<tetr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7vilo8$vq6$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <JgZY7aAYgHH4E...@heirophant.freeserve.co.uk>, > mary bradshaw<mary.brads...@mary.bradshaw.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hello Everyone,
> > Are there any Christian Feminists here? I'd like to here from you all.
> > It is more like a war zone than a chat group! Makes me nervous, I > don't > > mind saying!
> > ~~~~~="=~~~~~ > > mary bradshaw
> Mary is that like asking if there are Christian drug pushes here? > (well maybe not quite that bad) If you are married and are a > Christain God as told you to submit to your husband and if you do not > you are rebellion agaist your husband and most of all to God. I have > to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always > easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is > easier. My wife is not a Christian yet I still have to do my part even > if she does not do her part.
Wow, you need to get out more. Not all Christian women are whores for their men. Does your wife submit though? If she doesn't GOOD FOR HER!
> Read Eph 5: 22 through 33 Yes men have there part to has I told you. > When both do their parts them marriage is truly heaven sent. Both have > their basic human emotional needs met fully,
> For other ideas on this look at Concerned Women for America > http://cwfa.org/
> This other site is by a woman and address this issue Please look at it!
In article <JgZY7aAYgHH4E...@heirophant.freeserve.co.uk>, mary bradshaw<mary.brads...@mary.bradshaw.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> Are there any Christian Feminists here? I'd like to here from you all.
> It is more like a war zone than a chat group! Makes me nervous, I don't > mind saying!
> ~~~~~="=~~~~~ > mary bradshaw
Mary is that like asking if there are Christian drug pushes here? (well maybe not quite that bad) If you are married and are a Christain God as told you to submit to your husband and if you do not you are rebellion agaist your husband and most of all to God. I have to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is easier. My wife is not a Christian yet I still have to do my part even if she does not do her part.
Read Eph 5: 22 through 33 Yes men have there part to has I told you. When both do their parts them marriage is truly heaven sent. Both have their basic human emotional needs met fully,
For other ideas on this look at Concerned Women for America http://cwfa.org/
This other site is by a woman and address this issue Please look at it!
----- Original Message ----- From: Johnny Flowerpotman <j...@rizla.fsbusiness.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.christnet,alt.discordia Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 6:40 AM Subject: Re: Christian Feminists?
> tetr...@my-deja.com, said > > I have > >to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always > >easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is > >easier.
> Wake up.
> <FNORD> > As a child you were introduced to your church. You had no option but to > embrace it. If you had not embraced your church, would then your parents > have embraced you? No, they would/could not. It is 'conditional love' - > that was the tool used to mould your thinking. Your thinking, you will > find, is an ever so mild evolution of your parents thinking. Breaking > free, exiting our dilemma is almost impossible - but not impossible. It > will be the most difficult thing you do. > </FNORD>
> Wake up.
> Cheerio then,
Jesus died so that your sins would be forgotten.
She is the only way to God, stupid. Oh yes, She was a woman - and we have proof at our church!
> > Mary is that like asking if there are Christian drug pushes here?
Sorry. There was so much bad language I saw.
> > (well maybe not quite that bad) If you are married and are a > > Christain God as told you to submit to your husband and if you do not > > you are rebellion agaist your husband and most of all to God. I have > > to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always > > easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is > > easier. My wife is not a Christian yet I still have to do my part even > > if she does not do her part.
I'll pray for her to accept Jesus :-)
Are there any more of us christian femmes here Nike?
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Johnny Flowerpotman <j...@rizla.fsbusiness.co.uk> > Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.christnet,alt.discordia > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 6:40 AM > Subject: Re: Christian Feminists?
> > tetr...@my-deja.com, said > > > I have > > >to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always > > >easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is > > >easier.
> > Wake up.
> > <FNORD> > > As a child you were introduced to your church. You had no option but to > > embrace it. If you had not embraced your church, would then your parents > > have embraced you? No, they would/could not. It is 'conditional love' - > > that was the tool used to mould your thinking. Your thinking, you will > > find, is an ever so mild evolution of your parents thinking. Breaking > > free, exiting our dilemma is almost impossible - but not impossible. It > > will be the most difficult thing you do. > > </FNORD>
> > Wake up. > Jesus died so that your sins would be forgotten.
> She is the only way to God, stupid. > Oh yes, She was a woman - and we have proof at our church!
I guess they have Jesus's mummified left breast or something. Neato.
>tetr...@my-deja.com, said >> I have >>to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always >>easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is >>easier.
> Wake up.
><FNORD> >As a child you were introduced to your church. You had no option but to >embrace it. If you had not embraced your church, would then your parents >have embraced you? No, they would/could not. It is 'conditional love' - >that was the tool used to mould your thinking. Your thinking, you will >find, is an ever so mild evolution of your parents thinking. Breaking >free, exiting our dilemma is almost impossible - but not impossible. It >will be the most difficult thing you do. ></FNORD>
> Wake up.
Wasn't hard for me. As a side effect though, my entire family stopped going to church. They want to, but they don't. I don't know why.
-><- Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp Lord of Petty Annoyances Space Lord, Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC http://www.eriswerks.org -><- I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -><-
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:35:33 -0000, "Ronald Rizla" <Prince.Ri...@tesco.net> chorttled merrily:
>Jesus died so that your sins would be forgotten.
>She is the only way to God, stupid. >Oh yes, She was a woman - and we have proof at our church!
We have proof that not only was Jesus a woman, but the daughter of the god Mars and a 12 year old Hebrew prostitute.
-><- Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp Lord of Petty Annoyances Space Lord, Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC http://www.eriswerks.org -><- I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -><-
> >Jesus died so that your sins would be forgotten.
> >She is the only way to God, stupid. > >Oh yes, She was a woman - and we have proof at our church!
> We have proof that not only was Jesus a woman, but the daughter of the > god Mars and a 12 year old Hebrew prostitute.
Jesus was forced into prostitution partly by a patrirchal society and partly out of a desire to heal men. If some men do not see prostitutes, then they go around raping women and beating their wives. Jesus wanted to limit this.
Jesus was the daughter of THE GOD not one of many assorted Roman Deities.
>> >Jesus died so that your sins would be forgotten.
>> >She is the only way to God, stupid. >> >Oh yes, She was a woman - and we have proof at our church!
>> We have proof that not only was Jesus a woman, but the daughter of the >> god Mars and a 12 year old Hebrew prostitute.
>Jesus was forced into prostitution partly by a patrirchal society and partly >out of a desire to heal men. If some men do not see prostitutes, then they >go around raping women and beating their wives. Jesus wanted to limit this.
>Jesus was the daughter of THE GOD not one of many assorted Roman Deities.
>~~~~~="=~~~~~ >mary bradshaw
Why not cut out the middle deity and go with a Goddess from the get go?
> Do you believe, as Mary does, that Jesus was a woman?
He was a man -- and a great men; very much unlike most (but not all!) modern American men. When he spoke up about sexual violations, he was "politically incorrect", since nearly all Roman soldiers had regular relations with prostitutes. But unlike modern feminists, who tolerate opposing views, Romans killed anyone, who opposed them.
Even today, there are men, who speak up against the growing attack on women (look at this newsgroup):
>> > > I have >> > >to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always >> > >easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is >> > >easier.
>> > Wake up.
>> > <FNORD> >> > As a child you were introduced to your church. You had no option but to >> > embrace it. If you had not embraced your church, would then your parents >> > have embraced you? No, they would/could not. It is 'conditional love' - >> > that was the tool used to mould your thinking. Your thinking, you will >> > find, is an ever so mild evolution of your parents thinking. Breaking >> > free, exiting our dilemma is almost impossible - but not impossible. It >> > will be the most difficult thing you do. >> > </FNORD>
>> > Wake up.
>> Jesus died so that your sins would be forgotten.
>> She is the only way to God, stupid. >> Oh yes, She was a woman - and we have proof at our church!
>I guess they have Jesus's mummified left breast or something. Neato.
The "Torrid" Shroud...
----- Pope Illustrious Skidoo, Captain of Cheerios, Eater of White Bread and Sometimes Wheat, Liker of Eggs Overeasy with Bacon and Sausage, Orange Juice and 2% Milk, ECT, KSC, Esq.
>>> I have >>>to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always >>>easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is >>>easier.
>> Wake up.
>><FNORD> >>As a child you were introduced to your church. You had no option but to >>embrace it. If you had not embraced your church, would then your parents >>have embraced you? No, they would/could not. It is 'conditional love' - >>that was the tool used to mould your thinking. Your thinking, you will >>find, is an ever so mild evolution of your parents thinking. Breaking >>free, exiting our dilemma is almost impossible - but not impossible. It >>will be the most difficult thing you do. >></FNORD>
>> Wake up.
>Wasn't hard for me. As a side effect though, my entire family stopped >going to church. They want to, but they don't. I don't know why.
I kinda slowly phased out church from my family :) We used to go all the time when we were younger, now I won't step foot in one and my folks at home rarely if ever go. But they still believe in god, and I don't think I could dare tell them that I don't (really)-- It would break their poor li'l hearts I think. Strange this is the only topic that seems to skirt conversation...
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:26:58 -0000, "Ronald Rizla" > <Prince.Ri...@tesco.net> wrote:
> >> Madog Velkor chorttled merrily:
> >> >Jesus died so that your sins would be forgotten.
> >> >She is the only way to God, stupid. > >> >Oh yes, She was a woman - and we have proof at our church!
> >> We have proof that not only was Jesus a woman, but the daughter of the > >> god Mars and a 12 year old Hebrew prostitute.
> >Jesus was forced into prostitution partly by a patrirchal society and partly > >out of a desire to heal men. If some men do not see prostitutes, then they > >go around raping women and beating their wives. Jesus wanted to limit this.
> >Jesus was the daughter of THE GOD not one of many assorted Roman Deities.
> >~~~~~="=~~~~~ > >mary bradshaw
> Why not cut out the middle deity and go with a Goddess from the get > go?
> NightMist
I guess mary's theory would have Jesus as the patron (matron? could this get confusing or what!?!) god of cross dressers!
In article <7vkpbe$fp...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Umbricia <daria_sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Do you believe, as Mary does, that Jesus was a woman?
> He was a man -- and a great men; very much unlike most (but not all!) > modern American men.
Interesting statement for a catholic to make: Jesus was like other men...
> When he spoke up about sexual violations
uhuh and what passage of the bible refers to this?
>, he was "politically > incorrect", since nearly all Roman soldiers had regular > relations with prostitutes. But unlike modern feminists, who tolerate > opposing views, Romans killed anyone, who opposed them.
I suppose drowning opposing voices in a sea of jeers, catcalls and white noise for the sole purpose of preventing opposing voices from being heard qualifies as "tolerance" when compared with killing people who oppose you. Actually allowing opposing voices to be heard would be better. Feminism has yet to figure out how to manage to remain silent while someone expresses an idea they don't approve of though.
> Even today, there are men, who speak up against the growing >attack on women (look at this newsgroup):
There is no attack on women. Attacks on feminist bigotry abound, however.
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:23:32 GMT, Umbricia <daria_sa...@my-deja.com> chorttled merrily:
>> Do you believe, as Mary does, that Jesus was a woman?
> He was a man -- and a great men; very much unlike most (but not all!) >modern American men. When he spoke up about sexual violations, he was >"politically incorrect", since nearly all Roman soldiers had regular >relations with prostitutes. But unlike modern feminists, who tolerate >opposing views, Romans killed anyone, who opposed them.
Not true. The Romans were very tolerant. All they asked was that you add the Emperor to the Gods you worship, for the greater glory of the Empire. Every place conquered by the Romans benifited massively. The only place that didn't was Judea, since the natives refused to obey Roman law. The Romans were violent and often brutal, but they were always tolerant as long as your practices didn't hurt the Empire.
-><- Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp Lord of Petty Annoyances Space Lord, Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC http://www.eriswerks.org -><- I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -><-
> How can feminism and Christianity be compatible.
> Get a life Mary Bradshaw. Church on Sunday; feminazidom through the > week. Jesus would despise feminists.
> In-com-pat-ible!
> tetr...@my-deja.com, said > >In article <JgZY7aAYgHH4E...@heirophant.freeserve.co.uk>, > > mary bradshaw<mary.brads...@mary.bradshaw.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Hello Everyone,
> >> Are there any Christian Feminists here? I'd like to here from you all.
> >> It is more like a war zone than a chat group! Makes me nervous, I > >don't > >> mind saying!
> >> ~~~~~="=~~~~~ > >> mary bradshaw
> > Mary is that like asking if there are Christian drug pushes here? > >(well maybe not quite that bad) If you are married and are a > >Christain God as told you to submit to your husband and if you do not > >you are rebellion agaist your husband and most of all to God. I have > >to love my wife like Christ loves the church and that is not always > >easy for me but as I yield myself to Him, as I submit to HIM it is > >easier. My wife is not a Christian yet I still have to do my part even > >if she does not do her part.
> >Read Eph 5: 22 through 33 Yes men have there part to has I told you. > >When both do their parts them marriage is truly heaven sent. Both have > >their basic human emotional needs met fully,
> >For other ideas on this look at Concerned Women for America > >http://cwfa.org/
> >This other site is by a woman and address this issue Please look at it!
> -- > Brother Johnny Flowerpotman > Guardian of the Magdellan Pouch /(o\ > Star Messenger (Populous of Ummo) \o)/ > N. Fra: A:.A:.
> "... for the ram, by nature, is a wild and courageous animal, > lonely in lonely places, whereas when tamed and made to lie down > in green pastures, nothing is left but the docile, cowardly, > gregarious and succulent beast. This then is the theory of > government." > Aleister Crowley, Book of Thoth, p.77 - The Emperor.
Madog Velkor wrote in message <381e1561.15825...@news.mpinet.net>...
>Not true. The Romans were very tolerant. All they asked was that you >add the Emperor to the Gods you worship, for the greater glory of the >Empire. Every place conquered by the Romans benifited massively. The >only place that didn't was Judea, since the natives refused to obey >Roman law. The Romans were violent and often brutal, but they were >always tolerant as long as your practices didn't hurt the Empire.
Sorry Madog, but i dont buy that. Any invasion, even one with the natives best interests in mind (which they all seem to) causes problems. As soon as you become part of a larger empire you become a pawn of that empire; Korean war mean anything to you? Plus the invading forces are generally more fucked up than the invadees. When the 'colonists' (invaders) first landed in this once great country, they immediately set about destroying the native culture and replacing it with one that was evolved to suit England.
>Madog Velkor wrote in message <381e1561.15825...@news.mpinet.net>...
>>Not true. The Romans were very tolerant. All they asked was that you >>add the Emperor to the Gods you worship, for the greater glory of the >>Empire. Every place conquered by the Romans benifited massively. The >>only place that didn't was Judea, since the natives refused to obey >>Roman law. The Romans were violent and often brutal, but they were >>always tolerant as long as your practices didn't hurt the Empire.
>Sorry Madog, but i dont buy that. Any invasion, even one with the natives >best interests in mind (which they all seem to) causes problems. As soon as >you become part of a larger empire you become a pawn of that empire; Korean >war mean anything to you? >Plus the invading forces are generally more fucked up than the invadees. >When the 'colonists' (invaders) first landed in this once great country, >they immediately set about destroying the native culture and replacing it >with one that was evolved to suit England.
It was a bit different with the Romans. The Romans only really cared about the urban centers. They left the peassants mostly to themselves. In Europe this resulted in Romans building towns in the conquered areas. In the towns the Roman culture was strong, while in the country they had a more traditional culture. It wasn't until the Germans came along and applied Roman ideas to the spread of German culture that the native European culture was wiped out. Oh course, no invasions are pleasant, but in the long run, the Roman invasions were good things.
The two phases of European Imperialism are much different from the Ancient Imperialism. They both had a religous aspect that was lacking in Roman conquests. It's interesting to note that of the only two places never incoporated into a European Empire, Japan banned Christianity outright, and Ethopia was already Christian.
-><- Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp Lord of Petty Annoyances Space Lord, Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC http://www.eriswerks.org -><- I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -><-
> The two phases of European Imperialism are much different from the > Ancient Imperialism. They both had a religous aspect that was lacking > in Roman conquests. It's interesting to note that of the only two > places never incoporated into a European Empire, Japan banned > Christianity outright, and Ethopia was already Christian.
And China? And Siam (Thailand)? And Korea?
If you're going to generalize about imperialism, you really should study some world history. Just a suggestion.
Madog Velkor <saint_b...@catholic.org> wrote in message
news:381e1561.15825537@news.mpinet.net... | On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:23:32 GMT, Umbricia <daria_sa...@my-deja.com> | chorttled merrily: | | > | >> Do you believe, as Mary does, that Jesus was a woman? | > | > He was a man -- and a great men; very much unlike most (but not all!) | >modern American men. When he spoke up about sexual violations, he was | >"politically incorrect", since nearly all Roman soldiers had regular | >relations with prostitutes. But unlike modern feminists, who tolerate | >opposing views, Romans killed anyone, who opposed them. | > | | Not true. The Romans were very tolerant. All they asked was that you | add the Emperor to the Gods you worship, for the greater glory of the | Empire. Every place conquered by the Romans benifited massively. The | only place that didn't was Judea, since the natives refused to obey | Roman law. The Romans were violent and often brutal, but they were | always tolerant as long as your practices didn't hurt the Empire. |
"Apart from that --- What have the Romans ever done for us??" Quote from the "Life Of Brian" :-o) Phil | -><- | Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp | Lord of Petty Annoyances | Space Lord, | Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal | http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC | http://www.eriswerks.org | -><- | I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. | -><-
On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:05:57 +0800, "Norman G. Owen" <ngo...@hku.hk> chorttled merrily:
>> The two phases of European Imperialism are much different from the >> Ancient Imperialism. They both had a religous aspect that was lacking >> in Roman conquests. It's interesting to note that of the only two >> places never incoporated into a European Empire, Japan banned >> Christianity outright, and Ethopia was already Christian.
>And China? And Siam (Thailand)? And Korea?
>If you're going to generalize about imperialism, you really should study >some world history. Just a suggestion.
China had all the good parts on the coast under European control. It was only the American desire to keep the Chinese market open to all nations that prevented it from being physically conquered, it was already under de facto control of various European interests. Korea was conquered by Japan, and fell under Japan's "protection". I'm not sure about Siam, but I know it had some fairly progressive leadership. It might be another exmaple.
-><- Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp Lord of Petty Annoyances Space Lord, Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC http://www.eriswerks.org -><- I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -><-
"Johnny" if you are going to participate in soc.men discussions - would you kindly REFRAIN from crossposting such NG's as "alt.discordia" and other NG's that were NOT in the original headers of the message you replied to???
Phil
Johnny Flowerpotman <j...@rizla.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J8SYMAA0mbH4EwSC@heirophant.freeserve.co.uk... | Umbricia <daria_sa...@my-deja.com>, said | > I thinck, that feminism is an extention of Christian faith. Jesus | >Christ spoke against sexual abuse of women, which was practiced by the | >Romans. Modern feminists speak against the physical and mental abuse. | >Just like Christianity suffered a huge backlash, so does feminism today. | | Do you believe, as Mary does, that Jesus was a woman? | And a child whore? | | > (I am a Catholic feminist.) | > | | Sounds like a lot of fun. | | -- | Brother Johnny Flowerpotman | Guardian of the Magdellan Pouch /(o\ | Star Messenger (Populous of Ummo) \o)/ | N. Fra: A:.A:. | | "... for the ram, by nature, is a wild and courageous animal, | lonely in lonely places, whereas when tamed and made to lie down | in green pastures, nothing is left but the docile, cowardly, | gregarious and succulent beast. This then is the theory of | government." | Aleister Crowley, Book of Thoth, p.77 - The Emperor.
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:28:25 -0000, "Phil" <phillewisnos...@dial.pipex.com> chorttled merrily:
>"Johnny" if you are going to participate in soc.men discussions - would you >kindly REFRAIN from crossposting such NG's as "alt.discordia" and other >NG's that were NOT in the original headers of the message you replied to???
But we like it when you crosspost to us.
-><- Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp Lord of Petty Annoyances Space Lord, Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC http://www.eriswerks.org -><- I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -><-
