>Since "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is Old Testament, why do you >insist that only Christians are dangerous to wiccans? the Old Testament is the >Jewish Tanahk. what of the Jews? Or isn't it politically correct for wiccans to >realize this?
My dear, it was the Christians who were responsible for the burning times, not the Jewish people. And you want to know why we're mad at the Christians? Have you any idea the ways in which they've tortured those who have gone before us? Yes, I realize we should put the past behind us. but in the famous words of that Lion King Monkey, "THE PAST STILL HURTS", and since history does tend to repeat itself, our goal is to do away with the myths that fundie christians would still spread even in this modern day.
janet wrote in message ... >In article <6j3rto$...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, Peter Russell Elfvin ><elvi...@worldnet.att.net> writes >>> And, grin, grin, GRIN, when I teach women and religion in that course >>> for the first time next year....the book list isn't set, but it already >>> includes Baring and Green and any other suggestions would be WELCOME!
>>How about "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" by Fr. Seraphim Rose?
>That one I will look for, thanks!!
>(Just DON'T ask me to include Cholij's book, just please DON'T!!!) ;)
How about "The Feminine Face of God," by Sherry Ruth Anderson?
Also, the Unitarians have a several-week course of study called <a-hem> "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven', which I think is about women, traditional Western religion, and patriarchy.
What about some of the OT scholarship I've been hearing about, which has dug up the interesting tidbit that Yahweh used to have a girlfriend?? <g> "Consort", I mean..... Or the apocryphal bits about Lilith. <yes, I know she ate babies.... but *why* did the writers of that story put her in that inhuman role? Because she didn't kowtow to Adam, of course....>
>OK, so you believed in a Roman catholic offshoot religion for 20 years. You were >young and not to be blamed for going to your parents church. But when you >started researching for yourself, and found that one of the most important >problems of the early church was stifling spurious letters that kept cropping >up, that ecumenical councils were held to determine unshakable dogma of the >church such that tohose who did not believe in the dogma were not true >Christians. What made you change your mind about Jesus the Christ? Was it that >St Jerome compiled the bible into one work, using such sources as were available >to him? Was it that, when St Jerome had the power to choose between the specific >and the general in the Greek, he didn't make the choices you would have? (He >wrote "Wives, obey your husbands " instead of "women, obey your men"). Was it >that you found that the big reason why many protestant denominations like the >KJV is that there is a version of it that is Approved by the American Bible >Society (ca 1760)?Was it because King james was a fool, or was it because >everything that happened under his authority is something you deem foolish?
>Search some more. You may yet find the truth.
My dear, why do you ask these questions? Are you seeking the truth yourself? Yes, these questions have all been answered for myself. I did not leave Christianity as a result of anger toward the church, but rather it was an educated decision which I did not take lightly. If you are really interested in knowing what I have found, I will share with you. However, if you are simply trying to pursuade me back to your way ~ no thank you.
I believe there is no wrong path as long as you are following the path which is true to your own self.
In article <6j3mm6$...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, Peter Russell Elfvin <elvi...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Since "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is Old Testament, why do you >insist that only Christians are dangerous to wiccans? the Old Testament is the >Jewish Tanahk. what of the Jews? Or isn't it politically correct for wiccans to >realize this?
The phrase that you refer to is a mis-translation (deliberatly?) perpetuated by the pre-inquisition Christian Church the older interperatation being 'Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live'. I have not had access to the modern Jewish texts, so don't know if they followed suit with the mis-translation, BUT I have *NEVER* had an adverse reaction by a Jew to me being a Witch.
Is it 'PC' or just common sense not to pick a fight where none exists. -- Raven (Brit) (Ra...@arpeggio.demon.co.uk)
>> Somebody mentioned the Co-Redemptrix movement. Well, 'they' are at it again: >> somebody in a Catholic NG is yammering right now about "Mary, meek and mild," >> and using Her as a weapon to prop up patriarchy <A-gain...> The idea is that >> <SHOCK, HORROR> there are more females being included now at the masses, as >> readers, eucharistic ministers, etc, etc, ad nauseum. This person is virtually >> pooping his patriarchial little pants over this state of affairs. <sigh>
[]
>This is what comes of setting yourself up as arbiter of morals for someone elses >religion. Fun, isn't it, to tell someone that their religion is wrong about >something (such as women keeping silent in church)? What do you suppose that >Co-redemptrix person would have to say about your religion and the things he >thinks is wrong with it?
Oh darlin', I have been called everything from a devil-worshipper to a loonie-toon in the Catholic NG, and the person who is currently yammering about poor old Mother Mary has ignored and/or killfiled me when I stepped in to squawk about his anti-female blather. I don't feel that anyone outside a trad should try to set up as an 'arbiter of morals' for someone else's religion EXCEPT in those cases where harm is occurring/will occur to the *rest* of the community at large. In the cases of the anti-woman strain in Christianity, for instance <Mother Angelica's blather; Promise Keeperism, etc...>, it DOES affect the rest of us, it sure does. What they do is to yank out the old saws about 'women keeping silent' and 'wives, be submissive to your husbands', and then try to construct an entire social & political agenda around a few lines from a few epistles, some of which PAUL HIMSELF DID NOT EVEN WRITE!!! <Arrrghghghghgh!!> Sigh..... "Be submissive", for instance, was an old-fart, patriarchial, ROMAN, *PAGAN* HOUSEHOLD CODE!!! <sorry, I'm getting a bit excited...> And "Paul" didn't even WRITE Ephesians! <grrr......>
The funny thing is that in some of these cases, it's the people in power themselves <ie, the priests and the bishops> who want to include more women in the services, but a few of the patriarchial *cranks* in the pews are the ones yelping. Sheesh......
I think there are some Pagans who are interested in the Co-Redemptrix movement because it would spell "Goddess" for Mary, at least in the popular conception of that term. I've seen poetry in Pagan newsletters written in honor of Mary-as-Goddess, and all sorts of Mary bits and pieces here & there, in Pagan spirituality. She certainly functioned as a Goddess for me, growing up as a little Catholic kid in the 60s.... but this Co-Redemptrix movement is being run by what appear to be the *most* conservative elements in the RCC, the folks who are rather anti-flesh and anti-woman..... So as a face of the Goddess, Mary is a bit problematic, because of the way the power of that figure has been appropriated over the years. She's often been used to prop up the Things We Do Not Like, particularly where women are concerned.
I try to wrest Her away from all of that, and just consider Her as the Loving Mother, who 'shields us from the arrows' of oppression and anger..... <cf an old medieval woodcut of Mary, who was depicted as shielding the people under Her mantle from the 'arrows' of an angry, punishing God....>
>> Youth Minister - Independent Bible Church >> Bible Class Teacher - IBC >> Drama Club - IBC >> Church Secretary - IBC >> Homeless Shelter - Baptist >> Public Speaker - IBC
>> Never ordained clergy, wasn't old enough at the time, I suppose. Left the >> church at the age of 20 - just in time to reach legal age and really party! >> So how does this happen? I was such a sincere Christian, I really did >> believe. How did it happen? >> I WANTED MORE THAN ANYTHING TO KNOW THE TRUTH! The truth led me from >> Catholicism into the front door of the Born-Again Christian church, then the >> truth led me right back out the back door! >> I figured that if everything we believed was based on what the bible said, >> then understanding the bible was crucial! I mean, not just what it says, >> but all the interpretations, who wrote what, who decided what should be >> included and what shouldn't, etc.. etc.. ~ my church elders really hated >> this! I was urged so many times that I should just accept the KJV, but King >> James was a big old fool! History tells us that! So I searched & found my >> way out. I'm sure this gives Pastors more reason to urge their followers to >> simply accept the KJV. Life could be so simple that way.
>> Be true to yourself!
>> ~Kimberlyn
>OK, so you believed in a Roman catholic offshoot religion for 20 years. You were >young and not to be blamed for going to your parents church. But when you >started researching for yourself, and found that one of the most important >problems of the early church was stifling spurious letters that kept cropping >up, that ecumenical councils were held to determine unshakable dogma of the >church such that tohose who did not believe in the dogma were not true >Christians. What made you change your mind about Jesus the Christ?
[snip, more 'well-meant' Christian proselytizing....]
Peter, here's a tip:
Do *not* try to proselytize in here.
It is Not Done, and is not received well. To put it *mildly*.
Many of us have been there, done that, and we just can't handle that kind of mind-rape anymore..... "here's the truth. Accept it, _or_ burn in hell forevermore... and *only __we__ can save* you from that outcome..." <rolling eyes>
If you want to talk issues, let's talk issues. But don't try to come riding in on a white Christian horse and 'preach to all nations.' We have *heard* it before, and we decided it wasnt' for us. If there are points of misunderstanding, then clear them up. **Some** of what we've rejected may well be a 'straw man' version of Christianity, yes, but **not all**.....
> > To Talesin: I don't think Tony meant to imply that you do not care well > > for your child[ren].
> Oh please, Talesin knew damn well that that wasn't what Tony meant. He > just used the incident as an excuse to attack Tony because he ran out of > logical, rational things to say.
> > Whether or not mice care well for their young is > > another matter. Not that I know anything about mice.
> This was never about mice or children, except to say that Talesin (with the > mentality and maturity of a 5 year old child) stayed up past his bedtime > once again and lashed out at Tony cuz he got a little cranky.
> I wish everyone would stop trying to rationalize or justify Talesin's > little temper tantrums.
> namaste, > Shiva
I don't know about rationalizing or justifying but again I think I would heed this warning. The guy has power, you can see it in his posts. Surely someone here is a friend of his or something and can talk him out of this. You should not screw around with an angry mage.
-- Harry C. "Do you feel lucky today?"
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
RobinOak wrote: > Somebody mentioned the Co-Redemptrix movement. Well, 'they' are at it again: > somebody in a Catholic NG is yammering right now about "Mary, meek and mild," > and using Her as a weapon to prop up patriarchy <A-gain...> The idea is that > <SHOCK, HORROR> there are more females being included now at the masses, as > readers, eucharistic ministers, etc, etc, ad nauseum. This person is virtually > pooping his patriarchial little pants over this state of affairs. <sigh>
Actually, I think I was the one who mentioned the Co-Redemptrix movement. I find the idea intriging. If indeed it is as you say, ( and I have no reason to doubt you, on the contrary...) then you may be right about us not cheering them on. However, it does cause turmoil in the Church, and that causes doubt, questioning, and ultimately change. Whether the change will be good for people or not is unknown. Having Mary on a par with Jesus might well be the camel's nose that is needed though. Needed, that is, to eventually include women into the Priesthood, etc. (I'm talking in the future as measured in many decades, perhaps a century or two). Would this be a good thing for the rest of us? I think so. I think it would eventually lead Catholics away from a "fanatical devotion to the Pope" and towards devotion to one another, as given by the example of their hypothetical Priest and Priestess' devotion to each other. Would this be pagan? No. Would it be goddess worship? It could perhaps lead to a new way to worship the goddess, and I see balance in that, balance that is non existant in the Church today. Perhaps it would lead to the type of balance that was present in the middle ages. And though that may not be our prefered type of balance, it was a balance of sorts. They did have their social strata then, but it was pretty even -- all poor -- you could always tell who the king was because he was the only one who didn't have shit all over him.
So perhaps, it would be a good thing in an over-all humanity sort of way, and I could support that even though I'm not Catholic.
> And Mary was just mentioned as 'the example to us all' <all us women, that > is>. Something about Mary 'not trying to get into the limelight'. That means: > women are supposed to stay *out* of the positions of ritual service.... <read: > the same old, same old oppression....>
> *That* is the sort of person you find in the Co-Redemptrix movement within the > church. It looks different from the outside, but there it is. I do not think > we need cheer this movement on from the outside, folks, Goddess or no > Goddess.....
What they will end up with in the end is anybody's guess, despite the type of proponents that they currently have. As Robbie Burns said "The best laid plans of mice and men, gang aft aglee". It ain't my plan, it's theirs, I'm just having fun watching the wheel go round and round.
> (Gnash, wail, rend..... )
I understand "wail", and have been so angry at times to rend, but... what is "gnash". How does gnashing of teeth get into the picture. I gnash my teeth in my sleep sometimes. I know its a part of speech, but why isn't is "wail", "rend", and "twiddle my fingers"? It seems about as related to me!
On Sun, 10 May 1998 02:58:12 -0700, Peter Russell Elfvin
<elvi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >Odd how I don't seem to recall the dead body of Jimmy Hoffa being in evidence at any >time.I sure don't remember the closely guarded body of Jimmy Hoffa disappearing or anyone >coming down to claim his body and finding a young man there saying "Fear Not, for he is >risen..." try again.
Oh, gotcha.
Comparing the missing Hoffa (who obviously left after the resurrection, but before _anybody_ saw him) with a retake on the earlier legend of the resurrection of Mithras.
>What is all this emphasis on NEW miracles? If raising someone from the dead were >commonplace, it wouldn't be miraculous. Read the history of the church and you will find >more miracles than you can comfortably explain. Yes, there are some that will be easily >explained (such as the two "forcibly ordained, but unworthy" deacons in the Armenian >church who were sitting in the church one day, making plans for which bars to go to that >noight, when a ball of fire swept into the church and incinerated them where they sat. no >one dared enter the church for several weeks).
First, is it _really_ necessary to leave 400+ lines in order to add six?
The _vast majority_ of miracles can be explained by other religious patterns and simple chicanery.
As to the incidence in the church, ball lightning reacts in strange ways.
My father in law flew for a major commercial airline. He spoke repeatedly of an incidence where ball lightning entered the cockpit, went through the door into the passenger section, floated down through the floor and back up (with concomitant scorch-marks on the carpet on the way down but not on the way up) and was heading straight for the stewardess. She was (his words, not mine) "one of them witch-people" who said "In the name of Hecate begone." It was in his notebook with a series of exclamation points behind it.
The ball lightning stopped for a moment, then *zipped* out the end of the plane with no scorch marks.
Now, it could have been ball lightning with _no_ external influence, but ball lightning has been known to incinerate people, animals, houses &cet.
Could it be that her Goddess intervened?
**********************************************
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est
********************************************** * LEGAL DISCLAIMER * ********************************************** * The opinions expressed herein are entirely * * those of the author, and are neither meant * * to represent, nor do they represent, the * * opinion(s) of his employer. * **********************************************
>How about "The Feminine Face of God," by Sherry Ruth Anderson? >Also, the Unitarians have a several-week course of study called <a-hem> "Cakes >for the Queen of Heaven', which I think is about women, traditional Western >religion, and patriarchy. >What about some of the OT scholarship I've been hearing about, which has dug >up the interesting tidbit that Yahweh used to have a girlfriend?? <g> >"Consort", I mean..... Or the apocryphal bits about Lilith. <yes, I know she >ate babies.... but *why* did the writers of that story put her in that inhuman >role? Because she didn't kowtow to Adam, of course....>
Hey, don't forget about Toriesen's _When Women Were Priests_.
(Yes, Janet, I've refrained from posting it in a.r.r-c. Don't worry. <g>)
**********************************************
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est
********************************************** * LEGAL DISCLAIMER * ********************************************** * The opinions expressed herein are entirely * * those of the author, and are neither meant * * to represent, nor do they represent, the * * opinion(s) of his employer. * **********************************************
> >> Magick or prayer, if done as a constant repitition will have no effect > >> its only words.
> > Shez, I find this a curious statement. In spells that I have done, the long > >ones I mean, the ones that I will research for weeks, finding propitious times > >for, > >making sure that I have correspondences laid out and my ducks in a row and so > >forth, these types; I have found that constant feeding of the spell *with* > >constant > >repitition actually adds to the egregor of the spell. It takes on a life of > >it's > >own so to speak
<snip>
> I think Bill your putting a lot of time and effort into your spells, and > the constant repitition is done with will emotion and focus, not just > the words repeated without thought, that is the difference, > I can remember children at School mumbling through the lords prayer, and > you could see their minds where anywhere but on what they were saying, > the words were so engraved in their minds, that they simply repeated > them without thought. > I dont personaly use ritual or spells, I think through what I want to > do, then sit down and do it. > either way works,
Interesting. I see the difference now. I often forget that other people don't get into their religion the way that I get into mine. Myopic of me really or at least optimistic. And yes, either way works. I think it is the underlying desire that is essential. -Bill Wheaton
On Sat, 9 May 1998, Tony Veca wrote: > Get yourself a set of Medicine Cards created by Jamie Sams & David Carson. > The book which comes with the cards covers 44 animals. Also hunt down as > many books as you can on NA lore.
Well, I've got the Gaelic(sp?) version of such, and I've seen NAI lore books, but a lot of them seem too... well, happy, I mean, NO culture can be SOOOO perfectly... WISE!! :) Do you have any books to suggest? Thanks!! :)
* -------------------------------------------------------------------- * "Eventually we come to a point where High Science becomes indistunguishable from High Magick" -NOT misquoting A.C. Clark, CORRECTLY quoting me! * -------------------------------------------------------------------- * http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~avariel uid : h...@ug.cs.sunysb.edu * -------------------------------------------------------------------- *
You know, I remember at one point I asked an xtian "So basically, the point of HAVING free will, is to act like we DON'T have free will, because that's the way to salvation?!"
The reply was "Well, looking both ways before you cross the street is something you do 'cause people tell you to, and doing THAT exibits the lack of free will, too!"
:) Comments anyone?
* -------------------------------------------------------------------- * "Eventually we come to a point where High Science becomes indistunguishable from High Magick" -NOT misquoting A.C. Clark, CORRECTLY quoting me! * -------------------------------------------------------------------- * http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~avariel uid : h...@ug.cs.sunysb.edu * -------------------------------------------------------------------- *
> > > But there can be merit in the "blank slate", of course!
> > > It is only when we are aware that there are things we don't know, that > > > we can learn, for instance.
> > > And the sense of wonder a child has for creation, is that not worth > > > having? :)
> > Did I say that? No. If you reread the gist of my posts, you will see that I am > > rabid about the sanctity of life. This comes not only from the wonder of, but a great > > respect for, creation. I don't give credit to some capricious god, though, I love it > > for what it is.
> > > >> > "if you are free in man you are a slave to christ," and the one > > > >> >that > > > >> >says women should be silent in the churches and let their husbands tell them > > > >> >what > > > >> >they need to know (I forget the exact wording- too much mead over the > > > >weekend)
> > > >> humph. How about sharing?? :)
> > > > "Be thou not drunk with wine, for this is dissipation. . ." Is it any wonder > > > >the > > > >xian life sucks?
> > > Who said anything about getting drunk? Having a bit of mead isn't going > > > to get me DRUNK, just a bit happy! :)
> > Drunk, happy, it's just semantics.
> > > >> >for > > > >> >starters?
> > > >> Grin.... see why I belong to a group that does NOT rely on sola > > > >> scriptura?
> > > > I can not account for every little weird sect of xianity, I can only quote > > > >main > > > >line beliefs.
> > > Grin... Talesin, I am a CATHOLIC, you just don't GET much more > > > mainline...
> > Well, mainline catholics don't believe some of the stuff you talk about so my > > reasoning stands.
> > > >> If the women had been silent, the apostles would never have known about > > > >> the resurrection! (And I wouldn't have a teaching degree from that kind > > > >> of university, either!) :)
> > > > Resurrection? Oh! You mean when Joseph of Arimathea et al stole the horribly > > > >mutilated corpse of jayzus and hid it, then proclaimed that "he was risen." > > > >Right, > > > >the same thing happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
> Odd how I don't seem to recall the dead body of Jimmy Hoffa being in evidence at any > time.I sure don't remember the closely guarded body of Jimmy Hoffa disappearing or anyone > coming down to claim his body and finding a young man there saying "Fear Not, for he is > risen..." try again.
> > > Talesin, you have no more evidence for that than I do for what I > > > believe! :)
> > > Well, of course I would say that I *do* have evidence, in the eyewitness > > > testimony of those who saw the risen Jesus, but this isn't the place to > > > debate that.
> > You have the bible, which also claims that the Red Sea parted and fire comes from > > the sky. Has anyone alive seen anything like this, or resurrection?
> > > How about we make a deal: I will not slam your beliefs, and you at least > > > be polite about mine? Well, I don't slam your beleifs anyway, and > > > won't, but...?
> > (DANGER: profanity ahead) Fuck your beliefs. Your beliefs have killed, repressed, > > and tortured people, destroyed entire cultures, and have caused more pain and > > suffering in this world than any other single entity and you want me to be POLITE > > about them? I would say you have been drinking more than a little mead. One more > > time, fuck-your-beliefs. However you as a person are okay, so don't get upset at > > me.
> > > >> There are a lot of things, mainly in the OT, that it would seem to me > > > >> that many Christians do not follow. Kosher laws come to mind, as well > > > >> as the cleanliness laws.
> > > > Well, the NT addresses this issue specifically in that it says do not eat > > > >things > > > >killed "in the blood."
> > > Hmmmm... I am not a biblical scholar, (don't have the languages) but I > > > thought that referred to sacrificial animals...?
> > > And that doesn't explain the hygeine laws...
> > Actually, it is a very practical rule. It refers to not eating animals that have > > been strangled rather than bled out. When an animal first dies, its body temperature > > rises. Blood is the perfect medium for bacterial growth so, since the immune system > > is shut down, the animal effectively becomes poisonous. Pretty good understanding for > > people of that time.
> > > >> >> And certainly in my own neck of the woods, individual conscience is the > > > >> >> final arbitrer...
> > > >> Grin... purest Aquinas, that...
> > > >> >> And, again for myself, this is personal opinion, I am not speaking for > > > >> >> all Christians, (clear?) I have trouble with any relationship with a > > > >> >> Deity which is founded on what *I* can get out of it, whether that is > > > >> >> answered prayers or a place in heaven. <--- personal opinion.
> > > []
> > > >> > As a Pagan, I have no trouble at all with that. Why would I waste time > > > >> >with > > > >> >a > > > >> >deity that provided no benefit?
> > > >> Well, I think there IS the offer of benefit, but I think it is, um, more > > > >> esoteric than "jewels in a heavenly crown" or whatever.
> > > >> To me, it is simply (simply??) becoming more like that which we were > > > >> created to be, in relation to the creator.
> > > >Creator? Excuse me, it's "creatrix."
> > > Um, no, not to me.
> > > You see, "creatrix" is a DERIVATIVE word!! > > > The only reason you need it is that you see CREATOR as necessarily > > > masculine!! :)
> > > If CREATOR has no gender, then why do we need CREATRIX?
> > > If the creator is feminine, and you want a feminine word for her, then > > > we need a new one! :)
> > Yeah, typical xian thought. Everything is a derivative of your god. No sense > > arguing here, you won't listen.
> > > >> > Oh, and I am sorry I said "fuck" in a post to a good catholic woman like > > > >> >yourself.
> > > >> Grin.... thank you for the apology! :)
> > > >> -- > > > >> janet
> > > >> Time bears away all things, even the mind.... > > > >> Virgil
> > > > Well, I must say, for a jesus lover you at least keep things logical and on > > > >subject without resorting to personal attacks.
> > > Never could see the point in personal attacks.
> > > They prove nothing, (well, ok, they prove a lot about the person POSTING > > > them...).
> > Yeah, they prove I won't take crap from idiots, but let's move on.
> > > Look, if I *were* here to convert people, surely I could do it more with > > > honey than with vinegar? But since I'm only here to converse and learn, > > > and I am *well* aware of my status as a guest, surely it behooves me to > > > act in a reasonable fashion? ;)
> > You are trying to use honey to subtlety persuade us to your way of thinking. I > > see you are following Paul's admonition to be "all things to all people." A good > > weapon against the unwary, I admit, but I am wary.
> > > -- > > > janet
> > > Time bears away all things, even the mind.... > > > Virgil
> > I do like you Jan, you are fun to discuss things with. You don't resort to > > homily or beating dead horses. Thank you and have a nice day.
> > --
> > Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
> > Morgan guide me > > Badbh protect me > > Macha bring me home.
> > ***remove the REMOVETHIS to reply by e-mail***
>janet wrote in message ... >>In article <6j3rto$...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, Peter Russell Elfvin >><elvi...@worldnet.att.net> writes >>>> And, grin, grin, GRIN, when I teach women and religion in that course >>>> for the first time next year....the book list isn't set, but it already >>>> includes Baring and Green and any other suggestions would be WELCOME!
>>>How about "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future" by Fr. Seraphim Rose?
>>That one I will look for, thanks!!
>>(Just DON'T ask me to include Cholij's book, just please DON'T!!!) ;)
>How about "The Feminine Face of God," by Sherry Ruth Anderson?
Gad, I *knew* I shouldn't have asked, there are gonna be all these new books to read!!! ;) (thanks...)
>Also, the Unitarians have a several-week course of study called <a-hem> "Cakes >for the Queen of Heaven', which I think is about women, traditional Western >religion, and patriarchy.
I will go look and see if there are any around here, that sounds like it could be interesting!!!
But again I point out the difference between the titles, Queen of Heaven, and Queen of Earth! :)
>What about some of the OT scholarship I've been hearing about, which has dug >up the interesting tidbit that Yahweh used to have a girlfriend?? <g>
Well, it's in Baring, as well... (and there's a difference between what *I* need to read, qua tutor, (almost everything, who needs sleep??) and what I need to get the students to read!! :)
>"Consort", I mean..... Or the apocryphal bits about Lilith. <yes, I know she >ate babies.... but *why* did the writers of that story put her in that inhuman >role? Because she didn't kowtow to Adam, of course....>
And because it's supposed to be THE most "inhuman" thing anyone can do!
-- janet
Time bears away all things, even the mind.... Virgil
Wow, I must commend you both on a long, linear, but gripping thread. It has been quite an accomplishment, really. Janet, it seems that you have charms to sooth the savage beast. Talesin, I knew you were capable, and she has acted as a good catylist. You have both proven to be formidable opponents, and niether of you have fallen for the traps set by the other. Both of you have provide me with much material to ponder. I look forward to more debates like this, perhaps in different threads.
And everything ever written in this thread. Please, Please, snip the irrelevant stuff. I want to read what you have to say, but it is hard to find it through the haze of ">>>>>". just highlight it and delete!!! -bw
In article <6j4mml$n8...@gte1.gte.net>, J. Northwood <jonathan@northwood .uce_is_icky.org> writes
>On Sun, 10 May 1998 10:01:33 -0400, "RobinOak" ><csch...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
>< snip >
[]
>Hey, don't forget about Toriesen's _When Women Were Priests_.
>(Yes, Janet, I've refrained from posting it in a.r.r-c. > Don't worry. <g>)
>**********************************************
My dear friends, that's been on the list from day one!!!! (but I think it's Torjenson...?) :)
And no, I don't think we'll cross post this, I get enough flack...
(But I would be VERY annoyed if I thought ANYONE in that programme was only putting books on the reading list if they agreed with them!! We are NOT there to tell people WHAT to think, but to help them to find the tools and information to make their OWN thoughts!!! Heck, I even have Dworkin on my list in another programme!! But, no, I won't try explaining that in arrc, did that once, still have singe marks...) :)
(hiya, btw!!) -- janet
Time bears away all things, even the mind.... Virgil
>My dear friends, that's been on the list from day one!!!! (but I think >it's Torjenson...?) :)
LOL! We're both part right. I just looked at the title page.
It's Torjesen. <g>
>And no, I don't think we'll cross post this, I get enough flack...
Fair enough.
>(But I would be VERY annoyed if I thought ANYONE in that programme was >only putting books on the reading list if they agreed with them!!
Nah.
I'm an historian, and there's one rule I follow. Even if you only learn what _not_ to do from a source, use it. Refer to it.
I agree with you. I don't think that support only for one's personal view is intellectually honest.
>We >are NOT there to tell people WHAT to think, but to help them to find the >tools and information to make their OWN thoughts!!! Heck, I even have >Dworkin on my list in another programme!! But, no, I won't try >explaining that in arrc, did that once, still have singe marks...) :)
(Euww. Dworkin. <g>)
>(hiya, btw!!)
And hello rightbackatcha!
**********************************************
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est
********************************************** * LEGAL DISCLAIMER * ********************************************** * The opinions expressed herein are entirely * * those of the author, and are neither meant * * to represent, nor do they represent, the * * opinion(s) of his employer. * **********************************************
Hummm, interesting thought. Do I have the right to tell Christians (or anyone else for that matter) that they are wrong in their beliefs and/or their teachings? big fat NOPE! I have no right. I have however excersized the rights I DO have: Once deciding the Christian church is wrong (for me) I decided to leave, and I've made the decision not to let my children, who are preschool age, ever be brainwashed by their organization in the first place. That is my right, that is what I have done. I do not post on Christian NG's ~ I don't care to.
I do also believe I have the right to defend myself & my beliefs, so if there is an attack, I will be ready ~ and won't be turning the other cheek.
>> James Wheat wrote in message <354d539a.85127...@news.speed1.net>... >> >On Mon, 4 May 1998 00:11:04 -0400, "RobinOak" >> ><csch...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
>> >>Holy mama, you and James Wheat are both former Baptist clergy??
>> >>How many Pagans & Wiccans are former Baptist clergy, do you suppose?
>> >>This is interesting.
>> >>--from RobinOak, formerly Catholic...
>> >Just shows we are smart, and got out of THAT...heee hee hee! >> >How do you think I can pretty much out-debate most christians?? >> > ;)
>> Goddess Tangent:
>> Oh wail, rend, and gnash!!
>> Somebody mentioned the Co-Redemptrix movement. Well, 'they' are at it again: >> somebody in a Catholic NG is yammering right now about "Mary, meek and mild," >> and using Her as a weapon to prop up patriarchy <A-gain...> The idea is that >> <SHOCK, HORROR> there are more females being included now at the masses, as >> readers, eucharistic ministers, etc, etc, ad nauseum. This person is virtually >> pooping his patriarchial little pants over this state of affairs. <sigh>
>> And Mary was just mentioned as 'the example to us all' <all us women, that >> is>. Something about Mary 'not trying to get into the limelight'. That means: >> women are supposed to stay *out* of the positions of ritual service.... <read: >> the same old, same old oppression....>
>This is what comes of setting yourself up as arbiter of morals for someone elses >religion. Fun, isn't it, to tell someone that their religion is wrong about >something (such as women keeping silent in church)? What do you suppose that >Co-redemptrix person would have to say about your religion and the things he >thinks is wrong with it?
>> *That* is the sort of person you find in the Co-Redemptrix movement within the >> church. It looks different from the outside, but there it is. I do not think >> we need cheer this movement on from the outside, folks, Goddess or no >> Goddess.....
The only problem I have with Mary is that damn covering on her head! Biblical tradition states that a woman's head must be covered & it is an honor for her to have long hair ~ the covering represents a separation between her and god & her submissiveness to her husband. It says that "nature itself" backs this up, as a man will lose his hair, it shows his closeness to god (I guess there's less in the way between his brain and god! LOL). This tradition is really not that old either, it's only been in recent times that women have been permitted to attend church with their heads uncovered. Also, if you notice, in places where the women are still expected to be most submissive, those women also are still expected to keep their heads covered. (for example, the Amish and certain middle eastern countries.) There's a little Catholic church around the corner from here (they're rare in the South) with a statue of Mary out front ~ you know the pose, head covered, arms outstretched, head slightly bowed in submission ~ I would just LOVE more than anything to see he rip that shawl off her head, throw it to the ground, then look up with pride in her womanhood, give us all a sly grin & then start singing "THE BITCH, THE BITCH, THE BITCH IS BACK!" YES OH YES! YOU GO GIRL! Oh my, this excitement can't be good for me, because oh what let down I'll experience when I pass her tomorrow and she still stands there humble, as if to say, "I'm sorry lord, sorry I am only a woman."
And thus concludes my full moon rantings for the next 20 minutes or so, but don't worry, I'll have plenty more the waning starts!
RobinOak wrote in message <6j4fnr$h7...@nw001t.infi.net>... >Peter Russell Elfvin wrote in message ><6j3nn1$...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>[]
>>> Somebody mentioned the Co-Redemptrix movement. Well, 'they' are at it >again: >>> somebody in a Catholic NG is yammering right now about "Mary, meek and >mild," >>> and using Her as a weapon to prop up patriarchy <A-gain...> The idea is >that >>> <SHOCK, HORROR> there are more females being included now at the masses, as >>> readers, eucharistic ministers, etc, etc, ad nauseum. This person is >virtually >>> pooping his patriarchial little pants over this state of affairs. <sigh>
>[]
>>This is what comes of setting yourself up as arbiter of morals for someone >elses >>religion. Fun, isn't it, to tell someone that their religion is wrong about >>something (such as women keeping silent in church)? What do you suppose that >>Co-redemptrix person would have to say about your religion and the things he >>thinks is wrong with it?
>Oh darlin', I have been called everything from a devil-worshipper to a >loonie-toon in the Catholic NG, and the person who is currently yammering >about poor old Mother Mary has ignored and/or killfiled me when I stepped in >to squawk about his anti-female blather. I don't feel that anyone outside a >trad should try to set up as an 'arbiter of morals' for someone else's >religion EXCEPT in those cases where harm is occurring/will occur to the >*rest* of the community at large. In the cases of the anti-woman strain in >Christianity, for instance <Mother Angelica's blather; Promise Keeperism, >etc...>, it DOES affect the rest of us, it sure does. What they do is to yank >out the old saws about 'women keeping silent' and 'wives, be submissive to >your husbands', and then try to construct an entire social & political agenda >around a few lines from a few epistles, some of which PAUL HIMSELF DID NOT >EVEN WRITE!!! <Arrrghghghghgh!!> Sigh..... "Be submissive", for instance, >was an old-fart, patriarchial, ROMAN, *PAGAN* HOUSEHOLD CODE!!! <sorry, I'm >getting a bit excited...> And "Paul" didn't even WRITE Ephesians! ><grrr......>
>The funny thing is that in some of these cases, it's the people in power >themselves <ie, the priests and the bishops> who want to include more women in >the services, but a few of the patriarchial *cranks* in the pews are the ones >yelping. Sheesh......
>I think there are some Pagans who are interested in the Co-Redemptrix movement >because it would spell "Goddess" for Mary, at least in the popular conception >of that term. I've seen poetry in Pagan newsletters written in honor of >Mary-as-Goddess, and all sorts of Mary bits and pieces here & there, in Pagan >spirituality. She certainly functioned as a Goddess for me, growing up as a >little Catholic kid in the 60s.... but this Co-Redemptrix movement is being >run by what appear to be the *most* conservative elements in the RCC, the >folks who are rather anti-flesh and anti-woman..... So as a face of the >Goddess, Mary is a bit problematic, because of the way the power of that >figure has been appropriated over the years. She's often been used to prop up >the Things We Do Not Like, particularly where women are concerned.
>I try to wrest Her away from all of that, and just consider Her as the Loving >Mother, who 'shields us from the arrows' of oppression and anger..... <cf an >old medieval woodcut of Mary, who was depicted as shielding the people under >Her mantle from the 'arrows' of an angry, punishing God....>
> Is it 'PC' or just common sense not to pick a fight where none > exists. >-- >Raven (Brit) >(Ra...@arpeggio.demon.co.uk)
I don't think PC is the issue. I've never been bothered by the Jewish. Really, it's only been the Christians who accuse me of being evil, worshipping Satan, and who want to know if my skin will burn when they touch me with their crosses!
ishtar wrote in message <35557F0A.BD979...@mindspring.com>...
[...deletia...]
>All right, I have a question, then. My grandfather's grandmother was >Mohawk; not a princess, just a woman who married a French American last >century. My grandfather is currently searching for documentation of >this.
He should check with the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) for the Mohawk tribe. They keep a great deal of the records. He should also check with the Mormans, they keep some of the most complete geneology records in the US.
>How would I be treated if I tried to learn more about NA spirituality?
That depends on the tribe, so I couldn't say.
>I haven't tried to, because I, too, know many "wannabes", and didn't >want to be seen as infringing on a way of life that whites tried to >eliminate, and now try to romanticize. But it *is* part of my family >history, and part of my blood, and there are things I would like to >know. How *should* I go about it, without offending anyone?
Check with the Tribal Council offices, many tribes have classes/seminars for non-tribals who wish to learn more about their culture and religion.
========== When one is frightened of the truth . . . then it is never the whole truth that one has an inkling of. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) Austrian philosopher. Notebooks 1914-1916 (ed. by Anscombe, 1961), entry for 15 Oct. 1914. ========== Tony Veca tv...@gte.net
janet wrote in message ... >In article <6j3h9q$ck...@gte1.gte.net>, Tony Veca <tv...@gte.net> writes
>>If you want to arouse the ire of the Souix or the Omaha (to whom Pipestone >>is also sacred) just ware it as jewlery.
>For those of us who don't know, what does it look like, and is it likely >that it would be available for idiots like me to buy, because we just >happen to like the way it looks???
>Eg, tell us so we DON'T offend people!! Please?
Pipestone is a ruddy red in color (like dried blood) with lighter red almost pink flecks through it. My pipe was made by Brian Wichern of the Pipestone Indian Shrine Association, it was a gift from my wife and she got it at a local Spiritual Bookshop. It is possible to buy it in some shops. The PISA sells works made of Pipestone to small shops. It should also be noted that the stuff is expensive and you will not find it in its raw state at lapidary shops. Pipestone National Park and the PISA keep an eye on it.
========== When one is frightened of the truth . . . then it is never the whole truth that one has an inkling of. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) Austrian philosopher. Notebooks 1914-1916 (ed. by Anscombe, 1961), entry for 15 Oct. 1914. ========== Tony Veca tv...@gte.net
KymeeAnn wrote: > The only problem I have with Mary is that damn covering on her head! > Biblical tradition states that a woman's head must be covered & it is an > honor for her to have long hair ~ the covering represents a separation > between her and god & her submissiveness to her husband. It says that > "nature itself" backs this up, as a man will lose his hair, it shows his > closeness to god (I guess there's less in the way between his brain and god! > LOL). This tradition is really not that old either, it's only been in > recent times that women have been permitted to attend church with their > heads uncovered. Also, if you notice, in places where the women are still > expected to be most submissive, those women also are still expected to keep > their heads covered. (for example, the Amish and certain middle eastern > countries.) > There's a little Catholic church around the corner from here (they're rare > in the South) with a statue of Mary out front ~ you know the pose, head > covered, arms outstretched, head slightly bowed in submission ~ I would > just LOVE more than anything to see he rip that shawl off her head, throw it > to the ground, then look up with pride in her womanhood, give us all a sly > grin & then start singing "THE BITCH, THE BITCH, THE BITCH IS BACK!" YES > OH YES! YOU GO GIRL! Oh my, this excitement can't be good for me, because > oh what let down I'll experience when I pass her tomorrow and she still > stands there humble, as if to say, "I'm sorry lord, sorry I am only a > woman."
> And thus concludes my full moon rantings for the next 20 minutes or so, but > don't worry, I'll have plenty more the waning starts!
