Eyesopen

Oh I think nearly everyone dreamed of that at least once, especially Cindy, he was a worm without her.

I think we used it for storage... Ya'll were obviously more spiritual than we were. Emporia was all beautified by the time we got there. So we did lots of housekeeping. Everything was cleaned at least twice a day, except dining that was three times a day. I remember some very spiritual person suggesting we string the dining room benches to line up with the head table and each other in some geometric spiritual design. I'm so glad I was in the kitchen when that one was suggested. My spitting coffee might have hit a person.

Hahahahahahahaha Thanks!

Oh thank the Lord that I missed all of that excitement! We got to listen to the voice comming out of the wall at Emporia. Then the great and wonderful Rev Fart would come out and drone on for an hour or so about what his darling, spoiled son Skyler had done that day. If we were really 'blessed' the marvelously monsterous Cindy would come out and share how dissapointed she was in some little insignificant thing for another hour. Then it was off to twig...my twig coordinator was a realist we talked about just about anything that was actually interesting and then when it seemed like we had been at twig long enough so we wouldn't get into trouble we went off to bed. I just loved that woman...wonder whatever happened to her?

Alright back to the fall of women in the church. The first century church clealy had a few women that stood out as prominant members of the church. But by the second century the male dominated world was having its influence on the young church. The bible as we know it had yet to be compiled and in addition to the books we find within the Bible there were several other "epistles' floating around. Most were written my early church leaders not one of the original apostles or disciples of Christ. By the second century most of the original texts that we now have in the Bible were no longer in circulation, but rather there were "commentaries" or copies of the originals. Because there was no difinitive collection of "doctrine" it was a simple matter to "mess" with what was floating around. Karen L. King is Professor of New Testament Studies and the History of Ancient Christianity at Harvard University in the Divinity School. She has published widely in the areas of Gnosticism, ancient Christianity, and Women's Studies. This is a portion of one of her short works concerning the prominance of women in the 1st and 2nd centuries: "Women's prominence did not, however, go unchallenged. (from the 1st to the 2nd centuries) Every variety of ancient Christianity that advocated the legitimacy of women's leadership was eventually declared heretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed. This erasure has taken many forms. Collections of prophetic oracles were destroyed. Texts were changed. For example, at least one woman's place in history was obscured by turning her into a man! In Romans 16:7, the apostle Paul sends greetings to a woman named Junia. He says of her and her male partner Andronicus that they are "my kin and my fellow prisoners, prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me." Concluding that women could not be apostles, textual editors and translators transformed Junia into Junias, a man. Or women's stories could be rewritten and alternative traditions could be invented. " Prof. King continues with compelling evidence concerning the change that the story of Mary Magdalen has undergone. She does not advocate that she was a love or wife of Jesus. But that she was a prominant leader in the early church. I do not disagree with her conclusions. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...irst/women.html Check it out. I dont know how to make it a click only thing. So I guess you have to copy and paste it. Good reading. Wow the thing works!

I have a theory concerning the manner in which women were treated in the OT. Bear with me and see what you think. Ok, Adam and Eve screwed up, right? God sent them out of the Garden and gave them a new set of rules. Eve was made the mother of all nations and she was made to have pain while giving birth. Adam was told he had to work to provide for both he and Eve and that he would know pain. There is a lot of stuff in there that we just arent going to go into here, but bottom line Adam is told that he is responsible for the care of Eve. Adam was given these things because he "hearkened to the voice of the woman", presumably instead of God. Eve did not hearken unto the voice of God because she never heard it, Adam was supposed to tell her. Because this all kind of fell through Adam was told to care for Eve. Eve was not made lesser than Adam but she was placed into his care. He became responsible for what she did, and said. Remember when God confronted them Adam blamed it all on Eve? Well I think that God is correcting that behavior. In other words Adam would not take responsibily for his own actions so now God has made him responsible for not only his own actions but hers as well. Hence in the OT man began to put women in a position where they were well cared for as God had commanded but also uneducated and kept in the dark and away from "man talk" that way she wouldnt say anything that the man would have to take credit for. Of course not all women were treated this way in the OT. The Greeks and Romans were fairly progessive towards women and upper class women were sent to an Elementary type of school where they learned the basics of reading, writing, math and the arts. Lower class women worked as nurses, waitresses, weavers, midwives and food vendors. None were allowed to hold public office although the Emperess of Rome came close to it. The women were regarded in the same manner that the Bible would have the depicted as virtuous, brave and devoted. The Egyptians were even more "generous" with women, after all they had Cleopatra. Oh alright, I give. In fact I'll give 'em and E for effort. Actually I think that this was what God wanted at the time. Adam didn't properly mind his garden and then blamed it all on her so now everyone needed to understand the point. I pray your little Buster is just shook up and needs a little TLC and a long nap.

That was actually a question that was born out of amoking. Well all of them were. They just popped up as I was thinking. The more I study about the goddess the more I am inclined to think that she is actually another aspect of our Heavenly Father. And no I dont think God really cares if we worship him by lighting candles or drinking wine. From what I have been seeing in the Bible throughout the entire thing OT and NT, God was more interested in intent and where a person's heart was/is than the form of worship that was taken. A vast number of teachings in both ends of the book revolve around someone's attitude. From Adam whos "imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" to being born again, "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" and the two comandments on which hang all the law and the prophets require one to love God and love your neighbor. (abriviated) God makes great emphasis on heart and whats in it or whats not in it. Now the worship of Ishtar the goddess is another matter entirely. The followers of Ishtar were good enough to provide this little bit of information: "A fundamental difference in the concept of worship is important to note: In the Temples of the old ways people would go to the temple TO BE WORSHIPPED not to worship. Women would go to the temple to serve the Goddess to embody Her, to represent Her, to be worshipped as Her. Women would spend a day, or a week, or a year serving at the Temple as a priestess, as a sacred Prostitute, as a whore in service to the Goddess. There they would be worshipped as the incarnation of the Goddess, as The Goddess Herself. Men would come to Her Temple TO BE WORSHIPPED. Men would be welcomed and served by the Priestesses and men would represent the divine male principal, the Horned One, the Sacred Bull, The God. Men would come to the temple to give their love and passion to The Goddess, and would receive the passion, love, and affection of The Goddess." Of course Ishtar was not the only goddess but she was/is the big one in the lands that we traditionally call the Bible lands. This is not of course the entire story. It is important to remember that sex in other parts of the world is not viewed as puritanically as most Americans see it.

I was kind of thinking in that direction, that each "tribe" had a different name for God because each tribe saw him differently for instance one could have known God as a kind and benevolent being so they called him something that meant that. The next tribe knew God as an all powerful being and so they called him that. And so on...perhaps that is how we got so many names for the same being. In other words perhaps it is both. Obviously they didn't speak the same language so when the children of Isreal were given a description of the local God they named him with a Hebrew word. Does that make any sense?

Just for the record I think that we have managed to keep this thread somewhat close to the line while still running amok at times. It is so hard to keep a doctrinal thread on track because so much relates to other things. Anyway I remember this story. I have always thought it was a strange law that if a man died without progeny his brother could fulfil the duty. Not only is it not biologically possible but it just seems kind of disgusting to me. I mean what if you got the only good looking man of the bunch and then he goes and dies and you get to have sex maybe repeatedly with his snaggletoothed brother....yuk! Now if the brother is some handsome Adonis then a person might want to hasten the hubbies demise...I'm sorry I digress...shallow me.. :D But really I do understand the reason for it but, I don't know...I just don't think that I can just sleep with someone for that purpose. Too much pressure, its one thing to do that because you want to and a whole other matter to be told you have to. I have heard this section used by some people to show how God was sadistic and a hypocrite because with her husbands death Gods law "forced the woman to be raped by her brother in law" or in this case to become a whore to fulfil a "sadistic God's law". I do not agree with these sentiments mind you but as you say some people see morality as black and white and they often dont look into the whole story.

Goddess worship had been unpopular in cycles. The ancient Babylonians for example were huge goddess worshippers. All of their Ziggurat (sp) towers were built for Ishtar and Baal, but primarily Ishtar as she was mother earth among other things. When Babylon fell their religion was replaced by a single male God. The original Hindi nation worshipped two gods one of each, until they were conquered by the Moslems. The ancient Celts, both Germanic and Irish/Scottish worshipped the two gods, until they were conquered by the Greeks and then Romans respectively. Some of the culture remained until the Romans became the "Christians". Catholics are not the same as the original Christians. The Catholic religion is a combination of the Roman religions and the Christian religion. The trinity bears a striking resemblance to the Roman Tirad. Candle lighting for the dead comes from wicca candle magic, confirmation names come from the wicca 'naming', the worship of saints comes from the Pantheon of the gods of all the conquered nations...I could go on but you get the point. A couple of things that came with the Christians was a hatred of homosexuals (which is a long story about a 1st century Bishop that had a major homophobia akin to LCM) and their denegration of the female in the church. Some of their opinions of females came from the Pauline apistles. We have all read the verses. But it also came with the 1st and 2nd century notion that the fall of man was completely and totally the fault of Eve. This thinking came about because the men of those centuries were reexamining why mankind needed a savior in the first place. The societies that these men were in were patriarchal and some of the men were simply put, chauvanistic (sp). They had way too much testasterone and time on their hands. So if it was Eve's fault then man must be better than women. The word of God was stretched to suit their doctrine and women became the weaker sex. The leaders of the early church did as most people in power they organized their beliefs and religion to fit their agenda. To hell with the truth. I would get into it more and if you need clarification let me know but I really have to go to work now. Love ya.

The Swastika in its original form went the other direction, i.e. clockwise. It is an ancient Hindi symbol that symbolizes regeneration and the cycles of the earth. Each arm has a designation although right now I don't remember them. As a side note the Hindi religion warned Hitler against basterdizing their symbol by turning it against itself and using it for evil. They told him that no good would come of it. As it turns out the Romans also used this symbol. Hitler tried very hard to remake the Roman empire with him as the Emporer. I still hold to the idea that we all worship one single God with many different aspects. As I understand the names utilized in the Bible each one symbolized the manner in which God was interacting with a group of people or a person. This I know is some of TWI teaching that was plagerized but I think that it may be at least on the right track. As I said before when I was 'amoking' I think that perhaps God is not strictly a "He" or a "She" as God seems to be all things to all men. Therefore, now this might throw you, is worshipping a goddess idolatry? Hmmm.... Along those lines how can we tell which god is the wrong god? I mean outside of the obvious...do we stick with the 'if it quacks like a duck' mentality...do we judge this other god by his/her fruit? It just seems that it should be simpler. Interesting thing about the snake...I had forgotten that aspect. Remember that it is a figure of speech but why use such symbolism if it does not apply? Perhaps the snake indicated change but it came too soon? Adam and Eve weren't ready to receive what they did when they ate that fruit. The Jews make a very valid point when considering this issue. Like Abi it makes me wonder what they should have learned before they ate. Roy, stop...you're making me blush. ...holy cold spiritual shower....

Thanks Belle, Those links and posts were very enlightening. On a personal note I must say that I really appreciate the manner in which you post. Your thoughts are well organized and comprehensive and you present convincing arguments.

Let's see now, I had one broken window, one broken full length door mirror, one nearly broken thumb on the "annoying" older sister, one nearly shattered calf (retribution for the thumb), one broken water pipe, several flooded yards/basements, two trash can fires in the house, untold number of strange and unusual critters in the house (usually for the benefit of an older sister) oh and I musn't forget the truck being rolled into the street nearly every night for about a month. I really cant remember everything...life is a lot of fun with children! Fun times.

Thanks Bolshevik! The lesbian snake thing. But you answered that. I know how he would rant on and on about "homos" like he had a demon by the tail and was bound and determined to hang on until it ran out of gas. If he hadn't hurt so many it would be laughable. But the pain he caused was no joke. If he had been honestly working the word he would have seen that the most cataclysmic sin in the world is idolatry. It leads to everything else. But he was on such a crusade... He really made me think even then that he was a homo in hetero sheep skin. No one chases demons that hard unless they are trying to catch the one that haunts them. (figuratively of course) Just thinking...

"If your mind is saturated with truth your mouth cannot slobber evil" It's actually a good one. Too bad he didn't adhere to it.

I would really love to hear how LCM explained this in his class...It was hard for me to swallow (no pun intended) the whole masturbation thing in CF&S. In fact I never really did, it didn't make any sense. But I really would like to hear his twisted logic on this one, it is soooo far out there. Anybody got a copy?

I think that he would get a fair shake if he actually did appologize and admit that he was wrong. Oh sure many would get their pound of flesh, but in the end if he were truly repentant, many would forgive him as well. It would take a serious set on his part because initially he would take a he!! of a beating.

It will be interesting to see what Jewish tradition says about the morning star. I will in the meantime see if I can check out the evening star. I know that many "Christian' holidays have pagan correlations. And other things as well. I'll make a list and get back to you on it. I'm having a hoot of a time! I am also learning a lot. I'm on the west coast so my shows dont start for a while...I guess I'll watch a movie and run amok for a while... :wacko:

OOOoooh! Now you've done it! I looked up Allat here is what I got: Allat ~ A pre-Islamic Arabian goddess who was one of the three chief goddesses of Mecca. Not much but I'm not done yet. The "morning star" refered to Lucifer before he fell, and Jesus Christ after he ascended. In the Bible it represents the right hand of the Almighty. So in Ishy's time there technically was not "morning star", or being sitting on the right hand of the Almighty so Biblically speaking it could refer to anyone that was deemed strong enough, smart enough, or just good enough to fill the position. The sun god and the sky goddess were often seen together throughout many religions. The male sun god was most commonly called Baal and the female sky goddess was called either Ashteroth or Ishtar. They of course had other names that were similar but their functions seldom changed. They always represented the two halves of fertility. The sun and the sky giving life to the earth. In some religions Ishtar became mother earth, or the supreme goddess. Now the evening star is something that I saw not too long ago but don't remember where I saw the referenc. I will check again.

We kind of stay near the topic...kind of...amok....darn thing just keeps jumping....amok...everywhere! As I recall did not God also bless Ishmael and give him fertile land next door to Isaac? I don't remember anywhere immediately after his birth or even after Sarah kicked them out that God treated Ishmael much different than Isaac. The only major difference was that God made Isaac's line the chosen line. Whatever problem that Ishmael had with the children of Isaac it had to do with Sarah. It would be horribly petty to keep a grudge that long even if Ishy did grab Isaac's little worm... I can't remember how old was Ishy when he and mom move out?

Oh I am so happy you said that!! When I was amoking before I deleted a part that posed the view that perhaps the part that is "in His image" is the mental capacities or ability to reason out things. We use only a small portion of our brain, perhaps in our new bodies we are to learn how to use more of it. Did I amok too far out of the box and fall on the floor? :unsure: I have read before and am believing that 'shrewed' is a more accurate translation of the word. Because it was that they didn't know shame. The word 'naked' also indicates an openness. Without guile if you will, they had no deceipt therefore no reason to hide or be ashamed. They were innocent. Like the two year old running around the house butt a$$ naked. They are innocent. I have heard the point of view that God intended them to eat as well. But in his opinion they ate too early and in the manner that they did it they committed a sin against Gods law. So before they could eat of the tree of life he had to kick them out or they would live forever, as gods, knowing good and evil and also being in sin, separated forever from God. But by introducing death into the world and allowing mankind to live and then die he could orchastrate salvation for all. To have a man listen to him and keep all of his commandments regardless of the circumstances or outcome was a huge sacrifice. Adam had only a small list of laws, Jesus had a slew of them. This makes me think that perhaps my idea about the blood of Jesus needing to be impure was correct. It made him more of a complete savior. Adam had Eve to help him screw up. Jesus had no-one to help him be perfect, (except God), but Jesus was not made to be responsible for a woman in the manner that Adam was, so perhaps his mixed blood did that part for him. The laws tried to cover every eventuality including the other nations. The blood covered the other nations as well. He truly did die for ALL. Literally as well as figuratively. Hmmm...amok...amok...

Even Bullinger holds to the idea that God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. In the next couple of verses Zipporah calls Moses a 'bloody husband' because of the circumcision of his son. Suggesting the blood sacrifice to God. I would like to hear more on this oral tradition between Moses and his father in law before I make too many more comments. It is clear that Zipporah saved his butt that day, but it seems almost petty of God to track Moses down like that over a circumcision even if it was representing a blood sacrifice and it is petty of Moses to decline to perform the rite. He leaves it to his wife who is not of Israel and God accepts the sacrifice even though Moses did not give it. Moses gets credit for a sacrifice he did not perform and if he had it would have been under duress not of a pure and loving heart. So what's up with all of that? I don't know...I'm gonna think on it a bit. Amok...amok...amok.... I'm gonna catch that little "amok" if it takes a week!

I am so happy to know this...I just knew it wasn't an "ism" Could God have been talking to other gods. This happened before the Serpent and the woman incident in the Garden, so Satan/Lucifer was not the "god of this world" yet soooo... Just a thought. Amok...amok...amok...

Ok now my mind is going again outside of the box...remember how in TWI we were taught that God is called a "He" because it was simply easier for the people to equate it? Well...maybe that is actually more correct than even VP claimed it to be. God is spirit. He has no actual form, but he formed/made/created, pick your favorite term, male and female of nearly every species including plant. God is neither male nor female and yet he knew to make both for reproduction. Perhaps he is both... Maybe that's why the goddess/god diety shows up so much throughout history. It seems to be intertwined in every culture in one form or another. Perhaps in God's attempt to simplify he unwittingly excised the memory of part of his essence from the minds of his people. Maybe my mind is just running amok again...amok...amok..

I would love to tear that word "molesting" apart just to see if and where it was used in any writing of the time. Just for fun. It was probably as simple as two boys beating on each other. Although everything that I have read both in and out of the Bible indicates to me that Ishmael felt that he was not being treated fairly (real or perceived). So perhaps he was acting out as jealous children do. I know that the records show that throughout his life he and his kin blamed Isaac and his kin for everything. And I do remember seeing on a documentary type show once about how it was sport between the two tribes to steal each others women and get them with child before returning them. Thus making more "bastards". I am fairly certain that if this were so then Ishmael would have been the one to start it.