Errors in the New Testament and synergy with God
Bodhisattvacat
wants to be treated to lead to bad results. If one treats others the
way one wants to be treated, one projects one's needs onto the other
person, who may have completely different needs from one's own and
want to be treated in a manner totally different from how one wants to
be treated. It is a case of seeing others as replicas of oneself - a
case of denying people the fact of their individuality; a case of
projecting oneself onto other people who may not be similar to oneself
at all.
If one is a sexual masochist and wants to be whipped, is it right for
him to go out whipping people? The command to treat others the way one
wants to be treated would say so. If one wants to be loved and goes out
loving everyone, does she get loved in return? No, she gets used and
abused and told she is a slut. "Reap what you sow?" Nonsense, nonsense,
thousand times nonsense! A person whose heart is full of compassion and
splendor will sow love and beauty - and in return get violence,
jealousy, possessiveness, hatred, emotional abuse, psychological
torture and character assassination. An Eminem or a Dr. Dre would sow
ugliness and misogyny - and get in return adulation of millions.
Another incredible idea in the New Testament is one that says that all
power comes from God. If that were so, God would be at any given time
at war against himself, as different political leaders - according to
the Bible, all in power by will of God - are at any given time at war
against each other. According to this idea, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam
Hussein, Emperor Diocletian and King George III all had mandate from
heaven, and American settlers who rose against the English monarchy,
like American citizens who fought the other aforementioned dictators,
were rebelling against the Creator. Therefore, it becomes impossible
to possess such beliefs and support American nation - a nation formed
through principled rebellion against a country that beleived in divine
right of kings - at the same time, and it is impossible to be at once
a Bible-believing Christian and an American patriot.
Which is the single line of reasoning one needs to defeat George Bush.
Another error of Paul - error in light of Biblical description of human
nature - is claiming that man is head of his wife. This goes against
the premise of the Bible - that people are sinful by nature. If someone
possesses unlimited power over someone else, and he is a sinner, then
he has unlimited power to sin against that other person - to hurt her,
abuse her, mistreat her, be violent to her, excoriate her, degrade her,
attack her character and personality, and blame her, or women, or love,
or youth, or liberal intellectuals, for his self-made misery - as his
sinful, violent, self-righteous, abusive, controlling, blame-placing
nature would command him to do. A sinful human nature demands, not
unlimited power by one party over another, but checks-and-balances,
with each party possessing enough power to check the other in their
capacity to do wrong and to make their needs known and respected. It
requires, in other words, power shared between the man and the woman,
and both possessing sufficient communication skills, education, mutual
respect and presence of mind to know what is sinful and what is good
and tow the line of righteousness while checking that the other person
not use their sinful nature to harm them.
People accusing me of misogyny take note. I have just made a convincing
Christian argument for women's rights - something that few would have
imagined possible and that could be quite useful in the cause of true
feminism - as opposed to destructive misandry.
My conclusion is also validated by psychology - by knowledge that in
closed systems, where everyone has the same perspective, errors
perpetuate; as they did in case of Challenger disaster, USSR's war on
Afghanistan and America's war on Vietnam. The human capacity for error
necessitates the existence, utilization and valuation of many
perspectives, external as well as internal. To make landed well-to-do
Christian Anglo-Saxon males the power over the world, is to perpetuate
errors, sins and self-interested cognitions peculiar to that
demographic. To arrive at least error-prone condition for the world,
one needs the perspective of people of all demographics, including
women, people from other continents and people who have had experience
of other than Christian spirituality.
The command to turn the other cheek makes sure that criminals aren't
checked in their wrongdoings. The person who harms you with impunity
will go on to harm other people and, being a person with a conscience
like all of us, will furthermore invent moral reasons why other people
deserve to be harmed. Conscience does not punish; it moves the mind to
develop a moral system that justifies one's depredations. Failing to
fight crime, you become an accomplice to crime - and let other people
be harmed because you've failed to stand in the way of wrongdoing. In
place of praying for one's enemies - and doing nothing to help their
victims - it is far more principled to pray for your enemies - namely
that your enemies be brought to truth and spiritual revelation - AND
that the people whom they have hurt be healed, renewed and allowed to
have good lives in the presence of the Lord. That way, the wrongdoing
is defeated, the sinner is brought to God, sense of hurt is allayed,
and victims are healed from injury. Justice, and God, and the victims
the transgressor has had, are served, through this simple effort of
logic to extend Jesus's commands to include what He forgot but what
follows naturally from His conclusions.
Another statement - "there is no greater love than to lay one's life
for his friends" - leads to curtailed lives; to pointless, wasteful
martyrdom; to people dying young without experiencing the wonderful
parts of human existence; to countries and ministries tearing people
from their loved ones and sending them to kill people who have also
been torn from their loved ones and prevented from experiencing life
under similar justifications. My beloved, who is a devout Christian,
told me that it profits her nothing if I die for her. I am glad I was
prevented from committing suicide or martyring myself before savoring
what I have savored. To live for one's loved ones - that is a far more
satisfying, far more useful, far more gratifying, far more beneficial,
far more life-enhancing, form of love. The people raised with the idea
that there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for his
friends itch to go to war and equate pointless killing with heroism,
while failing to see heroism, love, godliness and grace of the creator
in a far more useful and noble task - that of peacefully living and
working tirelessly to improve the lives of people in one's country and
in the world. Of living for one's friends rather than dying for them -
and over a long lifetime of dedicated philanthropic effort performing
far greater good for man and for God than could the young martyr
through his one premature misguided unfortunate act of self-sacrifice.
The statement by Paul that authorities are bothered by bad character
and that good character does not threaten the people in power, goes to
praise unprincipled brownnosers and tattle-talers while mistreating
the believer in justice and liberty who rightfully fights for people's
rights and protection against tyranny. If what Paul was saying was
true, then Thomas Jefferson, Andrei Sakharov and Nelson Mandela were
all evil people, and we in America ought to be singing "God save the
Queen." It is not only the bad character that threatens people in
power; it is also the principled individual who sees their sins and
abuses and fights to prevent them from harming their citizens. America
is founded upon this principled rebellion, and it is through continuing
cultivation of such principles and sensibilities that it is prevented
from turning into a tyranny. The attack against these principles and
sensibilities by "Christian" "Right" on the right and the "politically"
"correct" on the left created a fearful, paranoid, intolerant,
prosecutorial climate that led to suspension of civil liberties,
gratuitous war-mongering, hysterical prudishness, false convictions of
rape and sexual harrassment, and prosecution of people's personalities
under the pretext of psychology - all actions of tyranny that are in
violation of America's founding principles and threaten far more than
the actions of any number of so-called sociopaths or so-called sexual
predators or so-called negativists or so-called dangerous individuals
the life, liberty and dignity of American people.
The idea that goodness of character leads to good things, or that the
universe is some kind of moral allegory, or that people invariably get
what they deserve, is transparently wrong. I have met a smart,
beautiful, honorable, morally upstanding woman who, for 14 years, age
22 to 36, had constant migraines and was unable to work or to get
married. Book of Job, you say? Testing of faith? There were other
people who were affected and were a part of the drama; who took stances
both good and bad, with believers both Christian and New Age blaming
the woman for her misfortune - and nonbelievers trying to relieve her
suffering. It was the nonbelievers that took the morally upstanding,
compassionate, righteous stance - that of working to relieve
unfortunate suffering of the sick woman - while the smug believers in
a just universe blamed her for what her body accidentally did to her.
The universe is neither just nor moral, and people don't automatically
get what they deserve; nor does being a Christian, as most believers
would claim, result in good ethics and love of neighbor. Intelligence
and compassion - that is what results in good ethical outcomes. Justice
and morality become a reality when people choose, deliberately, through
an effort of will and mind, to figure out what those things demand in
any given circumstance and act to make these things a reality - and
remains a reality to the extent that people strive deliberately to make
them a reality. They have no existence apart from people's choice to
make them so, and the idea that all things happen for a reason is only
valid to the extent that we see people's deliberate choice to make
things happen as the reason for things happening and use our faculty of
moral choice to discriminate which of these influences are right and
which of these influences are wrong. The idea that all things are as
they should be and we have to accept universe as is in order to be
considered spiritually developed denies the fact of free will and its
formative effect on the status quo - any status quo. It makes us
partners in crime, in accepting and perpetuating evil manmade
influences, instead of doing what true spirituality and ethics demands:
Using our faculty of moral choice and discernment to rid the world of
evil influences and make our world good and just. Mystical belief that
all things are due to God or the universe deifies and protects manmade
evil. It is a belief that makes one accomplice in crime and lets one
feel at peace and one with the universe while in fact perpetuating
sins of those who have come before us.
The Biblical command to love one's neighbor as oneself is only valid
if one loves oneself. Christianity throughout its history has told
people instead to hate themselves and see themselves as - in the
words of Martin Luther - "maggots and filth." Needless to say, the
Christians throughout history tended to love their neighbor just as
much as they loved themselves, as native residents of American
continent would be happy to tell you. A Marilyn Monroe who possesses a
natural affinity for life - who is naturally joyful, vivacious, sexual
and ebullient - becomes fraught with self-doubt and self-hatred as a
result of social attitudes toward people who exhibit healthy sexuality
and love of life and who aren't willing to deny these natural gifts.
The healthy, joyful self-image becomes ladened with poison of jealousy,
hatred and viciousness, and what was healthy self-love turns to
self-hate and self-doubt and leads to self-destruction.
For which outcome the reification within society of the ideas of Martin
Luther, Oliver Cromwell, Augustine and similar jerks bear full blame.
To the question by people who have negated the progress that was done
by human thought over centuries - "Whom would you believe: son of God
or a sinful person living currently" - I would say, "If the sinful
person has better idea, then of course I would believe him." Honest
examination does not concern itself with credibility or character of
the source, but with the quality of the idea. I believe it is more
honest, more moral, more righteous, to pray, not only for one's
enemies, but also for the people whom they have harmed - to help
people who are being hurt rather than helping only those who are doing
evil. I believe it is more honest, more moral, more righteous, to
examine all influences in the status quo - any status quo - and use
one's faculty of moral discernment to fight what's wrong while
supporting what's right, rather than accepting universe as is, with
all its sinful manmade influences, and claiming that this laziness of
mind and callousness of heart represents spiritual attainment. I
believe it is more honest, more moral, more righteous, to have a
relationship with one's wife of communication rather than domination,
in which both man and woman contribute their perspective and arrive
through respectful communication at the consummation of the thoughts of
both, rather than ramrodding the man's thoughts over the woman's, who
might as a human being with a mind have a better idea than does the
man, who like all human beings is capable of sin and error. I believe
it is more honest, more moral, more righteous, to apply one's talent
to make the world the most beautiful, most comfortable, most fulfilling
place - to achieve at one's best and to do philanthropic deeds - than
to play the disciplinarian, like Representative Rick Santorum, with the
people and claim that it's good for people who elected him to struggle
while he himself, riding upon their backs, lives in luxury. I believe
it is more honest, more moral, more righteous, to stand up for
people's rights and resist tyranny, than accept any government or
society as it is, with all the wrong manmade influences, out of
manifestly false belief that the status quo which is at all times
manmade is God-inspired. I believe it is more honest, more moral, more
righteous, to use science and medicine to help people who are sick,
than to pretend that universe is just and blame the sick person for her
suffering. I believe we in 21st century have thoughts that Jesus, or
Solomon, or Paul, had not anticipated, and I believe it is right to
build on them and use them to build the best world, even if they
disagree with the preceding.
"Being the world's friend is being God's enemy," "you do the deeds of
your father the Satan," "no woman should teach a man," "a man who
marries a woman who has been divorced commits adultery," "woman should
be silent," "slaves obey your masters in everything" - there have
definitely been better ideas than these in the history of humanity. I
don't care if the people who had those thoughts were sinners and I
don't care if they wound up in hell; their ideas were better, more
intelligent, more constructive, more informed, more compassionate, more
morally upstanding, and leading to better outcomes, than these
vocalizations of Jesus and his disciples. And indeed, to their credit,
the bulk of modern Christians do not take these atrocious beliefs
seriously; as can be witnessed among Christian woman evangelists who
teach young people about God and Christian men who achieve positions
of worldly power and millions of Christians who have divorced and
remarried. Much of the New Testament makes my blood boil. I don't care
if you think that what gets infuriated is sinful nature or self-
righteousness or liberal education; if we lived by the New Testament
we would be living in a far more drab, filthy, brutal, poor, unjust,
violent, hideous, dark and oppressive world than we live in now, and
much of what has happened in the Western Civilization since people
started using their minds rather than blindly follow the Bible has
been progress. And the people who seek to reverse this progress,
whether they be foreign or home-grown, are the true danger to America
and the world.
I have made it known, and I will make it known again. I do not submit
to blackmail. If I am told I am a sociopath who will go to jail, I
will learn to endure jail; if I am told I am a sinner who will go to
hell, I will learn to endure hell. To that effect I've been taking hot
showers and putting my hands for prolonged periods of time on hot
metal surfaces. I believe in free, not coerced, will and judgment. I
believe in freedom of conscience and dignity of human existence. I
believe in meaningful liberty and self-determination. I believe in
doing good and working to improve people's existence - which can be
only done in the atmosphere of moral and circumstantial liberty; for
it is impossible to do good to someone, individual or society, who
wants to own or control you or prosecute you or tell you how to live
your life. Doing good can occur only in the atmosphere of liberty, for
anything less results in one's life and its deeds being owned and
misappropriated. Being a true American patriot who believes in true
liberty, I believe in making moral choices that are the most informed,
honest and thought-out possible and aren't forced or coerced, but
whose natural consequences one faces and takes for them responsibility.
I believe that it is right to follow God's commandments when that
results in best outcomes for oneself and for mankind, and that it is
right to ignore God's commandments, as did such Christian figures as
Michelangelo in breaking with his family and becoming an artist or
Uncle Davey in getting divorced from an abusive partner, when the
commandments result in ruined life and prevent one from applying one's
gifts in service of God and mankind. I do not believe that living by
God's commandments results in best outcomes; I believe the best
outcomes result from knowledgeably, principledly and creatively using
one's mind and one's heart.
I stand by the principle of liberty. I will not let cruelty, violence,
threat, guilt-tripping, slander and abomination determine my thoughts
and behavior, whether the person blackmailing me be a family member, a
therapist, a netter, John Ashcroft or God. I am an intelligent person.
I will act on the basis of my judgment, while checking it against
God's. I will meet God half-way: Not submitting to Him but respecting
Him; respecting also my thoughts and scientific evidence and
recognizing that there has been progress in thought since Paul wrote
the New Testament and there are thoughts in the head of creatures made
in God's image that, being made in God's image, are creative, new,
unanticipated by God and are at times something that is an improvement
upon God's ideas. Out of these considerations, I will pursue a
relationship with God that is far more dynamic, interesting,
intelligent and resulting in best outcomes than one of obedience and
that through a mechanism of creative synergy makes the best, both of my
judgment and that of God, in a way that neither me nor Him could have
anticipated before, and that constitutes the best consummation of both.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:4f2532f6.04080...@posting.google.com:
> I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
> wants to be treated to lead to bad results.
You tried masturbating other people in a library?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official Slapper of Spamming Mary the Drama Queen. Meow.
"Interesting that you abuser/junkies think that because you clutter
up a bunch of newsgroups with harassment and off topic spin doctoring
that this has some affect on me as a chewtoy." - Ed the chewtoy.
David O'Bedlam
> I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
> wants to be treated to lead to bad results.
Mainly it's a waste of time, and people generaly mistake kindness for
weakness. So, like, I'm okay, but youse people really suck.
> If one treats others the way one wants to be treated, one projects
> one's needs onto the other person, who may have completely different
> needs from one's own
Most people seem to have different needs than I do, both the relatively
few people I've known up-close and "humanity writ large." For one thing
they seem to need more pain than I can tolerate, and unnecessary strife,
and they seem to love being lied to and played for suckers ("voters").
> and want to be treated in a manner totally different from how one
> wants to be treated.
I can't be bothered to treat many people as badly as they want or need.
You'll have to be satisfied with whatever you get.
So anyway, since you've picked apart the "New Testament" (with many
statements I don't disagree with, too) does this mean you're now an
EX-(Ex-)Jew-for-Jesus?
[...]
> if I am told I am a sinner who will go to hell, I will learn to endure
> hell. To that effect I've been taking hot showers and putting my hands
> for prolonged periods of time on hot metal surfaces.
So you can still be a rather stupid kook. What does your pychiatrist Mom
whom you live with think of your special preparations for the Inferno?
And why don't you simply decide that since the New Testament is bullshit
tripe you won't be going to hell for "defying" it? Is feeling yourself
to be accursed and put-upon that important to you? Or is that you think
"if you ain't suffered you can't sing the blues?"
By the way, please explain how your conviction(!) that you are the Anti-
christ of the Book of Revelation is affected by your recent dismissal of
the New Testament? I'd love to read what you have to say about that.
D.
--
"It's my life, and I'll do what I want." - Eric Burdon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) 2004 by 'TheDavid^TM' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
AnonMoos
> I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
> wants to be treated to lead to bad results.
Have you ever looked at Robert Axelrod's book "The Evolution of
Cooperation"? Meanwhile, why the heck is this on soc.culture.jewish??
--
SAUDIA OMNIS IN PARTES TRES DIVIDENDA EST! Free Arabia by
splitting the Saudi tyranny into its three natural parts:
Hejaz-alHarameyn, Nejd-Wahhabistan, and Gulf-Petrolia.
Murderers are not Martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
J...@heatwave.com
Hey Ilya, I am going to address these points separately where I can...
"Bodhisattvacat" <drr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f2532f6.04080...@posting.google.com...
> I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
> wants to be treated to lead to bad results. If one treats others the
> way one wants to be treated, one projects one's needs onto the other
> person, who may have completely different needs from one's own and
> want to be treated in a manner totally different from how one wants to
> be treated. It is a case of seeing others as replicas of oneself - a
> case of denying people the fact of their individuality; a case of
> projecting oneself onto other people who may not be similar to oneself
> at all.
Correct--that is why Jesus said
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2]
38This is the first and greatest commandment.
39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor
as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets
hang on these two commandments."
When you love God above all other things then you will come to know Him
and His love for you, and love for yourself is taught in the heart by God,
not as a selfish love---but as a kind of circumcision of the heart---
where you know you stumble and fall short and He keeps loving
and keeps giving ( and by experiencing that you will be motivated to
be that way, because it is so beautiful you thirst for it)
...and when you know more and more of His love, you see
His love for all people, and let Him in to yourself to love others---
Saving grace is knowing that no one merits the infinite love He has for us
our works are nothing but filthy rags to Him,
Isaiah 64:6
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts
are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our
sins sweep us away.
...and we do not derive merit for works ..but just get to know more of the
operation of saving grace if the first commandment( above) is employed
for the second ( also above)
...so doing things for the right reasons---the love of God for all,
not to boast or take pride
Ephesians 3:
And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,
18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide
and long and high and deep is the love of Christ,
19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge--that
you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
In Christ
Christine
J...@heatwave.com
>
> Another incredible idea in the New Testament is one that says that all
> power comes from God. If that were so, God would be at any given time
> at war against himself, as different political leaders - according to
> the Bible, all in power by will of God - are at any given time at war
> against each other. According to this idea, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam
> Hussein, Emperor Diocletian and King George III all had mandate from
> heaven, and American settlers who rose against the English monarchy,
> like American citizens who fought the other aforementioned dictators,
> were rebelling against the Creator. Therefore, it becomes impossible
> to possess such beliefs and support American nation - a nation formed
> through principled rebellion against a country that beleived in divine
> right of kings - at the same time, and it is impossible to be at once
> a Bible-believing Christian and an American patriot.
It is wrong to confuse the two, the messiah was expected to set up a secular
kingdom, then....
and Jesus would leave where they wanted to make Him a king in that way...
John 6:
15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force,
withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
One of the greatest disappointments to His disciples was seeing Him overcome
by His persecutors and put on trial, they witnessed all of His miracles
before and
now here He was seemingly defeated without but a whimper...
Many people read revelations the same way ---expecting that the second
coming of Jesus will set up a secular kingdom---killing a whole bunch of
people...
I read Revelations as a "revelation" of truth that is now---
rev·e·la·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rv-lshn)
n.
The act of revealing or disclosing.
Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not
previously known or realized.
Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth.
a prophecy not contingent on time :
proph·e·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf-s)
n. pl. proph·e·cies (-sz)
.
-A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration.
-Such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally or in writing.
-The vocation or condition of a prophet.
-A prediction.
but contingent on heeding His call to "Come":
-An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will
In Christ
Christine
J...@heatwave.com
> nature - is claiming that man is head of his wife. This goes against
> the premise of the Bible - that people are sinful by nature. If someone
> possesses unlimited power over someone else, and he is a sinner, then
> he has unlimited power to sin against that other person - to hurt her,
> abuse her, mistreat her, be violent to her, excoriate her, degrade her,
> attack her character and personality, and blame her, or women, or love,
> or youth, or liberal intellectuals, for his self-made misery - as his
> sinful, violent, self-righteous, abusive, controlling, blame-placing
> nature would command him to do. A sinful human nature demands, not
> unlimited power by one party over another, but checks-and-balances,
> with each party possessing enough power to check the other in their
> capacity to do wrong and to make their needs known and respected. It
> requires, in other words, power shared between the man and the woman,
> and both possessing sufficient communication skills, education, mutual
> respect and presence of mind to know what is sinful and what is good
> and tow the line of righteousness while checking that the other person
> not use their sinful nature to harm them.
>
> People accusing me of misogyny take note. I have just made a convincing
> Christian argument for women's rights - something that few would have
> imagined possible and that could be quite useful in the cause of true
> feminism - as opposed to destructive misandry.
It is refreshing to read your viewpoint having had to struggle with this
among Christians----
Pauline doctrine is what I see as the place where the Bible is used to test
and instruct the believer in the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, yet most of the divisions in the
modern Christian Church stem from Pauline doctrine. I think this is because
of the way people read Paul.
There are many , maybe countless ways to follow Paul but only one way to
follow Jesus...yet I have seen and done it myself using Paul to "talk back
to Jesus" to contradict Him to take away from His commandments or alter the
purpose of His ministry...by having a literal read of it...
Just as Jesus spoke in parables and few could understand what he
meant...Paul is speaking mysteries that are not plain to everyone but have
to be dug for like a treasure---when you get to that place, you can hear
Jesus talking through Paul, and it is a big gotcha when you find it!
For example Paul claims that women are to be silent in the Church and that
this comes from God Himself...this is in 1 Corinthians 14, yet what comes
before is a discussion of incomprehensible tongues, and of how little worth
they are if no one is there to interpret...then a discussion of the conduct
of prophets and the weighing and testing of prophets....
The gifts of the Spirit are tongues and interpreting the tongues of angels
and of the Spirit and prophecy...
then right out of the blue he goes *wham* and says this about women, well it
does not jibe, with what came before if you read it...
we know Paul often speaks in beautiful poetic words about the love of God
and yet we see him here just going *blam* I give you this rule
He often uses encouragement to correct people---now many people who argue
today for women not being silent in the Church will say the women then were
noisy etc....but this doesn't jibe---it makes no sense we would have to
imagine women were very different then, being disruptive with their husbands
present, or being unusually disruptive in a crowd if they had no
husband ---that makes no sense and is a sinful interpretation---it lays the
burden on my ancient sisters who were a big part of bringing the gospel to
the world....if I suspended disbelief and said ok these were the
circumstances I should still wonder why Paul would not try gentle correction
and encouragement before laying down the law...
it makes no sense
likewise if one says Paul was a misogynist, well then he is not holy---the
two cannot co-exist, they just cannot...calling Paul a misogynist is a
sinful interpretation
yet concluding that silence is a commandment from God contradicts what other
prophets have said
Joel 2
28 "And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
some people argue that Paul is saying women can prophecy but just not in
church, yet Paul speaks so often about using the gifts of the Spirit for the
body of Christ and that the church is the body of Christ---
it makes no sense for a man to prescribe limits on the operation of the Holy
Spirit, who is God and this must be questioned, weighed and tested to see if
it could be truth....
then some say well it is ok for a woman to teach or other things in the
church if no man is around to do it but to always submit to the authority of
the man, citing that Paul refers to Eve's deception in the Garden---but then
one has to ask did Jesus come only to save Adam but not Eve? Is Paul saying
this, and we are to accept this?
Well it means that the Holy Spirit can only be in men and not women because
the Holy Spirit is to guide people into all truths, and this rendering would
say that the Holy Spirit , in a woman is not enough, Christ is not enough to
save her, and then she would be vulnerable to every manner of untruth
because she would have to submit in all ways to the authority of men, what
if the Holy Spirit tells her an abusive man wants to kill her, or teach her
lies about Jesus?
Jesus says do not follow the ways of the world ,yet this interp would have
the women rely on men for His truth
then Paul asks did the word of God originate with you?
well we have to look at what he wrote about understanding tongues and
prophecy and testing prophecy and ask---did the word of God originate with
Paul?
He opens up 1 Corinthians by saying it is wrong to say "I follow Paul" and
asks "is Christ divided"?
Another clue comes when he says just before he lays down the law about
women...right after what he says about testing prophets...
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
I have shown you the many ways to look at what Paul said and they require
people to put words in Paul's mouth, that he did not say, ( ie-women can
teach or prophecy outside of the church or when no men are available to do
the job) or to think very badly gossipy sinfully about the ancient women,
or to think Paul is a holy man except when he is a misogynist...or to think
women can have no Holy Spirit that they are still being deceived in the
Garden still fallen ( if that be so they are also unfit to teach or prophecy
anywhere)
( then he says if you think you re spiritually gifted acknowledge that my
words are given at the command of God)
I acknowledge that what he wrote is at the command of God
that we might use his foregoing instructions on speaking in and
interpreting tongues
and on testing and weighing the prophets
to be used to see if we understand that we are to weigh and test his words
as a prophet
and interpret his tongue
to see if what he really said on women is a command of God
and that way
.... the ancient sisters are restored
women and men can BOTH find and eat from the tree of life
...and Paul is a holy man and wonderful teacher
and the ministry of Jesus Christ
who brings us the Holy Spirit ( the Spirit of truth and love) is fulfilled
In Christ
Christine
David
[...]
> For example Paul claims that women are to be silent in the Church and that
> this comes from God Himself...this is in 1 Corinthians 14, yet what comes
> before is a discussion of incomprehensible tongues, and of how little worth
> they are if no one is there to interpret...then a discussion of the conduct
> of prophets and the weighing and testing of prophets....
There's no contradiction there: only men are supposed to speak in church,
so only men will speak in tongues and only men will interpret. Of course.
> The gifts of the Spirit are tongues and interpreting the tongues of angels
> and of the Spirit and prophecy...
Which women are denied by God, at least according to Paul.
> then right out of the blue he goes *wham* and says this about women,
> well it does not jibe, with what came before if you read it...
Yes it does. Quit reading it "as a woman" and read it for what it says.
According to Pauline theology, women are inferior beings with inferior
brains, who are also, like Eve, vulnerable to the Deceiver: this is why
they are not allowed to speak in church, not because there's something
wrong with soprano voices. Letting a woman speak in church would be to
embarrass her at best, at worst to open the congregation to being led
into sin by being deceived through her.
I can understand why you'd disagree with Paul, but attend to he says.
> we know Paul often speaks in beautiful poetic words about the love of
> God and yet we see him here just going *blam* I give you this rule
It is because of Paul's version of the love of God that he wants to
spare us from being led astray by a demon-deluded woman.
Whether Paul's "misogyny" (I think he was anyway) fits in with what
the Gospels teach or what you'll find in Leviticus or the Isaiahs
is beside the point: Paul's disparagement of women fits in fine with
the rest of what Paul says.
Furthermore, if one accepts Paul's writings as canonical then letting
women even say "Amen!" in church, let alone preach or baptise, *is*
contrary to Christian teaching. The only way to change that would be
to supersede Paul entirely by a later revelation than those recorded
in the "Holy Bible", which would have to at least rank equally with
the Bible in determining doctrine. If the Pope or the Mormon Prophet
were to come out with something like that it *might* work *in those
churches* because of their hierarchical structure -- the Head Person
of the Church is the Deputy of God and all that -- but you'd have a
hard time selling it to fundy Baptists. So far, Paul the Apostle has
said *in the Word of God* that wmen must be silent in church -- so to
contradict that is to rebel against Our Lord the Almighty God himself.
("Hallelujah! Can I get a witness to the holiness of the Word of God?")
This by the way is one reason I think the Bible is bunch of silly crap.
Thelogically,
TheDavid
--
"I don't think that I can take it, cuz it took so long to bake it."
...................................................................
(C) 2004 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
Pete Turk
Bodhisattvacat <drr0...@yahoo.com> writes
>I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
>wants to be treated to lead to bad results. If one treats others the
>way one wants to be treated, one projects one's needs onto the other
>person
The wording (if I remember it) is "do unto others
as you would they should do unto you."
It simply _does not follow_ that needs are projected.
No projection-of-needs is implied, expected, or
carried out.
Read that 'do unto ... unto you' a few (dozen?) times
and, if my wording's right, you'll see one of the
more obvious non-sequitur's of the week.
Could it be that what you took to be a belief, never
is, was or will be a _belief_ -- but is in fact a
command, or possibly an ideal?
hth.
'I am the only person in the
world I should like to know
thoroughly.'
-- Oscar Wilde 'Lady Windermere's Fan'
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA President and Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing
Susan Cohen
<J...@heatwave.com> wrote in message news:w5ORc.61829$gE.59961@pd7tw3no...
>
>
> Hey Ilya, I am going to address these points separately where I can...
which is NOT on scj, thanks.
Susan
Susan Cohen
<J...@heatwave.com> wrote in message news:riORc.61905$gE.38527@pd7tw3no...
Please keep Xian theology off of scj.
Susan
J...@heatwave.com
"David" <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 J...@heatwave.com wrote:
> [...]
>
> > For example Paul claims that women are to be silent in the Church and
that
> > this comes from God Himself...this is in 1 Corinthians 14, yet what
comes
> > before is a discussion of incomprehensible tongues, and of how little
worth
> > they are if no one is there to interpret...then a discussion of the
conduct
> > of prophets and the weighing and testing of prophets....
>
> There's no contradiction there: only men are supposed to speak in church,
> so only men will speak in tongues and only men will interpret. Of course.
This does not jibe with Joel 2:
28 "And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
and before Paul gives us the rule on women he says:
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully
what is said.
that means, Paul is a prophet himself and we need to weigh carefully what is
said...
30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first
speaker should stop.
31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and
encouraged.
the purpose of the prophet is twofold--to instruct and encourage
if the Holy Spirit is guiding us into wisdom and knowledge then we must test
what this prophet says---
does he provide good instruction and encouragement when he says:
34As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in
the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
what instruction is he giving? ( in cases of good instruction he gives
reasons why a thing is good)
and the reference he makes to the law, as many Christian men have read it ,
( and so sadly women too) is it encouraging?
I will cover his reference to the law in a separate post because you bring
up a really good point
32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. he is
subject to the control of other prophets...
here I give---
.
Joel
and also Jesus
and lastly
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
now the many ways Pauline doctrine is handled relies mostly on
what people think sounds right or serves their own purposes...but is it
at all divinely inspired to do so?
they say well Paul said women could announce bake sales, or say
women could make small announcements or they could teach today
just not then because these women then were so horribly disruptive
they are using their own reasoning to say what Paul did not say or
and bearing false witness against women who are being tried and condemned
on the basis of heresay---one man's testimony, nut sufficient in Jewish law
if we
want to look at law
Again I give you
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
so many ways of men to follow Paul but only one way to follow Christ
I see the purpose in what Paul said as a thing thrown out there to separate
the wheat from the chaff---who would follow the divine instruction that
came before what he said on women and apply it versus who would
only apply what Paul said on women while ignoring all the instruction
that came before,....which was...
...to weigh the prophets and interpret tongues ( I did not go into tongues
so much here but I may)
In Christ
Christine
David
> "David" <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 J...@heatwave.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > > For example Paul claims that women are to be silent in the Church
> > > and that this comes from God Himself...this is in 1 Corinthians 14,
> > > yet what comes before is a discussion of incomprehensible tongues,
> > > and of how little worth they are if no one is there to interpret...
> > >then a discussion of the conduct of prophets and the weighing and
> > > testing of prophets....
> > There's no contradiction there: only men are supposed to speak in church,
> > so only men will speak in tongues and only men will interpret. Of course.
>
> This does not jibe with Joel 2:
>
> 28 "And afterward,
> I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
> Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Christine, Paul is in the New Testament, which replaces the Old Testament.
Do you eat cheeseburgers or shrimp, or wear clothes of mixed fabrics? You
can and be Christian because, says Christianity, the Old Testament doesn't
matter so much anymore, and any disagreements between them are resolved
in favor of the New Testament.
So "thou shalt not kill" is not superseded because Jesus said "love thy
neighbor as thyself" and "love thy enemies" -- but Paul cancels out Joel.
> and before Paul gives us the rule on women he says:
>
> 29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully
> what is said.
> that means, Paul is a prophet himself and we need to weigh carefully
> what is said...
Yes. And what he says, as a prophet of God, is that women should STFU.
> 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first
> speaker should stop.
> 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and
> encouraged.
This in no way rules out his sexist decree: he's speaking to men here,
because of course women are not allowed to speak religiously in public.
If you mean we should weigh Paul as a prophet, second-guess him and
reinterpret what he says, or maybe edit Paul (or at least the offensive
parts) out of the Bible, I won't argue with you, but I will point out
that by doing so you will be stepping outside mainstream Christianity.
You can't have it both ways: there's a contradiction between "Paul's
letters are a canonical part of the revealed Word of God" *and* saying
"but we can ignore or re-do whatever clearly expressed parts we don't
agree with." If the Bible *as we have it* is the Word of God then we're
stuck: Paul, inspired by the Lord Almighty, said women must be quiet
in public religious settings.
[...]
> 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
Yes, and according to the Scripture of God part of God's peace and
order is, as Paul says, women are not to preach or prophesy, because
allowing women to do so would create disorder and ruin peace.
Again, go ahead and disagree with "the Revealed Word of God" all you
want, just realize that by doing so you are stepping outside of "main-
stream" Christianity. And if you say "But the Episcopalians let women
be ministers" I'll simply come back with "then they rebel against the
authority of the Bible."
This is not a case of trying to figure out what the sins of the sons
of Sodom really were (homosexuality? ingratitude? rape? or not being
good neighbors?) -- this is a clear and plain example of a prophet of
God, in the Bible, saying very clearly "women must be quiet."
Personally I think you should just conclude that the Bible is full of
shit, but that's just the logical, sensible and rational thing to do,
which because of that can have nothing to do with religion, of course.
D.
J...@heatwave.com
That is precisely the problem, too many people read it their way and all
sorts of unholy crimes result!
Part 1 is the law and the prophets
Part 2 is Jeus Christ
and Part 3 is the Holy Spirit....
now a person does not just get mainlined all the truths of God
they need to cultivate the Spirit of Truth by rightly handling the Word of
God
>
> According to Pauline theology, women are inferior beings with inferior
> brains, who are also, like Eve, vulnerable to the Deceiver: this is why
> they are not allowed to speak in church, not because there's something
> wrong with soprano voices. Letting a woman speak in church would be to
> embarrass her at best, at worst to open the congregation to being led
> into sin by being deceived through her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
34As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in
the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission,
as the Law says.
35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
now I ask you how is this encouraging or instructing, yet the prophet is to
be encouraging and instructing...
now the Bereans were commended for searching through the scripture to see
if what Paul said was right and true...
therefore we have to look and see if there is a scriptural precedent for
what Paul says
his words must be tested and weighed--throughout the Bible if there is a
scriptural precedent they give a crossreference to it...here there is
none... that makes it suspect
we find that Paul gives it later...
---------------------------------
From 1 Tim 2:
12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;
she must be silent.
13For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was
deceived and became a sinner.
15But women[1] will be saved[2] through childbearing--if they continue
in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
isn't this awful!
----------------------------------------------
Not only is it awful but it is incorrect actually....
it as much says that Jesus Christ saved man and gave him the tree of life
he is the second Adam, but that Eve is still there suffering under the curse
the men who would serve their own ends say well this is right,
women were deceived in the Garden and so they can not have any
authority over men
then I ask well what of the woman who has been studying the
scripture for a long time, does this mean any neophyte male Christian
more truth in it?
"No, but she is not to teach in the church or have any authority in the
Church and there would be a man in authority who was not a
neophyte"
...well ok but if she be subject to deception such that she could not teach
in the Church it follows that she be subject to deception outside of the
Church as well,at all times it seems she would not have any hope against
deception...
...for it is arbitrary to say the law applies in one instance, that is,
inside a building called a Church ( then with such arbitrainess
we can get into all sorts of debates over what exactly constitues
a Church) but not everywhere else...
if Paul is saying that woman are still deceived and deceivers just by their
nature then he is saying Jesus came for men and not women because....
-----------------------------------
John 14
Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command.
16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another
Counselor to be with you forever--
-- 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it
neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you
and will be[3] in you.
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to
you
-----------------------------------
I mean a lot of people who are Christians know about this stuff on the Holy
Spirit they will tell people well how the Bible is read reveals more about
the reader than the Bible
they say and I have found this, that the only way to read the Bible is to be
guided by the Holy Spirit which is wisdom and knowledge and love and
purity
yet they accept Pauls' instruction on women by reversing what Jesus Christ
came for, saying women can still be deceived....basically that they cannot
be guided by the Holy Spirit themselves
this does not fit with 2 John where he writes a letter commending a woman
who is we may guess a teacher because he refers to her children who
are walking in the truth ....we might think hmmmm ok her offspring
but then 3 John has him referring to his child Gaius who is not his son by
birthright
----------------------------------------
finally unless they can explain how Paul's instruction on the silence and
submission of women or the reasoning he gives behind it is something
that they (meaning the men of the church) would be prepared to
apply to themselves it contradicts the second commandment
Jesus gives which says:
39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor
as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets
hang on these two commandments."
...all the law hangs upon the two commandments,
and Paul is subject to this law if he be for Christ
....but I had to look at this real closely and I will cover
the purpose of Paul's ministry in my next post
but for now I will just say Part 3 is on the Holy Spirit and
instruction in it
...remember what Paul said---
----------------------------------------
32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
----------------------------------------
and maybe I will add here on tongues, what he said in the same chapter:
6Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will
I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy
or word of instruction?
11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying,
I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.
12So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts,
try to excel in gifts that build up the church.
18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words
to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants,
but in your thinking be adults. 21In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,"[6] says the Lord.
----------------------------------------
it seems to me he is striving to have the real meaning behind
his words understood for instruction, knowledge and truth
but that they are hearing him as a foreigner....
...and by taking his spoon fed instructions on women
without following the course of instruction that came
before it they are thinking very much like
children, and not adults
remembering too that in those days pagan worship rituals
were led by women and that many women helped him
build his ministry...and his worry with unintelligible tongues was
that unbelievers would say are you out of your mind?
see here:
----------------------------------------------------
23So if the whole church comes together and everyone
speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand[7]
or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you
are out of your mind?
24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand
[8] comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be
convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all,
25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare.
So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming,
"God is really among you!"
----------------------------------------
so that maybe if his words are interpreted and squared with
the Gospel he is meant to bring to people, that Gospel being
the Gospel of Christ---people will open their eyes and ears
and say
"oh wow look where my heart was when I read it !
I only chose to follow what he said about women without
using his instruction that came before it...and I only did that
because my heart was hard and my mind dull"
I have some theories and more questions on Paul's ministry but
wil cover it in teh next post
In Christ
Christine
A [Temporary] Dog
(Bodhisattvacat) painted a red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended
the altar of Fluffy and shouted:
>An Eminem or a Dr. Dre would sow
>ugliness and misogyny - and get in return adulation of millions.
That's because they have a little thing known as "talent", but you
wouldn't know about that.
--
- A (Temporary) Dog | Certified PSF / Virtual Kookhound
"Dog of Disinformation" | Guild Dog for the "We're *Not* Lost
The Domain is *erols dot com* | Damit" Tribe of Skeptics
The Name is tempdog | Official Compainion Animal of
Put together as name@domain | the Black Ships
"One Small Step For A Paranormal, One Giant Leap For KookKind" - Cipher
J...@heatwave.com
> Furthermore, if one accepts Paul's writings as canonical then letting
> women even say "Amen!" in church, let alone preach or baptise, *is*
> contrary to Christian teaching. The only way to change that would be
> to supersede Paul entirely by a later revelation than those recorded
> in the "Holy Bible", which would have to at least rank equally with
> the Bible in determining doctrine. If the Pope or the Mormon Prophet
> were to come out with something like that it *might* work *in those
> churches* because of their hierarchical structure -- the Head Person
> of the Church is the Deputy of God and all that -- but you'd have a
> hard time selling it to fundy Baptists. So far, Paul the Apostle has
> said *in the Word of God* that wmen must be silent in church -- so to
> contradict that is to rebel against Our Lord the Almighty God himself.
> ("Hallelujah! Can I get a witness to the holiness of the Word of God?")
I initially wondered if Paul was a false apostle, for they are referred to
in Revelation, Paul is from the tribe of Benjamin, formerly named
Saul and a persecutor of Jesus, I wondered if he represented a type...
and was the Saul who persecuted David who represents a "type" of
Christ
I noticed also that Paul often refers to himself as a man in chains for
Jesus that there is no account of him being baptised from the apostles
who were the "pillars" that is, James Peter and John
that he had a "vision" of Christ, but was this in fact Jesus Christ, he
then saw...or was he still persecuting Him?
the first one to attend on him after his vision was Ananias who was as
distrustful of him as everyone else was....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 9
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to
carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of
Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I notice two things---that Paul is to carry his name *before* the Gentiles
and their kings and before the people of Isreal...I wonder why they did not
say *to* them, there may actually be a distinction there---that he would
carry the name before them but not to them and that he would be made
to suffer for it
....perhaps eternally, this is so as well..
....he was the man in chains, so often writing his letters from prison
then---but today because of the use of his ministry ( to be used to
confound many and separate the wheat from the chaff) is he still
very much the man in chains?
Again I will point out what is distinct in Part 3 of the Bible, the Holy
Spirit
Paul is set right between Acts and the epistles of Christ's disciples,
which take on a profoundly different flavor from Paul
Christ instructs people that there will be wheat with the tares
other parts of the bible have us asked to test the spirits,
and talk about false lights and false teachings....
all of these things had me wondering if Paul took over the
ministry of Judas :
---------------------------------------------
from Acts 1: ( On Judas)
20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'[4] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.
----------------------------------------------
deserted meaning deserted in Spirit, no fruit
but then I got to thinking about the reformers who
were turned to faith by Paul, because he truly said
some powerful stuff, I know his words have affected me
so I wondered if he was just moody but then it made no sense that
God would allow it to no purpose or that the words could be
disregarded because they only applied to the times....
finally Peter ( who was put down by Paul BTW) resolved it for me
by commending him...and giving us a caution on Paul at the same time
-------------------------------------------------------
2 peter 3:
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation,
just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom
that God gave him.
16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them
of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard
to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,
as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
-------------------------------------------------------
Then I thought about the many ways of following Paul and
how I myself had used Paul's words to "talk back to" Jesus
and how Peter means something like what I came to conclude...
that there are so many ways to follow Paul
( and twist the scripture to do so) but that there is
only one way to follow Christ...
back to the metaphor Paul represents in his distinct ministry
The man in chains for Jesus
reading his words in the spirit of bondage
the Pillars that follow Paul, John, James and Peter
speak in the spirit of adoption as heirs to the kingdom
they are the "kings" I see in that Acts reference---with
Paul carrying the name of Jesus before them)
Paul is part of the Christian passage from the spirit of
bondage to the spirit of adoption...
...and that when you read him through the Spirit of
Christ and what is meant (instruction, teaching not
spoon feeding) you take him from his chains and prison
and yourself as well
It might not be "mainstream" then again Jesus says:
-----------------------------------------------
Luke 13:24
"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door,
because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not
be able to.
-------------------------------------------------
I cannot imagine that the narrow door He would have me strive
for is to find some way to tell myself that I had to get to a place
where I would find freedom in Christ and yet subject to all manner
of men and what they say when I *know* they do not agree
with Jesus Christ
In Christ
Christine
J...@heatwave.com
> > "David" <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 J...@heatwave.com wrote:
> > This does not jibe with Joel 2:
> >
> > 28 "And afterward,
> > I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
> > Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
>
> Christine, Paul is in the New Testament, which replaces the Old Testament.
> Do you eat cheeseburgers or shrimp, or wear clothes of mixed fabrics? You
> can and be Christian because, says Christianity, the Old Testament doesn't
> matter so much anymore, and any disagreements between them are resolved
> in favor of the New Testament.
well it is a new covenant of grace but it does not replace the the Law or
the Prophets which are in the OT, and these things of God, rightly
understood were not meant to be unmerciful in time, saying "whoops" lookie
there I made a boo boo"
in the transfiguration, Peter wanted to build 3 shelters for Elija and Moses
( Mark 9 ) as if they were meant to be put in three distinct and separate
places...
thay aren't, when you weave the Gospels with the Psalms of David, or the
Songs of Solomon, Jeremiah, Chronicles, Kings , the Exodus out of Egypt,
Daniel...to name some...well I dunno, I keep seeing Christ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
(Whole Chapter: Matthew 5 In context: Matthew 5:16-18)
Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this
sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22:40
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So "thou shalt not kill" is not superseded because Jesus said "love thy
> neighbor as thyself" and "love thy enemies" -- but Paul cancels out Joel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't follow that, then you would be saying that Paul cancels out Jesus
too
the key is--nothing he says can cancel out what Christ did or said or by
that very fact he is false....because his whole purpose is to speak about
Christ for Christ
Acts refers to Joel's prophecy when they talk about the Pentecost
and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit...
so then it makes every bit of sense given that,
and given what Jesus Christ teaches by Word and by example,
and finally because Paul instructs us to do it ----
---it makes every bit of sense to follow that instruction
and apply it first off to him
(again) in 1 Cor epistle he starts out by saying it is wrong to follow
Paul or this person or that person ----and ----is Christ divided?
>
> > and before Paul gives us the rule on women he says:
> >
> > 29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh
carefully
> > what is said.
>
> > that means, Paul is a prophet himself and we need to weigh carefully
> > what is said...
>
> Yes. And what he says, as a prophet of God, is that women should STFU.
>
> > 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first
> > speaker should stop.
> > 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed
and
> > encouraged.
>
> This in no way rules out his sexist decree: he's speaking to men here,
> because of course women are not allowed to speak religiously in public.
>
> If you mean we should weigh Paul as a prophet, second-guess him and
> reinterpret what he says, or maybe edit Paul (or at least the offensive
> parts) out of the Bible, I won't argue with you, but I will point out
> that by doing so you will be stepping outside mainstream Christianity.
I am saying Paul is subject to searching the scriptures,
and to be tested according to them---if what he says has
no precedent, and if what he says is different than Jesus
then that particular interpretation is "false"
and again there are many ways to follow and read Paul
>
> You can't have it both ways: there's a contradiction between "Paul's
> letters are a canonical part of the revealed Word of God" *and* saying
> "but we can ignore or re-do whatever clearly expressed parts we don't
> agree with." If the Bible *as we have it* is the Word of God then we're
> stuck: Paul, inspired by the Lord Almighty, said women must be quiet
> in public religious settings.
if people read Paul in a way that contradicts Jesus
that is precisely what they are doing
they are doing what they want , but not following Christ
>
> [...]
>
> > 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
>
> Yes, and according to the Scripture of God part of God's peace and
> order is, as Paul says, women are not to preach or prophesy, because
> allowing women to do so would create disorder and ruin peace.
>
> Again, go ahead and disagree with "the Revealed Word of God" all you
> want, just realize that by doing so you are stepping outside of "main-
> stream" Christianity. And if you say "But the Episcopalians let women
> be ministers" I'll simply come back with "then they rebel against the
> authority of the Bible."
Truth is revealed by study and meditation, not by spoon feeding
and truth is the revealed Word of God not the many varieties
people make it out to be, taking the simplistic course
I will agree with you wholeheartedly that the way I have looked at
Paul is not "mainstream" though
but that the mainstream view has sort of put and expiry date on his
words ascribing them to the people of the times while being
sympathetic to Paul
I disagree with that---because it bears harsh wiitness against them
and Jewish law requires what 3 witnesses?...and I disagree with
that also because really it doesn't think very highly of Paul, like
he could not find a way to instruct for the order and conduct without
resorting to barking out commands that were badly reasoned through?
In Christ
Christine
David
Ilya "Bodhisattvacat" Shambat:
> >An Eminem or a Dr. Dre would sow ugliness and misogyny - and get in
> >return adulation of millions.
> That's because they have a little thing known as "talent", but you
> wouldn't know about that.
You think Enimem and Dr. Dre have TALENT? So what's your objection
to Ilya B. Shambat then?
A [Temporary] Dog
painted a red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy
and shouted:
>On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, A [Temporary] Dog wrote back to
>Ilya "Bodhisattvacat" Shambat:
>
>> >An Eminem or a Dr. Dre would sow ugliness and misogyny - and get in
>> >return adulation of millions.
>
>> That's because they have a little thing known as "talent", but you
>> wouldn't know about that.
>
>You think Enimem and Dr. Dre have TALENT?
Me and a whole bunch of other people; that's why Eminem got to have
three successful albams, a movie staring him based on his life and got
a metric shitload of money dumped on him. That's why he got to do a
duet with Elton John. That's why he was on the MTV awards with the
100 odd fake Slim Shadys. That's why people are willing to *pay* to
hear his music. I seem to remember a certain amount of critical
acclaim as well.
>So what's your objection
>to Ilya B. Shambat then?
That he's a boring, pathetic, long winded, talentless wanker without
the sense to come in out of the cold who x-posts to hell and back.
catbrier
> I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
> wants to be treated to lead to bad results.
What was your first clue?
>If one treats others the
> way one wants to be treated, one projects one's needs onto the other
> person, who may have completely different needs from one's own and
> want to be treated in a manner totally different from how one wants to
> be treated. It is a case of seeing others as replicas of oneself - a
> case of denying people the fact of their individuality; a case of
> projecting oneself onto other people who may not be similar to oneself
> at all.
Exactly. A person may have a completely different notion of social
etiquette than you do - and consider their own rude behavior to be an
acceptable way to interact with everyone, including themselves.
> If one is a sexual masochist and wants to be whipped, is it right for
> him to go out whipping people? The command to treat others the way one
> wants to be treated would say so. If one wants to be loved and goes out
> loving everyone, does she get loved in return? No, she gets used and
> abused and told she is a slut. "Reap what you sow?" Nonsense, nonsense,
> thousand times nonsense!
"Loving" everyone doesn't have to manifest itself sexually. I "love"
many people with whom I will never have any kind of sexual congress.
> A person whose heart is full of compassion and
> splendor will sow love and beauty - and in return get violence,
> jealousy, possessiveness, hatred, emotional abuse, psychological
> torture and character assassination.
Now don't get yourself worked up dear. One can be all those salutory
things without being an effusive sap. (Did you know that I read to
pre-schoolers as a volunteer? Yes, a bitch like me! And I don't even
particularly like the grubby little creatures.)
The world is such as it is.
>An Eminem or a Dr. Dre would sow
> ugliness and misogyny - and get in return adulation of millions.
When was it any different?
> Another incredible idea in the New Testament is one that says that all
> power comes from God. If that were so, God would be at any given time
> at war against himself, as different political leaders - according to
> the Bible, all in power by will of God - are at any given time at war
> against each other. According to this idea, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam
> Hussein, Emperor Diocletian and King George III all had mandate from
> heaven, and American settlers who rose against the English monarchy,
> like American citizens who fought the other aforementioned dictators,
> were rebelling against the Creator. Therefore, it becomes impossible
> to possess such beliefs and support American nation - a nation formed
> through principled rebellion against a country that beleived in divine
> right of kings - at the same time, and it is impossible to be at once
> a Bible-believing Christian and an American patriot.
Actually, Ilya, the English did away with Charles I in order to
dispense with "Absolutism." George III was mad at the time. His chief
ministers and mercantile interests in Parliament - funny that - wanted
to exploit the colonists for their own benefits. The French and Indian
War was expensive and someone - the colonists - were going to have to
cough up some cash.
> Which is the single line of reasoning one needs to defeat George Bush.
George Bush Jr. needs to be defeated because he and his whole
administration are the agents of corporate imperialism. And the
corporate imperialists will destroy the republic.
Cat
catbrier
> likewise if one says Paul was a misogynist, well then he is not holy---the
> two cannot co-exist, they just cannot...calling Paul a misogynist is a
> sinful interpretation
Circular reasoning. One of the 112 logical fallacies.
Cat
Christine
"catbrier" <catbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8901e207.04080...@posting.google.com...
The argument given was actually more indepth,
in context
but you are right if it was *just that*
well, shrug
it would make no sense, and is no argument at all
In Christ
Christine
catbrier
Now David, don't be cheeky! Ilya hasn't come to the realization of our
own individual insignificance yet. Give him time. If the job of Jesus
is taken - one can always become the yet to be disclosed
"anti-christ." I once kind of thought of it myself (I was high on
hashish, 26 years old, and wore tight miniskirts).
But, like you said, it was just too much work.
Cat
Peter J Ross
> I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
<screedsnip>
How many groups have you posted this to altogether, Spambat?
| Path: nntp.petitmorte.net!news.netfront.net!HSNX.atgi.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.glorb.com!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail
| From: Bodhisattvacat <drr0...@yahoo.com>
| Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.philosophy,alt.support.shyness,rec.arts.poems,alt.politics.liberalism
| Subject: Errors in the New Testament and synergy with God
| Date: 9 Aug 2004 08:03:08 -0700
| Message-ID: <4f2532f6.04080...@posting.google.com>
|
| I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
--
PJR :-)
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQs:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/
(Remove NOSPAM to reply.)
bob
> drr0...@yahoo.com (Bodhisattvacat) wrote:
>
> > I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
> > wants to be treated to lead to bad results.
>
> Have you ever looked at Robert Axelrod's book "The Evolution of
> Cooperation"? Meanwhile, why the heck is this on soc.culture.jewish??
Ilya must have made it to Revelations 7. He probably believes his
purpose in life is to convert Jews to christianity. It won't last much
longer. I see a hot shaman chic in his future. Sure, a suicidally
depressed shaman chic but an shaman chic nonetheless.
Pete Turk
<catbr...@yahoo.com> writes
>drr0...@yahoo.com (Bodhisattvacat) wrote in message news:<4f2532f6.0408090702.1
>491...@posting.google.com>...
>> I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
>> wants to be treated to lead to bad results.
>
>What was your first clue?
>
>>If one treats others the
>> way one wants to be treated, one projects one's needs onto the other
>> person, who may have completely different needs from one's own and
>> want to be treated in a manner totally different from how one wants to
>> be treated. It is a case of seeing others as replicas of oneself - a
>> case of denying people the fact of their individuality; a case of
>> projecting oneself onto other people who may not be similar to oneself
>> at all.
>
>Exactly. A person may have a completely different notion of social
>etiquette than you do - and consider their own rude behavior to be an
>acceptable way to interact with everyone, including themselves.
>
Hi Cat,
There's definitely something I can't see here.
You have an instruction which says, begging the question:
do unto others as you would they
should do unto you
which I'd always taken to mean:
treat (all) other people (no matter how
different they are, or how differently
their POV, or how they regard you) ...
with the same patience and kindness you
would want them to treat you (and no matter
how different they are, there's still only
one standard of patience and kindness by
which YOU'd ideally like to be treated,
and so this won't depend on who's doing the
treating) ...
and so your treatment of each one _reflects_
YOUR one ideal. Therefore their differing
reactions of that one ideal treatment of yours
is beside the point.
Because, in the end, you're not responsible for
_their_ reaction to your treating them, only for
that treatment.
So where have I 'gone astray'? >:|
'Occasionally, you may come across the
UNIX 'expert'. Too old and weary for
anything of use, these creatures are
put out to grass, where they immediately
elect themselves to committees and start
writing books.
If you have one of these, be kind to it,
buy it drinks and treat it with respect.
On no account ask it for advice, for its
language is no longer the same as yours.'
-- Mike Banahan, Andy Rutter 'UNIX - The Book'
Bodhisattvacat
> >So what's your objection
> >to Ilya B. Shambat then?
>
> That he's a boring, pathetic, long winded, talentless wanker without
> the sense to come in out of the cold who x-posts to hell and back.
Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies.
When I study something, I want to find out what is its the mechanism.
You are interested only in the result and whether it parses with your
predefined notions about the world.
If someone gets a novel idea in his head as a result of drugs or as
a result of meditation, I want to know what exactly in the brain has
been affected to give such an idea and whether the brain may contain
inbuilt wisdom that drugs or meditation may have activated, and from
which I can learn something. You only say that there's been drug use,
or the person was of disreputable character, or that he was doing
"weird stuff," and blindly and stupidly dismiss it without further
analysis.
That's not science or skepticism. That is blindness.
I believe that, if someone could write the Gospels, or Bhagavad Gita,
or the I Ching, in a way that inspires and guides millions for
thousands of years, then they may possess some truth I may learn from.
I do not believe that a religion - a mindset - can be only studied
from the outside, based solely on analysis of factuality of its
statements. I believe that a religion needs to be studied both from
within and from without - by placing yourself inside the mindset of the
religion, and also by analyzing the statements it makes for objective
veracity, as well as for such things as fulfilled prophecies and
unusual insight (and Bible has plenty of those) that may demonstrate
supernatural powers at play.
I believe that objective measurement is not enough to understand an
experience or a belief system; one needs to have an integrative
perspective - the perspective of both objective measurement and
subjective experience - before one can fully understand what the
religious person goes through and if there may be to his experience
some truth you may benefit from experiencing yourself. To blindly
dismiss a religious mindset because of a factually false statement in
the scriptures, is to dismiss all the work that millions of smart,
inspired people who lived the religion have contributed with their
thoughts and experience - an act of blindness rather than intelligence.
To understand religious mindsets I've done many things. I hug trees and
kiss flowers. I merge my aura with that of trees and let them take away
my negativity. I have done yoga, transcendental meditation, Tai Chi and
Falun Gong exercises. I commune with the spirit of a woman I love and
bask in its cloud-white tenderness and warm delicacy while giving to
her the warmth of my heart and my love for her. I keep in my mind copies
of many mindsets I've encountered and check with them whenever I have a
decision - sometimes they speak to me on their own, and I have to
figure out how to best incorporate their thoughts. I place myself
inside the cultural group mind and correct its errors - the stress of
that, the constant chatter and constant attack, demands from me a lot
of presence of mind but allows me to create original and effective
arguments to correct cultural errors and evil and empower with insight
and arguments truth, goodness, beauty and love. I open myself to Jesus,
to Hindu swamis, to Mother Mary, to Buddha, to Taoist masters, and let
them teach me mindsets of abundant love, compassion, devotion,
patience, peace and altruism - all qualities they know better than I do
and that I experience directly by merging with their minds.
For a while I believed I was the Antichrist. Then I decided that,
Antichrist or no, I have free will, and since I had never performed the
unforgivable sin of profaning the Holy Spirit I could qualify for God's
mercy. So I got on my knees and confessed my sins. It took a long time;
I had not realized I had sinned so much. After that God asked, "Is that
all?" I said I did not know. He told me to think awhile about the
implications of what had just happened.
I find that people have had good ideas since Bhagavad Gita and the
New Testament - ideas that made the world we live in a better place
than Paul or Jesus or writers of the Upanishads would have wanted it
to be. I cultivate a relationship with these figures of give-and-take
and sharing of insight and wisdom, understanding that they have some
but not all of the truth. I learn a whole lot from them - things that
weren't a part of my upbringing or a natural part of my character but
that give me strength and ability to do good I otherwise would not be
able to do. At the same time, I am of the belief that we, being made
in God's image, are capable of thoughts that God or his prophets had
not anticipated - and I offer such thoughts, while also considering
thoughts of Blake, Hegel, Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Robert Anton Wilson,
Albert Einstein, Victor Frankl, Rollo May, John Nash and others who
likewise had thoughts God had not anticipated or, if He had, did not
tell us.
Having had the most magnificent woman in the world, I am no longer
looking for a woman. That allows me freedom I did not previously have,
and I can serve God and my fellow man without anything holding me back.
I figure that a path of service and philanthropy will be a way to make
the most of what God has given me. And if there's anything wrong with
my character or psychology, the act of consistently and deliberately
doing good for my fellow man will be the best way to correct it.
David
[snips]
> Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies[...]
> I hug trees and kiss flowers.
D.
Seth Bullock
> "A [Temporary] Dog" <amunged...@munged.see.sig> wrote in message news:<ka6gh0t5h1ap0bnte...@4ax.com>...
>
>>>So what's your objection
>>>to Ilya B. Shambat then?
>>
>>That he's a boring, pathetic, long winded, talentless wanker without
>>the sense to come in out of the cold who x-posts to hell and back.
>
>
> Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies.
>
Not smart enough to not get arrested for jerking off in a library while
trespassing on private property.
A [Temporary] Dog
painted a red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy
and shouted:
>"A [Temporary] Dog" <amunged...@munged.see.sig> wrote in message news:<ka6gh0t5h1ap0bnte...@4ax.com>...
>> >So what's your objection
>> >to Ilya B. Shambat then?
>>
>> That he's a boring, pathetic, long winded, talentless wanker without
>> the sense to come in out of the cold who x-posts to hell and back.
>
>Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies.
Yet somehow we never see evidence of those smarts. And if you're
smarter than me, you're still a boring, pathetic, long winded,
talentless wanker without the sense to come in out of the cold who
x-posts to hell and back.
>When I study something, I want to find out what is its the mechanism.
As do I; there's nothing unique in being interested in mechanism, but
results do matter.
>You are interested only in the result and whether it parses with your
>predefined notions about the world.
Ah, which of us was unable to recognize talent in Eminem because he
found him politically unacceptable (Ie., that he challenged
preconceived notions)? Oh, wait, that'd be *you*.
>If someone gets a novel idea in his head as a result of drugs or as
>a result of meditation, I want to know what exactly in the brain has
>been affected to give such an idea and whether the brain may contain
>inbuilt wisdom that drugs or meditation may have activated, and from
>which I can learn something. You only say that there's been drug use,
>or the person was of disreputable character, or that he was doing
>"weird stuff," and blindly and stupidly dismiss it without further
>analysis.
Ah, no, if I were interested in the subject, I'd want to know if it
was a good or useful idea, how it compared to facts and how it
preformed compared to previous ideas on the same subject. Granted, in
a world of limited time, I'm not inclined to spend much effort on the
poorly expressed notions of someone who doesn't have sense to come in
out of the cold.
One problem with ideas conceived in altered states of consciousness
is that they may have no relationship to reality. Even genuinely
smart people can have this problem, cf Dr. Feynman's account of his
experiments with sensory depravation in _Surely You're Joking, Mr.
Feynman!_. As a result of sensory depravation, he got "a novel idea
in his head" that he knew how memory worked. It took him a while to
realize that what he'd actually had was a delusion that he knew how
memory worked. If somebody's self assessment skills are compromised,
if may be a long time before they realize that what they actually had
was delusion, not enlightenment.
>That's not science or skepticism. That is blindness.
That's a straw man.
>I believe that, [...] I do not believe that [...]
>
>I believe that [...]
I believe that you need to be a *lot* more concise if you want people
to read what you write.
>[...]I keep in my mind copies
>of many mindsets I've encountered and check with them whenever I have a
>decision - sometimes they speak to me on their own, and I have to
>figure out how to best incorporate their thoughts.
Voices in your head.
>I place myself
>inside the cultural group mind and correct its errors
Yea, right.
>- the stress of
>that, the constant chatter and constant attack, demands from me a lot
>of presence of mind but allows me to create original and effective
>arguments to correct cultural errors and evil and empower with insight
Well, *you* think they're original and effective.
>[...] I open myself to Jesus, [...] all qualities [...]
>that I experience directly by merging with their minds.
>For a while I believed I was the Antichrist. [...]
>After that God asked, "Is that all?" I said I did not know. [...]
Scroll on up to what I wrote earlier about ideas conceived in altered
states of consciousness.
[....]
--
- A (Temporary) Dog |"[W]hy don't admins let people settle
"Dog of Disinformation" | things like adults. Frankly, I'm not
The Domain is *erols dot com* | sure I wanted to equipt my users with
The Name is tempdog | AK-47s and napalm".
Put together as name@domain | - Rebecca Ore
David
[...]
> >You are interested only in the result and whether it parses with your
> >predefined notions about the world.
>
> Ah, which of us was unable to recognize talent in Eminem because he
> found him politically unacceptable (Ie., that he challenged
> preconceived notions)? Oh, wait, that'd be *you*.
Oh really? I thought that was me. But then *I* object to Eminem because
he's a pompous talentless wanker who gives me a headache (as Ilya does).
The
A [Temporary] Dog
painted a red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy
and shouted:
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, A [Temporary] Dog wrote back al Ilya Shambat:
>[...]
>
>> >You are interested only in the result and whether it parses with your
>> >predefined notions about the world.
>>
>> Ah, which of us was unable to recognize talent in Eminem because he
>> found him politically unacceptable (Ie., that he challenged
>> preconceived notions)? Oh, wait, that'd be *you*.
>
>Oh really? I thought that was me.
Ilya did first.
>But then *I* object to Eminem because
>he's a pompous talentless wanker who gives me a headache (as Ilya does).
Pompous I'd agree with, and no ones asking you to like him, but
calling him talentless at this point says more about how you don't get
it then it does about Eminem's talent.
--
bob
he did that?!?!
heh
bob
>"A [Temporary] Dog" <amunged...@munged.see.sig> wrote in message news:<ka6gh0t5h1ap0bnte...@4ax.com>...
>> >So what's your objection
>> >to Ilya B. Shambat then?
>>
>> That he's a boring, pathetic, long winded, talentless wanker without
>> the sense to come in out of the cold who x-posts to hell and back.
>
>Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies.
Wrong!
Kater Moggin
> it is a new covenant of grace but it does not replace the Law
> or the Prophets which are in the OT
All depends on where you read in the NT. "The law and the
prophets were until John; since then the kingdom of God is
preached..." Luke 16:16. Ephesians 2:15 says Jesus "abolished
the law with its commandments and ordinances." In Matthew
5:38-39 he rejects "a tooth for a tooth." Over in Mark 7:18-23
he tosses out the dietary laws. Etc.
-- Moggin
Bodhisattvacat
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bodhisattvacat wrote:
> [snips]
>
> > Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies[...]
> > I hug trees and kiss flowers.
>
>
>
> D.
I'm smarter than you too, though it took me a while to get there.
I appreciate being alive. I appreciate the beautiful things we
have on planet Earth. I have gratitude for and openness to the
magnificence of the universe. I am grateful that I breathe,
grateful that I have the abilities that I have, grateful for my
experiences. And in this gratitude I find joy.
Which is much smarter than being a miserable, vicious, destructive
POS who equates his blindness and ignorance with intelligence or
rationality and leads his mind into destructive postmodernist
loops that destroy all good that comes near him and then proves
that despair, nastiness and parasitism is the consummate state of
human existence.
Nature has a lot to teach us about patience and perseverance,
about love, about compassion, about self-perfection, about
overcoming obstacles.
When I hug trees or kiss flowers, I express appreciation for what
these brothers and sisters of us know and go through, which is in
many cases more impressive than what many people ever achieve.
They know how to live in harmony for millions of years and be the
best thing they can be while achieving symbiosis with the rest of
the planet. Which is something that people can very well learn from.
David
[...]
> I'm smarter than you
If you say so, little man.
[...]
> I am grateful that I breathe, grateful that I have the abilities
> that I have, grateful for my experiences.
That make one of us.
> And in this gratitude I find joy.
So you masturbate in public, in front of a woman who does not want
to watch, and she has you arrested for it. Some genius you are.
At least I have one thing to be grateful for: I'm not you.
Nub,
Dabey
P.S. The word "Postmodernist" never meant much, and the way you use
it empties it of anything resembling meaning. I suggest you find
another term: Hitler used "Jew-Bolshevik", Stalin "Trotskyite",
and an ex-girlfriend of mind was fond of "psychopathological";
surely you'll think of something. How about "hung like a pony"?
Dan Baldwin
>
>
> Nature has a lot to teach us about patience and perseverance,
> about love, about compassion, about self-perfection, about
> overcoming obstacles.
Don't forget all Nature has to teach us about not 'conjugating the verb'
in libraries we've previously been asked to keep out of.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:4f2532f6.04082...@posting.google.com:
> David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org>...
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bodhisattvacat wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> > Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies[...]
>> > I hug trees and kiss flowers.
>>
>>
>>
>> D.
>
> I'm smarter than you too,
David got caught whacking off in a library twice? PPOSTFU, convict!
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official Slapper of Spamming Mary the Drama Queen. Meow.
"Have you people gone for counseling for your addiction to both
stupidity and the newsgroups?" - Ed vaporizes another Irony Meter.
bob
> David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org>...
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bodhisattvacat wrote:
> > [snips]
> >
> > > Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies[...]
> > > I hug trees and kiss flowers.
> >
> > D.
>
Wrong!
bob
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Ilya "Bodhisattvacat" Shambat wrote to me:
>[...]
>
>> I'm smarter than you
>
>If you say so, little man.
heh
One of the guys at work started calling me that after we went to
diversity training together (he's about 3 inches taller than I am and
he carries about 220 pounds quite well). I call him half wit, he calls
me little man. He's one of the mellowest people I know and he brings
me something for breakfast once a week. They don't make 'em that way
anymore. Hmm, the woman who sits across from him brings me something
to eat 3 or 4 times a week. What's up with all this attention? Do you
think they hope I'll spare them if I ever go postal?
Pete Turk
<than...@coldmail.nu> writes
>drr0...@yahoo.com (Bodhisattvacat) wrote:
>> David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04081516
>11030...@troll.weezl.org>...
>> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bodhisattvacat wrote:
>> > [snips]
>> >
>> > > Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies[...]
>> > > I hug trees and kiss flowers.
>> >
>> > D.
>>
>> I'm smarter than you too ...
>
>Wrong!
So you're as smart as Ilya Shambat then, Bob?
In that case, let's hear your opinion of Abraham Maslow ...
'Most people are other people. Their
thoughts are someone else's, their
lives a mimicry, their passions a
quotation.'
-- Oscar Wilde 'De Profundis' 1905
A [Temporary] Dog
red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy and
shouted:
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:21:32 -0400, David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>
Here, why don't we give you a rubdown with Worcestershire sauce; it's
all the rage.
Mike McMahon
Maybe you're just plain likeable?
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:a9962032.04083...@posting.google.com:
Wrong, convicted jerkoff!
bob
Wrong, Unibomber Surprise nominee!
Cujo DeSockpuppet
> Cujo DeSockpuppet <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
> news:<ch0sf9$6th$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>...
>> than...@coldmail.nu (bob) wrote in
>> news:a9962032.04083...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > drr0...@yahoo.com (Bodhisattvacat) wrote:
>> >> David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org>...
>> >> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bodhisattvacat wrote:
>> >> > [snips]
>> >> >
>> >> > > Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies[...]
>> >> > > I hug trees and kiss flowers.
>> >> >
>> >> > D.
>> >>
>> >> I'm smarter than you too ...
>> >
>> > Wrong!
>>
>> Wrong, convicted jerkoff!
>
> Wrong, Unibomber Surprise nominee!
Wrong, cell block pass-around pack.
bob
<Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <a9962032.04083...@posting.google.com>, bob
><than...@coldmail.nu> writes
>>drr0...@yahoo.com (Bodhisattvacat) wrote:
>>> David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.04081516
>>11030...@troll.weezl.org>...
>>> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bodhisattvacat wrote:
>>> > [snips]
>>> >
>>> > > Actually I'm smarter than you or any of your jerk buddies[...]
>>> > > I hug trees and kiss flowers.
>>> >
>>> > D.
>>>
>>> I'm smarter than you too ...
>>
>>Wrong!
>
> So you're as smart as Ilya Shambat then, Bob?
Context, Pete. He was responding to David.
> In that case, let's hear your opinion of Abraham Maslow ...
Who is he?
bob
<amunged...@munged.see.sig> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:24:15 GMT, bob <than...@coldmail.nu> painted a
>red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy and
>shouted:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:21:32 -0400, David <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Ilya "Bodhisattvacat" Shambat wrote to me:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> I'm smarter than you
>>>
>>>If you say so, little man.
>>
>>heh
>>
>>One of the guys at work started calling me that after we went to
>>diversity training together (he's about 3 inches taller than I am and
>>he carries about 220 pounds quite well). I call him half wit, he calls
>>me little man. He's one of the mellowest people I know and he brings
>>me something for breakfast once a week. They don't make 'em that way
>>anymore. Hmm, the woman who sits across from him brings me something
>>to eat 3 or 4 times a week. What's up with all this attention? Do you
>>think they hope I'll spare them if I ever go postal?
>
>Here, why don't we give you a rubdown with Worcestershire sauce; it's
>all the rage.
Thanks for the thought but I don't think I'd like the way it would
smell. Also, I get a massage every night already (unless one of us is
out of town, which is rare).
bob
wrote:
There's an idea!
bob
-that can't be it
bob
> Bodhisattvacat <drr0...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >I find the Biblical belief that one should treat others the way one
> >wants to be treated to lead to bad results. If one treats others the
> >way one wants to be treated, one projects one's needs onto the other
> >person
>
> The wording (if I remember it) is "do unto others
> as you would they should do unto you."
That's it! Ilya should be focusing on what Matthew was trying to get
across a bit further in the chapter (7:15 - 7:23).
Hey, Ilya! Read deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 20.