Christian Patriarchy.

[Greatest I am]

Christian Patriarchy.

Eve ate first from the Tree of Knowledge and became conscious of morality. Why did she eat before Adam? Here she was, the first Goddess, having to decide the most important Laws governing the world. She must decide to follow God or to lead humankind.

Armed with the knowledge to recognise Good and Evil, she recognised that humankind should have a God that was human; not some alien God. The physical universe would be for humankind, and ruled under a human moral code of ethics.

She chose “adam”, a Jewish term for society, to be Adam. The first man and an example to mankind. The Bible states that Adam was to reign over Eve; that she was to be submissive.

The Christian interpretation of the Bible must have been inaccurate. Christianity translated the Jewish scriptures and reversed the original description that described Adam and Eve as being equal.

Is male dominance natural for our species, or has male dominance simply portrayed itself that way? Has Christianity helped to create a patriarchal society where women, like Eve, are expected to be submissive?

Eve made her choice at a time when might made right and physical strength was required because of the conditions at hand. Men seem unable to now get away from that notion and this is shown by the strife and political instability throughout the world.

Is it time for humankind to go to a matriarchal society; both at the political level and at the religious level?

Would you support forced government and religious --- Affirmative action?

Regards
DL

 

[Pineal]

Is it time for humankind to go to a matriarchal society; both at the political level and at the religious level?

yes, I'd throw the balance the other way for a while.

Would you support forced government and religious --- Affirmative action

I am not sure what power I would be supporting. The main power is still in the hands of men.

 

[Greatest I am]

yes, I'd throw the balance the other way for a while.

Good.

I am not sure what power I would be supporting. The main power is still in the hands of men.

Who has the bulk of the economic wealth, if they choose to take power?

Women.

If we are all truly men, we will repent of our ways, stop our oppression of women and give them justice?

Regards
DL

 

[Pineal]

Who has the bulk of the economic wealth, if they choose to take power?

Women.

If we are all truly men, we will repent of our ways, stop our oppression of women and give them justice?

Regards
DL

I don't think women have the bulk of economic wealth. If you could link me to something supporting this. Or perhaps you are assessing economic wealth in a different way.

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't think women have the bulk of economic wealth. If you could link me to something supporting this. Or perhaps you are assessing economic wealth in a different way.

http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#wealth

Wealth
Although men earn most of the wealth, it is women who control and spend the majority of wealth. Fortune magazine reports that 65% of US wealth is owned by women [Fortune Magazine].

Regards
DL

 

[Pineal]

http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm#wealth

Wealth
Although men earn most of the wealth, it is women who control and spend the majority of wealth. Fortune magazine reports that 65% of US wealth is owned by women [Fortune Magazine].

Regards
DL

I am skeptical about these facts. I checked the link and am not yet impressed. I did a search at Fortune magazine and could not find the article. It could easily be there, but the search words were rather common, given the nature of the magazine.

And even if it is true that women are spending more, that does not necessarily mean they have more. Who has the final control over that wealth. IOW, for example, if women stopped spending on those things they are supposed to, would the major wage earners intervene.

 

[Greatest I am]

I am skeptical about these facts. I checked the link and am not yet impressed. I did a search at Fortune magazine and could not find the article. It could easily be there, but the search words were rather common, given the nature of the magazine.

And even if it is true that women are spending more, that does not necessarily mean they have more. Who has the final control over that wealth. IOW, for example, if women stopped spending on those things they are supposed to, would the major wage earners intervene.

An economy does not care who owns the wealth. It just wants to see it adding value by movement. Women make it move.

Need I say more?

Regards
DL

 

[Pineal]

An economy does not care who owns the wealth. It just wants to see it adding value by movement. Women make it move.

Need I say more?

Regards
DL

Sure, you need, in terms of onus, to demonstrate that women have more of the wealth. And if you are right, then they have more of the power, so they need no one's support to move towards matriarchy and if they don't then they are making a choice not to.

But I am extremely skeptical they have the wealth. Men earn more and men are in more top positions at every level of earning.

If we mean the money that these men allow their wives/women to use in specific ways, the women are not really free to use that wealth.

Slaves in Rome, the higher up one, may have spent more money then their masters, dealing with the day to day running of the households. Coins moved through their fingers, but they were not wealthy.

But anyway, I need to see some data.

 

[Greatest I am]

Sure, you need, in terms of onus, to demonstrate that women have more of the wealth. And if you are right, then they have more of the power, so they need no one's support to move towards matriarchy and if they don't then they are making a choice not to.

But I am extremely skeptical they have the wealth. Men earn more and men are in more top positions at every level of earning.

If we mean the money that these men allow their wives/women to use in specific ways, the women are not really free to use that wealth.

Slaves in Rome, the higher up one, may have spent more money then their masters, dealing with the day to day running of the households. Coins moved through their fingers, but they were not wealthy.

But anyway, I need to see some data.

If you need more data to know that women have been oppressed then you will never find it.

You just go ahead and hide behind numbers and ignore the morality and injustice we continue to show women.

Regards
DL

 

[Jeeves]

Christian Patriarchy.
Is male dominance natural for our species, or has male dominance simply portrayed itself that way?

We can't really say what arrangement is "natural" to our species, since we have been experimenting with various social organizations for a long time, and have yet to choose one that can be described as the human norm.
Early peoples were probably all organized along similar lines as the modern family, since they were small, closely related groups. In that situation, you don't usually see a clear dominance of one gender over the other, but rather separate, well-defined, interdependent, mutually esteemed roles, with a hierarchy of females and another of males.

Has Christianity helped to create a patriarchal society where women, like Eve, are expected to be submissive?

No. The patriarchal organization of societies predates Christianity by thousands of years, on at least four continents, three of which never had Christianity till the Europeans beat it into them. It goes back to the dawn of agriculture (which is the mythological reference point of the Eden story). Once land became the central to economic life, the ownership, cultivation and inheritance of land was crucial to the social structure. Men of 'substance' needed to sire as many children as possible (for labour, barter, alliances and military service) and to ascertain that the sons to whom they would leave their wealth were of the same DNA (blood, to them). So they had to control - own - the baby-making apparatus.
Also, warlike or at-risk tribes over-value males, because so many are killed at an early age, often before they are able to reproduce.

Eve made her choice at a time when might made right and physical strength was required because of the conditions at hand.

Small discrepancy here. Eve was a 4' tall black woman somewhere in the African veldt, whose mate was not much bigger or stronger (but unencumbered by babies) and neither of them made a significant "choice". They lived as best they could from day to day and adapted to whatever conditions prevailed.

Men seem unable to now get away from that notion

Nobody gives up power willingly; nobody in power believes that someone else would wield it better. But humans can sometimes achieve compromise, moderation, and even a measure of justice.

and this is shown by the strife and political instability throughout the world.

Well, that, and being a large, fierce, clever, superbly armed, insatiable, overly prolific predator on ever-more-limited territory.

Is it time for humankind to go to a matriarchal society; both at the political level and at the religious level?

Be worth a try. Nothing else has worked.

Would you support forced government and religious --- Affirmative action?

Sure. What government is going to lay its burden down at the feet of the grandmothers? (Actually, many First Nations have female elders in responsible positions; the number may be increasing, and the results, so far, look positive. Too early to tell.)

 

[kx000]

Christian Patriarchy.

Eve ate first from the Tree of Knowledge and became conscious of morality. Why did she eat before Adam? Here she was, the first Goddess, having to decide the most important Laws governing the world. She must decide to follow God or to lead humankind.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. The apple represents who? what? when? where? why? how? Eve brought lust of this shiny red fruit to her husband. Why? Because it was shiny and red. She could have eaten of any tree. She wouldn't have ever dared touch it if that Serpent Satan didn't lie straight to her face. Why didn't she just ask to grow one of her own? I don't know.

Armed with the knowledge to recognise Good and Evil, she recognised that humankind should have a God that was human; not some alien God.

When God says to who overcomes I will allow to freely eat of the tree of life is basically saying ask and I will answer. Even ate of the tree of knowledge, God's tree of knowledge, now she must overcome.

The physical universe would be for humankind, and ruled under a human moral code of ethics.

We are doing a piss poor job. God has golden standards, we are not meeting them.

She chose “adam”, a Jewish term for society, to be Adam. The first man and an example to mankind. The Bible states that Adam was to reign over Eve; that she was to be submissive.

She brought original sin to Adam, that is all.

The Christian interpretation of the Bible must have been inaccurate. Christianity translated the Jewish scriptures and reversed the original description that described Adam and Eve as being equal.

They are like fire and water.

Is male dominance natural for our species, or has male dominance simply portrayed itself that way? Has Christianity helped to create a patriarchal society where women, like Eve, are expected to be submissive?

Male dominance is physical, that is all. Women carry children. A man is to find a woman and protect her forever and ever, thats how I see it at least.

 

[kx000]

An economy does not care who owns the wealth. It just wants to see it adding value by movement. Women make it move.

Need I say more?

Regards
DL

Wealth is generated not created. We do not need investors, just 100 men in need of food and shelter, and 100 men willing to work for food and shelter. And if they are denied that food and shelter then they ought to demand it.

 

[Greatest I am]

We can't really say what arrangement is "natural" to our species, since we have been experimenting with various social organizations for a long time, and have yet to choose one that can be described as the human norm.
Early peoples were probably all organized along similar lines as the modern family, since they were small, closely related groups. In that situation, you don't usually see a clear dominance of one gender over the other, but rather separate, well-defined, interdependent, mutually esteemed roles, with a hierarchy of females and another of males.



No. The patriarchal organization of societies predates Christianity by thousands of years, on at least four continents, three of which never had Christianity till the Europeans beat it into them. It goes back to the dawn of agriculture (which is the mythological reference point of the Eden story). Once land became the central to economic life, the ownership, cultivation and inheritance of land was crucial to the social structure. Men of 'substance' needed to sire as many children as possible (for labour, barter, alliances and military service) and to ascertain that the sons to whom they would leave their wealth were of the same DNA (blood, to them). So they had to control - own - the baby-making apparatus.
Also, warlike or at-risk tribes over-value males, because so many are killed at an early age, often before they are able to reproduce.



Small discrepancy here. Eve was a 4' tall black woman somewhere in the African veldt, whose mate was not much bigger or stronger (but unencumbered by babies) and neither of them made a significant "choice". They lived as best they could from day to day and adapted to whatever conditions prevailed.



Nobody gives up power willingly; nobody in power believes that someone else would wield it better. But humans can sometimes achieve compromise, moderation, and even a measure of justice.



Well, that, and being a large, fierce, clever, superbly armed, insatiable, overly prolific predator on ever-more-limited territory.



Be worth a try. Nothing else has worked.



Sure. What government is going to lay its burden down at the feet of the grandmothers? (Actually, many First Nations have female elders in responsible positions; the number may be increasing, and the results, so far, look positive. Too early to tell.)

Thanks for this. Well put.

You are right about elders.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. The apple represents who? what? when? where? why? how? Eve brought lust of this shiny red fruit to her husband. Why? Because it was shiny and red. She could have eaten of any tree. She wouldn't have ever dared touch it if that Serpent Satan didn't lie straight to her face. Why didn't she just ask to grow one of her own? I don't know.



When God says to who overcomes I will allow to freely eat of the tree of life is basically saying ask and I will answer. Even ate of the tree of knowledge, God's tree of knowledge, now she must overcome.



We are doing a piss poor job. God has golden standards, we are not meeting them.



She brought original sin to Adam, that is all.



They are like fire and water.



Male dominance is physical, that is all. Women carry children. A man is to find a woman and protect her forever and ever, thats how I see it at least.

Yes. Simplistic and chauvinistic.

Regards
DL