A parallel:
"Do democrats really care about aristocrats, or are they just being selfish?"
Who created God?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
A parallel:
"Do democrats really care about aristocrats, or are they just being selfish?"
It reminds me about a neighbour who won the lottery .. ~ £3 million
The first thing he did was tell all his work-mates, and met them to celebrate.
Then he bought a Jeep.
After a few weeks he quit work.
Then he bought a house in the hills with electric gates.
For a few months, he invited his mates for drinking sessions and fun.
Then he fell out with them and began to mistrust them.
Then, within 2 years from his new found wealth, he became isolated and drunk himself to death
Money isn't necessarily what we think it is.
Do YOU want to be an aristocrat?
"For the rich man to enter heaven is like the camel passing through the eye of a needle"
- Jesus -
The first thing he did was tell all his work-mates, and met them to celebrate.
Then he bought a Jeep.
After a few weeks he quit work.
Then he bought a house in the hills with electric gates.
For a few months, he invited his mates for drinking sessions and fun.
Then he fell out with them and began to mistrust them.
Then, within 2 years from his new found wealth, he became isolated and drunk himself to death
Money isn't necessarily what we think it is.
Do YOU want to be an aristocrat?
"For the rich man to enter heaven is like the camel passing through the eye of a needle"
- Jesus -
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Well, China is a good example.
It will be..
No. And I doubt most women want to be men. I would like the aristocrats to not be the oblivious, pampered elite they are, as a rule. I would like us men not to be the oblivious bunch we are, as a rule. Present company of aristocrats, men, and the intersection excluded, of course.
I feel sure that they don't..
We all have to live in society .. and it is shaped by ourselves in a democratic system.
I would agree that a society in which women cannot own property or have "no voice" is not a good society.
However, the ordination of women in the Christian Church, is a step too far for me. It is contradictory.
That being said, I have nothing against ordained women .. I don't disrespect them, for example.
I blame men.
I blame men.
There you have it, an often-overlooked aspect of the patriarchy: It is bad for us men, too, in so many ways.
It's just another label .. you make it out to be a "dirty word" as if it is responsible for injustice.
It does not explain injustice to women at all. That would be the political system eg. capitalism
Phew! I don't know .. 2 weeks ago I was "living" in the 3rd. century [ forum discussion / Arians ]
..and now I'm with Emily Pankhurst in the early 20th. century
Last edited:
It's a label that refers to a very real social hierarchy which puts roughly every other person on this planet at a disadvantage from birth. That's a very real, causal power imbalance affecting the lives of all human beings.
It is also one of the mainstays of capitalism, I agree. The unpaid work women do is a major if invisible figure on the balance sheet of the economy.
No, it doesn't.
Inequality and dissatisfaction is fuelled by economic injustice,
not squabbles between the sexes as to who should "rule".
Any injustice will brew indignation, whatever group of people are affected by it.
The Western world [ the evolved Roman civilisation ] is on a course of self-destruct.
It is no coincidence that suffrage occurred at the height of colonialisation.
It is now in decline, along with China's rise to power.
Apocalypse here we come!
Great Hall of the People
The Auditorium of Ten Thousand People
Façade of the Great Hall of the People at night.
The government of the People's Republic of China officially espouses state atheism, and has conducted antireligious campaigns to this end.
The Auditorium of Ten Thousand People
Façade of the Great Hall of the People at night.
The government of the People's Republic of China officially espouses state atheism, and has conducted antireligious campaigns to this end.
In April 2016, the General Secretary, Xi Jinping, stated that members of the Communist Party of China must be "unyielding Marxist atheists" while in the same month, a government-sanctioned demolition work crew drove a bulldozer over two Chinese Christians who protested the demolition of their church by refusing to step aside.
Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority who own the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services (the proletariat).
- Karl Marx -
It's basically a materialist philosophy against capitalism, which is how many communists
typically view countries such as the US.
Muslim nations are often persecuted by BOTH, as they are neither one or the other politically.
Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority who own the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services (the proletariat).
- Karl Marx -
It's basically a materialist philosophy against capitalism, which is how many communists
typically view countries such as the US.
Muslim nations are often persecuted by BOTH, as they are neither one or the other politically.
Last edited:
ScholarlySeeker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 128
- Points
- 43
Contradictory to Patriarchy perhaps... Huldah was a prophetess and the Bible had no problem with that. Of course it was just probably the Patriarchs who put the Bible together to throw the women a crumb or two, a mere token, while they jealousy continued to dominate and have their way.
There's some evidence to suppose women played a leading role in the development of the early church, Paul gives strong indications of a female presence in the spreading of the word. Of course, this was seen culturally as a 'necessity' until there were sufficient men with the necessary capabilities to handle all that stuff, the women were sidelined ...
Spiritually, the first person to be informed of the immanent Incarnation of the Son was the mother — culturally-speaking, the angel should have appeared first to Joseph. Add to that that the testimony of a women held no relevance as truth unless endorsed by two (or is it three) other women ...
The most accurate chronology of Christ's mission — John's Gospel — would suggest that it was His mother who gave Him a nudge in the right direction.
And then on this day — the Day of Resurrection — the first person to know that He is risen! was a woman ...
Spiritually, the first person to be informed of the immanent Incarnation of the Son was the mother — culturally-speaking, the angel should have appeared first to Joseph. Add to that that the testimony of a women held no relevance as truth unless endorsed by two (or is it three) other women ...
The most accurate chronology of Christ's mission — John's Gospel — would suggest that it was His mother who gave Him a nudge in the right direction.
And then on this day — the Day of Resurrection — the first person to know that He is risen! was a woman ...
Hmm..
Now, I'm not saying that Noth is correct, but what makes a particular "scripture" a revelation rather than a tradition?
Perhaps @RabbiO might have an educated opinion?
Why shouldn't they?
I assume that you don't agree with the ordination of women in the Catholic church?
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
It is said (and I paraphrase) that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, but all are one in spirit. Not so in our present time-encapsulated distress, but I do not judge. Time is time and has it's fixed veils, and eternity is eternity and has no veils. Look from eternity down to time (from above to below), and less from time to eternity (from below to above) and things will get easier, although the two, for now, are always "as", "like", "so", etc. What was that Fulcanelli (sp) translation? As below, so above. And as above, so below. So simple, yet the distinction "above" and "below" is always there. To confuse the two or force them together with an arm of flesh (prematurely) would be a mistake, you just have to let them be. (For now, that is.)