|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 12/09/2002 : 08:01:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Women and men will follow a religion due to philisopical needs which are met by the religion. (Philisophical needs are different from individual to individual.)
Much of what's being referenced has nothing to do with 'philosophical needs'. The Tanach/Quran conflate theology and civil code.
And how much of this is still enforced in first world countries? Again, societal norms of the time were being expressed by the religious texts. This was not a function solely of the religion but of the society in general.
The reason a thinking female might follow a religion would be a philisophical need for something greater than themselves, a need for emotional answers to unsolvable questions, and/or a need to have some philisophical direction to their life. Not all of the text of a religious document is generally used by practioners. If it was, then the denominations of a religion would not be so widespread. Few Christian churches insist on the primacy of the male anymore. Islam in first world countries no longer ascribe to beating ones wife for disobediance.
|
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 12/09/2002 08:47:17 |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 08:44:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by MissNonconformist
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by MissNonconformist
Women and men will follow a religion due to philisopical needs which are met by the religion. (Philisophical needs are different from individual to individual.)
Yes I agree...but being selective is one of the biggest issues here with following faith in this day and age. I have heard the excuse of God expecting people to evolve with the times, but its a weak explanation of these grey areas.
How is one to pick and choose? How can men and women accept a religion based on their modern interpretation, perhaps in this, reading their own logic into it?
I see Islam, Judaism and Christianity as very strange and barbaric on many levels. It says "forgive" in the bible, it also gives instruction to put people to death for adultery, and various social "sins". A person that agrees with the concept of forgiving, might not agree with the other obviously...yet they believe a mercyful, loving god commands man to murder in his name? (ahem...that itself is contradiction in other areas of course) I dont buy that the books given are deep messages hidden in allegories. I dont believe its this big matter of interpreting, I think that is only producing vivid imaginations and the creation of religious faiths of convenience.
I just cant see how reason is being truly exercised.
Complete reason and religion rarely mix. Religion has a lot of highly charged emotions associated with it. A few parts of the religion are based on reason (parts, not all) and most parts are strictly based on emotion. For instance, "adultery (sleeping with another person's spouse) is bad" reasonably addresses the emotional repercussions of such a breach of trust. (Adultery indicates that the contact is not acceptable to the uninvolved spouse.)
After looking at the example, ugly as it is, I find that it is not very clear what I am trying to convey. So let's try it this way.
A and B are in a committed relationship or marriage which includes a vow of sexual exclusivity.
B and C sleep together without A's approval.
A gets emotionally hurt by the actions of B when A discovers the action.
This would be a reasonable construct which is addressed by religion.
Women and Men usually choose a religion based on emotion and the compatability of that religion's tenets with their own ethical code. They also have a need for a being greater than themselves. (This need is not present in atheists and atheistic agnosticism.)
As for forgiveness vs murder/killing for social transgressions, forgiveness is a individual response to the emotional situation occurring. The murder/killing for social transgressions was holding the individual responsible for their actions. (The barbarity was a societal norm back then.) A great example of this would be my ex-wife. I have forgiven her for the adultery she committed against me and the lies she told me. I am holding her personally responsible for those actions and will no longer trust her as far as I can comfortably spit a semi. If she broke the law in committing the societal transgressions, I would help law enforcement prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law. Some societal transgressions in some cases carry civil and criminal penalties. Lying is a prime example of that.
As for the meaning of allegories, that is in the mind's eye of the reader. Some folks read meaning into passages which is inconsistent with the rest of the theology being expressed. The meaning of those passages being expressed is usually an outside validation of personally held beliefs thus providing a sort of emotional comfort.
One thing that I have noticed is that as societal norms change, sections of religious texts that reference the changed societal norm fall into disuse by all but the most extreme of fundamentalists.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
MissNonconformist
New Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2002 : 09:15:58 [Permalink]
|
Xev, I couldnt have put it better myself.
I completely agree with your thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Xev
It would make sense.
What is the message of Christianity, after all? "Accept your lot, submit to God".
The message of Judaism and Islam? "Submit to God"
Women, being unworthy of the presence of God, must submit to the next highest power - men. "Accept your lot".
Religion (especially the Judeo-Christian ones) serves the primary purpose of making the slaves content and satisfied by offering otherworldly hopes, and thus serving the master's purposes in creating a nation of "docile bodies" to exploit. The ideal that men and women are equal would seriously interfere with this aim.
After all, if men and women are equal, why shouldn't masters and slaves be equal? Did not the same appaling apostle who said "Wives, obey your husbants" also say "slaves, obey your masters"?
It should also be noted that the ability to tyrannize another person softens one's own powerlessness. Mark Twain pointed out hundreds of thousands of Southern men who had everything to lose from slavery opened their veins in Appotomax simply to preserve their mastery over some humans who were a little more miserable than them.
I don't claim that any of this was intentional, of course. That's the problem I have with current Feminist theory and Master/Slave morality...it tends to the idea that the dominent groups actively create values that serve their interests. It's more that these systems were most stable, and served the "master's" interests best over the years.
Obviously, any religion that hopes to survive will advocate something that elevates the present social climate (i.e female subjegation) into a virtue, nay, to a commandment of God.
 |
To all things clergic, I am allergic. |
|
|
|
MissNonconformist
New Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2003 : 07:26:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xev
Obviously, any religion that hopes to survive will advocate something that elevates the present social climate (i.e female subjegation) into a virtue, nay, to a commandment of God.
Great post Xev,
But you see, its this very matter of having to ALTER the original religious teachings that gives me a real problem.
It means that the original faith has to be changed to be what I WANT it to be.
Its like if I were black, and the KKK changed their rules to allow black people to join, I wouldnt want to join because I know what the foundation is really about...regardless of changes made in approaching modernity.
haha, yeah perhaps a strange analogy..but makes the point clearly.
|
To all things clergic, I am allergic. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 03:13:00 [Permalink]
|
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/women.html" target="_blank">The best way to see this is to look at the rights women had in the west before xianity came along. See: [urlhttp://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/women.html from the larger overall site of: http://www.religionisbullshit.com/index1.html
where women's lives under Roman culture were examined and compared with later life under christianity. Very revealing!
Some of the modern examples though are enought to make your blood boil:
quote:
In a very real sense the modern fundamentalist remain the flag bearer of the ancient Christian tradition of misogyny. Like the theologians of the past, they tend to put the blame on women for all domestic troubles. Even the abhorrent practice of wife beating is blamed on the woman! One minister said in an interview that, "Wife beating is on the rise because men are no longer leaders in their homes. I tell the women they must go back home and be more submissive." [9]
His source was: "Ehrenreich et. al, Remaking Love: p155" I wonder what James Dobson would say to that wackjob?
So, are we allowed to swear on this forum, or are we not? Ah well, in lieu of that, this is what I'd like to do to that guy!
 |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 03:15:00 [Permalink]
|
| OK, just ignore that first "link". The others still work,though. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
