|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 04/28/2009 : 13:34:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| But again, that's not how it goes in the source text...in 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind (and a chariot). |
Apparently that's a controversial claim. From Wikipedia's entry on Elijah: | In some Christian interpretations, the Gospel of John quotes Jesus as saying that none have gone to heaven other than the Son of Man (Jesus Himself) (John 3:13). Accordingly, some Christians believe that Elijah was not assumed into heaven but simply transferred to another assignment either in Heaven[54] or with King Jehoram of Judah.[54] Indeed, the prophets reacted in such a way that makes sense if he was carried away, and not simply straight up (2Kings 2:16). |
I don't remember anybody addressing it when I was in Catholic school for 12 years. But much of the Old Testament is considered to be mythical or at least tall tales by Catholics. It is a weird sort of pick and choose, but for some reason they decided to take Jesus's divinity and all his miracles literally but Noah and the arc is a myth. I guess because the New Testament was written so much later than the Old. And also I'm sure interpreting things that way was somehow beneficial to the early church.
|
What about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_(ancestor_of_Noah) |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 14:33:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm sure there are solid reasons why Christianity of all silly religions became such an influential and widespread one – so much as to dominate Western civilization for so long. I'm sure that by gathering as many historical facts as possible and through thoughtful and ongoing speculation and discussion we can start to glimpse a greater understanding. But I doubt we'll ever really know. Not least of all because the reason certain beliefs and interpretations are accepted TODAY is not necessarily the same reason why they were accepted originally. |
We sorta know.
Constantine I's mother was a Christian and, at some point, Constantine converted to Christianity.
He then produced the Edict of Milan that made Christianity legal as well as sponsored the construction of a number of churche building as well as the copying of Bibles he granted tax breaks to Christian and promoted them within his administration... Essentially, using his political power to promote Christianity... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 16:15:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
The virgin birth is also connected to plain, old, run of the mill sexism. For Jesus to be a fully human, he has to be born to a woman, but she really is just an incubator. Family trees didn't emphasize women, they emphasized men. The family name and inheritance goes to sons. Daughters and wives are pretty much property. Consider old ideas about conception which assumed that sperm were each a tiny yet complete human just waiting to be incubated in a woman's womb. Jesus can't have an earthly father because that would psychologically compete with the idea of God as his father. But a mother, she's just an incubator and caretaker.
|
But why? Why would religions want to be sexist? What is it about women that is so terrifying to them?
It's all well and good to put the blame at the feet of the same tried and trusted evils. But that can hardly be the end of the story until we at least try to understand why the evil is desired.
To use the word "sexism" and think that's the end of the story fails to cover so much territory it barely serves as anything but a distraction. It's a little like the South Park kids explaining their parents' giving them chicken pox as "because they're bastards!"
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 18:45:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
...What is it about women that is so terrifying to them?
|
1) Women are dangerous - can distract men, cause them to think w/ the little head rather than the big one, etc. Then later they turn into shrews who boss the men around.
2) They have strange, disgusting things come out of them - blood & tissue every month (yet they live!), or alternatively slimy newborns.
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 19:02:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Zebra wrote: | In Catholic teaching, what exactly was "the" original sin? Disobedience, or discovery of sexuality, or something different? |
Catholics don't considering the story to be literally true and I've never been given a simplistic interpretation from a priest or nun in school. Considering that the fruit is from the tree of knowledge and afterward they know good from evil, I always interpreted it as a myth that addresses how consciousness and the ability to be deliberate in our acts with expectations about various future outcomes makes humans (unlike other animals) accountable for our actions which might intentionally cause harm or good for others. What makes us so much more amazing than other animals is also what makes us often despicable. |
I'm guessing your school was at the liberal end of the range of Catholicism. At least historically, wouldn't the Catholic Church have felt it important that the origin of original sin was literally true?
| Does it not bother Catholics that this isn't in the bible anywhere?? (I'm guessing the answer is no...) |
Why should it? How much of theology is Biblical interpretation, not literally spelled out? Christianity originally didn't even have a single, uniform scripture. The Bible as we (sort of) know it today was put together by certain selected Christian leaders hundreds of years after Jesus's death (if the Jesus described in the Gospels even existed.) From that point on, there were hierarchical Christian institutions. Catholicism has always been about a hierarchy of authority figures. The idea is that the common people are too uneducated to interpret scripture. That should be left to clergy who spend their lives involved in the religion, and they can then give dumbed down bit to the people as needed. It wasn't until people started reading and the Bible was translated and copied on a regular basis that common people even started knowing what all was in the damn thing. |
Yeah, but my understanding is that there is NO basis in the NT for the story of Immaculate Conception of Mary (nor for the story of her ascending alive to heaven). None. Nada. Correct me if I'm wrong. (I haven't read any of the Apocrypha or whatever any extra books available to Catholics are called.
| But again, that's not how it goes in the source text...in 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind (and a chariot). |
Apparently that's a controversial claim. From Wikipedia's entry on Elijah: | In some Christian interpretations, the Gospel of John quotes Jesus as saying that none have gone to heaven other than the Son of Man (Jesus Himself) (John 3:13). Accordingly, some Christians believe that Elijah was not assumed into heaven but simply transferred to another assignment .... |
|
Sounds like a typical apologetics response ("We gotta explain this away somehow").
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 09:41:13 [Permalink]
|
pleco, I don't get it - what about Enoch?
dglas wrote: But why? Why would religions want to be sexist? What is it about women that is so terrifying to them?
It's all well and good to put the blame at the feet of the same tried and trusted evils. But that can hardly be the end of the story until we at least try to understand why the evil is desired.
To use the word "sexism" and think that's the end of the story fails to cover so much territory it barely serves as anything but a distraction. It's a little like the South Park kids explaining their parents' giving them chicken pox as "because they're bastards!" |
Who said sexism was the end of the story? Sexism was hardly the only thing I and others responded on this matter. Clearly institutionalized sexism has been an important part of Judea-Christian history. Examples of it abound, such as how menstruating women were not allowed in parts of the Temple and the Vatican (there is still a sign up at the Vatican about that today,) laws which clearly put women beneath men in status, debate among religious leaders over whether women have souls or not, and so on and so on. That sexism is part of these set of religions' history and culture is obvious. The answer to the question why is probably complex. Although I have no doubt that part of it is simply rooted in basic biological survival. In a patrilineal society the genetic line of men in power is best maintained. And by repressing female sexual activity, men can more reliably control how many children they produce since maternal identity is certain but paternal identity is never truly certain. Given that we see this sort of repression of female sexual activity and freedom across many different cultures, I tend to think the biological reasons are the biggest reasons. But there are probably many other reasons.
Zebra wrote: | I'm guessing your school was at the liberal end of the range of Catholicism. At least historically, wouldn't the Catholic Church have felt it important that the origin of original sin was literally true? |
Catholic officials believe that original sin is real but they certainly haven't believed that the Adam and Eve story was literally true for quite a long time.
Zebra wrote: | Yeah, but my understanding is that there is NO basis in the NT for the story of Immaculate Conception of Mary (nor for the story of her ascending alive to heaven). None. Nada. Correct me if I'm wrong. (I haven't read any of the Apocrypha or whatever any extra books available to Catholics are called. |
Once again, Catholics have never considered the Bible to be the only source of divine revelation. They are a strict religious hierarchy and they believe that God also sometimes speaks directly through the Pope. There are plenty of examples of Catholic officials deliberately changing parts of scripture in order to force interpretations that they decided were best. They are very actively authoritarian and always have been.
Zebra wrote: | Sounds like a typical apologetics response ("We gotta explain this away somehow"). |
The Catholics and Protestants each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Catholics are overly authoritarian - often abusively so, but at the same time they promote hierarchy because the officials in the church actually are far better educated about scripture and religious history than the typical adherent. There is an argument to be made for avoiding having the average Christian just interpret scripture willy nilly based on their own undereducated reading of any old Biblical translation in their own native tongue. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is a document which when taken on face value doesn't make much sense. Its various books MUST be put in proper context to be interpreted with any kind of sophistication, and not all books should be placed in the same context since they were written during vastly different periods by vastly different cultures. In a way, among both secularists and religionists, the Bible will be a document for constant study, discussion, and re-interpretation, and it is fascinating if for nothing else but its incredible influence on history and numerous societies. So I don't regard the controversy over Elijah as mere apologetics because I think the context of his ascension is far different from the context of Jesus and Mary's ascensions.
The best thing about Protestants is that they will never have the authoritarian clout of Catholicism - there is nothing equivalent to a Protestant Pope. But at the same time, the most batshit insane and naive interpretations of the Bible have come from Protestants, along with some of the most self-righteous attitudes. Well, at least in developed nations. In the less developed nations the Catholics are still abusing their authority and spreading mindless acceptance of dogma. But in developed nations, Catholics tend to be better educated, less preachy, and more free thinking than evangelicals. Catholics also tend to use birth control more often and tend to be less aligned with one political mindset.
The only Christians today I'm particularly fond of and rooting for the survival of is the progressives among the mainline Protestant sects. In particular, United Methodists Episcopalians, Church of Christ, some Presbyterians and Lutherans, and most especially Unitarian Universalists. If these guys are the future of Christianity, the religion might actually survive as a positive cultural force, rather than becoming increasingly fanatic and marginalized. But either way I think traditional Christianity is one its slow way out the door, and a new hegemonic worldview - secular humanism - is being established in the developed world. But maybe I'm just an optimist.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 13:44:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Who said sexism was the end of the story? Sexism was hardly the only thing I and others responded on this matter. Clearly institutionalized sexism has been an important part of Judea-Christian history. Examples of it abound, such as how menstruating women were not allowed in parts of the Temple and the Vatican (there is still a sign up at the Vatican about that today,) laws which clearly put women beneath men in status, debate among religious leaders over whether women have souls or not, and so on and so on. That sexism is part of these set of religions' history and culture is obvious. The answer to the question why is probably complex. Although I have no doubt that part of it is simply rooted in basic biological survival. In a patrilineal society the genetic line of men in power is best maintained. And by repressing female sexual activity, men can more reliably control how many children they produce since maternal identity is certain but paternal identity is never truly certain. Given that we see this sort of repression of female sexual activity and freedom across many different cultures, I tend to think the biological reasons are the biggest reasons. But there are probably many other reasons. |
Thank you for your reply.
Biological reasons and reasons of power conflicts certainly come into play, but I find them unsatisfactory as an explanation for the following reason:
I have this peculiar view of humanity as being a single entity, female and male, male and female. When I look at religion, I do not see something that victimizes only one sex. That kind of analysis, while it can be presented persuasively in terms of "interests" and "power struggles," becomes less persuasive when one looks at humanity's overall interests as a single coherent whole. When a Muslim man is convinced that he is a rampaging rapist able to be violently set off at the merest hint of stimulation, I personally see that as a hobbling of his development as a human, and in that way see him as being a victim of religion. The damage is being done to the relationship between the sexes, not just one sex. The "sexism" explanation does not allow for this - in effect it refuses possible examination in this way.
More insidious still is the implied understanding that everything is explicable in terms of a necessary conflict between the sexes, with no possibility of mutual humanity. To see everything in terms of female vs male is to preclude the possibility of reconciliation. This seems to me the sort of eternal conflict-think that is the stuff of religion.
Just the idea that we are entirely driven by self-interest hobbles possibilities for other understandings of self, and any possible implications and/or benefits thereof.
This is the reason I do not trust "sexism" arguments. Religion does not merely favour one sex over another, it perpetuates an unnecessary understanding of eternal conflict, and that's not something that is a women's issue - or even a men's issue; it's a human issue. It victimizes both even if the "benefits" are skewed. Sexism arguments actually, in my view, play into the hands of religious virulence. I don't think replacing one "us vs them" (good vs evil) mindset with another "us vs them" (male vs female) mindset, as if they were merely competing ideologies, is, ultimately, very helpful.
Understanding sexism is a powerful tool in recognizing there is a problem, but it is only a symptom. it isn't the problem itself.
Does any of that make any sense to you? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 04/29/2009 13:53:02 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 15:22:03 [Permalink]
|
dglas,
Everything you said makes perfect sense to me. However, while I think that the way you are presenting the problem is one true and useful explanation, I do not think that the way I presented it is any less true. They are different angles on a similar set of issues. I totally agree with you than men are victimized too whenever society pushes particular and increasingly divergent roles onto the two genders. We certainly see this today in how men tie their sense of self worth more closely to their jobs and income than women, how fathers tend to have less close relationships with their children than mothers, and how men are more often victims of violence and addiction than women on average. And it is shame that perhaps an overemphasis has been put on the framing of sexism as a problem of men victimizing women.
That said, biologically, when it comes to reproduction, men and women do have different interests that have certainly shaped trends in behavior and cultural norms. It is simply a fact that across cultures, men look for different traits in mates (youth, beauty, and other indications of good health) than women (who tend to seek mates with power and influence.) Men and women's attitudes and involvement with offspring and approaches to sexual activity also tend to vary in generally predictable ways across cultures. Given these divergent interests which are often reinforced and even exaggerated by cultural norms, men and women can become quite at odds with each other, and thus have the potential to institutionally abuse each other for the sake of one sex's dominant reproductive interests. It is that which I was referring to.
But that's just biology. And we are more than mere animals. What is in our best interests with regard to maximizing our descendants might not be what is in our best interests in terms of personal fullfillment and happiness. Certainly I think a compelling argument can be made that women and men are both most personally fullfilled and happy when they see each other as part of one human family, with equal opportunities as well as security for all, and appreciation and encouragement for each, unique individual as well as communal harmony.
I don't so much see religion as being uniquely abusive toward sexual relations and humanity as I see our biological interests being often at odds with our human interests. Religion, like any other cultural institution, has at times reinforced one and at times reinforced the other, but I don't see how it is ever the ultimate source of conflict. More of a tool. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 23:22:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Apparently that's a controversial claim. From Wikipedia's entry on Elijah: | In some Christian interpretations, the Gospel of John quotes Jesus as saying that none have gone to heaven other than the Son of Man (Jesus Himself) (John 3:13). Accordingly, some Christians believe that Elijah was not assumed into heaven but simply transferred to another assignment either in Heaven[54] or with King Jehoram of Judah.[54] Indeed, the prophets reacted in such a way that makes sense if he was carried away, and not simply straight up (2Kings 2:16). |
|
So, by that school of thought, Elijah was given a lateral transfer, rather than a promotion.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 01:02:28 [Permalink]
|
Excellent response, Marf. I found myself nodding through almost all of it.
I would tentatively put forward one question, if I may. What do you think it would look like if we lost control of a conceptual tool, forgot that it's a tool; what do you think it would look like? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 08:08:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
pleco, I don't get it - what about Enoch?
|
Just another person who also went to heaven but not through Jesus (though I guess one could argue that since Jesus == God then he did)
He "'walked with God, and was not, for God took him,' thus avoiding death at the age of 365."
Technically he didn't die. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 13:24:24 [Permalink]
|
No where in the Bible does it say you need to believe in the virgin birth to be saved. So I don't consider it a must to be a Christian. I believe it because that is how the Bible says it happened. I don't fully agree with the argument of original sin either. I think that it is important to know that God the Father was the one who placed Jesus in Mary'y body. And if she was a virgin, then something miraculous has happened that pointed to Jesus as divine. Also it was fortold in Isaiah 7:14:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV) |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 13:37:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
|
Immanuel? So clearly they didn't get Jesus' name right. Prophecy Fail.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 18:36:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
No where in the Bible does it say you need to believe in the virgin birth to be saved. So I don't consider it a must to be a Christian. I believe it because that is how the Bible says it happened. I don't fully agree with the argument of original sin either. I think that it is important to know that God the Father was the one who placed Jesus in Mary'y body. And if she was a virgin, then something miraculous has happened that pointed to Jesus as divine. Also it was fortold in Isaiah 7:14:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
|
Actually, the term almah probably did not translate as virgin.
In fact, if you look at the whole passage, meaning is quite clear:
Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.'
But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD.'
And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (The literal translation of the original Hebrew words reads: "Therefore shall-give my-lord he [himself] to you sign behold the-young-woman conceived (is pregnant) and-beareth son and- calleth name-his immanuel
Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.
The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria' |
Israel just got its but handed to it militarily and God is cheering the king up by saying that, within ten-fifteen years, the kings that just defeated him would taste defeat.
Obviously it does not refer to Jesus' birth centuries later (Ahaz lived in the 8th century BC):
-Jesus' birth would be little consolation for the general.
-And the 'two kings thou has in horror' will already have been 'forasken'...
-Even then; the prophecy was wrong... The Assyrian ruled Jerusalem for 75 more years. I guess this Immanuel fellow just took his sweet time to know to refuse evil... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 21:57:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
No where in the Bible does it say you need to believe in the virgin birth to be saved. So I don't consider it a must to be a Christian. I believe it because that is how the Bible says it happened. I don't fully agree with the argument of original sin either. I think that it is important to know that God the Father was the one who placed Jesus in Mary'y body. And if she was a virgin, then something miraculous has happened that pointed to Jesus as divine. Also it was fortold in Isaiah 7:14:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
|
(bolding added)
Well, in Luke 1:35 the angel tells Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you". However, Mary clearly doesn't have a clue about the trinitarian nature of God, because she talks about "the Mighty One" in Luke 1:49 (in her "young heroine sings to herself, actually to the audience, in contemplating her situation", as happens at one time or another in most musicals).
So, was it God the Father who placed the homunculus Jesus into Mary's uterus, or was it the Holy Spirit? And if the claims of trinity are true then how is either of those descriptions any different from simply saying, "Jesus impregnated his own mother"? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why are virgin conception & resurrection so key?
