how much of religious history is fact?

All cultures have colorful histories of their ancient pasts that were passed down through the generations orally, and when they were written in stone - or some other medium - that does not necessarily make them more factual. For instance, the stories of Gilgamesh, from the ancient Sumeric civilization, formed the basis of biblical stories and it is ironic that they are considered too fantastic to be considered factual, but biblical stories are not!

Also, as happens in modern times, revisionist history - where each generation rewrites history according to its own times and beliefs - was also practiced in ancient times.

As the old song says, 'the things that you're liable to read in the Bible just ain't necessarily so', and Judaism and Christianity are open to real scrutiny in this regard. Fourteen books (the Apocrypha) were removed from the modern Bible because of their unsuitability for belief consumption, but there are still many stories in the Bible that are so fanciful that they detract from the facts and the real message it wants to give.

Everyone accepts that the Bible was re-interpreted and re-written with each generation of Christian scribes according to what suited them, and if Jesus or any of his disciples were here today they would likely be horrified at what the Bible says they said!

In these days of progressive religions, the fantastic elements of Christianity - such as Adam and Eve, virgin births, miracles, great ages, rising from the dead and anyone, even Jesus, being the son of God - are glossed over in favor of the teachings of Jesus, but the fact remains that these fantastic elements still constitute the basic elements of traditional Christianity and as such they are turning away converts who are too well educated to accept them.

Science has proved without a shadow of a doubt that the earliest man lived millions of years ago, so the biblical stories - based on generations of 'begetting' placing Adam and Eve in a timeframe that is approximately 1,460 years from the birth of Jesus - are just not credible.

Thousands of years before the tribes of Israel got themselves organized and their history written, there were thriving civilizations elsewhere in the world that they were mostly unaware of.

The Great Pyramids, still standing, were built in the year 2,650BC, and yet the Bible, and its fundamentalist adherents, would have us believe that the world did not exist prior to c.1460BC in any other place than the Garden of Eden. There is no doubt that the Bible is a great work of literature, deserving of being widely read, but as an historical document it has little credence outside of the religions based upon it. Just because something is old and written does not necessarily make it the font of all knowledge.

As for the teachings of Jesus - which provide great comfort for many, and guidance for us all - it would be far better to divorce them from the fantasies of the Bible and present them in a factual manner that does not insult the intelligence of those seeking guidance.

do all religions foster misogyny?

Recently, the Egyptian born self-styled Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilaly, raised hackles around the world by describing women as pieces of meat inviting rapists if they did not wear the hijab. As much as this comment drew increased antagonism towards Islam, many women are convinced that the leaders of all religions are, basically, misogynists and that's why, perhaps, none of them voiced their horror at the implications of the Mufti's message.

What's more horrible, they claim, is that this misogyny -- this hatred of women -- is also expressed by women towards women. The more devout a woman becomes the more she reveres a male-centered universe and becomes denigrating towards her own gender.

When a young woman rebels against the faith in which she was raised it is usually her mother and her aunts - on both sides of the family - who show more horror at the rebellion than the men-folk in the family. The rebellious young women living in a free and secular society are far more fortunate than those living in another type of society in that their fate would not be death by stoning or forcible submission to some barbaric operation or - at the very least - a good thrashing.

Without devout women, men would not be able to retain power. They use the matriarchs as enforcers and in doing so appear less cruel and victimizing than the women. Women just don't 'count' as significant human beings in most religions and when a young girl rebels the men don't interfere in the 'enforcing' process. It is women's work.

Males have less reason than girls to rebel or question their religion because they are in charge of it. It is all about them, and all for them. There are no women priests in most Christian churches - no women altar attendants - no women having any role in the church other than as subservient devotees; and it's the same, or even worse, in other faiths.

The absence of women in positions of power in religions does not in itself indicate misogyny - but it is an inequitable situation that needs to be addressed if the religions are to evolve into institutions responsive and relevant to the 21st century. It is downright cruel and unjust that half the world's population - women - are not only excluded from leadership roles in the churches but are also denigrated by their religion as being inferior to the other half of the world's population - men.

Islam, as it is practiced, is very clear about women being inferior to men, but in other religions it is inferred rather than written in stone. In Christianity, for instance, Jesus had twelve disciples but not one of them was a woman - what does that tell you about what He believed?

Cleopatra and her cats were ruling Egypt prior to Christianity gaining momentum, so it is no coincidence that misogyny and cat-hatred were related with Christianity. For centuries after, strong women - especially those with cats - were seen as witches and destroyed by horrible means.

There would appear to be only two types of women in the major religions - the madonnas who give birth by immaculate conception, and the harlots. There's no room for enlightened women in these misogynistic religions. It is no wonder that boys turn against their mothers at the age of 13 or 14 when they find out that they were conceived by sex. It disgusts them. Their mothers disgust them. All women disgust them - except, of course, the harlots for whom they have respect for being what women should be.

In worshipping the Madonna, it is not the real mother of Jesus who is being worshipped. The real mother of Jesus was a thirteen year old Jewish girl who had sex with (or was raped by) an unknown man, while betrothed to Joseph, and gave birth with the normal amount of blood and guts, not just to Jesus but to his brothers, James, Joses, Simon and Judas - and probably just as many sisters, but they, of course were not worthy of mention.

Instead, it is the unreal mother - the virginal, the immaculate conception mother - that men, especially those of the Catholic faith, worship. Catholic theologians claim that Mary remained a virgin all of her life, and that not even the birth of Jesus spoiled her virginity. How misogynistic!

Before the tentacles of organized misogynistic religion reached into every nook and cranny of the world there existed simple faiths that revered women and fertility. These faiths existed for thousands of years - long before all the other faiths came into being. And they continued to exist for centuries until the Christians and Moslems went on the march and forced conversions. Yet some of these simple faiths revering women and fertility still exist despite organized religion.

Misogynistic men and the subservient, deluded women who revere them cannot wipe out what is natural to the human soul - both male and female. There is already a swing back to the natural faiths, and it will grow in strength as more men and women become enlightened.