This lady is a classic case of the process of:
1. Hijacking an idea, a personage or a movement;
2. Perverting it and
3. Carrying out abuses in its name.
She herself has been misused by everyone from the Church to feminazis today who latch on to one or two aspects to the exclusion of the whole.
Even worse is the way scholars have used her to hijack, pervert and abuse what Christianity is about.
The pillars upon which it rests are:
1. John 3:16;
2. Matthew 5-7, inc. Beatitudes and Lord’s Prayer;
3. John 14 and to this can be added
4. The Ten Commandments
Obviously there is much more to it but that is the core belief contained in there. Apart from the reference to “it is better to pluck thine eye out than …”, which is a rhetorical device, please show one verse in those lines showing violence, especially systematic violence, against other groups of people or individuals.
They show the diametric opposite of that.
That is what Christian is, contained in there. But as even the gospels show, the human beings co-opted were of quite poor quality, forever getting it wrong and acting gung-ho, e.g. acting as bouncers in preventing people meeting Jesus of Nazareth. Which doesn’t say much for human beings.
You can do your own research but essentially, she was a woman of Alexandria who was lucky enough to be intelligent, accomplished and with a first rate education, courtesy of her father and those he brought in to teach her, as well as her own learning after that.
Thus she was multi-faceted, as I tried to get the girls I taught as well to be and she is remembered for making mini-astrolabes among other things.
However, she had an issue with male lust and used, for example, menstrual rags to curb that and for that reason she is hijacked by raving feminazis today. I strongly suspect she was either beautiful or striking, inspiring devotion.
She was hijacked by the Church as a Christian icon which she was not, though her major students were almost all Christian – she was, as said, an educated woman. End of.
Why can people not just admire this woman for what she was – not a perfect human but a pretty good one.
When people under a broad label are labelled
The way Romans acted was largely Roman, the way Greeks acted was largely Greek, rather than Pantheistic or militaristic or bloodthirsty per se, though those elements were there.
When your only choice is Pantheism, you tend to be nominally Pantheistic, when your only choice is nominal Christianity, then you will be Christian in label, you will shove a red cross on your white tunic.
This does not mean in the least that you are Christian in the terms at the top of this post. The Franks were a classic case where their antecedents were Merovingian, pagan and satanic in the sense the word has always been used, even today. The description of the Franks’ arrival in Constantinople was the diametric opposite of Christian in terms of the definition at the top here.
And the same goes for Cyril of Alexandria, the Patriarch of the time, described thus:
The Roman Emperor, condemned him for behaving like a “proud pharaoh”, and the Nestorian bishops at the Council of Ephesus declared him a heretic, labelling him as a “monster, born and educated for the destruction of the church.”
That is not the description of a Christian in terms described at the top of this post. That is the diametric opposite and that sort of thing is going on even today – the heads of churches are monsters, non-Christians who have fought their way to the top of a hierarchy.
This Cyril compounded his anti-Christianity by hijacking, perverting and abusing a group of people whose name is based on “nursing the sick when to do so will result in your own death”, clearly a Christian and worthy thing to do.
That name is Parabalani.
From nurses to the sick, these had been co-opted by Cyril as his ‘brownshirts’, his ISIS, his “hack to death” squad, as far removed from Christian precepts as it is possible to get but very much in line with the other side throughout history.
He set them on Hypatia, they ambushed her carriage, dragged her to a nearby place, stripped her and hacked her to death with oyster shells or whatever. You tell me one thing Christian about that? In a faith which puts a premium on virtue, on women’s modesty, who of that faith would first strip a woman naked and secondly, who would diabolically kill her by that gruesome method?
The clue is in the adverb.
So if someone says “a Christian mob” did that, that is a gross distortion of what really happened.
This is very much an issue today and not just in ISIS and Little Fat Man in Korea. it is an issue with the fanatical left whose catch-cry is Far Right. Thus anyone protesting Khan in London, for example, gets the label Far Right slapped on, when 17.4 million in this nation and 62 million in America would resent such a label – they are the traditional bourgeoisie of the various nations, the middle ground.
If you go to my own About page and look at the political compass chart, I am near the centre. To call me Far Right or dangerous, as Peter Hain did is, in effect, defamation. The extremist there is Hain and his politics.
I am against fanatics of all hues. There is a group called Ordo Militaris who want another Crusade to bloodily hack the Muslims out of Europe. I want them out of Europe too … but not that way.
This thing about fanaticism was the very reason Nigel Farage would not ally with Le Pen – he knew it would be hijacked, perverted and abused and UKIP would go down labelled as fanatics. Diane James a fanatic? And even now they’ve seized on the current leader’s bit of fluff and some of her comments.
Enough on a Sunday morn, I need brekky.