Re: Dear God, Deliver Us from Their Insanity!

March 4, 2006

Well I am not Inger, but I do find this sentence " Inger came down on

me like a load of feces flushed down to the sewer under high

pressure " offensive.

> >

> > > : " .....parishes that still follow the proper ways. "

> >

> > LOL!

> >

> > Prope r= Tolerance???

> >

> > Rainbow

> >

>

March 4, 2006

I believe it is in a section of Genesis. It was Abraham and he was asked to sacrfice Issac his son. Bethgreebohere <julie.stevenson16@...> wrote: Yes I was thinking of that one time where he was stopped - but there was animal sacrifice.>> That is a misunderstanding on your part. Animal sacrifice, most> defninitely. Human sacrifice? Sacreligious! The animal sacrifice> was symbolic to teach about the coming sacrifice that Jesus would> fulfill: the giving of the best of the flock without blemish, to give> mercy the chance of satisfying justice that eternal laws required. > The only

one that could give mercy is the one that had no legal> blemishes that justice would require payment on.> > Perhaps you're thinking of the one time where (before the 12 tribes) I> can't remember the exact names off the top of my head, but the father> was asked to sacrifice his son: it was a test of obedience, and only a> test, and it was stopped by angels before it could be committed (and> both he and his son were very thankful, too!).>

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

March 4, 2006

I believe it is in a section of Genesis. It was Abraham and he was asked to sacrfice Issac his son. Bethgreebohere <julie.stevenson16@...> wrote: Yes I was thinking of that one time where he was stopped - but there was animal sacrifice.>> That is a misunderstanding on your part. Animal sacrifice, most> defninitely. Human sacrifice? Sacreligious! The animal sacrifice> was symbolic to teach about the coming sacrifice that Jesus would> fulfill: the giving of the best of the flock without blemish, to give> mercy the chance of satisfying justice that eternal laws required. > The only

one that could give mercy is the one that had no legal> blemishes that justice would require payment on.> > Perhaps you're thinking of the one time where (before the 12 tribes) I> can't remember the exact names off the top of my head, but the father> was asked to sacrifice his son: it was a test of obedience, and only a> test, and it was stopped by angels before it could be committed (and> both he and his son were very thankful, too!).>

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

March 4, 2006

Re:

> The animal sacrifice

> was symbolic to teach about the coming sacrifice that Jesus would

> fulfill ...

People actually practicing/belonging to the religion didn't (and

don't) see it that way: not at the time we did sacrifices, and not now

when we don't do them.

I find it strange, very strange, to learn what the Christian

religion believes about the Jewish religion: to learn that,

apparently, Christianity regards Judaism as a set of symbols about

Christianity. (Rough analogy for Christians here: imagine how you

would feel if someday you overheard a Muslim explaining to a mixed

audience of Muslims and non-Muslims that Christian

beliefs/holidays/scriptures " were symbolic to teach about the coming

of Muhammad " ... )

Re:

> > ... sacrifice was done away with when

> > Jesus was crucified ...

Jesus got crucified in the year 33.

Sacrifice (in Judaism, at least) didn't end till the year 70.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

March 4, 2006

It is a most colorful metaphor, that's true, but it clearly

communicates the reality without mincing words. I respect your right

to find it offensive, too, without argument. She came down on me with

full force, but with zero viable backing from the post in question to

back it up: in other words, the attack on the post (and my character

as a result of expressing my honest opinion at how absurd I found the

statement in question, and the valid debate I put forth, that fully

attacked the *idea* and not the person: if the person with the

original idea and any readers can't delineate between the two, no

" discussion " forum is safe for their sanity) could accurately be

described in this colorful metaphor. I personally don't recall any

apologies for such a ____ interpretation, either. I'll leave the

reader(s) to fill in the blank: leaving something empty invariably

causes the interpreter of the blank to fill it in with whatever they

judge the person with being guilty of saying, but at least it gives

them some sort of plausible deniability, and yet it doesn't.

Actually, leaving blanks that are filled in by the reader ends up

judging the reader's perceptions and their motives, which is *EXACTLY*

what Inger did in that case, filling in between the lines when none

existed, except in her perception. If I seek to attack a person, I

attack the person: if I seek to attack the idea, I attack the idea.

That post had no implicit or explicit attack on the person, period:

that was only brought into existence by the perceiver.

So, I guess " discussion " and " debate " are only allowed if it fits

EXACTLY within a very narrow range of expression with no allowances

for anything deemed less-than-anally-retentively " nice and pure "

according to one's interpretation without questioning, if the whole

attack made on that post that I made that fulfilled the rules in

spirit and letter of the laws that presumably refer to this list.

> > >

> > > > : " .....parishes that still follow the proper ways. "

> > >

> > > LOL!

> > >

> > > Prope r= Tolerance???

> > >

> > > Rainbow

> > >

> >

>

March 5, 2006

Re:

> It is a most colorful metaphor, that's true, but it clearly

> communicates the reality without mincing words.

I could have used another metaphor.

Instead of a Muslim explaining what Christianity " really means, "

I could have imagined/described

a neurotypical person explaining " what Aspergia really means. "

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

March 5, 2006

Feces is sort of a weird word. I would have said poop. strictnon_conformist <no_reply > wrote: It is a most colorful metaphor, that's true, but it clearlycommunicates the reality without mincing words. I respect your rightto find it offensive, too, without argument. She came down on me withfull force, but with zero viable backing from the post in question toback it up: in other words, the attack on the post (and my characteras a result of expressing my honest opinion at how absurd I found thestatement in question, and the valid debate I put forth, that fullyattacked the *idea* and not the person: if the person with theoriginal idea and any readers can't delineate between the two, no"discussion" forum is safe for their sanity) could accurately bedescribed in this colorful metaphor.

I personally don't recall anyapologies for such a ____ interpretation, either. I'll leave thereader(s) to fill in the blank: leaving something empty invariablycauses the interpreter of the blank to fill it in with whatever theyjudge the person with being guilty of saying, but at least it givesthem some sort of plausible deniability, and yet it doesn't. Actually, leaving blanks that are filled in by the reader ends upjudging the reader's perceptions and their motives, which is *EXACTLY*what Inger did in that case, filling in between the lines when noneexisted, except in her perception. If I seek to attack a person, Iattack the person: if I seek to attack the idea, I attack the idea. That post had no implicit or explicit attack on the person, period:that was only brought into existence by the perceiver.So, I guess "discussion" and "debate" are only allowed if it fitsEXACTLY within a very narrow range of expression

with no allowancesfor anything deemed less-than-anally-retentively "nice and pure"according to one's interpretation without questioning, if the wholeattack made on that post that I made that fulfilled the rules inspirit and letter of the laws that presumably refer to this list.> > >> > > > : ".....parishes that still follow the proper ways."> > > > > > LOL!> > > > > > Prope r= Tolerance???> > > > > > Rainbow> > >> >>

Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

March 5, 2006

Inger,

I don't have time to look anything up right now as the computer is

operating slowly.

In essence, Christ himself and some of the disciples said that mosaic

law given to the Hebrews best encapsualtes what God wants men and

women to do. Non-Hebrews before Christ's coming were not held

accountable to mosaic law as much or as often, however, simply

because they were not Hebrew (i.e. God's chosen ones.)

To " turn the other cheek " meant, in Biblical times, the opposite of

what it means today. It meant if you were insulted (hit on one

cheek), stand firm in your judgement and present your other cheek to

the person (so that it might also be struck) to indicate your resolve

to stand firm in your beliefs. It does not mean, today, a timidity to

fight back in the face of criticism.

In other words, as Christians, you are now supposed to double your

intensity in adhering to the Will of God, but at the same time, you

ARE to show love, compassion, and forgiveness as many times as people

asked to be forgiven so that those people might become right with God.

After Christ's passing, Christians were told to adhere to God's Will,

but recognize also that if they ask for forgiveness, and truly atone

for those sins, God will forgive them as the result of Jesus

sacrificing himself for our salvation.

Tom

Administrator

-- In , VISIGOTH@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 2:52:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> inglori@... writes:

>

Not every religion, no. But didn't Jesus specifically talk about

love and compassion, about turning the other cheek and of not

judging?

>

Christ also said that he did not come to replace the existing law,

but to add to it. The earlier Biblical Law lacked forgiveness, which

is what Christ delivered.

Tom could probably provide the right quotes, if he has the time.

>

March 5, 2006

Jesus once destroyed a market because the market in question was

established inside a church.

We mustn't think that he is tolerant of all things. He surely is not.

Tom

I thought Jesus did teach tolerance - to my belief yes he did get angry

with some things - usually how his church was behaving and believers

and yet he was very tolerant of sinners and other outcasts.

March 5, 2006

In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:27:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, megaknee@... writes:

> That's a mighty superior attitude there. How can you call yourself Christian > if you don't believe in the central doctrine of the whole religion, that > Christ died for our sins? Reread my post, kindly. I said I don't call myself a Christian. I associate with Episcopal churches - did the reading in one today, Acts 4:23-31 - without calling myself a Christian. > I guess that is the New Episcopal view: the church is so progressive and > open that they had to make room for the new ideas by kicking out ...That of course is what I like about the Episcopal church. What I don't like is that it has an Evangelical wing too - but that's the price of being a broad-spectrum denomination without a doctrine.

Thank you for confirming that the Episcopal Church is nothing but an Heretical Cult intent on deceiving people away from the faith.

March 5, 2006

Re:

> Jesus once destroyed a market because the market in question was

> established inside a church.

Remember that this church (temple, actually) required sacrifices.

Sacrifice in that time and place contributed *the* major method of

prayer and ritual. People came to this temple not just from all over

Israel, but from many parts of Asia and even some parts of Africa and

Europe. So?

So ... if you came from miles away to sacrifice in Jerusalem,

you usually wouldn't bring your own sacrificial animal. It might get

sick or hurt on the way, or die, or at least lose its fat from the

rigors of the journey, or otherwise not pass the priestly

quality-control when you finally got there from Rome or Egypt or

wherever. The congregants wanted to offer (and the priests wanted to

sacrifice) animals of fine quality. (Remember that the priests got to

eat various parts of most types of sacrifice.) So ... instead of

bringing their own lambs or whatever, people in those times would

usually rear a lamb at home, sell it in their own country, take the

money on their trek to the Temple, buy a lamb there, and offer that.

So ...

... to make all this work, they had to have a market there: with

money-changers too, to take the different currencies from all over the

world and exchange them for currency valid at the temple. (For one

thing, the coins from other parts of the world often had images of

non-Jewish gods and goddesses, which you couldn't bring into the

actual temple because these images would desecrate the temple). So you

had to stop at the porch and get your currency changed before you

could go in further, buy your animal, then bring it to the priests.

By disrupting the market, Jesus prevented his fellow Jews from

performing sacred ceremonies that God had commanded for them (or that,

anyway, they believed that God had commanded) - to the other Jews,

Jesus probably seemed like (modern analogy) a Catholic who showed up

at the Vatican one day and started smashing things.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

March 5, 2006