Aw crap, man. sickening.

Posted by: MrB

Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/10/13 01:20 PM

This girl is something. First time I've seen what they did to her.
The girls face

http://www.cnn.com/

Dave
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/10/13 02:14 PM

I remember seeing something about that, but your link only takes me to the main page. Was that about Aesha?
Posted by: MrB

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/10/13 06:33 PM

Yes, I put wrong link. Here is one

http://m24digital.com/en/2012/05/21/the-...w-life-picture/

I had not seen an image like this

Dave
Posted by: Stumpy1

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 05:03 AM

Those guys are totally whacky. frown

Good luck to that poor lady, and prayers for all suffering under abuse in the world.
Posted by: carp

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 01:26 PM

The UN estimates that nearly 90% of Afghan women suffer from some form of domestic abuse.

Of course the Taliban feels that a woman has absolutely no rights what so ever, not even a right to life. A women is only on this planet to serve their husband as sex machines to produce more Taliban fighters.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 02:52 PM

The bible is no better, it also puts women as a lower class. We here as a society luckily choose not to follow certain archaic teachings, whereas many Eastern religions have never evolved from them.

Peter

Timothy

And many more. Some of these below are Old Testament which is not considered strict law anymore.

Click

Click

Click
Posted by: MrB

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 04:54 PM

I never liked Saul/Paul. I always considered him a pukehead..


Dave
Posted by: Mac007

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 08:08 PM

Jesus seemed to have no problem with women. I also tend to think folks misunderstand the scriptures on a lot of things. What about the fact that many women in the old and new testament were in high positions such as Deborah in the book of Judges and Phoebe who was a first century Christian woman mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, verses 16:1-2 who was a deacon (leader) in the church who in his opinion was worthy of support.

For further reading I add this link: http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/a265
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 08:47 PM

It's all about selective reading, seeing, hearing and believing.
Nice gig if you can live with it.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 09:26 PM

There's an anthropological reading of the historical times around when the OT first comes into being that I think is pretty neat--whether true or not, who knows. Anyways, in the move from nomadism to settled societies that takes place in and around the Agricultural Revolution (10th or so millennium BCE) there's also a marked shift from goddess-centered religions to god-centered ones. The calling of Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans by the voice of Yahweh (after which Abram becomes Abraham and his wife Sarai becomes Sarah) takes place as the first of the settled communities come into being, and Yahweh's is definitely the voice of a male, patriarchal deity. Some of the early conflicts between Yahweh and other "gods" of the Mediterranean basin are, anthropologically speaking, conflicts between patriarchal and matriarchal divinities, like Ishtar/Astarte. The same goes for the earliest Egyptian deities, by the way, like Hathor and Isis--and in Egypt the male/female conflict is reflected in the shift from single, ruling mother-goddesses to the pairing of those goddesses with male counterparts. Isis ultimately gets associated with her brother Osiris and becomes more or less subordinated to the task of putting together Osiris, who is dismembered by his brother, Set. Isis finds all the body parts, except for the phallus, but constructs a golden phallus, which brings Osiris back to life long enough to impregnate her with Horus, so that the birth of Horus is understood as the rebirth of Osiris, who as Horus hunts and kills Set.

Don't know why I got off on the Isis-Osiris-Set-Horus thing, but I think it's fascinating that the originally independent Egyptian goddess becomes a bit like the Virgin Mary in her function as mother of the "redeemer." Or like the significant women of Genesis, Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel in particular, whose function is to give birth. It all derives from that wonderful scene where Yahweh promises the 90-plus-year-old Sarah that she will bear a child, to which Sarah "laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" (Genesis 18.13). And Yahweh says, "Is any thing too hard for the Lord?" (Genesis 18.14). The child is Isaac, of course, who marries Rebecca and begets Jacob, who marries Rachel, becomes Israel, and begets the 12 children who are the patronyms of the 12 tribes.

The Book of Ruth emphasizes the same point, women as the fertile ground on which the patriarch begets. (The whole of Ruth is a sort of extended metonymy, in which Ruth finds a place in Israel via the "alien corn," the actual "seed," that she gleans.) In some ways the whole point of Rachel is her being able to produce children (the figurative "seed") in that odd way that the OT requires from family members of dead husbands (especially the brothers of the dead husband, if there is a brother). So Boaz (an "alien" to Ruth parallel to the "alien corn") accepts Ruth as his wife to raise up children for the dead Mahlon--and here come the begats: "Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David" (Ruth 4.22)--and of course Jesus comes from the house of Jesse.

I know that it's easy to skip the begats, but they are not irrelevant to the whole business of how women in Old and New Testament function as the source of "seed" from which spring redeemers. So, for instance, the begats that I've just quoted from Ruth 4 begin with the initiator of the family that ultimately leads to Jesse and David, and that is Pharez, who it turns out is the son of Judah, one of the sons of Israel. (I love typological readings, and from that angle, Sarah = Rachel = Ruth = Mary, all of them producers of the "seed" of redemption.) All of those women are important in the Old and New Testaments, but to my mind they are significant as the ground from which springs the tree of Jesse, and in that way pretty much parallel to Isis in relation to Osiris-Horus.

Anyway, like in Mesopotamia, Egyptian mother goddesses become subordinated to male counterparts. From that point of view, Yahweh is the ultimate patriarchal god, who defeats all of the goddesses and assumes the role as the one and only God. (There's a parallel for that in Egypt as well, with the one-god (Aten/Ra) asserted by Akhen-Aten (originally Amenhotep IV).

From my point of view, if you read the story of the OT as a more or less imperfect historical record of the neolithic transition to settled civilization, then it shouldn't be surprising that there are some women who retain a significant role--at least for a while. But for the most part those women disappear into their "seed."
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 09:49 PM

OK.
That clears up everything, makes total sense and I will sleep much better tonight for being on this side of that information.

wink

yoyo, you rock.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 10:26 PM

Glad I gave you cause to go to sleep, Leslie. smile
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/11/13 10:50 PM

And it s/b your bedtime (way over there on the east coast).
Pleasant dreams.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/12/13 01:18 AM

I liked it.

Still, though. Appears to me that in all this begatting, women are used to creat babies , of which, the males are more important since they are more like God.

Also, it appears to me that there was all this importance attributed to begatting because the human species needed the numbers because a large number of offspring died very young before they could, themselves, do any begatting. . Whereas now, we save most births, at least in the developed nations.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/12/13 01:21 AM

Also, the term "Go begat yourself" just doesn't have the potency of the common expression, but that's another issue. laugh

It's 3:30 in the morning and I'm being nuts.

Dave
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/12/13 02:43 AM

Originally Posted By: MrB
Also, the term "Go begat yourself" just doesn't have the potency of the common expression, but that's another issue. laugh

Dave


...and that chief among the virtues of these
women regarded as noteworthy mainly FOR
being 'Virtuous' was the virtue of Obedience.

ummm
the Virtue of "STFU and Do as you're told" ?
"oh...and while you're up, get me some coffee."

"GEE! Where do I sign up?!?"

"BEGAT Dat!"

**
I'd have no problem adapting it into modern language

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/12/13 07:56 AM

That was the point, MrB. The women are the ground, essential but passive.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/12/13 10:04 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
That was the point, MrB.

The women are the ground, essential but passive.


"The Ground"...
yeah... like DIRT Under Their Feet

and "Passive"
uh huh as in "Passive or DIE!"

btw
I don't recall them dragging the cheatin' SON of a Beach
with whom that WOMAN who Jesus saved from STONING
was found committing Adultery WITH for Public Execution!

Patriarchal Theology?
LOL... 'Make Mine Vanilla!'
It was all a crock o' doo doo!

Especially that "DOMINATION"
Over everything they survey, pucky

Not Altogether Certain...
...but I'm willing to bet that
The All Powerful Schmuck don't "do" "Do-Overs"

Bring Back the Feminine
"Mother Earth" Theologies
we'd have been all the better for it.
Posted by: Stumpy1

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/12/13 05:54 PM

Thanks for the link. It was very good.

In addition, I'd like to offer this link

Husbands are encouraged to love their wives as Christ loves the church, i.e., he died for the church.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/12/13 07:55 PM

Quote:
"The Ground"...
yeah... like DIRT Under Their Feet

and "Passive"
uh huh as in "Passive or DIE!"


I believe he meant .. as in electrical.. Ground wire being passive..
?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Aw crap, man. sickening. - 05/13/13 12:01 AM

Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Quote:
"The Ground"...
yeah... like DIRT Under Their Feet

and "Passive"
uh huh as in "Passive or DIE!"


I believe he meant .. as in electrical.. Ground wire being passive..
?


Very poetic...

...but try telling that
to the girl with no nose.