A question about Catholosism(sp?).....

[kakkarot]

and let's not forget Jesus, who blows that andrew wommack guy out of the water: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40) Nothing in there about religion.

ya know, in all my time learning the will of God, i have gone through various stages that were rather enlightening; each more enlightening than the last. in the beginning the truth was simple: the bible is right. but then i began to understand all of the things that were being said in the bible and the truth became a bit more complex: the bible is based on rules that must be studied to be understood. then i understood something different: it's not the bible that matters, it is the truth, and that truth is merely recorded in the bible. after more time learning and understanding i came to my next stage: the bible speaks of universal truths that any blind man could see, love, grace, mercy, and other such good characteristics, so it is almost useless. but then i came to realize something else: the whole will of God is for us to love. simply that.

amazing that an entire journey could go from simple to complex to simple again, isn't it? [|)]

~kakkarot

[DjM]

I was baptized Roman Catholic; confirmed Espicopalian; went to Jesuit scools for year; spent 1500 hours studying esoteric Christianity for the past few years (recently).

Circa 879 The Roman Catholic Church stade that mankind was comprised only of Body and soul.  Now, what's wrong with this picture?  Those who understand the Bible should certainly reply, "Where's the spirit?"  more precisely, mankind is comprised of body, soul, and spirit.  In fact, the Spiritual World is what this site is about (i.e. Astral, Spiritual Beings, etc...).  FYI: those who challenged this were deemed heretics and killed.

In my esoteric studies, I am constantly reading about the Roman Catholic Church destrying any/all evidence of literally any and every spiritual fact(s) that comes into this world.  Did you know that almost every Catholic church is physically placed according to stars?  (That's astrology, folks; you're not supposed to do it, but they will...how perfect!)

I have been asking people for years why they are Roman Catholic.  Do you know what the major majority of responses is?  Most people are Roman Catholic because they believe the Bible claims it is the one true religion.  More precisely, they point to the fact that the Bible uses the term "catholic" churh.  Now, there's a difference between the word, "catholic" and "Catholic."  The former means "universal church" and the latter means Roman Catholic.  You do not have to be a Roman Catholic to be in sync with the Bible.

The Bible itself didn't start coming into the public's hand, until (circa) 1749.  The RC church kept it under lock and key.  Apparently, the readers back around 300 A.D. believed that the Pope was the Anti-Christ and they felt threatened, so they locked it up.  It wasn't until the printing press came out, that the Bible got into circulation.  Hence, all the new religions around that period.

Fact: you must read the Old Testament in Hebrew to understand it.  FYI: how a word is pronounced in Hebrew dictates its meaning(s).  Gee- you'd think that they's speak Latin AND Hebrew!  Most people don't know this.  What a curiousity?  (Passive learning does not work in these matters.)

The Bible is a spiritual (i.e. occult) book.  Therefore, it must be read with spiritual senses.  Most people have a problem with the word "occult" becasue they don't know what it means and assume that they know (i.e. passive learning; kinda like watching a movie).  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Paul...all had occult training and experiences (e.g. Paul's vision was an occult experience).  (The word "occult" means beyond the 5 senses).  Jesus belonged to the Essenes, which was one of the reasons why the Jews did not accept Him.  

The book of Revelation is about the Christian Mysteries.  It was written by an initiate (i.e. John the Baptist) who also wrote the book of John- same writer.  It is not about doom, gloom, and the end of times!  We've got another 1700 years or so on this planet.

Jesus of Nazareth (before the Baptism) studdied the Mysteries and the Sacred Writings since age 12.  He was the world's greatest initiate.  He (and He alone) was able to supress the ego component of His being to enable the Christ to dwell within Him (i.e. the Baptism.  All of the teachings of Christianity exist in other religions!  There's nothing new!  Jesus Christ was a master at making these teachings understandable for the current times (i.e. chop down the fig tree that wasn't bearing fruit).  For example, the Lord's Prayer condenses 42 laws from the Sacred Writings.  We are expected to be able to understand the same wisdom and make it understandable for our time without changing the meanings- that's called being a follower of Christ.  Morality comes ONLY at the culmination of a long striving for wisdom.  Unfortunately, most religions ONLY teach their supporters to "speak a few syllables and utter a few adjectives"  (all about the ritual- that's it)

The significance of Christ is NOT the teachings!  Although, they (i.e. teachings) were the spiritual food that Christ provided while he was here.  In addition, He showed how to get the job (i.e. maintaining the wisdom for the sake of mankind) done!

The significance of Jesus Christ was His death- period.  One must understand the Mystery of Gogotha in order to know who Christ was?  

(I will make another post explaining this incredible Mystery)

[Adrian]

Greetings DJM!

Another excellent post indeed! Thank you for your contributions!

Yes, the bible and indeed the presence of Master Jesus on Earth has been massively misinterpreted and misrepresented by the dogmatic religions over the ages. Why? Because they interpreted the teachings and writings purely in material terms rather then in the Spiritual terms they represent, in order to control the people through "fear of God", almost as if it was politics. This great Master came from the Cosmic spheres, the very highest next to "The One and All", and pre-dates the creation of the planet Earth itself, such is his state of evolution.

As you pointed put, Master Jesus came into incarnation to teach Spiritual truths and realities to mankind, and in terms that they could hopefully understand, at a time when mankind was at a very low point. Unfortunately, over the aeons, the creed and dogma of the churches has caused these teachings to be lost to mankind generally, and turned them in to the "heaven and hell" concepts we see today, the penalty for not believing being "hell" according to the churches.

If only the church clergy realised that one of the worst crimes against Divine Providence and Universal laws is to lead people away from the truth, and thereby compromising their ascent and progression.

The bible symbolically contains much esoteric knowldege if only people did but know it, and did not interpret the words materially. The same with the prayer:

"Thy shall be done on Earth as it is in heaven" is "As above, so Below" , and refers to one of the most fundamental of all of the sacred Laws.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[DjM]

Adrian,

YOU AGAIN? (just joking)  Kindred spirits?  Methinks.

If one goes back into history, one eventually loses all historical records of the concept of Hell.  In fact, the Atlanteans knew nothing of it and there were no records of it!  I believe that it was the Hindu religions that first introduced the concept by adding to what had been passed to them from the Atlanteans after the great Atlantean flood (i.e. Genesis).  By adding this "concept," people were controlled and exploited (i.e. monetarily; services).  Everyone else coppied this "formula."  There are no records of "Hell" in any civilization before this.

The Roman Empire had to do something after the death of Christ so they formed a HIERARCHY to control it- and did they ever!

The only ones that Jesus showed disfavor with was the Priests who were intentionally misrepresenting the truth- biblical fact.  These same priests began persecuting Him right after He performed the raising of Lazuruth which was a revelation of the Mysteries.  It was for THIS reason His persecutions began.  Ultimately, His death was an even greater revelation of the Mysteries!  His death is not explained in accordance with the Mysteries.  Instead, his teachings were highlighted.  Once again, it was His death that was significant, not the teachings!  This is why Christ mentions that people will claim to know him and He will turn them away.  This line is unsettling to those who only coin historical references.  (by design?)

If anyone out there wants to know WHO CHRIST IS, read my post entitled, "The Mystery of Golgotha."  I posted it up there so that you may know...because I love you all.

[kakkarot]

no DjM, the significance of Christ was not ONLY his death. for without his life, his death would mean nothing. and without his teachings what would even his death have been worth? most people think that his death was merely to give people a way of being forgiven of their sins before God. those people don't see the full picture. Jesus gave us a means of forgiveness for ourselves not just so that we could be forgiven, but so that WE COULD KNOW GOD! and if we don't ever come to know God than even Jesus' death was worth less than it truly was.

God desires a relationship with each person, with everyone individually. even He couldn't do that as long as we wallowed in our sins, so He gave us and Himself a means of reconcilation so that we could establish a relationship with God based not on master and slave, creator and created, but on love and grace on the behalf of both sides, us and Him.

~kakkarot

[DjM]

kakkarot- I am pointing at esoteric Christianity (i.e. the higher mysteries).  These mysteries are not well known, particularly in regular Christian circles.

Christ came to earth so that his being would be one with humanity for eternity- that was the mission.  All of the teachings are found in EVERY major religion.  Have you checked this out for yourself?  For example, Buddha and Jesus do NOT disagree with one another- they work in concert.  Buddha prepared mankind for the UNDERSTANDING of compassion and love.  Jesus Christ was the POWER of compassion and love.  Mission complete...

Sin is handled through the laws of Karma.  Unless one understands  esoteric Christianity, one would not be aware of this.  Jesus of Nazareth studied this with the Essenes since age 12, preparing his vessel via inner development in order to supress the eog/I (i.e. the I AM) enabling the Christ to dwell within him from the time of the Baptism, until His death.

The entire book of Revelation describes the Christian initiation that one must go through via inner spiritual development.

The event at Golgotha cannot be lessened, however, it can be (and often is) misunderstood.

You will not see God with your physical eyes, but with your SPIRITUAL eyes.  We MUST be careful not to materialze that which is spirit.  To understand a Spiritual book, one must open one's Spiritual eyes and ears.

I understand exactly where your arguement is coming from...been there, done that...then, I became a follower.

I hope that you are able to "reconcile" your differences.

[Adrian]

Greetings DJM,

quote:Originally posted by DjM

Adrian,

YOU AGAIN? (just joking)  Kindred spirits?  Methinks.

If one goes back into history, one eventually loses all historical records of the concept of Hell.  In fact, the Atlanteans knew nothing of it and there were no records of it!  

Yes - me again [] I can't keep away from this forum with so much truth and wisdom being discussed!

I would just like to mention this concept of "hell". It is my understanding that until around the year 350AD, the christian church taught reincarnation and there was no mention of hell. They then came to realise that they could control their congregations much more effectively if they removed reincarnation, and inserted the concept of "hell" in its place. Thus they could cause people to believe that this life if the one and only chance they get, and unless they "believe" in the teachings of the dogmatic church anf fall into line, the alternative is to damnation for all eternity in hell.

If only would they buy know that to lead people away from the Light in this manner is a serious offence against Divine Providence ("God") and Universal laws, and with great karmic consequences to pay.

The Atlanteans, like many of the South American races - Mayans, Incas etc. as well as the seat of the Ancient wisdom and mysteries after Atlantis,i.e. Egypt - had no concept of "hell" because they knew the true nature of the spheres (in Kaballistic terms, the Tree of Life).

With best regards,

Adrian.

[kakkarot]

DjM, you seem to speak as though you believe that the Christ merely "possessed" a normal human boy.

the Christ knew who he was from the time he was born. at age twelve he began "studying" the old law, because that was the age that boys became men in the hebrew culture, but he already knew all the old law and more (hence the reason he amazed the people at the synagouge with what he knew, even when he was twelve).

i have not read anything about these "higher mysteries" of which you speak, but i have had many things revealed to me in my life time which could be considered "higher mysteries".

but the greatest understanding i was given was the entire practicality of God's plan and what He is doing on Earth, and i completely fail to see how any of what you have said even comes close to being spoken for the benefit of normal people.

so my first question is, who was this written for? the normal person wouldn't even begin to comprehend any of it, and the faithful believer wouldn't care. is this then written for those who are seeking just general enlightenment, hoping to get them to understand something they hadn't before?

please don't misunderstand me, i am not saying anything bad about what you have written, i have just failed to see the point in your having written it.

~kakkarot

[Nerezza]

I think DJM is coming from a gnostic/rosicrucian viewpoint. It's been awhile since I read gnostic views so im not sure if thats where "higher mysteries" or "mystery of golgatha" come from.

[DjM]

quote:Originally posted by kakkarot

DjM,

i have not read anything about these "higher mysteries" of which you speak, but i have had many things revealed to me in my life time which could be considered "higher mysteries".

but the greatest understanding i was given was the entire practicality of God's plan and what He is doing on Earth, and i completely fail to see how any of what you have said even comes close to being spoken for the benefit of normal people.

so my first question is, who was this written for? the normal person wouldn't even begin to comprehend any of it, and the faithful believer wouldn't care. is this then written for those who are seeking just general enlightenment, hoping to get them to understand something they hadn't before?

~kakkarot

Kakkarot-

I appreciate all questions...a wonderful opportunity to shed even more light on the world via reflection.  

Just because somebody had a vision, does not mean they understood it correctly.  This is truth.  My assumption is that you have been well schooled and often pursue such subjects as geometry (i.e. sacred geometry); astronomy/astrology; harmony of the spheres; the 7 vowels; etc...  If my assumption is incorrect, it's almost a sure bet that your interpretation of your own vision is incorrect.  It's a wonderful thing to have a vision and/or receive information intuitively.  However, it's an entirely separate matter to parse and interpret it in the light it was given with the reverence it deserves.

All those who are aware know that the bar has been raised- human beings must turn to the spiritual world with spiritual eyes and ears.  WE MUST NOT MATERIALZE THAT WHICH IS SPIRIT!!!  If a materialistic individual has a vision, the individual will explain that which is spiritual in materialistic terms and the meaning will be lost.  If we are unprepared to receive a vision, we will try to speak of it from the five physical senses and our materialistic understanding.  For example, if a child sees something, which it does not recognize, the child will attempt to explain it from its own frame of reference.  Although this explanation will be unbiased, it will also render foolishness and lack of substance.  Enter inconsistency, which is the root of confusion.   Herein lies the root of misunderstandings that have been propagated since the beginning of time.  It is simply not enough to claim a vision; one MUST bring that vision to life.

What's the sense in my postings?  "Greater love hath no man than this, to teach the Holy Law to one another, and to love each other as oneself. "  FYI: one is rewarded with knowledge and wisdom when one gives selflessly in the same direction.  This is truth.  Exchanging sentiment for opinion is a fool's game, unless, of course, the greater good can be achieved.  

All I know is what I don't know, so I will continue to learn more.  It is only in the most recent epoch that we possess the power of intellect!  It is imperative that we employ this gift (i.e. intellect) in an UPWARD direction with our gaze at the stars and the heavenly bodies above.  What a curiosity?  One can understand all that which is required to bring an increase of wealth to the physical body, but not that which brings life itself to the bodies.   Personally, I approach people unbiased and assume that they are up to the challenge of improving their current life and the ones to come.  The choice is their own, of course, as freedom is a necessary ingredient for the understanding and cultivation of love itself.

[DjM]

quote:Originally posted by Nerezza

I think DJM is coming from a gnostic/rosicrucian viewpoint. It's been awhile since I read gnostic views so im not sure if thats where "higher mysteries" or "mystery of golgatha" come from.

Nerezza,

I certainly appreciate your clarification.  Thank you!

You are right on!  However, pertaining to Rosicrucianism- Yes, I belong to the Order.  I just recently joined.  The order is non-denominational, so it would be inconsistent to point in that direction as a source of my postings.  In addition, we don't divulge that which must be earned in the sense of worthiness (i.e. degrees)- that stuff stays inside as matter of integrity.

Truth be know...the true meanings of Christianity are gradually becoming known to mankind, as these were hidden from us for specific reasons.

I AM trying to let people know that they don't have to throw everything that they might know out the door- just learn the greater meanings thereof...this is the way.

All the best!

[kakkarot]

"Even the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man." Solomon.

I had five actual visions in my life. none of them had to do with learning or understanding. they were a vision of what might be.

the understanding and wisdom that i gained were given to me by God as gifts for asking. The things revealed to me were meant for me only, but their subject was about everything. Don't look down on me as though I were some sort of simple fool. You are still a few steps below me in the understanding of all that is. I hope for your sake that the rest is revealed to you, for what you know now is merely parts and pieces of the entire matter.

You may think that it is the complete picture, but i gaurantee, after having read your posts, that you still have a few steps to walk up just to get near to where i have gotten. Hopefully, you will even pass that in time. Don't do it with your own mind, as small as a human's mind is, ask for guidance and understanding from God and He will give it to you.

"To make right a building that was built incorrectly, I'll have to destroy everything, won't I?" -Soujiro

~kakkarot

[DjM]

quote:Originally posted by kakkarot
[br
I had five actual visions in my life. none of them had to do with learning or understanding.

the understanding and wisdom that i gained
~kakkarot

Once again, inconsistency is the root of confusion.  It is stated that none of your "visions" had anything to do with learning or understanding...then you skip to understanding and wisdom.  One should express oneself clearly and correctly on these matters (i.e. reverence)!  One can only gain insights through "visions".  Knowledge and wisdom must be earned- that's the whole point of development.

quote:Originally posted by kakkarot
[br
Don't look down on me as though I were some sort of simple fool.
~kakkarot

It would be my folly to look down on anyone.  I am nothing without the least amongst us (including ALL living beings)...simply put.  

quote:Originally posted by kakkarot
[br
You are still a few steps below me in the understanding of all that is. I hope for your sake that the rest is revealed to you, for what you know now is merely parts and pieces of the entire matter.
~kakkarot

When one releases judgement of another, they really release judgement of themsleves.  All I know is what I don't know.  Only a fool would claim to know it all.

quote:Originally posted by kakkarot
[br
You may think that it is the complete picture, but i gaurantee, after having read your posts, that you still have a few steps to walk up just to get near to where i have gotten.
~kakkarot

I don't posses the intellectuall capacity to condense thousands of hours of work, study, meditation into a few posts.  However, I can set the table for one who seeks the truth...the details are up to them.  I am very aware of the number of steps that are required and the level(s) of development associated with them.  Pertaining to development, the rule is: Know thyself.  (not they neighbor)

[cainam_nazier]

And just tyo throw in some humor.

DMJ, "Only a fool would claim to know it all."

Well, I am a fool and know it. So does that mean I know it all?

[DjM]

quote:Originally posted by cainam_nazier

And just tyo throw in some humor.

DMJ, "Only a fool would claim to know it all."

Well, I am a fool and know it. So does that mean I know it all?

David,

I believe in the context in which you chose, it means that you have a big heart and see humor as a harmonizing force...which is cool!  Right on!!

All the best!

P.S. THIS is not here...

[assia]

I remember arguing as a teenager with the religion teacher over the impossibility of predestination if we had free will. Must have driven that poor nun batty!  After class my friend cleared it up nicely for me when she explained that my problem was in equating my-time with God-time.

When it comes to time (and many other things), humans think linearly. God doesn't.  I face a decision (point A on the time line).  I "move ahead" and make a decision at point B. The effects of that decision are felt later at point C. We figure God is moving along that line with us at the same "time," so S/He must be "forcing" the decision on us to get to a particular point C.

However, if we think of God as standing outside that time line--though actually encompassing it--God exists in present, past, future, so S/He experiences points A, B, and C simultaneously. No matter which decision I make God is aware of it as it is made--and it "fits" no matter what it is, simply because all possibilities are possible in God's time frame.

Those inclined toward parodoxical thinking like my friend Sue see it easily. Those who think linearly, as I did, have a bit of trouble with the concept, that's all.

For the record, I'm no longer a practicing Catholic.  But not because I dislike or am angry at the Church.  I left out of respect for it when my Christological views changed and I came to believe that all religions are man-made constructs mean to control society. I probably wouldn't have mentioned that except for the disparagement of Roman Catholicism I noticed in this thread.  Surprised me in a forum which seems so respectful of other non-traditional spiritual paths.  Logical to assume that respect should be "catholic" or universal

Anyone who studies various religions in a personal search for truth can always find that faith system's particular beauty and truth if they look for it. Catholicism is no exception.  When what they actually teach is understood, it's easy to see much truth in that spiritual path.

Like kakkarot, I believe that the spiritual journey moves from the simplicity of childhood, through complexity as an adult seeker, and back to simplicity as we mature. The amazing thing, though, is that the latter simplicity--love--can paradoxically encompass that previous multitude of complex things.  It doesn't eliminate them, imo, it explains and unifies them. And, once you've experiened that simplicity, it's hard to hate any person, religion, or spiritual path because you see them as part of that unified whole.    

[Adrian]

Greetings Assia!

Welcome to the forums, and thank you very much for an excellent opening contribution.

You are correct, we do not condone any pointed discussions against specific named religions here. We are very tolerant however in general terms however, because freedom of thought and speech is very important. What you will find is alot of comments vis a vis religion in general terms - many of which comments originate from myself []

Your observations regarding God are correct - He/She is Spirit in the "Eternal Now" beyond space or time. Everything in the Universe is therefore also Spirit. These are concepts that most people do not think about, much less comprehend. The other factor is that most people ascribe petty human characteristics like vengeance, jealousy, need to be worshipped etc. to God. "The All" (God) is perfection, and everything in His/Her Universe works in accordance with immutable Universal Laws "The Law", which nothing and no one exist outside of.

Thanks again - I look forward to your further contributions.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[assia]

Thank you for such a warm welcome, Adrian.

I understand your tolerance of passing remarks, but the "I hate Roman Catholicism" ones were a bit more than a generalized comment about organzied religion; they were very specfic, as a matter of fact. Kind of threw me a bit on a forum dedicated to finding the higher consciousness.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to eliminate such statements. In fact, I'm all for letting any such comments ride.  They can be a pretty good litmus test of how well a person can "walk their own talk."  Which, of course, makes it easier for me to decide how much weight to place on the rest of their talk

I've been browsing the rest of the topics--lots here, just in this one area of the forum.  Will take some time to read them, but it should be enjoyable.

Thanks again for the welcome!

[Nerezza]

assia,

Im a cradle catholic, i've gone through the whole routine. I even still go to church on sundays. And that being said, I hate what the church(meaning those in charge ie vatican) has become. It's corrupted and falling apart.

I not not hate roman catholicism, it's a totally different thing. I pray the rosary, study the cathechism, recieve communion.

Why do I still go to church? It's the most peaceful place i've ever been. Im even considering becoming a priest once I get my degree.

[assia]

Hi, Nerezza.  I've appreciated your posts and saw a lot of similarities between us through them so far. Years back I majored in RC theology, but withdrew in my last semester when I realized my other studies, feminism among them, had altered my view on some of the very basic concepts a Defender of the Faith is supposed to defend. I've never lost my faith, my relationship to God, but as I stayed on the path meant to deepen that relationship, I seemed to draw further away from organized religion itself.

When I switched classes (and majors) to the state college one of my professors made the comment to me that most religious studies majors were closet agnostics . . . I've come to agree with her

I miss the community very much.  Always have and I don't believe I will ever stop feeling that loss, but I was not able to take part in the sacraments without a sense of hypocrisy, so I finally withdrew.  Over time, I came to see I can't honestly call myself Christian anymore because I don't accept basic tenets of Christianity such as original sin and the need it created for redemption through Christ. Jesus is my brother; I try to live the way of life he preached and the Sermon on the Mount is probably the guiding force in my life. In fact the name I choose on spirituality boards, Assia, refers to the name of one of his sisters found in the Coptic History of Joseph the Carpenter--and is the main charactrer in a novel I'm almost finished writing, Xe Mapia ("Hail, Mary" a Greek graffitti found at primitive church burial sites).

I look forward to sharing with you.  I honor and respect women who remain within the church in order to change it from within by their lives and loves. Unfortunaely, that wasn't my path, but I have a feeling we have a lot in common.

Since the Vatican hasn't shifted it's position on women in the priesthood, you'll have a difficult path ahead of you and I admire your courage.  I'm aware of several ordained women, such as Ludmila Javorová, but I don't think those ordinations will be recognized in the near future.

[Adrian]

Greetings Assia!

Thank you very much indeed for your perspective.

I was wondering however - why is it that the "popular churches" notably Christian (and in particular RC) and of course Moslim (not sure about Jewish) are so anti female in their organisations?

Is it because they view their deity as male, and accordingly consider only males are fit to serve their deity?

Interestingly, Wicca, which seems to be gaining popularity fast around the world, is very much a backlash against this, with their worship of the "goddess".

With best regards,

Adrian.

[Nerezza]

assia,

Im afraid im not female. Although if thats what the word Nerezza invokes,im glad. The word is italian for shadow and I used it for a story I wrote about a demon named Nerezza, which was female. I like the word so I kept it.

Other than that, im sure we're alot alike.[]

[kakkarot]

adrian: i don't know about denominations, but Christianity isn't anti feminine. the biggest reason that most "christian" religions and denominations don't allow females to serve as much in the church-proper as they allow the males is probably because 1) the cultures that each religion was established in were patriarchal (spelling?), 2) the old religious texts declare that men are to do certain things and women other things, and it just happens that women don't do things that are as recognized as the jobs the males do, or 3) a mix of 1 and 2.

christianity for sure isn't anti-feminine (i don't know about other religions). according to the bible, only men are supposed to speak out to the assembly, and only men are supposed to minister, but that doesn't mean women can do nothing. there are dozens of things that need to be done "behind the stage" in christian services, and both men and women help with those. also, the bible is quite explicit that only men who have ONE wife ("are the husband of but one wife") and have children can serve in the church; how else could they keep the family of the church together if they can't even keep their own family together?

also, just as wives are to submit to their husbands in their lives, so to husbands are to submit to their wives, as christ submitted to his bride the church, loving her without condition.

i may have just complicated this a bit, but i hope i've shed some light on something.

oh. and the one lame excuse i've heard for why men are supposed to be the "rulers" of the church and why women "aren't allowed" to serve (in) the church is because "eve caused adam to sin, so if not for eve humans would still be doing ok". or something like that. it is stupid none-the-less.

~kakkarot

[assia]

LOL! Well, Nerreza, you know what they say happens when we assume . . . and I did.  Hee Haw!

I'm not sure what it was that put a feminine picture in my head for you, but I tend to "assume" that people who express positive attitudes toward female values are women. I'm sure that tucked into your posts were many such little snippet-clues, but I should know by now that many men have explored and accepted that part of themselves.  I'd apologize--but I happen to think it's a compliment to you that I came to an incorrect conclusion

Doesn't change the fact that I enjoy your take on spirituality and life in general and I look forward to our friendship . . . with a clearer mind picture of you now.

Adrian:

I believe that the four pillars of society (education, law, religion and economics) are all hierarchically structured with men at top, women inhabiting, for the most part, along with other minorities, the base levels of the social structure. While some women are being acomodated at higher levels, they are the exception to the rule in most places, and they frequently must use the the traditional "male" concept of power-over to maintain that position or rise further. Most institutions operate on principles created by men over the last 4000 years or so, and emphasize "male" values for that reason as well.

I don't view this as bad intent on the individuals within those social structures, mostly just ignorance of the power structure behind the systems (churches, colleges, corporate board rooms, courtrooms) they live and work in operates.  It's so pervasive that people are usually blind to it.

Wiccans have created their own structure based on feminine values and social organization. Rather than trying to change a church from within (which I'm not sure can be done since the basic structure remains powered by male values), they created something of their own.

I'm not sure it makes a difference whether a God or Goddess is worshipped.  Had women created Wicca with a male God as the central figure, they still would have valued the intuitive over the rational, emotion over reason, power-to instead of power-over, bonding over individual achievement etc. The result would have been the same.

Truth is, I don't think organized religions are so much anti-female as they are pro-male.   Makes sense; they're institutions created to serve masculine goals and ideals of how the world should operate.

Doesn't make me mad any more.  Women, too, have allowed this to continue, taken part by their reluctance to pay the cost of change and their mistaken ideas that we must "ask" men to change what is natural for them, instead of assuming our own power, as Wiccans did, to create something new for ourselves.  Can't blame men and their male gods.  They're doing what comes natural to them, imo, and serving their own purposes as humans are inclined to do.  

[James S]

quote: Originally posted by Kakkarot
also, just as wives are to submit to their husbands in their lives, so to husbands are to submit to their wives, as christ submitted to his bride the church, loving her without condition.

During my time in church I heard it said many times that if we are to accept part of the bible as being the truth we must accept all of it. This is where I start running into problems here. The above quote sounds a bit more balanced than most translations such as this from the King James Bible -

quote:Ephesians 5
22   Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23   For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24   Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25   Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26   That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27   That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28   So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

I used the King James because it is supposed to be the original english translation from the hebrew texts, and I grabbed enough of a slice of this chapter to try and keep things in context, but am I the only one here that thinks this is a little one sided? Sure, the man loving his wife as himself is a good thing, but the whole submission bit?? I've seen a lot of really screwed up marriges in churches where this point tends to get forced down the wife's throat. Ok, it says to love the wife as Christ loved the church. This sounds great in principal, but in practice it just doesn't happen that way.

My wife doesn't submit to me. She never will, and I don't ever want her to. I want her love, not submission. Submission is tantamount to slavery.

It seems to me that this was one of those things put into the bible that wasn't really the word of God, but the word of men who were seeking to gain order and control over the lives of others. In this case I think the women definitely come off second best.

Ok, I'll get off my soap box now.

James.