Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

Here we are in civilized and enlightened societies and cultures in high tech times and we are not smart enough to recognize that the world will continue in strife as long as we men do not give women full equality as a minimum to what men should do towards the care of families.

I hope you are astute enough to see this. If you do nothing then you know not what duty to your family should be. The women in your family deserve to be first class citizens.

Men are maintaining God’s curse against women. He will rule over you.

Men. Christians, Catholics and Muslims. Free your women. It’s time. Man up.

Please.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

Here we are in civilized and enlightened societies and cultures in high tech times and we are not smart enough to recognize that the world will continue in strife as long as we men do not give women full equality as a minimum to what men should do towards the care of families.

I hope you are astute enough to see this. If you do nothing then you know not what duty to your family should be. The women in your family deserve to be first class citizens.

Men are maintaining God’s curse against women. He will rule over you.

Men. Christians, Catholics and Muslims. Free your women. It’s time. Man up.

Please.

Regards
DLwhat about Hindus?

[YesNo]

I hope you are astute enough to see this.

I'm not that astute.

I agree with HCabret in questioning why not include Hindus. Why not include Buddhists and atheists for that matter?

However, I was reading Sally Kempton's Awakening Shakti describing the various Hindu Goddesses. The first chapter talks about Sati and her story might be related to your point.

[HCabret]

I'm not that astute.

I agree with HCabret in questioning why not include Hindus. Why not include Buddhists and atheists for that matter?

However, I was reading Sally Kempton's Awakening Shakti describing the various Hindu Goddesses. The first chapter talks about Sati and her story might be related to your point.hindu society is extremely stratified and greatly oppressive for those unfortunate souls born into the lower castes.

Buddhists on the other hand are quite different. Is it questionable as whether or not Buddhism can even be called a religion, or simply a personal outlook on life, but that is irrelevant here. Anyway it is written, buddhist institutions are extremely welcoming to both genders and treat monks and nuns equally.

[YesNo]

One of the nice things about Hinduism is that it still has Goddesses.

[Pumpkin337]

hindu society is extremely stratified and greatly oppressive for those unfortunate souls born into the lower castes.

Buddhists on the other hand are quite different. Is it questionable as whether or not Buddhism can even be called a religion, or simply a personal outlook on life, but that is irrelevant here. Anyway it is written, buddhist institutions are extremely welcoming to both genders and treat monks and nuns equally.

Not really no

Sexual Abuse in Buddhism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/buddhism-sexual-abuse/

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/belief/sexual-abuse-allegations-buddhist-community

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/10130437/Buddhist-monks-arrested-over-Thai-child-sex-abuse-claims.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/14/the-shocking-scandal-at-the-heart-of-american-zen.html

Gender Inequality in Buddhism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism

Scholars such as Bernard Faure and Miranda Shaw are in agreement that Buddhist studies is in its infancy in terms of addressing gender issues.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/sexism.htm

Let's begin at the beginning, with the historical Buddha. As told in "The First Buddhist Women," the Buddha originally refused to ordain women as nuns. He said that allowing women into the sangha would cause his teachings to survive only half as long –- 500 years instead of a 1,000.

http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/home/topics-in-the-dharma/uposatha-1272012/

[HCabret]

Not really no

Sexual Abuse in Buddhism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/buddhism-sexual-abuse/

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/belief/sexual-abuse-allegations-buddhist-community

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/10130437/Buddhist-monks-arrested-over-Thai-child-sex-abuse-claims.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/14/the-shocking-scandal-at-the-heart-of-american-zen.html

Gender Inequality in Buddhism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism

Scholars such as Bernard Faure and Miranda Shaw are in agreement that Buddhist studies is in its infancy in terms of addressing gender issues.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/sexism.htm

Let's begin at the beginning, with the historical Buddha. As told in "The First Buddhist Women," the Buddha originally refused to ordain women as nuns. He said that allowing women into the sangha would cause his teachings to survive only half as long –- 500 years instead of a 1,000.

http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/home/topics-in-the-dharma/uposatha-1272012/are we talking about Buddhists or Buddhism? There is nothing institutional about any sexual abuse committed by Buddhists. The caste system in Hinduism is an institutionalized part of Hindu society which has been around for thousands of years. The Buddha fully accepted women in the sangha.

I am not Buddhist and feel no need to defend any possible inequities present in Buddhist societies.

[Paulclem]

hindu society is extremely stratified and greatly oppressive for those unfortunate souls born into the lower castes.

Buddhists on the other hand are quite different. Is it questionable as whether or not Buddhism can even be called a religion, or simply a personal outlook on life, but that is irrelevant here. Anyway it is written, buddhist institutions are extremely welcoming to both genders and treat monks and nuns equally.

It's best not to eulogise attitudes to women in Buddhism as it is often bound up in cultural attitudes too. Western forms of Buddhism reflect the more enlightened western attitudes whereas it is different in the various countries where Buddhism is present.

On the other hand, Buddhist teachers do no necessarily bring their cultural attitudes with them from what I have seen of interaction with westerners.

[Paulclem]

are we talking about Buddhists or Buddhism? There is nothing institutional about any sexual abuse committed by Buddhists. The caste system in Hinduism is an institutionalized part of Hindu society which has been around for thousands of years. The Buddha fully accepted women in the sangha.

I am not Buddhist and feel no need to defend any possible inequities present in Buddhist societies.

There are problems in every organisation where status is conferred. In the UK there have been a lot of recent revelations about MPs, Ministers and Celebrities to a very disappointing degree. It is the same in religious organisations.

You are quite right that women were ordained at the time of the Buddha. They had to request it three times before The Buddha accepted them. There has been lots of speculation about why this should be so, and it might be that it reflects the difficulties women practitioners face in various cultures.

In Tibetan Buddhism there is the Female Buddha Tara whose story is specifically about her feminine status and the attitude of her male teachers who said that the best she could hope for was to be reborn as a man and then achieve enlightenment. She rejected this and achieved Enlightenment as a woman. I think the message is clear. What is also clear is that in the teachings human life is seen as precious and the one which offers enlightenment, not male life.

The status of women, and more specifically Mothers, is also given special status in Mahayana teachings. The love of a mother for her children is said to be a manifestation of Bodhicitta which should be developed and widened to all beings to attain full enlightenment.

That is not to say that sexist attitudes do not persist in certain schools, particularly where there is a strong traditional attitude towards women such as in Japan. I think western uptake of Buddhism has been positive in this aspect.

[Pumpkin337]

There is nothing institutional about any sexual abuse committed by Buddhists. The Buddha fully accepted women in the sangha.


I think one of the articles addresses the issue that prejudice against women is deeply ingrained in Buddhist teachings, starting with Buddha himself who at first didn't want to include women at all and only relented when pressed on the issue - not exactly a good foundation for equality.

And I think that there is a lot of proof of a deeply institutionalized system of sexual abuse in many of the monasteries / Buddhist sects.

I feel very strongly about the issue of abuse and ignorance of the issues is no excuse.

[Paulclem]

I think one of the articles addresses the issue that prejudice against women is deeply ingrained in Buddhist teachings, starting with Buddha himself who at first didn't want to include women at all and only relented when pressed on the issue - not exactly a good foundation for equality.

And I think that there is a lot of proof of a deeply institutionalized system of sexual abuse in many of the monasteries / Buddhist sects.

I feel very strongly about the issue of abuse and ignorance of the issues is no excuse.

Then again women's ordination pre-dates Christian, Jewish, Muslim ordination by over 4,000 years and happened with the blessing of the founder. The 3 denials probably reflect the difficulties experienced by women. I think that says a lot for Buddhist teachings on the matter.

there are cases of abuse unfortunately as there have been found in many religions. There are no scriptural justification for any of it.

Culturally, the west has led in rights of women as well as other minorities, and in the UK I think that has shown up in the recent debate on the ordination of women bishops. I sense that the church is struggling to keep abreast of changes in attitudes towards women and homosexuality. The problem comes from having an authoritative text which is open to interpretation but is claimed as the word of God. It suggests that change cannot seem to be in contravention of accepted doctrine, but with recent figures showing church attendance to be 5 per cent of the population, it must adapt. Catholicism and Islam offer nothing further for women.

[Pumpkin337]

Then again women's ordination pre-dates Christian, Jewish, Muslim ordination by over 4,000 years and happened with the blessing of the founder. The 3 denials probably reflect the difficulties experienced by women. I think that says a lot for Buddhist teachings on the matter.

there are cases of abuse unfortunately as there have been found in many religions. There are no scriptural justification for any of it.

Culturally, the west has led in rights of women as well as other minorities, and in the UK I think that has shown up in the recent debate on the ordination of women bishops. I sense that the church is struggling to keep abreast of changes in attitudes towards women and homosexuality. The problem comes from having an authoritative text which is open to interpretation but is claimed as the word of God. It suggests that change cannot seem to be in contravention of accepted doctrine, but with recent figures showing church attendance to be 5 per cent of the population, it must adapt. Catholicism and Islam offer nothing further for women.

I think you would need to justify that statement in some way because my reading of it is that he only reluctantly admitted that ok maybe women could also be 'saved'. And even if your interpretation is correct and he was allegedly so enlightened about women - why make it harder for women? Why say that including women will shorten the life of his teachings by as much as half? Doesn't sound hugely enlightened to me at all.

I think that the issues around homosexuality highlight the absolute need for separation of church/religion and state. All the big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are anti-homosexuality and they have a right to be as part of their faith. Its when the State starts discriminating and allowing religion to dictate what is right and what is not that is when there is a problem. It is the State's responsibility to have equal rights for all and to protect the rights where people find themselves vulnerable. It is religions' responsibility to be there to provide other guidance. It would be better however if some of the people involved with various faiths remembered that the basic tenets of most faiths revolve around LOVE not intolerance.

The state must not dictate what people can believe, and must not discriminate against any particular faith but neither must various faiths dictate their beliefs onto the state, particularly at the expense of any other faith. Freedom of religion must be one of the basic rights the state protects which goes for all beliefs, no matter if it is a faith system of just one.

[Paulclem]

I think you would need to justify that statement in some way because my reading of it is that he only reluctantly admitted that ok maybe women could also be 'saved'. And even if your interpretation is correct and he was allegedly so enlightened about women - why make it harder for women? Why say that including women will shorten the life of his teachings by as much as half? Doesn't sound hugely enlightened to me at all.

I think that the issues around homosexuality highlight the absolute need for separation of church/religion and state. All the big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are anti-homosexuality and they have a right to be as part of their faith. Its when the State starts discriminating and allowing religion to dictate what is right and what is not that is when there is a problem. It is the State's responsibility to have equal rights for all and to protect the rights where people find themselves vulnerable. It is religions' responsibility to be there to provide other guidance. It would be better however if some of the people involved with various faiths remembered that the basic tenets of most faiths revolve around LOVE not intolerance.

The state must not dictate what people can believe, and must not discriminate against any particular faith but neither must various faiths dictate their beliefs onto the state, particularly at the expense of any other faith. Freedom of religion must be one of the basic rights the state protects which goes for all beliefs, no matter if it is a faith system of just one.

If the Buddha considered women's ordination as wrong, impossible or in some way incorrect, then they would not have been ordained. Due to the status of women and his status as the Enlightened Founder, then how could he have been compelled to ordain them?

There may be a couple of explanations for the story in that it symbolised the struggle women have. An alternative is that this was written in the light of cultural opposition to women's ordination, given their social status, but that his ordination of women was and is a fact, and the commentary is either pa unifying attitudes or the writer is misogynist. I have read and heard both explanations. Whatever the source.of the story, The Buddha ordained women.

[Paulclem]

I agree about the separation of church/ religion and state, but your other statements are problematic. How can religions manifest anti women or homosexuality teachings when the law upholds the rights of individuals? It was a case in point during recent debates about gay marriage where prohibitions from churches on ceremonies for gay couples would contravene equality laws. A person's personal views are their own but they can't manifest them when it is to the derision of another - gay, female, whatever. That's the law which is evolving. This is the problem for religions. They either evolve too or continue to claim the eternal, infallible word of God through scripture. In fact this has already been done as Christianity and Islam has evolved in other ways. It is an old story really as the protestant and Catholic struggles in Europe show.

[Gnostic Bishop]

what about Hindus?

I do not understand your point.

Should our morality be set by the standards of others or by the best standard we can think of?

Should we not aspire to be above whatever systems now exist?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm not that astute.

I agree with HCabret in questioning why not include Hindus. Why not include Buddhists and atheists for that matter?

However, I was reading Sally Kempton's Awakening Shakti describing the various Hindu Goddesses. The first chapter talks about Sati and her story might be related to your point.

I agree also to a minor degree and that is why I used the word religion in the O.P.

I did highlight Christian and Muslim later because in the West, where I live, they are the ones who are in the vast majority and the worst offenders.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

I do not understand your point.

Should our morality be set by the standards of others or by the best standard we can think of?

Should we not aspire to be above whatever systems now exist?

Regards
DL
Your OP seemed to suggest that muslims, christians and jews were the only groups that treat women in an unsatisatisfactory manner. Hindu society is extremely stratified and discrimantory, as are Han, Korean, and Japanese societies. Combined, the PRC and India, have over a third of the world's population. I find it hard to beleive that sexism is confined to and exclusive to abrahamic religions and their societies.

Morality is subjective and relative and most importantly: personal. People should believe in whatever they want to believe in.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Your OP seemed to suggest that muslims, christians and jews were the only groups that treat women in an unsatisatisfactory manner. Hindu society is extremely stratified and discrimantory, as are Han, Korean, and Japanese societies. Combined, the PRC and India, have over a third of the world's population. I find it hard to beleive that sexism is confined to and exclusive to abrahamic religions and their societies.

Morality is subjective and relative and most importantly: personal. People should believe in whatever they want to believe in.

People will believe in whatever they want for sure.

The duty of all people is to correct them if need be.

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D


When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

For the evils of religion to grow.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Z...eature=related

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

People will believe in whatever they want for sure.people SHOULD believe in whatever they want to. It's called FREE thinking.


he duty of all people is to correct them if need be.who decides what "correct" is?


For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods. which alternative non-literal interpretation do you suggest? And define "harmless".


When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.what happened in the 1300's?


For the evils of religion to grow.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Z...eature=related

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.i have no duty to you or your religion. I am person, independent of you. I have a mind capable of thought independent of you. And i will think however and whatever i want. <---is this not "free thinking"?


Regards
DLhi!

[YesNo]

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.


I disagree that these beliefs are all evil or even mostly evil. The only thing to avoid is intolerance, but that happens even among people who believe they don't believe in anything.

Could miracles happen? Why not? To claim miracles cannot happen is to believe in determinism and chance events as the only causal activity.

In rejecting something that another person, who practices some faith, reports, one has to make sure we are not participating unwittingly in an atheistic ideology that we mistake for common sense.

[Gnostic Bishop]

H C

You have belief as free thinking.

They are not the same. Thinking forms belief. Belief is the result. Not the act of thinking.

I decides what I think it correct then those who do not agree can try to change my mind. If they can and I lose the argument, I win the prize of the argument. Knowledge.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I disagree that these beliefs are all evil or even mostly evil. The only thing to avoid is intolerance, but that happens even among people who believe they don't believe in anything.

Could miracles happen? Why not? To claim miracles cannot happen is to believe in determinism and chance events as the only causal activity.

In rejecting something that another person, who practices some faith, reports, one has to make sure we are not participating unwittingly in an atheistic ideology that we mistake for common sense.

And to have a faith without facts is for fools.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Martin Luther “

This puts the rest of us in a position where reasoning with theist becomes impossible.

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Jonathan Swift

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths.

Not how women have been bludgeoned into being second class citizens because men believe in a talking snake whose God said he shall rule over you.

Ya, Fantasy, miracles and magic are sure good for humans to believe in.

To fools.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

H C

You have belief as free thinking.

They are not the same. Thinking forms belief. Belief is the result. Not the act of thinking.

I decides what I think it correct then those who do not agree can try to change my mind. If they can and I lose the argument, I win the prize of the argument. Knowledge.

Regards
DLso just to confirm, i am allowed to not believe in gravity if i so choose? I am allowed to freely think this way?

[YesNo]

This puts the rest of us in a position where reasoning with theist becomes impossible.

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Jonathan Swift

Is it easier to reason with an atheist?



Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths.

What is an example of this?



Not how women have been bludgeoned into being second class citizens because men believe in a talking snake whose God said he shall rule over you.

I was wondering what talking animal you were referring to. Wasn't there also something about the woman crushing the head of the serpent?



Ya, Fantasy, miracles and magic are sure good for humans to believe in.


What's wrong with believing in them? Some atheists believe in selfish genes. Others in many worlds.

[Gnostic Bishop]

so just to confirm, i am allowed to not believe in gravity if i so choose? I am allowed to freely think this way?

My statement was clear.

This B.S shows that you know it was.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Is it easier to reason with an atheist?

Yes. They deal in facts.


What is an example of this?

A good example is Eden. Jews are not literalists and conclude with Eden as a place where man is elevated.

Literal reading has Christianity believing that to become as God is a fall.

Belief in a literal God in Eden causes Christians to have a double standard where they condemn men for acts that they praise their God for doing.


What's wrong with believing in them?

Those stupid beliefs are killing innocent people as shown in those links. Did you have a look?


Some atheists believe in selfish genes. Others in many worlds.

Selfish gene is how they collectively call our survival instinct. Do you deny your instincts?

And look into a telescope. Do you not see many worlds?

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

My statement was clear.

This B.S shows that you know it was.

Regards
DLokay.

[HCabret]

Do you deny your instincts?yeah all the time. My instincts would suggest that wave-particle duality is false. How can a particle be a wave/vice versa?




Regards
DL;)

[YesNo]

Selfish gene is how they collectively call our survival instinct. Do you deny your instincts?

The way I see it the selfish gene is a way to avoid the idea of "species" in evolution and the irregular changes that are reported in the fossil record. This avoids the awareness or consciousness implied in any living organism. The goal is to make the process unconscious. To get the process going, the gene needs to provide some sort of push and that is where the "selfish" concept comes in. It is mythology. It is not the gene that is seeking to survive when the environment offers challenges but the group of organisms faced with the challenges.



And look into a telescope. Do you not see many worlds?


We can't see these worlds with a telescope. They are the mythological worlds that are posited to explain quantum indeterminacy so that one can have determinism again. If you saw the last Men in Black movie you might get an idea of the fantasy that is involved.

[Paulclem]

Funny. I thought this thread was about women and religion.

I think the OP is too brief in that to only cite religion as the oppressor of women is false. Religions are often adopted into the context of tribes/ societies, but this happened so long ago that it is now not considered. It seems that religion is the primary cause whereas it is not the only cause.

With the advent of technology I wonder if the pace of change will increase in different countries. Certainly in the UK Very much has changed in the decades since I was at school. Homosexuality is seen as a right. I hear from my children - older children now left school- that to be bi was almost fashionable. This is a massive change from the persecution friends of mine had in school. Yet it is so complex too. Very recently Birmingham City Council - our second or third city depending upon where you live - was prosecuted for paying women unequally for decades. This a city council which is made up of and represents a large number of minorities and who seem to be leaders in enlightened local govt.

FGM is still practised - often in Muslim countries. Children from UK communities are still sent for it, but there has recently been an awareness campaign supported by law. It seems to be a Muslim issue but Imams have been asked to condemn the practice which they have done in certain countries. It's one of those issues that seem to be a Muslim issue but is cultural yet is practised by some Muslims.

My point? It's too complex to blame one factor.

[Gnostic Bishop]

The way I see it the selfish gene is a way to avoid the idea of "species" in evolution and the irregular changes that are reported in the fossil record. This avoids the awareness or consciousness implied in any living organism. The goal is to make the process unconscious. To get the process going, the gene needs to provide some sort of push and that is where the "selfish" concept comes in. It is mythology. It is not the gene that is seeking to survive when the environment offers challenges but the group of organisms faced with the challenges.



We can't see these worlds with a telescope. They are the mythological worlds that are posited to explain quantum indeterminacy so that one can have determinism again. If you saw the last Men in Black movie you might get an idea of the fantasy that is involved.

Survival instincts are not mythology.

Watch it at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Funny. I thought this thread was about women and religion.

I think the OP is too brief in that to only cite religion as the oppressor of women is false. Religions are often adopted into the context of tribes/ societies, but this happened so long ago that it is now not considered. It seems that religion is the primary cause whereas it is not the only cause.

With the advent of technology I wonder if the pace of change will increase in different countries. Certainly in the UK Very much has changed in the decades since I was at school. Homosexuality is seen as a right. I hear from my children - older children now left school- that to be bi was almost fashionable. This is a massive change from the persecution friends of mine had in school. Yet it is so complex too. Very recently Birmingham City Council - our second or third city depending upon where you live - was prosecuted for paying women unequally for decades. This a city council which is made up of and represents a large number of minorities and who seem to be leaders in enlightened local govt.

FGM is still practised - often in Muslim countries. Children from UK communities are still sent for it, but there has recently been an awareness campaign supported by law. It seems to be a Muslim issue but Imams have been asked to condemn the practice which they have done in certain countries. It's one of those issues that seem to be a Muslim issue but is cultural yet is practised by some Muslims.

My point? It's too complex to blame one factor.

I agree but chose religion to focus on because ----- he shall rule over you is institutionalized in the Abrahamic cults and they are the majority in the world of either religions or the population at large.

All men are to blame for suffering the injustice done to oue mothers, wives and daughters.

Even those who do not discriminate, FMPOV, ---- both women and men, --- have not done nearly enough to move the standards in this issue.

Shame on us all for giving lip service only.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

I agree but chose religion to focus on because ----- he shall rule over you is institutionalized in the Abrahamic cults and they are the majority in the world of either religions or the population at large.

All men are to blame for suffering the injustice done to oue mothers, wives and daughters.

Even those who do not discriminate, FMPOV, ---- both women and men, --- have not done nearly enough to move the standards in this issue.

Shame on us all for giving lip service only.

Regards
DLhow do you know that I am a man or not? This is the internet, pseudonimity is a interesting thing. How do you suggest we deal with this obvious inequality? Should we all convert to Gnosticism?

[YesNo]

Survival instincts are not mythology.

Watch it at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Regards
DL

I liked the video. I think the tests should have been blinded more. The person asking the infant which was the good guy should not know which it was. Otherwise, I agree with the underlying view that the research is trying to demonstrate.

The mythology of the selfish gene, on the other hand, is just that: mythology.

[Gnostic Bishop]

how do you know that I am a man or not? This is the internet, pseudonimity is a interesting thing. How do you suggest we deal with this obvious inequality? Should we all convert to Gnosticism?

That would be a great first step. But it is not required. It would certainly redress a lot of damage to the world though. My kingdom to make it so.

As to your sex. I could not care less. You are a soul to me and not a sex. You are not defined by what is between your legs.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I liked the video. I think the tests should have been blinded more. The person asking the infant which was the good guy should not know which it was. Otherwise, I agree with the underlying view that the research is trying to demonstrate.

The mythology of the selfish gene, on the other hand, is just that: mythology.

Correct. It is our real instincts that are selfish and seek the best possible end, as does all life.
That is not myth but reality and can be read literally.

Regards
DL

[Pumpkin337]

That would be a great first step. But it is not required. It would certainly redress a lot of damage to the world though. My kingdom to make it so.

As to your sex. I could not care less. You are a soul to me and not a sex. You are not defined by what is between your legs.

Regards
DL

REALLY and you expect me to believe you are so enlightened about women's issues when you speak like that? Try not being such a crude pig. The word is GENDER not sex. Sex implies the sex act and a multiplicity of other not so enlightened ways of speaking about women. Ditto on the 'between your legs' language. Only crudest men speak like that.

[Gnostic Bishop]

REALLY and you expect me to believe you are so enlightened about women's issues when you speak like that? Try not being such a crude pig. The word is GENDER not sex. Sex implies the sex act and a multiplicity of other not so enlightened ways of speaking about women. Ditto on the 'between your legs' language. Only crudest men speak like that.

I am a crude man. Bite me *****. I spend most of my time defending your rights because too many of you are too ****ing stupid to use your natural networking skills to gain your freedom from oppression at the hands of your men.

You may not like me using the sex and leg imagery but if you gals would keep your God damned knees together in unison for once in your miserable lives you would gain your freedom in less than a weak. You do not even have what it takes to do your own duty to your own daughters.

What are you waiting for to remember your duty?

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

I am a crude man. Bite me *****. I spend most of my time defending your rights because too many of you are too ****ing stupid to use your natural networking skills to gain your freedom from oppression at the hands of your men.

You may not like me using the sex and leg imagery but if you gals would keep your God damned knees together in unison for once in your miserable lives you would gain your freedom in less than a weak. You do not even have what it takes to do your own duty to your own daughters.

What are you waiting for to remember your duty?

Regards
DLmisogynist much? Men have no right to dictate to women about anything!

[Pumpkin337]

I am a crude man. Bite me *****. I spend most of my time defending your rights because too many of you are too ****ing stupid to use your natural networking skills to gain your freedom from oppression at the hands of your men.

You may not like me using the sex and leg imagery but if you gals would keep your God damned knees together in unison for once in your miserable lives you would gain your freedom in less than a weak. You do not even have what it takes to do your own duty to your own daughters.

What are you waiting for to remember your duty?

Regards
DL

one of the things we need freedom is men like you.

[Gnostic Bishop]

misogynist much? Men have no right to dictate to women about anything!

Correct. I speak of men doing their duty. What the woman chooses to do is up to her.

You cannot show where I say anything about dictating to women.

Get the quote when you decide to distort or lie about what I say.

Regards
DL

[Pumpkin337]

I am a crude man. Bite me *****. I spend most of my time defending your rights because too many of you are too ****ing stupid to use your natural networking skills to gain your freedom from oppression at the hands of your men.

You may not like me using the sex and leg imagery but if you gals would keep your God damned knees together in unison for once in your miserable lives you would gain your freedom in less than a weak. You do not even have what it takes to do your own duty to your own daughters.

What are you waiting for to remember your duty?

Regards
DL

You disrespectful mysogynistic stupid jackass!



Correct. I speak of men doing their duty. What the woman chooses to do is up to her.

You cannot show where I say anything about dictating to women.

Get the quote when you decide to distort or lie about what I say.

Regards
DL

1. how many times do you mention MEN doing their duty ZERO

2. how many times do you mention women doing their duty? TWO (although I will not ask what moronic concept of 'duty' you have in mind) FYI if ALL women failed to have babies as you suggest the human race would be extinct - think that one through much?

3. What freedom is gained through sexual repression (being asexual / non-procreative)? All that does is create more repression. It's precisely this male dominated kind of repression and control that women have been fighting for freedom from.

4. What man has ANY clue what it is like to be a women and subject to this kind of language, controlling type thinking and language?

What gives you the damn right to think you have ANY say in the matter? I tell you what, you have some one say you can't dress attractively because it will attract a rapist. In fact, don't expose any portion of your anatomy at all because its all your fault that men think they utterly incapable of controlling their damn stupid penis and if they are faintly attracted to some part of a women they will be compelled to immediately fall on her and have sex. And to make matters worse convince women in these societies that not covering their bodies is shameful.

Then I want for you to subject to inappropriate and disrespectful comments, gestures and wolf-whistles every time you walk past a construction site. I want for you to be leered at more or less every time you are in public, being undressed with a man's eyes. I want for you to be discriminated against at work because of your gender, thought of as less capable of doing the job than a hairy ape with an IQ that is 30 points lower than yours and then paid less for doing twice the work to be thought of as barely equal. Oh yeah and despite this the man whose job you are doing gets the promotion you deserve.

If you go out for a drink you will get hit on by a bunch of guys with utterly lame pick up lines, who won't take no for answer, who think they are god's gift to women and you are 'honoured' to have sex with them. If you tell them to piss off they rant on about how frigid a b!tch you are or try some spastic rapists toolkit version of how to get a woman in bed.

Want to experience life as a women for yourself ... do what this guy did:

http://jezebel.com/man-poses-as-woman-on-online-dating-site-barely-lasts-1500707724

Poor baby couldn't even hack 2 hours of the aggressive sexual garbage women get from men.

So instead of telling women what we should do, why don't you get guys to clean up their act? That is where the problem lies!

Oh but wait you are one of these foulmouthed cretins who think that its ok to speak of women in this kind of language.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I can see why Christian men tell women to shut up in church and listen to what the men are saying.

Regards
DL

[Pumpkin337]

You can take your regards and put it where the sun don't shine pal. I want no 'regards' in any respect from you.

[108 fountains]

I am a crude man. Bite me *****. I spend most of my time defending your rights because too many of you are too ****ing stupid to use your natural networking skills to gain your freedom from oppression at the hands of your men.

You may not like me using the sex and leg imagery but if you gals would keep your God damned knees together in unison for once in your miserable lives you would gain your freedom in less than a weak. You do not even have what it takes to do your own duty to your own daughters.

What are you waiting for to remember your duty?

Regards
DL

Pumpkin,

I tend to disagree with you on most issues, but I do agree with you on some issues, such as the importance of separation of church and state. On this particular issue, I agree with you 100% -- this is one disrespectful mysogynistic stupid jackassed comment!

And whatever credibility Gnostic Bishop might have had as a proponent of a morally superior religion (which is how he described Gnostic Christianity in another thread), he lost with this posting. It’s hilarious that he is the OP of this thread and that his first post exhorted men to treat women with respect and to “give women full equality as a minimum," and then he goes into this rant. Priceless!!!

[Pumpkin337]

I'm the last person on this planet to say every one has to agree with me :) but I'm glad we agree on this.

(the force of my argument is because I enjoy a good debate, not because I want agreement - although it would be nice ha ha ha)