I will miss you guys...God Bless On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Doris Ragland <[email protected]> wrote:
> You know what let's leave moral out of it.....and let me say this...(shame > ,shame, shame,and immoral.....this is where we split the difference's and > the cross -road's of what is in the mind and within comes out----speaks for > itself-----so you can go back to your so called normal conversations of > Topics that are for the better of the (WORLD) > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:46 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If women are looked upon as sexual ministers to men, why not make a >> career out of it? I spent some time trying to figure out how to >> convert a breast pump into a male ejaculator but gave up. :-) >> >> 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=. >> >> >> > -- 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=.
