Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Why Lie. The Role of Lies in Theology, Culture. Artful Dodges, Faking Certainty, Half Truths, Misleading Emphases. Expedience.

Updates:  Lying as artful dodge is a recurrent current media topic.

.........................................................................................

Make Your Bed and Lie in It
The Art of the Artful Dodge
Forms of Lying and Why 

Don't ask, don't tell
A good fare-thee-well

Why We Cheat, Even in our Questions

The artful dodge. As lawyers, we are taught to ask when a witness is caught in an inconsistency:  Were you lying then, or are you lying now? There can be no answer.  Each response is damning because the question was phrased in terms of the ultimate shock and awe:  a LIE. You can just hear your parent catching you in a whopper. Thee is a liar.  The asker knows the ploy -- that there is no answer. Is the asker ethical?

But does that simplistic analysis lead to a truth that is helpful to resolving the issue of responsibility.  No. Pursuing a lie can be a false exploitation tool.  An easy fix.  Prove the lie and you win. No. 

So: examine the reasons for the lie. The mere fact of it tells us nothing.

Some justifications, or excuses, as you decide:

1. You just don't want to be there, and want to get out of being in the spotlight as fast as you can.

Is that lie not really culpable, in terms of affect on others, because you just want out.  Just leave me alone.  That is a no-account question anyway.  Nobody else will be held responsible because of the ducking answer.  Did you make that shrimp dip?  Yeah. Ok.  Leave it alone. Don't follow it up. Raise an eyebrow maybe, when it comes in a plastic case that just fits; and ask about it later, in private, on your own.

Maybe recourse to small talk at some points in time is just so obnoxious, at the time, that the person regrets even coming. There is a point there. I came all this way, and that is what we are supposed to talk about that?  Start the discussion there, not about shrimp dip.  Point there.

2.  You have something serious to hide, that affects whether others are held responsible for what you are really responsible for.

Culpable. Different from #1.  The fate and perception of a third party is at stake.

But, did you make the shrimp dip that sickened everybody to death?  Then the answer makes a difference in terms of a lie.  If you say, not me.  I got it at the supermarket, and it was your stale stuff, bad idea. Obligation to come clean. Others' health is at stake in the future.

3.  Lie because there is no certainty either way, and lie becomes the assertion of certainty.

There is no way of proving what did happen, and the sources are tainted with age, unless you believe "inspiration" and God's hand at the umpteenth translator's typewriter.  So the lie becomes: we are indeed certain, and don the little red shoes.  No.  We are not.  Some may believe because of the inspiration business, others take a more pragmatic, enjoy the myth and follow the good precepts in life approach.  Not creedy.
 
4.  Lies don't last.  Intention do.

What does church say.   If I lie, I can repent. Gain the current benefit, and hope for no payback later. Everyone still remembers Peter. Lied because otherwise he would have been caught and ....  Flaw! But being sorry mitigates, especially if the lie stops.

5.  Lie for power's sake.

Saul-Paul.  No proof whatever of a "vision".  More like epilepsy.  But the vision idea set the stage for an entire religion takeover by those of Roman lockstep militarisma -- continuation of the Empire, re-employment down the road of all those left unemployed when the old pagan Empire fell.

Then go on with Paul and poor hapless Peter. The politically minded Paul eclipsed poor simple Peter in the power plays.  Most people who think of themselves as "Christian" are really "Paulian."  There are more alleged words of Paul in the commonly accepted Bible than words of either Jesus (the Vatican Library has the rest and they aren't letting them out for us to see, is that so?); or the brother of Jesus, James. James, the one who Knew,  because he was there, got discredited early by the Interloper Paul, and the Jewish-Roman problem took over his efforts; and Peter got dumped on after all.

The term "Christian' is a lie if it is to mean dominated by actual words and philosophy of J, as close as we can find -- with most records and fragments carefully hidden away, mystically concealed, secret knowledge idea conveniently shunted to history's dustbin.  Modern conservative evangelical Christian?  No dots to follow back on that one.

So, we are Paulians. Because poor, simple Peter lied, to save his skin, and then someone with political skills took over.

6. Cultural lies. Don't ask don't tell.  Can't be done.

If it is asked, go beyond the answer, to what the context is. If the purpose of the question is to exclude someone from any activity without further inquiry, it is wrong to ask. You are ruled by Category.   If the purpose of the question is to understand, and find ways to accept regardless of an initial shield-answer, is that human?

The lie.  Not simple. Not worth dismissing someone over.  Native Americans.  Put yourself in someone else's moccasins.  Who knows.

Leave the Institutional Church?  Your choice. Do you go because you are continuing a lie?  Do you leave because you are unwilling to continue a lie?  If you leave, where do you go when you are also devout, but not as to dogma.

Lie.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  But do not let sleeping dogma lie.  Is that so?  Now back to the real world.

Paulian not Christian.  James. Martin Luther had issues with a James. Martin Luther and Jimmy

James?  Brother of. The idea of James will not die. Even Charlemagne had a vision (so he said) of James. Shrine of St. James. St. James -- pilgrimage to Compostela, see ://www.rps.psu.edu/may99/compostela.html/  Perhaps a truer path lies (lies? Lies??) through James. James the Just.  Rewind! Rewind!

Bring him back. His ideas went East, didn't they? Find the Orthodox Liturgy of St. James, the most ancient of Christian liturgies - see ://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/lit-james.htm/  Eastern Orthodoxy. Need to know more. Why was it beaten out? Who is so certain? Who thought to "improve" and why? Did it? Who lied about James? Anybody?

7.  Never lie.  Never never never.  Zarathustra.  Zoroastrianism.  Basic precepts -- as pragmatic as we can find --

Good Reflection
Good Word
Good Deed

Herodotus is quoted discussing the Zoroastrians, at section 138 (which text?) -- need to look up the original -- "They do not utter dirty words and they believe “lying” is the worst in the world, next to lying, the put ‘borrowing,” because they believe debtors may be sometimes made to tell a lie."

More on Zarathustra, Zoroaster, at FN 1.  The section on the lie was most relevant here; and somewhat different from the Judaeo-Christian not bearing false witness -- that sounds like the only prohibition is only when one is a witness, saw something. Is that so, or too narrow?

Zoroastrianism was the "main religious system of ancient Iranians," and for several centuries, central to the culture. The system was not a formal religion, Zarathustra never claimed to be a prophet and no miracles were ascribed to him, but he urged the following of a Path: Fair use quote --
"Zarathustra, never ordered his followers to perform certain activities, but he recommended them to try to know the creator of the earth and heaven and adopt good manner, on the basis of their wisdom.  Therefore, Zarathustra was neither a prophet, nor we can call his spiritual path a “religion,” rather he was a thoughtful benevolent who recognized his God on the basis of his wisdom and never said he had been missioned to bring any message from God to human beings."
See ://www.zoroaster.net/indexe.htm/  Zoroastrians are known as Parsis in India. The philosophy originated in the Iran area, but was moved aside and became persecuted as pagan, unbelievers, with the conquests by Arab Muslims and supporting scripture, says the site.

One set of texts remain after the book-burnings and persecutions, this text known as the Gathas. divine songs so to speak, quoted at the site and available online. Lifetime:  birthdate and even the era are unknown because of the destruction, varying from 600-1000 BC to farther back -- an eye-popping 6000 BC.  See discussion at site. Where? Something like the Khorasan cities, and some are named that are unfamiliar so far. One thrust:  no support for Mithraism, a prominent religion of the time: In Mithra, there was no "oneness" of God, and other practices were disapproved.  See site, and Mithraism, Religion

Primary ideas for life. Noone is to be made dependent, noone is to be dependent. What about leveling a playing field for past abuses?  Not clear.  Zarathustra on lying.  Could any of us go one day without a single lie in act or omission? Criteria?  Come back, Zoroaster.

No wonder his ideas were so distorted, the path he advocated so destroyed.  He advocated no church, no building.  

Friday, November 19, 2010

Dominion. The Worst Concept in the World. The Wolf Totem Mindset in Control. When the Mindset is Tainted, So Is the Action

Construing "Dominion."  Etymology.
Some say it means we are in charge.
Are there limits? What to expect?

Update 6/2011.  The idea of value and autonomy to animal lives except as needed and humane for food, has legs, and fins, and feathers, and ... see http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-goldfish-20110627,0,6881137.story

What if one group asserts such dominion that the others diminish.

Think of spiritual guides. Our culture, others, have that idea.
 In other terms: What animal totem inspires the human to do that.




Perhaps "dominion" means something else. 
Domine. And "subdue"- sub Dieu; or the quiet seduce. 
In fact, it does.

A transliteration indeed says, u-kbsh-e, VKBShH or וכבשה"seduce"; tame;
and then u-rdu, VUrDV or ורבו"sway" or lead towards, gently; or mentor FN 1
Genesis 1:28

Contents:

I.  Overview - "Dominion",and its place in human - animal interaction 

II. "Dominion" means asserting control in the West's popular religious thought pattern.Take over. Exploitation is fine. But take another look:  Dominion stems from Domine --God. Take dominion is to act as the deity toward. If your deity protects, helps, sustains, then so do you as to those over whom you exercise dominion.  Subdue:  again, not overcome.  Sub-dieu. Under God. Same concept. From domine. Or subdue in the calming sense, seduce, lead away, tame, reduce intensity of.

Example of the West's "dominion" from the news:  The killing of a hero dog, see ://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/us/19dog.html?src=me/ That is sad but fine in the first form of "dominion.".  Its owner was temporarily absent, no-one knew who he was. So he died ("euthanized" we say wrongly, kidding ourselves. This excess-dog death was not for the good of this dog) in the control of the dogcatchers. As unclaimed, no-count animals do die. Who cares. An unacceptable attitude in the second form of dominion: act to protect, foster.

III.  Alternate Mindsets.  "Dominion" is not the Right to Exploit. See the Native American belief system, and our own Bible. Job 12:7-10 as a fast example.  Earthcare idea. A taming. A horse whisperer.

Does the Native American belief system overview provide some insight into this other direction. Dominion as an overcoming by force is a modern idea in changed definitions, but old in implementation.  That is what the West does. Explore the older roots:  "domine" as the meaning of dominion.  Be as the deity to the animals and plants, as the deity is to you -- help, foster, nourish. Not exploit. Regard, listen; not disregard if no profit to you.  Subdue, again not as force and conquer, but quiet, seduce, lead away, see ://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=subdue/  Or as one feeling "subdued" - calm, intensity reduced.
.
IV.  Either way, "totems", mythical belief anchors, spiritual guide ideas still play a role in both.  Look at Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts.  Wolf pack. What animal governs the drive du jour. Reverse the thought: look at the behavior first. What totem leads that person.

Profits, for example.  Put an animal in that. 

Then ask:  what Totem based on the behaviors we emulate now governs each of us, and the Majority in Washington DC Control.  Look at behaviors.  The Wolf.  Look at Native American lore for insight. The Wolf Pack has come to town.  Again. No other animal is as relentless, as efficient in achieving its own goals, as the wolf. And its own kind suffer. The Omegas of the pack are shut out, period. 

V. So, the Wolf Pack goes to Washington.  The Wolf Totem guides behavior. What now?  Omegas, and other prey, run.

VI.  Boredom Alert. Explore further; and expand from Genesis 1:28 to Genesis 1:26.  Here we lay out the steps to find and compare translations, transliterations, back to the Paleo-Hebrew on an amateur basis.  If you think you know the Bible, think again if you have not gone into the changes, comparisons, and seen the shaping that goes on. See also later sites found on this topic, and some closing thoughts.  No-one has "dominion" as it has been spun. Please tell Ben at the Vat.

...................................................................................................................................................

I.  Overview.  

Explore "Dominion" in Western Thought, including Genesis and its "mandate". What did it mean. Does it lead, for example, to obligation to no worry on climate change, ecology, the natural world. Or does it mean "be as the deity is to you" -- Domine, dominion.  If the deity is your help, your guide, your sustainer in trouble, is that the way to construe our dominion over the animal and plant world.

Explore Dominion in the alternative Native American view of life.  Mutuality. Human and animal worlds serve and respect each other, in their ways.  Look at subdue:  lead away, seduce. When you feel subdued, you are calm, in a state of reduced intensity. See the force of Rome over Gaul as one approach to subdue, but then the others: the calming. See://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subduehttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=66

What if one population goes overboard, takes over "dominion" at the expense of another, to exploit.  Have humans in the western cultures done that already. What if, of all the animals, bird groups out there, the humans follow the Wolf Pack Totem Goes Overboard.  
.
If any Totem or group Takes Charge to Exploit, are we are in trouble.

II. If we explore the idea of animal models, guide, 
is the Wolf the totem of the majority in Washington, again.

If so, what to expect.
Ask the Native Americans as a start.

Native American perspectives on responsibility, coexistence; our impact with "dominion"; and their demise

II.  Dominion Mindset:  Dominion as Right to Exploit --
A basic Western mindset error
.
If "Dominion" means asserting control, does the Native American belief system overview provide some insight into that. There would be variations among the different groups, but our understanding is that basic tenets cross from the coasts to the plains to the dry areas.  Look up earthcare at ://www.earthcare.org/cms/index.php/ and the explicitly religious angle for those who need specific "authorization" at ://www.earthcareonline.org/ or the more scientific at ://www.esa.int/esaLP/LPearthcare.html/

Then move from "caring for" to "learning from".

Follow along:  If animals speak and guide, even in Western theology (see Job 12:7-10 again), and as other systems develop the idea, an animal or bird is found to be the totem for a person; that person will emulate the characteristics of that totem, according to the belief system.  We still do it in Scouting. Go to politics:  do groups adopt a totem, in their way, as a motivator, example.

And a step further:  From observed behavior, can we surmise that the Wolf in particular is the Totem of the Majority in Washington again; and takes "Dominion" in an extreme direction. Go to Manataka * and find Wolf.  Find what to expect.


A.  Story.  Hero Dog Killed by Mistake. NYT 11/19/2010 at A1.
That is not mistake; but flawed Western mindset as to the role of animals.

No,  New York Times. The hero dog was not killed by mistake.  He was killed intentionally. Correct your story.

There was indeed a tawny guard dog who bravely confronted a suicide bomber at American military barracks near the Pakistani border, causing the detonation near the entrance but not inside.

He was given the canine equivalent of a ticker tape parade, adopted by nice people.  He got out of his yard, was caught by people who are supposed to do that, then was intentionally killed. That was that.

But not killed by mistake.  Euthanized intentionally. No mistake. Jam him in there. Boors watch as he goes. Another worthless breather of oxygen not profiting or loved by anyone in sight. And that is all that counts.  With no specific champion to save this one, around in time, just another lump of damp fur, still nose.

B.  Hero Dog was killed because that is what we do to animals that 
1) no-one successfully champions or 
2) profits from at the time.

The hero dog was killed by intent.  Intentionally.

We kill animals we do not want, or who do not produce profit to us. They are ours. We have dominion. Genesis says so, supposedly. They have no attributes that qualify them in our hierarchy that puts those without a)  furry ears or b) finny rib areas or c) feathers on rumps; on top. For all purposes. Any animal has no intrinsic right, no intrinsic value. Only a human can be a champion and must take specific steps each time to save this one or that.  Galling. No mistake.

Shall we consider this:  If only the Indians had won.  Pardon, the Native Americans, the Indigenous Peoples, here when we arrived.


Ignore Job, and the passage about talking to animals, learning from them.  Ignore "dominion" as "domine" in its root meaning, act as God does toward you (we like to think)-- a help, a guide, an inspiration.  Genesis and Job on humans and animals.  Not for profit.

III.  Alternate Mindsets.  "Dominion" is not the Right to Exploit

A.  Native American value systems, religious orientation.  
Pre-Christian, Non-Christian. 

These are of great value as we look back at our own system of systemic harm to any who dare to disagree.  See Western Ethnic Violence Timeline  How do other groups coexist with their world, do they seek to decimate, eradicate, wipe off the earth, others as evildoers; or do they have traditional enemies for turf, ongoing self-sustaining competitions, uses of resources that enable revitalization, not irrecoverable depletion for profit.  Rant, rant.

Native American cultures contain elements for a sustainable, and mutual-accommodation future.  The untrammeled capitalist would say, what I want matters and if I can get it for me, nuts to you.

See these sites for a sampling of what we Westerners lose by adopting that resource-exploitation view.  Overcoming and Killing Off?  Really?.
  •  Other living things are as valuable as ourselves, and needed to sustain the world
See this idea at Manataka American Indian Council at ://www.manataka.org/page291.html/  Quoted at the outset is Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself". He lived from 1819-1892. And lives, is that so?  Look at Job 12:7-10, best in the old transliteration at ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/job12.pdf

With the Job words about learning from the animals in mind, scroll down the Manataka site sound-bites in the contents, and first go past the contents to the longer narrative.

This nature-centeredness may seem foreign, but it is part of our own heritage. Look up Earthcare, for similar concepts. Animals, plants, we need them as they need us.Old ideas full circle. But too late? Animals?  On a par with humans, with differences so each needs the other? Literalists take comfort here and vet on your own.  The significance of the Manataka site is not the idea of animals as on a par with humans, but its compelling and measured narrative about ways of seeing and experiencing the world. Vet what you are taught, is that so?

The site incorporates ideas totally alien to us if we believe the Genesis as interpreted traditionally, that we are to have dominion, and that that is to be defined as take-over, use as desired, it's OURS.  God said so.  Nuts.  Think of your interactions with the animal world in another way: not as resources to be used and wasted as we whim this way or that; but an opportunity to learn, for guidance, for input as we consider next steps in our lives. 
  • Our obligation even under our own "Christian" heritage, broadly put,  is to foster the natural productivity of all living things, and on the earth - no exploitation or factory farms, is the next corrolary.
This is indeed what Genesis says, but later -- in Genesis 8:17.  

Purpose of the Ark:  The whole purpose of Buddy Noah bringing out the animals from the ark after the flood, was this:  so that they can  a) breed abundantly in the earth, and b) be fruitful and multiply upon the earth.  

Go look.  Go to the transliteration site that lets you see original meanings, as close as we can get.  Same thing this time as in the later variations and narratives.  See ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen8.pdf/  That means other life is for our stewardship, enabling, opening the way for animals to prosper.

B.  Can we absorb the Native American religious orientation:
sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships in animal-human interaction; 
and beyond the Boy Scout, Cub Scout level.

Let's get literal.  Many like that. This is not my orientation, but it seems to be widespread.
  • Breed abundantly in the earth.  Follow those dots: No artificial insemination on the factory farms, breeding mares as soon as one is stopped, start another. No puppy farms.  Ownership?  A limited license that excludes exploitation. Indians would (go to the Manatee site) take what they need in killing an animal for food, use the rest of its body all up for other needs like clothing, sewing, all that.  No waste; and gratitude to the animal for giving its life.  New idea there. No sport killing. 
  • Multiply upon the earth -- not in the cage?  Hah!  Literalism is indeed worth it. No exploitation for profit there.  Fowl, cattle, all creepies, rights to live and breed in the earth.
C.  No!  And again, NO!
Counterarguments in our Government Policy makers.  

The Shimkus Fallacy

Is it an insurance policy in Genesis 8:22, that folks recovered from the flood with a promise, as some -- was it in the House of Representatives, or a Senator? believe.  The obvious question is, how about fire next time; but for now, focus on those in our government saying that there is no global warming going on as caused by man because the deity said he would not ever again stop the presses and that as long as the earth is here, there will be seedtime and harvest, and so rape the hills because god won't care. 

Who was it who cites Genesis on climate change?   Yes, that was Illinois Republican Representative John Shimkus, see http://upcoming.current.com; or paste in our search, try /search?q=John+Shimkus+cites+Genesis+on+climate+change. Or go directly to http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44958.html/  See and hear the video at ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E&feature=player_embedded/  Infallible, unchanging; but he is referring to his interpretation, not wha' hoppen, is that so? Apply basic rules of evidence, even basic reason. Sigh.

D.  Yes. Our own culture echoes different thinking.
Look Again at The Wisdom of Dr. Doolittle, Peter Pan

Go further with another idea of animals and their role not only on earth, but in our lives. Skip the patronizing, even, and see our own beloved Dr. Doolittle in another light,  see Hugh Lofting's books online at http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Hugh_Lofting/The_Story_of_Doctor_Dolittle/.  See this Native American animals as spiritual guides site, at ://www.suite101.com/content/animal-guides-a25375/  Get familiar with the animals at the manataka.org site.  

Then, have a dream about a goldfish so grateful that it leaped about after you added water to its puddle on the road (?), or see a black squirrel, where there had always been gray? Or a shadowy coyote materialize and trot across the road, or a bear at your birdhouse? Stop just a while, and consider where your thoughts go. Was there, might there be, an intervention kind of idea going on, or do you squash the ant without thinking just because it was there.

Peter Pan.  


Children know things we don't any more, can communicate with animals as we can't any more. Do you have children?  If not, think back to your own childhood. A kind of racial memory of a better time?  No, says the Wolf:  force little John into the Bank!

IV.  Totem Now in DC Control -- The Wolf.  
The Wolf Pack has come to town. Again.

The Native American approach to sustainability, mutual respect for living creatures, was the Good News.  Now the Bad News.  The Dominion idea has taken over yet again, and perhaps the disaster of this as a human model is best understood (irony) by referring to the Native American general lore.

Ask, what animal -- if we apply the totem idea -- governs our country at this point.  Again. What totem is in charge in Washington.

We suggest the Wolf, and with great sadness.  Go to ://www.manataka.org/page236.html#WOLF/

V  The pattern of the Wolf
In politics, in religion.
Wolf Totem Pack Goes to Washington
  • Strong rules of behavior.  
  • Keeps out of the spotlight, doing its thing in the shadows where it is not seen. 
  • Alpha wolves are fixed at the top, and they are the ones who have the babies.  
  • Beta wolves beneath, and I guess they don't breed (or shouldn't, as human Betas are also treated), but are there to help with the Alpha pups.  
Then comes the kicker:  
  • There is an Omega wolf at the bottom.  Down there, last on this rigid hierarchical ladder of worth.  That Omega wolf stays there.  Identified, not getting food when food is scarce. The others, Alphas and Betas, will force the Omega wolf away.  Get back, Loretta. The Omega wolf is the scapegoat. Doomed to that role for life. Better to die quick?
The system is unrelenting, unflexible, and works so long as you are a wolf and not the Omega,
  • Each wolf knows its place and stays there. 
  • They unite to accomplish a common goal, and once focused and on the hunt, any prey will weary before the wolf tag-team does.  That is, once you are targeted, you lose. Period.  
  • A lone wolf means independence and freedom;  but beware thed wolf in a pack is community and that community is etched in stone. 
  • Stand your ground. 
  • Defend your boundaries. 
  • Use ritual to bind its members in the pack. Regular lunar howling ceremonies, says the site, as an example. 
So, what are the regular lunar howling ceremonies the Washington Wolf Pack engages in?  Give them a lame-duck session and they won't let anything good happen for the rest of the species that is not promoting the Wolf Pack itself.  

Wolf in sheep's clothing: the negotiator who knew all along he would never agree to that, but waits for the concession.  Werewolf.  Navajo idea of wolf as a witch who shape-changes. See ://www.wolfsongalaska.org/wolves_in_american_culture.html/

The wolfsongalaska site also notes that the wolf's culling of others keeps the others strong, which is a benefit in the long run.  The culling of others may weed out the sick so they do not breed their weakness, but culling also occurs as the identification of the Omega as the expendable Wolf at the bottom.  Dispose of it as well.

The Wolf is its own death panel. Do read that Wolf Song of Alaska site, Wolves in American Culture.  Love-hate relationship.  Fine if you are a wolf, not so good if you are not. Cooperating to achieve a goal is fine, but only if the goal helps sustainability.

Do the nots have rights?

No. The Omega wolf has no chance. Unyielding Order. The Wolf. Dominion in traditional but erroneous Western thought. The ultimate asserter of Dominion as right to exploit. Ranchers and Wyomingers perhaps in theory, who are also Wolves (I get what I want when I want it) in mindset, get so incensed that an animal does what they do, that they poison and shoot them. Dominion as "domine" or "of the god."  The helper, the sustainer, the user only of what is needed.

Foreign, non-wolves.  The virtues of the focused hunt are fine to other wolves. The rest of the world is prey.

The Wolf Way.  Order.  Firm, unyielding Order.  That is how to avert Chaos. 

Wolf Pack totem in Washington. Duck. Politics and totems. Fenrir. Wolf. Son of Loki.  See ://www.pantheon.org/articles/f/fenrir.html/  Note that there is no elephant and no donkey in the spiritual guide, totem department, see ://www.manataka.org/page291.html#_ANIMAL_TOTEMS/  

Now:  for Memes:  similar ideas popping up in many places, no connection between but a spontaneous whack-a-mole.  See FN 2 for a site addressing many of these issues, and in more scholarly detail.   A meme running is before you.

..............................
FN 1
 BOREDOM ALERT

This section is about issues in translating and transliterating in getting at meanings that led us to look at Dominion as a cultural anchor for the West, and why is is flawed.  Will that matter?  Probably not.

This section is not for the faint. It analyzes Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 1:28, where "dominion" has been used as the translation.

It is a step by step record of analyzing unfamiliar languages -- Hebrew, Paleo-Hebrew, Latin, using the tools we can find on the internet so far. 

I am an amateur.  But I dig. I studied Latin and French, however, and like learning other cultures' symbols.  

The next step as to Hebrew is to get into Strong's Concordance, and look up each of these.  That source applies a number to each Hebrew word, so that each variation has its own number, and defines and tells you where it appears. Next step, Strong's Concordance.  We stayed with the more simplistic Hebrew Old Testament selections for translating here, and the transliteration at Scripture4all.  There may be more choices.

  • Genesis 1:26.  Where the deity is thinking of what the deity will do and make, and what the job description will be. This is the original statement of intent of the deity about making the human to do that certain job description, customarily translated as having "dominion".  
  • Does it really mean that; and compare it to the actual instructions given after the humans were made, at Genesis 1:28.  Also translated as "have dominion" -- does it really mean that, and compare it to Genesis 1:26.  Conclusion:  nobody gets "dominion" in the sense we have been taught, right to exploit.  The words mean lead towards and gently, tame, subdue as in being subdued, quietened.
It is important to remember that Genesis 1:26 is not the only place where there is reference to the human job description.  Look at Genesis 1:28 where the two actual humans are made, both simultaneously, to do it. Same instruction to both. So if anybody gets our twisted sense of "dominion", it is both equally, and the male certainly has no "dominion" over the female. This is Genesis talking.

............................................................

 1.  Analyzing Genesis 1:26

The Word that is usually translated as "have dominion" is

Modern Hebrew בדגת 
  
Phonetic VYUrDV
or UIRDU (no vowels in Hebrew, so the u and the v and even y go many places)
  
Paleo Hebrew 

 Latin                   Praesit (nothing to do with a dominion word)

Meaning of Praesit = prophecy?  

Transliteration of VYUrDV  from Scripture4all    Sway  see ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26

Translations of VYUrDV from Hebrew Old Testament   Dominion, dominion, rule, dominion, dominion, dominion, dominion, dominion, rule.  See see ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26

Now: Let your cursor hover or click it on the modern Hebrew at the hebrewoldtestament site ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26 that.  Google says that entire thing means "rule the fish". Terrific. Go fish.

Does then, by majority copying each other, does the word mean "Rule".  Could be.  At least the word "rule" as shown in the Google translation is not the same as the transliterated "sway", but not as forceful as "dominion" anything.   Jury's still out. Go back to the transliteration:  How on earth does the margin narrative, the traditional Biblical, get from "sway" to "have dominion"? The translation has no relationship to the meaning the site itself gives to the word. 

Note again that there is only one word, UIRDU in Genesis 1:26. Sway, in transliteration.  Rule and dominion in the "translations" from Jerome.  Did Jerome blow it? 

  • Look at the Latin again.  And, sure enough, Jerome even in the Latin does not use dominion here where the intention is stated, but only "praesit"
  • Research praseit:  We come up with "prophesy" -- 
  • If praesit indeed means prophesy, how to get from there to "dominion?"  Does that mean that the animals will lead us?  We are to pay attention to what they say?  Do we read the entrails? We know they know more than we do in many areas, including tsunamis; and their mental telepathy and noses beat ours.
Good. Prophesy.  That beats slaughterfarms.

Scripture4all makes it clearest in the mechanical transliteration.  There is not a second concept there in the intent.  Just the "sway." Put that with "praesit" and you have a mutuality. This one word idea is important because there are two concepts in the later Genesis 1:28, just two verses away.  There see subdue and sway. Not just "sway".  And "praesit" does not appear.

So:  Genesis 1:26. There is only "A" Prime, no B afterthought.   And A Prime means "sway".  Praesit, Jerome's Latin translation, may mean something like prophesy -- no dominion there. Beat the dead horse.

...............................................................................................

2.  Analyzing Genesis 1:28.  

The human job description. The Genesis job description(s).  Issue words.  Sites:  Parallel Hebrew Old Testament at http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V28; and Scripture4All,  at ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf/  

Gen. 1:28 -- the instruction to the human about the job description.  There are two words, two phrases involved

First phrase
Hebrew A.    וכבשה
or phonetic VKBShH
or Paleo Hebrew

Latin: subicite eam.  Literally, place them under.

Transliteration = subdue. Scripture4all.  But the word VKBShH has also been translated to mean subdue, see Hebrew Old Testament in several of the examples;and we know the coax, seduce, tame idea for that, see analysis at outset here. At issue is force exerted on an unwilling forcee. Or make them willing for it.

Then comes the second part:

 ................................................................................

Second phrase B

B.    ורבו
or phonetic VUrDV
or Paleo (is that the correct Paleo Hebrew? The Google Translator does not cope with that  so we had to work backwards by phonetics and forms).

Latin:  dominamini and then comes the words for the fishes and etc.

Transliteration = sway. Scripture4all. Other meanings for VUrDV include mentor, or lead towards gently, see below.  

Translations:  "take dominion" or "have dominion", or "rule" , see Genesis 1:28 at either the right-margin narrative at Scripture4all, or at Hebrewoldtestament where there are parallel translations.  

So:  
  • Genesis 1:28.  The human job description instruction as given in two concepts to the humans from the deity. VKBShH and VUrDV:  Subdue xomes first, and then the Sway from Genesis 1:26.
  • Who put the original intent as the second in importance?  How to reconcile the two?  Whose macho hand is at work here, and can it be adjusted despite itself.
  • Is the new A, the "subdue" put in to give permission for more force than the original B "sway" would have given?
  • Is B suddenly put in second place here, not to be the primary role at all, even though it was the only role in Genesis 1:26?
  • Or is the B the controlling concept for the subdue in A? 
  • Did somebody clarify "subdue" by putting "sway" in the transliteration for the second part to be sure that the "subdue" in the first part is appropriately understood as a taming, and not exploitation? Phonetic B gives the manner in which A is to be implemented, it looks like.
  • And with "sway" as the only meaning for the original intent in Genesis 1:26
Most helpful is seeing a mechanical transliteration and then seeing how the nice narratives tell that, or a different, story.

At to the scripture4all site, there is added detail on the transliteration of A and B.  There they put the Hebrew right with the transliterated word in English, not a nice smooth narrative

GO DEEPER INTO THE IDEAS BEHIND THE HEBREW SWAY

Genesis 1:28, contains directives for both subdue and sway.  There still is no dominion idea at all in force as we know it either way. Juxtapose sway with subdue, and you qualify the "subdue." Juxtapose subdue with sway, and you qualify the sway.  Limit how it is to be done.   

Look at the meanings of subdue at the outset of this.  Tame, make quiet. 

And see the "sway" concept, a very mild form of persuasion. No "dominion" in the force sense of Exploit we may, Exploit we must, Even if earth, Shrinks to dust. 

If that is supported by people who know, then the Native American sites and other religious systems that partner with the animals, birds, fish and bugs, and listen to them, help them everpresently, in trouble, then they are right and our religious self-serving Latinate system of control in order to kill at will is wrong.

Get out of those helicopters, you shallow, cowardly wolf-hunters.  That is not following the Wolf Totem at all.

They say, "But God said I could do it!"  No. God didn't.

Is that it?

3.  Other languages. VERDOUX.  There are additional angles, still pointing in the partnership and not exploitation direction:


VURDV AND VERDOUX AND MENTOR
More meanings of "Sway" -- and consistent with the taming idea

Back to phonetic B -- the second part of the directive to both humans in Genesis 1:28
ורדו again.  The phonetic B, VURDV, meaning "sway" in transliteration, but somehow doggedly translated as "dominion"

And here is a puzzle.  Google has a cursor for translating.  Let the cursor hover over a foreign word, and a translation comes up. 

Hover over the modern Hebrew, and find that this word does not mean dominion, it means "mentor".  The word we are told in our churches that means "rule" or dominion, really means mentor the animals? Not slaughter? Not do as we like? 

The puzzle is that when I went back to that later, it did not show as mentor.  It came up with another word "verdoux".  Is that an inconsistency, or another meaning for the same thing?

Verdoux.  

That looks French, so I looked it up as a whole, a compound.  

No good. 

Try ver or vers and then doux as a second word.  If verdoux is some French translation,from someone's earlier Google search, it parlays roughly into toward (vers) and soft, or softly (doux).  So, same idea as mentor. 

Go near them gently.  Love that.
  • Look at the Latin now. Where is the verdoux?  Nosiree.  Not there. Dominamini over the fishes etc. Take That! and That! Hah! Domina- mini.  I am in charge, you little minnows.
But is that Domina God, as pointed out at the Beginning of this tome. Not dominate, but act as God would toward you? What else for dominamini.  See FN 2 here.

........................................

4.  Chart needed

In  Genesis 1:26
U-rdu, u-irdu 
VYUrDV
Note the "u-irdu" because that becomes "urdu" in Genesis 1:28.  Is that a clue to something, you experts?
Latin: Praesit
Sway
Prophecy
And "sway" in translation with the google hover brings up verdoux, or lead toward, gently.

Now, go from that Genesis 1:26 to how sway is used in Genesis 1:28
Another word is added to the whole idea; and the old idea turns from "sway" and praesit, to "dominion" and "dominamini"



In Genesis 1:28
U-kbsh-e and u-rdu 
VUrDV  but note there is no "Y" as in Genesis 1:26 where it is shown as VYUrDV
Is that mere grammar or a different meaning? **
 
Then note the entirely new word u-kbsh-e 
Added before the older concept u-rdu

Expanded meaning
Subdue and sway

No, not only subdue, because that here becomes the Latin subicite;
And there was no subicite at all before. 
And there is a new idea for the u-rdu or sway -- it becomes dominamini
Double whammy in the Latin, thank you Jerome.

Latin: Subicite;  and dominamini
Dominamini is the new translation for u-rdu is, and where praesit was used before for the u-rdu


Subicite - subdue, with all the variations of that
And added is dominamini
New word. But only in the Latinate and those that copy from it afterwards.  
It is not from the Hebrew.

Now will a Hebrew expert who is not bent on ideology do an objective translation only. We give up on the Jeromers.
.......................................................

 Done yet? 

No.  More to consider.

** Back to the parallel forms at Hebrewoldtestament.

  • The word phonetically in Genesis 1:26 VYUrDV there is different  from the VUrDV that is used for the actual instruction in the later Genesis 1:28. 

Did the deity intend one thing, in Genesis 1:26, and end up doing another in Genesis 1:28?  Or did somebody later not like the only "A" form as given in Genesis 1:26 to be the last word.  Typo, intentional to change the course, and if so, by whom. We don't think so.  We think the Y and the U are the same thing.  There are no vowels, we understand, in Hebrew, so it is somebody's carelessness in not being consistent in how to represent the Y -- it appears a "U" also in Scripture4all.

Look at the big Y in there.  Big Y is also a supermarket chain here in the East. American Owned. A star in the East!

And the meaning of the VYUrDV  as the instruction is given in Latin as "praesit", not the "dominion" translation into Latin that Jerome puts in at Genesis 1:28.  Praesit translates out as "presage" or prophesy, Free Online Latin site, and Stars.  This is beyond me. Same Hebrew, two different translations into Latin, same translator. 

................................................
  • NO DOMINION IN ANY FORM IS GIVEN at all in the second creation story.  Compare that grant of "mentoring" or "dominion" if that is in your head, to the second creation story, at Genesis 2:4 ff, where the poor gent is only to till the ground.  No dominion there, you lackey.
That is the second creation story, where the Human (mankind, and questions about sexuality just burst forth both as to the deity and the created being) first, then somehow the woman is separated out, again translations and transliterations go in different directions, but the story told our kids and us is that there was this rib, and a nap, and etc. And then trees, where is this, what was it, who told whom, and lots of moralizing. 

There is no giving dominion here at all, in Genesis 2, either to the man once separated out or to the human, or to her. He is sent out only to till the ground.

Conclusion so far:  In particular man as a gender has no dominion at all.  Not even over the female. Especially not over the female.  And the female has no dominion over the man, here using the traditional force sense. 

First Creation story:  There is mentoring-type activity (lead towards gently), subdue as in calming and taming;  and leading animals gently in the story where both man and woman were created simultaneously and are equal.  At the most, it is that idea of "dominion" to them both.  

There is no grant of either mentoring or dominion in the story where there is the sequential creation of human and the separating out.  And certainly not to one gender to have dominion over animals and not the other having any such comparable power.

Our whole idea of creation from our own culture is so tainted and ingrained that way, that none of this will make any difference to the incurious anyway.  Wolf Pack wins, at least the rest of us may go in hiding for a while.

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

FN 2  We began looking up "dominamini" because Latin was fun in school, it really was, and look what came up--
  • This issue has become political in research ways and details that are beyond us here -- I am here updating my several-days old post, and was looking up the word Jerome translates as "dominamini" and see this:  A site by Lawrence M. Ludlow about the same passage, about how we are to act,  a) in concert with or b) mashing the earth.  It is offered by a Libertarian, it appears, against traditional literalist Christians who take traditional and self-serving meaning without vetting. 
See ://strike-the-root.com/libertarians-and-environment-part-3-of-3-christian-interpretations/  

The site goes back to Jerome's choices of words etc. And how current is this Ludlow article?  Yesterday.  This is Sunday, my updating the post up for a few days here.  That, the other person's, new post was posted Saturday, yesterday. Memes, memes. Excellent.  The more research, whether amateur (here) or more formally qualified (there) the better.
................................................................

Manataka site. Says Native American Indian Council or something like that.

Is "Manataka" legit as far as Native Americans are concerned?  Some say not. Beyond our vetting further. We suggest, however, that if there is a concept of value put forth anywhere, it can be explored on its own merit, without also putting an imprimatur of approval on the group that stated it that way. 
.....................................................................

 BOREDOM ALERT 2
Yet another Addendum:  Food.  We get to eat plants, not meat.

Plants are our food.  Plants are the animals' food.  Not meat.  Anywhere.  See Genesis 1:29. Now, we know that animals eat animals anyway; but does that authorize us?  To eat the animals? This is a carnivore speaking, not a heavy one, but one who does enjoy, so this is no mission. ,Meat is not part of the original mandate here.  Who stuck the meat in there? Who translated "food" as "meat".  Jerome again?  Please get Ben at the Vat on the phone again.



Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Religion's Ambiguities: Execution Method. STAURWQHTW. Why Waffle?

 STAURWQHTW
"staurOthEto"

The Meanings of Words.
Do They Change with the Translation.

What Message, if any, is lost in a given Change.
Harmless Error, or Believer Manipulation?

If certainty is substituted for ambiguity here, where else?
Iesu, Iesu
Crucified or Impaled?



Some topics are addressed by scholars, then politely left out to dry. Why? Can "believers" have any confidence in what is transmitted to them as Truth, when details right and left get waffled.

Example. The method of The Execution. Iesu, Jew, Jerusalem, years ago.


Matthew Mark Luke and John Bless the Bed that I Lie On.  Lie?  Lie? Is somebody lie-ing here by sounding so certain about how The Execution take place.  We are talking Iesu, Jew, killed on Golgotha many years ago. We look at the gospel accounts. You can, too. If there is ambiguity, why do we fear it. Why not accept the ambiguity and move on.

1. Alternatives: 
Romans did both, as did many in power to get rid of "criminals" or "enemies"  before and aft. 
See the scope at Impalement at ://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/149126/

a.  Crucifixion, hammer nails in outstretched hands, arms out on a cross beam whether or not in a T or an upright beam with a crossbeam some feet below, the traditional Roman Cross.  Comparatively dignified. Fits all the stories passed down to us, carrying the "cross" etc.

b.  Impalement, stake through from between and below, missing major organs on the way (experts know how),  so death is prolonged.  No dignity. Does not fit the stories passed down to us.  Is that the end of it?

If there is a question, why not live with it, lay it out, acknowledge that all is not Certain in this world or our interpretation of the next, in anything. Take somebody's word for it? "Inspiration" as the reason? Go ahead.  We are looking further.

2.  Look at the earliest Greek words, 
since the New Testament stories were originally oral 
and not recorded in Aramaic, Hebrew or anything else but Greek. 
We believe that to be so. 

Site:  parallel translations from the Greek, there using the phonetic instead of the Greek fonts that most of us do not have. See Greek New Testament dot com, at ://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C027.htm/.  Start at Matthew 27:22. That to do with Iesu.

STAURWQHTW   !

The exclamation point is ours.  But STAURWQHTW ???

a.  Look that up.   STAURWQHTW

b.  Comparative translations.  Go at the Greek New Testament site for the translation of the word.  There is nothing about a cross, "crucifigatur" until Jerome translated the Greek into his Latin, and came up with cruficigatur for STAURWQHTW. 

Everybody follows suit.  Crucified, says Jerome. Crucified it is.

But was Jerome's version authorized,and what did he mean by the meaning of STAURWQHTW?  You will learn nothing at that site. Go back further. To a transliteration, a word-for-word mechanical rendering of each word.  So, was his translation correct?  Or did it serve dogma of hundred of years later after the Event.

Jerome has done this before:  taken liberties with meanings of words.  See the frolic of his own in "translating" kngdv, ezer kenedgo, at Jerome's Ezer Kenegdo, kngdv, latin.

c.  Transliteration, the only one we find online so far. Scripture4all.  Same verse, Matthew 27:22.  At ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat27.pdf/

Find "staurOthEto" -- knowing the difficulty of phonetic renderings of other languages into ours so we can pronounce the words, this sounds like STAURWQHTW.

Fair enough for now.

d.  And the meaning of staurOthEto?
  • "let him be being impaled"
But how does that change when given to us in a narrative form?
  • "let him be being crucified"

What do we learn, about how religion changes what it wants to, in order to control?

3.  The moral:  Sanitize! Change whatever.
To suit the agenda of those seeking power through it.

Control and change the message!  How would art represent impaling, as opposed to the highly sympathetic nails in gentle hands.  An Institution can't have that, so change it. And, we must be absolutely certain about it so nobody thinks other than we want.

4.  Why not simply say:  there are various interpretations,
written accounts took place generations after the fact.
Romans executed both ways and the evidence is not conclusive what was used here:  

but the first accounts in Greek say "impaled."

Why not be transparent, O Religios.  If your message is a sound one, it can take it.  The acknowledgment of ambiguity.  If not, let the people go.

Shut the door when you leave. Thanks.

5.  So, where is the discussion these days, fur and agin?  

See Yahoo.  Question deleted. What? Search results:

Was Jesus impaled on a stake or crucified on a cross? - Yahoo! Answers

Feb 1, 2008 ...

Gonzo.
 

Try again:  this one somehow has no responses at all -- http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/27862


Are we left with Wikipedia because authorities elsewhere will not respond? See ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion.  See CNN at ://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/01/bible-doesnt-say-jesus-was-crucified-scholar-claims/

6.  The point is not which occurred. 
It is why we insist on putting an overlay on what did happen, 
to exclude other information, to show Absolute Certainty, 
to keep people from thinking on their own.

Carry on.  Check for yourself at Scripture4all, transliteration of the death story in each gospel. Find a version of STAURWQHTW, or the transliterated staurOthEtO.  Impaled.  Each time.

7.  Number G4717.  Strong's Concordance, Strong's Lexicon:

The code for the word, and its reference
://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4717

This "Blue letter Bible"  turns out to be circular and ideologically bootstrapping, giving the "authorized" version, and referring to other Biblical uses of "crucified" in the New Testament.  But never going back to the Greek itself.

Look up Strong elsewhere:  here is the reference to "impale" -- and, as we know, with alternatives. Look at ://studybible.info/strongs/G4717/  And that is the point: that we do not know.  There are indeed alternate meanings.

Look closer:  This site keeps taking us back to G4716, to identify the word; which apparently means "crucify."  But the Greek word we are pursuing is not the G4746 at all -- it is the G4717.  That is the point. Points points. Impale.  Look up G4746, the smoke and mirrors one they want us to look at -- find  ://studybible.info/strongs/G4716/  There is the crucify idea.

So, is our conclusion that Jerome mistook the G4717 word for the G4716, or was the G4716 just tidier. Neater. Nicer. By all means, change it to suit the agenda.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Theology's Gender Blending: Intentionality. The Inner Woman, the Outer Man. What the Early Church Taught

Tales Wag the Dogma

Truth in Early Teaching: We Are Both-And.
Reject the Later Institutional Fabrications.

 Why the aversion to gender-blending? Mix is Us. See the Creation tales.



I. Follow Creation's Tales

A.  One Tale, first in Lay-out
If not in Time -- ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf/

It happened on the Fifth Day
Two at once

Adm the Human
Single word for both
Male and Female created as two separate simultaneous,
In the Image of the Deity.

Who also, then, is Two separate simultaneous ("us").
Join the General Blessing.
Be fruitful you, and increase you.
Said the Two-Fold Deity to They.
And so they did.


B. Another Tale, second in lay-out
If not in Time -- ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf/

It happened on the Eighth Day
As an afterthought; and after the general blessing.
Days after the Eighth were on their own.

Creation of One as both-and/ androgyne/ or
Both one contained within/ oh this gets complicated think Russian dolls.
The pregnant "he"
Because we have no "it" for "human."


The man's inner woman.
The woman's outer man,
This also in the image of the Deity the both/and the Two in One
But here, the both-One and the Severed Two too late
For the blessing the other Createes got.

That happened on Day Seven.
The part created until Day Seven got blessed;
Nothing after.
Nothing after declared "good" at all.

No wonder.
Seventh Day.
When the Deity Quit.

That should have ended it, say ESTJ types. *
Then the Deity was politically incorrect
Like an INFP *
And flipflopped and changed mind
And reversed his position
To receive new information:
Because the deity needed a Gardener for all this stuff.

Go back and look.
Each tale:
Make one - the "human".
Same word as before.
Adm Human.
Not Me Tarzan.
You Each Human.
That doesn't get made into a male name until later - Adam.
Creative theology there.


...........................................
* Alphabet soup. Look back at the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the MBTI, a venerable and much-built-upon tool for understanding personality groupings, all on sliding scales, see Myers&Briggs at ://www.myersbriggs.org/

Why do some of us make up our minds fast and once, based on whatever happened to be lying around at the time, never to look back; and others keep seeking and weighing new information. Myers-Briggs can help. See its updates at other sites.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Woman as guide in front. Can, or Does, the Religious Establishment Re-Read Texts


Religion and Politics.  Institutions Prune Ideas. 
Rankism First. Texts Second.

Roots of Misogyny - the hatred of her.
Roots of Gynophobia - the fear of her.
Mistranslations, skewed translations.

We only control what we fear, or want to use.


Balance Once Destroyed, Destroys.

Mantra: Read In What You Want.
Say it Loud.
Repeat.
Win.
Is that so?
.
.
We are interested in the Pope and the processes that lead to mindsets, like his and others in religion and politics: irrefutable certainty in their own belief systems.  How was that absolute, unbending self-correctness idea implanted? Theology as a power structure. Institutions that come to embody gynophobia in particular. Consider.

 As the head of a long-term religious institution, Pope Benedict is writing and saying that women as priests is an issue on a par with grave crime, the sin of molestation of little boys (how about the little girls?). Ordain a woman and you are on a par with pedophiles. See, for example among many accounts, ://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1295012/Vatican-labels-ordination-women-grave-crime-par-sex-abuse.html?ito=feeds-newsxmlKNGDV. Women are only children, after all. Do as you will. Gentlemen, start your Viagra. 
.
1.  Start with trees and theology.  Pruning goes on in both.  And selling.

Bad pruning wrecks, whether in cultural ideas blooming, or religious ideology forming. In theology and culture, arborially speaking, there is a simple lesson.  Cut off what turns out to be most important, and the branches beneath go all galley-west.  Start an interpretation going, buttress it, and the interpretation becomes a cornerstone of a culture.  Does anyone recheck. See another view of who sinned when and how.  Exonerate Eve. As to the badly or intentionally decapitated tree, you may want or even profit from the squatty, irregular or dense plant you end up with, but it didn't have to be that way. If the pruner here denies that the cut-off top was a mistake, the tree proves itself. 

Look at the neighbor's yard. A birch loses its leader in a storm. Breaks right off.  The rest grows into something else, but the stump still tells. Think of pruning religious and cultural ideas. Same effect. Stumps talk.

Pruning and religion.  What gets pruned out, and with what result. This is not just our culture.  See the influence of the father of Hind bint Rabia - she wanted to become a warrior, she had talent, her father encouraged her, she did, and she - go read for yourself at Father of Warrior Hind bint Rabia. Encourage, discourage. It counts.  Watch the denial of her now.

Pruning and faking out the customer. Thinks the nursery person about the botched tree:  I'll just sell it to this ditzy customer anyway, and she won't notice until it is in the ground, and does not respond to straightening. Then she sees. Aha.  The leader branch was chopped!  Too late. Too late. Like the puppy with hip dysplasia, by the time the flaw is noticed, the thing is already loved and will not be uprooted, taken back.

Pruning errors. Trunk was straight; but lop off the leader and watch the branches left below, skew.

2.  The Pruner in Chief in the news:

Papal pruning. Institutions destroying balances not because they are made that way, but because the skew benefits the institution, so think the nurserymen of our theologies. Lop off leaders and let the remaining branches go hither and yon like an unregulated Wall Street.   Institutions prune belief systems. Prune away the natural guidelines.

3.  The process behind the news:

Pronouncements said often, loud, and with threats of what happens if you think for yourself, will be believed, in politics and religion.  Propaganda technique. Or, less subtly, force.


Petunia responds in time: I belong in that pot.  I belong in that pot. I belong in that pot. It is wrong to escape.  I belong ....

4.  What does a stronger, unboxed mental tower receive in signals.  

Put issues above your own radar.

Make yourself go back and see the difference between the role of the woman, according to transliteration of earliest text, vs. the role of woman according to all the popes and patriarchs who couldn't stand what the texts actually said. It is not comfortable.  The point here is not just fact of the transliteration, see it at ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm.  The point here is the fact of the delusion of a teaching about something superseding the text.  Power perpetuating itself at the highest and lowest reaches of culture and religion. Propagandize, frame often enough, add force (pat that little holster at your side), and people will believe what you say. Harsh? Try being on the receiving end of it.

Again and again, fact or at least a reasonable alternative in interpretation of pivotal texts, to be acknowledged as such, instead ignored and shoved under patriarchal rugs.  If not patriarchal, then the hierarchy du jour. The man's first sin was thinking he should have privileges, was superior.

People can't think for themselves? So they have to be given artificial absolutes? Speak for yourself.

5.  The text in transliteration:

Woman is the guide as in front of the man because it was not good to leave him on his own.  Go to Scripture4all, a transliteration source, and plug in Genesis 2:18, 20. Look at what is not translated at all - KNGDV - "as in front of" because it does not fit the filters for later institutional, cultural, and property-acquisition dogma. In front of does not mean superior. The position as guide is only that. See another transliteration, same result, ozr kndgv, there jzr kngdv, left out in translation.  See ://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/hetran.txt

This is like beating a dead horse.  The institutional religions keep touting dogma, but is their dogma supported by their own original texts.

So:  according to the horse's mouth, ordaining women is on a par with sin, sinnis horribilis, a grave crime like priestly molestation of little boys.  See ://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2954/vatican_to_equate_women%E2%80%99s_ordination_with_priest_pedophilia/  Gynophobia is the grave crime instead. It lays, no pun, the groundwork for the burning times, then and now. See ://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm

 This is not my tradition, but I am appalled nonetheless.  I do not respect authority that is not, in turn, supported by its own resource texts, and this, dear Benedictimissimus the Scripturally Blind, is not so supported, except by Time Passing.

6.  Back to the radar.

Put up a stronger and higher mental tower and see what other signals come in. This is work because there is a great deal of baseless chatter. Which is which.

Go to Scripture4all.  The woman.  Created to be a guide as in front of the man because it was not good to leave him on his own.  This is not superiority.  It is both-on-par, one doing this, other doing that, swapping as needed. Many roles needed.

Go vet. Give us your sources for transliteration, not interpretation. Where are original (as close as we can get) other scriptural text specific transliteration.  Woman as guide as in front of the man because it was not good to leave him alone.

So:  Racism, gynophobia, free markets, Cut off the leader of the tree, the balance, and watch the branches skew below. Make a group or person powerless beneath you and then watch the justifications of it, and denials that it is artificial and manipulative, emerge. Look at Disney's oaf of a giant here - the skin is not dark at the face, but the hands - what do you see? Do you see what I see? Look at the choice of features.  Caricature.


Is the spin process like Brer B'ar, where the character is presented by Disney not as in Remus, a dignified head of a community; but an oaf, worthy of ridicule, as interpreted for us by Disney, caricatures so little children will Learn.  And Genesis.  Let the little children learn what we teach.

Repetition, framing, mantras in the media to be absorbed by radio or TV on all day while somebody is barely paying attention.  It works.

  • To say then, as has been done for millennia, that the man's judgment is superior, he has entitlements because of his equipment outside and his ongoing muscling while the ladies may be pregnant and vulnerable part of the time, is ridiculous.  
  • Now, look at how other imagery arises:  by absorption.  Sacrifice and trees. The rally point for the opponents of Charlemagne's conquests, the sacrificial tree of the early Scandinavians, gets appropriated into the Christian Wave and made central, when perhaps it was not, even for Christians at the time. Odin? Oh, dear.  More Ruby slippers. Click heels enough and wishes for supremacism in ideology come true.


Oz, you are us. Original earliest texts.  Will the Roman heirs read.  Heirs to worship of hierarchy and militaristic force.  Benedict., are you awake? Woman as guide in front.  Chop that idea off.  Is that why the Church is immolating itself.  It cannot or will not read.