But Burroughs wasn't stupid, under the guise that even a blind pig can find a truffle, you've swung and missed..
OK! Lets go to an American, bubby. Lets see what Twain had to say about religion and it's oh so human practice..
Quote:
We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.
- Following the Equator
and
Quote:
Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.
- "The Lowest Animal"
Oh I forgot bubby, you hate America. So Twain will only make you whine about how Huck Finn is lefty agitprop.
The point is that each person is responsible for their own righteousness. He didn't condemn the woman at the well. Jesus didn't tell her what her sins were nor did he attack her.
Jesus treated people with love and respect. He didn't attack her, despise her, judge her or even criticize her. He gave her the opportunity to strive for herself to be a better person, and he acknowledged her worth as a human being. The only people who Jesus despised were the judgmental religious people who felt them self superior so as to attack other people.
Yet, when asked if you believe Jesus is God in the flesh, you could not answer it. Your church says Jesus is God in the flesh.
The only mentioning about "flesh" is the Angelus: "Et verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis."
Since there's nothing about it in the catechism, nothing in any other Corpus Iuris Canonici related laws, writings and codices - I kindly ask you again to give your source.
Scholars state four sins, but I've always thought three she was a woman--a sin of biology, she was a Samaritan--a sin of the Jews, she had had five husbands and was living with a man who was not her husband--the sin of divorce.
As a kid when we discussed this parable in religious education we came to the conclusion that her sins were cultural and that if she lived today (1964) none of the sins were contemporary. Its a good story, but the real discussion of sin should have been among the disciples were they saw Jesus afterwards. Jesus saw that the sins were superficial as long a she accepted him.
This Utube is a pretty fair rendition except that few Semites of the time would have blue eyes, and I have always believed that Jesus looked nothing like the blond European that is usually used in Xtian art.
This Utube, to me, is closer to what I consider the point of the parable--it's contemporary from the woman's perspective
Now, bubby, if you could only take this parable to heart--that preaching hate is still a grievous sin.
I see. So was God judging the woman or was it simply a good man named Jesus? Studing about Christianity and studying culture is not a study of the scriptures. That's where you fall into the ditch.
Not being a Xtian, studying the New Testament has always been an exercise in literature, culture and history--and the ditch I find myself includes some pretty good company--Deists like Jefferson and Franklin come to mind
Fortunately hate baiting pseudo Xtians need not apply.
We can see you have a hard time when it comes to actual study of the scriptures and what they state. Thanks for your pedestrian input. Bullshit walks. Have a nice trip.
Rap gave an academic account of the story. That is not pedestrian. You've also not answered my question on whether you consider yourself well versed on (1) American Law, and (2) Theology. Where and who did you learn from? I'd like to know what makes you speak so confidently your errors.
I think 'bullshit walks' are Mr. Dubois' alternative to 'slut walks.' Mr. Dubois, O' Reilly and all the other gobshites. At least they won't be wearing suspenders.
0 Replies
Renaldo Dubois
-2
Reply
Mon 6 Jun, 2011 02:49 pm
@failures art,
He didn't give the scriptural account. That is what none of you can do because none of you understand biblical Christianity and Islam of the Quran. You're indoctrinated, not educated.
I suggest you spend more time attempting to counter my points than trying to find out where someone was educated. Nothing impresses me about who and what people claim on the internet. If you can't counter my points, then it would be a very intelligent idea to ignore my posts rather than exposing your ignorance of the topic. Just tryin' to help since I am a compassionate conservative.
Taking the holocaust to mind, always confront bigots--
Think of this, wherever you go, whenever you spout your hate--look over your shoulder. We'll be there pointing to you as an example of what will never happen again.
No. His son came as a human AND God to earth. And God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit .... according to Catholic, Orthodox an Protestant/Lutheran belief. (
'God is the subject (father), content (son) and event (spirit) of the revelation' like the Evangelical Church of Germany put it.
