cursed for seeing your dad naked?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

No we do not refer to people as african-english. We went through a stage in the 80's when the word black became banned (so kids in school could not say blackboard or blackbird

lol.... As a kid I said worse words than blackbird lol.. You must have grown up in a nice place

african-English? over my dead body.... English is the word your looking for I think trying to make "groups" and names for these "groups" seperates us more as a race.... example;

Johnny: Hey there n***** Tom.
Tom: Howdy!
------------------
Notice what went wrong there? Keep reading...

(It then becomes a bad word...)

Johnny: Hey there black Tom!
Tom: waaazzaaaaap!!!
---------------------------
Notice what went wrong there? Keep reading...

(thats now a bad word....)

Johnny: Hey there African-American Tom!
Tom: Sup G!?
-------------------------------------
Notice what went wrong there? Keep reading...

Johnny: Sup Tom?
Tom: heeey!!!

It is still trying to make Tom a type of person... When he is just a person... What would you call me? You'd describe me as a white person... It doesn't offend me as much as some people seem to get offended when you say oh well describe Tom... "well he's black..." HOW DARE YOU! Do not label him that! Label him this.... African American.... Come on... It's like Spastic.... That turned to scope because of the insults and "fun" children made of the word... Well now they just call you scopey.... Seriously I have no idea where I am going with this now.... What? *starts a fight with someone on the forum to get himself out of this and cause a distraction..* *throws his fists like a madman.*

Why is there this need for titles!£$"!? Why do we -need- titles!! Screw titles!!!

[pattimax]

Well that's pretty obvious 17th. How else are we going to lable and/or stereotype them?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Well that's pretty obvious 17th. How else are we going to lable and/or stereotype them?

Humans seems a good title to me If you must have titles.... But, I guess I am just crazy eh....

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Humans seems a good title to me If you must have titles.... But, I guess I am just crazy eh....

Insane.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Greymare! Have we met? Welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by greymare

my problem with all this is that you first have to consider the Bible as something other than a moral story book appropriate for its time. that is not now, 2000 years ago. I'm still having trouble with that, I guess I have a long way to go before I am convinced.

While I can understand your apprehension, the Bible is more than simply a moral storybook, it is also a history book, a poetry book, a book of wisdom, and the cumulative teachings *can* become a way of life. I might add, your reservations can be applied to any collection of sacred texts, be they Vedas, Hadiths, Dharmas, even ancestral books of wisdom among Pagans. And any of these can become a way of life for those who choose to guide themselves by the tenets within.

The importance of any of these is not in the ink on the page, it is in the application of the teachings contained within. Any single teaching pulled out of context can be picked apart and rubbished...it is the collective teachings when applied that hold the power to move mountains and shake the earth, figuratively speaking of course. Most of us can point to a number of religious heroes we admire...it seems to me these heroes are the ones who have found a way to consistently apply the teachings of their respective traditions. The rest of us still struggle with the practical application...and too often even that is left aside to argue over semantic differences of opinion over some ink marks on a page. The wisdom is not intellectual so much as spiritual. Sacred wisdom texts are meant to speak to our hearts, not our heads.

Originally Posted by greymare

However it is interesting to note that the dysfunctional family is only a modern theme. Interesting and disturbing. Why today we have society to blame and how our parents bought us up and the fact that we didnt get enough attention etc etc. Maybe genetically we are just a bunch of misfits.

Dysfunctional is a modern word, the theme is throughout history. Blaming society, our parents, or anybody / anything else is a cop out, a relinquishing of personal responsibility. The blame game is fun for a while, but at the end of it all the blame must stop somewhere. A responsible person ends the blame game with his / herself. As ol' Harry Truman used to say, "the buck stops here." I do believe sacred wisdom texts in general, and I know the Bible specifically, teaches self responsibility. There are a number of teachings that promote responsibility of the individual. Which is why ultimately I prefer to walk my walk as a solitary, without reliance on any other human, so I have none to blame (or congratulate) but myself. I cannot "save" any other person, and no other person can save me. All we can do if we choose, is walk, and discover, together. If we choose not to walk together, then I trust you will find your way up the mountain, and I will find mine.

Originally Posted by greymare

Bye the way, I thought I saw or read somewhere how science can prove that the human species came from the african/middle east area. So we are all black and we are all family. Now that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

There have been a couple of recent announcements over the last couple of years concerning this. The mutant gene for Caucasian fair skin has been discovered. However, this finding specifically does not explain Oriental fair skin, which is still a bit of a mystery. And the ongoing genetic catalogue seems to support the "out of Africa" thought that has run through anthropology for some time now. This is based on the diversity of genetics within African native populations compared with the more relative homogeneity of all other populations. There are still three, perhaps four major subsets of human populations, not counting our very close relatives Neandertal and Homo-Floresiensis, both of which too would have to show account from African sources.

And then there's the old "bottleneck with founder effect" puzzle that suggests a mitochondrial Eve and a similar paternal Adam, from which all humans living ultimately derive their genetic lineage.

It's a great time to be alive! Our heads are finally catching up with our hearts! Maybe those sacred texts aren't so far off after all, if one can get past mincing literality and translational confusion.

[KarimK]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

It's a great time to be alive! Our heads are finally catching up with our hearts! Maybe those sacred texts aren't so far off after all, if one can get past mincing literality and translational confusion.

Just wanted to point out how very beautiful this last statement is. It made my day. Seriously. Thanks juan

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, KarimK, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by KarimK

Just wanted to point out how very beautiful this last statement is. It made my day. Seriously. Thanks juan

Even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then... Thanks.

I appreciate your input on the Kuffar thread. I haven't anything of merit to add there, but I find the insight eye-opening. Thanks for that.

[greymare]

thanks for the insight123. I love it that I can understand your explanation. Some other people(not on cr) have not spoken ina way that I can understand, but you have my thanks. grey

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Greymare!

Originally Posted by greymare

thanks for the insight123. I love it that I can understand your explanation. Some other people(not on cr) have not spoken ina way that I can understand, but you have my thanks. grey

Glad I could be of service!

One must keep in mind that I do not speak for the whole of Christianity. Would that I could. I consider myself quite reactionary, but it seems I often come across as rather radical, at least compared to orthodox "norms."

Perhaps a topic better suited to another thread, but context and subject matter have brought it forward here... I sense that many, not just Christians but of all "orthodox, normative" religious traditions, develop a "patriotism" of sorts surrounding their traditions. I can understand, even if I disagree where it tends to lead. We must hold some faith or overriding belief in the path we find ourselves on, else what is the purpose? One cannot follow a path one doubts.

So it is probably inevitable that people, being only human, take that a step or two further, sealing their certainty. Not only for themselves, but for all others as well. In effect, people tend to come away with a surety to eliminate doubt, and since it works for them it *must* work for all others too. In the simplest manner, this leads to difference of opinion when two "certain" people meet. In the worst manner this leads to war when peoples of two certain camps collide, as history has shown us repeatedly.

Christianity works. Not only for me, but for countless others through the two thousand or so years of existence. The same can be said with even greater length of time to cover Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. Only a little less time for Islam. Yet all of these have left indelible marks, mostly for good, on the countless millions and billions they affect.

As much as I may desire my path to be the best path, I cannot fathom how a loving and merciful G-d would create these other people and set them upon these other paths purposefully to bring them to destruction. Particularly since the underlying tenets of each and every one of these paths coincide to a remarkable degree. G-d doesn't create junk.

In the end, I think we are all looking to answer the same questions with almost the same answers. Where the answers differ is largely unimportant. I do suggest a couple of caveats though...I don't feel this is excuse for smörgåsbord religion, the "pick and choose" kind. I think from what I have observed that each of the major faith walks deal with not only the good, but the bad and the ugly as well. There is a balance, and that balance is deliberate and crucial to the full understanding of any specific path. The "pick and choose" types, at least in my experience, tend to overlook the bad and the ugly because these do not suit their personal aesthetic. And therein very valuable lessons are overlooked. Further, those who would meld the world's faiths into one are also overlooking this crucial element, not to mention neglecting the psychological devastation incumbent and necessary to dilute all into a tasteless and meaningless fare suitable only to those who desire to hold as much of the world as possible in their political grip.

So, good reactionary that I consider myself to be, I say live and let live as G-d intended. I tolerate any who will tolerate me, even potentially so. To those who dogmatically have no tolerance for me as I am, and for others as they are, I have no tolerance beyond civility. But that's just me...

Others are free to disagree.

[greymare]

I think I understand what you are saying 123, but I fear I am one of those that feel the need to wander around Picking and choosing as it were because there are some things of what used to be my faith that I cannot tolerate. Being brought upa catholic came to an abrupt halt for me when I felt I discovered the inconsistencies and the double standards to much to tolerate my participation anymore. By this I mean, little things, like realising the wealth of the vatican and still being asked to "put money in the plates for the Missions" every sunday. The untold wealth is disgusting. Also after much consideration I also feel very strongly about a faith that forces celibacy on its priests, that to me is unnatural. I cannot understand how this lack of a real relationship can make you closer to god. I dont mean that the priests should be sexually active indiscriminately but rather be able to marry. etc. thats all for now . love grey

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Greymare!

Thank you for a thoughtful response!

Originally Posted by greymare

I think I understand what you are saying 123, but I fear I am one of those that feel the need to wander around Picking and choosing as it were because there are some things of what used to be my faith that I cannot tolerate.

My opinion on the matter notwithstanding, I see a passive mode and an active mode regarding this. The passive mode seems more tolerable to me in that one cannot be chastised for searching. At least that person is pointed in the right general direction. Those that insist all others should adhere to a dilute admixture of everything distilled into what is essentially nothing, that is the active mode that I find potentially doing far more harm than good.

Originally Posted by greymare

Being brought upa catholic came to an abrupt halt for me when I felt I discovered the inconsistencies and the double standards to much to tolerate my participation anymore. By this I mean, little things, like realising the wealth of the vatican and still being asked to "put money in the plates for the Missions" every sunday. The untold wealth is disgusting. Also after much consideration I also feel very strongly about a faith that forces celibacy on its priests, that to me is unnatural. I cannot understand how this lack of a real relationship can make you closer to god. I dont mean that the priests should be sexually active indiscriminately but rather be able to marry. etc. thats all for now .

Even varying denominations within Christianity see these things somewhat differently. So much so that I have heard some imply that Catholics are not even Christian, which is somewhat bizarre and absurd to me, knowing a little about the history. The money thing is always a touchy subject. Granted, it stems from the example Abraham made in tithing to Melchizedek. Too many churches today in my estimation are businesses...BIG businesses. And as a business they are about making money. It is a fine line...a "church" *does* require a certain amount to keep itself afloat, even ideally some kind of larder to pull from to assist those in need. But when it comes to the pastor needing a brand new luxury automobile because the 2 year old one in the parking lot now is out of style...ehhh, I get a little antsy with that. Personally, I think any pastor, preacher, priest, or whatever comparable title, should earn their living elsewhere...as Paul showed by example. Especially since it seems Paul's example is the basis for so many other practices.

Celibacy being one of them. Paul was not adamant about celibacy. However, Paul did state something to the effect that it was better if a person could dedicate themselves to pursuit of G-dly things rather than carnal things. In extreme, this could be (and I believe has been) interpreted as enforced celibacy. In theory, the idea is that a person is given wholly over to G-dly pursuits. But people, even G-dly people, are human and can make mistakes. I have a great deal of trouble viewing sex with some puritanical shadow of evil attached. (Not that sex cannot be perverted and grow an evil shadow) But sex is a natural, and beautiful, expression when in the proper context. Paul did not intend for us to be without this beauty (in my opinion), but that it might be suitable on occasion for more or less time according to the nature of the person to set sex aside in order to better focus on G-d. I think this is why Paul advised the young widows to remarry, and the older widows (who had already experienced the joys and beauty of sex to a full measure) to set that aside and remain dedicated to G-dly things.

Now, having said all of this, if a person (monk or nun) chooses of their own volition to be celibate to pursue G-dly things, that is their business and between them and G-d. From a personal point of view, I cannot fault any who might "backslide" from such a celibacy (provided it is in proper context, not rape or pedophilia). And even such a backslide in my opinion should be forgiven in that such a person might return to their former celibacy.

In the end, my opinion means nothing to anyone but myself. As with anybody, these matters are between the individual and G-d. For I will be judged by my own judgment, as will everybody else be judged by their own judgment. I try to be merciful, that I may obtain mercy. I try to be non-judgmental that I may not be harshly judged. I try to be forgiving that I may receive forgiveness.

Some may disagree...that is their prerogative.