Thursday, July 8, 2010
4:50 PM CST
Hey Red Dog,
Last night I discovered whole chunks of dialogue were censored; this time I'm sure by the author, because they all made it past the moderators this past holiday weekend. Regardless who's doing it, censorship is censorship, and in this particular case I believe it is egregious. I did not copy the entire thread as I normally do; the posts WERE published and there was an entire dialogue going on between "llisa" and myself. They censored hers as well; my apologies to "IIisa" for not including her all of her replies, assuming she visits this blog...J.B.
Georgetown/On Faith: Holy Boldness of Women
..."Women seem to be better able to see that religion should contain good works and kind words and be used for good instead of for control...."
Sorry "IIisa" but this is absolute nonsense. Neither "good works" nor "kind words" are gender predestined. I'm fed up with hearing this abysmally failed "feminist" slant promulgating inane assumptions about men.
J.B.
7/2/10
@ "IIisa"
1:45 PM CST
"...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons or preachers and girls were not allowed to light candles or ring the bell...This is still the way it is in too many religions. Women are subservient and do all the work, and men rule."...
Example : "...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons..."
So what? No disappoint there. Why would you want to be recognized as such by ignorant people who choose to sustain a failed and oppressive way of life ?
Example : Gays are denied "marriage rites". So what ? Ditto to what I said above.
...(continued)...
Not sure about this new "partnership" bit; comes from a failed premise : No one is "equal" to anyone. Period. You can't expect human beings to behave like a bank portfolio. Deny or dummy down the uniqueness of one individual is destructive; regardless whether either member of the "partnership" is capable of recognizing this or not. "Partnership" is another Orwellian PC buzz word that ultimately means : Control.
And your fortunate upbringing seems to shatter the very premise of your initial statements; the fact that "the church" is and has been "controlling" is a no brainer. This does not translate that "most" men are "controlling", or that women in "religion" could make any improvements, at all, to a rigid outdated belief system.
They are and remain the masters of propaganda and brainwashing technique. Get to the children first. It will become the ultimate irony that had they not followed this centuries old practice, the RCC would never have been sustainable.
Get to the children first.
Other orthodoxies, (again, ironically) follow in their footsteps. But they are amateurs compared to the Roman Catholic Church.
Only until recently do we bear witness to the extremity of their corruption.
4:50 PM CST
Hey Red Dog,
Last night I discovered whole chunks of dialogue were censored; this time I'm sure by the author, because they all made it past the moderators this past holiday weekend. Regardless who's doing it, censorship is censorship, and in this particular case I believe it is egregious. I did not copy the entire thread as I normally do; the posts WERE published and there was an entire dialogue going on between "llisa" and myself. They censored hers as well; my apologies to "IIisa" for not including her all of her replies, assuming she visits this blog...J.B.
Georgetown/On Faith: Holy Boldness of Women
llisa 10:47 PM on 6/30/2010
179 Fans
Perhaps the best thing to happen to religion would be for the men to step down and let the women take over. Women seem to be better able to see that religion should contain good works and kind words and be used for good instead of for control.
@ "IIisa"12:00 PM CST
..."Women seem to be better able to see that religion should contain good works and kind words and be used for good instead of for control...."
If the men in your adult life are "controlling", it's because you want it that way. Takes two to twist.
No doubt you'd be quick to label yours truly "controlling"; a PC word that has virtually emasculated the American male.
I have no desire to "control"; I just won't be manipulated either. Plenty of men who aren't "controlling"; plenty of women who are "controlling"...you just have to look for one while avoiding the other, and forget the idiotic stereotypes that have been drilled into your brain for the past several decades.
J.B.
7/2/10
llisa 7/2/2010
Takes only one man to twist.
The man who twists alone is not telling you about the partners he is with.
[ The 2 replies above I adopt from memory...they were also censored; the rest of "llisa's" posts were censored as well ]
@ "IIisa"
1:45 PM CST
"...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons or preachers and girls were not allowed to light candles or ring the bell...This is still the way it is in too many religions. Women are subservient and do all the work, and men rule."...
The "women" you speak of have been and, tragically, are "subservient" because they wanted to be and want to be. Otherwise, they would not have been "subservient", nor want to be. Sorry. It's that simple. It's called the line of least resistance, which all humans indulge in; not just women.
And this is the "way" with ALL religions. I'm happy that you were smarter than that, and left. The problem I have with today's American "feminists" as that they continue to fail to appreciate paradox; in fact, they chose to remain in denial over it.
Example : "...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons..."
So what? No disappoint there. Why would you want to be recognized as such by ignorant people who choose to sustain a failed and oppressive way of life ?
Example : Gays are denied "marriage rites". So what ? Ditto to what I said above.
One answer : Do not ever, EVER circumscribe your life by the the dictates and stupidities of others, whether or not "others" means one individual or the culture at large.
...(continued)...
...(conclusion)...
Not sure about this new "partnership" bit; comes from a failed premise : No one is "equal" to anyone. Period. You can't expect human beings to behave like a bank portfolio. Deny or dummy down the uniqueness of one individual is destructive; regardless whether either member of the "partnership" is capable of recognizing this or not. "Partnership" is another Orwellian PC buzz word that ultimately means : Control.
And your fortunate upbringing seems to shatter the very premise of your initial statements; the fact that "the church" is and has been "controlling" is a no brainer. This does not translate that "most" men are "controlling", or that women in "religion" could make any improvements, at all, to a rigid outdated belief system.
J.B.
7/2/10
7/2/10
@ "IIisa"
2:10 PM CST
2:10 PM CST
Yes.
The RCC has been and remains among the worst oppressors of the human spirit. Over the centuries the RCC has pushed and polished the envelop of tyranny and cynical manipulation of language to such extremes as to defy all sense of logic or appearance of sanity.
They are and remain the masters of propaganda and brainwashing technique. Get to the children first. It will become the ultimate irony that had they not followed this centuries old practice, the RCC would never have been sustainable.
Get to the children first.
Other orthodoxies, (again, ironically) follow in their footsteps. But they are amateurs compared to the Roman Catholic Church.
Only until recently do we bear witness to the extremity of their corruption.
J.B.
7/2/10
7/2/10
@ "llisa"
4:25 PM CST
4:25 PM CST
If you are going to quote me please do not do so out of context. These blog threads are unwieldy enough as it is; no need to compound the problem.
Quote :
..."Men have always been in control of religion."...
...Not without the help of the women who enabled it.
Same line of "thinking" in the cliche :
"Men make war"...That's right...but not without the women who enable it. Passive-aggressively, I might add.
Quote :
..."Since religions are not going away any time soon, they would certainly benefit if women were to take over"...
You did not explicitly state : "Most men are controlling" True. You clearly implied it in your previous statements I quote above. Passive-aggressive methinks. No ?
You did not explicitly state : "Most men are controlling" True. You clearly implied it in your previous statements I quote above. Passive-aggressive methinks. No ?
...(continued)...
...(concluded)...
Quote :
...""Since religions are not going away any time soon, they would certainly benefit if women were to take over..."
That's not only capitulation and defeatist, you are rationalizing to support your contention. The fact is, "religion" is going away, very quickly; notwithstanding all the woo and blustering in the so-called "spiritual' essays saturating this blog. You see in them the desperation and final gasps of the Boogeyman hoodoo/voodoo nonsense that has plagued humanity for centuries...Besides, neither my thinking nor my physical being is tied down to a "country"; another outdated notion.
The world has indeed joined the 21st century, notwithstanding the morons this "country" has been breeding with an impunity that is horrific to the rest of the world. If we continue to regress, our regression will be matched and countered simply by the rest of the planet ignoring us.
Can't leave an old joke in the bread box too long without expecting it to mold and be thrown away.
J.B.
7/2/10
7/2/10
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.