The word hypocrisy comes to mind when I read so many of the posts by Christians here. Perhaps, it is a denial of their own history that drives them or, simply, a preferred ignorance of the roots and heritage of their chosen belief system, Christianity.
The story of a woman name Hypatia of Alexandria was the daughter of the mathematician Theon Alexandricus, born some where around 360 CE. Hypatia was
"--a Neoplatonist philosopher, she belonged to the mathematic tradition of the Academy of Athens, as represented by Eudoxus of Cnidus; she was of the intellectual school of the 3rd century thinker Plotinus, which encouraged logic and mathematical study in place of empirical enquiry and strongly encouraged law in place of nature."
For a woman to achieve such stature at this juncture in history is more than an achievement, as she was not only a standout among women, she was a standout among men and she was rightfully recognized by all. For some however, she would be viewed as a threat and those that viewed her as such would kill her in 415 CE.
"The 7th-century Egyptian Coptic (Christian) bishop John of Nikiû identified her as a Hellenistic pagan and that "she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through her Satanic wiles."
As the story goes Hypatia was viewed as an opponent of Christian teachings and one day during a heated exchange a christian mob formed and killed her. Her death would herald the end of the period known as Classical antiquity,
"Neither did she feel abashed in going to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more."
It is also said of Hypatia that she had an ease of speaking that spoke of the minds of Socrates, Aristole and Plato in a manner that all could understand and admire. Surely, if simplicity is genius Hypatia was a genius, a genius murdered by ignorance and hatred, by Christianity.
Perhaps, it is fitting that Hypatia was murdered in Alexandria, as it was Alexandria that housed one of the greatest, if not the greatest libraries on earth, where as many as 400,000 manuscripts were housed.
The knowledge of the great philosophers, the histories of so many cultures and people, inventions, ideas were massed and stored here. There were three attempts to destroy this bastion of knowledge, but it was the third attempt that succeeded. In the year 391 CE the library dedicated to the Muses, the nine goddesses of the arts was finally destroyed by fire. The decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391 gave the order and once again ignorance would reign in all it's glory and dignified splendor.
"As the story goes...." Myth or not, it is quite conceivable that a lynch mob in did murder her. But we have two things, or maybe three, in play here. Though the outward reasons appear to be religious in scope, the actual reasons were political, the orestes-cyril rivalry. Then we have Cyril the head of the burgeoning sect which became the Catholic Church, mistakenly considered the principle authority of the Christianity. So we can say that, based on today's viewing pont a "Christian mob" did murder her but looking back in time, we see the cause was political.
Alexandrian teaching has always been the bane of Christianity. For the most part, it is liberal, worldly and philosophical in its direction. Little, if any, of Alexandrian Christianity would meet the measure of scriptural propriety.
You believe mankind has been around how long? Tens of thousands of years? Hundreds of thousands of years? Even from the Christian perspective your statement would mean it took thousands of years before there was a "great female thinker". Any thoughts for CJ on that, ladies?
Perhaps he got the notion by reading the bible, which never did mention any woman as a thinker, prophet or otherwise of much importance.
But in reality it was probably true that it took thousands of years. It took thousands of years to produce male philosophers, and women were still delegated to cooking, raising kids and making more kids. While some men were supported by society, freeing them to spend more time thinking, women were not much more than drudgery slaves for a long, long time.
Actually your reply is just as telling. Thank you.
Welcome. Changing history to match current mores and morals, to make our ancestors seem more ethical or reasonable to us, isn't generally a good thing to do. They were what they were, and pretending differently simply means we'll likely repeat their errors.
That's not even remotely true. I would be happy to quote scripture if you're interested.
Sure! Which woman, according to scripture, was recognized as a "great thinker"?
Well what you actually said was "great thinker and prophet". To be clear, "great thinker" isn't really a common description for a whole lot of ppl, Biblical or otherwise. Kind of a broad stroke there.
This is the story of Pricilla a teacher and writer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_and_Aquila
You can read about her in Acts.
Deborah was a prophet, the 4th judge of Israel and a warrior. "Deborah led a successful counterattack against the forces of Jabin king of Canaan and his military commander Sisera; the narrative is recounted in chapter 4." Wiki
Jael's quick thinking delivered Israel from Jabin by driving a tent peg so deeply thru Sisera's head that it entered the ground. Wiki
Esther saved the ppl of Israel by cleverly hiding her identity and revealing her roots to the King in time to have their antagonist hung on the gallows he'd built for them.
Miriam, Joseph's sister saved her brother, then became the leader of the Hebrew women.
Rahab assisted the Israelites in capturing the city of Jericho.
Here is a site that lists 7 female prophets in the Bible: http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=90
I concede. Although I had in mind another Moses, if the Israelites considered them as a prophetess who am I to argue?
I do stand behind the statement of female philosophers, though. It took a long time for such as Plato or Socrates to come on the scene and many more years would pass before any woman would be considered as even having a mind. A sign of the times that (for the most part) we have thankfully left behind us. A few scattered women (Joan of Arc among others) entered the male world of violence successfully, but I can't think of a single female philosopher prior to, say, the 1600's.
Leontion - a prostitute...that you think was a philosopher?
Melissa - known by only one letter where she lists the wifely duties of a woman. No indication she was a philosopher.
Mary - possibly the first alchemist, but no indication of philosophy.
Moderata - a political writer and religious poet. No indication of philosophy.
So, no philosophers. Or is the point that women were in general well respected as valuable members of the community in the first few centuries? That it is only the last few (since 1600) that women are treated differently?
lol... You read the first sentence and nothing else eh? NP.
"Melissa (3rd century BC) was a Pythagorean philosopher. Her name derives from the Greek word melli meaning honey.
Nothing is known about her life. She is known only from a letter written to another woman named Cleareta (or Clearete). The letter is written in a Doric Greek dialect dated to around the 3rd century BC. The letter discusses the need for a wife to be modest and virtuous, and stresses that she should obey her husband. The content has led to the suggestion that it was written pseudonymously by a man. On the other hand, the author of the letter does not suggest that a woman is naturally inferior or weak, or that she needs a man's rule to be virtuous.
Not much more than the first sentence, as there are only eight. But yes, I DID read more than one.
(And no, one concerned more with metaphysics (supernatural religions) I do not consider a philosopher.
So... this is Dictionary.com's definition of philosopher. Respectfully, I cannot imagine it matters what *you consider a philosopher.
a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
a person who is deeply versed in philosophy.
a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc.
a person who regulates his or her life, actions, judgments, utterances, etc., by the light of philosophy or reason.
a person who is rationally or sensibly calm, especially under trying circumstances.
Obsolete. an alchemist or occult scientist.
before 900; Middle English, variant of philosophre < Anglo-French (Middle French philosophe < Latin philosophus); replacing Old English philosoph < Latin philosophus < Greek philósophos philosopher, equivalent to philo- philo- + soph (ía) wisdom (see -sophy ) + -os noun suffix
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.
Cite This Source
Examples from the web for philosopher
This philosopher is a politician, too.
In hard times, few local figures are as vital as the bartender-philosopher.
Plato was the first philosopher, whose works we posses, to build a philosophy around mathematics.
a student, teacher, or devotee of philosophy
a person of philosophical temperament, esp one who is patient, wise, and stoical
(formerly) an alchemist or devotee of occult science
a person who establishes the ideology of a cult or movement: the philosopher of the revolution
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Guess that explains Mary, doesn't it? Not a philosopher by any modern definition, but as an alchemist one by definitions thousands of years ago.
But how do you ask "profound questions" in metaphysics, where everything is a pretend world? The two seem mutually exclusive...
I realize you equate having faith in God with mysticism and alchemy, but that is where we differ, which is to be expected. However, according to Wiki, a wholly reliable source , "alchemy, played a significant role in the development of early modern science." Like religion and science, ppl questioned what was true and what wasn't. That is philosophizing... the act of questioning, considering and pondering. The questions about alchemy have been, for most of us, answered. As far as faith and science, I hope one day we will see that they are indeed intertwined. I guess that makes me a modern day philosopher. (Unlike Leontion, I rejected the side job of prostitute. I was afraid I couldn't make a living at it.)
While you may equate alchemy with religion, I certainly don't. The two have nothing in common.
And saying that alchemy played a significant part in developing modern science is like saying astrology played a significant part in learning about the big bang. Questioning what is true or not is not quite the same as asking profound questions - your first definition. Perhaps you should review those and this time not try to trivialize them.
No, you will not find faith and science intertwined. As science goes to a great deal of trouble to eliminate faith from it's reasoning process that would be unlikely indeed.
You have more issues with Wiki than you do with me... probably as it should be.
Probably. Not all the writers of Wikipedia had the faintest bit of knowledge about what they were writing about. Nor do they all live in the same cultural matrix I do, which sometimes makes "interpretation" of their writing as difficult and error prone as the bible is.
I was with ya right up until you slipped the snipe in at the end.
What? The bible needs no interpretation? And that interpretation is not dependent on the culture in which the words were written? Every writing, whether bible, Plate, Shakespeare or modern physics suffers from the same problem when differing cultures and knowledge bases collide over the same words.
It's funny how you actually write the words that the bible is "error prone", but then conveniently ignore that part of your statement and focus only on your point that the bible is "open for interpretation." It was on your latter statement that I made my comment.
Perhaps poorly written. "...sometimes makes "interpretation" of their writing as difficult and error prone as the bible is." It is the interpretation that I meant to be "error prone" whether biblical or otherwise.
Not that I don't find scripture full of errors, but that was another topic. This one was about interpretation, not the actual information intended to be conveyed.
It seems you have forgotten several woman in the Bible who were that which you deny. But more importantly, since the Bible is mentioned, God left the entire works of His creation in the hands of a man and a woman. The man only had to sweat and toil. The woman bares the pain humanity gone wrong.
the Jews of Alexandria grew even more furious, eventually resorting to violence against the Christians. They plotted to flush the Christians out at night by running through the streets claiming that the Church of Alexander was on fire. When Christians responded to what they were led to believe was the burning down of their church, "the Jews immediately fell upon and slew them" by using rings to recognize one another in the dark and killing everyone else in sight.
the Jews felt confident in defying Cyril's authority, and so one night ran through the streets proclaiming: "The church of the apostolic Athanasius (Alexander) is on fire: come to its succour, all ye Christians." The Christians responded to the alarms only to be slaughtered by the Jews in a coordinated ambush.
Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Julius Caesar's fire during his civil war in 48 BC; the attack of Aurelian in AD 270 – 275; the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391 AD; and the Muslim conquest of Egypt .
1 Julius Caesar (Roman paganism)
2 Aurelian ( He was recorded by Christian historians as having organized persecutions)
4 Muslim conquest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructio … Alexandria
This is the story of Jill Ambramson, fired from the New Yorker by a bunch of Christians... or just a group of men. I can't remember.
http://www.newyorker.com/business/curre … -was-fired
Here's another study that shows how Christians... I mean secular businesses treat women CEO's.
http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/global/h … tive-study
Another story of inequality by Christian... I mean secular business.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/1 … nequality/
It's as though women have been treated terribly throughout time, by groups who claim religious affiliation and by groups who do not... by men, though it would seem, more than any other group. I wonder if we should start bashing all men b/c a lot of men rape, beat and abuse women. I mean if we're going to start lumping bad guys together, why stop at a religious group from 360 BC? Why not just include all men for the poor treatment of women throughout time? I bet I can site a lot more cases than you can. I'll just start with the NFL and work my way backwards.
My focus was to highlight a woman of singular intellect and achievement in a world and culture dominated by the male. A woman that had risen above that cultural bias to be heralded and respected by male peers, only to be murdered by an enraged mob, not because she was a women, but that she took a position against their beliefs.
You seem to project or suffer from some form of misandry, very sad.
That is very much a coincidence as I was thinking you suffered from a hatred of Christians.
A female philosopher was killed when? Was it 400 BC, did you say? FOUR HUNDRED BC, and you are still holding it against present day Christians?! lol
My point was to show you that brilliant, capable women were discriminated against today... do I hold it against their main group of adversaries (men)? Or do I say, 'She worked for some crappy ppl, but there are better employers out there.
When a group of ppl murder another human, it's fair to say, they weren't anything like Jesus.
New day, same game. Now tell one about the crusades. Oy.
Cjhunsinger, I appreciate you bringing this story to our attention. If you think it was a bad thing for a Christian or Christians to kill someone like Hypatia, then you wouldn't be the first. Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrites, or sheep in wolves clothing, tares among the wheat, etc. He had harshest of words for people that claimed one thing, and acted another way.
In a strange way, Christianity, Christ, and the gospel, is proclaimed all over again, when we are asked to consider a scenario, such as you present here. In an attempt to discredit it, you are actually reinforcing its real tenets which encourage the opposite of some people's actions.
If God is real, and Jesus' teachings are true, it makes sense to me that God would use the most ironic of attempts to discredit what some want to, and turn it around to point to the truth of matters to those that might ever care about such things. I will have to catch up on the details, but in a quick read, I get the gist of what you were attempting to do here.
Thank you. Hypatia of was of a singular and unique intellect, superior to most of her peers, probably male and most assuredly vastly superior to the Christian mob that killed her. She was not killed because she was a women as some here think. She was killed because she took a stand against an enraged mob. It would not have matter had she been a male.
I would encourage more in depth research here, although due to the antiquity of the event truth is a difficulty.
Some do call me "some" though most just call me "Beth."
So, in the title when you singled her out as being female, that was not actually a part of your focus? This is still your quote, right? "For a woman to achieve such stature at this juncture in history is more than an achievement, as she was not only a standout among women, she was a standout among men and she was rightfully recognized by all. For some however, she would be viewed as a threat and those that viewed her as such would kill her in 415 CE." Wilderness picked up the ball where you left it and continued on with the female theme. Course Im just a dumb girl. I miss a lot of stuff.
If you are dumb, as you say, I do have some sympathy with that. As far as missing a lot of stuff, perhaps if you were not so biased and closed minded. I think that has to do more with the bias then being female.I know to many intelligent women for that malady to be gender based. You seem to have a problem with your gender. You do seem to be a little uncomfortable and insecure, thus the apologies for being female..
So you skipped over every single point I made and went straight to childish insults?
If you are not able to understand and respond accordingly, then there is no point to this for me.
Im sure you can find a few here who will validate you, whether actual hubbers or sock puppets. If that is what you need, then my presence will only serve to irritate you. I will leave you to bask in the glow of your own self approval.
Cjhunsinger, it seems you maybe did not read the post you are responding to there. I don't key in on her femaleness at all, and was taking you at your word when you said she was in your OP.
As for more in depth study, that is what Phoenixv and myself were touching on. If anyone is missing more to the story, it may be you. So I agree with you we need to look deeper.
I usually am more interested in the full details of a story, not just part, or some narrative that isn't sharing the context, which as we so often see, changes everything.
Right. The fact that she was a woman is incidental. She was viewed as a threat because she dared to speak against the false doctrines accepted by the particular group of Christians she was dealing with.
At the risk of sounding like there is no true Scotsman; I'd like to point out the fact that Jesus (Christ) killed no one... in light of that, they who follow him (Christians), kill no one. So... oceans, you've done it again...
Not quite. You cannot know if Christ killed anyone; all you can say is that the writers of the time did not report any such killing. They also didn't report what he had for breakfast on his 28'th birthday but that doesn't mean he didn't eat.
Without knowing, then, it would seem that Christians are free to kill as they wish? (Certainly hope not! )
So then you are accepting the Bible as a recorded account of Jesus' life? If so, this answers your question.
His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
2 Corinthians 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
1 John 3:5
You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
Pilate came out again and said to them, "Behold, I am bringing Him out to you so that you may know that I find no guilt in Him."
"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."
1 Peter 1:18-19
knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
Oh stop! the Christ of the bible was not a man who killed. We know this by the reaction to the sinful woman, about to be stoned.
We know by the reaction he had to Peter's cutting off the ear of the guard.
We know by his prayer for the people who were about to kill him.
He was nonviolent. He was no killer.
Killing was not in his character.
Is this, then, one of the "theological facts" that are made up out of torn cloth just because it fits a pre-made conclusion? You have exactly zero idea if Christ killed; the only records of His life are a half dozen reports of just a few years length...reports that can't even agree with each other. Who Christ was, what He did between birth and preaching we have no clue except that construction workers today are generally looked down on as rather undesirable.
Cjhunsinger, who is denying history? Do you have actual examples of this? Do you know of anyone that actually is ignoring the roots and heritage of Christianity, besides these examples (assuming they are as you present them) that you give us of Christians? Very clearly, the very examples you give would be fine examples of Christians ignoring the roots and heritage of Christianity. Do you see the irony of the problem you presented here in your OP?
And gone with the fire... Nothing surprising from Christianity... Copernicus, Galileo... many that experienced the ire of church. Christianity has never been an epitome of tolerance. Science and its derived truth scared Christianity and its dogmas.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
by Mara Alexander 3 years ago
end their life by using a doctor? Yes or no, and why?
by paarsurrey 8 years ago
Islam spread in Australia very peacefully, as per the teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad, this could be observed from the following account from Wikipedia:Islam in Australia is the fourth largest religious grouping, after Christianity, "No Religion", and Buddhism. According to the 2006...
by skellie 23 months ago
There are so many animals in the world that exist today and have existed in the past. As I person who has not had much of an opportunity for travel, I wanted to put together a list of all known animals and find out a bit more about the ones that I am not aware of.Please list you chosen animal and...
by Moipone 6 years ago
I fell in live with Indian movies about 5 years ago because they have storylines that inspire and their writting is unique and although they are long they are also enjoyable.
by William Benner 12 months ago
Should Christian writers write horror or science fiction?I started writing a book about werewolf who transformed into a Christian. But now I wonder if this too dark of subject for Christian writer...What do think
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|