* Now talking on ##religion
* Topic for ##religion is: A forum for open discussion of religion | This channel is in the process of being ressurected, so please idle here.
* Topic for ##religion set by Athanasius!icxcnika@freenode/weird-exception/network-troll/afterdeath (Tue Mar 27 00:38:25 2012)
<Boilerplate_> Hello anyone here?
* dioz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
* dioz (~dioz@2001:470:d:e3::1) has joined
<lolcat> Boilerplate_: nope
<Boilerplate_> oh
<Boilerplate_> Wait a minute...did someone speak?
<Boilerplate_> Nah I must be imagining things
<Boilerplate_> Or am I
<Boilerplate_> lolcat: So this is a religion chat? So what do we dicuss here? Anything and everything about religion? Also is there any atheists and agnosticics here?
<cythrawll> Boilerplate_, there's here
<cythrawll> you just missed a big convo actually right before you logged in
<Boilerplate_> shame
<cythrawll> i'm an atheist/agnostic
<Boilerplate_> What was it about?
<cythrawll> whether Jewish still practice stoning as a punishment
<Boilerplate_> I know Islam still does...well it's more of a cultural thing than a religious thing
<cythrawll> well pretty much all abrahamic religious texts describe it as a form of punishment
<cythrawll> so it could be thought of "religious" in that way
<Boilerplate_> I think stonings did existed before Abrahamic religions though
<cythrawll> yes
<cythrawll> probably
<Boilerplate_> Since cultural pratices get adapted over time
<cythrawll> cultural practices taht are also religious. that's the thing
<cythrawll> i'm sure animal sacrifice and praying existed before abrahamic religions too
<Boilerplate_> Since people in the desert had limited resources to excute people which was where stonings came from
<Boilerplate_> Yep
<Boilerplate_> So basically things like stoning, animal sacrafice, praying were around during Pre-Abrahamic times which got adapted into Abrahamic religions overtime.
<Boilerplate_> Which once again it's more of a cultural thing
<Boilerplate_> Just like Hijabs, Burkas, etc were around during Pre-Islamic times
<lolcat> yeah, it can all be discussed here
<Boilerplate_> Which before it was due to enviromental reasons of living in the desert and became a cultural thing overtime
<Boilerplate_> Basically Abrahamic religions (Judahism being it's origins) came from Caanite polytheism.
<cythrawll> right the "cultural things" though are still religious as they use religion to outlive their usefulness
<cythrawll> just like I'm sure homosexuality was frowned on backwhen making sure your tribe was bigger than the other tribe was the highest form of security you could have.
<Boilerplate_> Basically Abrahamic religions were a product of the Middle Eastern enviroment which is incompatible with others hence it's repressive/oppressive nature.
<cythrawll> indeed
<Boilerplate_> Well another thing too I noticed about Abrahamic religions that it also came from rural areas while highly cultured cities praticed Polytheism at the time
<Boilerplate_> Baically Abrahamic religions sole purpose is to hold progress back and keep us living in rural areas.
<Boilerplate_> as it is designed as if
<Boilerplate_> Since if you ever noticed that Polytheistic societies were progressive compared to Monothestic/Abrahamic ones.
<Boilerplate_> When looking at Ancient Societies of course
<Boilerplate_> Or rather Abrahamic religions are rural based religions hence why it's incompatible to urban based societies.
* dioz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
* dioz_ (~dioz@2001:470:d:e3::1) has joined
* dioz_ is now known as dioz
<Boilerplate_> Oh another thing too, the only way for civilization to fully recover and progress further to get rid of the Abrahamic religions since they are responsible holding civilization back.
<Boilerplate_> Since Abrahamic religions still predominate the west which is one of the biggest problems.
* dan1_ (~ethereali@50.147.66.48) has joined
* dan1_ is now known as dan1
<cythrawll> I'm sure we can find other religions that arent abrahamic that suffer from the same problems
<cythrawll> I think it's inclined to be a religous problem, unless that religion promotes free thinking and progress outside of itself
<cythrawll> like modern buddhism seems to
<dan1> 'freethinking' seems poorly defined today
<dan1> or 'not well defined'
<dan1> "we're a society for freethinkers, but really we mean athiests" -- at the university of pennsylvania, as far as i could tell
<cythrawll> and well freethinking isn't exaclty all that free.
<cythrawll> atleast how it's currently used
<cythrawll> I think it was a term put in use because many find the term "atheist" to be ugly
<cythrawll> and lots of negative connotations attached
<cythrawll> secular humanist I like better
<cythrawll> but I don't like calling myself that because there's some aspects connected to "humanist" I dn't fully agree with
* EvilOne has quit (*.net *.split)
<dan1> Christopher Dawson's _Christianity and European Culture_ touches on secular humanism a little bit. Good book.
<Boilerplate_> Back
<Boilerplate_> Well I notice that Eastern religions/culture (Hindu/Buddahism/etc) are more progressive than the west/Abrahamicism
<Boilerplate_> by comparision at least
<Boilerplate_> Well for example, Hinduism has Kali which is a baddass Mother Goddess compared to the Virgin Mary who is meek and such
<Boilerplate_> http://www.holysmoke.org/haught/sects.html
<dan1> "meek and such"? I think you underestimate her.
<dan1> "Queen of the Universe" is not a light title...
* Louis77 (~Louis77@p5DDB843C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined
<Louis77> hey
<cythrawll> Louis77, hi
* Louis77 has quit (Quit: Mango IRC for iOS, http://mediaware.sk/mango)
<cythrawll> just because you're queen of the universe doesn't mean you aren't portrayed as a meek and feminine woman.
<Boilerplate_> The title means nothing though, The Virgin Mary IS portrayed as a meek feminine woman which embodies of christian ideals of a woman of a docile housewife some sort.
<cythrawll> not some bad ass like wife who will tear you into shreds if you cross her path. and destroy your soul
<cythrawll> *like my wife*
<Boilerplate_> While Kali in the other hand is capible of destroying the universe if she really wanted to
<Boilerplate_> Well where does it say that the Virgin Mary can tear you to shreads and destroy your soul?
<Boilerplate_> I highly doubt it
<Boilerplate_> Point is, there is no female empowerment in Abrahamic mythology which is male dominated
<Boilerplate_> Infact from my knowledge (unless I'm wrong) according to Abrahamic mythology, women are basically slaves to men because they came from Adam's rib and a curse place on them that forces them to only give painful childbirths but also submit to their husbands as well. If everyone woman in the world came from Eve then feminism would not exist.
<Boilerplate_> Well remember Abrahamic mythology is a product of argicutlural/rural societies
<Boilerplate_> which was where the concept of property came to being
<Boilerplate_> For example I would compare Abrahamic mythology to the Gor novels which is that bad (with the whole "Women secretly want to be slaves which is biologically built inside" according to the novels).
<dan1> "feminine woman"?
<dan1> Boilerplate_: Woman coming from man's side (rib) means equality; i.e. heel would be subservience, head would be dominance.
<dan1> Yes, wives are to "submit" to their husbands, but this is counterbalanced by the equally-binding commandment that husbands love their wives as Jesus loves the Church -- i.e., a love greater than how one typically loves oneself
<Boilerplate_> No it doesn't, if they would equal, Eve would have been out exactly like Adam had like Lilith was according to Judahic Midrashism
<dan1> So the commandment for wives to submit to their husbands does not imply an inequality or an oppressive burden.
<dan1> "midrashism" ... lol
<dan1> Well, Boilerplate_, you'll perhaps be happy to know that the official doctrine of Christianity is that women are equal (regarding human dignity); there is no "women are worth 1/2 man" as in Mohammedan legal testimony.
<dan1> Woman coming from man's side _does_ signify equality.
<dan1> It doesn't signify slavery. :/
<dan1> To clarify my last comment about Mohammedanism: To serve as a witness, two women are equal to one man; there's none of that in Christianity.
<Boilerplate_> Then why is the man regarded as the "Head of the Household" within the family hiarchy (God -> Jesus -> Man -> Woman -> Son -> Daughter -> Pet -> Plant) then? It doesn't sound like equality to me which is infact much closer to slavery. That's what Submit means which is slavery
<Boilerplate_> Also there's the existence of domestic violence/honor killings/etc as well
<dan1> Whoa, no idea where you're getting this family hierarchy -- or these other issues, wow, one topic at a time ... The teaching is simply that, if there is a disagreement, the husband must do what is best for the wife, and the wife must [I'm actually not sure on this point, but perhaps it's to agree to the husband's decision], if doing so would not be sinful. There's nothing at all about a son being greater than a daughter.
<dan1> actually, "their" decision, of course
<dan1> we can't really deal in hypotheticals for this topic
<dan1> we'd need to look at an actual situation
<dan1> but your hierarchy is wrong on many levels
<dan1> *on multiple points or implications, i should say ...
<dan1> anyway, i'm off to play piano; i encourage you to post at forums.catholic.com about it: you'll likely get more responses there, and we could continue it later from wherever they leave off.
<Boilerplate_> I think your missing the point, wives are also regarded as property of the husbands as well.
<dan1> Eh, no.
<dan1> That was perhaps part of Mosaic law, but it's not part of Christianity, at any rate.
<Boilerplate_> Well that's the reality of the situation
<dan1> I actually am not sure whether that's even part of Mosaic law.
<dan1> "the reality" of WHAT situation?
<Boilerplate_> wives being property of the husbands which is slavery
<Boilerplate_> read your historyu
<dan1> I was asking you to point to something today, or this century, or this millennia ... Whatever, man, have a good one.
* dan1 has left
<Boilerplate_> That's right run away knowing you lost the argument
<Boilerplate_> Overall Abrahamic religions are patarchial male surpremicy.
<Boilerplate_> which is shown in pratice
<Boilerplate_> Also submit does imply imply and inequality in reality