Women speak in Bible

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Supernatural as beyond the visible universe ... the gassy unseen? What a stinker of an interpretation for April 1st by those not accepting the disseminating force of fugacity ... an unreal splatter or immaterial things like St Paddy rising from the pad dox ...

Do you know the DOX of a hoers? It is the part just below the detailing ... just a' Pauline !
 
Maybe awesome if you're attracted gravidly to hoer sis buts ... but this and but that ... with no real open minds to everything ....
 
"
If Romeo and Juliet had made their appointments to meet, in the moonlight-swept orchard, in all the peril and sweetness of conspiracy, and then more often than not failed to meet — one or the other lagging, or afraid, or busy elsewhere — there would have been no romance, no passion, none of the drama for which we remember and celebrate them. Writing a poem is not so different—it is a kind of possible love affair between something like the heart (that courageous but also shy factory of emotion) and the learned skills of the conscious mind. They make appointments with each other, and keep them, and something begins to happen. Or, they make appointments with each other but are casual and often fail to keep them: count on it, nothing happens.

The part of the psyche that works in concert with consciousness and supplies a necessary part of the poem — the heart of the star as opposed to the shape of a star, let us say — exists in a mysterious, unmapped zone: not unconscious, not subconscious, but cautious. It learns quickly what sort of courtship it is going to be. Say you promise to be at your desk in the evenings, from seven to nine. It waits, it watches. If you are reliably there, it begins to show itself — soon it begins to arrive when you do. But if you are only there sometimes and are frequently late or inattentive, it will
appear fleetingly, or it will not appear at all.

Why should it? It can wait. It can stay silent a lifetime. Who knows anyway what it is, that wild, silky part of ourselves without which no poem can live? But we do know this: if it is going to enter into a passionate relationship and speak what is in its own portion of your mind, the other responsible and purposeful part of you had better be a Romeo. It doesn’t matter if risk is somewhere close by — risk is always hovering somewhere. But it won’t involve itself with anything less than a perfect seriousness."

-- Mary Oliver, A Poetry Handbook

"Much can be done by means of pretense. Children pretend to speak a foreign language or inscribe its imitation alphabet in their school books, and inspired by the same motives, grow up to become linguists, grammarians, and travelers. Lord Byron, looking in the mirror, pretended to be the Byronic man, and the Byronic man, with his curls and collars, came into existence by the hundred. The growth of the small nation into the empire contains infinities of such pretense, gradually turning to the infinite realities of empire."
--Elizabeth Bishop, Edgar Allen Poe & The Juke-Box: Uncollected Poems, Drafts, and Fragments

"
A poem can’t take the place of a plum, or an apple. But just as a painting can recreate, by illusion, the dimension it loses by being confined to canvas, so a poem, by its own system of illusions, can set up a rich and apparently living world within its particular limits. Most of the poems I will introduce in the next few minutes attempt to recreate, in their own way, definite situations and landscapes. They are, quite emphatically, about the things of this world.

When I say “this world” I include, of course, such feelings as fear and despair and barrenness, as well as domestic love and delight in nature. These darker emotions may well put on the mask of quite unworldly things, such as ghosts or trolls or antique gods."
--Sylvia Plath, Collected Poems


Our task is not to find the maximum amount of content in a work of art, much less to squeeze more content out of the work than is already there. Our task is to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all.

The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art — and, by analogy, our own experience — more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."
--Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation and Other Essays


"The lyric poem seeks to mesmerize time. It crosses frontiers and outwits the temporal. It seeks to defy death, coming to disturb and console you. (‘These Songs are not meant to be understood, you understand,’ John Berryman wrote in one of his last Dream Songs: ‘They are only meant to terrify & comfort.’) The poet is incited to create a work that can outdistance time and surmount distance, that can bridge the gulf — the chasm — between people otherwise unknown to each other. It can survive changes of language and in language, changes in social norms and customs, the ravages of history. Here is Robert Graves in The White Goddess:

True poetic practice implies a mind so miraculously attuned and illuminated that it can form words, by a chain of more-than coincidences, into a living entity — a poem that goes about on its own (for centuries after the author’s death, perhaps) affecting readers with its stored magic.

I believe such stored magic can author in the reader an equivalent capacity for creative wonder, creative response to a living entity. (Graves means his statement literally.) The reader completes the poem, in the process bringing to it his or her own past experiences. You are reading poetry — I mean really reading it—when you feel encountered and changed by a poem, when you feel its seismic vibrations, the sounding of your depths. ‘There is no place that does not see you,’ Rainer Maria Rilke writes at the earth-shattering conclusion of his poem ‘Archaic Torso of Apollo’: ‘You must change your life.’"
--Edward Hirsch, "How to Read a Poem"
 
Oui said:
Well, I think it takes a lot of imagination to believe that Eve was born of Adam, when we all know that really cannot be even remotely plausible.

The scriptures do not even pretend to suggest that Adam gave birth to Eve.

Depending upon the narrative used Man and Women are both created in the image and likeness of God or, Eve is fashioned from the rib of Adam by God.

The texts you quote (1 Timothy 2: 13 and 1 Corinthians 11: 8-9) work with the second narrative. Neither text evokes which gave birth to which. Both texts do appeal to a created order.

True Paul had a choice between Creation texts to reference. Paul is not available to defend his choice so attributing motive may deliver a fair or unfair assessment as to why Paul chose to reference those texts.

Oui said:
Paul had a choice, and its very clear he wants women to be placed hierarchically below men. Using a story that absolutely no one can relate to, to support his position is beyond credulity.

Which would be very true if Paul wrote today in the 21st Century.

Paul did not write in the 21st Century so the anachronism you seek to import into the story (that no one can relate to) doesn't apply to Paul's time. Any more than we can look at references to the word "gay" in 18th Century literature and claim that it is a reference to homosexuality. Anybody who would make the latter suggestion would not be trusted by those who study English literature.

Paul does write influenced by the culture of his day. To expect that he would be immune to it is folly.

Attributing motive to anyone in the first or second century based on a 21st century mentality is also folly.

That's a first level issue. A second level issue is the appeal to Biblical literalism which is also not a 1st or 2nd century reality but rather a much later (mostly 18th Century approach to the Biblical text).

I really have no interest in advocating for one anachronism over and against another anachronism. I reject both.

Oui said:
We could choose to end the hypocrisy of which the bible is on the one hand used to teach Christian freedom and a renewed relationship with the God of love, but is then used to conveniently oppress women and to have them subscribe willingly to that oppression.


Or we could listen to what the text is actually trying to tell us rather than assume we know better than the text what the message actually is.

We could treat it as a document from the century it belongs to rather than judge it by the standards of the day in which we read it.

Oui said:
We could continue to unrealistically expect women to somehow interpret the words of male authors, describing male flavoured spirituality, to express their female spirituality. I think the oppressor's tools will never dismantle the oppressor's house.

You and I are talking together. How is that possible if I as a male cannot communicate to a female and you a female are incapable or communicating with a male?

Are we to expect that communication between males and females is no different than the farside cartoon which seeks to explain what cats hear their master's say and what dog's hear their master's say?

Oui said:
Or are we to assume that men still simply really just don't care about women's genuine spirituality?

I don't think that assumption will be true of all men. I don't think that the assumption will be untrue of some men.

I think it is fair to say that we could look at the list of participants in this thread and slot who belongs where. I don't know that everyone would be happy with where they were slotted or that there would be universal agreement on how such assessment should be made.

At this point I'm not sure all participants are actually interested in a dialogue.
 
If one has to express something they are discouraged from knowing due to humanized religion ... it should be pacifist, or subtly hidden from those wishing to remain devoid or such distasteful things that are natural ... and thus supernatural belief systems that suppress and oppress reality ... into a world called negative thinking ... perhaps because it is lesser than the supposed power of emotions?

Could we have gone wrong? How could we know if disposing of knowing and related information as foreign intelligence? Thus IT goes ...
 
Romeo wandered and Juliet as derived from Jude'n was a fixed drawing power ... once known as druid! Ah the chit one has to give up in a bump of mind ... causes dissemination ... scattering as feeding chickens ... onanism or just omi-Nous?
 
Back
Top