View Single Post
  #88  
Old 07-29-2012, 10:47 AM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Huh? Anger and emotional attachment? Where? Since it was Mags and myself who responded after your last post, I assume you mean us? I certainly am not angry...

Likewise, I see no anger in Magdlyn's post. She was simply and rationally adding her thoughts to the conversation. It is a topic she has studied for quite a while, after all, and she is very knowledgeable in this area.

Methinks you place far more importance on your posts and how people respond to them than what actually exists.
This.

I felt no anger when writing my earlier response. I merely presented my viewpoint on the potential importance of the Tanakh to those that practice Christianity. What you seem to dismiss as mere history and legalism is actually extremely important to me as a Gnostic seeker. Also, Utah, you seem to have little understanding of Biblical historical criticism. If you intent to preach the proper understanding of Abrahamic Scripture to fundamentalists who seem mired in "legalism," I suggest you brush up on your Biblical history.

Anyone with an interest (or belief) in Christianity has their own version of Christ, which is why I said "your Christ." If you do not ID as a Christian while professing to be a "Christian minister," I find that confusing.

Bravo to you for being a preacher coming from an inter-religion perspective (Christian/Buddhist/rune thrower that you seem to be). I am coming from a similar spiritual practice. I do not "hate religion" at all. I find the differing ways ancient cultures perceived and wrote about the Divine to be quite fascinating.

On topic, in my post above, I also attempted to point out the hidden clues that Jesus was married, and was even shown to be polygynous in the story of Mary and Martha of Bethany.

NYCindie and I were a bit taken aback (not angry or emotionally attached) to your seeming attempt to guide this conversation in what you think of as a proper direction. I think it showed a bit of arrogance and lack of respect to the members posting here, as well as a lack of respect for Tanakh and the struggles of the ancient Hebrews to found and maintain their tribal solidarity through their Holy Scriptures.

"Loving us all," is all very well, but you show lack of respect here, which seems counter to your purpose.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote