Ribs

So...I'm confused. I mentioned before about trolling through (yeah...I think I'm a troll, but I don't try to pick fights--people just say stuff that I don't agree with so I reply...but they out-number me, so I have to reply a lot) an anti-feminism Christian blog-thing.

Apparently there are some Christians who believe that women have one less pair of ribs than men? I admit, I'd never thought about this, so I had to take a quick trip to Wikipedia to find out for sure. I mean, I get that Christians will never believe scientists that the world is 4.5 Billion years old, but there are Christian doctors--wouldn't they know the truth? That's why I'm not embarrassed that for the 2 minutes it took  me to do that search I assumed that the Christians were right. I guess I'm inviting any Christians who may pass through to comment on why they think this idea still exists.

Or is it like "Columbus thought the world was flat"? It's just one of those urban myths that scholars just can't squash.

Firelight (Hallmark Hall of Fame)

One of my penpals told me that one of her favorite websites is a "bloggy" thing about Christian women who are against feminism. And then there is the Pope who want to crack down on Nuns in America who are getting too feminist in their ways. In reading that blog, it's obvious that these women have no idea what real feminism is.

It's not a bunch of wild women burning their bras, sleeping around, and acting like heathens, which is what they seem to think. Yes, those are symbols, but for the most part, they're pointless and most feminist women will say that while it's our RIGHT to do such things, they don't make us CEOs or whatever our hearts desire are.

Real feminism is what's portrayed in this show--strong women able to do for themselves without a man. Real feminism takes the life that those Christian women want and makes it practical. Having a loving husband, taking care of loved children, but only when we choose, not because it's expected of us. And doing what we want because we CAN, not being forced to act in a certain way because that's what's expected of us.

One of the biggest complaints you can read in the comments section is that these women are teaching their daughters to be servants to their husbands. They're automatic defense is that they aren't servants, but partners where the husband has the ultimate say (debate that as you wish). But first and foremost, they say that they would support whatever life choices that their daughters make. If that is true, then those mothers are the biggest feminists in the world--because if their daughter came up to them and said that she's going to be the next President of the US, then that mother is going to do everything in her power to make sure that it happens.

Again, debate amongst yourselves as to whether these mothers are serious about their commitment to supporting their daughters decisions--the last article I read was on how mothers should teach their...children or was it just daughters?...to not follow their dreams, but to follow what Jesus wants them to do. My argument, and one many women agreed with, was that how can a human (who most Christians will agree are sinful and flawed) can sit there and tell their child that their dreams AREN'T sent by God.

Analogies

Two main points here: Climate Change and Multiple Gods

Okay, so the first analogy I'm sharing from a Fora.tv lecture on the politics of climate change and how poorly it's been discussed in the media (here). The analogy is looking at one snow storm to disprove the existence of Global Warming. The professor explains that it's like trying to determine Willie Mays cumulative batting average by looking at July of 1958. Which is a great way of thinking abou it.

The second analogy is one that I came up with this morning while thinking about where to take the story that I'm writing (link here). The story revolves around a 24 year old woman who is able to take away syptoms of illness and therefore increase the quality of life of the people in the town she lives in. The problem? There's a group of people who apsolutely hate her--and sue me if they look like my idea of demon-spawn: Christians so certain about their own superiority that they spew hatred instead of all the good parts of Christianity--love of your neighbors.

Well, while working through the scene where she confronts the mother of her love interest (I write romances, sue me again), who is a member of the offending church, the mother asks something about whether Scarlet (the main character) believes in God. Scarlet says that it's probably not the same God as the Browns, which, of course, frightens the mother because Christians are notoriously very unhappy with the idea of more than one "True God". Scarlet tries to get out of a theological debate, but the mother's curiosity overwhelms. Scarlet then comes up with this wonderful analogy to the idea of multiple Gods:

"Picture the maple tree outside. Is it the only maple tree in the world? No, of course not. There are maples all over the country and they are all different. They are all affected by the environment where they grow--by the minute differences in nitrogen and phosphorous levels--by whether they are in a city or the country--by whether someone cares for it or not. This is the same for God. The theological being is completely different for everyone--it doesn't matter whether it's two people sitting next to each other in a pew or two people where one goes to a Catholic church and one goes to a Methodist church. I call this multiple Gods. Few people would agree with the Phelps' that their God is your God, and yet they came to their conclusion reading the same book as all other Christians--just as all maples start out with the basic book of "maple-ness" that is then altered by the environment that they grow."

I'm not sure if that debate will make it into the final draft--especially since the story is no where near the point where that discussion is held. I write linearly--I start a story at the beginning and write until it ends--but I imagine the story for months to see how it can get to where it goes. I probably lose a lot of great material because I brainstorm only within my brain, but then again, it's those key events that you know need to go into the story because you keep going back to them.

Buddhism Sounds Like Protestanism

"The precursor to these reform movements was the monk Genshin (942-1017). His popular work Ojo Yoshu (Essentials of Salvation) depicted the horrors of hell and contrasted them vividly with the bliss of the Western Paradise. To attain rebirth in this paradise, Genshin stressed faith in the efficacy of the original vow of Amida Buddha (Amitabha). This could be manifested in the practice of menbutsu, by reciting the sacred name of Amida Buddha in the formula Namu Amida Butsu (Hail to the Name of Amida Buddha).

By stressing faith and dependence on the power of another (tariki), Genshin brought a totally new conccept to Japanese Buddhism. The sequel to his teaching was to deny, as a means of salvation, dependence on one's own strength (jiriki) as practiced in traditional Buddhism, be it in the form of ascetic observance, in spiritual and metaphysical exercises, or in performing good works. By simplifying the creed, he also opened the gate of paradise to the reach of common men.

The way that was paved by Genshin was brought into fruition by Honen (1133-1212), who became the ffounder of the Pure Land (Jodo) Sect in Japan (around 1175). Honen taught absolute efficacy of nembutsu, and departed in some points from the teachings of Genshin. For example, Genshin maintained that in invoking the sacred name of Buddha, one ought to form a mental image of Amida Buddha, and meditate on it. Honen rejected meditation or complete comprehension as unnecessary.

Shinran (1173-1262) moved Honen's teachings of the absolute efficacy of nembutsu one step further and to its logical conclusion. In traditional Pure Land beliefs, such as those advocated by the Chinese monk Shandao and by Honen, the awakening of faith required diligent observance of prayers to the Three Treasures. Thus there was an an element of acquiring faith by one's own power. To Shinran "faith is a gift freely given" by all Buddhas. He maintained that faith as well as the thought of Amida Buddha was transferred to or conferred upon all sentient beings to ensure the latter's salvation. And since salvation was dependent on the works of Amida Buddha: "If a good man can attain salvation, even more so a wicked man."

From "Japan: A Documentary History" by David Lu.

Wow, didn't know until about 30 seconds ago that there's evidence of early Christianity reaching Japan in around 400 AD. However, given that the widely accepted notion that Christianity didn't arrive until 1549, then you'll be quick to notice the similarities between Christian ideas and a Buddhist ideology that wasn't supposed to know that it existed, especially given that Luther didn't write his 95 Thesis until 1517--well after Shinran said "faith is a gift freely given" by all Buddhas.

I [heart] Confusion

Or is that Confucian? I'll let you decide:

"When the government of a nation has gone astray, Heaven will chastise it through calamities. If storms and floods do not cause the government to mend its ways, Heaven will strike terror in the people's hearts by still greater disasters. Ruin will come at last if these two visitations are not sufficient to check the downward course. With gracious love toward the ruler, the Heavenly Way will make use of these means to prevent the final necessary evil, while the principles of propriety and music are positive means to guiding the people"
--nope, not from some recient Christian group, but from "The Heaven-Appointed Duty of Subjects" by Kumazawa Banzan (1619-1691) Confucian Scholar of sorts who "submitted an opinion to Shogun Tsunayoshi, who ordered his arrest".

Test Your Savvy on Religion

see orignial: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/opinion/10kristof.html?src=me&ref=general
Time for a pop quiz.

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof

On the Ground

Share Your Comments About This Column

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.

Go to Columnist Page »

The New York Times reported recently on a Pew Research Center poll in which religious people turned out to be remarkably uninformed about religion. Almost half of Catholics didn’t understand Communion. Most Protestants didn’t know that Martin Luther started the Reformation. Almost half of Jews didn’t realize Maimonides was Jewish. And atheists were among the best informed about religion.
So let me give everybody another chance. And given the uproar about Islam, I’ll focus on extremism and fundamentalism — and, as you’ll see, there’s a larger point to this quiz. Note that some questions have more than one correct choice; answers are at the end.

 1. Which holy book stipulates that a girl who does not bleed on her wedding night should be stoned to death?
a. Koran
b. Old Testament
c. (Hindu) Upanishads

2. Which holy text declares: “Let there be no compulsion in religion”?
a. Koran
b. Gospel of Matthew
c. Letter of Paul to the Romans

3. The terrorists who pioneered the suicide vest in modern times, and the use of women in terror attacks, were affiliated with which major religion?
a. Islam
b. Christianity
c. Hinduism

4. "Every child is touched by the devil as soon as he is born and this contact makes him cry. Excepted are Mary and her Son.” This verse is from:
a. Letters of Paul to the Corinthians
b. The Book of Revelation
c. An Islamic hadith, or religious tale

5. Which holy text is sympathetic to slavery?
a. Old Testament
b. New Testament
c. Koran

6. In the New Testament, Jesus’ views of homosexuality are:
a. strongly condemnatory
b. forgiving
c. never mentioned

7. Which holy text urges responding to evil with kindness, saying: “repel the evil deed with one which is better.”
a. Gospel of Luke
b. Book of Isaiah
c. Koran

8. Which religious figure preaches tolerance by suggesting that God looks after all peoples and leads them all to their promised lands?
a. Muhammad
b. Amos
c. Jesus

9. Which of these religious leaders was a polygamist?
a. Jacob
b. King David
c. Muhammad

10. What characterizes Muhammad’s behavior toward the Jews of his time?
a. He killed them.
b. He married one.
c. He praised them as a chosen people.

11. Which holy scripture urges that the "little ones" of the enemy be dashed against the stones?
a. Book of Psalms
b. Koran
c. Leviticus

12. Which holy scripture suggests beating wives who misbehave?
a. Koran
b. Letters of Paul to the Corinthians
c. Book of Judges

13. Which religious leader is quoted as commanding women to be silent during services?
a. The first Dalai Lama
b. St. Paul
c. Muhammad

Answers:
1. b. Deuteronomy 22:21.
2. a. Koran, 2:256. But other sections of the Koran do describe coercion.
3. c. Most early suicide bombings were by Tamil Hindus (some secular) in Sri Lanka and India.
4. c. Hadith. Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet to be revered.
5. All of the above.
6. c. Other parts of the New and Old Testaments object to homosexuality, but there’s no indication of Jesus’ views.
7. c. Koran, 41:34. Jesus says much the same thing in different words.
8. b. Amos 9:7
9. all of them
10. all of these. Muhammad’s Jewish wife was seized in battle, which undermines the spirit of the gesture. By some accounts he had a second Jewish wife as well.
11. a. Psalm 137
12. a. Koran 4:34
13. b. St. Paul, both in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, but many scholars believe that neither section was actually written by Paul.

And yes, the point of this little quiz is that religion is more complicated than it sometimes seems, and that we should be wary of rushing to inflammatory conclusions about any faith, especially based on cherry-picking texts. The most crucial element is perhaps not what is in our scriptures, but what is in our hearts.

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

Wow, someone with a clue!!

Really, I think this opinion is self-explanatory. Enjoy.