Theology IV

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

My point exactly.

Oh, oops?

On feminism, basically I feel that embracing one's skills and abilities is awesome. Embracing motherhood, for those of us who want to be mothers, is great. In the not so distant future, I will use my abilities as the female of my species to conceive and give birth to children (I hope), and then be the most awesome mom that I possibly can (I hope).

It's telling people what those skills and abilities are based on their secondary sexual characteristics what those abilities are exactly. Some physical ones, such as motherhood, are just inevitable. But I could also never beat Tonya Verbeek or Carol Huynh (Canada's medalists in freestyle wrestling) at their sport. Obviously, it's not because I'm a woman.

There are a lot of skills that have nothing to do with physical characteristics, so it seems odd to prescribe them by sex. A lot of traditionally male-dominated fields like being a doctor or a mechanic have nothing to do with sexual characteristics. But maybe the feminism Arien was describing doesn't exclude women doctors and mechanics anyway.

I hope this post is not too rambly. I'm quite tired.

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is do what makes you feel comfortable, but I fail to see how telling others what should make them feel comfortable is helpful.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What do you mean by "equal?"

Shorter Lief Erickson : No

But then, I've always been somewhat skeptical of the theory that Lief's possession of testicles makes his judgement on the economy, the environment, or war and peace automatically superior to that of, say, Nurv, Rian, or BoP.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I disagree Brownie, I don't think truth is always obvious. What's obvious to one can be impossible to another.

And that is the essence of the myriad of problems; inconsistencies, fallacies and lack of transparency; that religion creates.
It's fairly simple. Truth outside and inside religion are two very different things. You have the sort of truth in, let's say the Christian Bible that describes certain peoples and places, that can be verified by any other non-believer: that is peoples & places.. historical facts.
On the other hand you have truth inside of religion, the supernatural and the supposed divine communion with God or Gods, things that only stand as true to believers. A religious truth, an article of faith, is f.ex. that God is in Christ. Which isn't an historical fact.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Shorter Lief Erickson : No

Do you know what "equal" means? If you do, I'd be glad to learn. We know that men and women's brains aren't exactly the same scientifically- there are biological differences. Difference of testosterone levels being one, though there are others. So it can't be referring to psychology.

Men also can't give birth while women can, women can't by nature emit sperm while men can, and men tend to be physically stronger and bigger than women. So their natural bodies and abilities aren't automatically equal.

There are of course differences between individuals too, here, within the genders, but these are a handful of the broad gender-based differences that show men and women just aren't exactly the same.

In what ways do you find men and women to be equal, and do you think your interpretation is what people broadly have in mind when they use this phrase? I want to know how it's defined . . . And was that definition originally political or scientific?

I gave my definition of how they are equal in the post you "summarized." Abominably inaccurately too, I must say.

But how do you define them as "equal"?

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Nice to meet someone so wholly in accord with me on this! Usually when I consider saying what I just said, especially about women not having the right to vote, I fully expect to get burned alive. Which can get lonely.

It's really nice to find out you're of like mind on so much .

Well I do believe that women have a right to vote! I think we should have a say in who will be our leader and speak for us.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Oh, oops?

On feminism, basically I feel that embracing one's skills and abilities is awesome. Embracing motherhood, for those of us who want to be mothers, is great. In the not so distant future, I will use my abilities as the female of my species to conceive and give birth to children (I hope), and then be the most awesome mom that I possibly can (I hope).

It's telling people what those skills and abilities are based on their secondary sexual characteristics what those abilities are exactly. Some physical ones, such as motherhood, are just inevitable. But I could also never beat Tonya Verbeek or Carol Huynh (Canada's medalists in freestyle wrestling) at their sport. Obviously, it's not because I'm a woman.

There are a lot of skills that have nothing to do with physical characteristics, so it seems odd to prescribe them by sex. A lot of traditionally male-dominated fields like being a doctor or a mechanic have nothing to do with sexual characteristics. But maybe the feminism Arien was describing doesn't exclude women doctors and mechanics anyway.

I hope this post is not too rambly. I'm quite tired.

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is do what makes you feel comfortable, but I fail to see how telling others what should make them feel comfortable is helpful.

I agree. Women doctors can offer something that men can't a lot of the time. My OB is a woman and I feel more comfortable going to a woman OB/GYN than to a man.

I think that women CAN do many things (occupational wise) that men can do. They bring a different perspective to the job alot of the time. IMO it's when women start acting like men to get those positions that they run into problems.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

IMO it's when women start acting like men to get those positions that they run into problems.

Well, the rules for what constitute "acting like men" vary.

Lief postulates an imaginary time when women's roles were agreed on. That's just not true.

Different cutures have different views, but there isn't universal agreement, even under oppressive regimes who make that a priority.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I gave my definition of how [men and women] are equal in the post you "summarized." Abominably inaccurately too, I must say.

So to rephrase Arien's question; do you think men and women are peers?

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Well, the rules for what constitute "acting like men" vary.

Lief postulates an imaginary time when women's roles were agreed on. That's just not true.

Different cultures have different views, but there isn't universal agreement, even under oppressive regimes who make that a priority.

true. Yes I don't think that women have always just done what the men have wanted them to do without protesting (quietly or publicly). I'm sure that back then, physical force was used more so than now to "quiet" any woman who didn't do what her husband wanted. Again, I'm speaking generally. Certainly not all men (and probably most) aren't physically abusive. But i think that in ancient times and well into modern times, physical abuse wasn't considered abuse at all.

EDIT: spelling

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

So to rephrase Arien's question; do you think men and women are peers?

That's just a restatement of the question. "Peer" is defined as someone of equal status. I expressed what my opinions are of what ways men and women are and aren't equal pretty precisely in my earlier post.

My answer is complex, for there are ways in which I see men and women as equal, and there are ways in which I see them as unequal. Women tend to be better at some things than men and men better at some things than women, because of gender.

I think that that's true of just about anyone. No one here will argue that men and women are exactly the same: Men don't deliver babies.

There are lots of differences and similarities between the genders, ways in which they are equal and unequal.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Well, the rules for what constitute "acting like men" vary.

Lief postulates an imaginary time when women's roles were agreed on. That's just not true.

Different cutures have different views, but there isn't universal agreement, even under oppressive regimes who make that a priority.

Sure there have been differences. Some cultures had women rulers of the home. Others didn't. Some were abusive. Others weren't. Some allowed women on occasion to be queen as an exception to the general rule of male leadership. Others didn't. Some were matrilineal. Others weren't.

There have been no proven matriarchies. The only 3-5 that it has been suggested have existed in human history are all debated.

Men have always had the leadership role and women a role taking care of the family -- a nurturing role -- across geography, culture, religion and history. How that leadership is constructed, and the precise nature of the nurturing role have varied, but the reality of those roles has not, up to the modern era.

[Coffeehouse]

Speaking of ancient and modern times. It's interesting that at a time when orthodox religious doctrine was suffocating intellectual progress in Europe at the end of the 1st millenium, the exact opposite was happening in the heart of Islam, from Cairo to Baghdad.

You could carry the logic further and say, due to some inherent elements of Islam intellectual and enlightening pursuit in sciences may prevail! Which is exactly what many Christians have held true for the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th century in Europe. Should we say Islam, or Christianity, enabled the free-thinkers in the Middle East, and in Europe, to flourish?
Or.. should we say they flourished despite of orthodox religious doctrine?

“God must have known, considering the many disagreements between different religions, that "there would be a universal disaster and they would perish in the mutual hostilities and fighting. Indeed, many people have perished in this way, as we can see."

"How can anyone think philosophically while listening to old wives' tales founded on contradictions, which obdurate ignorance, and dogmatism? Gentility of character, friendliness and purity of mind, are found in those who are capable of thinking profoundly on abstruse matters and scientific minutiae."

You wouldn't think this was written by the Muslim thinker (coincidentally one of the greatest Muslim scientists ever to live) Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakarīya al-Rāzi, in the 10th century? In a Muslim Caliphate, in the Middle East, a few years before the 1st Crusade.

[Lief Erikson]

The first statement you quote doesn't say religious violence is wrong, and the second merely condemns superstition and encourages science. The same views were present in Europe at that time. There are condemnations of superstition in the Bible and the Catholic Church was the center of education and science all the way up to the Enlightenment.

I don't know how the statements you quoted back your argument.

[Coffeehouse]

You're missing the point.

The 1st statement is written by the said Muslim scientist during the golden days of Islamic expansionism. It's written in an empire that at its height, the Abbasid Caliphate, had its own House of Wisdom in Baghdad where Muslims and non-Muslims alike could pursue scientific knowledge without disturbance.

The 2nd statement shows that heavy criticism of Islam (frowned upon, but mostly allowed) was practiced by many scientists and scholars during this period.

Meanwhile Europe was in the clutches of religious fanaticism. And the few daring European scholars who did pursue scientific thought spent most of their days translating from Arabic writings. This continued for several hundred years, until strict religious orthodox rules were against imposed in the Muslim world, forbidding activities like those practiced in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad.
The renessaince, the age of Enlightenment in Europe happened because of the flourishing of scientific thought during the Islamic Golden Age, but despite of Islamic scripture.

"the Catholic Church was the center of education and science all the way up to the Enlightenment"
Duh! Why do you think it's called the Enlightenment?

[Lief Erikson]

Because some skeptical and very wrong philosophers thought their unbelief was better than religion, primarily, and they had enormous influence on the world's thought. So their followers were in a position of sufficient power to label the era they agreed with "the Enlightenment," and the one they disagreed with, "the Dark Ages."

Also expansions in exploration and science contributed, though the science was in some cases set up as opposed to religious doctrine, when it really isn't, and much of it was the product of the Church's institutions and scientific support and funding- a fact now often ignored.

I consider the dominant features of the "Enlightenment" to be deception and moral disintegration.

[Coffeehouse]

"Also expansions in exploration and science contributed, though the science was in some cases set up as opposed to religious doctrine, when it really isn't."

Oh really? I'm glad you subscribe to the theory of Evolution!

However wrong you may think these scholars and scientists were, they have a heavy hand in so much of the well-being and technollogy you today can enjoy without blinking an eye. A little respect perhaps?

But I'll take the bait. Why don't you tell me Lief of a 50-year, (or 100-year if you like) period in the heyday of the Catholic Church, prior to the Enlightenment, that you are particularly fond of.

[Lief Erikson]

[QUOTE=Coffeehouse;627295]"Also expansions in exploration and science contributed, though the science was in some cases set up as opposed to religious doctrine, when it really isn't."

Oh really? I'm glad you subscribe to the theory of Evolution![\quote]
I do, and the Catholic Church hasn't rejected it, and its existence is supported by Genesis 1.

However wrong you may think these scholars and scientists were, they have a heavy hand in so much of the well-being and technollogy you today can enjoy without blinking an eye. A little respect perhaps?

Remember that I used the word "philosophers," not "scientists.". Men like Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus and Newton were devout Christians.

But I'll take the bait. Why don't you tell me Lief of a 50-year, (or 100-year if you like) period in the heyday of the Catholic Church, prior to the Enlightenment, that you are particularly fond of.

I would have been glad to serve under a number of Medieval monarchs. Obviously some names roll easily off the tongue now, like Charles Martel, Charlemagne, King Alfred the Great, and a pair of monarchs I presently have great admiration for were Ferdinand and Isabella.

I'm sure that with further thought and research I could get you more- these are just some obvious famous ones. Edward the Confessor would be another. "Bloody Mary" is another I think was a good ruler. I'm still waffling on King Phillip II.

There were good times and bad for the various kingdoms, good rulers and bad, as today. Though there were fewer rebellions by far, and no genocides during that era. Also, people back then ate as much as us, until the Late Medieval Ages, when the Little Ice Age damaged their harvests badly. Poverty and having a huge disparity of property between the rich and poor reached it's worst in the Enlightenment.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I would have been glad to serve under a number of Medieval monarchs. Obviously some names roll easily off the tongue now, like Charles Martel, Charlemagne, King Alfred the Great, and a pair of monarchs I presently have great admiration for were Ferdinand and Isabella.

I'm sure that with further thought and research I could get you more- these are just some obvious famous ones. Edward the Confessor would be another. "Bloody Mary" is another I think was a good ruler. I'm still waffling on King Phillip II.

There were good times and bad for the various kingdoms, good rulers and bad, as today. Though there were fewer rebellions by far, and no genocides during that era. Also, people back then ate as much as us, until the Late Medieval Ages, when the Little Ice Age damaged their harvests badly. Poverty and having a huge disparity of property between the rich and poor reached it's worst in the Enlightenment.

Why don't we have a time-machine, so that we can
ship off Lief to the Middle Ages!

Back to the good, old days of daily poverty,
undernourishment, comfy mudhuts and the eternal
smell of maneur and burnt wood. Remember to keep
an eye out for any sinning people, especially women
(can't be too sure about them!) and go directly
to the nearest monastery or parish and report them!
You can also enroll in Ferdinand and Isabella's
delightful purge of Jews and their exquisite
colonialisation of India (how enlightened they were on geography
back then!) so that you may convert some reds to the
True Faith.
Also, remember to drop by the Portuguese, and ask for a man
named Vasco Da Gama and if you are really lucky
he will take you on a very long, nice and easy trip
to the Indian Ocean where the good word of the Lord
will spread out like wildfire in moist grass. And
if they don't convert, well then you can hack of their
hands!
Amen!

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There have been no proven matriarchies. The only 3-5 that it has been suggested have existed in human history are all debated.

Men have always had the leadership role and women a role taking care of the family -- a nurturing role -- across geography, culture, religion and history. How that leadership is constructed, and the precise nature of the nurturing role have varied, but the reality of those roles has not, up to the modern era.

O.o Tell that to some of the south pacific tribes then.

[Lief Erikson]

Such as?

[Coffeehouse]

The Middle Ages still seem appealing to you Lief?

Or would you like to go to the year 1415, the relative quiet before the storm of the Christian crusade against the entire planet..
A good year for the Catholic Church I guess, since they did after all get Jan Hus burned on the stake.
And for what? Heresy of course! For daring to question the rule of the Catholic Church. This holiest and most rigthly guided of churches was of course in the midst of the Great Schism.
Jan Hus even stated that he'd pray for the enemies of Christendom because a church that took out the sword instead of the book was not the church of true Christianity.. A church that gladly accepted money in exchange for repentance. What a rightly guided church that is!

Speaking of the true faith. It's the ironic twist of Christianity.. an inbuilt error impossible to get rid of. A religion that insists on spreading its word, but is at the same time not even agreement with itself on what it actually stands for or how its message (and even why! it's message) should be delivered.
For a body of old men so stubbornly shouting the message that it alone holds the closest ear to God's word, it is a suprisingly inconsistent, incoherent and intolerant institution. Either they need to bring in younger people with better hearing (Maybe God has been muttering all this time!) or they could slap a megaphone on his holy lips and let us all hear.