Motels have beds. On Nov 17, 8:43 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Did you lose a few slates from your roof while you had turned into a > motel Slip? > > To me, it's immoral to argue from holy text in any kind of > fundamentalist manner. We could argue we have been trapped in this > kind of mistaken argument and need to break out of it. Science > probably does and at least allows things to be put to the test. Like > Slip I have something of a penchant for being ministered to by women, > though as yet have not experienced being as a motel yet. > > On 17 Nov, 12:42, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 16 Nov, 17:03, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Jesus said 'Our > > > Father...', not 'My Father...' Pat > > > > Yes in some context such as: > > > > Mat 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they > > > may see your good deeds and praise your FATHER in heaven. > > > > Mat 6:9 "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our FATHER in heaven, > > > hallowed be your name, > > > > But then again: > > > > Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the > > > kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my FATHER who is > > > in heaven. > > > > Mat 10:32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also > > > acknowledge him before my FATHER in heaven. > > > Mat 10:33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before > > > my FATHER in heaven. > > > > Working on the Sabbath: > > > John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My FATHER is always at his work to > > > this very day, and I, too, am working." > > > > John 8:53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so > > > did the prophets. Who do you think you are?" > > > John 8:54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means > > > nothing. My FATHER, WHOM YOU CLAIM AS YOUR GOD, is the one who > > > glorifies me. > > > > There are more but remember when Mary and Joseph found Jesus in the > > > temple, Mary asked "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your > > > father and I have been anxiously searching for you." > > > > Jesus replied, Luke 2 49 > > > "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to > > > be in my Father's house?" > > > > And of course the Garden of Gethsemane: > > > "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: > > > nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." > > > Interesting. But I note there were no quotes used from The Gospel > > of Mark, which is the oldest and, therefore, probably(!) the most > > reliable for quotes of Jesus. Are there any quotes in Mark where > > Jesus uses 'my Father', as Matthew was based on Mark? If not, then we > > know those "my Father"s in Matthew were added and any Gospel after > > that (Luke and John), quite likely, would/could have added even more. > > Luke was written by Paul's close friend and would naturally reflect > > Paul's 'spin' on Jesus. The most surprising is Matthew. The 7:21 > > quote at least acknowledges that it is the Will of God that matters > > and not whether or not one calls Jesus 'Lord'. The 10:32-33 quote, > > though, seems a bit out of kilter with the 7:21 quote, as it implies > > that, if an individual acknowledges Jesus (in what way? As 'Lord' or > > 'Son of God'?), Jesus will then acknowledge (again, in what way?) that > > individual to God, but, because of the 7:21 line, that may not > > actually help an individual in any way. So what's the point of the > > acknowledgement? Or was it just a simple way of subtly injecting > > Pauline theology? > > > > Then there is the ongoing controversy concerning the "Trinity". > > > > I've never come across any scripture that indicated any "Mother in > > > Heaven" therefore excluding any feminine aspect of God. > > > No right-minded Jew would envisage a trinity, as God is One in > > Judaism. Always has been, always will be. The Trinity was another > > compromise to bring 'pagans'/polytheists into the Faith by making > > Christianity more polytheistic. Which, of course, is a complete > > misunderstanding of Judaism and/or Jesus' teachings and anathema to > > them. > > > > However in Luke 8:1-3 it clearly shows that Jesus traveled about not > > > only with his disciples but also with women. > > > > Luke 8:1-3 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village > > > to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The > > > Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil > > > spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons > > > had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s > > > household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to > > > support them out of their own means. > > > > This was probably very much the scandal in the time, I'm surprised > > > there weren't some stoning deaths related to the way Jesus scoffed at > > > the traditional Jewish ruled with his treatment of women. Still > > > though with the inclusion of the many instances of women in the > > > presence of Jesus, there remains the absence of women concerning > > > Divine Heavenly reference. > > > That's because God is beyond gender. That and the fact that > > Semitic languages don't hae a Neuter/Neutral gender, leanving only 'he/ > > him' or 'she/her' as valid pronouns to use for God. The 'default' > > gender in Semitic languages is Masculine, therefore, God is referred > > to as 'He'; not because it was felt that God had gender, but that > > there was no way of saying 'It'. Also, it avoids the possible thought > > that God, if referred to as female, could be viewed as a begettor, > > which, again, would be anathema to the beliefs of Judaism. > > > There is, in the Kabbalah, though, The Shekinah, the Presence of > > God, and THAT word, Shekinah, is feminine. Again, this is because of > > how gender is determined in a Semitic language. If the object can be > > used (and how sexist is THAT!!), then the noun is feminine. Thus > > 'tree' would be masculine but 'wood' would be feminine. The Shekinah > > is/was used by prophets and the High Priest to determine God's Will, > > so, because that presence could be utilised, the noun is feminine. > > God cannot be used, per se, but His Presence can be and THAT is the > > best Male/Female relationship that I can offer up. But, it's all down > > to the linguistics and grammar of Semitic language than any real > > reflection on the nature of God. I.e., it's more insight into man > > than God. > > > > On Nov 16, 6:57 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 15 Nov, 16:40, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ordination of women, My feelings on that are very personal. I know a > > > > > lot of > > > > > women who have some very brilliant spirituality and thoroughly enjoy > > > > > being > > > > > around them, talking with them. Interesting views and insights. My > > > > > experience of it with in christianiy and into the priesthood role it > > > > > just > > > > > does not seem to translate. I know a couple of episcopal female > > > > > priest, one > > > > > I knew long before she became a priest (she was an episcopal nun) her > > > > > spirituality just didn't quit. and another one I met when she was a > > > > > parish > > > > > priest. but there was something missing or not right. I am not sure > > > > > what the > > > > > problem is but it is there , it seems to be pervasive. > > > > > > I think the catholic churches priesthood problem and is a better > > > > > solution. > > > > > > Some how I think there will end up a segment that will be allowed to > > > > > exist > > > > > within the church with doctrine I can accept like Jesus is the son of > > > > > man > > > > > not the son of God. Not thqt it is a problem other than me squaring > > > > > it with > > > > > my head. > > > > > Allan > > > > > Sounds like your on the right track, though, with the rejection of the > > > > 'Son of God' concept. Imagine if God had a baby God...that Baby God > > > > would be, like His Father, Omnipotent. Now, which God is REALLY in > > > > control after that? Neither! Which is why God doesn't have Godlets, > > > > as it makes for confusion of the highest order because there can only > > > > be one thing that is omnipotent by definition. Alternatively, perhaps > > > > the rectification you want is that the term "Son of God" ('Ben Elohim' > > > > in Hebrew) is a singular version of the Hebrew/Aramaic 'Beni > > > > Elohim' (Sons of God), which were (and, assumedly still are!) an order > > > > of angels similar to the Cherubim and Seraphim. The people of the > > > > time probably referred to Jesus as being 'like' one of these angels, > > > > and the confusion began. A few 'Chinese whispers' and translations > > > > later and it's become doctrine. Ignore it. Jesus said 'Our > > > > Father...', not 'My Father...' and when asked about the greatest > > > > commandment replied "To Love God..." No mentioning of himself AS God > > > > or implications that he (Jesus) should be worshipped, as that would > > > > have been blasphemous to a good Jew. But then, so would symbolically > > > > drinking blood and eating human flesh (the Eucharist), both strictly > > > > forbidden to Jews; but that's a different story. ;-) > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:15 PM, frantheman > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > In a purely formal sense, you're right, of course, Lee. To give a > > > > > > practical example. A sincerely believing Catholic male may (indeed, > > > > > > according to many, should) believe, as part of what his faith > > > > > > teaches, > > > > > > that the Church always teaches the truth. > > > > > > > The Catholic Church teaches that women cannot be ordained to the > > > > > > priesthood. > > > > > > > Therefore, this Catholic male would hold that women cannot be > > > > > > priests, > > > > > > without this view saying anything about an attitude of contempt for > > > > > > women. > > > > > > > The following Wikipedia article gives an overview of the official > > > > > > Catholic position - as well as some dissenting views: > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=.
