BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.

"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"

Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Hat I Will Be Wearing In Hell

This is the hat I will be wearing in Hell. It is practical, especially with the water sprinkler on the top and obviously, it has NO religious significance. Hat wearing if you are a christian, does have religious significance however.

1 Corinthians 11 Paul writes:

"4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. 5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head UNVEILED brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. 7 A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because HE IS THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD, BUT WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF MAN. 8 FOR MAN DID NOT COME FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN; 9 nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; 10 for this reason a WOMAN SHOULD HAVE A SIGN OF AUTHORITY ON HER HEAD, because of the angels."

Oh dear, once again ancient man claimed that he was the source of power and that life emanated from him. Yes, we know you ejaculate and that this seed can be used to father children, but REALLY, you just didn't have your biology right, which is a BIG part of the problem when it comes to religious myths. Women were created from man and by man? And man was created by a male god? What a bunch of hooey. Not in my biology book they don't. It just goes to show what a lack of biological information will do when it comes to creating hierarchies and power structures.

So, the hat on a man in church was not allowed because "he is the image and glory of (the male)god." That's what happens folks when you allow your ego to create your own god. You get to put yourself at the top of the pecking order. Women, on the other hand, had to show their subservience not only to the male god, but also to the males in the church by keeping their heads covered. What a bunch of crapola. What a load of superstitious, supernatural mumbo jumbo perpetuated in order to keep men at the top of the tree and women lower down the pecking order. If a woman wants to know her status in society, nothing should piss them off faster than a quick read of the MISOGYNISTIC christian bible, or the quran for that matter too.

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

So, for you hussies out there who go to church with your head uncovered, according to the bible, you should have your head shaved for being naughty and putting yourself on the same level as man or the angels, or perhaps even god himself. The bible is either the word of god or it isn't. So no excuses about how the rules have been relaxed because it messes up your hairdo or something. Get your hat out and wear it, and make sure you don't get above your station in life. This is just a further indication why many men love the whole god concept. They get to be important and favoured. They think they get to tell women what to do based on the fact that they have a peepee. I think they should wear a hat on their peepee. Hang on a minute, they used to wear a natural hat on their peepee called a foreskin, until their male god let them know that he was starting a foreskin collection. Ok, it seems the rules for males are, no hat to be worn in church, and no "hat" on your penis. The male god is apparently happy with this arrangement. What a load of messed up old cobblers religion is.

Which reminds me. Guys better make sure you are NOT wearing a hat when you cark it, as if you are going to heaven, god might be pissed off if you turn up to worhip him wearing the cap with " Jesus Rulz" on it. Women, you better make sure that you wear a hat at all times as you don't wanna be caught in heaven with your head uncovered. Didn't you ever wonder what St. Peter had under his robes? No, not his circumcision scar, he has an almighty, huge pair of shearing tongs - all ready to shear off the locks of the women at the Pearly Gates who forgot to wear a hat. I won't have to worry about my hat attire as obviously I will be going straight to hell. (Do not pass GO, do not collect $6000.) But I have considered what hat wear, if any, I will sport for such an occassion, and I am considering the fetching little number at the top of the page.


"Big Brother isn’t watching. He’s singing and dancing. He’s pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding your attention every moment you’re awake. He’s making sure you’re always distracted. He’s making sure you’re fully absorbed." - Chuck Palahniuk


, , , , , , ,


Joe Cocker - 'You Can Leave Your Hat On'

Link

30 Comments:

Anonymous ted said...

Come on Beep, that verse 6 makes it all perfectly clear. If you don't cover your hair then there's really no point in having it so we might as well cut it off for you. By the sound of it we'd just be doing you gals a favour, so stop complaining...:)

14/2/07 2:15 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE ted:

They ain't choppin my hair off mate, took me too long to grow it. lol

The "incorporeal hat obsessed god" can position its incorporeal "dot" on my corporeal middle finger and rotate.

14/2/07 3:00 pm  
Blogger Matt said...

Paul had an idea of modesty during worship within the historical/ traditional context of the time, so what?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html

Would you wear a thong to a public pool? ;)

The differences between men and women are self-evident, so what if they manifest themselves in social interaction? I opened every door for my date last weekend and I don't think she considered it sexist.

What if those differences are so real and far-reaching that they are manifested in a metaphysical sense? i.e. an obvious natural/sexual ''caste system'' and therefore a spiritual one?

14/2/07 3:22 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE matt:

Let's not attempt to represent this as something about social graces.

Woman is instructed to wear a hat to show her station according to the god hierarchy.

Which is: -

1. Male god at the top
2. Male humans next
3. Female humans under that.

Women were specifically instructed to wear a hat to indicate their place in the pecking order. The hat or veil represented her lack of status.

"A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because HE IS THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD, BUT WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF MAN. 8 FOR MAN DID NOT COME FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN; 9 nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; 10 for this reason a WOMAN SHOULD HAVE A SIGN OF AUTHORITY ON HER HEAD, because of the angels."

Example:

1. A man doesn't cover his head because he is the image and glory of god.
2. A woman covers her head because she is the glory of man.
3. Man didn't come from woman but woman from man.
4, Because woman came from man, she needs a sign of authority over her head - the sign of authority was the hat, or veil.
5.Her bare head wasn't allowed in the same rarified atmosphere as the man, the angels or god.

We are not talking social niceties here. We are talking about and examining religious beliefs and how those religious beliefs created patriarchial religious power structures.

14/2/07 4:24 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

re Matt: Being an Aussie, I wear my thongs to the pool all the time. Very sexy they are too...:)

14/2/07 4:39 pm  
Blogger Matt said...

True, I guess I'm coming from the (very politically incorrect) perspective that those religious power structures reflect a natural power structure that is found in physical/sexual differences, which forms the basis of the original and most natural power structure, the family.

The physical differences and their consequences came first and then came the overlaying socio-religious power structures.

It's hard to ignore the apparent connection between woman's meeker form to the meeker role of women even in societies without patriarchial religious power structures.

So, did they create the submissive role of women or reflect something as natural as the birds and the bees?

But, in the end, the Christian doctrine tells of the glorification of the humble and the meek. Christ is ''lower'' than God on the totem pole (God head of Christ who is head of man who is head of women) but Christ is then glorified above all things. He taught that ''Whoever is least among you will be the greatest.''

So women, you might be meek in some ways but YOU ARE GLORIOUS!


ted,

heh, how lewd.

had to go to the bottom of the list for this one:

4. A garment for the lower body that exposes the buttocks, consisting of a narrow strip of fabric that passes between the thighs supported by a waistband.

14/2/07 6:10 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

Matt: Over here they're still called a "G-String". I haven't worn mine for a while though...:)

14/2/07 7:35 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE matt:

RE: "True, I guess I'm coming from the (very politically incorrect) perspective that those religious power structures reflect a natural power structure that is found in physical/sexual differences, which forms the basis of the original and most natural power structure, the family."

Let's say for the sake of argument that the differences in power structure have something to do with our ancestral genetic origins. I don't have a tremendous about of problem with this. Certainly other hominid cultures do display authority according to an apha male hierarchy. This, however is not presciptive and it is unlikely that chimpanzees, apes and orangutans created a religion where they expressed their predilection for male authority figures. It is also unlikely that they created male dominated religious structures and indoctrinated their pack in them, in order to retain and ensure cultural and political supremacy.

So, certainly the religion of humans may express some of our genetic tendencies associated or affiliated with our common ancestors. But religion has been the "thinking ape's" way to perpetuate a social and cultural structure which ensured that males stay at the top of the proverbial tree in the jungle.

And if religions reflect the social structures of our genetic ancestral past, surely this indicates religions are designed by humans and specifically that male dominated religions were designed by men.

RE: "It's hard to ignore the apparent connection between woman's meeker form to the meeker role of women even in societies without patriarchial religious power structures."

I think you are fantazising a bit here. Two thousand years of patriarchial religious culture has certainly instilled in many women the idea that desirability is equivalent to meekness and helplessness, but for many of us, who consider these archaic religious structures to be a dingo's breakfast, (ask Ted what a dingo's breakfast is), they have not had this effect. The question you need to ask yourself is - Would you find the concept of meek, quiet, submissive and defering females attractive, if you hadn't been encouraged to think this way because of the influences of religious and cultural mores? Would women have been, on the whole, less educated, paid less and considered through religious marriage to be the property of a man if it hadn't been because of religious constructs? I don't think so. If religions are an expression of our ancient genetic gender roles, they are only one possible expression. But they are the expression that men chose to go with when they created their male god and their male dominated religion.

And you seriously have to ask yourself, what sort of a biology lesson is this? -

FOR MAN DID NOT COME FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN (Woman came from man? Not in my biology book she didn't. Now ask yourself why ancient men believed that woman came from man. No, not the adam and eve crapola. Why did men believe that woman came from man? They believed it because when man squirted a bit of spoof into a woman she grew a baby inside her and eventually gave birth.

So, they believed that they created life through their sperm. They believed that they created men and women with their "magical spoof." Not a bad theory EXCEPT for the part where they didn't know that women produced OVA.

That's right, they had no idea that women provided half the genetic material to create new life. So, men claimed themselves as the creators of life, and therefore WOMAN CAME FROM MAN.

The rest of the flawed biology went something like this. If men were the creators of life, then the god which created man must be male too. This is the type of thinking which probably created the hierarchy in male created religions.

(1.Male god at the top with magical invisible spoof capable of impregnating a virgin at a hundred feet.
2.Male humans with not quite as much magical power and
3. Female humans who were receptacles for magical male spoof below that.)

Men created their male dominated religions based on not even a passing grade in biology.

RE: "But, in the end, the Christian doctrine tells of the glorification of the humble and the meek. Christ is ''lower'' than God on the totem pole (God head of Christ who is head of man who is head of women) but Christ is then glorified above all things. He taught that ''Whoever is least among you will be the greatest.''

The christian doctrine is based on the flawed, superstitious ideologies and myths which preceded it. And as we have seen, it was also based on some flawed biological assumptions. The humble and the meek get screwed. Women as the humble and the meek get screwed, figuratively as well as literally.

RE: "So women, you might be meek in some ways but YOU ARE GLORIOUS!"

Let me finish with something similar. So men, though you may be stupid when it comes to biology, sometimes you are handy at taking the top off the vegemite jar.

14/2/07 8:46 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

Beep:

you are handy at taking the top off the vegemite jar

Vegemite, yes... But I had to get my wife to open the lime marmalade...

Matt:

So women, you might be meek in some ways but YOU ARE GLORIOUS!

Oh please........ Beep makes valid points and good, logical arguments and you patronise her? Surely you can do better than that...

Christianity and Paul in particular are, in my opinion, largely responsible for the subjugation of women in western society for the last 2000 years. Paul was a chauvinist of the highest order and his attitude is plain to see in all his letters.

14/2/07 10:48 pm  
Blogger Blueberry said...

It's that verse 10: for this reason a WOMAN SHOULD HAVE A SIGN OF AUTHORITY ON HER HEAD, because of the angels that's a real kicker in its own right. It's easy to get pissed off enough just at the mandated sexism alone, but there's more about this angel business in various scriptures. This page, in trying to explain hats, veils, and haircuts, goes into more references on how the BAD angels used to lust after and mate with human females, and the "sign of authority" (the blinking neon that tells them "I'm already owned") is to discourage their advances.

Oh yeah, and Paul was a psycho. His writings are not more than Koolaid for the masses, IMHO.

15/2/07 8:52 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE blueberry

Oh yeah, that makes sense. Women have to cover their heads so naughty angels won't have sex with them. Sounds about right for superstitious ancient man, you gotta ptotect your breeding stock from rogue randy angels. ;)

Thanks for the link. It seems that the insanity of ancient religious books is never-ending.

15/2/07 10:26 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE ted,

But as I have a "sign of authority" over my head the hat will stop the randy rogue angels from mating wildly with me. It is for my own good. Nothing is more distressing than supernatural sex with a sexually promiscuious angel.

15/2/07 10:31 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

BBIM:
Nothing is more distressing than supernatural sex with a sexually promiscuous angel.
Really? I'd heard the encounter is just heavenly, hehehehe.
Of course, raising a Nephelim as a single parent has some hazards attached, no doubt.

Seriously though: what was Saul's big hangup w/men having long hair? Couldn't he tell a man from a woman from behind?

Other than that, the woman's always had more power than the man. It's clearly an extension of male insecurity.

15/2/07 12:52 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

I'm glad you cleared that up for us Blueberry, I was beginning to think that maybe gawd had just made a boo-boo with the whole "hair" thing and was just making silly rules and excuses to cover it up. Phew...:)

Beep/KA: It can't be much I don't reckon. You don't hear Mary singing his praises in that repect...hehe...:)

All this got me curious though, so I broke out the Strongs Exhaustive and looked up "hair". There's quite a few references but it seems that none of these silly rules are mentioned before 1Corinthians. So I reckon it's just Paul's particular prefernce. Church fashion perhaps?

15/2/07 1:18 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Ted:
Well, actually...
Alexander the Great was the 1st to have his soldiers cut their hair, as it was a drawback in battle.
In the 18th-19th CE, so many settlers were deserting & going 'native', laws were passed against specific clothes & hairstyles.

15/2/07 5:03 pm  
Blogger pissed off patricia said...

I have a plastic chicken hat, think that'll work? How about my Dallas cowboys baseball cap? Think god is a Dallas fan? ;)

16/2/07 2:51 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE KA:
"Seriously though: what was Saul's big hangup w/men having long hair? Couldn't he tell a man from a woman from behind?"

This is especially interesting as jesus is usually depicted as a man with long hair. He is rarle depicted as a jarhead.

16/2/07 10:47 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE patricia

I would go with the Dallas Cowboy's Cap. If god doesn't like it, he is way too petty for my tastes.

(On second thoughts - He might prefer a "Saint's Cap." ;)

16/2/07 10:49 am  
Blogger Matt said...

beepbeep,

It seems that Paul is echoing genesis when he states that woman came from man. But, if he is giving us a biology lesson, he's right. Much to the dismay of Henry VIII, men determine the sex of a child.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564762/Heredity.html

Also, Christian thought and culture served as the foundation for women's liberation. Early Christianity gave dignity and freedom that women never knew before. (Even if they had to cover their heads during worship)

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/liberation.htm

Or, check out these books:
God's Self-Confident Daughters: Early Christianity and the Liberation of Women

Lydias Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity

16/2/07 10:59 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

matt:
It seems that Paul is echoing genesis when he states that woman came from man.
You talking about mitochondrial Eve?
Also, Christian thought and culture served as the foundation for women's liberation. Early Christianity gave dignity and freedom that women never knew before.
Which is why it took so long for women to get the vote, & get into positions of power.
Get real.
Y'all want to take credit for way too much, I'd say.

16/2/07 5:49 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE matt:

Most of us know that gender is determined by man. This is thanks to modern science, not ancient theology.

Ancient man was more likely under the misaprehension that it was solely HIS sperm which created life as ancient man and ancient christians did NOT know of the existence of the female ovum.

What dignity? There was more egalitarianism for women in ancient egypt, than there EVER was in ancient or modern christianity.
That women in modern society can own property, divorce their husbands and conduct business transactions is because of secular law, not christian law.

WOMEN IN ANCIENT EGYPT
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20in%20ancient%20egypt.htm

16/2/07 9:57 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Just a few reminders, Matt, about christianity and how it viewed women.

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE).

16/2/07 10:11 pm  
Anonymous say no to christ said...

That was funny, especially the part about gods forskin collection.

I don't know why I havent checked your blog out before, I must of been having a brain dead moment.

Anyway nice blog.

Amy

17/2/07 2:41 pm  
Anonymous say no to christ said...

OMG! Beep, I hope you dont mind me butting in with Matt, but I can set him straight on biology, ancient history and human behavior.

First off Matt, while men may determine the sex of a baby(and that is still in guestion), that in no way means that baby batter is where it all begins. The female is the origin in all species and that is a scientic fact. The male Y chromosome is in fact an incomplete female X chromosome.

http://www.genome.gov/13514331

While it may appear that all species are patriachal, the fact of the matter is that very few species on this planet are patriarchal and the few that are have been link to severe enviromental and climate changes that the species were not able to adapt to fast enough thus leading to a more barbaric, more male dominate way of life.(sorry about that run on sentence)

http://www.orgonelab.org/saharasia_en.htm

I may not agree completely with James DeMeo's ideas in physics, he is absolutely right on the mark with his studies in human behavoir, indigenous peoples, and psycho analysis. And his world mapping of human behavior is VERY telling!

And Lastly Matt, there is tons and tons of archaeological evidence of our pre-historic ancestors being matriarchal and that isnt all. The early Native Americans were matriarchal (except the mound builders, but James DeMeo covers that in his studies as to how that got that way) and were living exactly like our pre-historic ancestors. And to make matters even worse for your argument, there are still matriarchal societies that still exist to this very day.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/matrifoc.html

http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/lecturers.html

Men created a god to glorify themselves and still use it to justify their male superiority and evil deeds against women

Oh, I almost forgot!
Christianity had NOTHING to do with advancing women! Christians have fought us every step of the way!

http://www.awakenedwoman.com/iroquois_women.htm

Again I hope you dont mind me stepping in Beep.

Amy

17/2/07 3:45 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

matt:
It's starting to look like you stepped in the BAAAAAAAADDDD stuff, don't it? Hehehehe.
I hope you don't spout any of that...stuff around your GF/spouse. If you do, I suggest you DUCK!

17/2/07 6:35 pm  
Blogger Matt said...

Well, whatever shortcomings and pathologies societies and individuals had about the equality of women the Christian ethic calls for equality.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

I've read enough to know that this was a revolutionary idea in that time and place. I think it's hasty and biased to say that Christianity had nothing to do with the advancement of women.

18/2/07 1:36 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

matt:
In context, please:

3:24 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

It sounds as if it's exclusionary to me.

I might also quote some suffragettes:
"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation."
"We found nothing grand in the history of the Jews nor in the morals inculcated in the Pentateuch. I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of woman."
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."

"The religious persecution of the ages has been done under what was claimed to be the command of God."
Susan B Anthony
Put that in your pipe & smoke it.
Face it, your book is gender-biased to the Nth degree.

18/2/07 4:11 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE say no christ:

Call again, comments are open to anyone.

18/2/07 4:51 pm  
Blogger MichaelBains said...

For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

LOL!

The most insane part of that bit there is that it is still being adhered to! Of course not by everyone practicing judaism, but by enough to verify that there are no Chosen People because there is no one to do any choosing but people ourselves.

I'm wearin' a fedora, but bringing my 5 gal stetson for vacations outside my parochial Septic Bowel neighborhood.

Since hell is eternal, I've finally stopped by and given m'self this year's winning Final Four bracket. I'm bettin' my entire 401K on every game in every round of March Madness!

Figure I could win up to $100,000,000.

{-;

19/2/07 12:16 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE michael:

Lots of christians like to go batshit insane about muslim women having to cover their head, face and ankles, whilst little realizing the inordinate amount of sexist BS right under their noses in their own holy books.

19/2/07 3:17 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home