On Oct 4, 5:14*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Oct 3, 4:21 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
Though a card-carrying agnostic, I still find meaningful this
passage from Ecclesiastes (part of the Hebrew Bible, for those
unfamiliar with the term).

Maybe those Bible-thumping global warming skeptics should actually
READ their Bible!

===================

When God created the first person, God* showed (that person)* all
the trees in the Garden of Eden and said: "See how beautiful and
perfect are My works! All that I have created, I have created for
you.** Therefore be ever mindful: Do not abuse or desolate My
world. For if you abuse or desolate it, there is no one to repair
it after you."

====================

*My edits. The original uses "he" and "him"

** Er... a little human-centered, but whattheheck

1. You only get partial credit for confusing the Midrash with the
Tanakh.

2. Many would consider it presumptuous for a lay person to "edit"
semi-holy texts.

It's done all the time these days, depending on the congregation and/
or the individual. *Those who wrote the Bible were male and used male
pronouns. *That was then, and this is now. *Doesn't change the
"holiness" or "semi-holiness" in the least.

Only by the linguistic buffoons who confuse "gender" with "sex." Nouns in
many languages have "gender". That these genders, which have NOTHING to do
with the sex of the object, are called "masculine," "feminine," and "neuter"
and agitate the ignorant. If the nouns were assigned designations of "A,"
"B," and "C," these ignoramuses would have nothing to get exercised over.

While I agree that interpretation is "done all the time," interpretation
like you illustrate is only done by a small section of the religious
community. Specifically, in the Christian Protestant tradition
interpretation is the province of the individual guided by the Holy Spirit.

Higgs Boson wrote:
While I agree that interpretation is "done all the time,"
interpretation like you illustrate is only done by a small section
of the religious community. Specifically, in the Christian
Protestant tradition interpretation is the province of the
individual guided by the Holy Spirit. This is NOT the case in the
Catholic tradition, Judaism, or Islam.

Respectfully disagree. As women began to take an equal place in the
Christian and Jewish traditions -- not sure about Islam, but doubt it
-- pressure mounted to use gender-neutral terms for their Supreme
Being. It has become quite widespread, rather than, as you claim
"only done by a small section of the religious community"


I may learn something here! Can you give ONE instance of the Holy See
sanctioning "gender neutral" terms or any ruling by an Orthodox or
Conservative rabbinical bet din along the same lines? (I omit the Jewish
Reform movement inasmuch as they are really Jewish Unitarians.)

Now I was speaking of "interpretation" in general terms, not necessarily the
"gender" issue.

Some religious folks sometimes develop a parochial view of their faith. When
you're sitting in the sanctuary of a large Baptist church, where 3,000
co-religionists are all singing from the same page in the hymnal, you
sometime develop a somewhat contained view. There are more Catholics in
Mexico City today than Baptists that have ever lived!

So, when one speaks of "Christians," generally, one is speaking of Catholics
(plus Anglicans), what with 1.2 billion members it dwarfs the combined
Protestant community (400+ million). That said, I don't think the Catholic
hierarchy has much truck with this "equality" (in word or deed) silliness.

At least the Jewish position is somewhat defensible: Jews hold that men and
women are, most assuredly, equal but they have different (enforced) roles.

As to a larger pictu Males are more concerned with pomp and circumstance,
regalia, chain-of-command, order, precedence, etc. That is, men are more
"process" oriented. Females, conversely, are more "goal" oriented. Look at
the organizations that are predominately male: the military, organized
religions, police departments, even the Shriners with their weird hats. To
these groups, order, stability, and deference to superiors is the norm.

Now look at those organizations that are predominantly female. The only
permanent group I can think of is the League of Women Voters. Many
female-oriented organizations pop-up to address a community's problem, solve
the problem, then disappear. They don't have uniforms, bugle calls, banners,
flags, multiple awards, etc.

Anyway, above digression aside, some feel religions are merely following the
normal tendencies of the sexes.