Impact of Christianity on Human Society

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Bev123!, Oct 1, 2001.

  1. FyreStar Faithless since 1980 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
    Learn methods of debate, tony.

    ***tony1 said:
    They didn't, without Christianity.

    A) Lie.
    B) Try answering the question I asked.

    ***tony1 said:
    Try to get enough shelter, food, health, safety, stable family units to raise well-adjusted chidren, and equality among mankind without morality. Without morality, you would find it difficult to even stay alive.

    Lie. Criminals have been doing it for long enough, wouldn't you say?

    ***tony1 said:

    On the other hand, to turn around and murder him would not be lawful and ethically good.

    A) Non sequitur.
    B) Support your statement with reasoning.

    ***tony1 said:
    Too obvious for you, but other countries have other religions, so why didn't they come up with all of that stuff?

    A) They have, or
    B) The couldn't because the Christians either wouldn't let them, or killed them.

    ***tony1 said:
    By Christians.

    Some were. And yet they founded it apart from Christianity. Now why would they do that?

    This was a waste of my time.

    FyreStar
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by FyreStar
    A) Lie.
    *

    Let's look at that since your question was, "are you implying that these changes wouldn't have come about without Christianity?"
    Show us the country that does what ours does, but without Christianity.

    Afghanistan comes to mind.
    So does the Soviet Union. (where is that, now, anyway?)
    Communist China.
    North Korea.

    Why, you've almost got me convinced.
    Those countries are all such shining lights when it comes to humanitarian efforts.

    *Lie. Criminals have been doing it for long enough, wouldn't you say?*

    If they had enough, why would they be stealing?
    They can't take care of themselves, so they have to steal from others.

    *B) The couldn't because the Christians either wouldn't let them, or killed them. *

    Lie.

    *Some were. And yet they founded it apart from Christianity. Now why would they do that?*

    Who says they did?

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Who's that creator they are talking about?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,046
    FyreStar

    Have you noticed how the Christian posters here seem to be referring to a mysterious form of "Christianity" that only they see?

    Like the bit about love and not acting against evil: Christians are supposed to act against evil against them--they are to offer up the other cheek and await the second blow. Yeah, that's an act, I suppose, but it seems that Jesus is advocating human intervention, lack of faith, and revenge, revenge, revenge. That is, if we examine the assertion about not acting against evil as expressed by the Christian advocate.

    And then there's Tony1 who dismisses any Christian faith that disagrees with him or hurts his politics by calling them Catholic.

    How can one engage such nebulous cowardice? These people want the reward promised them, but the religion's too hard to carry out to its fullest demand. I think we're seeing here both the triumph and the fatal wound of Christianity. It is the triumph because for ages believers have licensed tangible and spiritual evil in the name of their faith, believing that they are doing good.

    I think it's a little like KalvinB says, though: keep shooting enough and eventually you'll hit the target. Any Christian can find a biblical passage to support their rude conduct: apparently if you write enough stuff down, anyone can find what they want in it.

    Consider BevKay's topic assertions: 1. Laws that required justice among all people. (Before this, power and oppression ruled.) No real citations of those laws, of course, or discussion of their historical context is offered in support of the assertion, and it also seems to ignore the fact that Christian governments have been obscene violaters of human beings for ages. Of course, we see the same today when we watch American Christians, for instance, simply choose who is included in "all people". The OCA in Oregon, CFV in Colorado; objections to literature; the paradox of "clothing-optional laws" (why is clothing-optional a special law, instead of the natural assumption?); prayer in schools, and the posting of the Ten Commandments (1) ....

    It makes it difficult to confront the spectre one sees in Christianity when Christians both hail the body of Jesus Christ in their common faith yet turn a blind eye toward that common thread when condemning the sins of the so-called "false". Recall that Tony1's anti-Catholic bender came up here because he didn't want his faith to be historically associated with the human carnage that has accompanied the Good Book.

    Consider Christian standards: The weird Christian social obsession with sexuality puzzles me. Certes, there are practical reasons for a monogamous heterosexual marriage, but they're merely practical reasons--it reduces the spread of the disease, it encourages procreation, it offers unit stability amid human chaos. Yet Freud identified a link between sexual repression and psychological deviance that has yet to be fully refuted; most "corrections" of Freud are merely resolutions of accuracy. Serial rapists, for instance, are said to work toward goals other than simple orgasms. The sense of authority, power, dominion, or other related sentiment is only possible because of the social paranoia. Where a chemical imbalance is the cause, such is nature and we must protect against that in some manner; but when behavioral deviance is the cause, we must consider the social regard for sexuality and its myriad contributions to behavioral deviance. Likewise, among assault survivors, Christian reservation seems to agitate the emotional destabilization. I'm sorry, dear, and maybe I'm insensitive, but why are you apologizing for not being a virgin our first time together? (Yeah, that particular one scarred me, I admit. Hello? Why in the world should a woman feel compelled to apologize to her lover for being raped as a child? Someone please explain this to me!) And the thing is that such an apology seems to have been warranted by a conflict with the sense of sin: virginity carries a certain elevated status in our sex-obsessed culture. Why does a guy become excited at a woman's bare ass? If clothing wasn't optional only by specific legal designation--that is, if it wasn't the norm to require clothing--it would eventually become so commonplace that the mere sight of "forbidden" flesh would cease to have its consistently exciting aspect. "Indecent exposure"? Okay, so a flasher is somehow traumatizing; you want to stop a flasher? Look at it and say, "And ...?" If it's something you've seen before, or aren't impressed by ... if there's not an incredibly conflicting flash of Oh my God it's his penis! we might demonstrate the difference between cultural standards.

    Let's look at the mundane effect, though, instead of the theoretical effects. Monogamous heterosexual marriage: in Western (Judeo-Christian) societies, this has certain effects. In the United States, unit stability is a toss-up: divorce rates are through the roof. Yes, it appears that monogamy does indeed help control disease. Of procreation, we're overpopulated on this earth for our methods of living. Sexual repression: by hiding sexuality from ourselves, we create numerous ill effects. The idea of hiding sexuality from children entirely is stupid: it is the motivation of Freud's observations. Many of his patients were women traumatized by the surprise of their honeymoon and the conflicts such filthy acts created amid their religious conscience. In the modern day, parents enact what Spooner criticized: ignorance of vice must necessarily equal virtue. Unfortunately, young people do have sex, and if they're not prepared ... is it any coincidence that of industrialized nations, the US typically has the highest teen-unwed pregnancy rate?

    And yet the point of this whole seemingly pointless digression is to demonstrate in part the Christian denial of self: the standards are lofty and perhaps admirable, but the effect is all the Christians fear, perpetuating their clinging to God and perpetual surrender of intellect to faith.

    And so I look back up to the top of my text: Have you ever noticed how our Christian posters seem to be referring to a mysterious "Christianity" that only they see? That is, that only the individual sees? And while one's personal relationship with God seems to be an appropriate reason for religion, they see not the effect of such selfishness; add to that the greed of redemption, and it becomes an obsessive restriction of what Christianity is.

    The point of that, FyreStar, is to take the opportunity of observing your current debate and advise that while your points are valid and seem quite necessary considerations, I'm not sure you can expect to communicate through the thickness of it all. Sure, a Sufi sees the soul as the measure of all things, and thus sees the self when seeing God, but it seems Christians have shortcut this process and demonstrated what happens when one simply leaps to an assumption without learning to manage all that comes with it.

    Perhaps the best example I can offer is Tony1's assumption of what "their Creator" means. I would advise that he ask everyone included in the word "their", and then you might have an idea. But such a possibility doesn't exist because God is what he makes it.

    It's not necessarily a waste of your time, FyreStar (I'm searching for a way to bring it back around and close it up here), but then again, you are dealing with Christians. Perhaps that's a fair question: why do the infidels care? I recall that this has been asked in the past, but what none of those Christians seem to realize is that it's because "Christianity"--this nebulous idea that Christians cling to while dismissing randomly--constantly presses against people to make them into what the people don't want to be. Think of it this way: you're helping save the world by trying to make clear what Christians can't quite figure out. And we infidels salute you, sir.

    I'll stop now, I promise. (But I did write the note below before writing that sentence.)

    Note 1: For instance, I could save a school district or county courthouse a lot of money; if a religious "commandment" must be present, why waste your money with ten? Especially with the exclusionary ones: great idea for a free and inclusive society, eh? Seriously, in blazing letters inside the front door of the school: An thou harm none, do what thou wilt. Very simply: be free, and treat others well. See? It's a lot less expensive to put up, and says a lot more, since it's not devoted to suggesting adultery and murder to students, and doesn't demand that you subscribe to God. In the end, though, this is why we keep religion out of schools, but Christians don't understand this: who could possibly object to the 10 Commandments? (Other faiths). Who could possibly object? (Other faiths.) Who could possibly object? (Other faiths!) See? Nobody objects. (Hello?!)

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by tiassa
    Recall that Tony1's anti-Catholic bender came up here because he didn't want his faith to be historically associated with the human carnage that has accompanied the Good Book.
    *

    Actually, it came up because I noticed you paraphrasing the Catholic catechism.

    *Yet Freud identified a link between sexual repression and psychological deviance that has yet to be fully refuted;
    ...
    a chemical imbalance is the cause
    *

    In Freud's case, a serious chemical imbalance of cocaine has been identified as a problem.

    *If clothing wasn't optional only by specific legal designation-*

    One would think that, being in Seattle, you'd have made the connection between clothing and weather.

    *is it any coincidence that of industrialized nations, the US typically has the highest teen-unwed pregnancy rate?*

    Would that have anything to do with the unwed teens actually wanting to have kids?

    *And while one's personal relationship with God seems to be an appropriate reason for religion, they see not the effect of such selfishness; add to that the greed of redemption, and it becomes an obsessive restriction of what Christianity is.*

    Stoned again, huh?

    *An thou harm none, do what thou wilt.*

    Of course, there is the issue of nations devoted to witchcraft.
    They are superpowers much like the US.
    Human rights are respected, if they could figure out what human rights are.

    Oh yes, things go well for witches, if they can find the door.

    Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
    That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

    (Isaiah 44:24,25, KJV).
     
  8. FyreStar Faithless since 1980 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
    tiassa -

    I have noticed that, actually.. and in real life as well. Whenever I actually throw an accusation of sorts at a Christian about the behavior of Christianity at some point, current or historic, the only answer I seem to get is "Welllll... they weren't REALLY Christians.."

    Then, of course, I wonder what these people would be like in the same circumstances the ones they are condemning. Some, tony for example, I strongly suspect would act consistently with, say Crusaders, or other detrimental zealots. Unfortunately, the flexibility of their faith prevents their justification of evil acts until it is too late, at which point we can't anticipate it.

    As to the Christian response to evil, I am quite perplexed. To support it... evil... to resist it... evil. But then, I suppose humanity's evilness and guilt is that which Christianity was founded upon. Clever, clever...

    I suppose that what tends to bother me is the total disregard for the burden of proof shown by Christianity (or, at least, the Christian posters on this forum). BevKay posted numerous assertions, both about how Christianity is the source or morality, and about the nature of morality itself, but provided no physical, philosophical, or epistemological evidence whatsoever. Also, no counterexamples, no disproof of opposing viewpoints, no representation of statistics, nothing!

    ***You said:
    the point of this whole seemingly pointless digression is to demonstrate in part the Christian denial of self

    Yes! The essence, the 'philosophy' of Christianity cannot be achieved without the denial of self, the denial of the mind. Which, of course, is why appeals to the mind, and reason, simply do not work. Aside: I've often wondered what this mental state is like.. it is something that I'd like to understand, but am utterly unable(unwilling) to attempt. [/aside]

    Ah well.. The problem I was having with this debate is that it simply wasn't going anywhere. One of the few things that drops my jaw is when somebody can look at a solid piece of reasoning, and just say "No." and expect that to be equally valid. Sometimes Christianity seems to be run by an advertisement firm, who focuses on name recognition. Say 'god' enough, that when people start thinking about 'god', they naturally turn to Christianity.

    Fortunately, there are people like yourself, Boris, Cris, and a few others that keep me reading

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Thanks for the encouragement,
    FyreStar

    P.S. I've been meaning to ask, is Boris still around these days? Haven't noticed any posts from him since I started here again.
     
  9. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by FyreStar
    Whenever I actually throw an accusation of sorts at a Christian about the behavior of Christianity at some point, current or historic, the only answer I seem to get is "Welllll... they weren't REALLY Christians.."
    *

    Atheists are like that, too.
    Atheists claim there is no God, until you say that's a bit tough to prove.
    Then they say Oh, but we deny not God but the existence of proof for God, hoping no one will go to the dictionary.
    Of course, the dictionary calls that agnosticism.

    *I suppose that what tends to bother me is the total disregard for the burden of proof shown by Christianity (or, at least, the Christian posters on this forum). BevKay posted numerous assertions, both about how Christianity is the source or morality, and about the nature of morality itself, but provided no physical, philosophical, or epistemological evidence whatsoever. Also, no counterexamples, no disproof of opposing viewpoints, no representation of statistics, nothing!*

    She probably assumed that you don't live under a rock.
    Silly girl for assuming that, as it turns out.
    She forgets that atheists think that they are solely responsible for all civilization.

    *I've often wondered what this mental state is like.. it is something that I'd like to understand, but am utterly unable(unwilling) to attempt. *

    Unable is correct.
    If atheists can't figure out there is a God, then that leaves very little for atheists to understand.

    *a solid piece of reasoning*

    Atheists and reasoning.
    What a concept!
    Has that ever been observed in real life?

    The strange thing is that some of the most comprehensive lists of examples of fallacious arguments are maintained by atheists, yet for some reason, no atheist can avoid fallacious argument.

    FyreStar, your entire post is a shining example of Ambiguous Assertion, Argument By Emotive Language, Argument By Half Truth, Cliche Thinking, Hypothesis Contrary To Fact, Error Of Fact, etc.

    In fact, you're almost as good as tiassa at cramming more errors than there are words into statements.
     
  10. FA_Q2 Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    None of them have Democracies either. Greece is an example of a culture that has done better than the US in its time and had no Christianity. It had a democracy though.

    Why not Allah?
     
  11. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by FA_Q2
    None of them have Democracies either. Greece is an example of a culture that has done better than the US in its time and had no Christianity. It had a democracy though.
    *

    It had Christianity.

    Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
    (Acts 17:22, KJV).

    Athens is in Greece, isn't it?

    *Why not Allah? *

    No Muslims signed the D of I.
     
  12. FyreStar Faithless since 1980 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
    tony1 -

    Since your article lacked substance, this reply will be short.

    ***tony1 said:
    Atheists claim there is no God, until you say that's a bit tough to prove. Then they say Oh, but we deny not God but the existence of proof for God, hoping no one will go to the dictionary.

    Agnoticism is founded upon the assumption that no knowledge is possible. Atheists state that while knowledge is possible, humanity is not in possesion of that knowledge. Atheists never claim to be able to disprove any sort of deity. Its when people like you claim that there is a deity and that said deity has a direct effect upon the world (i.e. creationism vs. evolution) that we atheists can point out your silly errors.

    FyreStar
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,046
    You aren't that artful, Dodger.

    Tony1
    So then why don't you take a swing at the long-unanswered-by-you question: Why did God entrust the stewardship of the Bible to the Catholics over the course of fifteen centuries?

    And from that, why don't you take a swing at the natural questions extending from that: Why is your "Christian" bible merely a "Catholic" bible with a few books censored out? If the Catholic formation of the Bible is not appropriate, why not start with all the relevant texts of the period and rebuild the canon? Perhaps because your faith is taken from that post-Catholic canon? Perhaps because your faith would not be were it not for Catholics?

    I believe you once claimed there were no atrocities committed by Christians in history. The only way that was ever true was if you reduced the definition of who or what constituted a Christian. By your measure of things, Communists aren't responsible for the Bolshevik failure: it was "false" Communists; essentially the political Catholics of Savior Marx. Does this seem a practical summary of history? Hardly. We must hold Christianity accountable for what has been done and allowed in its name as much as we hold any other authoritarian idea responsible for its followers.
    You seem to be ignoring the point; this is expected, as we are well aware that you are unequipped for intellectual processes: such is the nature of the sacrifice of the intellect. If you want your opinions to be taken a little more seriously, they should be based on something a little more serious than religious delusion.
    Yeah, when it hits 80 degreees and men start stripping off their shirts, it's somehow immoral for a woman to do the same. I don't get that.
    And would that have anything to do with classical gender roles? Motherhood is not only the elevated calling in American society, it is often the only acceptable calling for a religious woman. Heck, when I was in college and went to see my girlfriend's little sister graduate high school, approximately seven women were showing their pregnancies, another two had announced, and three were waving engagement rings: twelve out-of-wedlock pregnancies among a class of less than two-hundred. Strangely, I might point out that to the letter, each of these girls were Christians. Even more scary, they were all happy about it.

    And think about that: these girls resorted to pregnancy because they felt there was nothing else they were capable of doing in the world--everything pointed them toward being mommies. So now they are, and before they're ready.

    Now, given how many of those were "accidents" stemming from a lack of education and birth control (all of them), we might point out the hearty benefits of Christian anti-education.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Constipated again, huh? That's anemic even for your horsepucky, Tony1. All you've done here is admit that you are incapable of comprehending what most religions--factions of Christianity included--have already figured out.

    We knew you were unscientific. It seems your also irreligious. Ah, but faith and not religion, eh? You might as well be what you fear in atheism: your faith has built you a God and named it. How do you like that, Tony1? A golden calf all your own, made by the labors of your own spirit.

    What a waste of time, eh? Then why do you do it?

    --Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    I fully aware that many Chinese are now Christians, but until the last few centuries, China had been free of Christian impact for roughly 3500 years.
     
  15. some_guy01 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    81
    the chinese are buddists DUH! i have never heard of a chinese christian
     
  16. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by FyreStar
    Since your article lacked substance, this reply will be short.
    *

    Why, thank you.

    *Agnoticism is founded upon the assumption that no knowledge is possible.*

    Or at least, easily available.

    * Atheists state that while knowledge is possible, humanity is not in possesion of that knowledge. Atheists never claim to be able to disprove any sort of deity.*

    That's kind of my point.
    The dictionary, which is a compilation of many viewpoints, differs.

    *Its when people like you claim that there is a deity and that said deity has a direct effect upon the world (i.e. creationism vs. evolution) that we atheists can point out your silly errors. *

    A person would want silly errors pointed out even at the worst of times.
    Serious errors, of course, are more serious.
    That's where we get to point out yours.

    *Originally posted by tiassa
    Why did God entrust the stewardship of the Bible to the Catholics over the course of fifteen centuries?
    *

    Because he knew they wouldn't wear it out by reading it?

    *Perhaps because your faith would not be were it not for Catholics? *

    My faith wouldn't be, if it weren't for the sun, either, but I have no plans to be a sunworshipper.

    *By your measure of things, Communists aren't responsible for the Bolshevik failure: it was "false" Communists; essentially the political Catholics of Savior Marx. Does this seem a practical summary of history? Hardly.*

    Why not?
    Didn't Leon Trotsky get a raw deal during his amateur brain surgery episode?
    He seemed to be one of the 'true' communists.

    *You seem to be ignoring the point*

    The point being that Freud was perfectly capable of founding a "science" while totally blasted on cocaine?
    I'm of two minds on that point.
    On the one hand, no.
    But then, science being what it is so often, yes.

    *when it hits 80 degreees*

    or when it hits 20 below.

    *And would that have anything to do with classical gender roles?*

    Oh yes, women are normally the ones who bear children.
    I thought you knew that.

    *All you've done here is admit that you are incapable of comprehending what most religions--factions of Christianity included--have already figured out. *

    What? That you're stoned all the time?

    *Originally posted by daktaklakpak
    China had been free of Christian impact for roughly 3500 years.
    *

    But not Jewish impact.

    *Originally posted by some_guy01
    the chinese are buddists DUH! i have never heard of a chinese christian
    *

    There are a few things you haven't heard of.
     
  17. FyreStar Faithless since 1980 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
    ***tony1 said:
    Or at least, easily available.

    Sorry bud, you are quite incorrect there. Agnosticism is the belief that man cannot know the answers to questions as fundamental as whether or not there exists a god. To the layman, this filters down to 'don't know', which is a gross misrepresentation.

    ***tony1 said:
    That's kind of my point.

    I know it is. The problem is that what you don't understand is that it is not the duty of the atheists to prove or disprove. We aren't making claims that there is a god. In fact, we aren't making any claims at all.. we're exactly what we sound like.. a-theists. Do not confuse atheists with the people who cry "God does not exist". All atheists can say is; this particular religious claim is invalid. Or; Christian creationism is invalidated by evolution. The burden lies on you, tony my friend. You make the assertion, therefore you have to support it. If you do not, its no more valid than my failure to support a claim that an invisible dragon lives in my garage.

    FyreStar


    ***tony1 said:
    That's where we get to point out yours.

    Well, feel free to begin at any time.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,046
    Never

    What? He'll get to that ... oh, about the same time Christ returns.

    You know what that means.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by FyreStar
    Agnosticism is the belief that man cannot know the answers to questions as fundamental as whether or not there exists a god.
    *

    You just shot yourself in the foot, although I suspect that it will take a while for the pain to sink in.

    *To the layman, this filters down to 'don't know', which is a gross misrepresentation.*

    "To the layman?"
    You're suggesting there are professional agnostics floating around?

    *The problem is that what you don't understand is that it is not the duty of the atheists to prove or disprove.*

    It may or may not be the duty, but for sure it isn't within the ability of atheists.

    *We aren't making claims that there is a god. In fact, we aren't making any claims at all.. *

    Negative claims are claims, just the same.
    For a guy that claims not to be making any claims, you are claiming a lot of claims.

    *Do not confuse atheists with the people who cry "God does not exist"*

    No confusion.
    They're the same people.

    *Christian creationism is invalidated by evolution. The burden lies on you, tony my friend.*

    What was that you were saying about "burden?"
    I note your assertion "Christian creationism is invalidated by evolution."
    Care to prove it?

    *You make the assertion, therefore you have to support it.*

    You make the assertion, therefore you have to support it.

    *feel free to begin at any time. *

    OK.
     
  20. AmerEagle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    65
    Way of Loving Enemies

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I just think "love your enemies" means be concerned about their eternal salvation, what they're doing to themselves by doing something to you.

    And that all the evils in Christianity's past are because mere men just have not quite understood it yet!

    This is my very first post, just registered. You're doing a good job, Bev. I'm also a pianist, concerto level, internationl union member and freelance sub-for-three-weeks- only organist, play symphony 1st violin and oboe, and in a string quartet, semi-retired, former lay teacher.

    I wouldn't have the patience to do what you're doing so well, but a very old man did something to me, illegal sexism discrimination, jealousy, that in a way ruined my life, took a bribe, I think, assumes a priest can absolve him. I'm torn between caring and not caring. He was a Judas, and Jesus didn't go after Judas trying to save him. And I don't mean this to sound depressed. I have joy, lots of it, and prophetic promises of complete justice.

    Some day we'll start a thread about how Adam became changed, into ruling over Eve, bigheaded about his physical strength or what, and how Peter and Paul sometimes disagreed. Paul said in Gal. 3:27 (hope I got that right, from memory) there's "no male or female in Christ". Peter had apparently been a bit paranoid about his wife and mother in law ganging up on him. He wanted her mother healed, probably a good cook, ha ha.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2002

Share This Page