EASTER SUNDAY
(Thanks for the link, Maddwitch).
It's Easter Sunday and the shops are all shut and we are in thrall to Oestre, Mother Goddess of the Saxon people who walked these lands long ago in time and who herself was named after the ancient word for spring, eastre.
Now, I have been accused of forcing my views down the throats of my friends on this site and even though that may be true (it's what writing and communication were in part devised for) I find it much more human and alive to celebrate rebirth and the future rather than a cruel and somewhat incomprehensible execution of a youngish mild-mannered man two thousand years ago. Reasons and motivations can always be attributed to events after they occurred, and describing one man's painful death as a means of whitewashing all of our sins is, if you think about it, odd, to say the least. But given the execution reportedly actually happened it's as good a story as any, I suppose. It keeps the words of that good man alive.
But this is the spring time of the year when, they say, a young man's fancies turn to thoughts of love. And therein lies a problem because love and sex have become inevitably intertwined and whereas you might have freedom to love the lady of your dreams in a good old-fashioned romantic way, the dictates of the early church were that sex with her, outside marriage, was a no-no, and for perfectly understandable reasons to do with the family and its cohesion. It makes sense not to have babies cascading into being all over the place. Nurture and so on all take time and are almost certainly best achieved by two parents, if for no more practical a reason that one is needed to wipe bottoms whilst the other is fighting wild boar in the undergrowth whilst providing dinner.
But nature has its seasons and in spring the sap rises in more than botanical specimens. Even old farts like me can get quite squirmy when they look at the ladies in their lives and feel that it's April! It's a mighty powerful thing and the main reason, I suspect, why in my own family both myself and three of my children were born roughly nine months after that good season.
I wonder why the catholic church decided to demonstrate that life can be lived without sex by insisting that their priests were celibate? Past popes have, of course, been famously very naughty, but I do believe that present incumbents of that high office try to be good. Mind you, by the time the smoke puffs out of the chimney (what's that all about?) they're all even older than me so celibacy can't be too difficult. And it must be remembered that historically some monasteries had convents built just down the road and not far out of sight!
But outside this room as I write there are birds twittering and zooming hither and thither in their need to attract the opposite gender. Insect populations are on the increase, which is just as well because many birds feed their young on the irritating little blighters. All over the planet loins are heaving and life is being reproduced. It has to happen. Oestre knew it, and it's a pity that, in its wisdom, the Christian church couldn't have laid a pointless death to rest in the pages of the past and celebrated life and living instead. Then Easter could really be about families and love and nurture and hope and the future rather than the forgiving of sins that we have no intention of committing, and Oestre would have applauded whole-hearedly.
© Peter Rogerson 24.04.11
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 73
And, Tony, they can afford just about anything. They've got treasuries filled to overflowing.
Lots of interesting points, Peter! Just one thing-- Easter is a celebration of the resurrection, not the execution.
As for the celebate Priests-- I don't get that at all. Never understood it.
If you do not allow for the possibility of Miracles, then you are limited by more than simply your Imagination.
I am not Christian, but I think that anything is possible.
You, nor I, can be certain of anything.
And I think you agreed with that point of view--UNCERTAINTY--when we 'spoke', a couple of days ago.
We must accept that the physical laws that hold the Universe in cohesion have their limitations
Maybe we don't fully understand all the physical laws yet. So it's possible that Jesus' resurrection after 3 days is scientifically possible, but we just do not yet understand why or how. (Same with water being turned into wine.)
That's not to say I don't believe in miracles. I do. I think everything is a miracle, even life on this planet. The exact balance of carbon and oxygen and everything else that life requires is just too much of a coincidence for me.
:)
I appreciate your open-mindedness.
I believe he rose from the dead, not just because the Bible says it but because my life says it.
Happy 8th Day!
I enjoyed your essay. For ancient peoples, Nature was felt within their bodies. They simply experieneced the movement of the stars and planets directly without any sense of being separate from it. They could chart its movements accurately without need for language, as megaliths demonstrate. It was original participation. Much later, as their ability to experience the world directly faded, they created gods, temples and rituals to remind them of their original perception. Final participation is what Christ demonstrated: the conscious reconciliaton of the relation of the individual with the cosmos. If , as scientists say there was a "Big Bang," there must by definition be an infinite number of big bangs , for time is everlasting.
Andis Kaulins writes:
"The process of continuous expansion and collapse between 'near absolute mass' and 'near absolute void' must be endless, for all else is ephemeral. All things are born but also pass away.
Since the universe has infinite time, all possible combinations of particles (and the principles behind them) can and must by definition recur infinitely, so that any given combination eternally repeats itself - except for unconscious periods of 'nonexistence' of any given combination. Time has no meaning in infinity.
We are therefore constantly resurrected over immense periods of time, as most of the world´s religions allege, but, of course, without recollection of the 'past'. The universe is thus probably even more miraculous than imaginable. We are and we are not. Forever."
The 8th Day , you may know, is celebrated in some churches as the day after the 7 days of creation. This symbolizes the Resurrection.
Whether it occurred, or not, may be important--but is it ACTUALLY essential for Christians, to maintain their Faith?
And Dorothy, you strike me as somebody who believes in natural law-absolutism, no matter what.....
If you attempt to picture what was, or what was not, before the Big Bang, or the so-called Big Bang, it is just as 'easy' to say that in pre-existence, there was only God and that God was always there....an idea that is far beyond our imagination and our understanding.
But while what I say may be true, I agree that it may not be.
But you, or I, do not know that.
You do not know what is behind natural law, if anything, do you?
If so, prove it.
Otherwise concede that a variety of possibilities may exist, for an origin of the Universe.
Similarly, if he was just a good and kind teacher but not the Messiah, what would his life and death mean? Something different.
However, events of 2000 years ago, virtually unreported until years had passed after those events, are hard to prove and the bloke on the cross may or may not have been dead when he was cut down and placed in his tomb. But if he was dead then I don't believe there's any chance that his decomposing body could have become re-animated days later. It's all speculation and all we actually know for certain is that there was a world before we were born and certain things may or may not have happened, though our evidence is all second hand.
As for Jesus dying for our sins, that assumes we're going to sin and most people I know are highly unlikely to, though back in biblical times the list of behaviours called sinning (like failing to accept every word in the scriptures as the true message from God, like wives can be beaten and servants thrashed to the point of death as long as they survive for three days after that beating) was considerably more comprehensive than it is today. And remember, Sandi, that you, being a woman, must become "like a man", (whatever that means) before you gain entrance to heaven. It's all in the Bible, along with quite a lot of other stuff I find abhorrent.
"...are hard to prove"
That is so true. It is absolutely impossible to prove in the natural, physical world (I think... as far as the science we know!) and I think there is something to that. (I am thinking God's design-- and you are probably thinking, "Because it's not true!" Ha ha...) There's some reason it's like that and we have to believe in faith. I don't know why. But you mention weakness in arguments and, honestly, that is the "weakness" (if you would call it that) in mine as well. I don't have anything to hand to you or place under a microscope. My faith is based on the unseen.
So here we are.
I like discussions like this, but I think there is not much point to them other than that it's interesting!
Dr. Fred Neiman claims women have no souls and thus, have a zero percent chance of attaining Salvation. His argument is pretty solid... to quote him: "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside." Dr. Neiman went on to say that, "once men reunite with their maker, they will no longer be burdened with the care of women. After all, women were inferior creations from the start. Women are fond of self-indulgence (Isaiah 32:9-11). They are silly and easily led into error (2 Timothy 3:6). They are subtle and deceitful (Proverbs 7:10; Ecclesiastes 7:26). They are zealous in promoting superstition and idolatry (Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 13:17, 23). And they are active in instigating to iniquity (Numbers 31:15-16; 1 Kings 21:25; Nehemiah 13:26). It was the inherent weakness of women that led them to be deceived by Satan (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Consequently, women were cursed from the start (Genesis 3:16). There is simply no room in heaven for such flawed and inadequate beings."
"Unless you become as a little child"..... Matthew 18:3
Got to say this: I am reading your quote from Genesis 2 and this is verse 25: The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (Which relates back to the comment above about sex.)
"Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22).
Hmm... the words "sole" and "purely" seem out-of-place here to me. I just don't see that in either of those verses. To me it reads like a good thing. He's alone, God doesn't want him to be lonely... but I do not read it as that is her sole or only reason to be.
::to be continued:: :-)
But verse 10 says:
10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. (Sandi's note: because of the angels? I don't understand that part...)
and 11-12 says:
1 Corinthians 11-12: 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Context is everything.
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
I have to tell you (and you already know) THIS is a hard verse for most of us. Hrmph... Hrmph! The head of every woman is man... what does that mean? What does it mean if her husband is unkind? What does it mean to single women or young women or elderly women? I think... in my gut... I think we misunderstand this as control when maybe it means responsibility or something like that.
Dr. Fred Neiman claims women have no souls and thus, have a zero percent chance of attaining Salvation.
I bet he is fun at parties!
2 Timothy 3:6... this says, "They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women..." (I read this as gullible women, not all women are gullible. But also it seems to be more about the kind of people who worm their way in.
Proverbs 7: 10- 10 Then out came a woman to meet him,
dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent. (Again, a specific woman in a specific instance where she was trying to trick someone. It's not saying all of us are prostitutes or crafty...)
Ecclesiastes 7:26 (New International Version, ©2011)
26 I find more bitter than death
the woman who is a snare,
whose heart is a trap
and whose hands are chains.
The man who pleases God will escape her,
but the sinner she will ensnare.
(the woman... not all women...)
Genesis 3: 1-6 says:
Genesis 3:1-6 (New International Version, ©2011)
Genesis 3
The Fall
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
(Where does it say her inherent weakness caused this? Please note her husband who was with her. He was right there, saw everything...and then blamed his own disobedience on her.)
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
Also note they did not feel shame about nakedness until after the fall.
2 Corinthians 11: 3-4
3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
But where does it say her inherent weakness? Adam was also deceived, as Eve was, and the people he's talking to in this verse.
Which brings us to this: "1 Timothy 2:14 (New International Version, ©2011) 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. "
HMM .... HMM.... well, in that verse in Genesis I would say it seems obvious Adam was deceived. He was standing right there! Maybe he wasn't deceived? Maybe Eve believed it was OK to eat the fruit. Maybe Adam knew it was not OK, but chose to eat anyway. To me that seems like more of a willfull sin than Eve's. Hmmm....
And then verse 15 says, "15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. "
I gotta say-- I do not understand THAT! These two verses, Peter, hmm... I am going to have to study this more. These probably aren't the verses you thought would make me scratch my head, but... hmm... childbearing? I loved my kids, but how_would_one_be_saved_through_childbearing?
Maybe there is a biblical scholar out there who can answer that? (From a Biblical perspective. I want to know what that meant in the context of the writing.)
(Genesis 3:16)- but also the following verses.
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
Punishment... but Adam was also punished. It doesn't seem to me to read as though Eve were the only one singled out. I don't like this verse. It is so harsh. But grace came later... Grace I like. I love. But why not have grace earlier? I don't know...
There is simply no room in heaven for such flawed and inadequate beings."
:-) Is that Neiman's words or your words, Peter? Amazing grace, how sweet the sound... only flawed and inadequate beings are in heaven.
(That's not an insult... just, seriously, do you know any perfect people? You probably know a lot of wonderful people and you sound very kind and serene yourself. But, you know... who is perfect?)
WELL... that's my rambling on your post. My thoughts are just an ordinary reader online thinking about what you wrote. I am not a scholar (as you can tell!)
I agree with you on the equality, Peter. But I do not think any person is superior to any other person.
I also don't think the Bible says women are inferior. I guess a lot of people argue that point, but I just don't see it like that. Also, the things about slavery in the Bible -- I don't think it is supportive of the practice. I don't think any race is closer to God or better or what have you. Each person, you and me and Kings and Queens are all equal.
Have you ever seen the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding?" There's a scene where two grandmothers are talking to a younger, soon-to-be married woman. They tell her the man is the head of family. But then they both smile a sneaky smile and add, "But the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wishes."
High Spring/Beltaine
- attending the primordial Desire that brings forth all things – more sheer magic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxrtcihEDg0
You say: "If you do not allow for the possibility of Miracles, then you are limited by more than simply your Imagination. I am not Christian, but I think that anything is possible. You, nor I, can be certain of anything."
Well, Brett. You've obviously never tried striking a match on a wet turd. If you can accomplish that then I may start to come round to your way of believing.
If you scrutinise that "promise to pay the bearer" you will see that I included the word 'MAY' which is just as good at evading libel damages, prosecution, and or persecution as careful use of the word 'ALLEGEDLY'.
Any-road-up, trying to strike a Lucifer on a fresh turd IS impossible...., allegedly.
Thanks for submitting to
The Surreal Circus.
Easter is the demonstration of God that life is essentially spiritual and timeless. ~Charles M. Crowe
Easter, Peter.
I apologize for moving my post ! I had not seen your response. I was looking for a better place in the thread to repost (the same post). I have no problem with the idea of a Big Bang, although to call it "Big" suggests there was only one, not an infinite number. The universe is not static: it moves. We have to include time and thus four dimensions. This is why Einstein said, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." His reasoning is correct. Even if there were two or three-dimensional worlds, we could never know them.
"I" as "observer" am separate from the universe, unlike the ancients. I imagine that what I see is "real," which no true scientist thinks. To do so would be to fail to realize that the observer and observed are not related .That is why Einstein said, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." His reasoning is correct. Nothing in the universe is static: everything moves. We have to include time and thus four dimensions in order to relate the observer and the observed. Even if there were two or three-dimensional worlds, we could never know them. This is what Christ demonstrated as "final participtation": the conscious reconciliaton of the relation of the individual with the cosmos . What the ancients exerienced as original participtation was unconscious. "In the beginning was the Word" and the Word sounds eternally. There is an infinite number of "big bangs." There IS only Mind or Thought. The process of continuous expansion and collapse between 'near absolute mass' and 'near absolute void ' must be endless, for all else is ephemeral. All things are born but also pass away. We are and we are not, eternally. The universe has infinite time.
That Day We will fold up heaven like folding up the pages of a book. As We originated the first creation so We will regenerate it. It is a promise binding on Us. That is what We will do. (Qur'an, 21:104)
If you haven't seen it and have access to it, Professor Brian Cox's recent BBC television series "secrets of the Universe" goes some way to tackling the questions.
"All spiritual experiences are sensations in the body. They are simply a graded series of different sensations, beginning with the solidity of a clod of earth and passing gradually, in full consciousness, through liquidness and the emanation of heat to that of a total global vibration before reaching the Void. The road to be travelled is long."
-Sri Anirvan
Thanks for your comment, Clarke.