, it may have been the most special part ... or at least it's anatomical location is noteworthy. A small diamond is not equal to the jeweler's box it came in. A pendant is not equal to the necklace it hangs on, yet it is (if not the most important) a very special part. I think you're being too prosaic, almost coldly scientific in your estimation of this text. quote: Again, you seem to be imposing a western medical mindset onto the text. I'm not sure the writer of Genesis shared your provincial view of the value of body parts. quote: Leaving the medical, you're now going to make it a question of simple mathematics. Consider what F.W. Boreham wrote in his Essay "The Sword of Solomon": "There is a sense in which two and two are four, the plane of ledgers and cashbooks - on which these propositions are approximately sound. But if you rise from that plane to a loftier one, you will find at once that they are untenable ... it is obviously untrue that half-a-baby and half-a-baby make a baby. Let the sword do its deadly work… The two halves of a baby make no baby at all. On this higher plane of human sentiment and experience, the laws of mathematics collapse completely. When a man distributes his wealth among his children, he gives to each a part. But when a woman distributes her love among her children, she gives it all to each ... No man who has once fallen in love will ever be persuaded that one and one are only two. He looks at her, and feels that one plus one would be a million ... No happy couple into the sweet shelter of whose home a little child has come will ever be convinced that two and one are only three. Life has been enriched a thousandfold by the addition of that one little life to theirs. And I am certain that no pair from whose clinging and protecting arms their treasure has been snatched will find comfort in the assurance that one from three leaves two. In the great crises of life one's faith in figures breaks down hopelessly. " Come on Essorant, where is your sense of poetry and romance, that you usually revel in? Your "exacting" interpretation of this text doesn't at all capture what is truly intended. quote: Well I'm glad of that much ... though I would go further and state that it does not express such at all. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree if you think otherwise. Though there is a hierarchy taught in marital authority, there is absolutely no hierarchy of value or dignity, looking at the bigger picture, man and woman are both amazing creations of God, both indispensable. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen, You guys are too quick. Ponder my posts for at least a day before you respond ... that way I may have some time to eat, be with my family, and earn a living! ... And your responses will be the better for it too! lol. I couldn't resist that one. Selah. Do you know the meaning of that?? I'll be back when I get time. Enjoying the thread, Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
er..there's something wrong with my responses? grin I LIKE 'em!  But nods to the time thing; alas, I happen to live with a teenaged phone Nazi. So forgive me, but I have to "get it while I can". But I'll have to give it a rest--gotta go re-shelve those books. They are all over my bed and I need to sleep in that thing. And I had fun today--so thank you. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Eve is not said to be a part of Adam, but made from a part of Adam. " I don't mean to go on and on, but you just said earlier that Adam and Eve " represent two complementary parts of a whole, without which the race could not be extended." My point, is that Eve or the part that she seems expressed to represent in this passage is especially associated with the rib, and Adam associated to the body from which the rib comes. The analogy of diamond/diamond box doesn't seem at all parallel. Because a diamond and a diamond box aren't the same "race" and aren't meant to be. They are two very different things. Nor does a diamond originally come from the diamond box. I take the bible seriously because it is a book that is said to come down from God's direction and is taken to heart by many people very seriously. For many it, including Genesis, is far from being just "romance" and "poetry" even if it has some poetic and romantic aspects. But it is the truth come down from God himself, even in this book Genesis, even in this line about Eve coming from Adam's rib, even in every syllable. Also I wonder how "metaphorical" the biblesmiths really intended it to be. How do you say it was meant to be metaphorical, and not literal, or literal and metaphorical? Do you believe that Eve literally came from Adam's rib? It sounds like you believe it in a metaphorical sense, as if it is supposed to betoken something very abstract and spiritual. But from the point of view of the biblesmiths that set it in words after the direction of God, I don't think it it was meant to be just abstract, spiritual, or allegorical, but also literal and factual. To them that is the way it was. That was the way man and woman were created. Not just a metaphor of higher things, which indeed it may be seen as too, but also, and importantly a literal reference to the way it actually happened. So is Eve coming from Adam's rib to you a literal fact, or just a metaphoric suggestion? Or both? If one accept it as both, shouldn't he be willing to face the scientific and more unpoetic side of the debate too? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Interesting thread, Lee. I can already tell it is going to grow steadily. To those who would look at the Holy Bible (KJV) as the absolute literal truth, then please explain who "our" is in the following: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:26-28 -- That was on the sixth day of creation. Genesis 2:2-3 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. " Then we have in Genesis 2, the Lord God (now referring specifically to Lord God and not God, which I find curious and wonder why Genesis 1 didn't use the "Lord God"). The Lord God takes Adam to Eden after, it appears to me, he first created man and woman in the first six days. Then he creates Eve from Adams' rib. "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." Genesis 2:4-5 Okay, now this is where Genesis gets fuzzy. You see if you read closely and interpret literally, God created everything BEFORE it was in earth...read closely. Now, the way I read all this is that God created everything in thought and spirit in the first six days....and then Lord God executed that thought. So man and woman were created in thought first, in the image of God to have dominion over even the birds of the air -- so they were "men/women" spirit form at that time? Then.....the Garden needed a manual laborer ("And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." Genesis 2:15)....so physical man is created to do the manual labor when the Lord God breathed the breath of life and created a living soul. Just thought I'd add that food for thought...lol....enjoying reading this thread. Personally, I wonder if after God created "man and woman" in what I believe was thought and spirit, some superior being (one of the our beings referred to in Genesis 1 referred to as LORD God in Genesis 2, didn't then create man in the material...that would work with some of the other religions....like Hinduism, which preceded Christianity (because in Hinduism there is one ultimate God over the other lesser Gods, right?). Or....another thought would be, is Genesis 2 a second telling of Genesis 1 derived through a second oral tradition? -- because they are close, but they do not match. Genesis 1 refers to God in the plural. Genesis 2 refers to only the Lord God. [This message has been edited by iliana (07-28-2006 04:05 AM).] |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
If the fall of man was for women to suffer birth, and procreation...then did the animals suffer to? Meaning, God supposidly created the animals, were they not as of yet procreating? I mean, think about it...if man and animals alike, did not procreate, the species would extinquish itself... I just don't buy the entire apple thing which lead to sex between Adam and Eve...? Does anyone understand what I'm asking? Stephen, are ya there? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Iliana, Hi  thanks for stopping by, wanna glass of ice tea? I can't answer your questions, but enjoyed reading your comment... |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Ess quote: to me, it denotes that Eve is one with Adam, one in the flesh..spirit and mind...equal, not one over the other, but equal, but if you think about society back then when the Bible was written, men ruled so????? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LeeJ, I'm here! Give me some more time. And see how many MORE questions you can pile on while you're at it! LOL. Stephen. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Stephanos... Take your time you have all weekend, far as I'm concerned...I'll BE BACK but the others, might be more needy for an answer from you, so save my questions for last |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
The End of The Paleothic Period "Oh don't mind me, I'll just sit here in the late Paleolithic period all by m'self," serenity muttered. She grumpily slammed a rock on the long golden grass she'd been braiding. The shaft then burst into a thousand pieces before Serenity's amazed eyes. Intrigued, she haunched down to examine some of the other stalks. She cocked her head to one side, wondering-- "I'll just bet that if we take these older stalks and bury them in the Mother Earth, we wouldn't have to walk all over the MIDDLE EAST to gather our freaking supper!" But no one was listening because Serenity was all alone. Sad sigh. The others had leapt ahead, refusing to stop and consider that the same seed that advanced societal evolution to the AGRIGULTURAL AGE, advancing cultural populaces to CLANS, would have been about the same time as when Goddess worship flourished. Sadly, serenity should have kept her mouth shut. (She sometimes types too much yanno.  ) Because it was this same great discovery, which, while being an advancement for the all of humanity would be the beginning of the subjugation of her sex.Serenity felt eyes upon her. The Shaman was staring at her. The androgyne began cackling at her. It was damned disconcerting too. He/she never liked her. She felt a little ill and her back hurt. As she stretched, her moonblood trickeled down her leg, a drop landing on the bundle of wheat she'd been gathering. Connections were made. This was it. The End of the Paleolithic period. ( )Ohhhhhhhhh...she thought. She couldn't wait to tell everyone. She looked up to see that the androgyne had disappeared. She couldn't wait to tell everyone about her discovery, but she felt a shadow of misgiving regarding the shaman of her tribe. When she caught up with the others, they were already sitting around the shaman enraptured by his words. The shaman became a priest, and he pointed at Serenity and her show of blood and screamed "UNCLEAN" and she was sent off to be alone for the first time in her life. Serenity wept for 8 days. Nobody understood her. OH. Or was that Clan of the CAVE BEAR??? "At least Jane Auel did her own research" grumbled Serenity. THE END or THE BEGINNING... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LeeJ: quote: Yes, I did. Though I didn't see the movie. quote: You don't have to convince me of the value of things like archaeology and historiography. For the most part, where these disciplines have been sound, they have tended to confirm rather than refute the authenticity of the Bible. I don't think that God's "word" will ever truly contradict God's "world". Science and Faith are not equals for sure, but they are not enemies either. Many statements in the past have been made to contradict the Bible, based on archaeology (or a lack thereof), which were later recanted because new evidence appeared which only confirmed the Biblical accounts. So I don't think that archeology and historiography are in a position to "prove" the divine source of the Bible, but they can and do show it to be more than plausible. Since we can doubt anything, even our very own existence if we wish, faith must play a part somewhere. But that doesn't mean that faith is the blind kind. As for the "religious theories" you mentioned ... I'm with you with caveat that they can't all be right, especially if they are at odds with each other, in some very basic and fundamental assumptions. I'll give anything a fair hearing, but that doesn't make everything equally valid. quote: You keep saying that, but why do you doubt that God could say something reliable through men, despite their own imperfections? It's really a matter of faith in God, as to whether he could give us a solid word or not. If you wrote me a very truthful letter, should I doubt it just because you are human? Also you've never explained adequately why a book so devastating to "sinful desires" in it's teaching, might be written for the fulfillment of these very same desires. That's counter-intuitive to me. The Gospels, for example, were not written by the rich and powerful ecclesiastical leaders of Israel, they were written by tax-collectors and fishermen, the antithesis of the elite. Nor could their teachings and writings give them a "high" status in Israel. In fact their writings got them ostracized from the community! quote: LeeJ, there is also a marked lack of fear of "being wrong" among revolutionists. It's sometimes just "natural" for children to rebel against parents (a reminder of original sin), regardless of whether they are right or wrong. We don't generally like authority, and I would say THAT has led to more strife, wars, abuse, than anything else. So when you raised your kids to be kind and moral and good, you were conditioning them?? I understand that leadership can be corrupt, but it is always based upon their transgression of good and right principles. But you see what problem this creates, when the very authority upon which "good principles" are based is challenged. You'll inevitable run into self-contradiction when placing Biblical teachings in the same category of something that should be "doubted" or "challenged". I've heard people, (like George Carlin for example) try to say that the Ten Commandments should be resisted because "covetousness" gave rise to them. Poor guy, he didn't realize that his reasoning for resistance was based upon God's law in the Ten Commandments. It's good to challenge some things Lee, because they are wrong ... but not all things. Some things must be sacred. "It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see." (C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man) quote: I do too. But real knowledge doesn't have to mean exhaustive knowledge. There is much to discover about God in his creation, and in human nature. But I don't think that will ever contradict revealed truth. The problem is, we have been told in the Bible that some things are revealed from Heaven ... and that when we doubt those revealed things, we are not discovering "new" knowledge, but wrong knowledge. There are evil forces as well as good forces at play in the world. I'm wondering what you think the Bible means when it mentions the spirit of "anti-Christ". Do you doubt that we should apply that to anything at all? I'll bet you draw your lines somewhere, though it sounds like to me you're saying that all claims to truth are good and right. Maybe you're not saying that, and I'm just misunderstanding you. Could you clarify? quote: But we are not just reading an "interpretation" in the New Testament, but often a verbatim recording of what was said and done, by more than one person. Therefore we too, can interpret the words of Christ. Admittedly they are somewhat flexible, but not modernly elastic. There's a breaking point where you are forced to part with the historical. An honest reading, would not allow a "New Age" or Pantheistic Jesus, because it just isn't in the data we have. That's why Dan Brown, and the gnostics are forced to refer to other later texts to do their version of teaching. It is a different "Jesus" as it were. It's a wee bit hard to teach gnostic doctrines from the Bible, because it's speech is not that ambiguous. A spade is a spade. And the authenticity of the pseudopigraphal gospels can easily be shown to be doubtful using Historiography. Gnosticism was a religious movement distinct from both orthodox Judaism, and Christianity. And it "absorbed" the Christian history for its own ends, and rewrote its own version. Two things are seldom doubted among reliable scholars (Christian and otherwise), 1) These documents are later than the canonical gospels, and 2) Their authorship is doubtful. In other words, the gospel of Thomas wasn't written by Thomas. The gospel of Peter wasn't written by Peter. The gospel of Barnabas wasn't written by Barnabas. etc ... To attach an apostolic name to a writing was a method of gaining quick prominence. The gnostic gospels are more "political" than any of the traditionally accepted Christian texts. quote: I've explained this before ... Yes he was a man. But he was also more than a man. From the Christian perspective Jesus was the "Lamb of God", do you know what that means? It means that his mission (given to him by God from before the foundation of the World) was to be born, to live, and to die as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. Think about it ... If Jesus were just another Joe who gets married, has kids, and settles down, there has been no sacrifice for our Sin. I am also "afraid" of that doctrine, because I know my own sin and what it can do. So for the Christian, this seemingly innocent story is the denail of one of the central tenants of the Christian Faith ... one of the Lynch Pins, corner-stones, pillars, as it were. Without the particular Christian History as given in the canonical Gospels, there is no salvation. That's a lot to give up, for just the romantic feeling that Jesus might have had an earthly wife and children, isn't it? It's not that scripture is anti-marriage or anti-family- but the opposite. Many of the disciples and apostles were married. Paul, though single himself, give a rather lofty view of marriage and children. So tell me, why can't this one figure set those things aside, for a higher calling? I am married myself, and have children. They are a blessing beyond imagination. But it thrills me to think that there are things even higher. And it thrills me even more to think that someone abstained himself from something lawful and good, for little 'ol me!... I personally think, Lee, that you are accepting something good, but losing something eternally better if you think that the history of Jesus was that of a mere human who had a good life and never went to the cross. And doesn't the goodness of marriage and children, give more value to the fact that Jesus would give that up for us? Besides those very poignant points for you to ponder, I'll also add that the canonical gospels represent the best and most solid history of Jesus. And the data we have does not say that he was married. Only the later gnostic writings relate such stories. quote: Interesting Lee, that these "denominations" you mention all agree on the essentials about Jesus, and the historicity of the gospels. And the "man made rules" can be discerned from the rest, because they don't have the same amount of Biblical support as the central doctrines. There are also many Denominations who do not claim that they represent "the absolute truth" ... in the sense that no other members of other denominations will be saved. There can still be a great amount of unity in diversity. quote: I don't think we were supposed to think with total autonomy, apart from divine revelation. That doesn't mean that we aren't supposed to think at all, however. There has to be something absolute, or you are adrift. A man drowning at sea who chooses to clutch a life preserver rather than a floating palm leaf, is not "closed minded". quote: Lee, if you believe in the alternate story of the gnostic texts (such as the belief that Jesus was married) you are trusting primitive ideas. Why does the time of events or thinking, automatically invalidate them? It shouldn't. I've mentioned "chronological snobbery" before, and I would rather see you test something as valid or invalid based on criteria other than the clock. quote: Then you should stay away from ANY gnostic ideas, as 2nd and 3rd century gnosticism was extremely anti-women in their outlook. Makes the Christian texts look like Women's Lib material. From the so-called "Gospel of Thomas": "('Peter' says): Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life. ('Jesus' adds): I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." So women aren't worthy to live, and must have a sex change before entering into heaven. In praising the gnostic views, Dan Brown forgot to mention this huh? quote: I answered this in the other thread, before you moved the conversation over here ... but I'll say it again. I have no problem with investigation. You know that. Of course everyone must decide for themselves. That doesn't mean that all claims are equally reliable. I'm 99.9999 % sure that your boss' Church takes a particular view of whether the Jesus Story is like Dan Brown says, or like the Gospels say. Just because they encourage others to read material, doesn't mean they don't have a committed view on the matter... unless it's a gnostic temple in disguise? I challenge you to ask your boss, whether the priests teach that Jesus was married, and didn't go to the cross ... or the orthodox view. quote: I didn't say that I know for sure that Dan Brown is not a Christian, or that I know he will never be saved. I said rather that if he believes what he writes about Jesus Christ, then he is not a Christian. And I do have a certain definition of Christian in mind ... the Biblical sense of the word. "Christian" may have some flexibility in lesser matters, but it is not a totally elastic word. It means someone who believes certain things about Jesus Christ, and who is devoted to his teachings. It would only stand to reason that if we may know what a Christian is (by the words of Jesus himself and the apostles), then we may be able to distinguish whether certain beliefs and people who hold them are "Christian" or not. I can say that Dan Brown isn't a Christian, based upon his own professed beliefs, just as easily and accurately as I can say you're not a Muslim. I am sorry that you percieve that as "unchristian" thing to do, but I still wonder what your definition of "Christian" is. It's more than just being a nice guy ... dogma is also central to being a Christian, like it or not. I'm not saying that we shouldn't treat people kindly and respectfully, and I try to do so. But to me that doesn't mean not making certain estimations based upon truth. I'm not making a moral judgement on Dan Brown. We're ALL sinners, including myself. But I am saying he's mistaken in his definition of what a Christian is. Finally I would say that one test of whether or not such statements (as I made) are "christian" or not, is to honestly read the bible and ask: "Did Christian teachers in the New Testament make such estimations?". Yes they did. quote: As I said above, such statements are not "judging" in the negative sense, but merely stating truth. Again I'm basing this off of the fact that truth may be known. I think perhaps you believe that it can't ... though I'm not sure. But if you believe that way, my views will always appear arrogant, even when held with a tender heart. Lastly on this matter I'll say that it was not my "parent's culture" to accept absolute truth, though certain Christian assumptions were always there. I became a Christian later in life, and mainly from influences outside of my family. But even if I had been raised Christian from the start, that doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that that's the only reason why I might believe as I do. We can still ask whether or not a certain "culture" or "atmosphere" is right or not. Surely you realized that political correctness and the new "tolerance" is also a cultural atmosphere? It's based upon a philosophical assumption of the impossibility of knowing anything absolute, and a magnification of individualism. That's the prevailing "Zeitgeist" of today. quote: Honestly, as a Christian, I intentionlly chose to marry a Christian woman ... not that I just picked one for that reason, or that I wasn't crazy about her. This is based upon Biblical teaching where Paul says not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers". That doesn't mean that we're to have nothing to do with non-Christians obviously ... Paul pointed out the absurdity of that thought by saying we would have to "leave the world". The Christian "cloister" mentality is not encouraged in the Bible. We are encouraged to have friends and to love all kinds of people, especially those who don't yet believe. However, in such an intimate arrangement as marriage, one has to consider many things. As a believer and unbeliever, our goals might be totally different. Our views of how a marriage should work might be totally different. Our words to our own children about life, God, salvation might be totally different. The Bible says with great pragmatism "How can two walk together except they be in agreement"? So no, I would not marry a non-Christian, being a Christian myself ... unless I could be assurred of their very real conversion. There's too much at stake there, to go on feelings of infatuation only. Personally, my marriage has been the better for it. Though not perfect, my wife and I have peace, and love each other deeply. Now your questions about someone "going to a different church", or believing a peripheral doctrine differently ... I might answer differently. Those things are much lesser things to overcome. quote: Oh absolutely Lee! I think regardless of right or wrong, his book has brought about a lot of stimulating conversation. And God will always use both truth and error to his own benevolent ends. Remember the passage about how Paul was rejoicing that "Christ is preached" even though some of the preachers were doing it wrongly or for wrong reasons? The whole place was in a buzz, and people were thinking about Christ. That's always a good thing to me. And LeeJ, yes I love you too. I tend to be ruthless in my debating for truth's sake, but it's never personal or malicious. I hope that shines through somehow. Stephen. Alright Karen you're next ... (sigh, as my hand falls off) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LOL. Lee, I saw your post telling me to wait, immediately AFTER I posted the above. Too late! cheers, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: No, what I meant was that she a figure of ancient demonology, categorizing her as a demon rather than something to be admired or worshipped. I'm open to your suggestion that there was a "godess" status attached to her, but I would be interested in some citations, because as I've understood it, there's not a lot of evidence for that. That's just what I believe now. I'll really look at anything you give me showing otherwise. quote: Freaky! lol. I'll try not to do that. First you'll have to tell my un-cool un-hip self what that means. quote: Actually the name is mentioned in a couple of Old Testament passages I think, of course in a negative context. That would make sense if her origin is in ancient demonology. Though the tainting you speak of, needs to show the "before" as well as the "after", to prove that the "after" is not the original. I really am interested in learning about this. Take your time, I don't mean to put you on the spot. quote: I think the evidence is more weighty for the worship of male AND female deities in ancient paganism. We could discuss that more though. quote: It seems like you are conflating the "fall" with a form of sex or procreation. But if you read the Genesis account, Adam and Eve are told to "be fruitful and multiply the earth" before they ever encountered the serpent or the forbidden fruit. Their sexuality and ability for gestation was already intact and approved by God. This may sound funny, but they might have avoided the serpent if they had been making more use of the "be fruitful" command, and ignored the the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Some things are more interesting and fun than nature walks! lol. (that's about as close as you'll ever see me come to being naughty Karen!) There is no hint of sexuality given in the account, connected to the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil". Go back and read what the Serpent promised them through this fruit. He said "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like God. This has much more to do with the spirit and the mind than the loins. It was a "taste" that would eventually corrupt all of life, not just sexuality. That's why biblically, not only sexual misconduct but greed, murder, covetousness, and many other things are attributed to the fall. All these too, are perversions of what was originally given as "good". So my statement to you, is that you need not reject the text for thinking it makes sex dirty or shameful. Though, don't worry, that's a very common assumption made by many people. I think it has to do with sexuality at a later date, being described as "forbidden fruit". And don't get me wrong, certain expressions of sex are forbidden in the Bible, but sexuality is only affected by Original Sin in the same way that everything else is ... by twisting and perversion. My textual backing for this, in summary: 1) God blessed Adam and Eve and told them to be fruitful and multiply the Earth, BEFORE the incident with the serpent. 2) There is nothing really sexual portrayed in the textual description of eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. ------------------------------------------- Now, one last misconception to clear up. Karen, you mentioned the King James Version, and someone else followed. When I discuss the validity of the Bible, I don't limit it to a translation that occurred in 1611 A.D. I'm referring primarily to manuscripts that go way back to the early centuries which ALL translations of the Bible are based on. Translations of the Bible are very very similar, and differences are negligable. The mention of KVJ always gives the image of a stuffy "thither and thou" mindset, and I felt that that misrepresented my views. Though, I think it's a very poetic translation, and have no big problems with it, other than the fact that it's language is archaic enough that people aren't really understanding what they are reading anymore. The NASB, ASV, NIV, are just a few examples of contemporary english translations, and they too are based upon the ancient manuscripts. Stephen. Essorant, I'll get to you too, but not today. These women have gotten the best of me. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"to me, it denotes that Eve is one with Adam, one in the flesh..spirit and mind...equal, not one over the other, but equal, but if you think about society back then when the Bible was written, men ruled so?????" But how does Woman being portrayed as originally being created out of a body part of Man express "equality"? To me it seems to make the source of woman in the male himself. Man gets to be the prototype and original, and the spring from which woman herself is from, while woman is made out to be an improvisation of but a part of that prototype and original. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-28-2006 08:08 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The NASB, ASV, NIV, are just a few examples of contemporary english translations, and they too are based upon the ancient manuscripts." I am glad to see you mentioned the NASB (New Anglo-Saxon Bible). That is one of my favourite translations. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Got the best of you? oh sweet Stephan! laughing here I'm not sure if you are underestimating US or yourself! and tsk... I erred in this thread already. I should have never suggested we start with Genesis. I should have suggested we begin with historical fact. My bad. I'm going to save this thread to re-read, so that I can proceed with care, and address everything that has been said thus far, but I confess that I feel exasperated as I fear that once again you and I will part ways, and what could have been a fruitful conversation will not happen. I do not accept The Bible as ulitimate authority and you do. With all of the books I pulled off the shelves, just one of them was a Bible. Um, wait, no-- that one wasn't actually pulled off the shelf, as it stays by my reading lamp. I refer to it more often than you might have guessed. The others were history, anthropology, sociology, archeology, and um, one was even a psychiatric case study! (blush) (That one was for moi btw--congratulate me, I stopped a mood swing. REALLY RON. I just happen to wake just as goofy as I am when I don't sleep for a day and a half.)Now, my little phone Nazi has just come home, and actually, he's not a Nazi--he is in love. Which is also a form of obsession based madness. So let me save this stuff so I can read it offline, and Lee? I'm not dissing the DaVinci Code. I'm sure it's well written, it must be. But it isn't fact, it is a work of fiction. There may be facts in there, but it just confuses things to keep referring to a novel. And I promise to read the book that you suggest, if you promise me you will investigate the Gnostic texts, Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the various other sources used by Dan Brown, k? So hopefully I didn't offend you with my post that had fun with the Clan of the Cave Bear. I just enjoy having fun in my conversations--puts the cream in my coffee, yanno? Now, I must defer my time to my son, simply because I believe that LOVE rules. His Goddess awaits. On that note, I send love to you all. And I'll be back. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
A challenge for you two men: watch the movie, Lagaan: Once upon a time in India. A man caught between the love of two women (the minor plot, but the larger spiritual truth is derived through this interaction). A fabulous movie. To me, it says, a person cannot reach their true strength/potential without being stretched by love. Now what that has to do with women and religion? Well, are we talking about religion or spirituality? I'd like to see this thread encompass both. Watch the movie (video) and then tell me what spiritual or religious truths you derive. Pretty please. Note to Karen....you should watch it, too....think of the English woman as Lilith. *wicked grin* Lee -- ice tea sounds pretty good.....thanks. [This message has been edited by iliana (07-28-2006 06:57 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Also Stephanos, there is no need to rush. Write back in a millenium if you want. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I should have suggested we begin with historical fact." Well, it is one thing to suggest Genesis is not a historical fact and it is another to prove it |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I still want to know what the "our" is. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Iliana I think the plural "our" is meant to betoken the holy trinity, the three personhoods that stand in one Godhood. They are treated as distinct as fire, light and heat. Fire, light and heat may be one together as the sun, but also as three together, fire, light and heat. Another hue you may give it is a royal figure referring to his singular self in the plural. The plural we is often used with singular meaning to sometimes when we say "How are we today?" asking a single person how he or she is. It is a strange behaviour in English that plurals are used thus with singular meanings. Even the words you and your are also historically plural. The legitimatly singular ones are thou, thine and thee. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Essorant, thank you for reponding, but I have trouble swallowing that, in that the Holy Trinity in Christianity did not manifest until Jesus conquered the grave.....I thought? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hi Iliana, I'm not sure of any Christianity that says that. I understand the belief in the holy trinity as saying that God was always the father, son and spirit. And it only seems more even and easy if God is eternal to understand his "roles" as being eternal as well. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
By the way, thanks for the movie recommendation. I hope I may find it at the local library here. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
This is written in the Hebrew Talmud, the book where all of the sayings and preaching of Rabbis are conserved over time. It says: "Be very careful if you make a woman cry, because God counts her tears. The woman came out of a man's rib. Not from his feet to be walked on. Not from his head to be superior, but from the side to be equal. Under the arm to be protected, and next to the heart to be loved." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer I don't think anyone under the sun shall deny that is a loveliest passage and spiritual sentiment. But to me the more literal aspect is still very uneven. The male is still treated as the first human and the source of woman. And then woman specifically comes from a physicially smaller part of that source. I don't understand that. I guess I will just need to learn to overlook it somewhat like the other parts of the bible I don't agree with. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Essorant, you can probably find it at the library as it is considered an excellent movie...you might search for it on the web and read the reviews. You're welcome....enjoy. Many things have been taught to us in Christianity which have their basis in other religions and paganism older than the Bible. Don't get me wrong.....the Bible, I believe, has layers of wisdom written into it. I am not nearly as versed on the subject as Serenity is, but I do know that the "trinity" thing was in existence prior to Judaism or Christianity through Egyptian beliefs of Isis, Osiris and Horus. And, scholars believe Constantine helped transition Paganism (sun god at that time) to Christianity (Son God). Constantine was converted when he won a battle after a vision he had....very much a metaphysical guy. As a result, he had the shields of his soldiers paint the Christian symbol of that time (I believe, the Chi Rho, or first Christian cross which looks kind of like an P with and X laying horizontally through the middle. And, of course, they won their battle. The chi rho was the monogram of Chronos, the god of time, and an emblem of several solar deities. I guess, that's one of the reasons why I place more weight to the New Testament in that is where I find the words of The Christ, who I do believe shows the way back to God through his actions....the Gnostic gospels enhance his divinity, but I do not find them any more patriarchal than in the Bible....in fact, they expose the truth that Peter was jealous of Mary...and reflect the attitude of the culture at that time. In my mind, Christianity was manipulated into what would work as a geopolitical uniter in a troubled patriarchal world to bring order and reconciliation for a time. I don't argue that that wasn't a part of God's Plan....but it disturbs me that so few Christians do not examine the roots of their beliefs. When I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail in the early 90s....I went through a sort of spiritual crisis. I went to my local pastor and asked him if I should quit reading it. He told me to do what I felt I should...but that it was required reading where he went to seminary. So I finished the book....and at the end, it just didn't matter to me whether Jesus was the designated and true Messiah anymore...what I did find was that my faith didn't change....that he served the role God had given him well and had produced the results God had wanted ....the spread of a deeper understanding....which ended up being called Christianity....it didn't matter if he was just a man or divine or married or not...or even if he might have had children....what mattered was that history and the consciousness of man changed as a result of his light in the world, not to mention the political landscape. And, he is my Hero. It was a paradign shift in the consciousness of humanity. People get hung up on the little things.....a pity. And...it's time for another one of those shifts....'cuz mankind is looking pretty dowdy at the moment. [This message has been edited by iliana (07-29-2006 03:02 AM).] |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
...so, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, ...and the Word was God....the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. ...the true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world...and the Word became flesh, and lived among us....and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him. ...and so...the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it... ...for the Word was blocked...and then crushed...by the censorship filters because the Word could lead to thinking...which could expand awareness...possibly even lead to dancing...and raiding the refrigerator...and late night speed runs to fast food franchises.... ...and so on the Seventh Day God rested...and having caught his breath, turned to Adam and said, “Hey, Boy, whaddya say you fall by my crib and we’ll stay home tonight and mellow out...I'll make some wine...you bring the ribs, OK?” |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Mr. C......that was priceless!  |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
quote: Hardly a comparison…but, if I wrote a poem which stated this, “God came to me in a dream, and told me that I should revise the book of Mathew” Would you believe it? Here are some examples One of the Bible's 10 basic Pillars, the ten commandments, says: "Thou shalt not murder. (Exodus 20:13)." Yet, we see GOD Almighty Commanding His servants to not only kill the enemy's men, but also the innocent children and non-virgin women who have not done anything to anyone: 1 Samuel 15:2-4 2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah. "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:17-18)" If Exodus 20:13 was supposed to be the basic pillar that prevents the Bible followers from committing murders against innocent people, then how are Numbers 31:17-18 and 1 Samuel 15:2-4 justified then when GOD Almighty Himself nullified His own Commands and decided to kill innocent children and virgin girls perhaps by the thousands? To me Stephen, these are the words and acts of men, not a God. quote: To you, perhaps, but to me, not at all…TDC didn’t bring out anything that hadn’t already been brought forth years ago, not to mention…again…my question to you would be, “what would be so wrong with Jesus being married to Mary, and them having a child, and the possibility of HIS seed walking the earth today? Why do people fear that concept? Many artists painted or wrote under codes….otherwise they would have been banned from society or worse, simply b/c they didn’t go along with religious beliefs. Do you deny, that at one time the priests had control of the Bible, and no one else, at that time had access to The Bible but the Priests? Why? And when they did finally give access to common people, what had they done to change it or was it in fact the real Bible of God, or something put together by the priests to rule the people by? Did they Leave things out…lets remember, that all the followers gave the Priests absolute source of income and power. One thing I don’t understand, you keep saying and using Christian…even though I do not believe the same as you, I deem myself a Christian…and again, I say with all due respect…whose gets to say I’m not? You said, it’s good to challenge things because some things are wrong, but, not all things, as some things are sacred…by what authority Stephen, who decides what is wrong and what is sacred? You said, real knowledge doesn’t have to mean exhaustive knowledge? Stephen, who decides what’s real and what isn’t? You, or your religion? Does that mean then, in your eyes I’m less of a person, or not a Christian because I do not believe the way you do? You say, there’s a breaking point where you are forced to part with the historical? Well, then, where might be the Ark, or the Ark of the Covenant, and why is Christmas and Easter celebrated on the wrong dates of the real events? My point is, what does it matter what I believe…as long as I believe in God and His Son…I’m not saying my theory is right…but what I really find hard to swallow is that all Christians don’t understand that, they want you to believe as they do or else????? And they won’t let you alone, they keep arguing that their belief in the One and Only. How does that make yours any different? Stephen, I find it quit smug when people say, well, they’re not Christian, or their Belief isn’t Christian…which sets them above any other religion in the world….? To me, that’s just as smug as saying…”I’m saved” And please understand, I’m not directing this to you personally, but reintegrating my beliefs. I don’t always explain myself well while writing like this so please don’t be offended as it is not my intent to hurt anyone, just sharing my thoughts. Stephen, no matter what you say, to me, The Bible cannot be a divine source of information...to me anyway, and I'm sorry if that hurts you, but I believe in God and Jesus, but again, say with all due respect…I would like to believe that Jesus and Mary were Married, and they had a child, or children…and their seed is walking the earth today…in secret, unharmed and safe. Is it factual? Who knows, but for me, it works, it's my safe line, yanno? I am a Christian, Stephen, but I don’t believe for one minute everything that the Bible states, as factual and THE Word. I disagree Stephen, I don’t believe I’m loosing anything Good, I believe God loves me just as much as He loves you…as I’ve believed for years, ever since I was a child, that he wanted me to write? As a child, people would laugh and say, well, what do YOU, think you'll write about, and I'd say, whatever God wants me to. People can be so cruel, yanno? Again, it’s very kind of you to share your beliefs with me…but consider one thing, Stephen, maybe I’ve given you some very poignant points as well…I believe truly…that when we’re the most confident (cocky) about something, that’s when it “wham” hits ya like a tone of bricks. And rather then force feed others with our beliefs, I think we should be humble and keep working on our own, rather then trying to convert others to think exactly as we do? I’ve considered and read about other religions, not because I believe them, just because I’m incredibly interested… I went to Bible Study from the time as I a child…and loved it…continued throughout my adult life, though I have no religion today. Its not about religion, but about faith... Stephen, I’m not here to debate with anyone, who is right or who is wrong…I believe the reason I’m here is to leave this place a little bit better then when I arrived…if you wanna believe then it’s your choice/free will and perogative, …but I don’t’ believe I’m any less of a person, or Christian, or child of God…b/c of my beliefs...as long as I try just as hard as you do, to live a good life. Man needs something to believe in, something more powerful & infinite then ourselves…man has a desire to be loved and socially accepted… I have known people in my life, who were of different religions or political views, who but married anyway, and have very healthy marriages, but it takes two very diverse & mature people who understand allowance, tolerance…and do not seek to change the other persons views…to me, Stephen, “that” is the ultimate Christian…regardless if they agree on what each word of the Bible means…to me, that is the ultimate love… The spiritual love, the one love that everyone searches for, but very few find…it is a love and confidence within self…without need to prove, or control or change another person…but loving with spiritual progressiveness, serving the connection during our life of spiritual lonliness. On a spiritual level our nature is to love purely and have pure love in return. All we do is in the hopes of finding and expressing our love…focusing on the real spiritual identity of each other. We cannot deem ourselves above, but equal to…allowing each and every person their path. If our love must be wasted on truth, it must be based on the divine knowledge of the soul…and the connection is eternal. We all have our own paths…that we must fulfill, and we must be careful, no matter how much we love others and try to safeguard them, we must not interfere to the point we could change their entire course of stucture, we must respect each other, and each other’s identity. Your faith is your identity, as well as mine is to me. That is the creation, the significance of that person. One may be further along then the other, but we must be careful not to misdirect or turn them away in our zealous to maintain their minds to our level…remember…as well as anything can be debated for the right reasons, it can be debated to the other opposite side of the spectrum. Once someone hurt me a great deal…for quite some time I was spiritually bankrupt. I placed trust in him…my heart in his hands…and simply assumed that he respected me...WRONG Sadly, he was only looking for a summer romance, nothing more, nothing less…this to, is an example, of how it is very very dangerous to play with the hearts of others. We may change them forever…not because they love us so much, but because we hurt them so badly…we may change their path and direction, along with our own. When we hurt others, we hurt ourselves two fold. I rely on no one, nor will ever put that much faith in any human being...when you deem someone as your savior, your knight in shining armor, you expect that person to be someone you've made up in your mind...and when they fail to live up to your expectations, it hurt them deeply, corrupts the relationship, it dictates to them, that they failed you. Impossible, no one can make you happy, unless you yourself are good with you. People jump from one relationship to another, searching in vane for that one special love, yet, they end up hurting each other, scaring each other for life...that, is not healthy. And to me, I'm so surprised that Christain Faith has not focused on change, to help and raise children to know, that you do not have to be married to be successful. And God doesn't wave a magic wand and make all things right...he gives us the gift of birth, then its up to us, our free will, our choice. I think religion has helped to stagnate society, as well as helped society. So, you see, which is the lessor of two evils Stephen? thank you Stephen for taking the time to express your opinion...I am thankful to you for helping me see your perspective as well as mine, and for your patience with me. That means a lot. Ess, I'm totally with ya...in every aspect of what your saying...thank you for contributing.... [QUOTE]But how does Woman being portrayed as originally being created out of a body part of Man express "equality"? To me it seems to make the source of woman in the male himself. Man gets to be the prototype and original, and the spring from which woman herself is from, while woman is made out to be an improvisation of but a part of that prototype and original. [/QUOTE} Exactly, something only a man would dictate...well, let me rephrase that, some men... Iliana thanks so much for your feedback, like where this thread is going... Karen, many thanks to you to... and Yes, Stephen, please don't feel rushed to reply...we've got all the time in the world...well, you guys maybe... me, I'm in the late autumn of my years...hehehe Icebox, that was great!!![This message has been edited by LeeJ (07-31-2006 12:43 PM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Lee? And I said, I'd be back, but I'm afraid this might be it. Unlike Lee, I'm rather disappointed. Y'ever sign up for a course, excited about the subject and then find out that your professor decided to start in the middle of the book and discount the beginning as insigificant? Nod. On the other hand, I had a professor I enjoyed so much, that he accused me of deliberately failing the first time, so that I might take his course again. (Um, no, I don't have that kind of money and I missed literally missed the bus for my final.) grin It was my Western Civ. class, of course  I have such little time of late, I honestly don't want to spend it having the same old argument of allegory or fact. It's been done in this forum ad nauseum, and I also find it near to impossible to even say that without causing offense. Stephan, your knowledge of scripture is admirable and your intent downright heroic, but not all of us wish to be saved from ourselves. At first I smiled at your "selah" joke, but your replies are not psalm. I mean no offense, it's just the way I see it. But I did a lot of reading so that I could come back here and play the point by point game, and once again, I found myself having to glean my information through the bias of men who wrote entire encyclopedias of Biblical commentary. I wonder if you know what it is like to carry a burden of guilt upon you every time you take what is a natural curiousity and attempt to study? One of the books I picked up was what I thought would be a good source book, "All The Women of The Bible" formerly published as "The Women of the Bible--"The Life and Times of All the Women of the Bible" by Dr. Herbert Lockyer, R.S.L. I didn't have to get very far before I felt bad. Like, um, THE INTRODUCTION. "While it is sadly true that it was a woman who brought sin into God's fair universe, it was likewise a woman who gave the world the Savior from its sin." hmmm. I put the book and down and wondered why it wasn't mentioned that the woman who gave the world the Savior from its sin had to be one who had not known a man. There--from a scholar, a carefully constructed sentence that managed to leave out just enough information and yet, leave a condescending implication that there is somehow hope for me and my vagina yet. And that was the mildest of what I read this weekend. This interpretation of Christianity makes me feel bad about myself, and I have worked too hard to get this far, to even ponder points that bring me back to a burden of guilt. I don't need religion to be objectified. Society and circumstance has done well enough without the walls of tomes that surround me even now that underscore that bias. And I'm sighing, because as Jo (illiana) so helpfully pointed out, I doubt seriously we will ever be able to discuss Isis, or one of my favorite historical figures, Hypatia, who was physically torn limb from limb by Christians because of her stubborn allegiance to pagan religion. And lawsy, I can't even imagine discussion of Joan of Arc or the Black Madonna, or, YIKES--"Pope Joan." So here is where I exit, yet again. Because you see? Just as I handed my husband's Rx back to him and told him his drug problem was now HIS problem-even after he overdosed--I am going to have to do the same with this re-tred thread. And love to you Stephan, but it's still MY radio, and I would rather turn it OFF than have my dials constantly adjusted "for my own good." I'm sure the music is glorious from your location and it certainly seems to work for you--as you are a remarkable person and indeed, one of my favorite all time people. But I'm not your job. and you are not mine. Now. I think I'll go resume my own studies, but I thank those of you who even considered my perspective. Much love to all. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Thank you Karen, for your commentary...let me remind everyone that this is what I've seen throughout my life...for instance, my girlfriend, born and raised Catholic...divorced, and was not allowed to partake in the sacrements until she received a divorce through the church??? I'm here Karen, and would certainly welcome any info you could give concerning the topics you wish to discuss...I cannot at this time elaborate on them, as I know nothing of them? Sorry? By the way, would love some new reading material anyway. Hugs to ya and thanks hun |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LeeJ: quote: I guess the only way I can reply to that is to say that you're right, that's hardly a comparison. The claims of the Bible, and especially of the Gospels, are no statements of a "dream". They were not written in the vacuum of someone's private thoughts. And that's especially true of the book of Matthew, which is a record of reports of those who saw and heard Jesus themselves. Can you doubt that history? Of course you can. But there are no "alternate" histories to compare it with at all. Any alternatives written, are of a later date. quote: I think we have to synthesize the information we have Lee, and say that God was forbidding vigilante "justice", and individual killing within the Jewish community. He wasn't forbidding Capital Punishment by Government, or killing by War at his bidding. Whether or not you agree with it, we have the same basic approach in the USA. Now don't misunderstand me, I think the value of things like war and capital punishment are limited and inadequate. They were given under a dispensation where God's Justice was the main revelation. As a Christian, I know that Jesus taught a kind of passivism that disturbs alot of people, and thus mercy has come full circle in the economy of God. But I'm not even sure that the human race could appreciate or grasp the concept of mercy without having first understood the reality of Justice in an imperfect and sinful world. quote: Lee, I already explained that in detail. I'm just waiting for your response. If that history true, then the entire Biblical narrative about Christ dying for our sins didn't happen. Bearing one's own sins before a holy and righteous God would be a fearful thing. quote: No Lee, I don't deny that at one time priests "had control of the Bible". But I don't think that means what you think it does... First of all, the scriptures were widely circulated and read in the early Church, and throughout the time of the Church Fathers. In fact it is not until the scriptures were translated into the "Latin Vulgate" that the practice became full swing for only priests to read scripture and interpret. In other words, 1200 A.D. and later! Too late to rewrite the Bible then Lee! Thousands of Greek Manuscripts were already in existence recording an indelible history of what was written in the Bible by its original authors. The Early Church Fathers, without a doubt, had no monopolistic control of the scriptures, only a much later Roman Catholic Church which had strayed away from the truth. And if they had "cut parts out", for their own benefit, they didn't do a great job. The Bible as it reads today, says plenty to condemn such practices, and nothing to support them. Hmmm. Ever think that maybe that's why they only read the parts they wanted to, to the illiterate and unedcated people ... because though they couldn't change what was in the Bible, but they could sure try and hide it. quote: Jesus? And it's my assertion that we have recorded the actual sayings of Jesus, about such matters. And though I cannot judge your soul or your destiny, I can state from the scriptures what Jesus and the Apostles said about being a Christian. quote: God does. And I believe that he's authenticated what is "sacred" both experientially and historically. Of course I don't think that means that "blind" submission is what is required. The Christian story and faith is sturdy enough for examination and questions ... And only an informed submission is required. Not "informed" in the sense of sharing God's omnipotence, or demanding minute explanations of everything, but in the sense of having real information open to investigation. quote: Of course I don't think you're "less of a person". I don't consider non-Christians to be less than persons. But I have to be honest, from what you've told me, I'm not sure that you are a Christian. It shouldn't offend you that I think "Christian" has a certain degree of objectivity in it's definition. I guess I would like to ask you this. In 25 words or less, answer the question, "What is a Christian"? quote: Is this not a particularly Biblical statement? Where do you get that Jesus was "God's son" if not from the Gospels? How do you know he even claimed to be God's son? The Davinci Code paints a merely human Jesus, not "God's Son". Jesus was a historical person, so which version of history are you believing in? For example a 7th Century Text (The Koran) says that Jesus didn't really die, and that he never claimed to be "God's Son", because Allah is One, and has no son. Or perhaps you are not referring to a historical Jesus at all. Maybe when you say "Jesus" you mean something different entirely? quote: Lee, I do too. I never said otherwise. quote: So being a "Christian" means merely trying hard to live a good life? Why do you think it means that? I'm curious. quote: Lee, the Bible teaches that believers should not marry unbelievers. It does however recognize that sometimes such a religiously split marriage happens, and there are ways to work within that. If you're already married, then yes, all the love, patience, prayer, and tolerance that one can muster. But to enter into a marriage with an unbeliever, as a Christian, is a lack of prudence (not to mention, obedience). We'll just have to agree to disagree here. And about not seeking to "change a person's views" ... Given what Biblical Christians believe, wouldn't it be a cruelty not to try? through prayer, persuasion, and most of all example? I understand the necessity of not brow-beating someone you live with, but letting the "light" of your actions show your faith. But if one believes that Christ is the only way of Eternal Salvation, as the Bible says, then asking him not to try and persuade others is literally asking him to be cruel. Lastly, It does seem at this time we're only rehashing the same points, so there is a time to "rest" from the discussion. Maybe this is it. I respect you and your feelings, and I don't want this to progress to resentment. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: Karen, I have to agree with you here. The Bible places much more emphasis on Adam's sin, than it does Eve's. But I really think Lockyer might have been saying that despite Eve's stumbling beginning, she was given a glorious redemption. The same exact thing could have been said for Adam as well, except well ... you said this was a book about "All The Women of the Bible". Why would he mention men, if his focus were on women? To say this could have been stated better, or more accurately, is one thing. To feel like you as a female are being "made to feel guilty" through some kind of sexist remark, is another. I don't think Lockyer would deny that Man and Woman, Male and Female, share the guilt of original sin. I'm just being honest here, but it seems like there's a sore spot, that might make you hypersensitive to remarks that make any distinction between males and females. I'm not denying sexist attitudes among the religious, I just don't see it in that statement. Maybe you've been hurt by men. Maybe you've been hurt by specifically sexist attitudes. And I agree with you that all such things are wrong. I certainly don't want to cause you any pain. quote: What interpretation exactly are you referring to? Do you mean "feeling bad about yourself" in the sense of being a woman? Or bad in the sense of feeling sinful? Cause honey, that sin thing ain't pinned on women alone. I know I'm being playful in speech, but I'm also being serious. I'm trying to figure out if you don't like being called a sinful human being, or if you feel that your womanhood is being singled out somehow. While I concede the Bible does have much to say about our sins, it is not gender-partial in that regard. And if it's the sin thing, I agree with you that it doesn't feel good to be called a sinner. But it really feels good to be called loved, redeemed, and cherished. I promise you that that feeling exists as well, and it's from a God who is all too willing to forget the past. quote: Karen, I've been friends long enough with you to be forthright. I respect you, and feel like we're really friends. But your statements seem to be forgetting the fact that I did address your statements. Yes, some of them I did say I disagree with, but with the open-ended invitation for you to give me more information. I think this is a challenging (and highly controversial) thread for both of us since, I feel that your view holds the very foundation of my faith to be in some sense "sexist". Would you admit that that is true? You have your own reasons to believe so. But of course you can't expect me not to try to convince you otherwise, and to show you where I think you might be misunderstanding some things. And Yes, you did bring up Genesis. I know you regret it, but you did. I am certainly not opposed to the conversation(s) going any direction which takes off. Though I can't promise not to challenge and ask questions. That's in my nature. Yes, Yes, I know I do that too much sometimes, and it's annoying. I'll try to just let certain things ride sometimes.Yes, I'm confessing. Don't want you to be mad at me, or upset. Are we okay? Come back, K. Me and Essorant, or LeeJ will talk some more, and I'll give you a break from me. (smile) On the bright side, (for me anyway) we talk more than we used to on the forums. There was a time when you never would respond to me much. I guess even an occasional fight is better than the silent treatment! Lastly, (that's all for now) I would like know what you thought about my points about the Genesis account not making sex "shameful". You don't have to tell me now, but I think I may have at least made you think some more about that. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Stephan? Of course we're alright. I did not mean to imply that YOU hurt me--what hurts me is all the blasted biased text that has been written in commentary. I had to wade through that garbage this weekend, yanno. To even describe Eve as a "helpmeet" isn't helpful to me right now. You might as well call it Introduction to Co-Dependancy. And smiling here, don't go thinking I left the conversation because I was out of "ammo"--on the contrary. You asked me to pause and reflect so I did just that. And what I asked myself was what good could come of this. Let's just suppose for instance, that I managed to sway YOU to my way of thinking... I know this is hard for you to understand as it is just the opposite of what you have been taught, but according to my belief system, I would have greatly erred had I persuaded you off of your given path and onto mine. I know you are a good person and you do kind things and find immense satisfaction in your faith. So why go fussing with a good fruit-bearing tree? You see, according to the tradition of my initiation, a persuasive argument that causes turmoil for another brings on karmic debt. I realize that you feel a duty to do the opposite, and we differ on that and always will. So I figured it was up to me to drop the rope here. BUT--if you are truly interested in where it was I was coming from with my admiration of the Lilith allegory, do go to the public library and find Dictionary of Deities and Demons In The Bible, Second Edition, Edited by Karel Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. Van Der Horst. You will find nine very long, very interesting entries regarding Lilith, with etymology in Akkadian, Greek and other languages and cross referenced with The Legend of Gilgamesh and other Sumerian legends (Ishtar and Astaroth) Interesting stuff. and tsk...too easy to paint me as merely "hurt by men" and therefore reactive and hypersensitive. Tsk. You can do better than that. I happen to be ticked at a lot of WOMEN too.I do love you my friend, and yes, we're alright. I'm gonna go sleep. It's a nightly habit I'm trying out lately--so I guess I'll have to rent out my Lilith suit. <--Now THAT was sarcasm, S. Hugs and Peace. And by all means, look up Lilith and read the references in all the Bibliographies. (I find some of my best stuff that way.) Besides-- I'd have to type for days just to give you THAT--and I ain't nevah lied about my own studies. I just nevah elaborated to an exact extent. OH. and Happy Lammas. It's also my wedding anniversary. AND, it happens to be the annual New Orleans "Night Out Against Crime, (so effective in the past yanno<--droll typing) and the culimination of all three on the same night I find tremendously amusing. I just may hire an angry dwarf to guard my door, I dunno. So if I don't answer you, you will know that I am either making up or breaking up with the hubby, having Sabbat, explaining my bonfire-disguised-as-barbecue to the very paranoid Fire Department, and hopefully, being a dutiful crime-fighter too. HELPMEET? MAH ASS--I DO IT ALL BABY!!! *cracking up* g'nite folks |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hey Stephen, Good Morning Don't you worry, as I said before, you've been kind, a gentleman, and because we disagreed, you didn't attack my individuality, or try to put me down for my beliefs...I thank you with my heart...your not only a great teacher, but a gentleman to boot. As long as two people can share as this, how could there be any resentment... even if I do get upset, I can never hold a grudge... thank you for the stroll Stephen... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
K: quote: That really depends on what you think "help" entails doesn't it? Sometimes "help" includes things which are anything but mouse-like on the part of good wives. There, I'm done now (really). Lee, God bless you, and thanks for what you said. Stephen. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
*Applause*.....yeah, let's hear more about Joan of Arc, the Black Madonna, Pope Joan, Hypathia, Isis.......more, more!!!! And, let's take this thread back to before Christianity. Then examine the effects of organized Christianity on women. Stephan, to me, being a Christian defines as "being a disciplinarian of Christ." In other words, following and practicing the teachings of The Christ. I believe Jesus was divine....but I believe each of us is, as well!!! After all, we were created in God's image. I believe Jesus is my brother, my guide, my hero -- he got it right and has painted a way for us to get it right! Sometimes, I think too much emphasis is placed on his sacrifice on the cross, and not enough emphasis placed on how he lived. Call that blasphemany if you will, but no one truly knows the extent of The Christ, and no one truly knows the extent of each human soul. Jesus got it right. He set the example. But, for all I know, Jesus could have visited more than once in many different cultures even. He might have visited during the time of Isis, for all we know.....after all, he said he had come before but we knew him not. For any one of us to try to define The Christ or God or the Holy Spirit is very limiting. How can we limit the infinite???? How can you put limits on the limitless???? Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father, which art in Heaven....." Key words.........OUR FATHER. Meaning, there is a direct relationship between the Creator and us....a parent. Whether the word "Father" was an invention of the church with regard to the Creator's gender.....who is to say? Jesus instructed to say "Our father" not "My father." Or, perhaps, Jesus chose to pray to the masculine side of God....because if God is All......then he is ALL (including feminine, sorry to burst your bubble...lol). For you see, omnipresent and omnipotent means exactly that....ALL. Omnipresent = "Present everywhere simultaneously" -- that means everywhere........inside, outside, above, below, around, and WITHIN all of creation, male and female alike. What is lacking is our awareness of that! That is my belief. You may tell me, that Jesus was the only BEGOTTEN son of God...well, if you follow that reasoning...then...maybe God had some begotten daughters (the Bible doesn't say God didn't)! I am not disputing the virgin birth....I happen to believe it very strongly. My point is that, surely, Jesus was different in that he came fresh....not wrapped up in genetic error and the karmic debts we inherit from ancestors...but he showed us how to be re-born...and if we are reborn, then we are reborn by spirit....similar to how Christ came to us. But to limit the Christ and rebirth in definition is mind boggling....how can anyone define what that process truely is? None of the disciples had it exactly right, Jesus said as much. And yet those were the authors (indirectly) of the gospels. Hmmmm.....makes me wonder why Jesus didn't hire a scribe to record his words to save us all the debate. Afterall, there is no Gospel of Jesus....the four main gospels of the New Testament are eyewitness accounts....so even their reports are tainted with limited perception. According to the gnostic gospels, Mary M. knew more of Jesus' secret teachings than any of the disciples. Peter (the rock of the organized church -- who denied Christ trice) demonstrated jealousy toward her. Hmmmm....a little guilt there? It is believed Mary made her way to Europe where some believe she may have been involved in establishing a following of believers who eventually (about a thousand years later) became known as the Cathars. The Catholic Church anniliated the Carthars for heresy but for a few who escaped and fled to other parts of Europe. Now, prove me wrong. *smile* |
||
|
XOx Uriah xOX Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403Virginia |
Genesis 1:26 "And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" Psalms 82:6,7 " I have said, Ye are Elohim; and all of you are children of the most High, But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Iliana....hmmmm, much food for thought perhaps where you ended your history lesson, is where the free masons begin to derive out of the Knights of Templar, perhaps King Arthurs round table? this is getting very interesting, and yes, I agree, would love to read discussions on women BC.... thanks hun... Uriah....smiles and thanks for joining in... Karen...it's all yours...I'm standing here leaning up against the wall of a great library, tapping my feet, while looking at my watch...Hey Karen? Where are ya? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
HUH? Y'rang? Sorry. I have been going through my stuff again, looking for a recent Newsweek that had a great article regarding Mary Magdalene. If I remember correctly, they had noted with interest that Mary Magdalene was the only woman of the Bible referenced to by her location, Magdala, just as men were during that time--I believe they said that all other women were identified with the men of signifigance in their lives and then I started thinking about the geneologies that almost everybody (me included) skips over, and remembered my brother patiently reading aloud all of those blah begat blahs until I understood that both Mary and Joseph were descendant of David, and then I remembered how my brother brought up the custom of continuation of Royal blood lines, and this was WAY before "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and I spent some time missing my brother who was my study buddy, remembering that he told me to QUESTION EVERYTHING--even him. Then this morning I read up on the Argentinian economic collapse culminating in 2002, pondering if that was the future economic course of New Orleans, then I had a chat with my online bro, did a crossword puzzle and now I have no clue as to where I am. Am I in Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece, Egypt, or what?  Sorry. I've also been studying a certain "god" named "abraxas" that is deemed as being the emanating force of Jesus Christ, described as having possessed 365 virtues, (spent some time wondering which book I read that in since I re-shelved everything) and I got to thinking on that, thinking I can't even name the seven virtues, or even the seven dwarfs, so I thought 365 virtues? One for every day of the year? So I started wondering if every single day had a corresponding virtue, and if so, what they would be, and if there is are 365 virtues, then logically there must also be the same amount of vices, and then I thought OH--perhaps that is what Paul meant by "you must die daily" meaning that every day you must live as an exponation of virtue, overcoming the temptation of the vice--and are vices always originated via flesh, and is that what is meant by being born into sin and is that the symbolism of crucifixion of the flesh? Now. Sorry. What was the question? (Y'SEE HOW I GET NOW?) |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sigh. I thought I knew where that Newsweek was, but I think it also mentioned that it was Pope Gregory who deemed Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. And all of this, for some reason, reminded me of Queen Hatshepsut--which kinda sorta puts me back on topic. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hey Karen I've heard it said, that so many people think that Mary Magdalene was the prostitute that Jesus forgave and said "Go woman and sin no more" when in fact, she wasn't. She was of a very influencial family and the name Mary, then, was a pretty prevelent name? I dunno if thats true? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
To my knowledge, Lee, there is no evidence to back up that pesky bit of misinformation. If I ever find that dratted Newsweek, I'd love to quote it. sigh But I believe Newsweek said that Pope Gregory had used a reference to Mary Magdalene as a sinner--and that it was Pope Gregory who jumped to the conclusion that because she was a woman who sinned that it must have been prostitution. There are many ways to sin. I don't believe that the Magdalene's was ever specified. And sheesh. I need a nap. Everytime my brain wakes up, I remember why I knocked it out in the first place.  I'll be back. I'm kinda like a pogo stick. |
||
|
XOx Uriah xOX Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403Virginia |
Ah Jesus Born from Mary (Miriam...rebellion, bitterness) Ah Mary Magdalene (migdalah...tower or Migdol...a wound, a piercing) So... Was Jesus born from our rebellion? You decide. Did he marry Mary Magdelene? Did he become as One with the Tower of Rebellion ? Like...The Tower of Babel (confusion)? Ah Babylon You decide. Or...Did he become One with Rebellion...through wounding and piercing? You decide. LOL The Bible speaks often of those who could not see the meaning behind certain words...because they were blinded by the letters. The letters hindered them from seeing the Spirit that laid within the words. Whew!!! I'm glad those days are over ! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ahhhh.... That depends on how you interpret even that warning Uriah. My brother, who was so many things during his spiritual journeys, including an elder of the Baptist church, had told me before his death that without knowledge of the Hebrew alphabet, it was impossible to decipher the book of Genesis. The Hebrew alphabet is also their numerical system, and he was quite convinced that it was written in code. Nod. I found my brother's notebook with the correspondences amongst his belongings as well. He had been studying kabbalah, and part of his notes referred to the very characters of the Hebrew alphabet as being meditative practices. 22 of them. He was the one who pointed out to me that there are also 22 chapters in the book of Revelation. There are also 22 archetypes portrayed on the major arcana of the Tarot Deck. Interesting stuff. It's also of interest to know that Jewish scribes, if they erred in their transcriptions by so much as one stray drop of ink, the work was considered marred, and had to be destroyed, as one simple drop of ink could be mistaken for the Hebrew letter of "Yod". I only wish I had found the book he referenced, but the closest thing online I could find that was similar to his notations was on this site: http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_transcendental14.htm Now. Really. sigh I do miss my bro. |
||
|
XOx Uriah xOX Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403Virginia |
I didn't see a "warning". Thats normal for me. I'm under the delusion that...It's all gravy, baby. But yes, I agree with your brother and you. And in translation...so much gets omitted. Like a tiny little seemingly insignificant word early in Genesis that states that everything that follows is an allegory. ::smiles:: |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Iliana: quote: Iliana, thanks for your reply to me. I don't have time to respond in detail right now, but I will mention a couple of thoughts ... I honstly think you may be placing too little faith in the purity of scripture as being "God-Breathed". If it's a man-made text only, then we have no reliable revelation of divinity. If it is indeed Theopneustos or divinely breathed, then we may be assured that despite it's human elements, we have a reliable revelation, which may define for us the parameters of God's Kingdom. Now you would say that is "limiting" divinity. But I don't think so. When God presents limitations and declarations about his own character, it's more like focusing a camera to me. When nothing is defined, everything is blurry. Likewise, if God may be everything that is called "god", then God is really nothing at all ... and the Hindi dilemma of Kali-Worship ensues ... a god who is nothing more or less than nature, in incoherent mixture of kindess and cruelty. One may look at it another way: The best roads have boundaries, and yet that doesn't limit their length and circuit through the Earth. I can think of three ways that the Christian scriptures differ from most other religions, and not compatible therefore at these points: 1) a "transcendent" God who is not a part of nature. 2) authoritative moral teaching 3) historical manifestation of Christ, rather than "myth-texts". And as to your statements about Mary Magdelene and the disciples ... Could you give me references? I believe that it is farily easy to demonstrate that Gnostic texts are not the authentic teachings about Christ and his disciples. Stephen. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Stephanos -- As for references, read the Gospel of Mary, which you can find on the internet if you do a search. Secondly, regarding your statement: "If it's a man-made text only, then we have no reliable revelation of divinity." I disagree in part...the part where you say "then we have no reliable revelation of divinity." I will not dispute that the Bible was divinely inspired....what I do question is how reliable translations were and how the picking and choosing and discarding of sacred texts during the Nicean Councils (and after) were. Here is a link for you which gives some pretty good detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea Luke 12 KJV "11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: 12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. .... 22 And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. 23 The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. 24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? 25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? 26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? 27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?" ****** BTW, if you read the Gnostic Gospels and the Apocrypha Acts, you will find similar testimony as to the words of The Christ. It seems to me, what Jesus was saying here was very related to nature...and he told the people to observe and consider nature. My belief and it feels right for me is to read/examine everything I'm lead to, and then, with the help of the Holy Spirit....discern what is truth and what is not. I'm not trying to sway your mind (don't think I'd want to really)....I am just expressing that there are more paths than one that work. Jesus did not instruct us to read the Bible....and believe everything we read....that was doctrine established by the Church which was comprised of politicians and priests -- inperfect men, who did what they thought was right -- and perhaps, even if words were changed or omitted, I still believe we are where we are supposed to be here and now -- God knew everything before it happened and there is a divine plan. Even though I have doubts as to the comprehensiveness of the Bible and the subjectivity with which it was put together, I am glad it's there to read. As to the historic manifestation of Christ -- Christ is not limited. Who is to say that he didn't visit other cutures at other times with other names? We have a tendency to limit Christ to the historic Jesus...how can we do that? Or perhaps, there is a better way to approach this, even if Jesus only came once, how can we say the Holy Spirit did not speak and teach through other historic figures, like the Budha...or Khrisna...or for that matter, Bahá’u’lláh? Jesus' advice to us was to listen to the Holy Spirit. When Jesus said that the only way to the Father was through him...what I interpret him to mean is that he was speaking through the Holy Spirit and the only way to God is through the Holy Spirit. He was so surrendered and obedient to the will of The Creator that he embodied the Holy Spirit. And who is to say that other historic figures or religions didn't or do not have a different term that meant the same thing? And Wow....this thread is getting off track. Let's get back to the subject. [This message has been edited by iliana (08-04-2006 04:17 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I thought you just did. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Ilania, wow, your cookin girl...get off track or not, it's ok, brings more to the table to discuss...and learn from. Thank you for your input... I believe as you do, that Christ did in fact visit other cultures...why wouldn't it have been an agenda? Certainly, how could we be so arrogant to actually believe he didn't. The American Indian, believes he visited theirs? quote: He does that in most of us, I believe, at one time or another with our poetry? For example, for those of you who write in the early morning...that to me and for me, is my spiritual writing time...when things come to me, that would not normally come during the day.... Acts 2:15-21 "For these are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." Karen, you are more then welcome to bring in more info about the Goddesses...would also be interesting to hear... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: The "Gospel of Mary" holds little historical weight, other than a glimpse into 3nd Century Gnosticism. Unlike the first/ second century writings of the Gospels (Matthew Mark Luke John), this book was written later, and pretty much places Jesus in a "gnostic" context, which was pretty common for gnostic texts to do. Christianity had such a popularity at the beginning, that it was emulated with many later writings and teachings pseudonymously attached to the names of apostles or friends of Jesus. TGOM wasn't discovered until 1896, when the Akhmim Codex was discovered (a Gnostic collection with several other gnostic texts). And only one manuscript was ever discovered, in contrast to the literally hundreds of manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. quote: Well if you'll notice ... that wiki-page about the Nicean Council, doesn't say anything about "picking and choosing" sacred texts. The issues at hand at the Nicean Council, were mainly centered around the question of Arianism, and the celebration of Easter. They already recognized a corpus of divinely inspired scripture. The first formal statement of such a complete list was by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367 A.D. However, there is also earlier evidence that the Church generally recognized what was only later called "Canon" ... such as in the writing of Iraneus Bishop of Lyons (180 A.D.) where Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are recognized as "divine origin" and given equal weight with Old Testament Scripture. Other earlier writers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian also make mention of the canonical gospels as "orthodox". There is also no evidence for political interference by Constantine, as suggested by Dan Brown. There is much more evidence that certain criteria was used (The Threefold question of Authorship, doctrinal harmony with what was known to be genuine, and universal recognition among the churches.) Or as I like to call them: apostolicity, orthodoxy,and catholicity. (the word catholic meaning "universal") And such criteria may be still applied in the examination of ancient texts ... the very reason why "The Gospel of Mary" is feeble in regards to representing the original history of Christianity. So to summarize, here is why I think such claims about "Canonical doubt" are themselves doubtful: 1) There is evidence for a much earlier, more widespread and organic acceptance of canonical scripture, before any "councils" ever came along. 2) During the "official" canonization process, finalized in the Council of Carthage, textual criteria was used rather than an arbitrary selection of texts. 3) There is very little evidence of mistranslation, since there is a wealth of manuscripts available, where differences stand out "like a sore thumb". There are no textual differences which affect any major doctrine of the Christian Faith, only negligable differences common to the translation process for ANY ancient text. So what you read in a Wal-Mart purchased NIV, or NKJV is a pretty good representation of what was originally written, believe it or not. (despite my distaste of wal-mart!) Of course, I'd be glad to discuss any particular translation issues you might have. In general, I find that misgivings about "translation" are too general. What I mean is, it's always a feeling that "something must be wrong in translation, since it was so long ago". But you don't answer the question of accuracy of translation with a "hunch" or a "feeling". Especially with the kind of mansucript attestation we have with the New Testament. quote: I never said he was "limited", only limited by what did or did not actually happen. If Christ appeared in "other cultures" with "other names" what is the evidence for this? Remember that most of the cultures / religious expressions you refer to, probably themselves would not say that it is "Christ". This is the same thing as the New Age/Hindu tendency to make the historical Jesus, just another "avatar" of pantheism. When we read the texts, propositionally, they can't be transformed, either way, without ignoring the propositional nature of the texts entirely. quote: Because we have historical texts, which define Jesus as "historical". Though I would not call this a limitation, as much as a focus of who he really as, as opposed to an esoteric creation of our own minds. But yes, I do believe in the Holy Spirit's power to create "New divine History", but I don't think it will involve any fundamental disagreement with what has already been established. Even when Jesus came, he said more than anyone "it is written ...". quote: I can believe that such men have taught some things which are true. God has been liberal with truth, and great moral truth has been given abroad. In that sense, I can learn from Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or virtually any belief-system. However, such generalities lie in the area of natural religion, in moral truth that may be percieved naturally by the "wise". But there is also an area of revealed truth, where truth must come by revelation. And it is in that area, where other religions are deficient. If you study religions comparatively, you'll see that they are really fundamentally different, and superficially the same. But it's popular to believe that it's the other way around ... superficially different, and fundamentally the same. And it really has to do with the underlying systems of belief. Christianity and Hinduism, for example, offer not only different views of Christ, but different Universes altogether. Metaphysical monism / pantheism, is a kind of universe where Christ would not be Christ in the Biblical sense at all. Much of what he said makes no sense in that kind of universe. That's why Hinduistic religions will not be bound to a text, because they must explain everything in terms of pantheism ... where propositional truth becomes too problematic. It's much easier to ignore what the historical Jesus said about being the only way to the Father, and make him a "mystical Jesus" who transcends his own statements. But that is another kind of "Gospel" altogether. It's actually another kind of world. Most devotees to religions understand the essential incompatibility of their worldviews with other religions. It's a western, typically American tendency, to try and say they're not that different after all. No offense, but I think that's our pragmatism coming in. We're not as much concerned with truth, as much as "what works for me". James Sire's "The Universe Next Door" is a good place to start analyzing the fundamental differences between basic worldviews: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830827803/sr=8-1/qid=1154699709/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1946715-5469564?ie=UTF8 Also C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" provides a good explanation of the uniqueness of Christianity as well. He's also quite a joy to read: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060652926/sr=1-1/qid=11546 99946/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1946715-5469564?ie=UTF8&s=books LeeJ: quote: Lee, I could argue that it's arrogant for a culture to "claim" that Christ came couldn't I? My point is, the accusation of arrogance, either way, does nothing to argue that Christ came or did not come. The question is, DID he actually come? Any particular claim should be addressed in that way. And about the Mormon claim ... No American Indian group claims that Christ came to visit them. Leave that claim to an 18th century Euro-American ... Joseph Smith, and his followers. Actually Lee, there is no history as dubious as the one portrayed in the Book of Mormon. There is no archaeolgical evidence that the Nephites or Lamanites ever existed. Joseph Smith is the only one ever to have seen the "Golden Plates" with "Reformed Egyptian" Hieroglyphics that he supposedly translated. Also the Book of Mormon, plagairizes the 1611 King James Version of the Bible in many places, hardly a thing that could happen if the Book of Mormon is really a translation of Golden Plates from an ancient civilization. Believe me Lee, I could go for quite a while on why the Book of Mormon should not be accepted as historical (and in great detail). I think you would find it convincing. I'm just curious, are you seriously considering Mormonism, or is this another example of how you like to embrace many many religions? The discussion broadens, and mushrooms-out even more. sigh ... Stephen. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
hehehe, Stephen I enjoy you....no, never ever studied the Mormon religion... haven't got there yet...my my ex-sister-in-law loved reading about the American Indian, matter of fact, named her daughter Kateri, after the first American Indian who studied Christianity and took her findings back to her tribe, sharing it with them. The Indians and I don't know what tribe, claimed to have been visited by a man, whom Kateri, later translated to be Jesus? Whose to say? or at least, that's what I ponder? And yes, I do like to embrace many religions...never really thought of it that way... but yes, I do. As well as many people, but not all at once... seriously, love people, and their beliefs....interesting stuff, their stories, their journeys, their personal institutions. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Stephanos -- this could get more complicated and take days to write a treatise. For now and just as a quick response, I wanted to say that there is much debate over when the four gospels were written....some say before the burning of the Temple...around 70 A.D. (the fundamentalistic view) and many scholars argue it was after, even up to 150-200 A.D. No one knows for sure. As for the Gnostic Gospels....there is a very similar dispute. It should be noted that the very person who helped the Church be formed, burnt down the Library at Alexandria, which very well might have contained the answers to all of this debate. The four gospels of the Holy Bible were written by followers or interpreters or scribes (unidentified in three of the cases) who wrote down what is believed to be eyewitness account....but those original manuscripts, I understand, do not exist...only translations. Now if I am wrong and haven't researched that enough yet, I apologize, but that is what I have found so far. I'll add this extract from one of the several websites I studied today.... "The Bible...did not descend from heaven as a perfect document composed by God and communicated in writing by individual writers who wrote without error the truthful words inspired by God. It was the product of the believing community, in which over a long period the traditions of God's words and deeds, and of the sacred norms and associations that surrounded them, were handed down, criticized, refined, altered to fit new conditions, and added to by newer insights and interpretations. (James Barr, Beyond Fundamentalism, p.75)" James Barr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Barr_(biblical_scholar) Later. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Perhaps if women had predominated in religion instead of men, we would be worshipping a woman as the saviour instead, and have a Mater Nostra instead of a Pater Noster. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Essorant....lol...some folks still do worship a woman. The Goddess religions are growing/renewing. I do not mean to make light of Christianity or other patriarchal religions, because I do follow the teachings of Jesus and am aware of the Holy Spirit and its movements in my life...I just feel that this is a much bigger story than what the confines of fundamental Christianity dictate. *smile* |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Women and religion..... LeeJ & Ser...I just finished watching "Mysts of Avalon." Tho' a fiction movie, it does make a point about the synthesis of the Goddess into Catholicism. Whatya think? Ever see the movie? Lee, I'll have to research a little to figure out where history picks up with the knights templar, etc....if you know, why don't you expound, please? I'm enjoying this thread, btw. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Iliana: quote: It is very interesting what kind of reasons are given for dating the gospels "late". It's similar to the problem with "The Jesus Seminar" scholarship, where philosophical prejudices determined what was genuine and what was not. If any text hinted at the miraculous it was not deemed historical. Why? Because we all know miracles don't happen. (do you think that was begging the question?) Similarly, Matthew is dated late by some for the very reason that Jesus prophetically predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. These scholars a priori, discount the miraculous and assume that it had to be written after the temple was already destroyed ... ie 70 A.D. I still maintain that the bulk of scholarship, (and the best) points to an earlier writing of the New Testament documents. And gnostic manuscripts are far fewer in number, and are generally dated much later. If one had to guess which was the authentic on textual considerations alone, it would be the traditional view hands down. Of course, we're all deciding for reasons other than that, and many of them spiritual in nature. But it is interesting that the traditional view holds the most textual weight, conspiracy theories aside. quote: Who? As far as I understand it, there is much more debate over who is responsible for the burning of the Library at Alexandria, than even the dating of the Gospels and Gnostic writings. But the Church was already "formed" quite some time before it was burned down, unless you want to believe that Julius Caesar did it around 48 B.C. quote: You're right, in that the originals (autographs) for the New Testament writings have not been found. But what that means, in way of obscuring, is very little. Why? Because there is literally no writing from the world of antiquity that we have the autograph for. We are dealing with extant manuscripts in all cases. In fact, the New Testament documents are uniquely favored in this regard, since the amount of time-lapse between the original time of writing and the first New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled (in brevity). "besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors ... In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century- say from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet's death." (Fredric G. Kenyon, from "Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament") F.F. Bruce once said that "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." In sheer number of manuscripts, and time between manuscripts and origins, the New Testament passes the Bibliographical test with flying colors ... and really is a prodigy in that regard. quote: I actually have no problem with the above statement, as it refers to the whole Bible, in a general way. And it does clear up the misconception that Christians believe the Bible to be a book "dropped, perfect, out of the clouds". The only criticism I would have with the statement is how he slips in the phrase "words inspired by God" along with his observations ... slyly helping us to accept uncritically his belief that "divine inspiration" and a complex writing process can't coincide. But the matter of fact is, believing in divine inspiration of scripture, does not mean that one has to believe in the "mechanical dictation model" where God does not use the mind, personality, and even idiosyncrasies of the human author. A more "incarnational" model is appropriate I think, where the humanity is preserved and celebrated, and true divinity is not denied on it's account. What divine inspiration does not necessarily have to overcome are things like minor grammatical flaws, syntax, peculiarities of style, and personal expression. What it does in fact overcome, is any deception, historical unreliability, or doctrinal infidelity. When Paul starts lofty sentences that he doesn't even finish, in his epistles, I see man enamoured with the glory of God, not a pedantic reason to doubt divine inspiration. There's a middle road to take between the theologcially liberal view that ends up doubting divine inspiration, and the theologically conservative view that admits no errors in the slightest, and says that the human authors of scripture were little more than word processors. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The "behind the scenes" of the bible doesn't really matter to me much in respect to judging the virtue of the content itself. "Love your neighbour as yourself" stands with no less virtue whether it was inspired by only men, by God and men, by elves, by angels, by devils, or belched out of a black hole or if the bible's origins were completly unknown to men. Likewise the fact that Adam is made out to be the first human and source of Eve, that Eve is but an improvisation of a part of Adam doesn't become more true to me because the evidence of the bible is greatly known, thro evolutionary and collabrative work of men that were said to be very inspired by God. By all means I believe they were to a great part inspired by God. But being inspired by God doesn't turn weak or unwise things into strong and wise. I praise the wisdom in the bible where the wisdom stands, and have sympathy and forgiveness for the unwisdom and weakness where the unwisdom and weakness stand. Both contribute to making the bible a historical monument. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
History indicates that Caesar may have destroyed parts or all of the Library at Alexandria before the time of Christ, but if that were the case, it was certainly rebuilt. Having been rebuilt it would have been the storehouse of much of the wisdom and religious scrolls at the time of Christ and thereafter up until what appears to me to be when the bulk of that information was lost, possibly when Lucius Domitius Aurelianus (September 9, 214–September 275), known in English as Aurelian, Roman Emperor (270–275), re-concurred that area. He had as one of his objectives to set in force a one-god religion....though it was the religion of the Sun God. In order to do this, it may well be he destroyed valuable texts that did not fit his ultimate agenda, which may well have included the original scrolls of the gospels as this place would have been a tremendous repository. That may well have been where the gnostic gospels were housed, as well. Constantine then took the Sun God notion a step further when he worked that into switching the Sun God religion to the Son/God religion with Mary then replacing Isis or the Greek or Roman Goddess equivalent. Stephanos, I am not suggesting this was not all a part of God's plan....as we know The Creator works in mysterious ways. I am still sticking to my belief that things were discarded, picked and chosen. And that's okay....I agree with Essorant on this. The Gnostic Gospels and the Apocryha Acts, and the Nag Hammadi library in general, only add to the fuller picture, I think. To ignore them is to burn the library all over again. This would be a good time to bring in Hypatia....hint hint, Ser.  |
||
|
Hypatia Junior Member
since 2004-03-22
Posts 18 |
You rang? I'll be back. Just wanted to let you all know that although much of history has forgotten me, I have not forgotten history. and somebody tell serenity to call before she drops by, will ya? She can be a little annoying. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
I'm waiting to hear more, Hypathia. Had no idea I would catch your attention; I thought I'd get Ser to tell us what she knows because she has studied about you, or at least your namesake.....but sure am glad to have you join the conversation. Don't see how Serenity could bug you though -- unless it would be with questions. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hypatia? My apologies for this--I know how you hate being "googled"--being a mathematician and all--BUT: http://www.cosmopolis.com/people/hypatia.html read and shiver, wimmenfolk... |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ser, sounds almost the same as what happened to Pope Joan and Joan of Arc. Hummmm....leaves one wondering as to whether it was strong, intelligent women who were hated or whether it was a power struggle between men and women. In any case, this was certainly not what Jesus would have done, right? It also occurs to me that the reason she was murdered was because of the access she may have had to sacred texts and her knowledge of such....being this was early on in the beginning of "the heresies." All three of these women were labeled "witches." But Joan of Arc....that one couldn't be covered up; now they call her a Saint. Anyone seeing any contradiction here? Sigh.....what is so frigtening about a strong, intelligent woman? Obviously, anyone who thought like her found it necessary to go underground. Do you think perhaps the origin of the Tarot which is encoded with mystical Christian symbology originated with her or perhaps, one of her students? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hello and good morning... good to scan your comments...please keep this going...it's getting very interesting...sorry I can't add to it at this time...but will stop back later to read and comment. Many thanks Ilana...will get back to you with the knights of the templar |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
LOL....I came back this afternoon to type a few questions about how women who practiced advanced sciences and much earthy common sense, many of them who revered Mother Earth, got the label of "witch" and to ask how that became a negative connotation. Was it Christianity or the Bible that made it so? But when I started posing all my questions this afternoon, my electric went out. I took it as a sign I should keep my mouth shut.....and...lol....here I am again. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
iliana: quote: Iliana, if his goal was to establish worship of a "sun-God" similar to the earlier Egyptian deity, then orthodox Christian texts would stand in his way much more than the gnostic texts (which are far more sycretistic). The New Testament is not idolatry-friendly, to put it mildly. And as for the origins of Christianity, I hope you're not making a connection with Aurelianus. The Jewish monotheism (the root of Jesse, as it were) is doubtless the foundation for the Christian religion. Christian and non-Christian scholarship concur on that point. quote: I have no problem in seeing a connection between Roman Catholic exaltation of Mary, and Isis. However the Jewish Messiah, and his very human but pious mother (as portrayed in the Gospels) has no such connection. Since Christianity was birthed in a very Hellenistic world ... I see both a good and bad blending with Greek thought, as inevitable. But again these are only ingrafted branches, into that Jewish olive tree which is the root of Christianity. quote: I'm not asking you to shed that belief. I believe that too. I would only add that there were valid textual reasons behind the choosing, as opposed to merely selfish and political ones. Believing the latter, I still maintain, is a popular form of historical recontruction, and is based on a "hermeneutic of suspicion" as N.T. Wright once called it. interesting conversation, Stephen. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
