Bush trying to keep waterboarding

[somerfrost]

Then there appears to be considerable evidence that the church leaders "eliminated" several original books of the Bible which elevated women to a place of equality in the church; wasn't it the Diet of Worms in around 1066 (may have the date wrong) that finally "decided" that yes...women also had a soul same as men? My favorite of course remains King James I dictating to his scribes that "chasaph" translated from the original Hebrew to "witch" instead of "poisoner"...that set of a bloody chain of events which lasted for centuries....but maybe James wasn't a paranoid schizophrenic but a messenger of god???

[skippy3481]

Somer i think you have to draw a line between old time catholics and modern day non-catholics. Throughout history the church did as they wanted without regard for anyone or anything else. If the pope wanted something he took it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that modern day christians as well as most catholics are more interested now in finding god then following the pope. It't not just witches that were persecuted it was academia, dissidents.. etc.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Somer i think you have to draw a line between old time catholics and modern day non-catholics. Throughout history the church did as they wanted without regard for anyone or anything else. If the pope wanted something he took it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that modern day christians as well as most catholics are more interested now in finding god then following the pope. It't not just witches that were persecuted it was academia, dissidents.. etc.

Skippy, I understand your point but the point I'm making is that James deliberately changed the meaning to suit his paranoia...if you doubt me, read his book, "Deamonologie" in which he details his fear of witches, demons etc.
This is one example of the Biblical text being altered by man, yet today, many so-called "fundamentalists" want to use every word in the book to degrade folks like me. Yes, times have changed but the "one way or else hell" mentality hasn't!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Skippy, I understand your point but the point I'm making is that James deliberately changed the meaning to suit his paranoia...if you doubt me, read his book, "Deamonologie" in which he details his fear of witches, demons etc.
This is one example of the Biblical text being altered by man, yet today, many so-called "fundamentalists" want to use every word in the book to degrade folks like me. Yes, times have changed but the "one way or else hell" mentality hasn't!

reminds me of the joke about the priest who dies, and upon entering heaven, rushes immediately to the 'official' bible kept upstairs.
scanning pages feverishly, at last he finds the word he was looking for.'' ah ha, he shouts in anger, it was originally celebrate!!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

reminds me of the joke about the priest who dies, and upon entering heaven, rushes immediately to the 'official' bible kept upstairs.
scanning pages feverishly, at last he finds the word he was looking for.'' ah ha, he shouts in anger, it was originally celebrate!!

LOL! Another of my interests is the religion's demonization of sex!

[skippy3481]

Somer i was not disagreeing with you, but the king james version of the bible is not the only version. It's not like he just came up with his own translation, in fact he borrowed about 95% of the content from another version. While i understand that some people use the bible to demean woman i see it diffrently entirely. After all, Mary was the first to see christ, because she was faithful in being at his tomb. He choose to appear to her. To me this would be a direct indication that christ didn't appear to side with one sex over the other. But again this is only my interpretation.

As for doubting you, of course i don't. I don't choose to participate in wicca or witchcraft or buddism, islam or the like but i wont degrade anyone that does. You have the freedom to worship however and whomever you want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. You are going to find nut jobs everywhere of all faiths that hate all people not directly aligned with them.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Somer i was not disagreeing with you, but the king james version of the bible is not the only version. It's not like he just came up with his own translation, in fact he borrowed about 95% of the content from another version. While i understand that some people use the bible to demean woman i see it diffrently entirely. After all, Mary was the first to see christ, because she was faithful in being at his tomb. He choose to appear to her. To me this would be a direct indication that christ didn't appear to side with one sex over the other. But again this is only my interpretation.

As for doubting you, of course i don't. I don't choose to participate in wicca or witchcraft or buddism, islam or the like but i wont degrade anyone that does. You have the freedom to worship however and whomever you want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. You are going to find nut jobs everywhere of all faiths that hate all people not directly aligned with them.

Absolutely Skippy, I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him...in other words, I have absolutely nothing against Christianity (was one for 54 years afterall), it...like all other religions that believe in a supreme being, is a path to the devine. Rather, I point out that many (certainly not all) of the faithful have an arrogance brought about by the "one way" concept that results in degrading non-believers. Christ may have honored women but the church didn't...and not just in early "canon" (ie: Joan of Arc).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Then there appears to be considerable evidence that the church leaders "eliminated" several original books of the Bible which elevated women to a place of equality in the church; wasn't it the Diet of Worms in around 1066 (may have the date wrong) that finally "decided" that yes...women also had a soul same as men? My favorite of course remains King James I dictating to his scribes that "chasaph" translated from the original Hebrew to "witch" instead of "poisoner"...that set of a bloody chain of events which lasted for centuries....but maybe James wasn't a paranoid schizophrenic but a messenger of god???

you know, i mentioned ol king james the other day to my daughter. we were talking about the coworker i mentioned above, and the conversation we had had that day. i asked kelly 'what do you think that woman would say/do if she found out that king james, who was behind that version of the bible she refers to, was a homosexual?'

and yes, several books have been left out, including one about judas.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Then there appears to be considerable evidence that the church leaders "eliminated" several original books of the Bible which elevated women to a place of equality in the church; wasn't it the Diet of Worms in around 1066 (may have the date wrong) that finally "decided" that yes...women also had a soul same as men? My favorite of course remains King James I dictating to his scribes that "chasaph" translated from the original Hebrew to "witch" instead of "poisoner"...that set of a bloody chain of events which lasted for centuries....but maybe James wasn't a paranoid schizophrenic but a messenger of god???

as for the diet of worms, mid 1500's. . william of normandy invaded england in 1066. i do love my history.


-edit-diet took place in 1521--charles the v presiding

[skippy3481]

zig is correct 1521 was the year

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

as for the diet of worms, mid 1500's. . william of normandy invaded england in 1066. i do love my history.


-edit-diet took place in 1521--charles the v presiding

Cool...I knew it was sometime in the Middle Ages but couldn't remember when...too many of those Diet thingys!