Hatered:{
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am sorry Rigsy , Just don't understand where this hatred sexist comment
> is coming from. if nothing else God simply has no gender.
> the discussion has not gone down the wikipedia word path but a different
> tact and if you want the male equivalent it is
> misandry<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry>
> Allan
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:46 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I cannot find a word that describes hatred of men beginning in "mis".
>> Is there one besides the "male chavanist pig" phrase of liberated
>> women? Did find "misology"- hatred of reason and "misoneism"- hatred
>> of change.// Also was thinking the fear of women could be linked to
>> the power of ancient goddesses, priestesses and Druids as well as
>> their carnal powers- altogether a threat to a patriarchal,
>> militaristic and material conquest and view of the world- how it
>> should be governed and what values/ethics can be exploited for an
>> increase of power and authority.
>>
>> On Nov 22, 3:24 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.
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > 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=.
