 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4324 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 04:15 am |
|
Yeah, I saw it, and this is what happens when legitimate conservative principles are sacrificed on the altar of Wall Street and the White House's dual governance of our nation.
So, deRodes, and I want to be civil here, very civil: how do we know whether we should go with Peter or Paul about circumcision and following Kosher?
I don't remember any clear indications from Jesus' teaching, whether Paul was more learned or not.
Peter was around Jesus and Paul wasn't, yet Paul, in effect, set up the church, and his version, the non-kosher version, triumphed in the wake of Masada as the Romans tended to persecute Jewish Christians as Jews and were not as exacting about rounding up non-Jewish converts to a new religious sect.
So, how do we know?
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 06:43 am |
|
how do we know whether we should go with Peter or Paul about circumcision and following Kosher?
Read Acts 15:1-29
I'll pick it up at verse 22:
Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named "Barsabas," and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren. To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" -- to whom we gave no such commandment --
25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul.
26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4324 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 07:40 am |
|
Look, deRodes, I had heard that. But my point is that Jesus didn't write the letter and obviously Peter would have disagreed.
I have no complaint with someone should he choose to follow kosher or not as part of being Christian, but what I want to go against is the certainty that everything has been explained well and clearly.
How come Peter disagreed and how could the lead apostle get it wrong? Why take the position of someone, Paul, who never was a disciple?
I mean, I agree with Paul, but my point is that this is not part of Jesus' word. This is an interpretation done fairly well and reasonably, but I can understand Peter's perspective, and I certainly can't condemn it.
You know that the Protestant Bible has different translations of some key phrases. I will give you an example.
I studied this in Latin class when our teacher, Dr. Gummere, author of one of the widest used Latin books around, gave us a lesson on the Greek that got translated by Protestants as "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men", whereas the actual Greek corresponds with the Catholic translation of "Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will", and makes a lot more sense as well.
What I am saying is that all this certainty about doctrine is not of the Spirit. It creates chaos and strife.
The practice of the Golden Rule is paramount, and that requires self-study and complete knowledge of one's own heart, an end to naivete about one's motives and reasons for behavior.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 08:02 am |
|
Roy wrote:
Look, deRodes, I had heard that. But my point is that Jesus didn't write the letter and obviously Peter would have disagreed.
I have no complaint with someone should he choose to follow kosher or not as part of being Christian, but what I want to go against is the certainty that everything has been explained well and clearly.
How come Peter disagreed and how could the lead apostle get it wrong? Why take the position of someone, Paul, who never was a disciple?
I mean, I agree with Paul, but my point is that this is not part of Jesus' word. This is an interpretation done fairly well and reasonably, but I can understand Peter's perspective, and I certainly can't condemn it.
You know that the Protestant Bible has different translations of some key phrases. I will give you an example.
I studied this in Latin class when our teacher, Dr. Gummere, author of one of the widest used Latin books around, gave us a lesson on the Greek that got translated by Protestants as "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men", whereas the actual Greek corresponds with the Catholic translation of "Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will", and makes a lot more sense as well.
What I am saying is that all this certainty about doctrine is not of the Spirit. It creates chaos and strife.
The practice of the Golden Rule is paramount, and that requires self-study and complete knowledge of one's own heart, an end to naivete about one's motives and reasons for behavior.
Gimme a break, Roy, did you read it at all?? In verse 7 - PETER rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 - So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. NOW THEREFORE, WHY DO YOU TEST GOD BY PUTTING A YOKE ON THE NECK OF THE DISCIPLES WHICH NEITHER OUR FATHERS NOR WE ARE ABLE TO BEAR? BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THROUGH THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WE SHALL BE SAVED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY."
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4324 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2008 08:45 pm |
|
Yes, deRodes, I agree with Paul, but that is an opinion I share with him while others I don't.
But, anyway, more importantly, and back to the original topic, I was watching the History Channel about Hitler and his rhetorical skills and how he had learned him, when they quoted Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, from his own diary, how Goebbels had experienced Hitler's voice as "yes, this is the voice of the Messiah".
This capacity to do rhetoric, to invoke the spirit of humans and harness it or get the listeners to allow it to be harnessed to demands of today's situation, that is the strength and weakness of the modern individual.
Boring people such as Romney won't win, no matter how qualified. Slick Willy, Tricky Dick, Reagan, Obama, these guys make in on the strength of their vox, which become the vox populi and therefore the vox dei, when the person listening identifies involuntarily the Messiah with the speaker.
It is called "cult of personality", but it is worth remembering that the persona is a mask that the ancient actor wore to represent the character.
The mask, the per suonare, the "through to sound", is what we are anyway as conduits of the Spirit, as Castaneda's Don Juan deemed us. So when political theater does its job, we are called to that union of service to Higher Power through that individual who then is an embodiment of Mercury, as the Messenger, or the True Word, or the Christ.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
You mean like the people that are calling Obama their god?l Yep, there's a lot of flakes in this country; thanks to the "dumbing down of americans" they don't even realize they're stupid. Same thing can be said for those who want McCain as president.
Obama's latest:
Obama bill would commit $845 billion to global poverty
Cliff Kincaid, the leader of the watchdog group America's Survival, is urging the U.S. Senate to reject a bill introduced by Barak Obama that Kincaid says would subordinate U.S. foreign policy to the United Nations.
The measure is known as "The Global Poverty Act of 2007" (S. 2433). It would require the president of the United States to "develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." The bill, introduced in the Senate on December 7, 2007, is sponsored by Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama.
continued...
Here are some of the comments:
"What percentage of this money does he propose be sent to Africa where his grandparents and other family still lives? His church is dedicated to Africa..their logo is an outline of the continent. Almost all foreign aid ends up in the pockets of foreign leaders or U.N.officials"
"Christians are instructed to be good stewards of what GOD has given them. Any funds going to the U.N. is poor stewardship. Also Jesus did not tell governments to go help the needy He instructed his church to do that !! If you look at the giving that the american people have done (as individuals)in the face of any need or disaster I bet it surpasses that of any other nations governmental giving. Let the people pray and decide where and how to give. Lord forgive this nation and its people. -AMEN- Tony Johnson in Wyoming"
"Eagle Forum has an alert about this bill at http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2008/02-14-08.html One of the worst aspects of the bill is that it "references the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration (2000) which calls for countries to...sign on to many dangerous treaties, including the International Criminal Court, Kyoto Protocol, CEDAW, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child" which would involve parents handing over rights to an international court...."
"Just what we need. Here we are, a country going bankrupt and sending nearly a trillion dollars to third-world countries. Makes sense to me! NOT! Dear God help us should Obama or Clinton get elected!"
"If every member of the UN is giving .7% of the GNP to foreign aid, then aren't they just giving it back to themselves through a long bureaucratic process that eats up most of that wealth? Besides, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of the UN being able to tax member-nations."
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2008 10:21 pm |
|
From the Eagle Forum;
http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2008/02-14-08.html
Senate Works Toward LOST and Global Tax!
Tell Your Senate to Oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty
and the Global Poverty Act!
This week, leaders of the United States Senate signaled that they are intent on giving more power to the United Nations, including the power to impose taxes, paving the way for ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Wednesday, February 13, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed by voice vote the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433), sponsored by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).
This feel good legislation commits the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, over and above what we already spend. The bill references the UN's Millennium Declaration (from 2000) which calls for countries to dramatically increase foreign aid and sign on to many dangerous treaties, including the International Criminal Court, Kyoto Protocol, CEDAW, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The U.S. should have nothing to do with these awful treaties or the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). One of the worst aspects of LOST is the mechanism for imposing a global tax by requiring companies to pay a portion of their profits to the International Seabed Authority.
If the Senate passes the Obama global tax bill, LOST can't be far behind. Since President Bush has made his support for LOST well known, we imagine he would be willing to sign the global tax legislation, hoping to speed up ratification of LOST.
In fact, in his 2009 budget request, President Bush included a request for $5 million for LOST and the international tribunal established by the treaty. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at Wednesday's committee hearing as to why taxpayer dollars should be going to "a new bureaucratic international organization that has not been endorsed by the U.S. Senate." Secretary Rice reiterated the administration's commitment to ratification of LOST.
Take Action
The Obama global tax bill or the Law of the Sea Treaty could come up on the Senate floor anytime! Be sure to contact your Senators today and tell them to oppose both pieces of legislation. Also, Senators will be in their home offices the week of February 18. Please stop by or schedule an appointment with them to let them know you are watching their position on LOST!!
Call Your Senators Today!
Capitol Switchboard: (202)-224-3121
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4324 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 1st, 2008 09:27 pm |
|
The vice- of vice-president, vice-roy and so on is because that person stands in for another higher power.
Rex (king in Latin) was the mediator with the Higher Power(s) and was supposed to lead the tribe or nation across whatever desert of strife existed to a kind of Promised Land.
Obama does embody the capacity to transmit hope, and Hillary can't because, if she had hope, a word that is speranza in Italian and related to spirit, than she would never have made that bargain with the devil of staying with an abusive spouse past a certain point.
So her voice reflects that holding back, and her voice tell us about her character. Her mind can know policy better than Obama or McCain or whoever, but she doesn't inspire, that is, put spirit into to the listener.
She doesn't overcome despair (a word meaning de-spirited or without hope) in the listener because she has not done it in herself.
She won't be nominated and she will say it is because she is a woman. Vanity will triumph over the greater vanity of the objective examination of what makes a leader capable of leading that she would fail. She is a victim of the same vanity that allowed Bill Clinton to think he could continue to represent virtue while allowing himself vice.
Obama is perhaps naive, but perhaps he is actually a cynic who has made some bargain with the devil (figuratively) as well. Obama's wife has all the defects of someone given extraordinary help and opportunity and acts as if she was simply given her due. She is ungrateful.
Since he was able to navigate the greater schoolyard of life in the US with its disparate factions and convince most of them by far, angels and devils alike, Farrakhans and Hollywood moguls, that he is worth their loyalty, he feels empowered to take on the even greater locus of evil and strife, the world.
Sure, I would talk to everybody, too. But I would read them the riot act  .
Can you imagine the look on Saddam Hussein's face after meeting with him on the aircraft carrier that was going to bomb the hell out of him if he didn't resign?
Obama was able to get a lot of people to come together under the aegis of his umbrella because he feels that the gap between the outsiders and the insides can be overcome without violence. He is essentially right, when it comes to those fundamentally committed to the good, but very wrong about believing that everyone's grievance can be mollified.
And then he wants to run into the hills of Pakistan, a sovereign ally, without consultation of permission because he feels our allies are corrupt (yes, they are), and but not worthy of any kind of respect (wrong about that, Obama).
He chastises the illogic of Hillary's response to illegals getting driver's licenses, and then he proceeds a few days later to give the exact same answer, Meathead that he really is, constrained by the same set of taboos dictated by politically correct views of "oppressed people".
He has to step on someone's toes sooner or later. What is good for corporate America's coffers and its perceived bottom line and its stock price is not good for the American middle class or good for Mexico, especially in the short term.
McCain doesn't care. The country club repubes don't care about the middle class. Hell, they can do the jobs the Mexicans do, cutting the lawns of the Repube Country Club McMansion homes.
Hell, they won't even suffer much due to the greatest con job of recent history, the CDOs and the mortgage jack-up of homes' value, something that should end, but won't, with criminal indictments and multi-billion dollar class action suits against the multi-millionaire Walls Street Bunko Artists.
The country club repubes don't care about the jobs of truck drivers. Hell, build the superhighway and get around those nasty commy-based or mafia-based longshoremen's unions.
They just want that territory, the "market-based economy zone", made bigger and better for them.
And the lefties, they claim to speak in the name of the people, but they harbor extreme contempt for the people. They are essentially "Meatheads" ashamed of their working-class origins, if they have them, or ashamed of their parents' and ancestors' literal religions.
They are at war with the Self, the psyche, or they are willingly unconscious as a result of being unable constitutionally, characterologically, or sustaining the strife of realizing that enemies actually exist and that the oppressed peoples of the world are not a bunch of innocent victims, but usually co-responsible for their weakness by allowing their society to become corrupt or being unwilling to change to adapt themselves to the situation of the modern world.
Most of the churches of the West are repositories of boring sermons with knee-jerk interpretations of religious doctrine who don't offer any real hope as they deny the Spirit even as they speak of the Spirit by reducing everything to textbook arguments based on interpretation of scripture.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 739 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Mar 7th, 2008 08:57 pm |
|
Republican Rejects Obama's Biblical Backing of Same-Sex Unions
By Penny Starr
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama (D-Ill.) can't justify support for same-sex unions by referencing Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount.
"Christian tradition and Scripture speak with one voice on this subject wherever it's been raised," Sessions said. "It does not accept same-sex unions."
Obama is not unique in trying to interpret the Bible to fit with his world view, he said.
"Some people want to change that these days - but for 2000 years and plain reading of the Scripture, I think that has not been the position of the church" on same-sex unions, Sessions said. Obama "is talking about changing, a redefining of a Christian tradition." (It isn't "Christian tradition, it's God's law!)
Cybercast News Service reported earlier this week that Obama told a college crowd while campaigning in Ohio on Sunday that his support for legalizing same-sex unions is rooted in his Christian faith.
"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," Obama said. "If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
============
The Democratic Party has a crisis of monumental proportions;
They don't know whether to vote for the "Nut" with two Boobs or the "Boob" with two Nuts.
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Current time is 11:10 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
