What is scholarly about discussing any aspect of religion?

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes but some people think it's scholarly to discuss religion as though it's not fiction   

I think you should be more precise in your use of language. You seem to be using the word "religion" as a synonym for "belief in the supernatural or spiritual". Such beliefs of course can't be proved - they may be the most important part of religion for some people, particularly those who are hung up on the idea of 'heavenly rewards', but as wiggi has pointed out, many religions have a much more complex function than this. I've known some people who choose the kind of Christian church they go to, not because they have any fervent belief, but because they like the kind of rituals offered in the services, and they like the social life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

If by 'their claimed facts' you mean their assertions about God, souls, Resurrection(s) etc, then I largely agree with you. It's interesting to compare the survival of Christianity with Mithraism. The latter seemed quite a rival to Christianity in the development of the Roman Empire, and though we don't know too much about Mithraism's mystical beliefs, we can be pretty sure it offered some eternal 'rewards' for its participants (most of the other mystery religions did). However, Mithraism was an extraordinarily blokey religion - no females allowed in its places of worship. Christianity - at least in its earliest manifestation - gave great importance to women (even if they were considered to be a bit risky where sex was concerned). And of course Christianity did stress practical altruism.

Yes, those are the kind of claimed facts I had in mind. I'm a bit surprised at how relaxed you are about the attitude of Christianity to women though. It - and the other Abrahamic faiths - are deeply misogynistic in beliefs and practice it seems to me, and it's trivially easy to demonstrate that. Possibly early Christianity was a bit different, but I'd have thought the fear/hatred/anger about women goes back to Eve doesn't it?

Interestingly, so far as I'm aware the earlier religions from which Christianity took so many of its narratives - the Greek, the Egyptian etc - don't so far as I'm aware have that, preferring instead to see women as symbolic of the fecundity of the land and similar and therefore worthy of reverence.

If that's right, what is it with the Abrahamic religions specifically and their treatment of women that so disfigures them to this day?

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky,

Yes, those are the kind of claimed facts I had in mind. I'm a bit surprised at how relaxed you are about the attitude of Christianity to women though. It - and the other Abrahamic faiths - are deeply misogynistic in beliefs and practice it seems to me, and it's trivially easy to demonstrate that. Possibly early Christianity was a bit different, but I'd have thought the fear/hatred/anger about women goes back to Eve doesn't it?

Interestingly, so far as I'm aware the earlier religions from which Christianity took so many of its narratives - the Greek, the Egyptian etc - don't so far as I'm aware have that, preferring instead to see women as symbolic of the fecundity of the land and similar and therefore worthy of reverence.

If that's right, what is it with the Abrahamic religions specifically and their treatment of women that so disfigures them to this day?

Hi blue

I'm certainly not too relaxed about Christianity's attitude to women down the ages! Of course, Judaism was - and some branches of it remain - deeply patriarchal, but in fact the ancient Jews weren't too concerned about the story of Adam and Eve: there are no references to it in the old Testament after Genesis, as far as I'm aware. It was Christianity that made such a meal out of Eve's role in the 'Original Sin', and that slant took a particularly nauseating development with Tertullian and St Augustine - woman being the 'Devil's Gateway' and all that. Jesus and St Paul (floo take note!) seem to have had a remarkably wholesome attitude to women for their times. Certainly rather better than Mithraism, which was probably the major contender in the dominant religion stakes.

However, I'll freely admit that these promising beginnings seem to have been stifled pretty soon, and Christianity's obsession with sex and women being dangerous temptresses who should be kept in place became the dominant idea for centuries. Even so, a few women like Hildegard of Bingen managed to break through some of the misogynistic barriers.

Pagan religions seem to have had a more wholesome attitude to women in general, but it's very difficult to tell, since so much of the details of these ancient cults have been expunged from the record*. Interesting to note that the cult of Attis and Cybele rather reverses the role of patriarchal religions, since its hero figure castrates himself in his devotion to the goddess!

*Like to have some input from Rhiannon, horsethorn and Owlswing on this, because I don't claim to be an expert.

[ippy]

I think you should be more precise in your use of language. You seem to be using the word "religion" as a synonym for "belief in the supernatural or spiritual". Such beliefs of course can't be proved - they may be the most important part of religion for some people, particularly those who are hung up on the idea of 'heavenly rewards', but as wiggi has pointed out, many religions have a much more complex function than this. I've known some people who choose the kind of Christian church they go to, not because they have any fervent belief, but because they like the kind of rituals offered in the services, and they like the social life.

Yes I would agree with you about the social side for people that enjoy their reinforcement meetings, reinforcing their, using the usually understood colloqueal description of, 'religious beliefs', religion.

Yes there is a need, a special human need to have ritual for special occasions, that's undeniable.

Much as you probably don't agree with me I can't see belief in the magical, mythical and superstition based parts of their beliefs as anything more than bullshit, as in that old well known wise old army saying bullshit baffles brains.

(No spell check on my tablet so you've got the best I can offer), not my strong suit.

I've had this before about using the word religion as a cover for all, I think the context of the words conveyed by the poster is usually enough to make most posts understandable, without having to write a near thesis about exactly which minute detail of religion, belief or faith one is referring to?

I mostly go along with NS but find his posts, which I'm sure are very correct, to long winded and laboureous for me.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

#202 I'm not an expert on ancient pagan religion by any means, Dicky; Owlswing might be a better ask. But there's certainly a suggestion that pagan religions were generally more favourable to women - not always. For example, Peter Beresford Ellis makes the point that women enjoyed near equal status in both Irish pagan religion and society and in the Celtic Christianity that succeeded it and it was only when Rome took over the Celtic church that the equality ended. And Bettany Hughes covered in the Seven Ages of Britain how pagan Anglo-Saxon women enjoyed a status and protection in law that was lost to their Christian descendants until the late nineteenth century.

One interesting idea I've also heard (from Hughes again among others) is that the very ancient cults of the Goddess as a fecund, voluptuous representative of the bounty of the earth was replaced by warrior sky gods as we moved from a hunter gatherer society to an agrarian one; as we became increasingly tribal and had land to fight over we wanted gods that would be on our side in battle.

All that said, there's so much we don't know and it's naive to think we recreate an ancient equal faith in neo-paganism any more than modern Christianity resembles the early church. Gender, equality and rights are human concepts and like all human concepts they very often end up in a bloody mess. For example, you have the refusal by Z Budapest to allow trans women to take part in a women-only ritual; some agreed with her, most didn't. And I personally feel the symbolism of the cup and athame in Wicca to belong with notions about male and female that I don't find particularly equal or indeed helpful.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

This is post 205, and we are on to page 9, quite a nice discussion we are having, some might call it, rather scholarly

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

This is post 205, and we are on to page 9, quite a nice discussion we are having, some might call it, rather scholarly

Gonnagle.

You're entitled to your view Gonners, but scholarly?

ippy

[Owlswing]

#202 I'm not an expert on ancient pagan religion by any means, Dicky; Owlswing might be a better ask. But there's certainly a suggestion that pagan religions were generally more favourable to women - not always. For example, Peter Beresford Ellis makes the point that women enjoyed near equal status in both Irish pagan religion and society and in the Celtic Christianity that succeeded it and it was only when Rome took over the Celtic church that the equality ended. And Bettany Hughes covered in the Seven Ages of Britain how pagan Anglo-Saxon women enjoyed a status and protection in law that was lost to their Christian descendants until the late nineteenth century.

One interesting idea I've also heard (from Hughes again among others) is that the very ancient cults of the Goddess as a fecund, voluptuous representative of the bounty of the earth was replaced by warrior sky gods as we moved from a hunter gatherer society to an agrarian one; as we became increasingly tribal and had land to fight over we wanted gods that would be on our side in battle.

All that said, there's so much we don't know and it's naive to think we recreate an ancient equal faith in neo-paganism any more than modern Christianity resembles the early church. Gender, equality and rights are human concepts and like all human concepts they very often end up in a bloody mess. For example, you have the refusal by Z Budapest to allow trans women to take part in a women-only ritual; some agreed with her, most didn't. And I personally feel the symbolism of the cup and athame in Wicca to belong with notions about male and female that I don't find particularly equal or indeed helpful.

You will get no argument from Owlswing about any of this post - very succinct summation of the introduction of Christian mysogyny; many Pagans believe that the story of the Virgin was introduced to counteract the pagan resentment and refusal to accept the male dominance in Christianity.

[Dicky Underpants]

Much as you probably don't agree with me I can't see belief in the magical, mythical and superstition based parts of their beliefs as anything more than bullshit, as in that old well known wise old army saying bullshit baffles brains.

ippy

No - as I keep pointing out - that is where I largely do agree with you (except that the function of myth in the scholarly sense is a bit more subtle than 'something that is untrue'). The trouble is, there is a tendency for you to try to reduce everything in religion to this (though I see that you've tried a bit more of a balanced approach above).

No doubt the 'spiritual' side of things is the peg on which everything else hangs for most people, and if you were to take away the peg then the whole apparatus would eventually collapse - in the meantime, the social manifestations of religion remain, and are likely so to do for a very long time.

[Dicky Underpants]

I've had this before about using the word religion as a cover for all, I think the context of the words conveyed by the poster is usually enough to make most posts understandable, without having to write a near thesis about exactly which minute detail of religion, belief or faith one is referring to?

ippy

It's quite simple - when you're referring to the unprovable, invisible, and probably nonsensical aspects of a religion, use words like 'supernatural' or 'spiritual'. If you're talking about the way religion works in society - something that can be seen and proved - you could say something like 'religion in its social aspect'.

[Hope]

But there's certainly a suggestion that pagan religions were generally more favourable to women - not always. For example, Peter Beresford Ellis makes the point that women enjoyed near equal status in both Irish pagan religion and society and in the Celtic Christianity that succeeded it and it was only when Rome took over the Celtic church that the equality ended.

It is interesting how you have had to move from the general to the specific to make this point, Rhi.  As most of the Christians here have said themselves, the Roman Church has a lot to answer for in regard to a whole host of issues - but note that Augustine was sent to Britain specifically to combat what the Roman church saw as heresy, even though the Celtic version you refer to had probably been around for as long as the Roman one anyway.

And Bettany Hughes covered in the Seven Ages of Britain how pagan Anglo-Saxon women enjoyed a status and protection in law that was lost to their Christian descendants until the late nineteenth century.

Unfortunately, the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britian (England) long after Augustine arrived and established the Roman version.  They therefore assimilated the version that they met - thus overriding their own 'Celtic-like' attitudes to women.

One interesting idea I've also heard (from Hughes again among others) is that the very ancient cults of the Goddess as a fecund, voluptuous representative of the bounty of the earth was replaced by warrior sky gods as we moved from a hunter gatherer society to an agrarian one; as we became increasingly tribal and had land to fight over we wanted gods that would be on our side in battle.

I've heard that too, but I'd suggest that the naturew of the Hindu pantheon tends to suggest otherwise.  From what I understand, the two styles of divinity run parallel to each other there, and predate many European religious ideas by some millennia.

[Rhiannon]

None of which seems remotely relevant, Hope.

[Owlswing]

None of which seems remotely relevant, Hope.

When has Hope ever allowed relevance to interfere with his "total bullshit" school of refutatio n of any arugument that he doesn't like. (see the thread on reducing numbers of Christians)

[ippy]

No - as I keep pointing out - that is where I largely do agree with you (except that the function of myth in the scholarly sense is a bit more subtle than 'something that is untrue'). The trouble is, there is a tendency for you to try to reduce everything in religion to this (though I see that you've tried a bit more of a balanced approach above).

No doubt the 'spiritual' side of things is the peg on which everything else hangs for most people, and if you were to take away the peg then the whole apparatus would eventually collapse - in the meantime, the social manifestations of religion remain, and are likely so to do for a very long time.

It looks to me that as you say we agree about how we both draw or have come to the same conclusions about religious belief.

I do think long drawn discussions about religious faith, belief or religion in general however this type of thing is categorised, lends it more credibility than is warranted, and because that's my understanding of these rather strange beliefs, strange, but not so strange purely in the terms of how many people really believe this stuff, this is why I purposely make the effort when exchanging views about this subject, to avoid going into something like a treatise about something that seems to me to be so obviously man made and the final confirmation for me is when it's followed up by the absence of any viable evidence that would or could back these ideas up. 

In short, I deliberately try to keep it short, which I suppose it's inevitable that short will draw in the odd semanticist, emphasis on the odd.

ippy

[ippy]

It's quite simple - when you're referring to the unprovable, invisible, and probably nonsensical aspects of a religion, use words like 'supernatural' or 'spiritual'. If you're talking about the way religion works in society - something that can be seen and proved - you could say something like 'religion in its social aspect'.

Thanks D U I've taken that in and l'll use that.

ippy