Re: intuition (OT)

[Guest guest]

Oh, Rebekah, I`m sorry. I admit my Biblical ignorance. Rather than

*flaunting*, I was simply wondering. If the Bible isn`t masculine,

would you say it`s feminine, or maybe well balanced between the two

genders? My impression (though I may be wrong) is that women are so

to say smothered by men in many passages of the Bible, or in other

words, they`re often given the role of the eminence grise, if you see

what I mean.

I don't think it's purposefully pro-masculine or pro-feminine. You have to

remember that a great deal of it reflects the common political stance of the

ancient culture in which it was both lived and recorded. In ancient Middle

Eastern countries, women were (and in some cases, still are) not the heads of

families, nor could they hold financial or political power, or even be educated.

The Bible is supposed to be a book of faith. Perhaps in order to best examine

God's attitude toward the genders, as reflected in the Bible, you shouldn't

necessarily focus on the interaction that occured between men and women. This

would reflect simply the culture of the time. However, I would focus more on

the interaction between God and women, as recorded in the Bible. There are many

instances of God speaking to women, comforting them, and acknowledging their

worth and value. (Examples: God talking to Hannah, God comforting distraught

Hagar, mother of Ishmael, God speaking to , God comforting childless or

widowed women. Too many examples to easily reference here.)

Jesus would be the greatest Biblical example of all. He spoke to the Samaritan

woman at the well (this was socially TABOO for Him as a Jewish man). He forgave

women of culturally forbidden behavior (the woman caught in adultery). He also

made arrangements for His mother's financial provision upon His death, by

assigning the disciple to look after her. I have heard some Christian

ministers even hold the belief that Jesus liberated women far above the cultural

norm of that time, because He offered salvation to all -- regardless of their

gender or social status.

I really have a problem with any belief system that devalues any person, because

of their gender or social background.

Rebekah

[Guest guest]

> Oh, Rebekah, I`m sorry. I admit my Biblical ignorance. Rather than

> *flaunting*, I was simply wondering. If the Bible isn`t masculine,

> would you say it`s feminine, or maybe well balanced between the two

> genders? My impression (though I may be wrong) is that women are so

> to say smothered by men in many passages of the Bible, or in other

> words, they`re often given the role of the eminence grise, if you

see

> what I mean.

>

>

>

> I don't think it's purposefully pro-masculine or pro-feminine. You

have to remember that a great deal of it reflects the common

political stance of the ancient culture in which it was both lived

and recorded. In ancient Middle Eastern countries, women were (and

in some cases, still are) not the heads of families, nor could they

hold financial or political power, or even be educated.

>

> The Bible is supposed to be a book of faith. Perhaps in order to

best examine God's attitude toward the genders, as reflected in the

Bible, you shouldn't necessarily focus on the interaction that

occured between men and women. This would reflect simply the culture

of the time. However, I would focus more on the interaction between

God and women, as recorded in the Bible. There are many instances of

God speaking to women, comforting them, and acknowledging their worth

and value. (Examples: God talking to Hannah, God comforting

distraught Hagar, mother of Ishmael, God speaking to , God

comforting childless or widowed women. Too many examples to easily

reference here.)

>

> Jesus would be the greatest Biblical example of all. He spoke to

the Samaritan woman at the well (this was socially TABOO for Him as a

Jewish man). He forgave women of culturally forbidden behavior (the

woman caught in adultery). He also made arrangements for His

mother's financial provision upon His death, by assigning the

disciple to look after her. I have heard some Christian

ministers even hold the belief that Jesus liberated women far above

the cultural norm of that time, because He offered salvation to all --

regardless of their gender or social status.

>

> I really have a problem with any belief system that devalues any

person, because of their gender or social background.

>

Rebekah:

Thanks for your clarifications. I am sure I wouldn't be able to make

time to belong to any religion list, because there are so many

questions I want to ask, so many points I want to raise, so many

interpretations I want to rectify... etc. I would probably lose my

mind, if I haven't lost it already! In fact I once joined one such

list, but they weren't willing to answer my questions (they probably

found that I was behaving like a cynic) and one of them asked me to

leave.

Anyway, I am in no position to debate the Bible with you, at least

not on this list, but with all due respect I would say that, if God

Himself is above suspicion, no book which was ever produced by the

human mind can be free from imperfections, because imperfect is the

human soul. You can say that God revealed the Truth, but it is also

true that transmission of anything always implies some modification,

some deviation from the Truth.

I entirely agree with the last sentence (period) of your post, but I

would add something. If you allow me, I would say:

I really have a problem with any belief system that devalues any

person, because of their gender or social background or religion or

lack thereof.

Best regards,

José

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 7/21/05, Rebekah Dowd <rmdowd13@...> wrote:

> Oh, Rebekah, I`m sorry. I admit my Biblical ignorance. Rather than

> *flaunting*, I was simply wondering. If the Bible isn`t masculine,

> would you say it`s feminine, or maybe well balanced between the two

> genders? My impression (though I may be wrong) is that women are so

> to say smothered by men in many passages of the Bible, or in other

> words, they`re often given the role of the eminence grise, if you see

> what I mean.

Read the book of Judith! ah, too... although both books are only

accepted in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic canons, not in the

Protestant.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Rebekah Dowd " <rmdowd13@c...>

wrote:

> I don't think your cynicism or your questions bother God. (Or me for

that matter). I hope you find the right forum, and the time, to

pursue your spiritual side. My quest of faith has been invaluable to

me.

>

> Rebekah

Rebekah:

Thank you very much for your words. They are very reassuring, you know.

Yes, I sense a vacuum in my life. I know that many people don't share

this view, but I personally think that when you don't have a religion

(it could be even *your own* religion, not a established one) you are

somewhat defenceless in the world. I am over 50. I was once a Catholic,

but then I left. Now I feel like coming back (maybe it is the effect of

age?), but I don't really know how to approach it or any other religion

for that matter. It is like after you have remained in the dark for a

long time and you are afraid that a single ray of light will hurt your

eyes.

Best regards,

José

[Guest guest]

> but I personally think that when you don't have a religion

> (it could be even *your own* religion, not a established one) you are

> somewhat defenceless in the world.

Hi:

There is something else I want to say.

I am a white man. Probably I am not purely white (hardly any Brazilian

is), but for any purpose I look like a white man. And as such I think

of what my white ancestors have done to the blacks and natives - in

this country. I was not here then, I am not responsible for the

misdeeds, but I am living off the consequences of what was done in the

past. I can't ignore this. So maybe I am in part responsible, as well.

But the main point is this: those folks, the blacks and natives, had

their own faith and religion. Yet, they were not protected by their

practices. So perhaps having a religion is not enough to protect you in

the world. You may need other sorts of protection as well: a community,

personal strength or wealth, historical circumstances, what do I know?

Religion alone can't possibly guarantee one's survival in the world. If

religion was enough, then those peoples and others wouldn't have gone

through so much evil. Well, I can't find another explanation.

And, by the way, also I find a correlation here with health. It is

quite clear for all of us that diet alone is not enough to ensure

health. And then I think of anger. Anger is a useful tool - now and

then - but too much anger, as some people here and elsewhere are

capable of displaying, annihilates all the good effects of a good diet

and sensible exercise.

Now, will someone else please take the floor?

José

[Guest guest]

> Re: intuition (OT)

>

>But the main point is this: those folks, the blacks and natives, had

>their own faith and religion. Yet, they were not protected by their

>practices. So perhaps having a religion is not enough to protect you in

>the world.

,

Perhaps the point of religion is not to protect you *in the world*. I am by

no means an expert on Christianity having only become involved in the Church

about 7 months ago, but I do know that Orthodox Christians are more

concerned about protection of their *spirit* rather than their physical

being. I believe there are many places in the Bible where God makes it clear

that one should be more concerned with one's spiritual rather than physical

well being. I don't understand this to mean that we shouldn't care about our

physical well being, only that it is not as high a priority as our spiritual

well being. FWIW.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

> >

>

> >But the main point is this: those folks, the blacks and natives,

had

> >their own faith and religion. Yet, they were not protected by their

> >practices. So perhaps having a religion is not enough to protect

you in

> >the world.

>

> ,

>

> Perhaps the point of religion is not to protect you *in the world*.

I am by

> no means an expert on Christianity having only become involved in

the Church

> about 7 months ago, but I do know that Orthodox Christians are more

> concerned about protection of their *spirit* rather than their

physical

> being. I believe there are many places in the Bible where God makes

it clear

> that one should be more concerned with one's spiritual rather than

physical

> well being. I don't understand this to mean that we shouldn't care

about our

> physical well being, only that it is not as high a priority as our

spiritual

> well being. FWIW.

>

>

> Suze Fisher

Suze, I see your point. I can only say this in response: when or if

the body suffers, the spirit is affected as well.

By the way, I was under the impression that you followed Judaism. Or

am I confounding you with Lynn Siprelle (right spelling?)? Either she

or you wrote on the list some Hebrew words about the recent birth of

a baby, Christie's nephew. I am sorry, I don't remember who did it.

Regards,

José

[Guest guest]

José-,

>But the main point is this: those folks, the blacks and natives, had

>their own faith and religion. Yet, they were not protected by their

>practices. So perhaps having a religion is not enough to protect you in

>the world. You may need other sorts of protection as well: a community,

>personal strength or wealth, historical circumstances, what do I know?

>Religion alone can't possibly guarantee one's survival in the world. If

>religion was enough, then those peoples and others wouldn't have gone

>through so much evil. Well, I can't find another explanation.

>

Other protections have often been in the form of military and

technological superiority. Atrocities and coercion in the name of an

established religion have often subdued such people, no? Some of the

worst forms of violence in the world are committed in the name of religion.

In contemplation,

Deanna

" A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed

by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and

awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths. Sooner or later, such a

religion will emerge. " - Carl Sagan

[Guest guest]

> Re: intuition (OT)

>

>

>Suze, I see your point. I can only say this in response: when or if

>the body suffers, the spirit is affected as well.

Not from a Christian perspective, as I understand it. But again, don't take

my word for it as I'm no expert on the subject. But from my readings,

discussions, and experience in an Orthodox Church thus far, it seems that,

at least in Orthodox Christianity, that God holds a special place for those

who suffered here on earth, especially those who suffered in His name. So

this is just the opposite of bodily suffering = spiritual suffering, it

seems. I do not know if this same belief is held among Catholics or

Protetants, since I know very little about these groups.

>

>By the way, I was under the impression that you followed Judaism. Or

>am I confounding you with Lynn Siprelle (right spelling?)? Either she

>or you wrote on the list some Hebrew words about the recent birth of

>a baby, Christie's nephew. I am sorry, I don't remember who did it.

It wasn't me. I thoughy Lynn was a Pagan, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.

Maybe it was , who's married to a Jew? Sorry I can't be of more help!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

,

> It wasn't me. I thoughy Lynn was a Pagan, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.

> Maybe it was , who's married to a Jew? Sorry I can't be of more

> help!

It wasn't me (and I don't remember who it was) but the words were most

likely " Mazel Tov " or congratulations--you say it when someone tells

you wonderful news: the birth of a baby or a marriage engagement, e.g.