Christianity and the Role of the Female

Here is an interesting twist about the role of the female in the church, that just popped into my head. Priests and nuns do not marry. The question becomes what happens if natural instinctive sexual pathways are blocked using the mind and willpower?

One way to answer this is picture a stream that is meandering and flowing. I next place a dam and block the flow. The water downstream will dry up (habits broken), while water will start to build up behind the dam (creates potential). When it gets high enough, the water can go around the dam, over the dam, or it can be used for hydroelectric power. The result could be compulsions, sublimations or even directed libido, all which make use of the ancient instinctive potential. The church was trying to fundamentally alter instinct; advance the personality firmware into another bud.

Since celibacy does not procreate, positive or negative changes to the instinctive flow cannot be passed on biologically. This does not harm the natural instincts as a whole. However, the things that are learned or displayed can be passed via education. Like any invention, it only takes one inventor yet multitudes can use it based on the mind. The new firmware would have been connected to the mind and would take advantage of the natural potentials to generate the electricity.

The role of women played a role in the chosen dams.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not sure if this alters the point you were making but this statement is incorrect. Apes do display rudimentary religious behavior, in a way that is natural and a logical result of increased brainpower and abstract thinking in primates.
NOVA showed a program about ape intelligence and its similarities with human intelligence, albeit at a rudimentary level.
The program of a chimpanzee troupe was taped during a monsoon and showed the whole troupe huddling away from the rain and thunder, babies clinging to mothers and males trying to find shelter under leaves that were much too small to offer protection.
Oddly, the Alpha male was running around, screaming, throwing leaves high into the air, finally picking up a stick and beating the ground and bushes in a clear aggressive defensive posture to ward off this unseen enemy high above which made loud noises and threw water at him and made him feel very uncomfortable and insecure.
The very act of imagining an unseen enemy is the first sign of acknowledging an "unseen superior power". The alpha responded defensively, but it is not difficult to imagine that the evolutionary next step in hominids was to wish (pray) for the rains to go away and still later to offer sacrifice to appease the "god of thunder" and there is your worship.

As chimps have not evolved in brainpower since humans appeared, their behavior is perfectly predictive of what the earliest man had already practiced for (perhaps) millennia.

I agree, but IMO, the rudimentary process of abstract thinking started long before man built his first pyramid. Artistry is well know in the animal world. Many species of birds collect trinkets for their mate, do the most imaginative dances to display their prowess, and mark territory to warn others of boundaries. IMO, these behaviors are very much related to the evolution and practice of abstract thinking and eventual religious ritual.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Human consciousness differs from apes and other natural critters, in that humans have two centers of consciousness (ego and inner self) while animals only have one center of consciousness (inner self). Humans can use free will to choose to become unnatural and even consciously disrupt nature because of the second center; ego. Animals can't freely choose to become unnatural since their singular inner self is a product of nature and natural selection.

We can train some animals to become unnatural but that requires a secondary center stemming from outside the animal; humans willpower. Humans because of two centers, can do this internally, individually.

Religious behavior is connected to the relationship between ego and inner self. The abstraction of the imagination, which materialize within the mind from internal processes, instead of sensory, stem from the connection between ego and inner self. This potential, from higher to lower (inner self to ego) is why god is considered higher than human (ego).

As an analogy, picture a mother (inner self) and her spoiled child (ego). The child may want to have its own way. But it is unconscious of the fact that without the mother propping it up, it would not be able to do anything for very long. The child may want to ride its bike, but it is the mother who holds it so he does not fall, yet in his own mind, he is riding the bike. Religion appears as a natural failsafe, since the child (ego) if given too much will and choice, while being unaware of the mother propping him up, can cause harm to both. The child may say I can ride, get away from me. If the mother follows that the child wipes out and blames inner self (mother or God).

Religion would analogous to feedback from mother (sad, mad, happy and afraid) to help regulate behavior so the job of the mother is more optimized so she can optimize both. But in the case of the inner self, which is neural circuity and ionic currents sensory feedback is not possible. Rather feedback needs to occur at an abstract level, within the imagination and via projection. Systems of religion appear to balance will with natural optimization, since the spoiled child was not originally aware the mother is holding the bike for the child.

Religion evolved as the ego and inner self connections evolved. If we go back to topic, the role of women in the church does not optimize the ego of women, but was designed with the inner self in mind; nature. Look at nature and the inner self of apes, how does this differ from the ego centric social wants of women?

Liberals appear to have more concern for nature on the surface. This is due to projection, because too much ego-centricity results in unnatural balance. The need to make the world more natural is a projection of inner need. The more religious seem less motivated this way, because there is less internal potential with inner natural. It is not lack of care, but lack of inner need being projected into nature; abstractions like killing mother nature.

In my own experiments with the inner self it like the operating system for a range of personality firmware, which define natural and collective human propensities; human nature. In polytheism, they had separate projections for each of the firmware. This is useful to mapping the modern psyche.

In Christianity, the singular God of the Old Testament becomes a trinity. This projection would suggest the original natural inner self sort of budding off; evolving. The Father is still the original inner self, but now the son and holy spirit would represent step down networking. This would explain the strength of the modern ego.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We can also train humans to become inhuman and that also requires a secondary center stemming from say religious dogma.
Indoctrination and excessive punishment sometimes tend to stifle individual thought, at least for a little while, IMO.

 

If you look at the Catholic Church during the middle ages, the priests, in general, were well educated. In secular society of the time, only the rich were educated. The priests, on the other hand, came from all walks of life and were not rich. Why would the church give education to those pesky commoners who were not rich?

Once anyone learns to read, gets educated, learns to do research, and has access to the largest and best libraries of the era, with books all the way from antiquity, the priests had the means to think outside the box. Why would a brain washing church allow its officers the means to leave the box within their minds; truth.

The alchemists, who were pre-chemists, were priests, doctors and philosophers, all in one person, due to the educational means offered by the church. The vast church libraries contain treasure including the arcane sciences. If you read about the alchemists they had access to books frowned upon, but that were still available. The church was willing to shoot itself in the foot, by allowing the means to question the dogma, because truth was the goal. The church was slow to change to make sure it was truth. The modern university system is based on what was offered the clergy by the church. The dogma of science, like relativity, are slow to change, but the means to think outside the box is there. But if you do, be prepared to deal with the defensiveness and social stigma, unless the truth is unavoidable.

 

Of course the early scientific inquiries were made by educated people. As only priests and princes were educated it stands to reason that they were the first to ask questions.
But your assertion that the church supported these endeavors is naïve. The church did research only to seek proof of god, something which they still have not managed to do in centuries of contemplation.
Any findings that did not support the notion of a god creator was severely suppressed and the author was "put to the test", IOW repent his/her blasphemy.
Ask Hypatia, Galileo, Copernicus, to name a few.
http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm
http://www.studentpulse.com/article...o-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world

 

Consider these science forums, when someone presents an idea that is not part of the accepted tradition. There will often be a concerted effort, by a group of purist, to diminish that person. That is human nature and does not apply to all members of the forum, but these members will use fear to intimidate. I generate a lot of ideas and have been banished, from many sites for blaspheme. I am better at walking the fence to avoid the inquisition.

If someone started to blaspheme by publicly saying PC taboo words, one can lose a job or prestige. The inquisition remains, but not all people take delight in beating on others as henchmen for PC. The laws have changed, so torture is not allowed, but one can become exiled from the workplace by the inquisition of today.

But not all members of the church were part of their PC inquisition of the church. There were also sympathetic members of the church, which is why one could work off the radar. Once you educate, you create a free mind that can research and develop critical thinking. If the goal was brainwashing, you would be better off dumbing them down.The church had the best libraries and education was available. Books h ad to be copied by hand with the church having scribes so increase distribution. Greek and Latin were taught so one could read works from Aristotle or Greek texts of mythology. The church preserved these because it was not trying to brain wash.

Galileo was ahead of his time and he was censored because he was not politically correct in public. But he was not killed, rather it was made hard for him to make sure his conviction and work could overcome the folly of PC inquisitions; irrefutable. This helped to separate the truth from the trolls who only wanted change as a vehicle for power.

 

I am not sure if you are condemning or justifying the motives and methods of the Inquisition.

IMO, the church (any church), as the self proclaimed moral shepherd of humanity has the responsibility to ALWAYS ACT in an indisputable moral fashion. What we got (I know it is not quite all pervasive) is an epoch of religious terror comparable to the reigns of the very worst dictators in history. The Abrahamic religions and churches may be counted as worst offenders.

"Walk the Walk as you Talk the Talk". Jesus did and became a martyr for his convictions. That is the inherent power of the message in the crucifiction.

But after that it went all downhill, sorry to say.

 

If you read history, especially ancient history, it summarizes war and conquest. Since that is what is reported most of the time, one could get the impression that this is all that happened 24/7. But this does not present the boring daily routines of the people. It is like the TV news reporting a down airliner. One gets the impression planes are now falling from the sky like snowflakes due to constant fixation and multiple angles. One has to be careful with perspective.

I was brought up as a Catholic and remember many parish priests who were contrary to the church during the 1960-70's. But since these priests are low level sergeant, instead of a general, this is not part of the history presented and assumed not to exist. I remember being 13 and just Confirmed as a Catholic. I talked to my parish priest about my desire to learn about other religions including atheism. He told me to be open minded on my quest for truth. I was not expelled.

The parish priests had far more variety of ideas and opinions. Once you bump things up the church ladder, the system become much more rigid and solid. But at the ground level, the church is very organic. Innovation and departure is spawned at the ground floor of the church but will meet the tough requirements as these ideas push toward the top.

The church was designed like a tree, with the top level managers anchored like the trunk and roots. The top of the tree, with the growing branches and new leaves is analogous to the parish level; the first shall be last and the last first. The church always provided education and books for the priests, who, then in the field, could teach what they learn and believe. But going from there all the way to the trunk of the church was a battle; truth had to persevere until assimilated by the roots.

 

Sure. Where is it barred?

 

It doesn't speak highly of women, and it is used as authoritative by some Hindu people in positions of spiritual authority.

So your claim that

is not so sound; Hinduism doesn't universally think that much more highly of women than Christianity.

 

Religions, like Christianity and Hinduism, have a connection to natural human instinct and separate the roles of the sex, accordingly. They both try to avoid artificial prosthesis, to create an unnatural relationship between form and function. The modern secular merging of the sexes is possible but it requires dual standards, extra laws and regulations, and higher social costs because it is not natural and requires prosthesis. Natural does not have or require such prosthesis.

An analogy is a zoo. Animals will not naturally be found in zoos. Natural or Zoo is not relative behavior. However, we can place animals in zoos if we are willing to pump in additional resources not found in nature. Once we do that, an illusion can be created that both are the same since lions and elephants can live just as long in the zoo as in the wild. Religions think in terms of natural without zookeepers.

We can say that humans are naturally promiscuous by pointing to apes. But this behavior requires the zoo keepers called medicines for STD's. These are not found in nature and therefore are not natural. Christianity will not include this behavior because it only works with zookeepers. But once the medicines are sales pitched as normal, then secular will pitch this as relative behavior.

Homosexual behavior, especially among gays, requires zookeepers. If there were no condoms or medicines, neither of which are found in nature growing on trees, this behavior would not be sustainable at the current levels. Religions assume natural does not need zookeepers to maintain natural behavior and therefore will not include this as part of natural behavior. But once the secular zoo is set up, the sales pitch becomes this is relative since there is lots of money in zoo related industries. I suppose in some abstract way the zoo elephant is the same as the wild elephant since they both can live long?

To understand the religious POV, ask yourself this question. What would happen if there were no zoo keepers? What would be left? Liberalism requires a lot of laws and regulations to force a given result. It is heavy on the zoo keeper.

As far aw women, Christianity thinks highly of women, but not in the ways possible in the zoo, since this requires resources which then spread unnatural outward so others have to become unnatural to supplement the zoo. Christianity evolved around the poor, who lack resources to support zoos. They needed to figure out how to minimize resources needs while maximizing utility. That required the streamline of natural.

If we had no zoo, but only natural, women have natural strengths apart from zookeepers. Personally I prefer watch the lions in the wild than watch them in the zoo. But liberalism is all about the zoo.

 

My last post was presented to contrast the natural environment with a zoo environment. Both places can house animals and allow then to survive, but the zoo requires additional resources that are not required in the natural environment. This is not a value judgement, but a resource balance and anyone can do the math. Many religions, had to do a resource balance and looked for ways to minimize resources during poor and unstable times. That brought them back to natural since this is the gold standard.

The next question to ask is, how do natural male and female roles extrapolate into modern civilization, when it is obvious that male and females can do more than only natural roles? For example, if the natural female role is as mother and nurturer to the children, does this extrapolate into culture, as meaning females should be responsible for national scale resources and services needed by mothers, like food.

Could we treat, the nation as a large family and have the females work together as the national mom, taking care of the national family. I have no problem with females leading health and human services from the top to the bottom, since at the level of the national family this is natural role of the female.

It makes sense to coordinate the needs of children, from top to bottom, using the natural female. I would guess putting males at the top of maternal parallels at the national scale, although do-able, may be an example of zookeeper.

An interesting exercise is to define natural male and female and then extrapolate this into national roles of leadership. This takes advantage of the intelligence of both male and female, provides power and position fro both, while taking advantage of natural instincts.

I remember going to large family get togethers at holidays, when I was a child. One role of the female in each home was cooking. At these get togethers, all the women (wives and older daughters) would work together with the elder matriarchs the leaders. As the family scaled up, all the mothers become a larger scale mother of a huge family. The national extrapolation, of cooking and feeding, would be the women in charge of the food supply, defining diets and treats.

In Christian tradition, the church is female or the great mother. She is the big mother, who is the glue that holds the Christian family together, just as each mother is the glue for her family. I am not sure how maternal love extrapolates up to the national level, but I would guess the women would instinctively figure this out.

 

In Hinduism there women priests. Woman spiritual teachers too. Women definitely are not barred from spirituality.

 

Rereading some threats I came across this statement which on second thought seems too important to ignore.

The great apes certainly have an ego, a sense of self worth, generosity, shame! I believe the difference is not in possessing ego, but lack of capacity to analyze details and consequences of certain actions.

This can be seen again in the great ape communities. Why do you think we say "they are so much like us" (in every respect).

But even more primitive, it was observed by a group of researchers that a troupe of monkeys regularly fed from the roots of a river plant. Thus they had to dive down in order to harvest the apparent delicacy. Moreover these rivers are also home to crocodiles and crocs like monkeys. Thus the monkeys, being very clever, would post guards (old experienced males) on tree limbs above the river. If there was sign of a crocodile these guards would utter a certain cry and all the monkeys would scramble to safety in the trees, until the danger had passed.

But the researchers also witnessed two remarkable events.

1) One old guard fell asleep on his watch and failed to see a croc, which ended up with a nice monkey snack, to the consternation of the entire troupe. The old guard looked around, then turned his back and cupped his head in his hands in a clear gesture of shame and remorse. He did not dare come down for a long time.

But then, most amazingly,

2) A young monkey apparently had made the connection that when a guard cried the Crocodile Cry every one would scramble to safety, dropping some of their bounty as they fled up the treest. So this young monkey hid behind a large rock and uttered the warning cry, whereupon all the monkeys scrambled, but the little one "knowing it was a false alarm" would rush onto the beach and gather as much as he could and hastily retreat behind his rock, furtively looking around to see if anyone had noticed.

These two never before seen behaviors astounded the researchers, and they came to a consensus conclusion that both behaviors, and especially the second one revealed how far back abstract thinking may go back in time.

Even some of the oldest creatures on earth have the ability to calculate distance, angles, speed, stealth, camouflage. These type of problems are solved by the same part of the brain that engages in advanced calculus. It is just at a very rudimentary level, but it is already there.

As to woman's role in society. IMO, this is evolving along with the creation of free time. Division of labor is no longer an essential requirement. Automation have given women freedom to pursue other interests which, in the past, were repressed. And as women always have been the intellectual equal of men, it is no wonder that they demanded freedom from male domination. But some old timers still cling to this OT edict, as can be seen by the recent attempts to control women's reproductive choices.

 

I can't add anything to this; BEAUTIFULLY said.
As always write4u...you drive home a point, accurately and with a refreshingly gracious tone.

 

In golf there is something called the handicap. This shaves point off your score, with worse players having a higher handicap. This allows players of different skill levels to play together. The worse players can subtract shots off their score, so in the end, different skill levels, from top to bottom, all appear to be the same via score.

Quotas is a social golf handicap needed for women to play with the men. One is not supposed to say this out loud. The old timers actually believe in the women more, than the liberals. They don't accept that handicap, since the old timers assume the women don't need the point shave.

For example, if women want reproductive freedom, the old timers would say then do like the men and pay the tab for yourself and your mate and don't be dependent on the tax payer to pay your tab for sex. This dependency makes women unequal in the rational world of men. The female mind seems to have a tough time with the character of equality, but prefers the make-up of equality.

I look at men and women as complements, with each bringing skills to the table, at which each is best. This allows the team to be more than the sum of its parts.

I would like to see the women define themselves.

How do women see women, in the context of other women?

 

First let me congratulate you in getting through an entire post without your traditional anti-liberal rants. Your posts come across as much more reasonable without those knee-jerk Rush Limbaugh sound bites.

Secondly I offer a better analogy - target shooting. In target shooting, shooters compensate for something called windage, which is the amount that the bullet is pushed off-course by wind. It would be silly to say "shooters cannot compensate for windage because that's unfair; everyone should be shooting without any compensation so everyone is equal." Good shooters compensate for the environment to put their rounds on target.

Likewise, it would be silly to say "hiring managers cannot compensate for the employment environment because that's unfair." Hiring managers should have the freedom to do what they want to get the personnel they need, even if it means compensating for an environment in which women are actively discouraged from taking on a given role.

No taxpayer has to pay the tab for sex. So your problem is already solved.

 

Suppose you go see your doctor for a physical exam and he has been killed and his woman's clinic has been burned to the ground, you still believe in "paying the tab" for any reason women come to see a gynecologists. Give me a break.

And that allows you to decide what "complimentary contribution" women should contribute in their reproductive choices?

Define yourself first. Actually you have

You must be kidding?

Women seem to be able to define themselves quite well, in context of human rights, not societal or religious obligation.

Yes, women are so confused about their role in society. They even want the same rights as men, can you imagine?

The most telling comment was your "pointshaving" which is fundamentally a chauvinist judgment of abilities.

 

The golden generation from WWII era were not confused about the ability of women. The women of that generation essentially had to run the logistics of the country and the family, doing all the jobs men and women had done. Those women did this without all the modern rules and regulations; golf handicap of quotas. They proved themselves.

Say we assume women are equal, then is golf handicap of modern women, cheating? The older timers saw what women could do, so they don't understand the logic of the dual standard, since this implies less than men or cheating, but it does not imply equal.

If you have two people of equal ability in golf, and one gets a handicap of 10, this would be cheating. If you sincerely believed in equality then there is no need to give anyone a handicap, correct?