Dear George,

You wrote:

(citing me) >>Paul’s horrible attitudes towards sex and women <<

“Again, if I may so, I would be more careful with the word “horrible”. In the Middle Ages doctors amputated legs without anaesthetics, and Inquisitors had their victims tortured on torture racks. Both things are horrible, however one can have understanding for the first case (historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics) but much less for the second. However, in both cases people did not undergo such treatment voluntarily - they were either compelled in order to save at least their lives, or forced by the Inquisitors. On the other hand, in case of Paul, I think there were many women who voluntarily became Christians, (or what you would call those whom Paul addressed his Epistles to) in spite of his teachings about the man-woman relation that today might seem “horrible” to some of us.”

I went to Delphi a few years ago. It is in a magnificent setting. Wooded hills surround the area. There were many inscriptions of the walls of the ancient buildings. They were by Greeks who boasted of their good deeds. Most of the inscriptions involved freeing slaves. Many Greeks apparently recognised the evil of slavery. It was an accepted institution so they could not get rid of it, but at least they could free their own slaves. Paul did not appeal to the generous nature of slave-owners and exhort them to free their slaves. His appeal was one-sided. He appealed to slaves to serve their masters faithfully not to free their slaves. His appeal was to the downtrodden to accept their lot and wait for the pie in the sky bye-and-bye.

In most societies of that time as in most societies of this time women were second-class citizens. However, there were exceptions. Deborah was a prophet as well as a general. In Sparta the warriors were men, but women had an equal voice in decision making. They were equal citizens. Paul’s advice to women was the same as his advice to slaves. Submit.

continued

continued

Paul’s message was not one of freedom but of submission to authority. As a person who thinks one should question authority I think his attitude stunk. To my mind one of the glories of being human is expanding our freedoms. Figures such as Paul who push for the expansion of authority are ugly blots on our history.

In Brisbane there is a Catholic cemetery I have visited. In it are the graves of priests and nuns. There are crypts, one for each departed priest, but the nuns according to the headstones were buried more than one to a grave. Was not a woman religious as worthy as a man? Evidently not. I feel this is part of the heritage of Paul.

It is true that Christianity was attractive to women, and possibly women predominated in the early church. However, as important as Paul was the usually gentle figure of Jesus was much more important.

The first pope was Peter not Paul. In some respects Peter was a weak human being. He betrayed Jesus, but he seemed to have had a normal sexuality. He was married and apparently had administrative ability. He also doesn’t appear to be a bigot. IMHO he was a much more worthy person than Paul.

Paul, before he had his vision on the road to Damascus, persecuted Christians. That was terribly wrong. Nobody should be persecuted for their religious opinions. Acts includes the story of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and his actions after.

One of the first acts when he had recovered from the effects of his vision.

Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

In the above Paul was completely out of order. At that time some Jews was followers of Jesus, and others were not. Christianity had not yet become a separate religion. It’s as though a Catholic priest would come into an Anglican church to preach his religion even though Anglicans are also Christian. Any Catholic priest would probably not do that in Australia.

continued

continued

Both Testaments of the Bible contain much bigotry. However, reflection and even actions at that time challenge the bigotry. For example, Leviticus tells us not only to love our neighbour but also not to harass the stranger among us. Jesus quoted Leviticus.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

The Talmud contains stories called midrashim. Some of them aim to soften the harshness of the Jewish Bible.

One of the stories tells of the angels around the Lord cheering as the Red Sea closed over the Egyptians. God wept as the Egyptians were also his children.

That humanity seems lacking in Paul. As Saul he persecuted Christians. As Paul he lacked respect for the beliefs of non-Christians and pushed his mumbojumbo on them. He was a sexist, authoritarian bigot even by the standards of the more enlightened people of his time. I think he earned the adjective, horrible.

In regard to eastern and western civilisations I agree mostly with you. We should be aware of the differences and similarities. We should try to avoid sweeping generalisations and realise we generally are not as familiar with other cultures as we are of our own. We should also realise they is a tendency to exalt what we are familiar with and identify with.

i seem to recall there are many ways to free a slave
[one is simply THE SLAVE RETURNING HIS MASTERS CLOTHING]

[Slaves usually were enslaved BY OUTSTANDING DEBT..even war debt]

there is also.he shall serve..you six years,
and in the seventh year..you shall let him go free from you.
ITS A FERTILE AREA OF STUDY
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=bible+free+slaves

that paul SUBVERTED THE DIRECT ONE TO ONE PERSONAL GOD..of christ
IS BEYond dispute/he did however Clarify much of what christ revealed
[in fact it was to be john doing the revealing/even jesus thought so/never THE LESS HE DID much..because it was predicted..it be done

as it is jesus did better than john would have done
and saul..returned the creed more BACK TO WHAT JOHN WAS PREVENTED DOING..AND because it said the things like david just raised/govt didnt need delete THE RECORD.

THE RECord survives IN THE WEST/MAINLY BECAUSE OF SAUL/S TWISTING IT..further[for whatever reason]..then there is the translations of Francis BACON]..and why its commonly held/that the bible is word for word the jewish texts..[that mention why mosus had a lisp/[the eating of the hot coal/gave mosus aCceSs to the egyptian higher knowing [abouve that even witnessed by servants.

anyhow/jesus warned of these times via a key text
[that eVEN A BEAST IN THE STABLE..KNOWS HIS MASTERS VOICE
BY READING THE WITNESS.of the gosapil..we can know the christ/BUT EVEN THEN..WHICH CHRIST WE GET FROM THE TEXTS IS UP TO US

I FEEL THE BI-BLE NEEDS BECOME TRI-BLE
including The revealINGS oF THE KORAN/THE TORAH/[JEWISH OLD TESTIMONIAL/FULL VERSION..plus GOSPIL/Witness..INCLUDING PAUL

LEST..WE FORGET..the corner stone
is only the base upon which 'the church'..IS BUILT
12 corner stones lie in THE full body of christo'..reveal-elations

LETs join heads and sort it out
its ok to be wrong...only god..OOOPS SORRY
ONLY THE WHOLLY holy SPIRIT..is perfECT.

George quotes Rodney Stark: ” and “Real science arose only once in Europe. China, Islam, India and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token … only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy”.

Such "crude generalisations" are an insult to scholarship and deserve the most severe censure. I direct every readers' attention to Joseph Needham's compendious work Science and Civilisation in China or a more recently published condensation of this vast work, Robert Templeton's The Genius of China, in order to correct Stark's Eurocentric view.

As an example, Templeton's work [Simon & Schuster 1986] Page 110 PRINTING. "Effective movable type was invented between the years 1041 and 1048 by an obscure commoner named Pi Sheng who lived from about 990 to 1051." I recommend the entire chapter that the reader may learn of the prevalence of printed works in China prior to the invention of movable type.

I'm unaware of similar important histories of the development of the sciences regionally but suggest that historians like Stark be careful of dismissing India, the Arabs and Persia from important contributions in the sciences and mathematics. Terms like "real science" and "real chemistry" are relative to the civilisations that developed them. Denying the genius of other civilisations that Europe might be glorified reveals an unscholarly smugness unsavory in any historian.

>>I suggest that historians like Stark be careful of dismissing India, the Arabs and Persia from important contributions in the sciences and mathematics.<<

I have never heard of a professional historian, Stark (a sociologist) included, who “dismisses” these civilisations from important contributions.

>>Terms like "real science" and "real chemistry" are relative to the civilisations that developed them.<<

I presume today every student of science wants to learn "real" science, whatever that means. So the dependance on civilisations could perhaps be checked by comparing how much science, theoretical as well as experimental, developed in the last centuries in the West an e.g. Chinese PhD student of physics, chemistry etc has to absorb, with how much a Western PhD student of science has to learn from what has been developed in oriental societies in the past centuries.

Self-deprecation, even self-hatred is not the only alternative to hubris. On the personal as well as cultural level.