Hi Lee and everybody else! Lee, I believe you are right to see God in everything, how else can it be? The philosopher Spinoza believed that it is more likely that we live withing God, and therefore God equals mother nature. Now, if I go along those lines and state my own beliefs I should say that: I believe God is life, and therefore, life is God itself and one cannot exist without the other. Do you see what I mean? God is in everything just the way you believe. My regards to you all Manfraco.
On Nov 18, 10:49 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed, but the trick is in seeing this huh. > > On 18 Nov, 11:35, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > LOL but Lee God is in everything! > > Allan > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Heh I of course realise that as my particular faith emphasises seeing > > > God in everything. > > > > On 17 Nov, 17:28, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 17 Nov, 16:39, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hah My dear Rigsy I swear to your right now that it is complelty the > > > > > other way around for me. > > > > > > My wife has made a honest man out of me, she veritably saved me from > > > > > myself, and for that I owe her everything. > > > > > Your debt is to God alone, as He worked THROUGH your wife to do those > > > > things. It's OK, though, if you thank your wife, as God gets all > > > > thanks through us as well, even if we don't realise it. ;-) > > > > > > On 17 Nov, 16:04, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > In a way, you do- by making an honest woman out of a bedmate and all > > > > > > the stuff you will need to provide plus kids, etc. But the woman > > > > > > must > > > > > > be calculating to begin with. Somehow, I missed that class but find > > > > > > the whole thing pretty amusing at this point in life. > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 9:57 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Haha my dad tells me that we men always pay for sex. > > > > > > > > Now now that's my dad not me you understand? > > > > > > > > On 17 Nov, 15:41, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do you think all women should be paid for sex? > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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=.
