Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote:Why have (the concept of) Satan and women been demonized for trying to liberate mankind from ignorance? And how can we be so primitive as to continue promoting such nonsense through religion to this day?

Latency. Why, then human beings are getting taller, are there still some very short people? Same answer.

Religion will gradually die out but it will take a long time due to the momentum of the past. Just a few hundred years ago it was considered okay to burn intelligent women as witches. Humanity has advanced greatly, both mentally and morally, in a very short time in historical terms. It's understandable that religions would defend their existence against secular dismantling.

Ever since Copernicus and Galileo, religions have been forced to revise their claims after being proved wrong by rigorous experiments and observation. What is left? In terms of their lobbying it appears that being religious today means you main concerns are homosexuals, transsexuals, young women's clothes, women seeking abortion, and old people seeking relief from slow, agonising deaths. Religion's history is one of bullying the weakest and most vulnerable. A Darwinian memetic adaptation perhaps?

However, it's easy for educated modern people to scoff at the ideas of the ancients, as if nothing they had to say was of any but historical or ethnographic interest. This is what the white invaders did in the Americas and Australia - they considered the indigenous people to be ignorant savages. Yet how different might our circumstances be today if we had shown them enough respect to learn from their understanding of how natural environments work? What wisdom and knowledge of less ancient cultures will we ignore now? Not just ideas spawned in the middle east two thousand years ago, but the ideas of all ancient cultures throughout history.

Logically each culture would have its "best ideas" - with a unique understanding of their place and circumstances that can potentially provide valuable information for societies open to leaning.

Lacewing wrote: Well my point isn't actually about a particular story -- which would simply end up in argument about story details.

I see that, and I wasn't blaming you; just answering Dalek on the subject of the bounds of discussion. But that particular story is so iconic, it can't help but stir up the same controversy each time. I get annoyed with the controversy because it's generally based on a fundamental misconception.

Rather, I'm referring to an attitude, which surely isn't unfamiliar, in regard to the "evil" assigned to those who extend beyond traditional ideas of what is commanded by god. Any religion or story will do. I just picked a simple example. Sorry if it wasn't factual enough. My focus is on the title of this thread... and I do believe it's a valid observation.

Well, maybe not quite. Some religions are more restrictive, more authoritarian than others. However, the attitude does run through all of civilization.
Religion is not the object; it is one of the more effective tools. The object is power. Civilization is pyramidal in structure. Unruly lower echelons would destabilize it and knock off the peak. Therefore, the peons must be trained early in life to obedience and order and conformity. How else persuade them to travel half-way around the world to die in rat-infested ships?

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: It's odd that so many posts begin with unsupported bizarre or idiosyncratic assertions.

What's odd about it? To say it is odd seems like an unsupported, bizarre assertion, but at least it's not really idiosyncratic.

Satan and women been demonized for trying to liberate mankind from ignorance

Think about it!
Where and by whom have women been demonised for trying to liberate mankind?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: [ Satan and women been demonized for trying to liberate mankind from ignorance ]

Think about it!
Where and by whom have women been demonised for trying to liberate mankind?

The reference was to Genesis. In Christian tradition, the serpent in the Eden story is generally identified with Satan, who doesn't actually appear as a character until the book of Job. On the other hand, the writer of second Genesis (not the first one) explicitly blames the woman for both allowing herself to be persuaded to take the forbidden fruit and giving it to her husband. (Adam's defense is: "Huh? I just eat whatever she gives me." God accepted it, and by some ineffable divine logic, put him in charge.) This is what GIA is griping about all the time.

The misunderstanding comes from calling that off-limits plant The Tree of Knowledge, and running off with the idea that it had something to do with mitigating human ignorance. It didn't. It was the The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the fruit thereof condemned man to the next level of consciousness. No longer carefree and natural like the other animals; now they had an awareness that put them on a footing with the gods "They have become like us." And they had to be removed from the garden, to prevent them going after the Tree of Life, and gaining immortality.

It was never about knowledge; it was about power, even then.
Prehistorically, it was more likely about the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural society. (The lost age always looks more golden in hindsight that it looked close-up.)

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Where and by whom have women been demonised for trying to liberate mankind?

In answer to your question: In many areas of life, and by men.

The most widely-known "place" is in the story of Adam and Eve, when Eve shares the forbidden apple with Adam that "opens his eyes". By telling such a story in such a way, the woman is being blamed for bringing a forbidden awareness to the man. This simple notion has branded women ever since. All throughout religions, women have been accused of leading man astray from god's plan (or in one form or another), and their intuitive and insightful abilities have been squashed, and brought torture upon them. In some places they are denied education... or even to speak freely... or dance. Most men do not like being bested by a woman, so they find ways of preventing it, and demonizing women's actions is a frequent way of doing so. Rather than realizing and utilizing the abilities that women offer for EXPANDING mankind beyond (and liberating mankind from) the lop-sided ego-bound creations of a male-dominated world, any voices that speak in a way to suggest broader awareness are ridiculed and, if possible, silenced in order to keep the status quo.

Skip wrote: The reference was to Genesis. In Christian tradition, the serpent in the Eden story is generally identified with Satan, who doesn't actually appear as a character until the book of Job. On the other hand, the writer of second Genesis (not the first one) explicitly blames the woman for both allowing herself to be persuaded to take the forbidden fruit and giving it to her husband. (Adam's defense is: "Huh? I just eat whatever she gives me." God accepted it, and by some ineffable divine logic, put him in charge.) This is what GIA is griping about all the time.

The misunderstanding comes from calling that off-limits plant The Tree of Knowledge, and running off with the idea that it had something to do with mitigating human ignorance. It didn't. It was the The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the fruit thereof condemned man to the next level of consciousness. No longer carefree and natural like the other animals; now they had an awareness that put them on a footing with the gods "They have become like us." And they had to be removed from the garden, to prevent them going after the Tree of Life, and gaining immortality.

It was never about knowledge; it was about power, even then.
Prehistorically, it was more likely about the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural society. (The lost age always looks more golden in hindsight that it looked close-up.)

I don't know how accurate a synopsis this is, Skip, but I found it a good read.

Gen III- 11 - And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?; -12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: - 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. - 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Yup. It is a good read.

Skip wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: [ Satan and women been demonized for trying to liberate mankind from ignorance ]

Think about it!
Where and by whom have women been demonised for trying to liberate mankind?

The reference was to Genesis. In Christian tradition, the serpent in the Eden story is generally identified with Satan, who doesn't actually appear as a character until the book of Job. On the other hand, the writer of second Genesis (not the first one) explicitly blames the woman for both allowing herself to be persuaded to take the forbidden fruit and giving it to her husband. (Adam's defense is: "Huh? I just eat whatever she gives me." God accepted it, and by some ineffable divine logic, put him in charge.) This is what GIA is griping about all the time.

The misunderstanding comes from calling that off-limits plant The Tree of Knowledge, and running off with the idea that it had something to do with mitigating human ignorance. It didn't. It was the The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the fruit thereof condemned man to the next level of consciousness. No longer carefree and natural like the other animals; now they had an awareness that put them on a footing with the gods "They have become like us." And they had to be removed from the garden, to prevent them going after the Tree of Life, and gaining immortality.

It was never about knowledge; it was about power, even then.
Prehistorically, it was more likely about the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural society. (The lost age always looks more golden in hindsight that it looked close-up.)

I'm sorry you think you've had to repeat this old mythical chestnut. I know all this, as you might have guessed.

But really - no one is demonizing "satan" or "women" FOR trying to "liberate" human kind.

It's worth mentioning, as you allude to it, that "Satan" was not the "serpent" from Genesis, but one of God's 'servants' or angels who, in Job, makes both god and Satan look like a pair or purely evil persons, utterly unworthy of worship or praise. I do not see Satan even pretending to 'liberate' human kind; but simply following the instructions of God like a dutiful servant.
As for Genesis, God lays a trap, and creates a woman who has to know will take the bait. God is supposedly all powerful, all knowing (etc.), so has to have known what would happen. The woman is NEVER portrayed as trying to 'liberate', but obsessed with her curiosity and mischievousness falls into God's trap; who has designed and staged the entire event.

This story is nothing more than a warning for followers of religion and other children to do as you are told, and mind your own fucking business. Women are demonized for being out of control and in need of a form hand. And Satan is not in this story.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: But really - no one is demonizing "satan" or "women" FOR trying to "liberate" human kind.

Christians do blame Satan and Eve for original sin (which will eventually necessitate lynching that nice blue-eyed Jew), and use this story as one of their major touch-stones. Those opposed to original sin look to the same story, either to show Satan and Eve as bringing understanding, and even free will, to mankind, or to show God up as a bad parents who puts his children in a no-win bind.
Hence my contention that this [oft-heard] criticism is based on a fundamental factual error concerning the text.
I keep saying it's not about the liberating kind of knowledge at all.

As for Genesis, God lays a trap, and creates a woman who has to know will take the bait. God is supposedly all powerful, all knowing (etc.),

No, he didn't and wasn't. Not in that story, and not in that time period. Once he discovers what's happened, he has no choice but to banish his pets. The omni- promotions came with the triumph of Christianity. The god we hear about now has gone through several transformations since the god of Genesis.

This story is nothing more than a warning for followers of religion and other children to do as you are told, and mind your own fucking business.

No, it's one of the oldest myths of civilization. Like all myths and legends, it's been interpreted along the way - by the victors.
How the story itself is misconstrued, misquoted, misapplied or deliberately twisted by Christians has nothing to do with its Sumerian roots.

Skip wrote:... Once he discovers what's happened, he has no choice but to banish his pets. ...

Not quite I thought, the banishment was due to us then maybe thinking about trying out the fruit on the Tree of Life?
p.s.
Ah! Sorry, just saw your prior post.

Harbal wrote:I don't recommend it. The last time I did that I was thrown out of the garden centre and got a visit from the police.

Proper

The old ones are best. How you can spot a true Brit on the internut(I know, I know, there are Canucks and Aussies and Kiwis as well).

Arising_uk wrote: The old ones are best.

Well you have to keep something in reserve, to fall back on.

Arising_uk wrote:

Skip wrote:... Once he discovers what's happened, he has no choice but to banish his pets. ...

Not quite I thought, the banishment was due to us then maybe thinking about trying out the fruit on the Tree of Life?
p.s.
Ah! Sorry, just saw your prior post.

Somehow, the various transcibers and translators along the way have failed to eradicate that one line where god isn't unique, but a member of a pantheon: "like us" . (I suppose none of them dared change a sacred text once they'd received it from an archbishop who had missed the oversight.)
Humans were made to help the gods with the labour of terraforming, so the sweat of your brow part was probably original. It's possible that the second Genesis - the garden and rib sequence - was imported from a different oral tradition. I wish I hadn't given away my Asimov's Guide!

What?

http://www.davidmccallumfansonline.com/6thfinger9.jpg

http://img.rp.vhd.me/4676603_l4.jpg

Melchior wrote:What?

Could you say something besides "What?"

I don't click on links -- or go read (or look at) things that people want me to. Can you communicate more fully in your own words for the sake of interactive discussion?