I think it starts with the realization the God is the entirety of everything. People spend years meditating trying to accomplish this simple concept.
Marco you are beginning to sound like a hindu compartalmentlizing all the aspect of God so they can understand Brahman Allan On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:49 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 - > > -- > > 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=. > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan -- 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=.
