Patriarchal Planet

Forgive me but I do not really want to be drawn into historical supposition. I am content to look at things as they are today for there are enough examples to be found that remain virtually unchanged for millennia.

That said you appear to have a poor knowledge of the equality woman shared within many pagan societies, including my own Celtic tradition where a queen was as likely to rule as a king, and where we went into battle together side by side. Throughout the early to mid iron age in Europe there is parity in grave sites of importance being for woman. We have few other indicators, and cannot be certain even with all the evidence, but to suppose that Abrahamic religions improved equality for woman is fanciful and based on the most tendentious of evidence. The stories of early Christianity that you allude to have their root firmly in the tale of the Emperor Constantine's mother and a few other high profile bourgeois individuals. I do not believe for a moment them to be representative of the society as a whole. But looking at the history will only muddy the waters here. Lets stick to the present.

Thats odd. In your first paragraph you basically imply that you dont know enough about history to answer the objections. And in the second paragraph you accuse me of not knowing enough about the matter... and cite just one example from your local history to support your argument (while in general you seem to be unaware of all the examples which contradict your position).

Also, your assumption that my research is based on "fanciful" and dubious research is actually showing your own lack of insight into the matter. Recent scholarship has proven the ideas expressed in my last post are accurate. I will refer you to Rodney Stark and "The Rise of Christianity" for a start. Ignoring facts which dont fit in with your argument is not really benificial for your position.
 
I dont know about historically, but i do know some things. To some people, having faith in any religion is a mute point when it comes to how "they" treat women. People from all faiths have been known to treat women badly. Its a human thing, not restricted to a particular religion, and even to athiests.
I cannot change the world but i can change my world.
btw, (abusers) often dont recognize their behaviour as abuse, and they can be "outraged" by reports of other peoples abusive behaviour, when their own mirrors it. God has nothing to do with it.
As regards females and power....if you have the mind for it, why not go for it, i dont think your genitalia should determine your career aspirations...
Just my two cents worth.
 
I wonder how the modern secular mind understands this from the Gospel of Thomas:

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
 
sounds like BS to me.
gospel of chauvinism.

I perfectly normal response for secular Interfaith. But is that the end all and does your negative response contribute to seeing another side?
 
I wonder how the modern secular mind understands this from the Gospel of Thomas:

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."

Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

This modern secularist sees it as a problem with editing.

According to this site, The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources,
your quote was "... probably added to the original collection at a later date".

Sounds like it might have been a late addition intended to cash in on Jesus's good name in order to set a political agenda.

You know all about setting political agendas, don'tcha Nick?
 
This modern secularist sees it as a problem with editing.

According to this site, The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources,
your quote was "... probably added to the original collection at a later date".

Sounds like it might have been a late addition intended to cash in on Jesus's good name in order to set a political agenda.

You know all about setting political agendas, don'tcha Nick?

It is always this way. Secularism cannot understand the Gospel of Thomas so prefers to BS its way around uncomfortable passages. A person has two choices. They exhibit righteous indignation or try to open to thinking out of the box. Perhaps with new eyes and ears it could be understood. But you prefer agendas and righteous indignation. we choose our paths.

Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library
 
It is always this way. Secularism cannot understand the Gospel of Thomas so prefers to BS its way around uncomfortable passages. A person has two choices. They exhibit righteous indignation or try to open to thinking out of the box. Perhaps with new eyes and ears it could be understood.

Actually, new eyes and ears sound pretty good right now.

I'd be happy to hear you interpretation of that "uncomfortable" passage.

And I will try to think out of the box.
 
Actually, new eyes and ears sound pretty good right now.

I'd be happy to hear you interpretation of that "uncomfortable" passage.

And I will try to think out of the box.

If only you could be so open. But it isn't your way; you prefer to argue. I've already alluded to it on another current thread on this board but it isn't your thing.
 
If only you could be so open. But it isn't your way; you prefer to argue. I've already alluded to it on another current thread on this board but it isn't your thing.

I had a feeling that given a chance, you'd back out.

Maybe next time.
 
I dont know about historically, but i do know some things. To some people, having faith in any religion is a mute point when it comes to how "they" treat women. People from all faiths have been known to treat women badly. Its a human thing, not restricted to a particular religion, and even to athiests.
I cannot change the world but i can change my world.
btw, (abusers) often dont recognize their behaviour as abuse, and they can be "outraged" by reports of other peoples abusive behaviour, when their own mirrors it. God has nothing to do with it.
As regards females and power....if you have the mind for it, why not go for it, i dont think your genitalia should determine your career aspirations...
Just my two cents worth.

Fantastic!

People are indeed people. It is not the religion that creates a wife beater it is the animal extinct of a dominant male in his immediate group, his family. Alphas use everything they can think of to do the survival thing for themselves, (this makes empirical sense and horribly has been hijacked by 'scientology' ), including cruel,controlling behaviour. My argument is that this behaviour is multi-tiered like a wedding cake and uses religion on every level to keep that status quo. War is the equivalent of wife beating. My question is do we want to continue living like senseless apes?
To me we have reached the point where science can remove the need for us to compete, that we have the capacity to make the brutal old system of Alpha dominance obsolete. If we spent all we spent on wars, all the wealth locked up in the vaults of the super rich, and all the waste our systems create that could be used, and ploughed it into science and free infrastructure then there would be no need to compete in that way. Religion is a force that constantly gives sanction to and idolises the Alpha male. The Abrahamics take the notion to its deliberately concieved conclusion of that ultimate Alpha male in the sky. I understand that for many this is not how it is viewed, that they will bend over backwards to justify it, and indeed have a personal experience of 'god' that they cant let go of that has nothing to do with Alpha politics. But that does not alter the fact that most religions are run by men and they are out for themselves, not you...... unless you happen to be, or have been told to be, a brood mare to one of them.

We need a language to be able to express our awe and wonder, our hopes and our fears. Religions get in as fast as they can to the young to give them it. They exploit our need by giving us something that makes a bit of sense to that we would call our hearts and minds, but tag onto it a lot of thinking that has become just to dangerous for us to continue with. We are no longer isolated tribes or kingdoms. We are a global unit. Megadeath is a real risk with war or natural disasters or by pollution. Religions get you thinking "it's in gods hands", trust in your god, your king/president, your priest and your husband. Its for the best. Its books have an answer for everything, always the word of the big alpha in the sky, but together, in unison, they tell you to think the Alpha structure of society is the only possible way. I think until we tackle the most important inequality that exists in society, wealth inequality, we cant make much headway. It is no accident that religion invented charity, and our govenments call it aid. Charity perpetuates inequality and gives the giver power.

I think it was PoO earlier was airilly dismissive of the advances in equality that initiated in Europe with the abolition of slavery, moved to the emancipation of women and has now made massive inroads toward reducing racism and homophobia. This is a huge achievement that came about because of education and secularism. But it is an achievement billions of people alive right now believe abominable and should be reversed. And they do so beacuse their religion brainwashes them into believing it. In the secular west the old churches have lost a lot of their power both economically and over our behaviour. Literal observence of doctrine is a fringe minority pastime and the church elders make enough to sustain their power trip from investments made possible by massive accrued wealth. They moved into business in other words. And who controls our governments if not these big investment businesses. And guess what, they are busy robbing us again right now.

I am willing to state that not everything human thinking associates through religion is negative. But so much is. And because religion is intertwined through every facet of our existence in such complex and emotive ways it is impossible to extract the good from the bad. But we are fools to sit and marvel at the glinting shininess of slavers chains. I say the intertwining is so bad that we cannot untangle it. So we must throw it away and start again. With human equality a new given and our evolutionary potential fully realised. We need to learn not to control our environment for the wealth of a few but to manage and exploit its essentially limitless resources as we have evolved to do. I believe we do have purpose. I call it the next generation. And the generation after that. Is that not enough to believe in? genetics show we were one village only a blink in time ago. its about time we remembered it.
 
Beautifully said Tao, but I'm not sure I understand a few things.
If we cannot deconstruct religion as you say, we still end up reifying it and thereby placing outside the human mind.
And if we do this it becomes something no one can take action for or against, no accountability.
Now we know there are practitioners who are all about the abuses you describe, and a much smaller population who are actively engaged with a spritual pursuit with the idea of transformation as a goal.
Knowing this, how then to proceed to bring about the changes you propose?
Can dysfunctional thinking and behavior be changed by an airtight argument? Or must we wait until things like power seeking, ethno/theocentric outooks, magical thinking, and other levels of being begin to advance, evolve?

I sympathize with your noble passions but other than speaking out against ignorance and stupidity what more can we really do?
 
If we spent all we spent on wars, all the wealth locked up in the vaults of the super rich, and all the waste our systems create that could be used, and ploughed it into science and free infrastructure then there would be no need to compete in that way.
This is a part of one of the great myths of humanity.
To wit:
If we only had the money, oh the things we would do.
It is kind of funny,
how we limit ourselves with money.
We create this medium of exchange, which is an artifice and then say that what is possible cannot be done as we do not have enough of this mythical stuff.
It only has value that we assign to it.
the cash is based on reality, but like a fictional book loosely based on fact it too has left the realm of reality and multiplied beyond reason.
And all the currency now in existence came into being bearing debt upon it, so if I make 10 beans and loan them to you to use, but expect you to pay me back 15 beans for the privilege, where, preytell will the additional 5 beans come from?
Fiat currency is a device of conquest, as those who use it, become addicted to it, much like gambling or crack, and to begin it is great, but to service one's debt, one must borrow more which also has debt on it, until all of us are slaves to those who made this system of domination of others in the first place.
We thought we were getting security and all it turned into was slavery.
Much like the women's issue this thread is about.
 
Knowing this, how then to proceed to bring about the changes you propose?
Not got a scooby doo my friend. Maybe making secularism and equality an ideology? I'm better at looking at what is wrong and highlighting it. Yeh I know thats the easy bit :p

Can dysfunctional thinking and behavior be changed by an airtight argument?
You never know it might turn out to be an infectious meme!! But I dont try to get 'airtight', I'm just thinking my way slowly through questions.

I sympathize with your noble passions but other than speaking out against ignorance and stupidity what more can we really do?
That is all you can do. Try to be self honest about the way things work...and not get depressed by it. I was tempted to say try not to be a hypocrite but as I sometimes go out of my way to be one that would make me one, twice, thrice!!:D
 

Attachments

  • in god we trust.jpg
    in god we trust.jpg
    3.5 KB · Views: 193
Actually Tao, the meme you mention is indeed prevalent and growing stronger. If I may, the model used by Graves, Beck, Wilber and others mentions this as the "Green Meme"

Now I know how models are eschewed by many present here, and Wilber in particular, but I find them useful to illustrate a point.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Wilber:
As we were saying, first-tier memes generally resist the emergence of second-tier memes. Scientific materialism (orange) is aggressively reductionistic toward second-tier constructs, attempting to reduce all interior stages to objective neuronal fireworks. Mythic fundamentalism (blue) is often outraged at what it sees as attempts to unseat its given Order. Egocentrism (red) ignores second tier altogether. Magic (purple) puts a hex on it. Green accuses second-tier consciousness of being authoritarian, rigidly hierarchical, patriarchal, marginalizing, oppressive, racist, and sexist.
Green has been in charge of cultural studies for the past three decades. You will probably already have recognized many of the standard catch words of the green meme: pluralism, relativism, diversity, multiculturalism, deconstruction, anti-hierarchy, and so on.
On the one hand, the pluralistic relativism of green has nobly enlarged the canon of cultural studies to include many previously marginalized peoples, ideas, and narratives. It has acted with sensitivity and care in attempting to redress social imbalances and avoid exclusionary practices. It has been responsible for basic initiatives in civil rights and environmental protection. It has developed strong and often convincing critiques of the philosophies, metaphysics, and social practices of the conventional religious (blue) and scientific (orange) memes, with their often exclusionary, patriarchal, sexist, and colonialistic agendas

The emphasis is mine, but you get the point.
You can read more here

If we can begin to embrace what is described as second tier thinking and values, we might be able to pull ahead a bit.
The problem being that second tier will be under attack by the lower tier.
 
Tao, I was not being dismissive of advancements in equality in the first world. I was, however, pointing out that these advancements in equality have once again been largely within exclusionary boundaries- we treat "our own" as equals- and not with a global vision.

That is, our own women and minorities may have greater equality than they did 50 years ago, but in the meantime, we are exploiting third world women and minorities more than we did 50 years ago.

We didn't move toward greater global equality, we just shifted who we're exploiting. Why? Because we still want cheap junk and lots of it. Until we change what we demand from our environment and our sense of entitlement, we're going to continue to exploit women, children, and minorities because it is economically expedient to do so. They are just not the women, children, and minorities that live next door to us, so we are able to feel much better about ourselves and ignore the exploitation.

It's the NIMBY approach to equality, just as we also see it with sustainability. I can look around and superficially declare my nation to have a good deal of equality and sustainability, but if I look at the networks of how the goods, labor, and such are flowing across national boundaries, it is clear that my culture is as unequal and unsustainable as it ever was. I'm being honest about our "growth" and "progress" in the first world. We have attained a superficial ideology of equal rights that gives lip service to human worth while simultaneously exploiting people all over the world to bring wealth and goods to our doorsteps.

The misery of third world women and children isn't just religious- it is based on this exploitation of them for first world desires. We capitalize off their misery and limited opportunity, and we dismiss it as "progress" and "giving them jobs" and whatever else.

Forgive me for relying on the statistics and not feel-good pats on the back for the first world's ideology of "freedom." But when the gap between rich and poor is steadily increasing both within and between nations, and when women and children are being sold into slavery, are working under horrible conditions to make our $7.99 T-shirts at Wal-Mart, and are facing cancers and other conditions due to our export of environmental waste... I am failing to see how that is "equal rights" and of any benefit to women.

I'm a practical sort. I'm more interested in what actually happens to people than the ideas we have about it.
 
Actually Tao, the meme you mention is indeed prevalent and growing stronger. If I may, the model used by Graves, Beck, Wilber and others mentions this as the "Green Meme"

Now I know how models are eschewed by many present here, and Wilber in particular, but I find them useful to illustrate a point.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Wilber:


The emphasis is mine, but you get the point.
You can read more here

If we can begin to embrace what is described as second tier thinking and values, we might be able to pull ahead a bit.
The problem being that second tier will be under attack by the lower tier.

If you start thinking about it all as memes it only highlights how big a messy knot we have created. It makes me dizzy to look at it.
 
Back
Top