Ahhh, religion... by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Ahhh, religion...

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 09:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6678
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 5:37 AM

Quote:
Question again that which you define as "good" and "bad". For the man, having another man's child implanted in his own family has very bad indeed, as it's an affront to his manhood and his ownership of his woman, Then there's that strange DNA he's forced to nuture.... But he can go diddle something else and claim it's not his. He's got his freedom and his high moral horse too.

But to a woman, having multiple fathers puts more variety of traits into her offspring, more chance that at least some of her children will fit the changing times. And, in those olden Biblical days when she would not be able to care for herself, she's got secondary daddies to step up an support her and her brood in main daddy turns out to be an ass.

How knows. Could happen.

Excellent points, Mal4Prez, and an angle I hadn't considered before. However, I don't think the original intention of marriage was about control of women. Childbirth is a difficult process, and very often death by childbirth was a common outcome in the times that marriage was invented. People were already constrained by their life expectancy (though yes, pregnancy among young girls also greatly decreased life expectancy, but they didn't know that). Back then it was wise to codify something where women limited their chances of pregnancy by limiting their partners.

Men, of course, didn't really have any such risk, but at least in Islam, Judaism, and early Christianity, they were limited to four wives only, mostly because of resource concerns that more wives and correspondingly more children would create in a desert environment, not to mention community irritation with an irresponsible guy who just can't keep it in his pants. (See also early Mormonism, Joseph Smith) If men broke this, they could be expected to be stoned for adultery just like a woman could, because in small communities, people would know what everyone was up to. It wasn't just a woman getting pregnant unexpectedly that tipped people off, and it wasn't just the women who were punished.

Similarly, the headscarves of Islam was not about control either. The quran says they were introduced to prevent men from harassing women. The full-body burqa was merely the slippery slope result.

Arguably, both marriage and the headscarf/burqa became instruments of control later on.

I note that Judaism didn't used to be so unfriendly to women, back when it was a polytheistic religion, the supreme God had a wife, Shekina. Some Christians also continue to believe in a Shekina. And Early Christians were much more friendly to women; in fact, many of the Roman converts after the death of Christ were women because the religion originally allowed them to be priests without any extra conditions (like the Vestal Virgins had to deal with, or the Oracles).

It was later that Peter became a strong influence among the men of the early church that led to the ban of women priests. Peter did not like women, and also seemed to be jealous of Christ's attentions to the Magdalene. In any case, Peter's teachings won out eventually with the Nicene Council.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:56 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

I must apologize, when I feel my religion is being accused of rampant sexism, it's hard to remain objective and not feel offended. It's like being called racist just for disagreeing with Obama or being a conservative. Oh, and by the way, women can become priest, least aways Episcopal's can. Women can also become religious leaders in a number of protestant denominations. And if we're going to keep attacking Christianity with outdated practices of Catholics from years past, can I bring up Expanding Earth thoery or Telegony (which by that way, was a scientific theory often associated with racism.)

So marriage is meant to control women? I should do more research before delving into this issue. I'm not married and not all that terribly familiar with the tradition. All I know is it didn't work out so shiney with my Mom and Dad so I'd like to make sure I do it right. Still marriage to control women seems silly, cause in practice, it seems to control men. I don't think I've ever entered a married couple's house and felt like it was the man's 'castle.' I 'spect the only power we really have is to agree with our mate and help her get pregnant.

I ain't even married and my g/f makes me slow down, eat better, and not stay out all night with the guys but like once a week. But I figured out when I get really good ideas that she likes I can get away with more. Ex: When I take her dancing, I can drink as much as I want! Well... actually that's a lie... but I can drink she's happy to DD.

So I guess marriage, is really just an acknowledgment of your relationship before God and a symbolic union of two families. I don't think I've ever been to a wedding where 'obey' was part of the vows. So my argument is marriage is to controlling women as Muslims are to killing folk. When it does happen, I suspect the marriage or Islam portions have very little to do with the evils attributed to them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:50 AM

BYTEMITE

Didn't read my post to Mal4Prez?

That's okay.

The basic gist is, I'm a neutral party. I don't care about religion. I like to think I've done some research about it, but without faith you might not find it an accurate portrayal of reality.

There's some recent and still present angles to the marriage question, and I note that marriage exists in other religions as well, so this isn't just Christianity.

In some ways, as I noted above, marriage was a way to keep a guy from going around and impregnating all the women. However, consider elements of sexual dimorphism and jealousy. Imagine one marriage partner is usually larger and stronger than the other (women fight back more nowadays... Doesn't always end well for them though), and being able to force certain issues. Until recently, marriage was considered consent.

Now consider that same larger stronger person has historically been expected to be the breadwinner.

In modern times, we can agree this is somewhat unfair to the man as well. And it's becoming less commonplace.

However, control over money and the place where the woman can stay and being bigger and stronger, and maybe you might see why marriage has some elements of controlling women.

As I said, this wasn't ALWAYS the way marriage worked, it isn't how it always works now. But it is how it SOMETIMES works, and in the past, this is something that has been exploited.

The original intention probably was not control. Has it ever been about control? Yes. Less so recently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:30 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Makes sense, except for marriage being the deciding factor. Big strong man had all the power in the old days, but not because of marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if his control was also evident his relationships, but arguing marriage is the cause (though, I'm pretty sure that's not what you're arguing) is like blaming the entire country of Germany every time my Volkswagen gives me fits.

The 'control' aspect in some marriages is a symptom of a larger disease, some kinda Pathiogenica Nutjobius and not marriage it self. Other symptoms include arrogance, intentional ignorance, using faith science and/or philosophy as a justification for violence, racism, sexism... etc...

Should I blame science as a whole everytime someone uses landmines, nukes, chemical warfare? Does that cancel out the good things science had brought us like medicine? Or, are all of these the fault of the individuals responsible? Could we view religion in the same respect?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:45 AM

BYTEMITE

I think you're missing me here.

Marriage is a structure. Individuals, yes, abuse the structure, but it's the structure that creates the opportunity for that abuse.

I've gotten the feeling you don't like government, and I don't either, so let's look at this from another angle.

Government is a structure. Individuals abuse the structure, but it's the structure that creates the opportunity for that abuse.

I don't know if that's any clearer. If a structure is created, then has the end result of abusing someone else through the use of that structure, then whatever the intention of the structure was initially, a function of that structure is control. Maybe that control is never utilized in a particular case, but this still becomes an inherent part of that structure, one of it's uses, part of it's purpose.

With marriage, this is case by case, and dependent upon the individuals. Arguably both men and women are controlled by marriage. And marriage can be used in fairly harmful ways against women. You might be able to think up some ways that it's been used in a harmful manner against men. The problem is pretty pervasive though.

Quote:
Big strong man had all the power in the old days, but not because of marriage.

Actually, it played a significant role. In many cultures, including European cultures but a number of African and Asian cultures, women used to leave the household of their birth with only a dowry, a pittance really, which became the property of the man. Women owned nothing BECAUSE of marriage, which downplayed their relevance in the marriage relationship to damn near insignificance.

Why do you think Queen Elizabeth of Shakespeare's time never married? Because then everything would belong to the King.

Quote:
Should I blame science as a whole everytime someone uses landmines, nukes, chemical warfare?

Hell, I do. What possible purpose can those applications of technology have, besides hurting people? Science is an amazing thing, it's the nobility of creation and discovery, it's the human legacy, the only thing (besides art/literature) that we can create that may outlive us all and carry our memory. But science DOES have a dark side, and you will not see me support that, and I will not just accept science gone wrong, nor will I cease to be vigilant about abuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:19 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

yeah, we seems to be talking past each other. Marriage was a problem because men had all the control, and any structure can be used for bad intentions, even healthcare. I'm not a big fan of govt but I'm not sure what a better alternative would be. I think it would be great if everyone could take responsibility for themselves, but that can open doors to all manner of abuse. I still think marriage as a tool of oppression is a bunch of

but even if it was, it was a male-centric culture that corrupted it for those purposes, not the will of God or anything.

In many early simple horticulturalist societies, woman had all the power because the women stayed home with the houses, plants and children and did not run into the wild and get killed by something. Ironically, I have somewhat of a bias against men. I don't think it likely that those women would exploit their position, but I suppose where they had the power and it was possible.

Back to structures, if your intention is to make us aware of the potentials of abuse, I'm with ya. I just don't think it's fair to blame it on structures. My crappy ass car could be a structure for homicide if I ran someone over, Muslim faith can be a structure for terrorism, even the insulin that allows diabetics to stay healthy can be an implement for violence. I saw that on an episode of NICS, not that tv shows are the best sources for these kinda arguments, but they are entertaining. Structures... weapons... they are just tools. I'm more inclined to blame the person using them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:55 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
I still think marriage as a tool of oppression is a bunch of but even if it was, it was a male-centric culture that corrupted it for those purposes, not the will of God or anything.

No, not the will of God. But perhaps the will of organized religion. Certainly couples who are nicely paired off and have fiscal obligations to raise, feed, and cloth a number of children are easy to control, especially because it's survival and genetic preservation in question. Now it's more the government that takes advantage of this, but it used to be organized religion.

What is a tithing for? In non-Christian religions, what is a sacrifice of food or rice for? Both create an unnatural scarcity within the family environment. In particularly bad cases, it creates need, dependence, and obligation to the religion. Even barring that, there's religions that have spouses reporting on each other's misdeeds, religions encouraging the good spouse to influence the other.

I wonder if making women in particular susceptible to not owning anything, if this then made them more easily influenced by the church, and useful to cajole the husbands? Hmm. Don't mind me, just theory making here.

Also, not even necessarily male-centric culture. That's how it just happened to go down in recent history, but as you mentioned, there are a few examples of female dominated cultures. My suspicion, however, is that without a balance in the culture between sexes, one side is probably going to get the shaft.

It used to be our current culture was very male dominated. While I'm not sure women have quite caught up in the wages department, popular sentiment is entirely the other way around. Men are depicted as slaves to their desires/instincts, with women the wise stewards keeping them in check. Both versions of gender roles and stereotypes are farcical.

Quote:
Back to structures, if your intention is to make us aware of the potentials of abuse, I'm with ya. I just don't think it's fair to blame it on structures. My crappy ass car could be a structure for homicide if I ran someone over, Muslim faith can be a structure for terrorism, even the insulin that allows diabetics to stay healthy can be an implement for violence. I saw that on an episode of NICS, not that tv shows are the best sources for these kinda arguments, but they are entertaining. Structures... weapons... they are just tools. I'm more inclined to blame the person using them.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful how you use structures OR tools. If you have a gun, you should know gun safety. If you have a structure, like government, science, or marriage... Well, I think a similar argument applies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:51 AM

MAL4PREZ

Wow. I wrote that post in a separate doc last night, and didn't proofread after copying it over. Sorry about the typos and incomplete-ness. I must have messed up the copy paste somehow and got a not-done version. Either that or I was sleepier than I thought!

But the idea got across. And you're so right Kwicko - the way people pick and choose what they believe of the Bible pretty completely knocks down the idea that the rules of the Church are the pure Word of God. Obviously the written word is being filtered, and that makes it the Word of Humans.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Um, I really hope you aren't implying my religion is sexist. I can agree to disagree on several things, but a sexism accusation just might make me loss my cool.

I haven't read the rest of your exchange with Bytemite, (though I saw that Byte addressed this) but I want to point out a few things here before I go further.

First - this is exactly what I mean about Religion not being able to discuss things openly. I'm about to say some things about the way the Church operates, and the content of the Bible. Are you capable of handling that as observations of an organization and a book, or must it become something personal and insulting to *you*? If it's the latter, my point about the mentalities of Religion versus Science is made.

Second - I meant absolutely no judgment or accusation of you or your excellent mother. I don't know either of you, and wouldn't judge you by your religion in any case. Unlike some posters here, I don't believe that the religious organization defines the individual. I may not like the organization, but I may like you fine. I'm open to finding out.

Third - hell yeah the Catholic Church is sexist. If a person has a penis, he can be a priest. If a person does not have a penis, she is not allowed. Sexism, cut, dried, and posted on dictionary.com.

And let's look at the big name players in the Bible: Mary and Mary. A Virgin and a Whore. These are the examples Catholic women have had, historically, to live up to? Not at all realistic, and it speaks volumes as to what men have expected of women over the past couple thousand years.

Quote:
Say what you will about nutjobs and the like, but I fail to see how any intelligent person could be sexist or racist.

I envy you. I've known plenty.

Problem is, few racist or sexist people think they are. This came up in another thread, the one about what acts are really unforgivably evil or something like that. I think few but the crazy serial killers intend to do evil (and probably not all of them do either!) People do bad shit because their own personal brand of logic/belief allows them to justify.

Sure, it's stupid to be racist or sexist. But people don't do it because it's logical.

Also, intelligent people can have the life skills of a doorknob. They fairly often do, in my experience.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:16 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The worm has relocated.

Cincinnati? Or did it head to a warmer climate? Wouldn't it have had to *turn* at some point on its way out?

Quote:
Of course, burning people at the stake was for show, to create a spectacle, it's why they have massacres in China.

Woo-hoo simplification! Massacres in China explain the motivations of Catholics burning Protestants at the stake in the 1500's... Forget six - one degree of separation will do!

Seriously, I fail to see the connection. Yes, people like to have a scapegoat to tear down. Religion is very good at offering them just that. Politics and nationalism will do it too, if people go at it with the same kind of raving enthusiasm they have historically brought to religion. (Hello Tea Party!)

Quote:
If that doesn't work, we have concentration camps full of torture chambers. We've killed far more opponents of Israel in a few short years than the Catholic Church was able to do in centuries.

More, really? I doubt it, certainly not when proportions are considered (there's a lot more people in the world now than centuries ago).

OK, I'm right there with you that America has done some evil shit. However, that doesn't make killings in the name of the church all right.

And why is this so often a defense of the religious and the conservative? "Oh yeah, well... someone else did something bad too!" So what? That makes it ok?

Quote:
Jump to the other side, and it's no better.

Oppose Islam or Mohammed, and you can be burned at the stake in a number of ways. Including, probably, literally.

You're seeing two sides to this discussion that don't exist in my mind. Islam is not the "other side." It's the same damned thing: yet another blind belief system that tends to numb rational thought and lead to pretty serious abuses.

Quote:
So, Christians have changed?

Did I say that? Christians may be as they always were, but there's less of them and they have less power. Pardon the pun, but Thank God.

Quote:
After all aren't we still on a Crusade?

Bush and his crew might have been, but a whole helluva lot of us are most emphatically NOT.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:20 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Quote:
If that doesn't work, we have concentration camps full of torture chambers. We've killed far more opponents of Israel in a few short years than the Catholic Church was able to do in centuries.
More, really? I doubt it, certainly not when proportions are considered (there's a lot more people in the world now than centuries ago).

OK, I'm right there with you that America has done some evil shit. However, that doesn't make killings in the name of the church all right.

And why is this so often a defense of the religious and the conservative? "Oh yeah, well... someone else did something bad too!" So what? That makes it ok?

Quote:
Jump to the other side, and it's no better.

Oppose Islam or Mohammed, and you can be burned at the stake in a number of ways. Including, probably, literally.
You're seeing two sides to this discussion that don't exist in my mind. Islam is not the "other side." It's the same damned thing: yet another blind belief system that tends to numb rational thought and lead to pretty serious abuses.

I really don't think that's the point DT was making. He's a Taoist, his family was Jewish. He's not defending Catholics.

Though I didn't follow the China Massacre thing either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:49 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
First - this is exactly what I mean about Religion not being able to discuss things openly. I'm about to say some things about the way the Church operates, and the content of the Bible. Are you capable of handling that as observations of an organization and a book, or must it become something personal and insulting to *you*? If it's the latter, my point about the mentalities of Religion versus Science is made.

Yeah, sorry about that, I ain't perfect and couldn't help but feel personally insulted. I was doing pretty good up until that point. I hope my lapse in judgment didn't completely destroy my argument that faith can be a powerful thing for the good of man AND womankind.

I'm tired of trying to argue for the churches, (which as I said earlier, I don't follow blindly), so I'm going to retreat for a bit and try to explain my view on things before I try and argue faith in general. I don't think Christianity is sexists, or at least it ain't supposed to be. I'm not a big fan of organized religion or of the catholic church. There are denominations that allow women into their ranks as leaders, even priest like Episcopals (I like to think of them as diet catholic, same great religion with half the guilt and corruption).

There's no way I can defend every aspect of every sect of Christianity, and it seems kind of arrogant for me to define what is right and wrong in Christianity. The Bible is a good reference for that kind of thing, but we all know it's incomplete, and too many people confuse church dogma with God's will. Losing my temper only makes me look like a stereotypical unthinking jerkoff. For now, lets just agree we're shiney people with different opinions on stuff (not that I've thought different of any of you, we are all browncoats after all).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:19 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Yeah, sorry about that, I ain't perfect and couldn't help but feel personally insulted. I was doing pretty good up until that point. I hope my lapse in judgment didn't completely destroy my argument that faith can be a powerful thing for the good of man AND womankind.

It COULD be. Sadly, it often isn't.

Quote:
I'm tired of trying to argue for the churches, (which as I said earlier, I don't follow blindly),

LOL! Substitute "Obama" for "churches", and I know exactly what you mean. It's a great theory and has done some good things, and is better than many alternatives, but the reality just doesn't live up to the ideal...

Quote:
I don't think Christianity is sexists, or at least it ain't supposed to be.

I think it speaks well of you, and is sanguine (Zoe word!) as to the future of the church that you think so. But history is against you, my friend.

I just hope there are more like you out there.

Quote:
Losing my temper only makes me look like a stereotypical unthinking jerkoff.

I quite honestly didn't think you were, or I would have engaged at an entirely different level.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:19 PM

BYTEMITE

In the very least, Christianity wasn't anti-woman to begin with, and it's becoming woman-friendly again.

Though there's still an awful lot of church talk about Eve blame and Eve causing the fall, which was not at all the POINT of that story... It's about Satan and temptation. Do people still read Paradise Lost? Eve wasn't evil in that story, she was never evil. She was naive. Adam adored her so much that when she became mortal, he chose to stay with her. The first sin, they call it, but it was one God had planned for; Adam turned away from the protection of God and became the entity of free will God had wanted in the first place.

Actually, I compare the whole thing to a parent kicking his son out of the house and telling him to get a job.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 1:56 AM

OONJERAH

An After School Satan Club could be coming to your kid’s elementary school
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/an-after-school-satan-c
lub-could-be-coming-to-your-kids-elementary-school/2016/07/30/63f485e6-5427-11e6-88eb-7dda4e2f2aec_story.html

It’s a hot summer night, and leaders of the Satanic Temple have gathered
in the crimson-walled living room of a Victorian manse in this city
renowned for its witch trials in the 17th century. ...

They’re here plotting to bring their wisdom to the nation’s public
elementary school children. They point out that Christian evangelical
groups already have infiltrated the lives of America’s children through
after-school religious programming in public schools, and they appear
determined to give young students a choice: Jesus or Satan.
[ ^emphasis mine, Oonj ]

“It’s critical that children understand that there are multiple
perspectives on all issues, and that they have a choice in how
they think,” said Doug Mesner, the Satanic Temple’s co-founder.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

I've given up looking for the meaning of life. Now all I want is a cookie.
Maybe a donut.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2022 9:09 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

A Secular Religion Is Being Established in American Law
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-secular-religion-woke-first-amendment-e
stablishment-clause-11666820331

Protesters are demanding for a non-religious Iran: What does this mean for the country?
https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/protesters-are-demanding-for-a-no
n-religious-iran-what-does-this-mean-for-the-country-11544641.html

Spiritual but not religious Americans are finding new ways of pursuing meaning
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-spiritual-religious-americans-ways-pursu
ing.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE