by Terry 108 Replies latest watchtower bible
right - well then I agree completely with Robdar
A bit too pithy for me to understand, I'm afraid. Which statement of Robdar are you completely agreeing with?
It is YOU who are leveling an acusation at ME as being misogynist and I am politely asking that you to back up that opinion.
Passing it off to somebody else is dodging. Okay?
yes I most certainly am leveling an accusation against you and I have also given you my reasons
You may think you are defending women but believe me you are not. I suggest you re-read your opening post.
I think that the problem is that you have hastily rattled of a brainwave (in your op) and we are now showing you how inadequate it is.
There you go again. You need to be more specific. Make iterative statements.
Give me specific things I said which YOU say are misogynist in content. A misogynist is a WOMAN HATER.
I specifically spoke about both men and women in the context of religious superstition. In THAT context both men AND women are equally
dupes of imaginary ideology. Neither one nor the other more so.
Women were not empowered the way men were and their strategy was different.
What I'm saying is the women were MORE EFFECTIVE in how they spread Christianity and deserve the LION'S SHARE of credit
for its spread. (Not that I think spreading Christianity is a lovely thing at all, it isn't.)
yes I most certainly am leveling an accusation against you and I have also given you my reasons
You sound passive agressive to me!
But, hey--I could be wrong. I can't argue, reason or refute what isn't there.
I am not sure what you guys are reading into Terry's posts...
Maybe he is making women sound manipulative and deceitful by manipulating men with their christianity?
From: Robdar’s husband,
Terry I was delighted to read these words from your pen
Thinking about things we have always accepted in a NEW or FRESH way isn't easy, I know.
There is a tension which is hard to overcome.
One way to approach things from a fresh perspective is to begin with humilty.
Yes, humility. A willingness to be wrong if the facts can persuade.
But, without a willingness to let go you will never change your ideas.
Much of your documentation comes from history books. As an academic I value highly the knowledge that can be gained from books, but I am also aware of the fact that history is written by the victors and most historical research is based on exhaustive archival work which were also the province of the victor.
I am sure that you will find this an oversimplification but as far as I can tell from my cursory reading of your postings, your position is men are brutish and power hungry. Women are conniving and manipulative. AND women have the added advantage of providing the earliest education to their children. Yet this ignores the fact that at one point the peer group becomes the dominant influence and these peer groups typically begin unisexually (i.e., groups of boys hang around with each other and groups of girls hang around with themselves). So perhaps the spread of Christianity could be more attributable to values inculcated in Constantine’s youth by his male friends. I’m just asking you to look at this from a fresh perspective . Furthermore, could his quest to spread Christianity have succeeded without the support of the military? I am aware of few leaders (dictators or otherwise) who have ever successfully challenged their own military. But I would be happy to read a brief summary of any who did. Nor have I ever thought of the military as a matriarchal organization.
Alternate explanations have been put forward. I am not saying that I agree with them, only that they are plausible. I am sure you are well versed in the writings of Teilhard who proposes a teleological view of the evolution of spirituality. Now, of course, not all teleology is correct, witness the errors to which it led Marx, but it still remains a plausible hypothesis by a prominent paleontologist.
At first I thought you were being misogynistic, but after skimming your voluminous writings it is unclear whether you hate women, men, or just everybody. Much of your argument seems to center on women pulling the strings behind the throne. Does this mean that men are so weak intellectually they are consistently victims of women leading them around by their noses?
Could it be something as simple as men and women are complementary? Each has entrée to different groups. And both genders working toward a common purpose may be one of many reasons for the spread of Christianity. Could its early popularity and survival be attributed to an oppressed group banding together and developing solidarity in the face of their oppression?
I guess in the end, historical events are always the result of a complex interaction between existing social orders, events, and ideas. To reduce it to the role of only one force is, for lack of a better word, reductionist.
Dearest Robdar and Hubby... Peace to you both and thank you both for your very insightful responses. Peace to you and your entire household! Your servant and a slave of Christ, SA
At first I thought you were being misogynistic, but after skimming your voluminous writings it is unclear whether you hate women, men, or just everybody. Much of your argument seems to center on women pulling the strings behind the throne. Does this mean that men are so weak intellectually they are consistently victims of women leading them around by their noses?
1.I don't hate anybody. I despise religion.
2.I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Women deserve far more credit for the spread of christianity than men have been willing to begrudge.
3.The language of how women and men can influence was not intended to paint the sexes black or white. It is simply a look at the results of history. Men have not had to resort to secondary status strategies as a rule. Being dominant in many if not most cultures has enabled them to use direct methods of achieving their aims which includes brute force far too often. Women are generally smarter than men and use methods and means which parry the power and dominance of ruling class men with great finesse. Men tend to view this with contempt rather than admit how effective it is.
4.Men have not traditionally nor historically nurtured their offspring. The first experience children have with WORLD VIEW comes primarily from their mother or grandmother. Later, their peers and father step in to "shape" them into "manning up". This usually consists of coarsening them and removing compassion from them! It is my opinion that a non-dysfunctional person when reaching an age of full majority can soon see which method (compassion or darwinian agression) is to be preferred. Ethics and integrity are, sadly, more feminine than masculine traits. Ask Machievelli:)
5.Jesus is far more feminine than masculine. His qualities and teachings are feminine. (This as compared to prevailing Roman and Jewish standards.) It is not hard to see why women were attracted to his philosophy. All the good things in Christianity are feminine and all the bad things are masculine. Yes, I'm serious.
6. My reference to Stark's writing is not an indication that I've read him. (!) I cut and pasted by way of response to certain posters who were demanding "references" that bespoke any academic interest in women spreading christianity. I pasted a swathe of Google hits. Among them was Stark. I have no idea where he is coming from or what his credentials are.
7.I'm not an academic. I'm not writing a book. I have no axe to grind or point to prove. I'm just interested in DISCUSSION with intellectually honest people who have IDEAS.
8. It appears to be exceedingly difficult to get others to participate in genuine discussions of ideas on this board without :
a. Polarizing the discussion
b.Nitpicking details without adding any actual substance to the conversation
c.Complaining with vague jabs and amorphous dismissal
d.Ad hominem or straw man arguments
8.I was thinking about the Kingdom Hall on field service day and wondering how long JW's would have lasted without the commitment and unstinting servitude of the sisters. That led me to thinking about the women who come into the bookstore where I work. The conversations I have with devout christian women are interesting and revealing. I see them with their dunderheaded husbands who are mostly clueless! (And egotists who are awful with their kids). I wondered why these women married these stupid men who are so...so...clueless! That led to some investigations into key women in religous history and their contributions to the spread of christianity. That is where this topic got started!
I'm flabbergasted at the resistance of christian men to the amazing contribution of women. I think of the quote about Fred Astaire: Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but, she did it backwards and while wearing high heels!
The same is true of the spread of christianity.
Terry real life stand somewhere in between the polarities you draw up.
additionally here are a couple of quotes from the period under discussion which I have also posted on your other thread
here is something from plutarch
When his son was born, Cato thought that nothing but the most important business of state should prevent him from being present when his wife gave the baby its first bath and wrapped it in swaddling clothes....as soon as the boy was able to learn, his father took charge of his schooling and taught him to read, ... so he took it upon himself to teach the boy, not only his letters, but also the principles of Roman law...He tells us that he composed his history of Rome, writing it out in large characters so that his son should posses in his home the means of acquainting himself with the ancient annals and tradtions of his country.
And this from Cicero
109 What is more sacred, what is more inviolably hedged about by every kind of sanctity, than the home of every individual citizen? Within its circle are his altars, his hearths, his household gods, his religion, his observances, his ritual; it is a sanctuary so holy in the eyes of all, that it were a sacrilige to tear an owner therefrom.
As a practical matter, ROME was a conquering world power fighting battles and fueling its war machine by the spoils of those wars.
Battles were not fought by little boys coddled by their daddy. This history of Rome is really the history of agressive pursuit of territoriality and the maintence of conquered lands by PAX ROMANA. Taxes and Protection.
Look at the following list and ask yourself how many women's lives had been traumatized by their sons, brothers, husbands being killed, maimed, wounded in one battle after the other.
By the time Christianity came along and began offering PEACEFUL NON-VIOLENT solutions to the human condition (which was advertised as "coming quickly!") family after family changed course embracing the teachings of Jesus. Why? It was the only religion offering an alternative that didn't involve violence for violence. It was family oriented. It was compassionate and EMBRACED ENEMIES rather than fomenting their destruction.
How many more women than men were attracted to Jesus' teachings we can't compute. But, the inclination to accept a peaceful and largely passive approach to life (turn the other cheek) did not and could not appeal to men UNTIL their mother's began teaching them from the cradle that an alternative choice was not only possible but necessary.
Particularly notice the sudden drop in warfare at the very time of Jesus and his teachings. This was an advantageous LULL in the usual nonstop warfare.
A window of opportunity and a "breather" for the message to take hold before plunging back into the fray. Interesting fluke, eh?
LIST OF ROMAN WARS
