NBC's Today has a special attraction to stories "updating" Jesus, going "On The Road" with The DaVinci Code, and just last week, promoting the idea that the bones of Jesus had been located in an ossuary in Jerusalem. On Wednesday, liberal priest, sociologist and author Andrew Greeley, a longtime NBC favorite, came on the air to promote his new book about Jesus and his relationships with women. Father Greeley "updated" Jesus so dramatically that he practically put him in league with NARAL and Planned Parenthood:
Curry: "He, he also, according to you, had very good relationships with women. Very strong friendships with women."
Greeley: "If he were alive today and behaved the same way he would be considered to be a radical feminist."
Curry: "Really?! Well that's surprising."
Greeley: "And, and when we, when we consider the era in which he lived and the way women were treated and the male attitude towards them. It's just absolutely astonishing."
Curry: "Because he was so open with them? I mean why, why are you saying that?"
Greeley: "Well he had, for example, he has apostles following him wherever he went but also there was a group of women in three different Gospels are mentioned in the same breath with the Apostles. So these, these were women who were important in his, in his mission."
Many have seen Jesus as a kind of feminist in the times of his earthly ministry, in his condemnation of casual divorce and the prominence of women among his followers. But it's a wild stretch of the liberal imagination that he would be considered a "radical feminist" by today's radical feminists. Just start with that all-male cast of apostles. Radical feminists would aspire to drag Jesus before the EEOC.
Curry also discussed with Greeley how he speculates that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were probably very attracted to each other, but insisted that he wasn't down with Dan Brown, that there's "no evidence" that the two "climbed into bed together."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, at least he didn't tr
March 8, 2007 - 07:05 ET by motherbeltWell, at least he didn't try to say the Jesus would probably be pro-choice if He were around today.
Curry also discussed with Greeley how he speculates that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were probably very attracted to each other,
Why is it always Mary Magdalen with these people?!! Weren't there any other women around? I think it's because MM was purported in some tellings to be a prostitute and these idiots love the idea of Jesus with a prostitute, even a reformed one.
They like to cite John 20:17,
March 8, 2007 - 08:00 ET by Tim GrahamThey like to cite John 20:17, which has (in some translations) the risen Jesus saying to Mary Magdalene, who has seen him first, "don't cling to me." That's what Greeley cited. But this doesn't read like a romantic scene. He's telling her not to delay, but to go tell the others that he is risen.
Women are still 4th class cit
March 8, 2007 - 14:40 ET by TruthMongerWomen are still 4th class citizens in the Middle East to this day, but Jesus appeared to a woman first to deliver the news of the resurrection, and upon this foundation we have Christianity - it was an absolutely brilliant move by God - and this is largely how we know Jesus is who He says He is...it's freaking cool man...
It also really pisses off the liberal feminist crowd - which is also very freaking cool - fundies like us are the original and true feminists : ) . . .
It is because they are sooooo
March 8, 2007 - 10:17 ET by BDIt is because they are sooooo addicted to gossip that they will even go after 2000 year old targets...
valid point, BD
March 8, 2007 - 16:59 ET by tumbler_2007You're right; and I said the same to my dear wife. (I call my sister-in-law the San Diego Gazette) Which logic tells me is the main reason the Catholic Church will never ordain women priests. Never.
Can you imagine a woman priest hearing your sins in confession? The word would circle the globe by noon tomorrow.
I think Jesus is pro-choice,
March 9, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Conservative VoiceI think Jesus is pro-choice, he certainly allows us to make choices...however he taught the difference between choices and wrong choices, and has taught that with choices there are consequences. Liberals want to sin without consequences, hence do not understand God.
Indeed Jesus is pro-choice
March 9, 2007 - 14:10 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasYes indeed Jesus is pro-choice and invites each and everyone to make good choices. Interesting how the sovereign, omnipotent and omniscient God gives us such great freedom to make choices while the least potent of us want to micromanage the lives of everyone around them and attempt to force them to think and speak in a way that pleases them (hint hint...to you fag libs who want to micormanage everyone one's lives...that was for you [I didn't say "faggot" and so far only "nigger" and "faggot" are liberally socially outlawed words that libs attempt to use as shamers against its users and if "fag" or the plural form "fags" is on the list also of words you want to legislate as shame, homophobic, africanphobic, faggophobic {that one is okay right?} lesbophobic, blackaphobic, pansy@$$edaphobic then someone send me a PM and give me an updated list of shame words the libs demand I not use and be ashamed of and for the record I am only using "nigger" and "faggot" in the context of explanation and not in the context of name calling, right now I am only using "fags" in that context : ) ]) . Hope you got all that...what a d@mnable hassle it is realizing libs also read here and then understanding that libs have to have everything quantified and qualified or they have a diaper Depends fit...but then that leads back to their desire to micromanage everyone and everything...sheesh what a viscious circle, so bad I lost track of which type of paranthesis to use..obvious GOD ain't a LIB !!!!!!!!!!!!
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
And THAT'S what you get when
March 8, 2007 - 07:17 ET byAnd THAT'S what you get when you cross a heathen with a pagan.
Andrew Greeley is the Left'
March 8, 2007 - 07:39 ET by motherbeltAndrew Greeley is the Left's favorite priest, just as Frances Kissling of Catholics for Free Choice is their favorite woman; because they can usually be counted on to bash the Catholic Church. Then they (the MSM) tout them, usually generalizing their far-out ideas as what "many Catholics" believe.
Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, are the only groups in the US today that can be insulted with impunity. (I should make that my signature line).
motherbelt,I would say only b
March 8, 2007 - 07:59 ET bymotherbelt,
I would say only born-again Christians.
what do you mean Debra?
March 9, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Conservative Voicewhat do you mean Debra?
Born again Christians..&quo
March 9, 2007 - 14:03 ET by MightyMouthBorn again Christians..
"...only groups in the US today that can be insulted with impunity"
I think.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
well that was what I thought
March 9, 2007 - 14:10 ET by Conservative Voicewell that was what I thought she meant too, though it is absolutely false to think her religion is the only one that is picked on (especially since she is on record to smear other people's religions). Motherbelt had it right, Christianity as a whole can be insulted.
<added after post> "Catholics in particular" is debatable, but to me it doesn't matter which religion receives the bulk of the insults, because I see it as an attack on Christianity as a whole.
Looks like white people (oo
March 9, 2007 - 14:14 ET by MightyMouthLooks like white people (oopps I mean white straight MEN) have something in common with Christianity. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Motherbelt re:tagline
March 9, 2007 - 14:25 ET by misterbillMotherbelt re:tagline --indeed you should use it as your sig.. I am tired of the attacks, insults, what have you, on Christians and Catholics in particular. Ihave been out of the blogosphere for a couple of weeks. On my return, I see that a TV show , supposedly tongue in cheek, has a scene with God in bed with a woman and some post-coital conversation. If this is comedy. I have lost my sense of humor. Furthermore, if this is comedy, I do not want my sense of humor back. These scurvy cowards would not dare to make Allah or Muhammad the subject of their "humor". They would be swiftly punished.
PS There is some good coming out of the attacks for me--I am feeling closer to my faith than I have for years!
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
Speculation about Jesus abo
March 8, 2007 - 07:50 ET by sarcasmoSpeculation about Jesus abounds, for political reasons. Let's see if I can do it and get-under everyone's skin this morning? :) Nobody wants to think about the implications of it, but maybe He'd be a hard money fan, like me. Consider both the beginning (one of the wise men carried gold) & end (30 pieces of silver...) of His life, if you dare to think about it... Then wonder why we trust government-issued papermoney that simply invokes the NAME of God despite the admonitions of our own Constitution to use gold or silver...Or why almost-everyone unquestioningly gives multiple tithes to what they really seem to worship, which is huge-government -- whether or not they particularly-want to admit it.
JMR
Sarc.. I've got no idea wha
March 8, 2007 - 08:35 ET by rimskySarc.. I've got no idea what you're trying to say here.
Any specific questions?? On
March 8, 2007 - 08:40 ET by sarcasmoAny specific questions?? One would need to read boring stuff, like IRS 1040 forms & the Bible & the US Constitution, to hope to have any context on the above comment, so it's understandable if you don't, but it's hard for me to respond to a comment that's so-vague...Let me ask, do you, or do you not, pay more than 10 percent of your income to big government as taxes of various sorts? I sure as hell do, and it's many times ten percent, hence the "multiple tithes" part of the comment. Anyway, if you're curious about something I said, ask-away!
JMR
Are you speaking of "ren
March 8, 2007 - 09:21 ET by Hoosier DaddyAre you speaking of "rendering unto Caesar?" The Lord loves a cheerful (read that "hilarious") giver. Do you think I cheerfully and voluntarilly pay taxes to the various levels of government? If I don't do it I go to jail. Simple as that. My wife and I don't give enough back to the Lord, only about 11% off the top, but we most certainly do it willingly.
So what's your point?
Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.
My point is exactly what I
March 8, 2007 - 09:33 ET by sarcasmoMy point is exactly what I already said above. People unquestioningly pay multiple-tithes to a big government they seem to worship, while they studiously-ignore what the Constitution (and Bible...) said about the true nature of money. It's not such a hard concept...It's just likely to be hard on the grandkids of those who've ignored it.
JMR
I don't think anyone understa
March 8, 2007 - 11:41 ET by dvdaughtryI don't think anyone understands what you said above.
Me included.
Well, I know it's quite a r
March 8, 2007 - 11:49 ET by sarcasmoWell, I know it's quite a radical idea, but one of you might want to try a specific question...
JMR
Well, I know that your sacras
March 8, 2007 - 11:57 ET by dvdaughtryWell, I know that your sacrasm deserves a specific backhand, (especially since it is clear that what you have said makes no sense, thus the third request for clarity), but I will oblige.
Will you state your point in different words, phrases, and/or thoughts so the those of us that are clearly not on your intellectual level, could discuss the subject further and more plainly see the noble point you wish to make?
No, because you have yet to
March 8, 2007 - 12:01 ET by sarcasmoNo, because you have yet to ask a specific question which would indicate you've bothered to do the required reading. "Say it again, different," doesn't work. Go read what I said again and come up with a coherent question if you want a non-sarcastic answer. Otherwise, deal with the sarcasmo-answer you seemed to want anyway.
JMR
Listen man, I have read it, b
March 8, 2007 - 12:20 ET by dvdaughtryListen man, I have read it, but don't get it. What do you want to hear?
"What do you mean pay multiple tithes? Aren't taxes and tithes different?"
"Why shouldn't we trust the paper currancy our econmony uses?"
"What is the correlation of the gift of gold at his birth with the realationship of our government?"
"I know that Judas was given 30 pieces of sliver, but where did Jesus get his 30 pieces at the end of his life?"
Get off your high horse.
Actual questions, which you
March 8, 2007 - 16:25 ET by sarcasmoActual questions, which you finally-asked, so it has nothing to do with anyone's "high horse" and everything to do with your earlier vagueness. I'll now answer your questions.
1. Tithe is really another word for tenth, so I mean that I pay multiple tenths of my salary in taxes to big government, much of which I believe is very wasteful. I don't have time to hunt it down now, but when an income tax was proposed, Congress in that debate explicitly didn't imagine it getting to/over 10% specifically because it's so-unseemly to put government over what the church asks, even if nobody tends to notice it nowadays. Of course, the "below 10%" income tax was also "only to be levied on the rich," who keep getting redefined-down via inflation, among other things. And yes, taxes & tithes are different, I wish the importance allocated financially to big-government could be drastically cut back, and 10% flat sounds like a good target for a number of reasons, but the reason I'm talking about both tithes and taxes is to make people think about just what following the money actually-says we worship these days, like it or not.
2. Because of many previous episodes in history (check out Weimar Germany, for one example!) where inflation leads to very bad things. The Founding Fathers weren't dumb about the difference between paper & metal, and that's why the Constitution says what it says. From FDR to Tricky Dick we slowly lost touch with our small-government inducing monetary roots, and it's interesting to see Alan Greenspan's pre-fed writings on this very issue & the massive growth of the welfare-state (and this was in the '60s!).
3. See above. Also please note other faiths main religious documents repeatedly mention both gold & silver but strangely-omit the paper currency (no "a") everyone trusts these days. Inflation is a governmental repudiation of debt, so I think it's morally-wrong, but I'm aware this is a minority view.
4. I didn't ever say Jesus got any silver, see above. I said that silver was involved at the end of His life, because it was.
JMR
Are you saying we should stil
March 8, 2007 - 18:58 ET by dvdaughtryAre you saying we should still be on a hard money system because that is what Jesus knew?
...or fights inflation?
Is the tithe point to support that the government should tax more than 10%?
Apologies for saying Jesus got silver, that was not my intention. We agree (finally) that it was a part of life. Barely, but a part.
1. No, but people seem to
March 9, 2007 - 05:29 ET by sarcasmo1. No, but people seem to want to put those words in my mouth, for some reason. I keep saying that actually-reading the Bible & Constitution (nobody's been talkin' about that one....) might be a good idea, for a change.
2. It's more like fiat paper-money, when issued by big governments, causes inflation.
3. HUH?? What are you ON, anyway????? I'm the one COMPLAINING about people worshipping big government more than they seem to worship God (I "followed the money," repeatedly, when I said that, didn't I??). The fact that those people also happen to take the occasional holier-than-thou perspective when talking to Libertarians is almost as much fun to ridicule as the poor reading-comprehension skills around here. You need to reread TWICE if you think I somehow ever implied big government should tax above ten percent, in this thread or anywhere-else. For the record, once again, taxes should be below 10% even if doing that kills various "conservative" big government sacred cows, such as their holy, tax and spend drugwar & the FCC (and needless to say, various leftist sacred-cows are also steaks & burgers under sarcasmo's plans).
4. Nope, not "barely" at all, more like "daily." Money is important to modern life, like it or not a rabbi like Jesus would have used it frequently, and the fact that most people don't want to think/read about its history seems to be condemning them to repeat it at this point.
JMR
I don't get you.You want spec
March 9, 2007 - 08:52 ET by dvdaughtryI don't get you.
You want specific questions, then when asked get upset because it was not the idea you tried to convey. That's the reason for the questions!
I think you like to hear your self talk.
You also complain about the reading comprehension skills around "here", well, I suggest your writing skills need polishing. Lately, more than one person has asked for clarification of your ideas. But when they do, you just look down condesendingly that we are not able to grasp your concepts. I think it is safe to say that the sender's signals are not as strong as he thinks.
So, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, nor am I on anything. I have tried to play your game asking specific questions and only been belittled in my attempt to have a decent conversation.
Finally, if your point was that Jesus used money, I don't think there would be any disagreements. However, if you are going to be specific with a certain amount of money, especially one with that kind of signifigance then using 30 pieces of silver is not the best example to use. I would also throw the wise men gifts in that boat.
Those two "cash" gifts were not to show that Jesus used money (your right, he had to) it was to illustrate when you see a king, you bring an offering, and the other was to fulfill prophecy.
Try the story of the money in the fish's mouth to pay taxes, or his teaching on giving to Caesar. Those would be better examples of Jesus using money on a daily basis.
I don't get you.When you spou
March 9, 2007 - 08:57 ET by sarcasmoI don't get you.
When you spout nonsense like: "Is the tithe point to support that the government should tax more than 10%?" and then somehow-expect your reading-comprehension NOT to be belittled, it's frankly-laughable...
And I think YOU like to hear yourself talk.
JMR
Don't really like it when som
March 9, 2007 - 09:12 ET by dvdaughtryDon't really like it when someone calls you out, eh?
Non-sequitur. See what you
March 9, 2007 - 09:18 ET by sarcasmoNon-sequitur. See what you wrote and what I wrote...You have hardly "called me out" in this discussion, and everyone here knows it.
JMR
You need to read what everyon
March 9, 2007 - 09:22 ET by dvdaughtryYou need to read what everyone has wrote. They don't know what you said.
"Everyone" seems
March 9, 2007 - 09:27 ET by sarcasmo"Everyone" seems to be an awfully small set, and you have yet to explain where I ever advocated higher, or even higher-than-10%, taxes. Try less attempted-insults & more substance.
JMR
"...everyone here knows
March 9, 2007 - 09:38 ET by dvdaughtry"...everyone here knows it."
"Everyone" is your word, not mine.
I never said you advocated anything. That was a specific question, that you asked for, so I could attempt to understand what you said.
And substance is what we have been missing from you this whole time because you are to proud to rephrase some things.
Either your a complete @$$, or playing me. Either way, I am sure you have had your fun. I've had mine.
So asking: "Is the tit
March 9, 2007 - 09:42 ET by sarcasmoSo asking: "Is the tithe point to support that the government should tax more than 10%?" somehow-doesn't imply either that I'm for more taxes or that you're not capable of reading what I actually-wrote?? Right...And see your very-first comment on this thread to illustrate your own lack of substance, once you finally got to actual questions, you got answers -- just not the ones you wanted.
JMR
I just want the record to sho
March 9, 2007 - 09:46 ET by dvdaughtryI just want the record to show that I do not agree or disagree with anything Sarcasmo has said. It was a feeble attempt to gain clairity to the matter.
Also let the record show, I still am not sure what his point(s) is/are.
Coulda fooled me...JMR
March 9, 2007 - 09:52 ET by sarcasmoCoulda fooled me...
JMR
dvdaughtry & Sarcasmo -
March 9, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Dee Bunkdvdaughtry & Sarcasmo - I think I understood sarcasmo from the start. Correct me if I'm wrong Sarc, but I believe you had two main points.
1.) He is saying that it's ridiculous that we are required to give more to government than to our place of worship. We trust our religious institutions to use the money we give in ways that are consistent with our values. The Government should not expect more - we should not be expected to trust them more than our place of worship. Religious institutions traditionally ask for 10% and many people have to pay 3 times that much and more to the government.
2.) His other point is that people didn't give Jesus promissory notes from the government - they gave him something of real value. He uses the examples of silver and gold at the beginning and end. People also gave livestock and other things in order to tithe.
If I understand - I definitely agree with the first point and I agree with the premise of the second point but I'm not sure what I believe about the whole paper money thing. I used to be horrified that we didn't back our money with silver and gold anymore, but now I don't think it matters that much. Whether it's silver or gold or paper - it has what ever value everyone agrees to give it.
1. Yes, absulutely. Try to
March 9, 2007 - 13:45 ET by sarcasmo1. Yes, absulutely. Try to imagine being an alien with a Star Trek style translator device visiting us Earthlings & then learning of the difference between the rhetorical importance vs the fiscal importance we seemingly-unquestioningly assign to the Church vs big government. It's weird. And what can I say, religiously & politically, I often DO feel like an alien on a very-strange planet. (I try to ascribe these feelings to The Creator's very-excellent sense of humor, which NB discussed in depth yesterday.)
2. Yes, well-put. A corrolary non-religious point is the Constitutional mention of real money, which -- if we'd adhered to it -- would have functioned as an effective check on the size & growth rate of government IMO. The USA, with the post Civil War "Greenback" crisis, has already experienced a brief taste of the dangers of fiat money, but many folks think "we ain't seen nothin' yet." Part of why I like this guy so-much is fear for our fiscal future in the USA, but I'll admit I've been this way for at least the last 2 decades, since I also voted for the man for President the last chance I had in 1988, too. ;)
Please read the whole long translated JSG Boggs article I referenced (somewhere below?) in this thread, I think you might enjoy it a lot...And you'd love Boggs (all women seem to!) in person, because he's truly hilarious.
JMR
The gold standard is difficul
March 9, 2007 - 13:51 ET by Conservative VoiceThe gold standard is difficult to manage in the foreign currency markets. Currency is a commodity, and thereby has its own market. To tie it to one commodity doesn't make sense, because there are many factors to go into what the dollar is worth. Sometimes gold is down, but the dollar is up (not usually but it happens) hence it creates an imbalance and we would lose.
Thank you for the clairificat
March 9, 2007 - 14:03 ET by dvdaughtryThank you for the clairification Dee.
1.) Now, I too agree that it is ridicuous the gov't requires more taxes than the traditional tithe.
2.) I also agree with the second point, even more so than you do.
3.) I am not educated enough to discuss, inteligently, the history of currency.
4.) I am sorry that it took all of that crap to get to the bottom of this.
Thanks again
I'm wondering what the heck
March 8, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Challenger GrimI'm wondering what the heck's the point of the "hard money" thing. I think I understand your objection to an over zealous (and cumbersome) tax code. Heaven knows I'd love for taxes to be a flat across the board 10%.
Hopefully, the answer above
March 8, 2007 - 16:35 ET by sarcasmoHopefully, the answer above will help. Please try to understand, for people like me it's hard to understand why most people trust paper fiat money so much, especially after the government quit publishing "M3" money supply figures. Maybe it's also from having friends like J.S.G. Boggs, an incredibly-talented IMO artist whose "performance art" plays with peoples' innocent mass-hallucinations regarding the nature of money and who, not-surprisingly, pisses big governments off around the world. (Interestingly, Crane will give Boggs paper which they won't even sell to some governments, because his art functions as a good testing-platform!)
JMR
In Dollar We Trust.
March 8, 2007 - 09:21 ET by BAUHAUSIn Dollar We Trust.
Not all of us...JMR
March 8, 2007 - 09:34 ET by sarcasmoNot all of us...
JMR
Consider both the beginning (
March 8, 2007 - 11:19 ET by GothampcConsider both the beginning (one of the wise men carried gold) & end (30 pieces of silver...) of His life"
Please go back and read your Bible thoroughly. The Bible says that wise men presented Him with gold, frankincense and myrrh. It doesn't say how many wisemen came, nor does it specify who gave what. There could have been two wisemen, there could have been twenty. One could have brought gold or they all could have brought gold. The Bible doesn't specify.
You're right, it doesn't sa
March 8, 2007 - 11:24 ET by sarcasmoYou're right, it doesn't say how many of them carried what item (and note 2 outta 3 of the items weren't monetary, but rather anti-stench!) but that's (way!) beside my point, which was & still-is about the nature of money. At least 1 carried gold.
JMR
Yeah, but my entire point w
March 8, 2007 - 19:22 ET by Challenger GrimYeah, but my entire point was... well of course he'd carry gold, there's not many other monetary forms out there in that time period. Of course, also back then items were far more known not as much for their purpose but also for their price. (hence why so many places in the bible talk about heads of livestock etc) Also it should be noted that one of the gifts was most commonly used in burying rituals.
This article (long, but IMO
March 9, 2007 - 06:55 ET by sarcasmoThis article (long, but IMO interesting) about Boggs the money-artist might give interested readers more about the history & psychology of money in general, as well as a look at how big governments worldwide universally react to the "dangerous" ideas presented in any good art...
JMR
ummm... Why would He be a h
March 8, 2007 - 12:34 ET by Challenger Grimummm... Why would He be a hard money fan if paper money as we know it today wasn't exactly around back then? So by your logic Jesus would also be against the car, the computer, the iPod, hell even the New Testament because He didn't exactly use any of these things (and maybe because they weren't exactly AROUND back then).
Ummm, I agree that some thi
March 8, 2007 - 16:40 ET by sarcasmoUmmm, I agree that some things weren't around, but the beginnings of paper were, and back then they weren't considered money. Also, there's no "logic" proposed above, see the bold-even-for-heavensakes word "maybe."
JMR
Well, I can say "maybe
March 8, 2007 - 19:28 ET by Challenger GrimWell, I can say "maybe" Jesus would be Halo fan like me. And? I'm still not sure what your point was. Paper was actually around for quite awhile before Jesus just not in the form we know it today. Though of course, back then it could be used in place of other goods in place of hard curency (i.e. livestock, fabrics). If you're complaining about substituting one thing for gold, silver etc... well that's been done for many MANY years.
Not THAT "many years,&
March 9, 2007 - 05:32 ET by sarcasmoNot THAT "many years," and "many years" frankly isn't much of an argument. I collected silver change as a kid, and Tricky closed the gold window when I was a teenager. And my point is exactly what I said above, people need to read, it's fundamental.
JMR
Let's see if I can do it an
March 8, 2007 - 16:33 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsLet's see if I can do it and get-under everyone's skin this morning?
Sarc, nothing there that gets under my skin, besides the reminder of my (unfair) tax obligations.
D
Not yours, maybe, but I obv
March 8, 2007 - 16:44 ET by sarcasmoNot yours, maybe, but I obviously got a few! :)
JMR
"If he were alive today&
March 8, 2007 - 08:40 ET by Dad Gummit"If he were alive today"??????
Jesus IS conservative. Judas was the first liberal. Remember when Mary M was washing Jesus' feet, and Judas admonished her for it, saying how they could have taken her expensive perfume, sold it to help the poor? (No doubt skimming a little for himself)
Another example of his conservatism is when a poor crippled fellow was absorbed in his own self pity. Jesus said "You want to walk? Get up and walk." -This meant the guy had to take some action on his own.
Get up and walk.
"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left"-Ecclesiastes 10:2
Good point, Dad Gummit. Gr
March 8, 2007 - 09:49 ET by CrimsonfistedGood point, Dad Gummit.
Uh, Father, most Christians believe He IS alive today, hence we celebrate Easter. Didn't they teach you that in school or were you absent that day?
WhatAMaroon
NBC = Nothing but Boring Crap.
March 8, 2007 - 09:05 ET by Dave RThe liberal media steadfastly refuses to report the truth about Mohammed, (after all, we wouldn't want to offend the 7th Century barbarians who want to kill us) but they will say (make up?) things about Jesus that have no Biblical or historical basis whatsoever.
This is nothing more than thinly disquised (as in transparrent) anti-Christian bigotry put forth by the Never miss a chance to Bash Christians network.
I thought so-called "Fat
March 8, 2007 - 09:43 ET by TEI thought so-called "Father" Greeley recently died.
we pray for Fr. Greeley
March 8, 2007 - 12:49 ET by tumbler_2007Pray for his soul; likely it waits in purgatory still. A long wait.
Radical feminists? Those pe
March 8, 2007 - 09:51 ET by MidAmericaRadical feminists? Those people still around?
That movement got it's big start in the 70's. As a young man I enjoyed the part where they went bra-less to show their independence. And then see-through blouses became fashionable. I was beginning to be influenced by this uhhhh... movement.
But I digress. Angry, screaching, man hating women (remind you of a particular present day presidential candidate?) were the 'new' force to be reckoned with. That is until Bill Clinton arrived on the scene. He left them with a choice, attack him and bring him down or turn away from their principles. They chose to put their aprons back on and go bake cookies.
That is true, Rush did a lot
March 9, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Conservative VoiceThat is true, Rush did a lot to expose the feminists and President Clinton forced their hand....we haven't heard much from them anymore, because everyone knows that even though they were out to hang Clarence Thomas, on the charge from Anita Hill...they were silent for Clinton.
Why is it so difficult to see
March 8, 2007 - 10:09 ET by dvdaughtryWhy is it so difficult to see that Jesus is the standard and we (mankind) fail to live up to it?
He was not radical because his ideals were so far fetched. Jesus was radical because the people of his time were so obstenate. Those Jews, at the time, hardly got anything right about the Law at the time.
Jesus came, set the record straight, and exposed the truth of the matter. I think that the feminists today would have a hard time excepting the pro-life, sacrificial, servant hood life that Jesus protrayed.