Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
The Deification of Masculinity
    #7539874 - 10/20/07 04:20 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Despite the unusual juxtaposition of masculine and feminine parts in the Hebrew Name of God, Elohim, and despite the same sort of juxtaposition in the Name Allah, both Judaism and Islam suggest that God be referred to with strictly masculine pronouns. Christianity, historically between Judaism and Islam also shares this one-sided masculine bias. Added to this, Christianity's mythos has decided, by way of the Johannine writings, to make Iesus 'God clothed in flesh,' and although He takes the flesh of a female, he is in the form of a male. I once asked a physiology professor in grad school if Iesus' cells would've been Haploid or Diploid, and he said: "What do you think the 'H.' stands for in 'Jesus H. Christ'?"

In Islam, the reward of Heaven for men are those 72 perpetual celestial virgins with pearlescent bones, the marrow of which are ruby which show forth through their translucent bodies. They are there for the perpetual pleasure of good Muslims. Women can go to Heaven too, to serve their husbands who will be busy in their perpetual fuck-fest.

Judaism does not speak exoterically about Heaven, but esoteric Judaism, the Kabbalah to be exact, has a very high mysticism in which we disidentify with our egoic mind-body and come to Realize our true nature as a Transcendental Reality, a Union of Opposites in which divinely masculine and feminine aspects are reconciled in a Heavenly Marriage. On Friday evening, women traditionally light the Sabbath candles and gesture with a wafting motion towards themselves which symbolizes being covered by the Shekinah - the indwelling feminine aspect of the Godhead. There are different feminine and masculine symbols in the glph of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life. This is all good, but exoteric Judaism still treats God as masculine, women are segregated from men in Orthodox Judaism, and their is a clearly subservient role played by women (e.g., one cannot touch a woman or receive food from a woman on her period as she is considered to be unclean).

Christianity originally began as Iesus (and probably His companion Miriam called Magdalene) taught egalitarianism between the sexes. The earliest writings of Christianity by Paul reflect this egalitarian teaching: (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” - Galatians 3:28). Nevertheless, the later pseudo-Pauline letters, which are forgeries, changed the egalitarian teachings as the patriarchal Jewish mentality was adopted by the so-called Church Fathers: ("As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. - 1 Corinthians 14:33-38).

As the the feminine was depreciated, it was similarly reflected in the theology which concocted a Trinity of three masculine personalities. Of course, the ambivalent Holy Spirit was symbolized by a dove, the animal sacred to Aphrodite and goddesses of antiquity, but the HS fertilized the womb of Miriam the mother of Iesus, and so, the HS was also deemed masculine. Catholics acknowledged the feminine through the 'veneration' of the mother of Iesus, but not her 'worship. The Orthodox called her 'Theotokos,' - Mother of God, already stating that Iesus was not only 'anointed' [Christos] but actually 'God clothed in flesh.'

I have studied the esoteric (and sometimes very psychedelic-sounding) theology of Orthodox Christianity. The very bastian of this aspect of Christendom might be said to center on Mount Athos, a Greek island which has been home for anchorite mystic monks for over 1000 years. Reachable only by boat, this mountainous island of caves, some accessible by ladders of chain has forbidden any women to set forth on it for 1000 years! Again, the theology of the Trinity, Patristic theology, has been most explicated by Orthodox Christians. The word Patristics has 'father' and masculinity built into it. A modern Orthodox theologian who wrote extensively on the subject of Wisdom, Sophia in that tradition, was accused of heresy on more than one occassion because he came close to affirming 'Feminine Uncreated Energies' in the masculine Trinitarian Godhead.

I am reading two books concurrently: Living Gnosis: A Practical Guide to Gnostic Christianity by Tau Malachi, and Embracing Jesus and the Goddess: A Radical Call for Spiritual Sanity by Carl McColman. Both of these books, in different ways, express the need for their authors to balance and reconcile the repression of Yin with Yang, to use the Chinese terms, that occurred in Christianity soon after its formation, with its usurpation, appropriation and corruption by Constantine. The duality-in-oneness of Tibetan Buddhism's masculine-feminine/compassion-wisdom/yab-yum symbols are expressed in Gnostic Christianity's Iesus-Miriam (Jesus-Mary) figures. Patriarchy apparently substituted John for Mary in some contexts (as DaVinci's 'Last Supper' alludes to) and Peter for Mary in other places (Nag Hammadi Gospels of Philip and Mary suggest that Mary was to head the Church).

Much esoteric symbolism found in both scriptural writings of the NT as well as in medieval art suggest this masculine-feminine balance in the figure of Iesus: blood and water issuing from a lance-pierced heart (blood is solar and masculine, water is lunar and feminine). The Sacred Heart image has the Crown of Thorns encircling the Heart. The Head (masculine, crown, mind) has descended to Heart (feminine, spirit). Often, the crucifixion is depicted between a sun and a moon, and the darkness that occurred is associated by a solar eclipse, a Conjunctio Oppositorum - a Union of Opposites. Below the images that the language gives rise to is a symbolic level of meaning that is closer to the Truth which is itself Unmanifest and Formless - the Truth that Judaism and Islam insist upon in their absolute abhorrence of depictions of The Sacred.

Carl McColman has not yet internalized his intrapsychic conflict. He finds himself attending Pagan Goddess worship in one location and Christian God worship in another, and he admits that it is a less-than perfect arrangement. Tau Malachi, as a leader of a Sophian Gnostic Church utilizes ritual to symbolize the interior union that people seek on various levels. The Tantric Yab-Yum, Holy Matrimony, the Marriage of
Shekinah and Tiphereth all represent the sacralizing of human sexuality, but, as I once explained to an antique dealer from whom I was buying a Yab-Yum statue, the depiction in Buddhism of this sexual act is a sacred symbol for the Union of Compassion and Wisdom [Karuna and Prajna] - the Leaden nature raised up to spiritual Gold, the profane to the sacred. Christainity has a great deal to learn from ancient traditions within its own fold, condemned as heretical, as well as from venerable traditions outside of Christendom. Who among you are willing to go beyond the 'archons' who have imprisoned true Christian aspirants in a dungeon of doctrines for two millennia?

Peace and Love,
MtG


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineWScott
´ ɑ `▽ ᑲᓇᑕ
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 5,713
Loc: Nacada
Last seen: 9 months, 15 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7540132 - 10/20/07 05:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Why do you say Iesus (I-sus?, Isis)and not Jesus in some parts?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: WScott]
    #7540206 - 10/20/07 05:49 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Just a reminder of authenticity. There is no letter 'J' in Greek, the letter Iota is used.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7540296 - 10/20/07 06:12 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

This is a really interesting post, Markos. Thanks! I have a lot of interest in this subject, although not a lot of knowledge. Have you read the book 'Jesus and the Lost Goddess' by Timothy Freke and Paul Gandy? If so, what do you think of it?

An interesting note that has some degree of relevance is the mistranslation of a key term in the Genesis account of creation. The story diffused from the Mesopotamian to the Hebrew. In the original language there was a word used that meant the breath of life, but was mistaken for rib. Like the English words sun and son, determining the word intended is entirely context based so a foreign listener could easily make such a mistake. This means that in the original story God took the breath of life from Adam and created Eve. She was not a secondary, derivative creature created from the rib bone of the perfect first, but rather of the same essense. It's interesting and horrific, how such a simple mistake so easily made utterly changed the meaning of the story and relegated woman to a second class.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7540518 - 10/20/07 07:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, I've read 3 of Freke's & Gandy's books. I enjoyed them, but university scholars apparently do not recognize their work and never cite them.

There are man many mistranslations in scriptures. 'Son of Man' was changed from 'Son of Adam' apparently. Adam Kadmon is 'cosmic man' according to Kabbalistic thought, something akin to the 'mystical body of Christ.' The universal principles and symbols for Transcendental Reality are 'ideas,' yet they are, as ideas, relegated to 'mind' and are like the light of the Sun reflected by the Moon. The ideas are NOT the Reality in Itself. That is why those who believe doctrines to be salvific are idolators. Mere belief in an idea not only does not transform the total person into the Reality to which the doctrine points, it intoxicates the person into believing that belief alone is sufficient.

Thanks for your response!


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7540566 - 10/20/07 07:41 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Here I believe you have put your finger on the human dilemma. There will be no real emotional progress towards the world of love we claim we crave without the merging of the masculine and feminine within each of us. We are faced each day personally and in the world at large with the result of our failure to achieve this. Great post.:thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7540867 - 10/20/07 09:32 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Honored, coming from such a well-honed skeptic as yourself.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7541412 - 10/21/07 02:06 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Hmm, fascinating subject. I'd really like to spend some time studying the diffusion of stories from mesopotamia, babylon, etc. to the hebrew and eventually to the bible. We've touched on it a bit in my mythology class... the biblical flood story is from babylon- found within the Gilgamesh epic- with a few key changes (the hebrew tellers didn't know much about boats, and in the babylonian the gods were angry about people being noisy rather than wicked.) The modern bible is so obviously a product of massive revision centuries after the fact. Of course this is the way with myth, it shifts with the shifting values and needs of the culture, and through it's many cultural diffusions. This is why it's so strange that people take it so literally; of course it has changed, and of course it is simply reflecting the values that are prevalent in the culture at the time. Myth is told in metaphor. How could it be otherwise? :shrug:

As for Freke and Gandy, I enjoyed the book myself but wondered about thier scholarship. I really ought to study the subject in greater depth.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7541602 - 10/21/07 04:38 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

It's so hard to even respond to this. It's a long winded tirade,
and you make numerous outrageous claims without even explaining or backing them up.

Quote:

Christianity's mythos has decided, by way of the Johannine writings, to make Iesus 'God clothed in flesh,'




No, that's not true at all. Jesus' divinity in the flesh is foretold long before the gospels were ever written.

Quote:

and although He takes the flesh of a female, he is in the form of a male.




nonsense.

Quote:

Judaism does not speak exoterically about Heaven, but esoteric Judaism, the Kabbalah




The kabbalah has nothing to do with Judaism. The Spiritual symbolism contained in the tabernacle, priestly service, and o.t. law is a "shadow of the good things to come in Christ". The new testament, book of revelation is a further manifestation of what is to come in heaven. It reveals that the children of God are to be a sort of heavenly city where God will live in us and among us. Beyond this, we know very little. Kabbalism has no place in Judaism, it does not stand on the authority of God's word, it is an unauthorized addition to scripture, and it is a perversion of the type symbolism contained in the o.t. It is nonsense and does not edify.

Quote:

Nevertheless, the later pseudo-Pauline letters, which are forgeries




You just state this without even explaining, as if it's common knowledge. If they could be proven to be forgeries, then Christianity would be over. You have absolutely no substantial proof to back this claim. It's only a statement born out of your biased imagination.

Quote:

The earliest writings of Christianity by Paul reflect this egalitarian teaching: (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” -
Galatians 3:28).




This has to do with value, not roles. And what evidence do you have to show that this is any more valid than the books you don't like? None. They are all valid, and you just pick and choose what you like and throw away the rest.

Quote:

Of course, the ambivalent Holy Spirit was symbolized by a dove, the animal sacred to Aphrodite and goddesses of antiquity




This is because aphrodite is just another pseudonym of Semiramis the "queen of heaven" that all of the ancient peoples had adopted in their different forms. The use of the symbolism of the dove was just another theft and corruption from the knowledge and prophecy that had been handed down by the children of Adam. There is proof for this.

Quote:

Christianity originally began as Iesus (and probably His companion Miriam called Magdalene)




Nonsense

Quote:

but the HS fertilized the womb of Miriam the mother of Iesus, and so, the HS was also deemed masculine.




First of all, if you're so intent on getting the original pronunciation correct, it's Maria or Mariam, not miriam. But the Holy Spirit being deemed Male because Jesus was manifested in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit is outrageous. It never says God had sexual relations with her, it only says God put the child in her womb.
Quote:


And2532 the3588 angel32 answered611 and said2036 unto her,846 The Holy40 Ghost4151 shall come1904 upon1909 thee,4571 and2532 the power1411 of the Highest5310 shall overshadow1982 thee:4671 therefore1352 also2532 that holy thing40 which shall be born1080 of1537 thee4675 shall be called2564 the Son5207 of God.2316 .




Unlike man, God doesn't need a female counterpart to create human life. And Jesus Christ has always existed as the word of God.

Quote:

Much esoteric symbolism found in both scriptural writings of the NT as well as in medieval art suggest this masculine-feminine balance in the figure of Iesus: blood and water issuing from a lance-pierced heart (blood is solar and masculine, water is lunar and feminine). The Sacred Heart image has the Crown of Thorns encircling the Heart. The Head (masculine, crown, mind) has descended to Heart (feminine, spirit). Often, the crucifixion is depicted between a sun and a moon, and the darkness that occurred is associated by a solar eclipse, a Conjunctio Oppositorum - a Union of Opposites.




You are imposing pagan mystic symbology on Christianity, it is nonsense. once again you have no basis for your claims. You like to claim Christianity is forged, but take a look at gnosticism, and see how it stands up to scrutiny. It has no authority, it's just vain babblings that do not edify.

Quote:

I have studied the esoteric (and sometimes very psychedelic-sounding) theology of Orthodox Christianity. The very bastian of this aspect of Christendom might be said to center on Mount Athos, a Greek island which has been home for anchorite mystic monks for over 1000 years. Reachable only by boat, this mountainous island of caves, some accessible by ladders of chain has forbidden any women to set forth on it for 1000 years!




I'm not surprised you're interested in it. It's full of worthless ritual and is traced right back to the same Babylonian mystery religion.

Quote:

Below the images that the language gives rise to is a symbolic level of meaning that is closer to the Truth which is itself Unmanifest and Formless




Vain babblings, just like I said. You choose a portion of true Christianity, but if you really understood it you would understand
that the things in the old testament were a shadow of the good things to come, the profitable spiritual edification that is manifested in the face of Jesus Christ, the Son of GOD. In love and righteousness. In love, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

And if it is unmanifest, then why do you seek it, and how can you know the nature of the truth without it being manifest?

Quote:

("As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. - 1 Corinthians 14:33-38).




You don't understand.

Man was created in God's image. But what about woman? How can you criticize what you do not understand? If you knew what nature she was created in, then you would not criticize so easily.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7542324 - 10/21/07 11:19 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

:lol: If Markos wrote a long winded tirade as you have accused, what may we call your post, which contains nothing more than arrogant proclamations of true knowledge with not the slightest bit of scholarship to back it up? Your response is nothing more than a whiny hissy fit. If you really believe he's off base and you have something substantial to prove this, show us the money and make a proper argument. :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7542385 - 10/21/07 11:38 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Thank you.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7542419 - 10/21/07 11:47 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

:lol: If Markos wrote a long winded tirade as you have accused, what may we call your post, which contains nothing more than arrogant proclamations of true knowledge with not the slightest bit of scholarship to back it up? Your response is nothing more than a whiny hissy fit. If you really believe he's off base and you have something substantial to prove this, show us the money and make a proper argument. :rolleyes:




No, there is plently of scholarship to back it up. I am forced to keep it short because to go in great detail with scholarship would be very lengthy and If someone needs scholarship, I can point them in the right direction or prove or show whatever I need to. But I can't consume my time with writing a single great essay just to answer a person. But it still needs to be answered. I have found this numerous times..certain people  on this forum who are the real ones posting long winded "arrogant proclomations of true knowledge" like this one here. It was an opening, Now if anyone has a counter arguement, I'll be sure to answer it.

Is there really a need to go on about commonly accepted knowledge? No. He should have "showed the money and made a proper arguement" to begin with.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7542454 - 10/21/07 11:56 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

You're not paying attention to what a debate serves for, cause otherwise you would sustain your point instead saying empty words like "I don't have time", I don't like you. :thumbdown:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7542474 - 10/21/07 12:03 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

once again :thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7542575 - 10/21/07 12:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

jonathan_206 said:
It's so hard to even respond to this. It's  a long winded tirade....




And yet you endeavored to struggle on. :smirk:

Quote:


nonsense.




Proclaimation with no substantiation is useless. :thumbdown:

Quote:


You just state this without even explaining, as if it's common knowledge. If they could be proven to be forgeries, then Christianity would be over.




Faulty logic. Its not like dropping water on a wicked witch. :lol:


Quote:


This has to do with value, not roles. And what evidence do you have to show that this is any more valid than the books you don't like? None. They are all valid, and you just pick and choose what you like and throw away the rest.




No, they aren't all valid. Unless you can actually cite some information for us to consider, for example, perhaps actually referencing some of these books and that which they propose, you are wasting everyone's times.

Quote:

There is proof for this.




Where? Not in your post, that is for sure. :lol:

Quote:


Nonsense




Proclamation with no substantiation is useless. :thumbdown:



Whoa, deja vu.... :cuckoo:

Quote:


First of all, if you're so intent on getting the original pronunciation correct, it's Maria or Mariam, not miriam.




Substantiation?

Quote:


But the Holy Spirit being deemed Male because Jesus was manifested in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit is outrageous.




So outrageous that its contagious? :strokebeard:

Quote:


Unlike man, God doesn't need a female counterpart to create human life.




:what:

You know this, how? :confused:

Quote:


  And Jesus Christ has always existed as the word of God.




Jesus Christ ate barbeque ribs with me down at the bar and grill last Friday... is that existing as the word of God? He was so drunk, I thought he wouldn't stop hitting on those poor waiters. :frown:

Quote:


You are imposing pagan mystic symbology on  Christianity, it is nonsense. once again you have no basis for your claims. You like to claim Christianity is forged, but  take a look at gnosticism, and see how it stands up to scrutiny. It has no authority, it's just vain babblings that do not edify.




This isn't a judgement forum, it is a forum for the discussion of ideas. Proposing baseless judgement without the support of ideas serves no purpose. No one is considering your judgement to have any value, as a result. :shrug:

Quote:


I'm not surprised you're interested in it. It's full of worthless ritual  and is traced right back to the same Babylonian mystery religion.




Personalisms are not welcome in this forum. :thumbdown:

Quote:


Vain babblings, just like I said.





Just like what directly followed that statement of yours. :shrug: 

Quote:


You don't understand.




No, you don't understand. :rolleyes:

Mature level of discussion. :congrats:

Quote:


Man was created in God's image. But what about woman?  How can you criticize what you do not understand?  If you knew what nature she was created in, then you would not criticize so easily.




In what nature was woman created in, and how have you determined this? :sherlock:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7542591 - 10/21/07 12:33 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Jesus Christ ate barbeque ribs with me down at the bar and grill last Friday... is that existing as the word of God? He was so drunk, I thought he wouldn't stop hitting on those poor waiters. :frown:




Yeah dude, it's because they didn't give him leading role in the porn of the year... I told him that the Greek muse costume was outdated and revealed all his cellulite but he wouldn't listen. :shrug:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7542593 - 10/21/07 12:34 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

No, there is plently of scholarship to back it up. I am forced to keep it short because to go in great detail with scholarship would be very lengthy and If someone needs scholarship, I can point them in the right direction or prove or show whatever I need to. But I can't consume my time with writing a single great essay just to answer a person.




This is a diversion. Here you are saying 'I really know what I'm talking about but it's too complicated and I don't have time, so just believe me. I'm right. I'm arrogant enough about my rightness that I don't need to form a reasonable argument.'

Pick one point. Make one argument. I'm not asking you to spend the next month of your life writing me a 10,000 word paper tearing Markos apart (I would hope you had better things to do.) I just want ONE argument that demonstrates accurate, reasonable scholarship and gets to the heart of the matter. Pick what you find to be the most offensively innacurate detail and tear it apart. This is what discourse is about, this is how debate takes place and how ideas are properly examined.


Quote:

I have found this numerous times..certain people on this forum who are the real ones posting long winded "arrogant proclomations of true knowledge" like this one here. It was an opening, Now if anyone has a counter arguement, I'll be sure to answer it.





What are you talking about? A counter argument to what? There's nothing to argue in your post because you didn't make a single point, rather just complained about Markos' innacuracy without offering a substantial alternative interpretation.

Quote:


Is there really a need to go on about commonly accepted knowledge? No. He should have "showed the money and made a proper arguement" to begin with.




Commonly accepted knowledge, or commonly accepted superstition? Mythology changes. Whatever you think is commonly accepted knowledge is nothing more than an interpretation that suits the needs of the culture which you have gleaned it from. I think that Markos is making a great attempt to cut through that, to get deeper into the origin of the Christian mythos and shed some light on why and how it has changed. If you disagree with his conclusions I want to hear about scholarship that refutes his - if you stand by church doctrine, that is just fine, but I want to hear about the scholarship behind the formation of doctrine, not 'it's true because the church says its true and everyone believes it.' This is a logical fallacy and it's boring.

Don't think I'm picking you apart because I don't like what you believe. If you were to present a compelling argument I'd respect that regardless of whether I bought it or not. This is not an argument about whether or not God exists or any other faith based issue - thus conclusions cannot be arbitrary. This is an argument about interpreting scripture which is a rather academic pursuit- it requires anthropological, linguistic, and historical work. Fun stuff.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7542596 - 10/21/07 12:34 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MushroomTrip said:
Quote:

Jesus Christ ate barbeque ribs with me down at the bar and grill last Friday... is that existing as the word of God? He was so drunk, I thought he wouldn't stop hitting on those poor waiters. :frown:




Yeah dude, it's because they didn't give him leading role in the porn of the year... I told him that the Greek muse costume was outdated and revealed all his cellulite but he wouldn't listen. :shrug:




Well, I think he was also mildly depressed, when he found out that Arnold Swartzenegger doesn't involve himself in gay pornography, due to his political career. Jesus had his heart set on massaging Arnold, so to speak. :naughty:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male

Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7542690 - 10/21/07 12:59 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Excellent post.:thumbup:

People become what they hate. Men hated women and became what they perceived women to be. Women retaliated by hating men, and became what they perceived men to be.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Rahz]
    #7542705 - 10/21/07 01:03 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Darn straight! :thumbup:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Rahz]
    #7543072 - 10/21/07 02:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Thank you Rahz, and I thank those who 'got' what I am saying. As to my detractor[s], I have nothing to rebut. His is an excellent and timely illustration of the concrete mentality that I am speaking to - the uncritical repetition of Christian doctrinal statements with obvious righteous indignation and anger in its delivery. Need I say more.

The New Testament was written intentionally as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies, not as an accurate historical record of prophesies come to pass! This is what the unconscious multitudes take for miraculous fulfillment. I myself used to marvel at the 'odds' of having all these prophesises actually come to pass AS IF all the minutiae, like Roman centurians gambling at the foot of one of many crosses for the garment of Iesus. Great story, but written way way after the fact and a terrific sequel to the OT prophetic stories all coalescing on one Iesus ben Miriam. The Rev. John Shelby Spong said it best in his brilliant work: Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes.

I'd only add that I have had 29 years since receiving a Masters of Theological Studies from the United Methodist seminary at Drew University in which to contemplate the canonical Bible, the NT Apocrypha, the OT Pseudepigrapha and the Nag Hammadi library. So, as a note to my detractor[s]: I have been where you are, you are not where I AM. Every assumption of 'belief' is an unconscious assumption from which you need to awaken. May your love for Truth equip you for the journey.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543081 - 10/21/07 02:30 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Commonly accepted knowledge, or commonly accepted superstition? Mythology changes.




Christianity has never changed. It is only human interpretation that has changed. Feel free to challange my interpretation, but don't say it changes all the time.

My interpretation is unlike catholic, orthodox, protestant, evangelical, or any other popular human interpretation that has not stood up to scripture.

My post was not long winded, it was not whiny, and if you want me to give "scholarly" evidence for the things I say, just ask. Let's move on.

The Truth is, that man was created in the image of God. But after what likeness was woman created? It is deep mystery, but I will tell you, because I want you to have understanding.

Woman was created in the image of Christ's church. This was based upon the foreknowledge of God. This is why woman can have only one husband. This is why Man is to honor his wife, as the weaker vessel. This is why woman is to submit to her husband. This is why Paul tells husbands to love their wifes like Christ loves the church.

Now please, don't forget it.

Christ loves his church, and he created woman in the Spirit of Love. He did not create her to be dominated by man like a dictator, but as a guiding authority and to strengthen her. it is in her weakness that women is found to be most cherished, and beautiful. And man's natural ability is to impart his strength to the woman to honor her, and to cherish her. It is incredibly sacred, and beautiful.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7543091 - 10/21/07 02:34 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

The Truth is, that man was created in the image of God. But after what likeness was woman created? It is deep mystery, but I will tell you, because I want you to have understanding.

Woman was created in the image of Christ's church. This was based upon the foreknowledge of God. This is why woman can have only one husband. This is why Man is to honor his wife, as the weaker vessel. This is why woman is to submit to her husband. This is why Paul tells husbands to love their wifes like Christ loves the church.

Now please, don't forget it.


Pure  hearsay.:tongue:  Now please, don't forget it.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7543129 - 10/21/07 02:42 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

"it is in her weakness that women is found to be most cherished, and beautiful."

What does a woman such as yourself have to say about your own weak-willed, weak-minded, weak-bodied and weakly-loving nature, O thou subordinate xx chromosomal incubational humanoid unit? I'd really like you to address this statement. THIS is EXACTLY what I was writing about! This stuff needs to die right now! John Shelby Spong entitled one of his books so aptly: Christianity Must Change or Die.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7543173 - 10/21/07 02:56 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

The Truth is, that man was created in the image of God. But after what likeness was woman created? It is deep mystery, but I will tell you, because I want you to have understanding.

Woman was created in the image of Christ's church.




Woman was creates in the image of Christ's church?
I was not aware that the woman turned into existence only after Christ walked the Earth.
I wonder how they kept reproducing until she came along. :strokebeard:

Quote:

This was based upon the foreknowledge of God.




Sources?

Quote:

This is why woman can have only one husband.




:shocked:
I didn't know this either. :lol:
So Christianity allows men to have more than one wife?
You're rewriting PAGES and pages of Christian dogma here. :smirk:

Quote:

This is why Man is to honor his wife, as the weaker vessel.




The weaker vessel?
And who turned the woman in the weaker vessel? Christianity.
Impotent puritans I might add. :smirk:

Quote:

This is why woman is to submit to her husband.




Why? Because the woman is weaker? This is NOT an argument. Using this logic, I could say that you MUST submit to a karate champion because you're way weaker than him. :wink:
Please do your homework and present real arguments, you're turning philosophy into a kindergarten drama. :thumbdown:

Quote:

This is why Paul tells husbands to love their wifes like Christ loves the church.




For which reason again? :confused:

Quote:

Now please, don't forget it.

Christ loves his church, and he created woman in the Spirit of Love. He did not create her to be dominated by man like a dictator, but as a guiding authority and to strengthen her.




A guiding authority? These are antipoles :smirk:

Quote:

it is in her weakness that women is found to be most cherished, and beautiful.




Yes... of course.
Just like men who beat their wifes because they're SO much love worthy when vulnerable and defenseless. :thumbdown:

Quote:

And man's natural ability is to impart his strength to the woman to honor her, and to cherish her. It is incredibly sacred, and beautiful.




Sacred my ass.
That's just sick.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7543186 - 10/21/07 03:00 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

My guess would be that we are "debating" with a VERY single man.:monkeydance:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepalmersc
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/23/06
Posts: 425
Loc: Arkansas
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7543198 - 10/21/07 03:03 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Indeed it is beautiful to honor and cherish women as God intended them to be. The man should lay down his life for his woman.

Look at the past 50 years and see where men have failed to be men and women have failed to be women. More broken homes, homosexuality, and confusion about what it means to be a man or woman.

The fact is that women and men are different. It is a fact that women are the weaker of the two. They are not built like a man is. They are more sensitive and their femininity is something to be honored, not looked down upon. Women in todays society have degraded themselves from the beauty they once held.

The respect and honor they deserve is best illustrated by chivalry.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7543205 - 10/21/07 03:05 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
My guess would be that we are "debating" with a VERY single man.:monkeydance:




Yup! I feel bad for him :frown:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543221 - 10/21/07 03:08 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Can I call on this. Women might be physically weaker but they are psychologically often much stronger IMO. You don't see any of the women here whining about some dead religion that is going to save them.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7543223 - 10/21/07 03:09 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

jonathan_206 said:
Quote:

Commonly accepted knowledge, or commonly accepted superstition? Mythology changes.




Christianity has never changed. It is only human interpretation that has changed.




Christianity does not exist but within the mind of each human individual. There is no singular Christianity, only the little reality bubbles of each individual who forms it for themself. Reality supports this viewpoint.

Quote:


My interpretation is  unlike catholic, orthodox, protestant, evangelical, or any other popular human interpretation that has not stood up to scripture.




And yet your Christianity cannot be the one true representation of Christianity, as your entire perception of what Christianity is due to the interpretation of humans who have fallen before you, and passed along their interpretation to you.

You have no perceptual knowledge that substantiates the concept of Christianity, simply the ideas passed along through individuals, through the very avenues of belief that you state do not accord with Scripture, although some of those avenues of belief created Scripture.

Quote:


The Truth is, that man was created in the image of G*d.




Substantiation?

Quote:


But after what likeness was woman created? It is deep mystery, but I will tell you, because I want you to have understanding.




Woman and man are of the same. We are human. This is evidenced in the understanding of reality that we have attained through testable, predictive observations - not for asserting brazen, unsubstantiated "truth" about G*d and creation.

Quote:


Woman was created in the image of Christ's church. This was based upon the foreknowledge of God. This is why woman can have only one husband.




And why is that evidenced by that "fact"? Talk about a chasm jump. :rolleyes:

G*d created women in the image of a church, so she can only have one husband. It almost makes a bit of sense. :cuckoo:

Quote:


This is why Man is to honor his wife, as the weaker vessel.




How have you determined that women are weaker than men? It sounds like an idea that weaker men would like to hold over women to control them, out of the weak men's fear.

Quote:


Christ loves his church, and he created woman in the Spirit of Love.




No, Christ loves his disco, and he created men in the Spirit of Gay Sex.

Quote:


He did not create her to be dominated by man like a dictator, but as a guiding authority and to strengthen her.




And vice versa, but weak men wouldn't admit it.

It isn't :yinyang: for nothing. :rolleyes:

Quote:


it is in her weakness that women is found to be most cherished, and beautiful.




Only by the sadistic.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543237 - 10/21/07 03:13 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

palmersc said:
The fact is that women and men are different. It is a fact that women are the weaker of the two.




False. In what ways are they weaker?

Suggest one, so it can be discredited and ridiculed.

I'll even start for you. The idea of women being physically weaker then men. Not true. There are women that could kill a man physically. Women being physically weaker then men = false stereotype.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepalmersc
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/23/06
Posts: 425
Loc: Arkansas
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7543247 - 10/21/07 03:16 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

would you feel more comfortable if it was you or your wife out walking alone at night?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543257 - 10/21/07 03:18 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I don't have a wife. I would feel more comfortable if it was both myself and my lady walking alone together at night, because then we could hold each other and kiss. :heartpump:

The methods in which you are attempting to gauge "strength" are incredibly limited and baseless.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7543268 - 10/21/07 03:20 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

:heartpump:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepalmersc
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/23/06
Posts: 425
Loc: Arkansas
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7543280 - 10/21/07 03:23 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I feel like we want to view women as equals with men.

Now what sort of equality, I'm not sure. But I don't want to get in bed with a Green Bay Packer.

We have different strengths and weaknesses, and together we can strengthen each other. The man is the head of the family, and takes responsibility for women and children. Else he is no man in my opinion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543298 - 10/21/07 03:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

And of course the woman defers to the man like the church unto christ, right?:monkeydance:

This is the line from men who fear women and seek to pacify their fears. Yep men are the stronger sex all right.:tongue:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepalmersc
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/23/06
Posts: 425
Loc: Arkansas
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7543345 - 10/21/07 03:45 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

We live in an emasculated society and women are rebelling out of confusion. Without true masculinity, there can be no femininity.

Masculinity is not overbearing or domineering. It is supportive and protective.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543359 - 10/21/07 03:50 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

palmersc said:
would you feel more comfortable if it was you or your wife out walking alone at night?




What is this supposed to mean, exactly? I walked home alone at midnight last night after parting ways with my new lover. It was a lovely walk that took nearly an hour, and not one moment did I fear for my safety. He didn't fear for my safety when we diverged either. :shrug: Women may tend to be less physically massive, but that doesn't mean we don't have a few tricks up our sleeves if we need them. I'm fond of the eye gouge, the throat punch and the knee-to-the-testicles. The myth that women are defenseless weaklings that need men to protect them is silly, sexist and irritating. Get over it. Wouldn't you rather your 'wife' take a self defense course and feel confident than desperately cling to you to save her? Or is your sense of masculinity bound up in being percieved as her protector?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543362 - 10/21/07 03:51 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

palmersc said:
I feel like we want to view women as equals with men.




Of course we do, we humans like to realize reality for what it is, in order to benefit ourselves, and reality. :smile:

Quote:


We have different strengths and weaknesses...




Every individual has different strengths and weaknesses, which have nothing to do with whether an individual is a man or a woman. Beyond physical characteristics that are distinctly inherent within a man and a woman, the only other differences in regards to strengths and weaknesses are of one's personality and physical variation, which does not fit within a generalized "male" or "female" label.

One individuals strengths and weaknesses complement each other. The individual strengths and weaknesses within a relationship complement each other.

The notion that the man is the head of the family, and has more responsibility for the woman and children is false and unsubstantiated. Your opinion has no bearing on reality, only yourself. Reality does not correspond to your baseless prejudice. :shrug:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543365 - 10/21/07 03:52 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

palmersc said:
We live in an emasculated society and women are rebelling out of confusion. Without true masculinity, there can be no femininity.

Masculinity is not overbearing or domineering. It is supportive and protective.




:rofl2: This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Do you enjoy holding delusions of grandeur?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543374 - 10/21/07 03:54 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
Or is your sense of masculinity bound up in being percieved as her protector?




This sense of masculinity is fear. The idea of being a protector implies a power hiearchy, to compensate for fear that their partner is free to make their own choices. It needs to fade away as humans become more evolved and aware. :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7543410 - 10/21/07 04:06 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Agreed. The man-as-protector paradigm is about nothing more than control. If women are kept in a state of fear, each seeking a strong man to protect her from the rest, they are kept in a state of subservience always having to be grateful for the menial security provided. It's like the role of 'bitch' in prison. Some weak men accept it to avoid fighting thier own fights. It's pitiful whether a man or a women submit to the role. It's also pitiful that some men are so desperate to feel a sense of power that they lack that they will assault women. Protector and assaulter are two sides of the same coin.

I'm much more interested in developing a true and equal partnership in which both parties recognize the other's freedom to sever ties at any time, and in which both parties remain only so long as they are satisfied and strengthened by the bond. I don't need a protector, I do just fine on my own thank-you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7543414 - 10/21/07 04:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Pure hearsay.:tongue: Now please, don't forget it.




Nomatter what I say, or how much biblical references I give, you will still say it's heresay. If I back it will scripture, people will say scripture doesn't matter, it's just a fairy tale. They won't consider the evidence for the validity of scripture, and they would rather believe in their own fairy tales with no authority or substantiation.

mushroomtrip;

Quote:

You're not paying attention to what a debate serves for, cause otherwise you would sustain your point instead saying empty words like "I don't have time", I don't like you. :thumbdown:




I don't have to debate the way you want me to. I'm not obligated to fit myself into your little mold. I already said I was willing to back myself up.




fireworks:




   
Quote:

Quote:

    nonsense.



Proclaimation with no substantiation is useless. :thumbdown:




Not true at all. It's worth it just to show that there are people who
disagree and they can back it up. When I say nonsense, it is referring to something I believe so obvious there's no need to explain. It's like trying to convince someone  white is white, when they've convinced themselves it's black. It's very difficult.

   
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

    You just state this without even explaining, as if it's common knowledge. If they could be proven to be forgeries, then Christianity would be over.






Faulty logic. Its not like dropping water on a wicked witch. :lol:




It's not faulty logic at all. It only seems faulty to a person who is has convinced themselves that Christians are unwilling to consider criticism or, logically defend their beliefs.  When you say this, you already presuppose that christians are closed minded. If forgeries can be proven, then forgeries can b proven. If they can't be proven they can't be proven. The 24,000+ manuscripts we have and the internal exegesis do not show any forgeries.


 
Quote:


   
Quote:

This has to do with value, not roles. And what evidence do you have to show that this is any more valid than the books you don't like? None. They are all valid, and you just pick and choose what you like and throw away the rest.






No, they aren't all valid. Unless you can actually cite some information for us to consider, for example, perhaps actually referencing some of these books and that which they propose, you are wasting everyone's times.




Unless you can site some information for us to consider that they're not all valid, then my arguement remains the same.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/masoud01.html



    Quote:
    There is proof for this.



How much do I need to show you?Honestly, I don't care if I convince you. I care for other readers, who might be looking for the other side, and they can search more on their own. But once again, as i have pointed out, I can go on as long as I need to.

I learned an important lesson, it's you can't educate people who don't want to be educated. The best you can do is state the Truth, and point them in the right direction. You're asking me to answer something that would require enormous amounts of information to show in it's entirety. Unless you want to get into an essay debate, where we all type massive essays to each other, then it's not going to work the way you're asking. I think this all started off on the wrong foot begin with.

here, educated youself:

http://www.ldolphin.org/semir.html
http://bupc.montana.com/whores/worsemi.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/Nimrod.html

Let me know if you need more.


Quote:

Proclamation with no substantiation is useless. :thumbdown:




Nope.



   
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:


    First of all, if you're so intent on getting the original pronunciation correct, it's Maria or Mariam, not miriam.






Substantiation?





You pretend like this is reasonable.

Quote:

G3137
Μαρία, Μαριάμ
Maria  Mariam
mar-ee'-ah, mar-ee-am'
Of Hebrew origin [H4813]; Maria or Mariam (that is, Mirjam), the name of six Christian females: - Mary.





   
Quote:

Quote:


    But the Holy Spirit being deemed Male because Jesus was manifested in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit is outrageous.






So outrageous that its contagious? :strokebeard:




Yes, like herpes.

   

   
Quote:

Unlike man, God doesn't need a female counterpart to create human life.


Quote:


:what:

You know this, how? :confused:




Because of scripture which is firmly supported by every natural science and all history, and by common sense.




    Quote:

   
Quote:

Quote:

And Jesus Christ has always existed as the word of God.






Quote:

Jesus Christ ate barbeque ribs with me down at the bar and grill last Friday... is that existing as the word of God? He was so drunk, I thought he wouldn't stop hitting on those poor waiters. :frown:








I find it so appalling when people go on like this. You can go on about the flying spaghetti monster and whatnot all you like, but it does not adress the evidence given for his divinity; his miracles, his fulfilled prophecy. It does not adress the authority of the world of God, or the evidence given by Christians for it's authority. You can apply whatever false circumstances you want to The God of the bible, but that does not make it true. It's an inaccurate distortion.

   
   
Quote:

Quote:

You are imposing pagan mystic symbology on Christianity, it is nonsense. once again you have no basis for your claims. You like to claim Christianity is forged, but take a look at gnosticism, and see how it stands up to scrutiny. It has no authority, it's just vain babblings that do not edify.






This isn't a judgement forum, it is a forum for the discussion of ideas. Proposing baseless judgement without the support of ideas serves no purpose. No one is considering your judgement to have any value, as a result. :shrug:




It isn't a baseless judgement. gnosticism seriously has no authority. It cannot be traced back to any of the apostles with any veracity. It has no way of validating itself.  There is no evidence for it. period. Not much room for arguement, there's very little to argue over. what do we find when we look back in the history of the church? We find the n.t. was recognised as the word of God by the general people long before it was ever canonized. The canonization was really just about affirming the veracity of scripture and conforming what's false.

some read for you:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

this is an article on davinci code, but it answers many of the same arguements:

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

and here's something on the veracity of the book of John for you gnostics..

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html

   

   
Quote:

Quote:

I'm not surprised you're interested in it. It's full of worthless ritual and is traced right back to the same Babylonian mystery religion.






Quote:

Personalisms are not welcome in this forum. :thumbdown:







i won't argue. It wouldn't do me any good. If you say this is a personalims, I'll  try not to do it again. It seems that in actually though, we are allowed personalisms, just not negative ones.

   
Quote:


   
Quote:

Man was created in God's image. But what about woman? How can you criticize what you do not understand? If you knew what nature she was created in, then you would not criticize so easily.






Quote:

In what nature was woman created in, and how have you determined this? :sherlock:







I suppose I have to  go in detail now, otherwise you'll never let me live it down.

Here we go.

Fortunately I had part of this discussion before so I'll just copy and paste, and edit a bit and save myself some time.

Quote:


First of all sex is an intimate part of a special relationship that's private and sacred and kept in faithfulness and love. Adultery is an attack against the holy and sacred bond of man and woman in marriage. Jesus says:

Quote:
Mathew 19

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Now man can have more than one wife and here is why. It has to do with the nature of the woman. Woman was created for man, and is the glory of man.. And man was created for God, and is the glory of God..Now man is the master of a woman, but not in the sense that you would think of like a slave being abused. But rather as the leader and authority. Jesus's disciples called him master too.


John 13:13
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am
Now you really need to understand more about the nature of the woman.


These verses can give us a better understanding:


Ephesians 5

20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.


You see he is using the relationship with a man and his wife as an allegory to Christ and his church! And what's more, she was created in that image. Now this righteousness and love towards the wife that Paul speaks of is the same love that God expected in the old Testament. And Paul would know, he was a pharisee amoung pharisees. He was a Jew, and he was well acquainted with what the bible taught . Now it's true that there were many evil men towards wifes and likewise evil women towards husbands in the old testament and the new for sure ( I mean the time periods). But there are also examples of love and dedication such as Jacob who worked 14 years to get the wife he desired and cherished. Or Abraham who loved his wife and bought a piece of land to bury her and honor her when she died. And surely others. And you forget that God told children to honor their mothers, do you think then that he would expect women to be treated as objects? No way.

Their were men with hard hearts towards their wifes, just as Jesus said:


Mathew 19

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.



If women were not special creations to God, then the idea of a private and sacred fellowship between man and woman would be meaningless. Didn't God also say, love your neighbor as your self? Women are surely our neighbors also.

Now Paul also speaks of how women should act and be treated. This will shed more light on things:

1 Peter 3

1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.


7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

You see? This is how the Bible teaches we should treat women. We should honor them with our strength as to a weaker vessel, this being also an allegory of Christs love for his bride, the church. Does God despise his bride? No! And he created women as something very dear and special to him.

In the book of Genesis, when God created Eve, Adam said of her:


Genesis 2

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Now remember what Christ said conscerning this last verse:

Quote:
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
So you see, just as woman was born of man, the bride of Christ, that is his church and body of believers were born of him by his word which is spirit. It says of him:


1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
It is by his Spirit that we are made into new creatures.



2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Now, Christians are children of God, are are held together in the bond of fellowship. But Christ is also our master, and we are his servants. But it's as Jesus said:


Quote:
Mathew 6

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.


Now just as Christ is our master, and we are to be set apart (holy) and faithful to him, in the same way is the woman to have one husband and master also. This is the natural order, and it is an allegory of Christs love for his church. To remind you again:


28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepalmersc
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/23/06
Posts: 425
Loc: Arkansas
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7543437 - 10/21/07 04:13 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

So this is perceived as fear? I am struggling with what you are saying. Two people come together as one in marriage out of love. There is such a thing as womanhood and manhood. They are not the same thing and not in conflict with each other.

I will say that the concept of dating has been detrimental to male female relationships. Probably one of the many reasons for so many divorces today since there is no responsibility taken on either end. Certainly a relatively new phenomena.

The kind of respect that a woman deserves is not shown anymore as a whole. The kind of woman that opposes chivalry is not one I want to be with.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7543447 - 10/21/07 04:16 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:



Nomatter what I say, or how much biblical references I give, you will still say it's heresay. If I back it will scripture, people will say scripture doesn't matter, it's just a fairy tale. They won't consider the evidence for the validity of scripture, and they would rather believe in their own fairy tales with no authority or substantiation.





Because to understand the meaning of scripture with any historical accuracy, one must consider translational issues from both the original scriptures as well as in the diffusion of biblical stories from other cultures (babylon, mesopotamia, etc.) One must also understand how scripture was changed several centuries after the fact by people like Augustine - church doctrine was developed long after the fact. It is also vital to understand social/cultural factors at the time including what sort of ideologies were floating around and which of them found home in christianity. Etc, etc.

To quote from whatever modern english bible you've got handy is not good enough in regards to the topic at hand, as this topic is completely about analysing source material and historical context. If you cannot engage on those grounds you are not engaging at all, simply talking like a broken record. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. What is being challenged is modern translations of scripture and church doctrine - you cannot refute arguments against it by quoting it. You have to go deeper. You have to make a case for why you believe your version is accurate. I'm handing this one to you - come on. Do the research - the better for you, the better for our debate. Don't you want some more effective tools in your arsenal of argument?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7543678 - 10/21/07 05:22 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
And of course the woman defers to the man like the church unto christ, right?:monkeydance:

This is the line from men who fear women and seek to pacify their fears. Yep men are the stronger sex all right.:tongue:




It looks like someone got a personality transplant from 1950s TV sitcoms like 'Father Knows Best,' 'Leave It To Beaver,' and 'Ozzie and Harriet.' How easily Biblical patriarchal bias fits with a semi-modern version. I wonder if this kind of individual refuses to be operated on by a female surgeon, or flown around the globe by a female pilot.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543681 - 10/21/07 05:23 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I'm much more interested in developing a true and equal partnership in which both parties recognize the other's freedom to sever ties at any time, and in which both parties remain only so long as they are satisfied and strengthened by the bond. I don't need a protector, I do just fine on my own thank-you.





Amen, sister! Can I get a hallelujah?

BTW, the myth of females being the weaker sex is baseless.  If we measure weakness/strength by ability to survive, then men clearly do not have the advantage.  Women live longer in every industrialized country.  The difference in non-industrialized (aka third world) countries is largely due to child birth complications.  Male embryos are more likely to be miscarried than female embryos. Male infants are much more likely to die than female infants.  Male adolescents are much more likely to die than female adolescents.  Women outnumber men in retirement homes & assisted living facilities.

As the saying goes, Ginger did everything that Fred did, but she did it backwards while wearing heels.  :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543688 - 10/21/07 05:23 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

palmersc said:
I will say that the concept of dating has been detrimental to male female relationships. Probably one of the many reasons for so many divorces today since there is no responsibility taken on either end.





I will say that your assertion is totally flawed.
Tell me exactly how, step by step, dating has been detrimental for relationships?
It is where we gather our experience from, it's how we find out what we want and don't want. We get to explore our unlimited variation of feelings, likes, dislikes, sexuality and also develop a sense of knowing how to make a relationship (one that's worth it) really work.
The reason why there were no divorces in the dark past is because women were subject to abuse (pretty much like now), but only them they were "educated" to live with it. Submit to a series of crap coming from their early ages, from their parents which taught them to obey their husbands, accept their infidelities, abuses of power and so on.
I'll give you a link that you might wanna check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey
And also a small quote from it:
Quote:

Kinsey is generally regarded as the father of sexology, the systematic, scientific study of human sexuality. He initially became interested in the different forms of sexual practices around 1933, after discussing the topic extensively with a colleague, Robert Kroc. It is likely that Kinsey's study of the variations in mating practices among gall wasps led him to wonder how widely varied sexual practices among humans were. During this work, he developed a scale measuring sexual orientation, now known as the Kinsey Scale which ranges from 0 to 6, where 0 is exclusively heterosexual and 6 is exclusively homosexual; a rating of 7, for asexual, was added later by Kinsey's associates.

In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful. Kinsey obtained research funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, which enabled him to inquire into human sexual behavior.

His Kinsey Reports—starting with the publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, followed in 1953 by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female—reached the top of bestseller lists and turned Kinsey into an instant celebrity, and are still the bestselling scientific books of all time. Articles about him appeared in magazines such as Time, Life, Look, and McCall's. Kinsey's reports, which led to a storm of controversy, are regarded by many as an enabler of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Indiana University's president Herman B Wells defended Kinsey's research in what became a well-known test of academic freedom.




For even more information on how much bull shit and repression both men and women had to endure, only that these problems were never made public until then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

I suggest that you read that because it's a clear prove that SERIOUS problems of communication and coexistence have existed between men and women, and this is because sexual discrimination.

Quote:

Certainly a relatively new phenomena.




Yeah... about MORE than a lot of centuries. :grin:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7543741 - 10/21/07 05:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I don't have to debate the way you want me to. I'm not obligated to fit myself into your little mold. I already said I was willing to back myself up.




It's not the way "I want to", it's the way a debate takes place.
This forum is dedicated to critical analysis which obviously you can't handle. :shrug:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543756 - 10/21/07 05:44 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

palmersc said:
So this is perceived as fear? I am struggling with what you are saying. Two people come together as one in marriage out of love. There is such a thing as womanhood and manhood. They are not the same thing and not in conflict with each other.

I will say that the concept of dating has been detrimental to male female relationships. Probably one of the many reasons for so many divorces today since there is no responsibility taken on either end. Certainly a relatively new phenomena.

The kind of respect that a woman deserves is not shown anymore as a whole. The kind of woman that opposes chivalry is not one I want to be with.




Care to define 'womanhood' and 'manhood' for me? What qualities are inherent to the sexes? Let me guess - the feminine is receptive, passive, nurturing, and emotional while the masculine is active, aggressive, strong and rational? :rolleyes:

Have you ever considered that men and women may have these characteristics because they are told from the moment they enter the world that they have these characteristics? Have you ever explored the concept of socialization? Have you ever met anyone that didn't fit the mold? Are there not men who prefer to snuggle, knit and dance and women who prefer to build houses, shoot guns and be study martial arts?

Have you ever thought that instead of recieving the penis the vagina surrounds or consumes it? Different paradigms... Perhaps the woman has a more active role than we think. :smirk:

The great thing about life is that we get to pick our values. Why not pick those that offer the most space for developing onself as fully as possible? It's more fun that way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543780 - 10/21/07 05:50 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

The great thing about life is that we get to pick our values. Why not pick those that offer the most space for developing onself as fully as possible? It's more fun that way.




Some have to ask permission from good old god :smirk:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543884 - 10/21/07 06:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Because to understand the meaning of scripture with any historical accuracy, one must consider translational issues from both the original scriptures





The pieces of manuscript we have from the second century to the 6/7th agree with each other almost perfectly. There is very little change , almost all of it is in copying errors, spelling mistakes, that have no effect on doctrine.

Quote:

what is the direct evidence and data for textual corruption? 95% of the errors found in the NT text are recognized as unintentional [Patz.MNT, 138]. This includes confusion of similar letters, repetition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying. The remaining 5% of errors includes revised spelling and grammar, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties, and, indeed, theological or doctrinal changes. However, let it not be said that there was some systematic or even informal conspiracy to change the NT text.

Also working against any idea that some important text was lost or added is evidence that textual criticism was already in process as early as the second and third century! Origen complains of negligence and audacity by scribes; Jerome takes note of various scribal errors, and so on. [Metz.TNT, 152-4] These fellows, at least, were on guard against any variations! (To this we may also add that scribal science used in Alexandria on the NT in the early decades also ensured careful treatment of the text.)

In summary, here is a general admonition regarding charges of NT textual corruption: Until solid textual evidence is found for such changes, all that we are being offered with such objections is a "spaghetti against the wall" supposition. Rather than citing some particular textual difficulty, all we have the typical critic is some vague idea that somewhere, somehow, we must be missing SOMETHING that will cause problems for the Christian faith! Even Ehrman [Ehr.OxC, 46n], though he has only found a few dozen corruptions - which he was able to identify because original readings were still preserved! - cannot resist speculating that there are actually "hundreds" of undiscovered corruptions. This is rather like the wandering soothsayer who carries a sign saying "THE WORLD WILL END TOMORROW" - having faith that someday, he will be right! The evidence is far better that we DO have the "original text" -- it is simply mixed up with "unoriginal variants," and it is speculative to believe we have lost any real parts.




http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

also page on ot canon

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html

the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it so it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis.




Quote:

as well as in the diffusion of biblical stories from other cultures (babylon, mesopotamia, etc.)




I'm well aware of this. Most people hear there's similar stories to the bible in ancient mesoptiamian religion, and they just accept these "refutations" to the bible as QFT when it is not. People have been aware of this for thousands of years!!

They're just ignorant, and they conclude from their presupposition that it must have come from mesopotamian religion, and not the other way around. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not true. If one looks at the evidence you'll see that biblical history humanity goes back farther than mesopotamian religion. And all the evidence when compared and analyzed shows that Babylonian religion is a corruption form the Truthful knowledge and propehcy handed down by Adam and Noah. For instance, look at people like to talk about the gilgamesh epic. But did you know that there are flood legends all over the world? But obviously they had to have come from a common source. Take a look here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/introduction.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/ch1.asp

And perhaps you'll ask, "why should we believe them? " well how about I ask you the same question about yours, and it really comes down to using your common sense that God gave you. That's why I've given up trying to prove anything to people, except those who are willing. Because you can only prove it to yourself. If you are wise, you are wise for yuorself, and if you are a fool, you alone will pay for it.

Quote:

One must also understand how scripture was changed several centuries after the fact by people like Augustine - church doctrine was developed long after the fact.





There is no proof for that. It's just divinici code
nonsense with no proof to back it up. The Roman catholic church has changed their doctrine many times throughout history, but this has no effect on the manuscripts. There is no way they could control ALL of the manuscripts.

Quote:

It is also vital to understand social/cultural factors at the time including what sort of ideologies were floating around and which of them found home in christianity. Etc, etc.





It's wise to recognize human nature, but it's also wise to recognize the possibility for the faithful preservation of scripure. Instead of coming up with all sorts of unsubstantiated "what if" stories, look at the real evidence points to. i have posted links to this evidence.


Quote:

To quote from whatever modern english bible you've got handy is not good enough in regards to the topic at hand, as this topic is completely about analysing source material and historical context.




And as I have pointed out there is no disagreement in the manuscripts. And if you want to have an arguement about textual criticism, I first suggest you get a degree, and then don't forget to remind everyone who can't that they're too dumb to understand.

Quote:

If you cannot engage on those grounds you are not engaging at all, simply talking like a broken record.




I'm not a broken record by any means.

Quote:

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. What is being challenged is modern translations of scripture and church doctrine - you cannot refute arguments against it by quoting it. You have to go deeper. You have to make a case for why you believe your version is accurate. I'm handing this one to you - come on. Do the research - the better for you, the better for our debate. Don't you want some more effective tools in your arsenal of argument?




many people have pointed out to gnostics the results of textual criticism. They just don't get it. Argue till your blue in the face, the results are on the table. The only thing gnostics have against it are unsubstantiated conspiracy fables.

I have plenty of tools.


Edited by jonathan_206 (10/21/07 06:55 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7544411 - 10/21/07 08:10 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


The pieces of manuscript we have from the second century to the 6/7th  agree with each other almost perfectly. There is very little change , almost all of it is in copying errors, spelling mistakes, that have no effect on doctrine.




From the second to the 6/7th century? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 2nd century quite awhile after the fact? This is the time period in which Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was precisely the time in which alot of the corruption of the original material happened. The displaced officials of a crumbling empire saw something in Christianity that was cooptable, something that would offer them new positions to maintain thier power and influence with the disintegration of the administration of Rome. This is the time of the Council of Nicaea, where the first doctrine of orthodoxy was established. This is precisely when a great deal of material was altered, filtered out and forgotten.


Quote:


the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it  so  it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis.





There are pretty large scale translation errors between some of the myths of the old testament and thier original form. Like the 'breath of life' translated into  the 'rib.' This is a big deal.


Quote:


They're just ignorant, and they conclude from their presupposition that it must have come from mesopotamian religion, and not the other way around. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not true.  If one looks at the evidence you'll see that biblical history  humanity goes back farther than mesopotamian religion.  And all the evidence when compared and analyzed shows that Babylonian religion is a corruption form  the Truthful knowledge and propehcy handed down by  Adam and Noah. For instance, look at people like to talk about the gilgamesh epic. But did you know that there are flood legends all over the world? But obviously they had to have come from a common source.




Aspects of Babylonian religion were handed down and modified from the Sumerian which were handed down and modified from previous hunter gatherer societies. This is the way of myth. There is a great deal of interchange between communicating groups of people, and there was a traceable flow between the Sumerians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Hittites, Semites and others. People influence each other. This is no big revelation, it is simply a fact of life. People talk to each other, and when they enjoy each others stories, goods, ideas, etc. they adopt them but alter them to make them more suitable for themselves and thier needs. It's called diffusion.

Are you trying to argue that Adam and Noah are historical persons? :lol:

Quote:

And perhaps you'll ask, "why should we believe them? " well how about I ask you the same question about yours, and it really comes down to using your common sense that God gave you. That's why I've given up trying to prove anything to people, except those who are willing. Because you can only prove it to yourself. If you are wise, you are wise for yuorself, and if you are a fool, you alone will pay for it.




I'm not saying that anyone should 'believe me,' but if we both have an interest in getting to the bottom of things there are many avenues to follow. There are written records from this time period which is a great help. There is the archaeological record, there is a process by which things may be analysed that helps us get a little closer to understanding what was. We can't time travel, so we can never paint a perfect picture of times past, but we can piece it together as well as we may and make interpretations that appear most likely due to the evidence. Rather than trusting one book and people who are bent on proving that book to be literally True, it makes more sense to look at as many sources of information as possible (including, but not limited to that book) and try and organize and make sense of it all. There will always be debate. That's half the fun. :shrug:


Quote:

There is no proof for that. It's just divinici  code
nonsense with no proof t




There's no proof that Augustine influenced church doctrine? Are you kidding me? Read 'The City of God.' This is a fine example of how Platonism (greek pagan philosophy :wink:) diffused into Christian thought. Augustine also came up with the notion of Original Sin. He was a biggie in the development of dogma. It's irrefutable.


Quote:

It's wise to recognize human nature, but it's also wise to recognize the possibility for the faithful preservation of scripure. Instead of coming up with all sorts of unsubstantiated "what if" stories, look at the real evidence points to. i have posted links to this evidence.





By socio-cultural context I did not mean human nature. This is a misinterpretation of my words. I'm not saying anything about "human nature" at all. When I say we must understand socio-cultural context I mean that we must be aware of the way the culture(s) in question were organized, what thier worldviews were, how thier religious thought affected thier daily lives, etc. To understand what they were talking about we have to understand how it related to and justified thier social structure. This isn't radical stuff. Many faithful theologians would agree.


Quote:

And as I have pointed out there is no disagreement in the manuscripts. And if you want to have an arguement about textual criticism, I first suggest you get a degree, and then don't forget to remind everyone who can't that they're too dumb to understand.





I'm working on the degree. I'm also not the type to tell people they're too stupid to understand, I really don't think many people are stupid at all. Some just prefer to avoid questions that are uncomfortable. I think that's unfortunate and so I like to pose a challenge.

Quote:

many people have pointed out to gnostics the results of textual criticism. They just don't get it. Argue till your blue in the face, the results are on the table. The only thing gnostics have against it are unsubstantiated conspiracy fables.

I have plenty of tools.




Lot's of people make 'textual' and other criticisms of the bible. Many of them have no interest whatsoever in gnosticism either. My anthropology teacher once had to count ribs with one of her classes because a student was dead set on the idea that men had one less rib than women, accounting for the rib Adam lost for Eve. Taking scripture literally is a dead end. Recognizing scripture as a metaphor, as our friend Markos has, and as have most of your opponents, may open many doors of self discovery and enlightenment. I'm more interested in exploration than certainty. It's not as scary as it seems.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7544939 - 10/21/07 10:24 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Quote:

The pieces of manuscript we have from the second century to the 6/7th agree with each other almost perfectly. There is very little change , almost all of it is in copying errors, spelling mistakes, that have no effect on doctrine.






From the second to the 6/7th century? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 2nd century quite awhile after the fact? This is the time period in which Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was precisely the time in which alot of the corruption of the original material happened. The displaced officials of a crumbling empire saw something in Christianity that was cooptable, something that would offer them new positions to maintain thier power and influence with the disintegration of the administration of Rome. This is the time of the Council of Nicaea, where the first doctrine of orthodoxy was established. This is precisely when a great deal of material was altered, filtered out and forgotten.




I'll correct you. Yes, second century is a while after the fact. But the manuscripts themselves are not the only things we have. There is a reason why historians have the gumption to place the n.t. letters within the time frame the the apostles lived in. It's called secondary and tertiary evidence. When you say "this is a the time a lot of the corruption happened" as if that means the gospels were somehow mysteriously distorted by some secret mystery cult or something, that is an assumption. You have no proof to back it up, and this is what the numerous books easily refuting the davinci code have pointed out all along. The evidence shows quite to the contrary as the article I posted, and many books have pointed out. It's just a conspiracy theory that is convenient for gnostics, but has no historical evidence to back it up. the real historical evidence shows that no, alot of the corruption didn't just start out of the blue in Rome, it was building up for many many years prior to that. Gnosticism was part of this corruption, and that's why the n.t. refutes gnosticism.

http://www.nisbett.com/sabbath/history/hos12.htm

Even if the gospel as is given in the new testament is false, and we had none of the pauline letters or any of the letters we have now, gnosticism would not fit. It does not fit the o.t. It does not fit the doctrine, prophecy, context. The whole bible is written as historical narrative. If the original writers intended it to be taken generally symbolic in it's entirety, then that would be a massive deception. There's just no room for that interpretration. It's like taking the simple statement "the sun is shining very brightly. I closed the door so the rays would not blind my eyes. I went down on the couch to take a nap" And turn it into something totally symbolic . I'll sure you could turn it into something, but that is not how exegesis works, plain and simple. And the fact of the matter, is the Hebrews took it as literal history also. And gnosticsm does not address the o.t. prophecies, it does not address the core of the God's plan, which is salvation from sin and death. It does not fit. Christianity fits, because it adresses and fits the old testament.

If we look at something strictly from a historical perspective, it is worthless. There has to be more, the historical timeline is supportive, but you also look at the internal evidence. Because people could fit whatever they want into history and pass it off as truth, it's been done before. That's why we rely on other types of evidence, such as evidence concerning origins,secondary and tertiary evidence,archeology, and ultimately Spiritual evidence. When it comes to the past, we just wern't there. You can imagine whatever you want, but you have to go with the evidence you do have, not the evidence you don't.

But as far as the councel of nicea..I really wish you would read that article I posted on the davinci code. Here is a portion relevent:

Quote:

Did Constantine decide the canon? How did the process work?[17].  Constantine was not the decider of the canon, and played in fact no role at all in its assembly; the church at large was the party responsible. The process of canonizing the New Testament was based on a model that had existed for centuries whereby various religions chose a collection of normative sacred books. It is likely that Paul himself began the process by collecting his own letters, or that one of his friends like Luke or Timothy did so. Far from being an arbitrary process, or one decided upon by Constantine much later, the formation of the canon was the result of carefully-weighed choices over time by concerned church officials and members. Later votes on the canon were merely the most definitive steps taken at the end of a long and careful, sometimes difficult, process. Biblical scholar Robert Grant, in The Formation of the New Testament, writes that the New Testament canon was:

...not the product of official assemblies or even of the studies of a few theologians. It reflects and expresses the ideal self-understanding of a whole religious movement which, in spite of temporal, geographical, and even ideological differences, could finally be united in accepting these 27 diverse documents as expressing the meaning of God's revelation in Jesus Christ and to his church. [18]

To claim that Constantine was behind the canon, or was responsible for destroying Gospels he did not approve of, is a ludicrous distortion of history. In fact, Constantine convened the Council at Nicea, paid the travel expenses of those who attended, and provided his summer lake palace for the site, but he had no ecclesiastical authority at all. The information we have on the Council is fascinating and in no way supports the idea of a pagan Roman’s overthrow of “early Christianity” or any conspiracy. A good introduction to the facts about the Council is available in the Summer 1996 issue of Christian History magazine, “Heresy in the Early Church,” at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/51h/ .

“At [the Council of Nicea]….many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon – the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus….until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.”[23]

This is a half-truth. The Council of Nicea did seriously consider alternating views of Jesus, not so much as “mortal” versus “God” but as “eternal” versus “created,” and they were debating because heretics had come out against the already-held view that Jesus was divine. The heretical view, held by the presbyter Arius, maintained that Jesus was not divine by nature, but was created in ages past by God. Jesus was thus not argued to be “mortal” or just a “great and powerful man” even by the heretical. (As an aside, Constantine, who Teabing blames so much on, was himself sympathetic to the Arians!)[24]

Beyond this, the New Testament itself gives clear evidence of Jesus being viewed as divine:[25]

·        Through the New Testament, Jesus describes himself, and other New Testament writers describe him, in terms of the Wisdom of God, a pre-New Testament Jewish figure that was regarded as divine, and as an attribute of God personified.

·        Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man, a phrase associated with a divine figure in Daniel 7.

·        Paul in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 offers a revised version of the Jewish Shema which includes Jesus in the identity of Yahweh, the God of the Jews.

·        A variety of New Testament passages affirm the absolute and full deity of Christ, such as John 1:1 (“the Word was God”), John 5:18 (“calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God”), John 20:28 (“[you are] my Lord and my God”), “Titus 2:13 (our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,”), Romans 9:5 (“God over all, blessed forever”), and Colossians 2:9 (“within Him dwells all the fullness of being God in bodily form”), and others.





Although I will quickly say I don't agree with mr. Holdings opinion on  the borrowing of pagan symbology and his opinion on the shifting of the sabbath from saturday to sunday (and probably other things too)in his article there. Can't always agree on everything..


Quote:

Quote:


    the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it so it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis.








Quote:

Quote:

They're just ignorant, and they conclude from their presupposition that it must have come from mesopotamian religion, and not the other way around. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not true. If one looks at the evidence you'll see that biblical history humanity goes back farther than mesopotamian religion. And all the evidence when compared and analyzed shows that Babylonian religion is a corruption form the Truthful knowledge and propehcy handed down by Adam and Noah. For instance, look at people like to talk about the gilgamesh epic. But did you know that there are flood legends all over the world? But obviously they had to have come from a common source.




Aspects of Babylonian religion were handed down and modified from the Sumerian which were handed down and modified from previous hunter gatherer societies. This is the way of myth. There is a great deal of interchange between communicating groups of people, and there was a traceable flow between the Sumerians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Hittites, Semites and others. People influence each other. This is no big revelation, it is simply a fact of life. People talk to each other, and when they enjoy each others stories, goods, ideas, etc. they adopt them but alter them to make them more suitable for themselves and thier needs. It's called diffusion.




Yes, I'm well aware that stories and fables can change. I learned my lesson when I was a kid and we all played "telephone". This phenomena is remarkably evident in the way the flood myths spread out for instance. But we have a definite evidence also, that with proper care
historical records can be well kept with little variation. Whether you agree with the veracity of the manuscripts we have now compared to what the originals are, they have for the most part been faithfully preserved for over two thousand years. If that's not proof, I don't know what is.

Quote:

Are you trying to argue that Adam and Noah are historical persons? :lol:




Absolutely.

 
Quote:

Quote:


    "And perhaps you'll ask, "why should we believe them? " well how about I ask you the same question about yours, and it really comes down to using your common sense that God gave you. That's why I've given up trying to prove anything to people, except those who are willing. Because you can only prove it to yourself. If you are wise, you are wise for yuorself, and if you are a fool, you alone will pay for it."






I'm not saying that anyone should 'believe me,' but if we both have an interest in getting to the bottom of things there are many avenues to follow. There are written records from this time period which is a great help. There is the archaeological record, there is a process by which things may be analysed that helps us get a little closer to understanding what was. We can't time travel, so we can never paint a perfect picture of times past, but we can piece it together as well as we may and make interpretations that appear most likely due to the evidence. Rather than trusting one book and people who are bent on proving that book to be literally True, it makes more sense to look at as many sources of information as possible (including, but not limited to that book) and try and organize and make sense of it all. There will always be debate. That's half the fun. :shrug:





but Christians have already "made interpretations that appear most likely due to the evidence". If you want to argue about interpretations of the scriptures that's one thing, but this has little to do with interpretation as it does with history. Gnostic gospels themselves  self defeat the very people trying to promote them and conflict with the n.t. scripture they havn't picked apart. It's irreconcilable.

   
   
Quote:

Quote:

There is no proof for that. It's just divinici code
    nonsense with no proof




There's no proof that Augustine influenced church doctrine? Are you kidding me? Read 'The City of God.' This is a fine example of how Platonism (greek pagan philosophy :wink:) diffused into Christian thought. Augustine also came up with the notion of Original Sin. He was a biggie in the development of dogma. It's irrefutable.




What you're referring to has nothing to do with the manuscripts. I have laready freely conceded that the roman catholic church has changed and added and removed doctrine, in their own "church" doctrine. But the manuscripts themselves are a completely different issue. No, Augustine did not come up with the idea of original sin, he came up with his own slant on original sin.


   
Quote:

"It's wise to recognize human nature, but it's also wise to recognize the possibility for the faithful preservation of scripure. Instead of coming up with all sorts of unsubstantiated "what if" stories, look at the real evidence points to. i have posted links to this evidence."

By socio-cultural context I did not mean human nature. This is a misinterpretation of my words. I'm not saying anything about "human nature" at all. When I say we must understand socio-cultural context I mean that we must be aware of the way the culture(s) in question were organized, what thier worldviews were, how thier religious thought affected thier daily lives, etc. To understand what they were talking about we have to understand how it related to and justified thier social structure. This isn't radical stuff. Many faithful theologians would agree.




socio-cultural context, human nature..that's basically what you're appealing to. It's absolutely irrelevent until you can prove that whatever cultural and religious phenomena were present in whatever time period actually directly changed or imposed doctrine, outside of revelation from God, then it's absolutely useless. It would merely be a naturalistic presupposition and superimposition on scripture.


    Quote:
    many people have pointed out to gnostics the results of textual criticism. They just don't get it. Argue till your blue in the face, the results are on the table. The only thing gnostics have against it are unsubstantiated conspiracy fables.

    I have plenty of tools.



Quote:

Lot's of people make 'textual' and other criticisms of the bible. Many of them have no interest whatsoever in gnosticism either. My anthropology teacher once had to count ribs with one of her classes because a student was dead set on the idea that men had one less rib than women, accounting for the rib Adam lost for Eve. Taking scripture literally is a dead end. Recognizing scripture as a metaphor, as our friend Markos has, and as have most of your opponents, may open many doors of self discovery and enlightenment. I'm more interested in exploration than certainty. It's not as scary as it seems.




How about exploration to find what is certain? Do you realize you are imposing your own bias? When Christians exegise scripture we are not meant to take all things literally, or all things symbolically, we are supposed to use discernment and allow scripture speak for itself and read it within the context. I find taking scripture literally is not a dead end at all. It's only a dead end for those who want to accept some portion of Christianity and judaism but are not comfortable with the full implecations of scripture.

When you read symbolic prophecy in the o.t. or n.t. , don't you find a
difference in the way it is written? This is where we apply discernment and determine it is symbolic. But when scripture directly says  God created the earth and everything in it in 6 days, and created Adam from the dust from the earth, that is not symbolic. That is a direct statement. If it were to be interpreted symbolically, the aforementioned statement would be a complete LIE.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7544993 - 10/21/07 10:36 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I can't believe I read all that post and I'm still alive from so much :lol: and :rofl2: :what: and also :nut: and again :rofl2:

I must reward myself :bongload:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7545020 - 10/21/07 10:43 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Because of your magical, groundless persistence in believing in a literal bible, we have absolutely nothing further to say to one another. You will believe any pseudo-intellectual babbling that seems to defend this position. There is such an incredible wealth of evidence to the contrary that it is utterly beguiling that anyone with any access to it still believes in a literal interpretation. A good many Christians these days are not so naive, as they are capable of grasping the concept of metaphor. I think we're done here.

I just find it rather funny how often you accuse me of "imposing [my] own bias," as if you weren't doing that yourself.:nut:

And now moving on... I'd like to get back on topic please! Sorry for contributing to the disintegration of your awesome thread, Markos.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male

Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7545063 - 10/21/07 10:55 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I agree with everyone on some points, and maybe I disagree with everyone on some points. These are my views. Some of you guys will get a kick out of this, some of you may think I'm Satan. I "appreciate" all viewpoints.;) Feel free to disagree on even the smallest detail. I like to learn new things and this is a favorite subject of mine.

Men and women are different but equal. We're all just trying to survive and thrive. We need each other. We're in this together. We all have a chance to explore the meaning of existence, and we all have the right to be treated with respect and dignity. We all have souls. It's a difficult thing to explain because it's so simple. We are all people.

Sex makes us different. I used to hear that everyone has a masculine side and a feminine side. I had no idea what it meant, but I thought it was silly. Now I know it's true. Not only do we have masculine and feminine thought processes, We literally have physical masculine and feminine sides. The emotion that manifests in the front of the body is feminine. The emotion that manifests in the back of the body is masculine. In this way, we are still similar.

But here is where the similarities stop. Women generally have a feminine physical core. They want to be seen and noticed. They want to sparkle and shine. Makeup isn't forced onto the majority of womens faces today. They like it. Women want to look good, and there's nothing wrong with that. Men share these qualities. We want to be seen, noticed for the things we do. We make polite gestures to others out of nothing but joyfulness. We want to love. Jocks slap each other on the ass. We even take pleasure in dancing if we can move beyond self scrutiny. This is feminine stuff, but females are naturally MUCH BETTER at it than men.

It seems quite obvious to be that most men have a masculine physical core, even from a very young age. Masculinity is not so much about the enjoyment of life as it is about controlling and understanding life. It is about creating finality and conquering things. Larger muscles and a tendency to think for longer periods on single subjects are masculine traits. It was a man who has lifted the most weight. It was a man who finished the final level of Pac Man. Why the hell would men want to do these things? Because they are men.

Keeping in mind that we are "in this together", women have come to rely on men, but the reliance goes beyond physical. Women want strong, stable, masculine men. This allows them to relax into their feminine core. Women ARE more sensitive and ENJOY being that way. A woman may choose security over masculinity, but it isn't her first choice. Many women won't admit it, but they need to cry on a regular basis. This is their way of removing stress from their bodies. Many men won't admit it, but they need to yell a mighty roar and kill stuff on a regular basis. This is their way of removing stress from their bodies. Again, we share both traits. Men can cry and women may want to punch things, but our core nature when dealing with stress release will be one of the two, and it's generally determined by whether we have a penis or not.

Having said that, I like women that can be strong. Because I believe most women have feminine cores, I'm not worried that strong, for her, will mean going outside to chop wood when she's upset. Because i believe most men have masculine cores, I'm not worried about whether my friend is gay because he cried over Scruffy's death. Masculine and feminine are appropriate at different times, and I like women who know how to take care of themselves. It's the ability to create polarity during intimate encounters, where the man acts like a man, and the woman acts like a woman, that counts.

Which came first? The feminine nature has always been around IMO. It's like asking which pole of a magnet sprang into action first. The luxury of soft curvy bodies, and a tender heart may have well came second, but the intent was always there. Being feminine is the expressive joyful nature of existence, and what point would there be to life if the only goal was to reproduce, struggle and find death?

When a man becomes jealous of another man, if his core is masculine, he will want to kill the other man. When a woman becomes jealous of another woman, if her core is feminine, she will want to have sex with the man to reaffirm her relationship. We may experience both desires when jealousy arises, but our strongest desire will align with our core. Women get wet with jealousy. Men see red. Because of this, it is easy to see why a relationship between two masculine men and a feminine woman will not work.

However, women can be quite happy in a multi-partner relationship. The horny men of yesterday only had it half right. It is natural for both men and women to want multiple sex partners, but men were only satisfying their own desires. In a "normal" polygamous relationship, the women aren't allowed to make love with each other. It will not work in a marriage of ownership. Men owned women. Anyone think women appreciated this fact? Hell no. They were resentful. If the man let his wives make love to one another, they might conspire against him.

So we just tightened the rope and ignored their pain because we were so consumed with our own. Yin is compatible with yin. Feminine women are bisexual by nature. This is a fact men have been suppressing for thousands of years. Many women are afraid, to this very day, to admit, even to themselves, that they are bisexual. This is a product of how strongly the feminine nature has been suppressed.

Marriage as a statement of fact, is also a means of control. When two (or more) people decide to share exclusive intimacy, they are married (though I wouldn't normally use that term). The desire for exclusiveness is an emotional bond, and is dictated by want, not a social duty, or some twisted egoic desire to be bonded at the hip forever no matter what. When a person discovers they no longer have an emotional desire to be with the other person, and aren't willing to try and fix things, they are divorced. Two people can live for many years, divorced from each other, while holding a piece of paper that says otherwise. Again, any attempt to use marriage as a guarantee of lifelong fidelity is egoic fear. If we must rely on a piece of paper, and consequences, there is no love. There is no real marriage.

Marriage is to blend together as one. Trusting ones partner, and being honorable by sheltering and defending the others feelings, is fairly essential to a REAL marriage. Running around having sex with people outside a relationship is a very hurtful thing to do. The use of a license to prevent this is laughable. If you treat a woman like an animal, she will act like one. Then you must keep her in a cage. What can a piece of paper do? It's the same for men. People are either building trust, or confirming their fearful suspicion that trust is a lie. For better or worse, if two people are in a relationship together, they deserve whatever they get.

So let's not worry about who came first, or if one sex is more pure than the other. The truth is that on a soul level, women don't need men, and men don't need women. But perhaps we should honor our bodies and cherish our differences, and see if we can have some good orgasms during the process.

:shrug:


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7545087 - 10/21/07 11:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

And to get to this.

Quote:


Quote:

the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it so it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis.





There are pretty large scale translation errors between some of the myths of the old testament and thier original form. Like the 'breath of life' translated into the 'rib.' This is a big deal.




I really am trying to understand what you're referring to. The closest thing I could find was this blatantly feminist bible study page "for women", which says:


And so I go to the rib "word study page" and here is what is says:

Quote:

Rib - Strong # 6763 (Hebrew = tslea) Normally translated as side, corner, chamber or flank not rib




No, this is absolutely false. Here is the correct translation.

Quote:

H6763
צלעה צלע
tsêlâ‛ tsal‛âh
tsay-law', tsal-aw'
From H6760; a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, that is, leaf); hence a side, literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object or the sky, that is, quarter); arcitecturally a timber (especially floor or ceiling) or plank (single or collectively, that is, a flooring): - beem, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).





It means rib, side, or beam, . That's what it means. And if that's not what you're talking about I have no idea. If you go to blue letter bible, and look up H6763, the verses listed fit this definition.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7545796 - 10/22/07 05:40 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
Because of your magical, groundless persistence in believing in a literal bible, we have absolutely nothing further to say to one another. You will believe any pseudo-intellectual babbling that seems to defend this position. There is such an incredible wealth of evidence to the contrary that it is utterly beguiling that anyone with any access to it still believes in a literal interpretation. A good many Christians these days are not so naive, as they are capable of grasping the concept of metaphor. I think we're done here.

I just find it rather funny how often you accuse me of "imposing [my] own bias," as if you weren't doing that yourself.:nut:

And now moving on... I'd like to get back on topic please! Sorry for contributing to the disintegration of your awesome thread, Markos.




Thank you for your eloquent defense of 'the' position. The Fundamentalist view in Christianity or Islam is tantamount to insisting upon a pre-Copernican view of the solar system in its insistence upon a long obsolete position. To rigidly maintain obsolete positions is nothing less than obsessive-compulsive delusional thinking. Unfortunately, the suspension of common sense let alone higher level thinking is taken by Fundamentalists to be proof of their faith - the ability to suspend reality-testing in favor of delusional thought (e.g., believing that dinosaur fossils are demonic props planted to test the faith of believers in a 5700+ year world-age, and there were no dinosaurs on Noah's ark).
Recommendations to everyone: stay out of people's [collective] delusions. Do not engage in debate.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7546327 - 10/22/07 10:45 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Nomatter what I say, or how much biblical references I give, you will still say it's heresay. If I back it will scripture, people will say scripture doesn't matter, it's just a fairy tale. They won't consider the evidence for the validity of scripture, and they would rather believe in their own fairy tales with no authority or substantiation.


Finally you got something right. I'm pretty sure you missed it though. Everyones beliefs are subjective. It all comes down to what you base your subjective beliefs on and can you admit that your beliefs are subjective or are you too afraid.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Rahz]
    #7546331 - 10/22/07 10:46 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

You devil you.:hellfire:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7546354 - 10/22/07 10:56 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I really should try and avoid debating robots. There isn't really much point if bot parties aren't capable of thinking critically, is there? It's just so easy to get sucked in. A better strategy is probably to ignore them.

But just one last thing to Jonathan - the incorrect translation to rib occured in the diffusion of the myth from the mesopotamian to the hebrew. You won't find the correct term in your bible because they fucked it up right from the get go. You've gotta admit that 'breath of life' is a much more common sense thing to make life out of than a rib bone. :shrug: And now we are done.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7546366 - 10/22/07 11:00 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I really should try and avoid debating robots.

It's hard not to try to save lost souls.:lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejonathanseagull
Cool!
Male

Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7546428 - 10/22/07 11:22 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
I really should try and avoid debating robots. There isn't really much point if bot parties aren't capable of thinking critically, is there?




Freudian Slip!  Freudian Slip!  HAHAHAHAAH

:rockon:  :headbang:  :vineclimb:  :bigblunt:  :greenshroom:  :bottledup:  :nicekitty:  :villagepeople:

*spazzes out*


--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: jonathanseagull]
    #7546654 - 10/22/07 12:18 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

:smirk:

:lol:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7547503 - 10/22/07 04:09 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MushroomTrip said:
I can't believe I read all that post and I'm still alive from so much :lol: and :rofl2: :what: and also :nut: and again :rofl2:





I cannot talk with anyone who reads the Adam and Eve mythos as history. That is clear delusory thinking. I wish I could laugh my ass off, but we have a president of the United States of America who may well believe the same thing. That is rather upsetting. Even the anonymous author[s] of the Genesis accounts (no not Moses, who may himself be mythic. There is no Egyptian archeological evidence pertaining to Moses or an exodus) were writing mythically and metaphorically. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is just not a botanical species, and neither is the Tree of of Life. This is Hebrew mythology. Once I discern delusion, I cease dialogue. One cannot reason with a mad[wo]man.

When a person begins to talk of 'God's plan,' and then assumes some sort of guardianship over that plan, taking affront at all who do not share the same mental assumptions, grandiosity of their ego is evident, not humility. If real worldly power was available to such individuals, one could be fairly certain that persecutions like those which characterize most of Christian history would begin again.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7547578 - 10/22/07 04:31 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, this could be viewed as a sad matter and what is even more alarming is that lots of other people really have this kind of view. People who are supposedly trustworthy, who have children who most likely will be delusional as well, and who set an example for others.
However, I prefer not to feel sad about that. First because I see the futility in doing so and second because laughing and playing turned out to be the best remedy against dullness, sadness or any other kind of depression for me. :heart:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7548347 - 10/22/07 06:58 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MarkostheGnostic said:

When a person begins to talk of 'God's plan,' and then assumes some sort of guardianship over that plan, taking affront at all who do not share the same mental assumptions, grandiosity of their ego is evident, not humility.




There really is a attitude of egotistic grandiosity in most literalists. They seem to really get off on being the 'oppressed' minority in knowing the 'Truth' and standing up for it against all scrutiny and common sense. It's a sort of martyr complex. Time and time again the 'debate' whirls back around to some sort of snivelling about how they are soooo misunderstood and how unreasonable and oppressive it is to be critical of thier ideas. 'I'd give you some proof but you wouldn't listen anyways so I don't have to.' :blah:

Quote:


If real worldly power was available to such individuals, one could be fairly certain that persecutions like those which characterize most of Christian history would begin again.




You mean of course that when such individuals had and still have such power, these persecutions occur? There is a gruesomely long list of suffering millions, thanks to power-freak-martyr-complex Christian idiots.:shake:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7549188 - 10/22/07 09:30 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Well Dr.TT, your playfulness is more than evident in your posts, and it is a needful corrective for those with so grim and serious an outlook. Sad though it is that we humans live with knowledge of our mortality, and the anxiety of not knowing exactly how, when or where, THESE individuals seek to expand suffering to metaphysical threats of eternal torture beyond death. Though Iesus is my Teacher, I an increasingly reluctant to call myself a Christian, lest others consider me to be a fundamentalist (*shudder*).


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7549194 - 10/22/07 09:32 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Our job is to love, not to judge.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7549210 - 10/22/07 09:37 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Thank God I'm retired then. If loving becomes a job I'm sure to resent the long hours sooner or later.

I think our goal is to be fully human. That includes loving and judging and many other messy and contradictory traits.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7549986 - 10/23/07 05:40 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I feel the need to defend myself. Please don't apply the habits of other so called Christians who push around their beliefs on others. I do not vote. I do not judge others, and I do not share the same political
outlook on life as many touted Christians throughout history. SO please in the future, don't include me in with them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7550000 - 10/23/07 05:51 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

That, in a strictly spiritual Way. Jesus taught us to love, not to judge. On a lesser note, I did manage to get dismissed from jury service last week.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7550007 - 10/23/07 05:57 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

The observations that have been made were not a personal attack, since a deeper analysis was imperative for discussing exactly the subject of the thread: how commonly known Christianity is influencing our lives in a psycho-social context, as opposed to the spirit of it. Also the observations were not preconceived ideas, but observations regarding your posts and the "ideas" you presented. I hope that you have the mind to note the subtle difference. :smirk:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7550358 - 10/23/07 10:48 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

jonathan_206 said:
I feel the need to defend myself. Please don't apply the habits of other so called Christians who push around their beliefs on others. I do not vote. I do not judge others, and I do not share the same political
outlook on life as many touted Christians throughout history. SO please in the future, don't include me in with them.




So are you saying that if we choose to believe otherwise than you that will not be sent to hell? Or do we need to "defend" ourselves?


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7550706 - 10/23/07 12:38 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

No, I'm saying I don't judge others, plain and simple. If I believe that God judges sinners, it's God who is judge and not me. Just because someone has a belief, does not mean they are judging others. That is a false definition of judge. Judge does not mean just belief,opinion, discernment,vocal expression of disagreement. It means actively judging others.

If you feel that my beliefs in my religion is judging you because it implies you'll be judged, that is a logical fallacy, and and a contradiction. Your belief, which condemns my religion would also be judging as well. But that's nonsense, and unless you want to take away everyone's liberties and freedoms of thought, which is impossible and wrong, it's not going to work.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7550740 - 10/23/07 12:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I don't want to take away anyones freedoms. Personally I don't care what you or pretend creators think.

What I would prefer is that folk who debate here use evidence to back their positions so that an actual debate can occur. I can say any ol thing because I read it in a comic book and it makes me feel secure to believe it. But if I'm not open to the possibility of being proved wrong I don't belong here. This is a forum for open minded debate. Your mind is closed and locked down it seems. There is a forum created just especially for you here. Why don't you use it? You post on nothing else it seems,is it that you feel the need to proselytize? That by itself does not belong in this forum IMO.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7551038 - 10/23/07 02:10 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

What I would prefer is that folk who debate here use evidence to back their positions so that an actual debate can occur. I can say any ol thing because I read it in a comic book and it makes me feel secure to believe it. But if I'm not open to the possibility of being proved wrong I don't belong here. This is a forum for open minded debate. Your mind is closed and locked down it seems. There is a forum created just especially for you here. Why don't you use it? You post on nothing else it seems,is it that you feel the need to proselytize? That by itself does not belong in this forum IMO.




I do back up my beliefs with evidence. If you do not accept the bible as a valid and literal history, as I belief it ought to be, that is your problem not mine. I can back up everything I say. I am not going to wait for you to agree with me before I proclaim it as Truth.

A real debate has been going on, your complaint is not warrented. Being open to the possibility for being proven wrong is not a prerequisite for debate, but as it happens I am open to the possibility of being proven wrong. Believing you are right does not
make it impossible for introspection or critical anylization of one's beliefs. I think you're just mad because my dogmaticism is not the same as your dogmaticism.

You are also wrong that I post on nothing else, go take a look at my posts, you'll see I post on a wide variety of subjects.

You believe that I cannot be a witness to others and still reason and debate because you have predetermined it's not possible. But you're wrong.


Edited by jonathan_206 (10/23/07 02:28 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7551331 - 10/23/07 03:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I do back up my beliefs with evidence. If you do not accept the bible as a valid and literal history, as I belief it ought to be, that is your problem not mine.




No, it is your problem, insofar as your evidence presupposes that your claims are true.  This does not work as a logical proof.  You have presented no actual evidence which does not require that your beliefs are factual before being accepted as evidence, thus NO PROOF.  :shrug:

It is just as likely that the Bible was created by men, from ideas conceptualized by men, to rule over other men, as it is that a supernatural all-seeing all-knowing Father figure dictated the whole mishmash.  Well, IMO, it is a great deal MORE likely that the former is true, as we certainly have a preponderance of evidence which involves men making things up, and no evidence (aside from the Bible itself, which again, requires that your claims be factual prior to being valid evidence ) which involves deities appearing or voices from the sky dictating religious texts.  :shrug:

It's totally fine if you want to believe these things are Truth with a capital "T."  Whatever.  Keep them out of the public schools, off the law books, and away from me and my family, but enjoy the full exercise of your right to whatever beliefs make you happy.  :thumbup: 

But don't expect that proclaiming your religious handbook as evidence is going to support your assertions in a debate.  I would have just as much validity in claiming that Greek myths involving Zeus prove that he exists, and is the Father of the pantheon of gods.  After all, these stories have been told for thousands of years--they must be true!  I can provide links to the historical existence of these stories having been recorded by humans!  :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7551506 - 10/23/07 04:00 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MushroomTrip said:
The observations that have been made were not a personal attack, since a deeper analysis was imperative for discussing exactly the subject of the thread: how commonly known Christianity is influencing our lives in a psycho-social context, as opposed to the spirit of it. Also the observations were not preconceived ideas, but observations regarding your posts and the "ideas" you presented. I hope that you have the mind to note the subtle difference. :smirk:




I appreciate this eloquent interjection. The fact that people use scriptural writings as the basis for their own position and then make the transparent claim that 'I' am not judging you, God is judging you, is just ridiculous.

Saul of Tarsus AKA Paul didn't lay claim to sainthood. That title was bestowed by the same credentialling organization which sold indulgences to absolve sin in the middle ages. Paul apparently did have Transcendental experiences which empowered his convictions and it was his experiences of being "caught up to the third heaven" of which he writes that express Christian gnosis. Since Paul was a Jew, his experiences were colored by his Jewish training, as anyone with any knowledge of religious experience would understand. Paul's awakened conscience, which manifested in his Damascus road experience as hysterical blindness, he himself documented. His conscience was awakened  traumatically as a result of profound guilt over his participation in the stoning death of Stephen (and presumably other Jewish heretics called Christians) and had far-reaching effects. He took the God-mysticism of Iesus and replaced it with Christ-mysticism to assauge his own profound guilt as an accomplice to the murder of Christians.

So, when one is faced today with the Biblical writings of Paul, it is VERY important to see the psychosocial implications behind Paul's choice of language and the infrastructure of Christian religion. Paul was a sinner and Paul not only felt guilty (which, by itself is just neurotic), Paul WAS guilty - of murder! He overcompensated to such a degree to make up for his part in the murder of innocent followers of Iesus that he essentially sacrificed his proud Jewish rabbinic identity to become "all things to all men" and to become THE Apostle to the Gentiles. Guilty people tend to project guilt onto everyone, just as liars (for example) believe that everyone lies. The ubiquitous guilt of Paul's doctrine was magnified by Augustine into "Original Sin," which was never a Jewish doctrine. Here then is the rudiment of the Christian religion as constructed by Paul and subsequent Paulists - everybody is guilty and in need of redemption - contrary to the words of Iesus Himself in various Biblical places.

Thus, it is not the Ultimate Source of Paul's religious experiences that taint Christianity, for that Source is the same as the one Iesus experienced. It is the doctrinal construction of it that flows from such blatently obvious pathology. The famous "thorn in my side" which Paul complained about and asked God three times for its removal, may well have been the overwhelming guilt he continued to experience after he Realized that The Way was the way to Be. My own speculation, but one that follows from the writings. Relegating human psychological phenomenon exclusively to spiritual explanations is just what many evangelicals do when they attribute hysteria (e.g., being 'slain in the spirit') to the actions of the Holy Spirit. Reading Transcendental causes (i.e., the Holy Spirit) into all of Paul's experiences is to make the same grievous and uncritical error. Then, to consider his words, as flawed as they are by his own pathology, social conditioning and personal idiosyncracies to be holy writ is what flaws the religion that has come to be called Christianity.

Sorry for the ramble, I got 'in-spired.' :blush: I apologize for addressing my detractor[s] through addressing your post.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
    #7553743 - 10/24/07 05:26 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


No, it is your problem, insofar as your evidence presupposes that your claims are true. This does not work as a logical proof. You have presented no actual evidence which does not require that your beliefs are factual before being accepted as evidence, thus NO PROOF. :shrug:




I can make a statement I believe to be of truth, and then people can challange it. Then I can give both internal and external evidence for the reasons I believe it's true. That's what I have done, and that's what I'll continue to do. You obviously are not paying  attention to my posts or the sources I link to, or the nature of this thread. The person who began this thread did not fully give evidence for many of his statements, and I actually challanged him on that.

I don't just spout my beleifs dogmatically with no evidence to back it up, that is a total misconception. I wish people would stop attacking me like this, you see what you want to see and you stick it to me. Why don't you just accept theirs someone here who ha a different world view and way of approaching things, and appreciate it for what you can.

I'm tired of arguing about this. I'm done.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7553751 - 10/24/07 05:45 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


Paul apparently did have Transcendental experiences which empowered his convictions and it was his experiences of being "caught up to the third heaven" of which he writes that express Christian gnosis.




These are exactly the type of totally false, unsubstantiated comments I came in here to challenge.

The experience Paul described first of all, we have very little knowledge, of, he explained that experience wasn't even known whether it was in the body or out of the body. But most importantly, Paul wasn't even referring to himself. He attributed the experience to someone he knew.

Quote:

2 Corinthians 12:2

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven.




It's interesting how someone can be so influenced by guilt in your opinion, that he can be made completely blind for several days.

And I am attacked for not procuring evidence for my belief?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7554742 - 10/24/07 12:19 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

What you have done here, in your very last post, is what I was asking for in the first place. An actual criticism of points you find contentious on grounds of evidence. This is a legitimate, strong approach. Saying someone is wrong and stupid with no specific critique of the body of thier ideas is not.

Just a little tip - negation is an easier way to prove someone wrong than trying to replace thier view with another. 'You're wrong because you're wrong- here's how,' rather than 'you're wrong because I'm right and we cannot both be right.' The latter is much weaker.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7554768 - 10/24/07 12:26 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I would have just as much validity in claiming that Greek myths involving Zeus prove that he exists, and is the Father of the pantheon of gods. After all, these stories have been told for thousands of years--they must be true! I can provide links to the historical existence of these stories having been recorded by humans! :rolleyes:


Bares repeating.

You sir of course can believe in the flying spaghetti monster or whatever else. But if your proofs seem irrational or weak they will be challenged here. If you don't like that then that's fine as the Mystery forum is close by. You can say whatever you want to be true and over there, it is.:lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7555290 - 10/24/07 02:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

You are so wrong about "I knew a man in Christ ..." that you should take up some formal theological study. He WAS speaking of his own experience, and this is generally held by theologians not just Bible college teachers with agendas. I'd do some real theological research on this score since this event has been a pivotal point in my own studies for 30+ years. It figures prominently in the psychology of religion and comparative religious studies, and is one of the examples in R.M. Bucke's 1900 classic text, Cosmic Consciousness. Moreover, almost every solid text on mysticism, Christian and other includes this event. You are completely naive on this subject and whereas I have chosen to not confront your posting directly, I felt compelled to do so here if only because on this point you know absolutely nothing yet profess to criticize me on it. It is the epitomy of Christian gnosis, including the subtle language pertaining to ecstasis [Greek: standing outside of] ("...was caught up to paradise), the nature of which is ineffable ("...He heard inexpressible things...").

Hysterical blindness, precipitated by profound guilt has been documented time and again in the modern era, explored by Charcot, Bleuler and Freud, and 'cured' by hypnosis and psychoanalysis. The phenomenon has undoubtedly been documented elsewhere historically since the human condition itself remains unchanged over the last several millennia http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=981100.
A psychoanalysis of Paul via the discipline of psycho-history is not very difficult given the authentic Pauline letters as anedotal evidence. That fact that you do not understand the phenomenon of hysterical blindness simply indicates another area, in addition to Biblical hermeneutics, mysticism and psychology that you are as of yet unable to apply to Biblical writings. Do yourself a favor and cease to entertain the notion that 'blind faith' is going to elucidate the notion of hysterical blindness to you in Paul or in anyone else.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7559523 - 10/25/07 02:46 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

You are so wrong about "I knew a man in Christ ..." that you should take up some formal theological study. He WAS speaking of his own experience, and this is generally held by theologians not just Bible college teachers with agendas.




No, he was not speaking about his own experience. the words of Paul are very clear that he was referring to someone else. If you determine that he is speaking about himself, you do it on grounds outside of exegesis. If we look at the context of the chapter, we find it very clearly is referring to someone else:

Quote:


5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.




Quote:

Hysterical blindness, precipitated by profound guilt has been documented time and again in the modern era, explored by Charcot, Bleuler and Freud, and 'cured' by hypnosis and psychoanalysis.




I am aware of the condition. But you presuppose that Paul had some sort of guilt complex, when you have no evidence of this. The evidence we have shows the very opposite, the reason he was on to damascus in the first place was because he was so zealous and determined to persecute Christians.

And what of the men who were traveling with him?

Quote:

7The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.




Were they so dumbfounded and crazed by Paul's fit of hysteria that they had auditory hallucinations?

It doesn't fit.

And the most important thing is that all of this conjecture is absolutely groundless. If your interpretation is correct, then Paul's testimony would be absolutely lying. How then, can you after determining his testimony completely suspect, take one part of his testimony as valid, then shun the other part that does not fit your "modern" values? But that is not how exegesis works. That is not how historical studies work to begin with.

To even begin in the interpretation you have, you must first discount the testimony of scripture! Then your interpretation is worthless. But Pauls' testimony is valid, as is all scripture, and real theologians do not apply the false standards of historical analysis that you do.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7559552 - 10/25/07 02:52 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

And here lies the problem with religion. Everyone interpreting it to their own satisfaction and then telling us it's the fucking truth.:monkeydance:

Religion=:monkeydance:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7559601 - 10/25/07 03:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Freud and his students conceived of hysterical symptoms as a product of "ego defense mechanisms," in which psychic energy, generated by unconscious sexual conflicts, was converted into physical symptoms.




freud was a crackpot.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7559609 - 10/25/07 03:04 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


And here lies the problem with religion. Everyone interpreting it to their own satisfaction and then telling us it's the lalala truth.:monkeydance:

Religion=:monkeydance:





How dare you assert this interpretation and then tell us it's the truth.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7559626 - 10/25/07 03:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I dare because I know that my truth is subjective. And of course I have God on my side.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejonathanseagull
Cool!
Male

Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7559721 - 10/25/07 03:35 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

jonathan_206 said:
Quote:

Freud and his students conceived of hysterical symptoms as a product of "ego defense mechanisms," in which psychic energy, generated by unconscious sexual conflicts, was converted into physical symptoms.




freud was a crackpot.




I continue to hear this more and more as time progresses, because in the same way as the bible, people want to continue to interpret him literally.


--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 3 days, 17 hours
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: jonathanseagull]
    #7559732 - 10/25/07 03:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Are you suggesting Freud wanted his theories to be interpreted as metaphoric for some higher, inexpressible truth? I always figured Freud meant the theories he espoused to be considered literally, and unlike the Bible I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. Could you expand on this?


--------------------
“Strengthened by contemplation and study,
I will not fear my passions like a coward.
My body I will give to pleasures,
to diversions that I’ve dreamed of,
to the most daring erotic desires,
to the lustful impulses of my blood, without
any fear at all, for whenever I will—
and I will have the will, strengthened
as I’ll be with contemplation and study—
at the crucial moments I’ll recover
my spirit as was before: ascetic.”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Lion]
    #7559914 - 10/25/07 04:42 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Freudian is all about ego and sexuality, sexuality and ego. And don't forget, the ego rest upon sexuality. And the answers to all or almost all the psychological problems deal with sexuality and little children.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7559932 - 10/25/07 04:49 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

here, take the freudian purity test:

http://www.geocities.com/pleinelune1/freudtest.html



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7559947 - 10/25/07 04:54 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Wow!  Spoken like someone who either read Freud & did not comprehend his theories, or who has not read Freud & pretends to grasp his ideas. :thumbdown:  :tongue:

The libido is not just our sexuality, it is our life force.  Since everything in life relies upon the life force, it follows that all psychological problems would be based in the libido.

As far as "little children" are concerned, Freud did believe that the starting point of many psychological issues occurs during childhood, when we are at our most vulnerable and impressionable.  Duh!  :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7559966 - 10/25/07 05:00 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Your Freudian Purity Test Results
You answered "yes" to 29 of 70 questions, making you 58.6% unconsciously pure (41.4% unconsciously corrupt); that is, you are 58.6% pure in the unconscious domain.
According to the scoring guide, your unconscious experience level is: Regrettably Normal - Your very existence defies all logic.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
    #7559984 - 10/25/07 05:05 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


The libido is not just our sexuality, it is our life force.




No. That's just plain wrong.


Quote:

As far as "little children" are concerned, Freud did believe that the starting point of many psychological issues occurs during childhood, when we are at our most vulnerable and impressionable. Duh! :lol:




Far from most, far from all. We have more psychological issues  more  from after childhood to death than in childhood alone.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7560027 - 10/25/07 05:21 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

According to Freud, all behavior is motivated by the desire to feel pleasure. That motivation is organized and directed by two instincts: sexuality (Eros), and aggression (Thanatos). Freud conceptualized both these instincts as being powered by a form of internal psychic energy that he called the libido. Libido is the pleasure principle, or basic psychic energy. It can perhaps be considered equivalent ch'i or parana of esotericism and yoga.
http://www.kheper.net/topics/psychology/Freud.html




The roots of most of our psychological problems can be traced back to childhood, though we may not experience these problems during childhood. The foundation is laid, for better or worse, during the first 5 years of life.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
    #7560189 - 10/25/07 06:14 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


Quote:
According to Freud, all behavior is motivated by the desire to feel pleasure. That motivation is organized and directed by two instincts: sexuality (Eros), and aggression (Thanatos). Freud conceptualized both these instincts as being powered by a form of internal psychic energy that he called the libido. Libido is the pleasure principle, or basic psychic energy. It can perhaps be considered equivalent ch'i or parana of esotericism and yoga.
http://www.kheper.net/topics/psychology/Freud.html




How simple minded. Everything is motivated by sexual desires or anger. I know that's not true. WHen you say "basic psychic energy" that requires sentience. But "libido" itself is not sentience in itself, it is a function of a sentience.

Quote:

The roots of most of our psychological problems can be traced back to childhood, though we may not experience these problems during childhood. The foundation is laid, for better or worse, during the first 5 years of life.




This has never been proven.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7560219 - 10/25/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

No. That's just plain wrong.



God almighty I am tempted to flame the ignorance that makes a statement like that and then does nothing to back it up. Stupid is too good a word for this behavior.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Edited by Icelander (10/25/07 07:05 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7560220 - 10/25/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

*sigh*  I suppose I should have known better than to get into this on this thread.  My apologies, Markos, as this topic once again veers away from your original post.

Freud did not theorize that we were motivated by sex and anger, he theorized that we were motivated by pleasure.  If you think that this is not true, you have not done much observing of actual human beings.  :lol:  We find our pleasure in many different activities, including religion for someone like you.  In Freudian terms "Eros" is the life-impulse and "Thanatos" is the death-impulse, or you might call them creation and destruction.  He theorized that our pleasure motivation was directed into these two divergent streams.  Again, if you do not think that this plays out every day in humanity, you have not been watching.  :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7560231 - 10/25/07 06:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

How simple minded.

I can't believe that someone with posts and rationalisms such as yours would use a personalism such as this.:rofl2::tongue::monkeydance::crazy2:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7560337 - 10/25/07 07:01 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I am assuming here that Paul was indeed a historical person. I am also cognizant that the scriptures are FULL of insertions, scribal modifications that were made to force certain points. Paul was using a literary device as far as I am concerned, and writers on mysticism in the last hundred years see the same literary device. The technique of these omnipresent voices of God occur in other places like the dove lighting on Iesus at His baptism and the whole "This is my Son in whom I am well-pleased" insertions. If you wish to take this midrashic literary device as literal/historical, that is your own problem. A concept of God who is an Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky is essentially, a Christianized mythic/anthropomorphic version of YHWH/Zeus/Jupiter.

Modern thinkers have a mind set which has greater capability of determining the workings of the psyche of ancients. If you have a psychotic child who throws himself in camp fires, and you choose to adopt the mind-set that he is a demoniac and insist on casting his demons out by way of exorcism without addressing his physiological/medical and psychosocial needs according to additional models of the phenomenon, then you are as mad as your child. Voices no longer occur omnisciently, pillars of fire and smoke no longer appear along with other theophanies. Why? Because these magnificent literary descriptions were midrashic illustrations intended to highlight a point, NOT supernatural intrusions into history as you so sadly believe.

Paul was not necessarily lying, but those who wrote letters and named them after Paul certainly were. Scribes modified writings time and again, but if you maintain the big lie of some Biblical infallibility then you are no more rational than the fundamentalist I know who maintains that the Sun is no larger than a basketball - as are distant stars - because Revelations says that the stars will fall to Earth at the end of time! Science therefore is lying. This is delusional thinking at its worst because much of it has translated down into his child-rearing and stories of lakes of fire in Hell with which he can pass on his own fears and threats of damnation.

So here, I'll take leave of further dialogue. So long as your position is wed to mythic imaginary images, you will only force data into the Procrustean bed of that pre-medieval world view that you fantasize of dwelling in. You probably do not believe that the prophet Muhammed was 1) a prophet, and 2) that he rode on the back of a human-headed horse to Heaven where he witnessed High and Holy mysteries. Conversely, Muslims regard Iesus as a prophet and a prophet of God would never die the shameful death of 'hanging on a tree,' so Muslims do not believe that Iesus was crucified, and the veil of the Holy-of-Holies rent top-to-bottom, or that darkness fell for three hours or that graves were thrown open and the dead resurrected, or any of the other descriptions which comprise the Christian MYTHOS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth .

Typically, everyone else's religious 'history' is mere myth, while Christian myth is history. If you cannot see the base falseness of this position, it's childishly egocentric predudice, and its overtly delusional
nature, then you, my man, are contributing to the problem of human hatred, strife and warfare, not to its resolution. You are willing to fight for your version of a myth - a culturally collective fairytale, an archetypal image from the collective unconscious. This is as mad as it gets.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Edited by MarkostheGnostic (10/25/07 09:25 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7560344 - 10/25/07 07:03 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

jonathan_206, you know personalisms are against the rules. Please don't do it again.

Besides, calling someone "simple minded" does nothing to support your position.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7560351 - 10/25/07 07:04 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
How simple minded.

I can't believe that someone with posts and rationalisms such as yours would use a personalism such as this.:rofl2::tongue::monkeydance::crazy2:




I can't believe that someone capable of distinguishing personalisms such as that would engage in personalisms such as this. :shrug: :nono:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7560361 - 10/25/07 07:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

That was the best I could do under the circumcision, I mean circumstances.

Sorry.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7560631 - 10/25/07 08:29 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I did back it up.

Quote:

How simple minded. Everything is motivated by sexual desires or anger. I know that's not true. WHen you say "basic psychic energy" that requires sentience. But "libido" itself is not sentience in itself, it is a function of a sentience.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7560831 - 10/25/07 09:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Are you familiar with the concepts of "prana" or "chi"?  These are comparable to Freud's Libido.  As for sentience being required for basic psychic energy, I'm not certain why you see the two as intrinsically linked.  :confused:

Quote:

Sentient
  1. Having sense perception; conscious 
  2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.




If we have a body and a mind, then we are both sentient AND alive.  The Libido is what makes us alive, not sentient.

BTW, saying "I know that's not true" is not a rebuttal.  Generally such statements would be followed by an actual argument, supported by factual evidence, or at least some sort of expanded version of your reasons for holding this opinion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
    #7563609 - 10/26/07 02:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


Are you familiar with the concepts of "prana" or "chi"? These are comparable to Freud's Libido. As for sentience being required for basic psychic energy, I'm not certain why you see the two as intrinsically linked. :confused:




No, I admit I'm not very familiar with prana or chi, but it's not necessary.

The word "psychic" refers to "Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by known natural laws, since they seem to transcend the confines of the brain. ...". At it's most basic level it's referring to the mental aspect of our being. Our thinking. But this requires a sentience at it's most fundamental level.

Quote:


If we have a body and a mind, then we are both sentient AND alive. The Libido is what makes us alive, not sentient.




No, the libido is simply one function, out of many that humans have. Sentience is what makes us alive, libido does not make us alive. It's necessary for us to have a sentience to have a sexual driving force on the other hand, as this is necessary for sensation perception.

Quote:


BTW, saying "I know that's not true" is not a rebuttal. Generally such statements would be followed by an actual argument, supported by factual evidence, or at least some sort of expanded version of your reasons for holding this opinion.




I didn't feel the need to go in much depth. It's absolutely stupid. I figured once I pointed out how absurd it was, people would recognize it. It's really outrageous. It makes no sense. I'm not the only one who has rejected these ideas. Freud thought of some valid ideas, it seems, a portion of which it seems he has really hijacked and called them by different name, but generally speaking, a lot of his ideas have been recognized as invalid. The idea though that he came up with the idea of the subconcious, must surely be absolutely false .

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-03-freud_x.htm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7563694 - 10/26/07 03:14 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

The article you linked to does not support your assertions.  One psychologist disputes the same misunderstood version of Freud's theory of the libido--so what?  Again, the libido is NOT our sexual urges, though it is commonly used in this manner, it is our life force.    Without life, no sentience. 

Quote:

It's absolutely stupid




Another terrific rebuttal.  :rolleyes:

All right, I'm done highjacking Markos' thread for this pointless non-debate.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAcinaxuz
In SomnisVeritas.


Registered: 06/20/06
Posts: 231
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7563978 - 10/26/07 05:05 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Christianity, as my own personal belief, has stripped women of their "power" in society. Prior to Christianity's overthrow of naturistic, and "pagan" (in context of that which is not Christian, is naturistic, and polythiestic) religions women held equality in the "church". Women were held alongside priests as priestesses. Women were seen as healers, nurturers, channelers and powerful in their own rights as a member of the human race.

With the rise of Christianity you see women being stripped of this placement, categorized not as equals, but rather as servants to men and thus to god. Women were seen as unclean upon the loss of virginity and were shunned whereas previous to, the act of sex was a power within itself and in simplifying this idea, the act of stripping away sexuality equates to stripping away a piece of woman's "power" or place in society. IMO It's the first step in the servitude of women to men.

Women who practiced medicine, religious sex rights, or refused the true belief in a god or a religion that held no real place for them were shunned. As a later example of this, I'll cite the Salem witch trials. Women who practiced healing with plants and herbs were considered witches, as were those who maintained any spiritual connection with religion other than Christianity. These women were tortured into confessing sins, if they were not vanquished by the process of torture, they were put to death upon forced confession.

To me, the stripping of "power" comes with the limit to which women are allowed to connect to "god", among other things. In a religion that holds no role for women, save for servitude to man and thus god and procreation, how then can this be balanced? I sincerely believe that Christianity has caused more harm to humans as a society than just about anything else because it does throw the balance of life out of proportion.


Quote:

Woman was created in the image of Christ's church. This was based upon the foreknowledge of God. This is why woman can have only one husband. This is why Man is to honor his wife, as the weaker vessel. This is why woman is to submit to her husband. This is why Paul tells husbands to love their wifes like Christ loves the church.





This statement translates to me as "Women should serve their husbands as Christians should serve their god. God will love it's servants (the church) as men should love theirs." Meaning our power is to be seen rather than heard or active in a spiritual society. We are there now merely as supporters to the one true christian or servant to god, man. This is obscenely perverse in itself. And as a female I will not embrace that which does not embrace me.

Quote:

The fact is that women and men are different. It is a fact that women are the weaker of the two. They are not built like a man is. They are more sensitive and their femininity is something to be honored, not looked down upon. Women in todays society have degraded themselves from the beauty they once held.

The respect and honor they deserve is best illustrated by chivalry.





What then is femininity? The belief that women should not play a role? That we are merely a womb to shoulder the burden of giving life? The beauty of female, again insenuating that we are to be seen, not heard, have degraded ourselves by not being bound to servitude? It is the sin of man that exploits the female entity, and thus stole our beauty from us.

I disagree with the assumption that women today have degraded themselves (by the only subject I can consider your reference) via sexuality. And I resent that males have not played a role in this by objectifying females. I resent that women should remain chast while men are free to sow their oats with no reprocussion. That we are there to be chosen based on our appearance and thus sexual ability. I resent that everytime I turn on the television I see scantly clad women for the purpose of marketing. Exploitation (which is the reason I no longer have a use for cable TV). Men exploit sexuality in women with no desire to marry them or commit to them, thus are men not in sin for not revering honor of women?

I tend to disagree with that statement whole heartedly for I feel that it is natural for women to allow themselves sexual freedom. I resent the fact that even now, women are put in a place of sexual servitude.

It is now the norm for women to dress provocatively to gain the attraction of men because there is no such thing as chivalry anymore in the first place. And in the second I'm pretty fed up with exploitation.

While women initially found the courage to express sexuality, men then took that as something women are required to provide, and thus it has become the female identity. Women have been forced into this role and are there because they can not conceive of a world without these denotations. Women on the whole are generically viewed, most of the time, as a second class and there only for pleasure, servitude and entertainment.

I find it saddening that women fall into this pattern because it's what society teaches them, and what men expect of them. I feel that most of our daughters are lost because their power has been stripped in society and religious beliefs and thus many have lost their real identity.

I will say that I'm a feminist. Though, when you ask most women or girls if they are feminists the answer is no. There is an incorrect notion that to be a feminist you have to hate men, detest sexuality,  your place in life as a mother or significant other, know every feminist author and first woman in everything. How can you be female and not feminist? Feminism is merely the recognition that women deserve rights.

It's because our daughters have lose their role, their power in life. We have become merely "vessels and servants" and I attribute this in large part to Christianity and other organized religions that have taken the place of more natural religions that do intertwine male and female power.

Quote:

would you feel more comfortable if it was you or your wife out walking alone at night?




As a female, I tend to not walk late at night unless I carry something with me for protection and even then I'm usually on my cell phone the whole way. Not because I feel weak, but because there are preditors out there that get off on control, male or female. Though, statistically most preditors are male, specifically sexual preditors, and I also attribute this to the teaching that women are inferior to men. Many religious teachings conflict with our laws, and while some here have claimed that it has caused confusion in our women, it has also led to confusion in our men. It has granted them the right to do as they please because they are men, and it's accepted through belief.

Quote:

We live in an emasculated society and women are rebelling out of confusion. Without true masculinity, there can be no femininity.

Masculinity is not overbearing or domineering. It is supportive and protective.





I disagree. Maybe that's what you interpret it as or rather what it SHOULD be, however I see something completely different on the norm.

As a female I'm more accustomed to seeing men who abuse women, cheat on women, use women for sex, talk about women as if they were nothing more than sexual gratification, someone there to make sure you have kids and dinner on the table.

In these cases the idea of protection and support then becomes a means of control. Instead of support and protection, limits are placed in the idea that it will keep us safe, as opposed to allowing us to make our own choices and being supportive in them. In the face of disagreement, how many of these men become abusive? Most. Why do you suppose that is? They must feel entitled to that right by SOMETHING, be it religion or society. I resent it all whole heartedly.

I have a ponderance at times what true masculinity and femininity really mean and how it's provided refuge for same-sex relationships. The idea that women have been stripped of "power", intelect, and free-choice roles makes me wonder how many men, now looking for these qualities, find them in other men, and how women, seeking refuge for equal ideas and to be understood find these qualities in other women.

I'm not saying religion caused homosexuality, I'm saying that the thoughts, ideals, and daily intake of society's gender limitations allow some of us to find more in common with those of the same sex than those that are not of the same sex. Bi-sexuality to me is a dual issue. Most bi-sexuals I encounter are females, and many of them seem to use bi-sexuality as a hook to get a guy.

Bi-sexuality seems to give them one up over the other half naked females striving to gain a meaningful relationship through the art of half naked attraction. That in itself bothers me. There are of course true bi-sexuals that find comfort in men and in women, but on the whole I find this to be grossly over-exagerated for the purpose of male sexual pleasure as opposed to females own sexual gratification.

I'm a lover, not a fighter. I wouldn't say that I find myself in any category really, straight, gay or bisexual. I feel that love should be shared with someone, no matter their gender, and it's beautiful because love is beautiful. To me, sexuality is not the act of sex or foreplay, but rather love.

That's a bit offtopic I suppose, but, wanted to throw that out there.

-Zuxa

[Edited to try and re-run spell check. It's not working! Excuse any typos!  :smile:]


Edited by Acinaxuz (10/26/07 05:14 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7563998 - 10/26/07 05:09 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

jonathan_206 said:
Sentience is what makes us alive, libido does not make us alive.




Incorrect. Sentience is the fact that we have an experience of reality. Life itself is not a result of sentience, and any definition of the word "life" will demonstrate that. For example, here is a very apt one:

Quote:


the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.




No mention of sentience. :shrug: We cannot, from an external vantage, speculate as to whether simpler forms of life have sentience. We can reasonably conclude that other human beings do, but without actually experiencing reality as them, nothing is certain. 


Quote:


I didn't feel the need to go in much depth. It's absolutely stupid. I figured once I pointed out how absurd it was, people would recognize it. It's really outrageous. It makes no sense.




Well, you were wrong. :sorry: In this forum, people substantiate their claims and perspectives, instead of ranting on and on about how absurd and stupid something is, without proposing any ideas to back it up. :thumbdown:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
    #7564142 - 10/26/07 05:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

"All right, I'm done highjacking Markos' thread for this pointless non-debate."

No problem, I'm totally enjoying your responses!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Acinaxuz]
    #7564179 - 10/26/07 05:59 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Acinaxuz said:
Christianity, as my own personal belief, has stripped women of their "power" in society. Prior to Christianity's overthrow of naturistic, and "pagan" (in context of that which is not Christian, is naturistic, and polythiestic) religions women held equality in the "church". Women were held alongside priests as priestesses. Women were seen as healers, nurturers, channelers and powerful in their own rights as a member of the human race.

With the rise of Christianity you see women being stripped of this placement, categorized not as equals, but rather as servants to men and thus to god. Women were seen as unclean upon the loss of virginity and were shunned whereas previous to, the act of sex was a power within itself and in simplifying this idea, the act of stripping away sexuality equates to stripping away a piece of woman's "power" or place in society. IMO It's the first step in the servitude of women to men.

Women who practiced medicine, religious sex rights, or refused the true belief in a god or a religion that held no real place for them were shunned. As a later example of this, I'll cite the Salem witch trials. Women who practiced healing with plants and herbs were considered witches, as were those who maintained any spiritual connection with religion other than Christianity. These women were tortured into confessing sins, if they were not vanquished by the process of torture, they were put to death upon forced confession.

To me, the stripping of "power" comes with the limit to which women are allowed to connect to "god", among other things. In a religion that holds no role for women, save for servitude to man and thus god and procreation, how then can this be balanced? I sincerely believe that Christianity has caused more harm to humans as a society than just about anything else because it does throw the balance of life out of proportion.



Have you actually studied Roman society? Part of what made Jesus so revolutionary to both Jewish and Roman society was his treatment of women. Women had very few rights in either society. It was the Romanization of Christianity that led to it being such a patriarchal religion.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7564204 - 10/26/07 06:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I'm glad you don't mind your thread veering off into vaguely related topics.  :grin:

What is your POV on the Libido?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAcinaxuz
In SomnisVeritas.


Registered: 06/20/06
Posts: 231
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Silversoul]
    #7564252 - 10/26/07 06:20 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Acinaxuz said:
Christianity, as my own personal belief, has stripped women of their "power" in society. Prior to Christianity's overthrow of naturistic, and "pagan" (in context of that which is not Christian, is naturistic, and polythiestic) religions women held equality in the "church". Women were held alongside priests as priestesses. Women were seen as healers, nurturers, channelers and powerful in their own rights as a member of the human race.

With the rise of Christianity you see women being stripped of this placement, categorized not as equals, but rather as servants to men and thus to god. Women were seen as unclean upon the loss of virginity and were shunned whereas previous to, the act of sex was a power within itself and in simplifying this idea, the act of stripping away sexuality equates to stripping away a piece of woman's "power" or place in society. IMO It's the first step in the servitude of women to men.

Women who practiced medicine, religious sex rights, or refused the true belief in a god or a religion that held no real place for them were shunned. As a later example of this, I'll cite the Salem witch trials. Women who practiced healing with plants and herbs were considered witches, as were those who maintained any spiritual connection with religion other than Christianity. These women were tortured into confessing sins, if they were not vanquished by the process of torture, they were put to death upon forced confession.

To me, the stripping of "power" comes with the limit to which women are allowed to connect to "god", among other things. In a religion that holds no role for women, save for servitude to man and thus god and procreation, how then can this be balanced? I sincerely believe that Christianity has caused more harm to humans as a society than just about anything else because it does throw the balance of life out of proportion.



Have you actually studied Roman society? Part of what made Jesus so revolutionary to both Jewish and Roman society was his treatment of women. Women had very few rights in either society. It was the Romanization of Christianity that led to it being such a patriarchal religion.




I disagree. You can not possibly clump a mass of religions into the ideal that all religions limit/limited the female role.

I have indeed studied Roman society, but to me this is a moot point.

It's the study of previous religions, and the study of Christianity through time, as well as my own Native traditions, that lead me to my conclusions. I'm not saying that Christianity is the root of all evil and killed all the happy frolicing tree huggers, I'm saying that the rise of Christianity, including the prequels with the same general idea <Jesus was Jewish!> caused an imbalance.

In short, one not need know Roman society to know that as a civilization they conquered their surrounding civilizations and thus did so by force.

Could you really be so naive to believe that all of these societies/civilizations were lacking equality or lived within the realm of female injustice? Granted at the time, many had converted to "mainstream" religions -- I stand by that they were forced by precursor Christian societies.

Do you really believe that alternate religious belief, other than the mainstream religion at the point of conquer, had absolutely no role or result in this?

[Edit to clarify a point]


--------------------
:~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~:{ * }:~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~:

All posts are made with only the intent to entertain myself and should ONLY be read with the understanding that they are FICTICIOUS. I do not warrant information I provide for use in illegal activity of any kind nor do I condone it for any reason. Furthermore, I am not, I have never, nor will I in the future, take ANY part in illegal activites.


Edited by Acinaxuz (10/26/07 06:36 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Acinaxuz]
    #7564271 - 10/26/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Patriarchy has existed to different degrees in different societies. I have yet to encounter or hear about a completely gender-egalitarian society, though some have come close. There were indeed societies in which women held prominent roles, as they did in the early Christian church. But to my knowledge, almost every society has had some separation of gender roles.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7564272 - 10/26/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

jonathan_206 said:
How simple minded.

icelander:

I can't believe that someone with posts and rationalisms such as yours would use a personalism such as this.:rofl2::tongue::monkeydance::crazy2:





My comment wasn't a personalism at all. It was a general statement.

I'm worried that next my spelling will be attacked.

veritas:

Quote:

. He theorized that our pleasure motivation was directed into these two divergent streams




Yes, I understood that to begin with.


Quote:


Again, if you do not think that this plays out every day in humanity, you have not been watching. :shrug:




tout au contraire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAcinaxuz
In SomnisVeritas.


Registered: 06/20/06
Posts: 231
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Silversoul]
    #7564403 - 10/26/07 07:12 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Patriarchy has existed to different degrees in different societies. I have yet to encounter or hear about a completely gender-egalitarian society, though some have come close. There were indeed societies in which women held prominent roles, as they did in the early Christian church. But to my knowledge, almost every society has had some separation of gender roles.




Sure, of course they did. It's the role that changed with the rise of new beliefs. This is where the imbalance hath been struck!

(As an Example) Women were persecuted as Witches for practicing medicine. In the time of plague, only men were allowed to practice medicine or healing. Why was this role then "stolen" from women? Why was this role restricted? In tribal religions women are able to fill the role of healer, as in many other pagan religions. As Christianity, and precursors, became the norm and people were forced into conversion, willingly converted, family ideals changed. What was expected of either gender changed. (Granted, we have female doctors these days, and we've made leaps and bounds ahead in many aspects.)

Its here that women were stripped of their abilities and became servants to God and Man as directed by God. Thus as society has progressed women have fought to reclaim a role in our society. As males, men are reluctant to give up their power. Its human nature to not want to give up a good thing!

As and example, In the process women have reclaimed sexuality from the taboo.

Our right to sexuality is our own to express how we choose. You now see women exploited for their sexuality, and many times willingly. As a majority-Christian society, women are still taught that they are to marry, have children, serve their husbands. As a society, we teach these general values to our families.

Its a ticking time-bomb. Women are now fighting for attention from men. We no longer have to be seen and not heard, so we can express ourselves in terms of sexuality because instinctively, men are attracted to sexuality, and scantly clad bodies. I could go into all the reasons this is a bad thing, but really the bottom line is that it makes it an endless competition, causing society changes superficially. i.e. Breast implants. There are a lot of issues caused by our economy too, but that's completely off topic.

What our mothers and grandmothers fought for initially has been perversely misconstrued, and thus because of the resulting exploitation, women are still viewed as possessions and subservient. This causes a power struggle and thus the male to instinctively "conquer" an unsuspecting female walking late at night. D/s fetishes and the role-play of the power struggle. I'm not saying these are bad things, fetishes are fun.

Until our society changes and women regain our roles things seem pretty bleak.

In a completely over generalized conclusion, its the lack of a role not the separation of roles that seems (to me) to cause issue. Either Christianity finds a role for women or christianity will give way to new beliefs. Our culture will eventually change as women come into new roles in society.

Religion is a cycle of what the general population believes and deems to be right and correct. In an age of science mythilogical evidence is scarce! (I hope Mary comes out of hiding cause I certainly am NOT going with scientology!)

-Zuxa


--------------------
:~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~:{ * }:~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~:

All posts are made with only the intent to entertain myself and should ONLY be read with the understanding that they are FICTICIOUS. I do not warrant information I provide for use in illegal activity of any kind nor do I condone it for any reason. Furthermore, I am not, I have never, nor will I in the future, take ANY part in illegal activites.


Edited by Acinaxuz (10/26/07 07:21 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
    #7564613 - 10/26/07 08:23 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

A lot like yours, taken essentially from Jung who saw a wider context than his mentor's essentially sexual content. It is the psychic energy like Chi or Prana as you say.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7564666 - 10/26/07 08:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I read the entire collected works of both Freud and Jung at the college library when I was 14.  :grin:  It is easier to understand Freud's concepts through the views of those who studied with him and/or who used his theories as a springboard for their own work.  However, my work in Freudian dream analysis was what truly clarified his Libido concept for me, as applying the idea of cathexis to dream topics revealed the similarity of the Libido to prana or chi.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #7564884 - 10/26/07 09:47 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

MarkostheGnostic said:
A lot like yours, taken essentially from Jung who saw a wider context than his mentor's essentially sexual content. It is the psychic energy like Chi or Prana as you say.



I'm willing to forgive Freud for attributing everything to sexual repression, considering how sexually repressed society was in the Victorian era in which he wrote(which unfortunately still has not been completely undone).


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
    #7564909 - 10/26/07 09:54 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

That reading list is impressive! I have read a good deal of Freud, and all of Jung's collected works which I own. I also underwent 8 1/2 years of Jungian analysis uner 3 Zurich-trained analysts. My 2nd analyst was analyzed by Yolanda Jacobi who was his training analyst. She had been analyzed by Freud, Adler and Jung.

Freud, Adler and Jung figured as 3 of the 6 theorists whose theories contributed to my dissertation. The first 3 represented our deterministic nature, the latter 3 our existentially free-willed nature grafted on. The 7th theorist was me - a synthesis which followed the Vajrayana chakra scheme as explained by Lama Anagarika Govinda. Libido works through the chakra models and becomes transmuted according to the models. In the Kundalini model, the chakras are like step-up transformers at each center. In the Buddhist model the energy seems to transmute like water heated by fire which turns to steam, which turns a turbine which converts kinetic to electric energy which can be converted to cold fluorescent light. Prana undergoes different modifications which manifest (in my dissertation) as different kinds of human motivation. Each Western theorist represented the phenomenology of each chakra center of motivation.

I used to be a lot smarter than I am today :smile:.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Silversoul]
    #7566737 - 10/27/07 01:00 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

There are many people whose personalities constellate primarily around the anal-genital (or in the combined Tibetan Yoga, Root Center) center. Freud's perception, IMO, was the phenomenology of such people (the Hindu Yoga's Muladhara & Svadhisthana chakras). Their's is a life of instinct, of survival, violence and sexuality. It is life on the street, or in the jungle. It is essentially a human personality governed by Darwinian self-preservation and preservation of the species. It is a life which can demonstrate craftiness, slyness and the deception often illustrated by mammalian life in their fight for survival. Lot's of fear colors the emotional life. It is basic and as such it is base, but if it does not form the Prima Materia for transmutation, then it remains leaden and gravitationally tends toward crude materialism.

Because it does not transmute or sublimate into more sublime forms, there is little moral development and hence the instinctual life is not truly moral, it can only adopt (introject) a Superego from its original caregivers. If social norms are not imparted, and because higher internal loci of motivation based on compassion lie dormant, criminality is often the outer manifestation of Root Center oriented people who may understandably be described as 'low-life,' because their predominant center of inner life is anal-genital.

On the 'totem-pole' chakra psychologies, we all have this lowest face on the totem-pole, but as one moves upward, less and less deterministic factors dominate the person, and more and more free-willed existential factors are enjoined. I borrowed this idea from Ram Dass' book The Only Dance There Is and developed my own theory by applying the Western theorists of human motivation who seemed to fit best with the phenomenology described by a Vajrayana model (according to Lama Anagarika Govinda's work and with whom I consulted).

With a chakra model, each personality theorist is completely correct within the 'sphere' of each motivation. Each theory is then not contradictory but can be arranged in a hierarchical order or ascending and descending developments according to an ancient model that derived from experience not abstract theory. Perhaps a stack of 'planes' is a better image like the chakra wheels with the spinal cord running through their middles like an axel through the hub of several wheels. This scheme translates into th Buddhist stupa or chorten:

Waving at you from the space-time nexus of Amherst, Massachusetts-1993.

Freud is still the unparalleled phenomenologist of Root Center psychology, here relegated to the yellow cube which is the most earth-bound center. Only after the experience of the Crown Center [OM] is the nature of this center transmuted into a vehicle for Enlightened action. Its natural (anal-genital) tendencies are transcended (sublimated and included in the whole), its 'seed syllable' [AH] is transferred to the Throat Center to become part of the Mystery of Body, Speech and Mind [OM-AH-HUM]. The Earth or Root Center becomes the mirror, or witness to Enlightened action as illustrated in the Bhumisparsha Mudra of Buddha touching the Earth as his witness to Enlightenment.



--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Fundamental Masculine And Feminine Intelligences – And Stupidities viktor 978 8 05/27/17 07:24 AM
by sudly
* God and the masculine pronoun
( 1 2 all )
shroomydan 4,852 26 03/27/07 11:33 AM
by mr_kite
* Masculine / Feminine
( 1 2 all )
Veritas 4,217 33 11/03/05 03:26 PM
by Icelander
* Masculine or Feminine?
( 1 2 all )
Cracka_X 3,255 25 10/17/07 02:52 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* The Masculine/Feminine Energy of Uniqueness tekramrepus 519 1 01/09/04 01:12 PM
by TrueBrode
* is the world really too masculine/yang? Malachi 1,381 16 07/21/03 11:44 AM
by infidelGOD
* Robert Bly On Mythology and Masculinity, What It Means To Be Male lines 882 4 01/21/11 05:49 PM
by Icelander
* Getting in touch with your feminine/masculine side... Poid 191 0 12/19/08 06:29 AM
by

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
9,020 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.091 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 14 queries.