Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by wellwisher, Dec 30, 2012.
And your knowledge of motherhood is nil.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
How would you know that? What could you possibly have gleaned from my post to make that assessment?
Pretty sure he had a mother.
Simple, you don't seem to recognize the classic position of mother and suckling child.
Still do, in fact.
What would that have to do with me knowing anything about motherhood? Do you believe motherhood can be understood simply by showing an image of a woman offering a breast to her child?
I think perhaps you're the one who needs to brush up on motherhood.
At any rate, that image of Isis and Horus is a classic of religious iconography, so much so that it would have been known to early Christians, and no doubt served as inspiration for the image of Mary and Jesus. It isn't an accident that the two images are so similar. In fact, Isis served as a template for Mary early in Christianity.
I wouldn't have to tell you this if you knew anything about this stuff, of course.
So what's you're point?
And still infinately bigger than yours.
My gosh! You've reduced me to ''mines bigger than yours'' exchanges. IOW, your world.
But that doesn't even make sense. You clearly don't know what you're talking about here, yet you think somehow that your total ignorance of this subject translates to having more knowledge than me? How does that work? You didn't even know there was a connection between Isis and Mary.
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't say mine's bigger unless it actually is.
And it's infinitely. Don't you have a spell-check built in to your browser?
If you notice their formula also separates the role of male and female within that religion. Islam does this more extremely because they don't have a high regard for females within their religion like the roles of Mother Mary and the dozens of matron Saints. The Jewish faith, which has stood the test of time, also uses a similar formula with the son spoiled by the mother. Maybe the correlation should be defined this way. What major religions with at least 100,000,000 followers, have female integration? What is the limit for such religions and would the female formula lead to dissociation down to that limit?
Don't get me wrong, women complement men and men complement women. Both have something to offer culture and as a team, together they are more than the sum of the parts. What I would like to see instead is women defining their own roles as women so the team is stronger. Simply copying the traditional role of men seems to make the team weaker. Divorce went up as women changed roles because the team is no longer better than the sum of the parts, so the parts separate.
The dual standard is a problem because it reflects an irrational element being added that is out of touch with cause and effect. The way it works is this generation of females, regardless of character, gets a dual standard advantage. The only criteria is their sex, not character. The dual standard works against males, based only on sex and does not take into consideration character. Even if a male marched the march and never did anything bad against women, the dual standard accuses him for nothing he did in reality. Quotas will bring injustice in real time using the excuse of retroactive guilt for a past one had nothing to do with. Christians do not believe in reincarnation so there no cause and effect to the system of injustice. This evil will divide the church.
The females need to define their own roles which don't not require punishing people in real time for something from the past that they had no direct involvement in. The maternal role of women in the church is currently is based on unconditional love, not conditional love in a way that creates a dual standard. That is a formula for division.
Let me turn this around. Since women's liberation more women and children live in poverty in America. Let us use the dual standard to fix this injustice. All women in poverty get to take the jobs of females who have jobs regardless of who did what. The bottom line is the action of some led to the poverty of many others. I am creating a dual standard that will punish the present, for the past, regardless of whether an inidividual female did anything or not. Hilary Clinton now has to push a shopping cart so a street women gets to take her job, since she was part of the women's liberation that resulted in the street women. It does not matter if she had nothing to do with this in a direct way, it is all about the dual standard between female haves and have nots.
My point is the one I made previously, that the image of the virgin mother, and that of Jesus aren't new, (I could add angels to that) and aren't related to the real lives of those people, they were copied due to their previous cache of meaning in society.
Currently the dual standard works very much FOR males.
Robert Graves covered much of that previous cache of meaning in his Greek Myths.
Men and women complement each other, since they were designed by nature to work as a team. The team becomes more than the sum of its parts. The church breaks down the roles of male and female by assigning them their natural roles as complements so the male-female team is strong the church can grow. It was not uncommon a couple of generations ago for Christians to have 8 children. That takes a strong team, which is beyond the present. This was done without a lot of money and without social safety nets. Even with these advantages in the present, the teams are too weak due to unnatural advice.
In terms of a generalization, women are more orally orientated, while men are more visually orientated. A female wants to hear how much her mates loves her. Even if he uses white lies, she needs and like the words. The male is more visual, which is why females spend so much time making themselves visually appealing.
Language is processed in the left brain, while the visual language is processed in the right brain. A pretty gal with all the details of her attire provides an integrated effect to the male eyes. Other gals are more likely to notice if one detail (left brain) is out of place. The gal is less critical of male appearance since she wants hear something; I love you.
Religion is more right brained, while culture and education is more left brained.
The males, due to the visual language, became the right brained caretakers of right brain religions, while the female were assigned left brain tasks like teach the traditions to the children with language. The symbol of Christ on the Cross is a differential event to the left brainer; means nothing more than that. To the right brainer, this is a symbol which makes it spatial or 3-D. The right brain adds an aura of mystery needed to define the z-axis.
If we go back in time, the males were the hunters while the female were gatherers. Animals are not static like plants. The plants are stuck in the ground, where they can be differentiated day to day. They do not run away. An animal is not static but has an extra wild card variable, connected to its instinct and mobility. If you were shooting an arrow at a moving animal you need to lead him or shoot in front. You need to shoot at a place where there is nothing in the present. You need to anticipate in time and space by aiming into the future. Plants are static so one deals with these as they are in real time and space. Or a growing plant is stuck in space but will change with time. But not both at the same time.
Women can teach all the traditions of religion; nuns, but they don't anticipate the moving target. In culture, the females and mothers are the ones who keep the children up with the latest fads and traditions. These are all fixed targets, defined by culture, for each season to be done on a certain day a certain way. The males add new invention and traditions. They see the moving target in their mind's eye, before it is a tradition, and attempt to turn that into fixed (dead animal).
The church is conservative, but the religion also has future targets in space and time. The church leaders may have to aim ahead of the target so the target runs into the arrow. If you lose that, religion is not alive but static. Like a dead tree, it will start to rot and then fall. If needs to remain alive by leading targets in space and time.
Along with hunting is the hunting party. Since the animal is dynamic and he may need to be tracked into the future before you can even take a shot that leads him in time and space. The males learned to work in team, so they can act as the net to the future. The new is often more of a problem for the males than females. Females are much more open to the creativity of the males. The role of women was to help the future unfold by embracing change. They take the caught food animal from the hunting party and help prepare it so all can eat; loving acceptance.
Women are already accepting the future role of women in the church. But those who propose this change are left brainers who don't know how to shoot moving targets. They will try to use the chains of law to tie the animal down so they can shoot in place; dual standard. If it was real 3-D, all stays free.
Yes, motherhood of a mammal can be understood by simply showing an image of mammalian feeding.
You need to brush up on symbolic representation and memes in art.
Haha. That is from a political thinker, not a theologian. Do you know when was it? 2300 years ago. Whole of NT and Auinas are far younger.
I've seen him quoted and relied on by people in positions of spiritual authority.
Would you even know the difference?
Of course not! I am fully and entirely bound to your supreme intelligence!!!1232!!
Now that your knee-jerk ego defense mechanism is out of the way, care to serious answer the question? Or should I simply take this as a "no?"
I would like to see women invent/define the natural role of women, based on maximizing natural female attributes. I don't mean cherry picking from and copying the males, but rather derive and invent the natural way that applies specifically to females. Women would then police themselves and males will police themselves.
The males don't have an innate desire to copy the females, unless culture pressures them to conform. If they do copy, they don't try to make laws to force the template to stand still while they copy.
If we removed dual standard laws, men would revert back to natural male competition. Males would prefer to stay natural while female prefer unnatural males. The roles of male and female in Christianity reflect that which is natural for each sex, not what is artificially desired by the females.
In the modern church, some females want laws of good and evil (disaster tree) to force the church to make them priests; use law to mimic the males, while restricting the males. Women are not getting together and looking at their natural female instincts and deriving their unique contribution based on these female strengths. While the males are not forcing laws to mimic females. This is one major difference between the two.
Women like to wear make-up to create a visual illusion of better than natural, via artificial. Say we brought that custom into the church leadership. It is no longer about a natural path of growth based on natural selection, but an artificial path, that looks good in the surface or who like, a politician, has the best line of make-up.
Another difference between male and female is connected to instinctive sexuality. Male desire drives him forward. The female is more vulnerable due to pregnancy and motherhood. She is more cautious and would prefer the security of the nest. The church, if based on natural and not artificial, would use male and female in ways that reflect this natural difference. The male desires the future, while the female would be more in the present.
The question is, could women create their own way or do they need to copy males? If copying is the case, then the church would have seen this and would have separated the creators and the copiers into separate roles. The goal would have always been to extrapolate God's natural creation, which defined male and female through eons of evolution.
I would think that science should be able to verify whether the church favored roles which parallel evolution. This does not mean they believe in evolution, but will unconsciously follow a natural path.
Separate names with a comma.