(chuckle):/ On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:24 AM, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]<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=.
