georgesbluegirl

Cute Lacking some of the best popular music in history, is what I meant.

Really quickly...you must remember that everyone on this site does not hold the same beliefs. Obviously, or there would be no real discussion! I started the topics that I did to provoke discussion, not out of malice or disrespect. I am certainly curious about what people have to think about the CONCEPT or POSSIBILITY of a married Jesus. It is something that I have been discussing with my own family lately. I'm sorry and I didn't mean to offend if I did. I merely like stimulating conversation. Added note: twice now on different boards I've mentioned in passing the similarities between Jesus's teachings and socialism (and the hippie movement, of course, being part of my own pacifist persuasion). Both posts have disappeared. Would the moderators have taken them off because people would have found them offensive? Socialism isn't evil...I'm just curious why they wouldn't leave the posts up for me to explain, because they are very valid. Peace!

Is using chalk a sin? Is cooking with herbs a sin? Is face-painting a sin? Are bonfires sinful? These things are all part of wiccan or pagan rituals...if we tried to say that everything that has ANY connection to pagan tradition is sinful, we'd probably be left naked in a field eating grass.

Seeing my signature reminded me...so John Lennon shouldn't have spoken out? Most (many) of his songs were political. Alice Cooper didn't come along till the late seventies/early eighties so he sort of missed the period of time where a LOT of rock was about politics. We're talking Dylan, Hendrix, Beatles, Joplin, Joni Mitchell, etc. here, people. Sorry, much of the spirit of rock n roll comes from the rebellion against the status quo, especially politically. What would the sixties have been without protest music?

The purpose of art is to interpret the world around you into a comment of some form. I don't see a problem with ANY artist expressing their views on the political world - it is their function (barring Josh Groban and Destiny's Child, that is).

I'll wager that Shakespeare was a lot smarter than Kirk Cameron is. As for him being gay...does it matter?

I actually must run now, I couldn't respond yesterday because I went to see Prince in concert. In all seriousness. And it was AWESOME! Anyway, I've been gone like a whole day...but I'm going to have to put off this till tomorrow afternoon at lunch, probably, but I fully intend to respond...I promise! Sorry for the delay!

I still think we all pray to the same God...but all are free to disagree, as usual.

Hey Dr. Hall, you might be interested in the Catholicism thread somewhere in this Apologetics section. The last five pages (I estimate) are about non-Christians attaining Heaven (which I argue for and just about everyone else argues against). Enjoy...

My point is....you really can't prove or disprove, and I truly don't think it matters all that much except that marriage may bring more of a human connection to the way that people perceive Jesus. People get upset about it. I don't think it's really worth getting upset about, just interesting to wonder, and in the long run it really makes no difference, I guess.

Here's the problem - what I've in a roundabout way tried to point out - we believe different things about the Bible. I'm Catholic, and my beliefs about the Bible hinge from there, in general. Inspiration is not dictation, and that is my belief on the subject. There are four different Gospels and two different Creations, after all...and plus, if we did Bible math, the world is only 6,000 years old, which seems to me to be highly unlikely. Just to try to explain.

Umm...first of all, Jesus being married takes away NOTHING from his divinity. He was 100% human as well as 100% divine. He had human urges, emotions and needs just like everyone else. That was what made the Incarnation so special - he was one of us in all ways. As far as the Bible saying so...lest we forget, the Bible leaves a big empty chunk o' time between his childhood and ministry...oh, say twenty years? How do we know what he was doing then? We can guess carpentry, but who's to say Jesus wasn't married?

You're kidding! I got yelled at in another forum for referring to Shakespeare but over here you're quoting Kirk Cameron? SO not fair!

For once, I agree with Steve... Think about it, it was expected that a Jewish man would be married by the age of thirty. If he wasn't, it was assumed that something was wrong with him and he was scorned. Jesus died when he was thirty-three. Jewish people would never really have respected a man who wasn't married at that age. It was just custom. Not to go all Da Vinci Code on you, but how do you know He wasn't married to Mary M? Just a thought

Trying to keep this non-controversial because I can't post on it if it gets moved...but what do you think? The Bible never says that Jesus wasn't married. People seem to be afraid of that idea though. What do you have to say?

Because I don't believe that it's God commanding women to submit to their husbands. I believe that the Bible was written by amazing, broad-minded men who were inspired to speak the Word of God but that in transferring the Word of God to human words, they apply their culture and beliefs to their message. Which is fine, but now, many hundreds of years later, we have to recognize that Paul is still a man writing within a very old context, so what was considered "right" then in terms of social construction is not necessarily in line with what we consider to be "right" now. Though we can say all we want about what it means to submit nowadays, the fact is that in the days of Paul's Letter to the Corinthians (etc and so forth), women had little or no rights. At all. And about male and female characteristics...I don't know if you realize it, but you are actually talking about "the masculine" and "the feminine." These aspects that you describe are actually present in ALL men and ALL women. The difference is that a women generally have much more of the feminine aspect, while men have much more of the masculine aspect. This does not mean that a man has no feminine aspect and a woman has no masculine aspect - on the contrary, it is actually unhealthy for either man or woman to suppress either side of themselves, masculine or feminine. While what you are saying is essentially true, that women tend to be more nurturing and men tend to be more protective, you are actually referring to the expression of the subconscious feminine/masculine aspects. Men have strong nurturing senses as well that can be allowed to develop, and women have "masculine" traits of their own that can develop. All of this leads to a well balanced man or woman. I don't think I've stated this well at all unfortunately, but it's basic psychology (Jung)...women aren't confined to their roles of "nurturer" and likewise men aren't confined to their role of "provider." It's too much of a generalization to say this. Psychology, in actuality, is far more complex than that.

When you've seen beyond yourself - then you may find, peace of mind, is waiting there - And the time will come when you see we're all one and life flows on Within You and Without You. Have to have your daily dose of Dark Horse... Don't you see we're all stuck in the Sour Milk Sea? Sorry for the distraction, continue the thread as normal, I just had an urge. MY SWEET LORD...!

I interpret, as previously discussed. I believe that a wife is perfectly capable of submitting to God without perpetual submission to her husband. But what about him? Shouldn't he also have the experience of submission then to prepare him to submit to God? If women submitting to men is an example for them of how they should submit to God, then what's the way that the husband sees how to submit to the authority of God, what's his earthly submission? Don't you see how uneven this is? I'm not being vindictive, I promise. I just...well I do understand where this comes from, and I think if you do this in love, I'm not going to step in and tell you that you're wrong. I have respect for everyone here. I just don't agree with it, and I believe that a wife should submit to her husband as much as the husband submits to the wife, and both of them should submit their wills to God.

We disagree on this point. I do submit to God, I try to be as a child as Jesus commanded. But I do not agree that a woman must always submit to her husband, and I do not think that I must do this to submit to God.

Botz, it's all in the "deserving" that the disagreement comes.... And I'll refrain from commenting about George, this board has already seen enough controversy Peace!

Snaps for free will!

I apologize if I brought my preconceived notions too much into this thread - but I do have them, and I still do not agree with the absolute submission of the wife. The Shakespeare reference was just a thought, and whether or not it was actually William Shakespeare who wrote the plays, they are consistently amazing. I would never hold him above the Bible, obviously. And I AM Catholic...the first reference was meant to be sarcastic, hence the smiley face. I was merely pointing out that, while I do not doubt that the Bible is the Word of God, as a Catholic, I believe that it must be examined in context regarding social commands. Yeah, it's taken women forever to assert their equality, unfortunately. The "elbow mass" is the reading that comes up about once a year in the Catholic liturgical cycle that is the whole reading about family honoring God that includes the "wives, be submissive to your husband" part. I can't remember the exact citation but ServingHim posted it earlier. It's the "elbow mass" because husbands elbow their wives, who tend to elbow their husbands back and roll their eyes. Most priests don't dwell on it much, although some good-humored ones address it, usually starting with a joke of some kind...oh I should explain, if you don't know, the readings we do at Mass (Catholic) go in a cycle, there's a set order to which ones are read over time. Similarly, we go from Gospel to Gospel...I think we're in Mark right now, but I could be wrong, my memory is gone...

Well...reading all the previous posts again, it seems obvious that we are not going to convince each other. I do maintain my belief in how non-Christians can come to the eternal presence of God. That will not change. But I respect that you've formed your own opinions about the subject, and I think it's high time for somebody to raise something else! We just seem to be talking in circles, that's all.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 So what you're saying still is that anybody who never comes to Jesus, regardless of the reason, be it that they were raised in another religion or that nobody ever spoke the Word to them and they were never exposed to Jesus, is going to Hell? Maybe that's not what Jesus means....

FYI...I do know what you're talking about, I've seen Christian marriages in which the wife submits to the husband many times, my best friend's parents for example. I do have context here, and I understand that the wife is not a "doormat!" I still, however, disagree with it.