Quote:Do Momma Angel and Bella Dea really believe that they should be governed by the decisions of men? Really? That's more foolish in my eyes than any "faith" in an almighty being.
If they don't would that make them hypocrites?
Pete....
...anyone...ANYONE...male or female...
...who thinks, guesses, believes there is a GOD...
...and who thinks, guesses, believes that the GOD is decent, loving, kind, and considerate of humankind...
...and who still worships the pathetic cartoon god of the Bible...
...really ought to seek psychiatric help for their fears.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with supposing there is a GOD. Considering the evidence available to us...it is a guess every bit as good as the guess, "there are no gods."
But to suppose the GOD is anything like the god described in the Bible is goddam insane!
Come on Frank, a God that enjoys bashing babies heads againt rocks (Psalms 137:9) can't be all bad.
xingu wrote:Quote:Do Momma Angel and Bella Dea really believe that they should be governed by the decisions of men? Really? That's more foolish in my eyes than any "faith" in an almighty being.
If they don't would that make them hypocrites?
I believe you have a point - belief that the bible is the word of god and then not accepting that word would be a difficult one to justify.
Frank
You must have a hard time living under Bush's government with that set of beliefs.
I don't go quite as far as you - there may be some god - which kind, I don't care, too many to choose from - but I think that those who believe the Christian bible/Talmut/Koran/Mahabarahta or any other work of scripture is the definitive text on what is reality and how we should live our lives are:
(a) significantly misguided and
(b) dangerously likely to enter into war (be it verbal, cold or destructive) against those who hold up another text as being the ultimate source of wisdom.
History is full of such wars.
KP
"Faith is believing what you know isn't so."
Mark Twain
kitchenpete wrote:
Do Momma Angel and Bella Dea really believe that they should be governed by the decisions of men? Really? That's more foolish in my eyes than any "faith" in an almighty being.
Now Pete...you should know which side I am on with this. :wink:
Read my other post regarding this.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was taught that the man is the head of the household and that the woman should be subserviant to him. Not like a slave or "Get me a beer woman!" but that he is to be the teacher of the church.
We omitted that part about "obeying" out of our vows...I also made sure that we were pronounced "husband and wife" rather than "Man and Wife".
It was, and still is in several Christian sects, the Bible that taught male supremacy -- no wonder women have had to fight tooth-and-nail to achieve some kind of equality. Women priests? Unthinkable -- they are still relegated to bit parts in "The Sound of Music."
Bella Dea
Points taken. Good choice not to obey!
as for Bush
KP
LW wrote-
Quote:Women priests? Unthinkable -- they are still relegated to bit parts in "The Sound of Music."
Put your ear to the ground. You'll hear the hoofbeats.
A few posts back my comment about Garry Wills new book, What Jesus Meant, should not have included any mention of whether or not there is "God."
Wills book is, first and foremost, about the true teachings of Jesus, before his language was enhanced, changing the entire meaning of intent. On pag. 59 in a chapter "Against Religion" Wills says:
"The most striking, resented, and dangerous of Jesus' activities was his opposition to religion as that was understood in his time. This is what led to his death. Religion killed him. He opposed all formalisms in worship--ritual purifications, sacrifice, external prayer and fasting norms, the Sabbath and eating codes, priesthoods, the Temple, and the rules of Saducees, Pharisees, and Scribes. He called authentic only the religion of the heart, the inner purity and union with the Father that he had achieved and was able to share with his followers."
Well, then you get to a point (my words) where people probably used this paragraph to refer to Jews as "Christ killers," when the intent was against some "religion" that controlled people then and was stolen later to control people to this day. Jews never did that, never had that intent, it was the Catholic Bishops who assembled the New Testament.
You see, the thing gets bigger no matter what small subject is being discussed. Then we argue. Everybody has to read ALL the books found on any of these issues regarding "religion." You get in less trouble if you lump it all into "religion" instead of spirituality, Jesus' teachings, God, the Father, angels and satan.
There are hundreds of books written about The Knights Templar, yet I had never heard of this army until I read Da Vinci Code. It's the most important book written, at this time, I think.
There are few organizations, if any at all, who are surrounded by more goofy conspiracy theories than the Knights Templar.
Do women have hooves? Or just Nuns? Wow!
Dunno fer sure what nuns got; always figured they just sorta floated, though I do recall the occasional glimpse of something that looked sorta like a spit-shined jump boot, 'cept it had a kinda wussy heel and no tread pattern on the sole.
Quote:There are hundreds of books written about The Knights Templar, yet I had never heard of this army until I read Da Vinci Code. It's the most important book written, at this time, I think.
Set's correct, as he is so often, about the Knights Templar having numerous legends and such surrounding them. That's perhaps why there are so many books. There is little controversy about whether they were once powerful and seen as extraordinary men and then at some point in time deemed enemies of the Church and wiped out. (Unless they escaped to Switzerland, blah blah)
The da Vinci Code is only important because it has done one thing right. It has brought to the
popular culture subjects that had previously only been discussed in lofty scholarly towers. It has made people ask a very important question: Is Christianity in it's present form representative of the what Christ's words meant?
I personally don't think Jesus would recognize any of the rituals, rules, dogmas and other trappings of what passes for the Christian faith. I think he would look out over what is being done in his name and weep.
Joe(for the second time)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:I personally don't think Jesus would recognize any of the rituals, rules, dogmas and other trappings of what passes for the Christian faith. I think he would look out over what is being done in his name and weep.
Joe(for the second time)Nation
I suspect he might weep...but then become enraged!
Can you imagine him dealing with the likes of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson???
By the way...seems to me my considerations of the Knights Templar go way back to my High School days. Weren't the Knights Templar featured in Walter Scott's Ivanhoe (required reading in New Jersey HS's)...or is that a false memory for me????
Momma Angel wrote:
Quote:The case of "blasphemy against the Spirit" in the New Testament is mentioned in Mark 3:22-30 and in Matthew 12:22-32. The term blasphemy may be generally defined as "defiant irreverence." We would apply the term to such sins as cursing God, or willfully degrading things relating to God. It is also attributing some evil to God, or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him.
http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html
In my opinion, this book is degrading to God; therefore, blasphemy (at least to me it is.).
I gotta agree with MA here.
She has a right to consider the book to be blasphemy based on what she reads in it....
...just as many of us consider the Bible to be blasphemy (against any GOD other than the cartoon monster god it contains) based on what we read.
