Have just got back from Sicily :) 

Everyone must go there -its fantastic! Stayed in a small town near mount Etna where the views are breath-taking. One day we spent the morning by the beach and the afternoon skiing down a live volcano! The island has so much history, we saw ancient Greek theatres, roman temples, Byzantium churches and medieval castles!

I need more time to write about it! -Will update this entry soon and put some pics on when I have the time...

Red Nose Day - sponsored pub crawl - all in the name of charity! hurrah!

Sperestillen
So should we ignore the fact that great cities such as Athens were built in the name of a female God as this is probably just the misinterpretation of archaelogists? The Parthenon at the Acropolis housed one of the largest statues of its time that depicted Athena, the goddess of wisdom and there is no denying her and other female Gods importance in Greek Society. Not only are they present in the art and architecture of the Greeks, but also in literature and plays. -Euripede's famous play, Hippolytus talks of two goddesses, Artemis and Aphrodite, who conflictingly represent sex and virginity. The strife of the mortal Hippolytus who underestimates the Goddess's power concludes in the death of his parents. Also, the Illiad and the Odyssey by Homer, both discuss divine aid from male and female Gods who often work alongside each other. -In battle, they called for both Ares, the male God of war and Athena, the female God of wisdom.

It may be foolish to think that women were idolised more than men but it is also foolish to completely ignore the existence of female Gods and the fact that, more often than not, they were considered to be of equal importance to their male counterparts.

When was it exactly that we turned into a nation of obsessive coffee drinkers? While waiting for my train this morning (which was 20 mins late by the way, but thats a whole different topic), I decided to get a cup of tea from the customary over-priced station shop. After joining a queue behind five other people who smuggly ordered huge lattes (which for some reason require the loud banging of metal objects, a 'frothing machine' and lots of steam), I asked the assistant for a cup of tea (which is much quieter and less obtrusive I might add). My request however, was returned with a look of worry before a full minute of frantic searching for the tea bags (seriously!) which were hidden under a mound of platic lids. I got my tea in the end but the whole fiasco got me wondering about when and why our national beverage of choice changed from tea to coffee. I don't recall this sudden transformation -was there a law passed some time in the late 90's that stated every other shop in our towns must be one of the 'coffee shop' variety?

When I was younger, if I came home from school with a grazed knee, my mother would make a pot of tea and tell me it will be ok. I would then quietly drink my tea, have a biscuit and proceed to run outside again, this time with a little more caution about the dangers of skipping on concrete! Then, when I was a bit older and I came home from school upset because my best friend had said she fancied the boy that I did (the law of 13 year old girls states that fancying a boy means that they are yours and no one else can have them), a pot of tea would await me as would a quiet moment of contemplation where I would realise that I was just being a bit silly about the whole thing. Now, however, if something upsets me at work or I'm worrying about an essay for uni, my friends will immediately tell me they are taking me for a latte... We go to trendy coffee shop, pose in front of huge milky coffees and disect my woes in the manner of a therapist and his patient. But, to be honest, this only ever confuses things and its not until I muse over the situation on my own with a quiet 'cuppa' that manage to actually resolve the problem.

You see, along with the new-found obsession with coffee, comes the new 'coffee-culture' and its caused the loss of some of our 'Britishness'. -It makes us all think that we can only be cool if we swan around in starbucks and the likes sitting on 'tub' chairs and openely discussing our problems with our fashionable friends as if we're in an American sitcom. If not, then we stalk around town with a plastic cup of what is essentially warm milk which we drink through a teat (and I dread to think what Freud would make of that!)

Whatever happened to a good old cup of tea and a stiff upper-lip?

I think you continued to debate even while I was having my tea! -Paul, I dont mind you replying to comments in my blog by the way, everyones opinion is valued. Also, just realised that my 'reply' wasnt really much of a reply, more just a rant about the early christians.

Anyway, having re-read my entry and other peoples comments, I just had a little thought... Ok, bear with me here...

Right, so, the Old Testament tells stories of massacre and extreme forms of ethnic cleansing in order to, as KnightPilgrim suggested, pave the way for Jesus. The New Testament then recounts Jesus's arrival on earth as someone who told parables that preached a more peaceful way of life where non-believers and sinners were simply prayed for in the hope that they would be forgiven.

Similarly, the early Christians embarked on massacres like those in the Old Testament and it was not until many years later that what Paul calls 'The Established Church' developed and bought about a more peaceful religion that concentrated more on the teachings of Jesus from the New Testament. Theres a really big parallel here...

And, I suppose a modern peaceful Christian would argue that they would not now be a Christian at all had it not been for the early church's extreme forms of 'spreading the word'...

hmm...

Wow, just read through the comments and it seems you've all been debating amongst yourselves while I've been away. Really fascinating as you all claim to be Christians yet all have conflicting ideas... I'll reply soon... just going to have something to eat!

Right, having just feasted on curry and beer (not very lady-like, i know), I'm ready to try and sort some of this out.

Firstly, Sperestillen (commented below) ... yes, Dan Brown talks of the loss of the sacred feminine a lot in The Da Vinci Code (I don't know about his other books as I haven't had the chance to read them yet). But also, I've recently been studying 'The Goddess in Art' as part of my degree so its a subject that I've been quite preoccupied with lately. As is 'The Art of the Byzantium' and 'Art and Literature in Ancient Greece' which shows conflicts in Christian and Pagan culture. (I'm a Classics and Art History student) -If you're interested in the subject I can offer you a good reading list?

Anyway, back to the Bible...

I've read some things before about what KnightPilgrim said regarding the Old Testament as a way of creating an environment fit for the Son of God but I'm not sure if this idea justifies the massacre of thousands of people. -If Jesus was sent by God as a prophet to show people the righteous way then why did God need to murder the majority of the unrighteous beforehand?
The thing is, these massacres of thousands of non-believers or pagans did not just occur in the Bible but were carried out by the Church when the Romans converted to Christianity. The Church claimed to be acting as God wished and that they were following God's example in the Old Testament of ethnically-cleansing the population. They therefore spent three centuries riding the majority of Europe of anyone who doubted the faith. They even invaded Britain, raping and murdering the inhabitants of our old pagan communities and taking their money and possesions for themselves. This is extremely similar to the massacres in Joshua and Judges and so-forth and therefore, these early Christians were able to justify their actions by saying that it was what God intended.

The subsequent problems with the Bible stating that murder of a non-believer is what God laid down in his law is that this contradicts his and Jesus's teachings of free will and forgiveness of sins. You have all pointed out the quotes which state that enemies of the Lord will be forgiven and you have all acknowledged God's destruction in the Old Testament yet you still say that the Bible has no contradictions.

Another issue that plagues me about the actions of the early Christians is the barbarity of the attacks they led. Not only did they simply murder pagans but they also ingnited a fear beyond mortal life within the ordinary citizens. If they did not believe and follow the teachings of Christianity they would suffer at the hands of the Church (by torture and mortal death) as well as at the hands of God (by an eternal damnation in hell). Jesus may have taught forgiveness of sins but this was only if you repented of them and were truly sorry. By repenting, you had to go to confession and the inform the priest (an elected 'servant of God') of what you had done. The power this priest and his church then had by knowing the business of every parishoner through their 'confession' is hard to comprehend but it meant that they were able to keep constant vigilance over who was not abiding by the new laws. Subsequently these confessing parishoners were treated to the punishment the Church believed was correct according to the Laws in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, which, as I'm sure you know, say that children must be stoned to death for disobeying their parents amongst other things. If, however, they did not confess these sins, they would only be punished in the eternal after-life after being judged by God.

I know that the modern Christian Church is very different to this and has chosen to concentrate on the more peaceful parts of the Bible which state that sinners and non-believers will be forgiven. However, by doing this they are also choosing to ignore the rest and thus ignoring some of the strongest words and laws of God. Is it because these words and laws tell you that sometimes you might have to kill your own children or that occasionally you must invade a country of people who worship a different God to you? Or is it just because you can't possibly do both at the same time? -I still think it is full of contradictions.

On a lighter note...because these subjects are too 'meaty'...I got new shoes today :)

Paul, of course i still read your blog.
My shoes are very nice, brown leather with pointed toes and a little flower and bow motif on the front. They're not very high as Im quite tall already and am developing a fear of heights -or rather a fear of just being taller than everyone else. Buying them made me smile but the look on my bank managers face will tell a different story.

Updated

Ok, forget shoes... i prefer 'meaty' subjects...

Paul,
My point is that there are many contradictions throughout the Bible and Christian history. Sometimes the Bible will tell stories where God has commanded that men fight and kill their enimies of faith -those who follow a different religion.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at the Temple."  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.  "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill!  Go!"  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."  (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

Similarly, the Early Christians embarked on raids and attacks on any community who were not of Christian faith just as God had ordered others to do in the Old Testament. -All pagan temples were burnt and demolished then left to ruin while any followers of pagan belief were subsequently tortured and murdered. 

Now, however, modern Christians choose to ignore the teachings in the Bible that state anyone of a different faith must be killed. Instead, they look at the teachings of Paul when his own mortality was questioned (in Acts. 23:12) for his faith and at the stories of all the saints who died for God. It seems that when thinking of the Christians who died for their God, all the pagans who died at the hands of the Christians are forgotten.

You say to understand the true church in action is to read Acts, but that also implies to ignore the rest of the Bible which contradicts the teachings of Jesus and his disciples when they tell us to pray for our enimies. -God saught active revenge on his enimies in the Old Testament much to the opposite of his son's teachings in the New Testament which where:

"You may have heard it said, 'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enimies and pray for those who persecute you, and that you may be sons of your father in heaven." ( Matthew 5:43)

This 'Established Church' that you talk about comes directly from the Roman Church who have, as you said, 'admitted killing 65 million' people. This 'Established Church' is also therefore, by definition, a denomination of the RCC (as that was the origin of Christianity). You have said that denominations are a result of 'ungodly men..perverting The Word'. Interestingly, the established church does not follow God by murdering those of a different faith as described in the Old Testament. (Does it then 'pervert the word' and is 'ungodly'?) Instead, the 'established Church' follows the ideas of 'God's son' and teaches that those of another faith must be prayed for forgivenes. The whole thing is constantly contradicting itself and there are no solid rules. Either you kill non-believers, or pray for them, which ever you follow means following the teachings of a different person -God, or Jesus. Im so confused!!

PS. I am 5"8

Wow, thanks for the amount of comments left. Although, I must say that I'm getting a bit worried here as I had no intention of turning this into a debate about the rights and wrongs of Christianity. In this day and age, I admire any one who has true faith in a religion whatever that religion may be. If you're faith tells you that womans place is in the home and the women of that faith are quite happy to abide by that, then fine. Similarly, this was not intended to a piece about feminism and what the role of women in our society should be.

Instead, this was to be an observation on how religion is reflected in its culture and history. A religion that clearly states that women and men should not work alongside each other, rather men should be the leaders, the doctors, the thinkers, the scientists, etc. while the women suport these men and take control over only the home has lead to a culture and history ruled only by men. Where only men are in positions of power, the outcome of all decisions and actions will be of a male tendency and therefore will be fuelled by male emotion and ideas.

Religions, such as those of the Ancient Greeks and the early pagans in England, which instead preach that women were equally as intelligent, powerful and creative, by worshipping the female alongside the male, prospered from a more balanced and peaceful culture with a closeness to nature and the arts. Decisions of a political nature would be based on the harmonious mix of male and female sensibilities just as decisions of an environmental or social nature would.

Think about it on an individaul basis. -If you go to a bar and watch a group of men you will see them all bantering, joking loudly about sex and showing of in front of each other. To then watch a group of women would be to see their natural opposites -they will be talking about their boyfriends and supporting each other with advice. We all know that men think about sex an awful lot but we also all know that women think about love just as much. So, think about love, then think about sex and then think about the joining of the two in 'loving sex' -here, the balance of male and female makes for a very beautiful thing. If there was only sex and no emotion, it would be rape, if there was only emotion and no sex it would be...well, very dull!

Now, take it to a more global scale, think about if women were in similar positions of power to men. Think about the decisions concerning the environment which have been ignored under a male regime and the state our world is in now. Think about the emotionless battles for power and economic strength. Men and women are very different but those differences dictate that we need each other and we must work alongside each other in order to get a balance of feelings and actions.

Updated 19:13

I knew someone would mention Thatcher!

Also, I get the point about women being 'naturally' weaker etc but this does not mean therefore, that their supression by men is also natural. For 35,000 years before christianity and singular male-god religions, communities oftern worshipped the female diety alongside the male. This was due to the fact that many cultures thrived on the land and so therefore created a divine female (who naturally represented fertility and procreation) to encourage a prosperous crop. These communities were also surprisingly peaceful and felt no need to fortify their settlements for fear of attack. They were also matrilineal and children took their mother's names as they biologically came from them and not their fathers. Women, in all had a much more respected place in society and were considered of equal importance to men.
There may have been 2000 years of female supression because 'women are weaker' but before there were around 35,000 years of equality. The change coincided with the changes in religion.

Reply to KnightPilgrim

Thanks for commenting.
You are right about Deborah and other women in the Bible, however, you must admit that women in general make a very infrequent appearence. Christianity dominated the west for hundreds of years and the connection between the lack of influential women in the Bible and the number of influential women in western history cannot be a coincidence. The Bible also states that God made man in his own image and that woman came after man, fashioned from his ribs. This creation story therefore encourages men to believe that they are closer to God than women are and that men and women are not truly equal. Unfortunately, I think this has had dramatic consequences. -Living in a male-dominated world that believes in a religion which praises the male qualities over the female ones has encouraged humans to often act on the most extreme of male emotions, (resulting in testosterone-fuelled wars etc.) rather than consulting their female companions and trying to seek a balance of ideas.

Just as on an individual basis, the connection between a man and a woman can be a beautiful thing, I believe that on a larger, global scale, men and women working together can be even more beautiful and it is a shame that women have been supressed for so long.

PS. You quoted Pauls 'women obey your husbands' and 'men, love your wives..' The words 'love' and 'obey' have very different meanings. Although love can have a respectful connotation, the very idea that a man must be obeyed by a woman immediately suggests a level of inequality and the notion that men know better than women.

Reply to Paul

Thanks Paul, it is interesting to hear the view of such a devout Christian although to be honest, your comment has confused me somewhat. You say that women and men are both 'equal in God's eyes' yet you also state that women were simply created to be man's 'help mate' and that they must 'submit to their husbands'. This seems like a contradiction and I can't understand how you can say that women are not thought of as inferior to men yet their place is to be a home-keeper much like a maid.

Also, it is quite interesting that you said women are not allowed to preach in Church becuase of Eve's sin. Doesn't the Bible state that when Jesus was crucified, he bought about the redemption of original sin and the possibility of forgiveness? If you look at depictions of the crucifixion in art, you will sometimes see the skull of Adam at the foot of the cross. The skull often acts as a chalice to collect Christ's redemptive blood and symbolises that mankind has been forgiven for original sin. Why is then that Eve is not forgiven and that women must suffer for her sin forever?

Right, just so you know, I am aware that this entry may result in a lot of angry messages from Christians out there. But, please, do not be angry. -Your religion states that God gave us all the possibility of free will (we can all decide whether we want to abide by God's law or not) when he put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden. Well, I, like Eve am simply using my free will here. (But, don't worry, I'm not actually biting the apple... I'm just looking at it)

I have some issues with the church's treatment of women and I believe that these Christian attitudes are why, up untill very recently, women were suppressed, not seen as equals to men and why now, our world is such a terrible place. (Don't worry this isnt a feminist rant..just an observation)

Here is a brief history of western religion from which Christianity developed to make my point: (for a summary just cut to the last point)

• The Ancients : Egypt and Greece.

The Ancient civilizations believed in a number of Gods all at the same time and these Gods were both male and female. The Greeks, for example believed in Zeus (who we all know was the king of the Gods) and his female equivalent, Hera (who was the Queen and mother of Gods) along with many others including Apollo (male), Aphrodite (female) etc. They also saw that mortal men and women were, although different, both necessary for each others survival. In worshipping both the greatness of man alongside the greatness of woman, they naturally led a culture in which male and female were seen simply as two parts of a puzzle that must be put together in order for things to work correctly. (Pic 1, Artemis, the Greek huntress God)

• The Romans : Early Roman Religion.

The Romans were founded by the survivors of the Trojan War (Aeneas specifically) who had their city destroyed by the Greeks (who, incidentally were fighting for a precious woman). Given that the Roman civilization was created by the survivors of battle, their feelings were those of contempt and anger. They wanted to prove themselves and fight back by sieging old Greek cities and taking them as their own. Therefore the first actions, thoughts and feelings of Roman society were primarily those similar to male emotion. They began immediately to seek aid from male Gods and thus worshiped and celebrated man more than woman. Although eventually adopting the Greek religion, the only female God who has any prominence in early Roman religion was Venus (Greek equivalent, Aphrodite) who was seen to represent not the importance of an intimate relationship, rather man's sexual desire. (The planets of our solar system are a great example of this -named after top Roman Gods (mars, jupiter etc) the only female one is Venus. (Pic 2, Jupiter and Juno)

• Early Christianity.

After constant persecution of the Christians for hundreds of years, Constantine the Great (founder of Constantinople) finally freed them and Christianity became the main religion across the Roman Empire. The Romans were already a very macho race but, by completely ridding their belief system of all traces of female Gods and the greatness of woman and then replacing it by one man and his son, women were immediately considered as being of much less importance and were not celebrated or respected as the natural opposite of men. Although there are many characters in the Christian religion other than God and Jesus, the only female ones are those which reflect what men want and not that represent womanhood as a seperate and important meaning. Mary, for example, one of the only women celebrated in the Bible simply represents motherhood and chastity and these are the two qualities that a man wants from a woman -to mother their child and remain faithful and innocent. For a woman to be seen as not virginal and chaste like Mary, she would be punished with a torturous death.
"If the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die." – Deuteronomy 22.20,21
(pic 3, Eve)

• Christianity in Britain.

As Christianity spread across Europe, the church slowly became the power that governed the people. In Britain, the Church was at the centre of every town and village and sermons told of a punishment beyond death. -If humans were to commit a sin, they would not just be punished by British law but also by an eternal damnation in Hell. The power that the Church had was immense, every vicar knew all the business of his parish by encouraging them to 'confess their sins' to him and every parish member was obliged to donate a percentage of their income to the church. This power of the church therefore only made things worse for women. By already claiming that women often consorted with the devil (the story of Eve, the tempting nature of woman and the temptation of Christ by the Devil, Lust as a 'deadly sin' etc) the church began to constantly prey on womankind as a whole. Women had no rights compared to their male opposites and had no choice but to indulge in child-bearing and home-making. While their husbands were free to do as they wish, women were governed by male ideas and a male divinity. Even pregnancy and labour were conceived to be a punishment by God for eating the apple in the garden of Eden, an original sin and, yet child-birth is the surely the most important part of humanity and the greatest thing of womanhood.  In fact, any woman seen to take herbal cures to help ease the pain of childbirth were thought of as witches who worshipped the devil and were killed and tortured in public. -approx. 5 million women were killed for being 'witches' during medieval times. (pic 4, witch-hunting)

• The effects of Christianity and the worship of a male God.

I understand that modern Christianity preaches forgiveness and moral rights and wrongs but its history of male-only views has had a dramatic effect on the way we live now. There are so few females who have been in positions of power, where their thoughts and ideas will be listened to. Instead we have had no choice but to listen to a man and do as he suggests. Similarly, there are no great female divinities to seek inspiration from -only the one, male God and his mortal male servants. Worshipping only a male God means to just praise the male being and what it stands for -Man represents strength, power and aggression amongst other things. I am not saying that these qualities are bad and unwanted, rather I am saying that they are qualities that exist alongside a natural anicdote -those of woman -emotion, love and a closeness to nature. Look at the world we live in and our history of macho wars and battles. Think about the state of our environment and the way we have treated our world. Then think about why we have lived like this for two thousand years. Yes, there are times when we must fight and praise the power of man, but there are also times when we must think of womanhood, creation and peace. The effect of worshipping a male God for the two millenia is evident everywhere we look. (pic 5, war)

Thank you for reading, I would be grateful for any comments. Please note that I did not wish to offend anyone with this entry and I understand that many Christians are very peaceful and now welcome women into their communities.