What if I was offended?

If flowers offend you then you have more problems than I thought.

And I thought you had quite a few.

Have Hunin light a candle.

fark you pisswillie.

I do.

(Sorry to be a bother)

I awoke one Easter morn
To a golden dawn aglow;
And a rabbit with a rainbow basket
Through my garden did quietly go.

With colorful eggs asunder
Pray thee, I shall not blunder;
With daffodil and lily in hand
Onto my porch he did softly land.

Imagination? for surely it must be
But how could this hare possibly foresee?
Whence his basket I had grasped
And with chocolate within
An Eternal grin companioned
A heart full of glee.

I guess the boys want yer attnetion now anyway.

It's no bother. I was informed one has to learn to put up with it, and I guess I have. Yet another thing I've learned on the internet. How to have a bit tougher skin.

Go get someone to wash your feet, maybe that will help!!!

Well geez. And I went out of my way to be nice.

I've wondered the same thing about lots of stuff... even the cross symbol.

Or the obscene Passion jewelry that was put out after the movie? Step right up! Get yer christ! get yer passion jewelry! $58 will get you a silver nail!



http://www.sharethepassionofthechrist.com/jewelry.asp#Nail

The cross is a Roman implement of torture.

I remember asking a certain church official about certain biblical passages. One in particular in which Jesus supposedly said for all that would follow him to take up their cross. Well todays equivalent might be to 'take up your electric chair" for instance.

Well I have two problems with that particular passage. One is that the passage seemed particularly precognizant, which isnt such a huge streatch with the Son of God, but the other was the symbolism. Why would Jesus insist that his followers "take up their own cross" an implement of torture/capital punishment, to follow him? Is living right so bad? Especially in light of all of his messages?

Taking up your own cross --- to me can be seen in different ways, it's just according to how you choose to read it. Fundamentalism, in Protestantism, insisting on the rigid adherence, inerrancy (everyone thinks his way is exempt from error), of the Scripture has always been a difficult and devisive feat. I think it has been the multiplication table of so many country Baptist churches in the Bible belt. It is a religious movement that arose among conservative members of various Protestant denominations early in the 20th cent., with the object of maintaining traditional interpretations of the Bible and of the doctrines of the Christian faith in the face of Darwinian evolution, secularism, and the emergence of liberal theology. Interpretation seems to have been the center of most splits in the Baptist congregations! IMOFWIW

Alright Bee! Didn't know you knew about Rolling Stones. It's saturday for a bit longer so I can rant unrepentedly. Send me dead flowers in the mourning... and I won't forget to put roses on your grave.

Well again it is the symbolism that gets me. Metaphor, what have you. And yes Jesus spoke in so many parables and so much of Hebrew (especially under Roman occupation) literature was full of symbolism and multiple meanings. All these confusing images and such.

I just figure God told Moses to tell the rest of us certain things, probably the most important things. I have always wondered if the Ten Commandments were in order of importance, because in reading the old testament it kinda seemed that way, at least in light of the occasions when God got fed up with the way humans were acting and "smited" them.

smote

Smit; smite; smote. LOLOLOL

spanked.

thats what I meant to say.

A__holes.

smitten, smiten', smoten'

smite (smīt)

v., smote (smōt), smit·ten (smĭt'n) or smote, smit·ing, smites. - smit'er n.

alabammy

I been smitten before. It's kinda fun.



(Wasn't God that did it, tho. It was a fine set of green eyes.)

spanked,smacked, biffed, whacked.

Careful. I'll do you like Jesus in a Mel Gibson movie.

I smit.
You smite.
They smote.

I'll smoke.

Judas Saves
Why the lost gospel makes sense.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Thursday, April 13, 2006, at 3:37 PM ET

Reassembling fragments of the Gospel of Judas

Reassembling fragments of the Gospel of Judas
I don't normally mind offending holy men, but I can remember feeling absolutely aghast at the injured look that spread across the fine features of the Coptic Archbishop of Eritrea as we sat in his quarters in Asmara in 1993. Was it true, I had asked him, that in the Coptic Christian tradition Judas was considered to be a saint? He jumped like a pea on a hot shovel and, when he had regained his composure, demanded to know how I could possibly have heard such a wicked rumor. Nothing more profane could be imagined than this perversion of the Easter story. (Looking back, I think I may have misunderstood something I read in Graham Greene.)

Nonetheless, the idea of a sacred Judas always seemed rational to me, at least in Christian terms. The New Testament tells us firmly that Jesus went to Jerusalem at Passover to die and to fulfill certain ancient prophecies by doing so. How could any agent of this process, witting or unwitting, be acting other than according to the divine will? It did seem odd to me that the Jewish elders and the Romans required someone to identify Jesus for them, since according to the story he was already a rather well-known figure, but that was a secondary objection.

Now we have, recovered from the desert of Egypt, a 26-page "Gospel of Judas," written in Coptic script about 300 years after the events it purportedly describes. This fragment may or may not be related to the "Nag Hammadi library"—a collection of gospels, including those of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, that were unearthed near an ancient Egyptian monastery in 1945. Sometimes known as the "Gnostic" texts, they are the ones that were rejected as noncanonical when the early church made its vain attempt to standardize Christian dogma. Given how many discrepancies there are between the four remaining Gospels of the New Testament, one can almost sympathize with Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who in an Easter letter in the fourth century tried to boil down the number of approved books to 27.


http://www.slate.com/id/2139781/nav/tap1/

Fighting some nebulous idea like Nazism, or maybe communism in the cold war?



Another quote from the Davis New Revised Version of the Bible....with the red lettering.

It always seemed to me that Judas was merely preforming a preordained part--thus how could he be evil?

And this is a good point:



Pretty much.

your addition not mine. I don't like people who claim to be followers of christ lying blatantly. You think you're cute but you're just sad.

LOOKS LIKE BIX AND THE GOOD GENERAL ARE AT ODDS:

General Anthony Zinni:

"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000.

"Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni said, in quotes unearthed Friday by the American Thinker blog.

MUST BE ANOTHER SIMPLE MINDED GENERAL TO HAVE SAID THAT.

March 15th, 2000, eh?

6 years ago.

Time has proven the good general's comments to be WRONG.

Sorry, I don't buy into the hype, and I never have.

But I do think it's too bad that so many others have.

That concerns me, not Iraq, et. al.

6 years ago....

As for your comments regarding Nazi Germany...yes, Nazism was an "idea", and in order to inflict that idea on others, they had what was called a "war machine", JT. A very large & well funded industrial complex from which of all sorts of weaponry (tanks, airplanes, u-boats, battleships, etc., etc., etc.) were mass produced, which were then given to a huge, well-trained standing army to be used against whomever tried to thwart their highly organized territorial invasion plans.

Osama has an "idea"....and a crazy moron with plastic explosives and some duct tape.

Can you grasp the difference?

Remember who put the gospels together and also their "motives" - one was, they needed a scapegoat** in The Crucifixion, and they wanted a Jew - and Judas was chosen. Remember the hierarchy who picked/culled/selected the writings which were to be contained within "The Book"!

**One that is made to bear the blame of others.

--Bible-- a live goat over whose head Aaron confessed all the sins of the children of Israel on the Day of Atonement. The goat, symbolically bearing their sins, was then sent into the wilderness.

That has to be one of the stupidest Jewish conspiracy theories I've ever seen.





Yo JT, you read ANYTHING by Zinni since the administration focked up the occupation?

He sure doesn't support any of your positions.

There is an interesting discussion on Meet the Press about religion, morality and politics.

I can't wait for the transcripts. The sister nails the rightwing. How they cling to certain religious principles then turn around an sanction corporate greed, pre-emptive war ect.

The father seems all rightwing.

Yes, being smitten by a fine set of green eyes is always preferable to being smited by a flaming set of red ones.





Happy Easter, muy bonita Bee....



I hope you & the monkey have a truly wonderful day!

wot?






Thanks, you have a good Easter, too. Mr. Bix.
She got a Bordeaux Egg in her basket, I'm going to try and wheedle a bite.

Yes, Davis, did you hear Rabbi Michael Lerner speak about the redistribution of all individually accumulated wealth every fifty years to be done in accordance with the scriptures? Also for many years and could still be, Lerner was HiLIARy's guru! He is rather a big socialist in his political thinking! Lerner is a political activist, and the editor of Tikkun, a prominent left-wing Jewish bimonthly magazine based in San Francisco, California. He was the leader of the prominent anti-Vietnam War group Seattle Liberation Front ("Seattle Seven"). but to be fair he was in favor of the Gulf War in 1991.




I was surprised to see him on Tim's show since most other Jews do not cater to his ilk!

You guys would listen to a general that was wrong? He's ok now that he has come to your position.

6 years ago? yeah yeah.

bush said 6 years ago no nation building, then he changed his plan....and you say he lied.

But Zinnin isnt a liar as well for changing his?

Move the goal posts again for the old liberal double standard...........


P

A

T

H

E

T

I

C

It might not be so bad.

It could be that christians merely wanted to distance themselvess. They were inviting pagans and gentiles "into the fold" and that didn't sit well with the Jews.

It is a sad thought that the demonization of Judas led to so much evil.

JT, you're just full of crap. You wouldn't recognize the truth if it spoke from a burning bush. What is your mental malfunction?

Jeez.

Depends upon how one is raised.

You are mosrepresenting what he said. He said the rightwing adheres to scripture that benefits them but when you bring up stuff like redistribution they ignore it. You totally lied about his point. You and JT are birds of a feather.

Did she mention the Kennedys, by chance?






September 17, 2004

TOO RICH TO BE DEMOCRATS?

What the annual report on the 50 Richest In Congress Tells Us

I rang up a senior Democratic strategist of my acquaintance yesterday, and when I called he was fuming over the latest annual report--just out from Roll Call-- on the 50 Richest Members of Congress (I'll give you the link to their analysis, but unless you've forked out the $265 annual sub fee to the thrice-weekly Capitol Hill paper, you won't be able to access it). Growled my friend (who spends his working days trying to figure out how to elect people with a "D" after their name): "These jokers are too rich to be Democrats!"

Here are some of Roll Call's findings:

To make the 50 Richest in Congress list this year, "today's elite must have at least $4.8 million - 50 percent more" than last year.

Congressional Democrats , you may be surprised to learn, tend to be wealthier than the Republicans-- the Democrats "cluster in the upper echelons of this list. This, along with their smaller number of Members, means that Democrats hold a higher average amount of wealth per Member of Congress on the list. Even when Kerry's average-skewing $1 billion is eliminated from the equation, Democrats still average $55.6 million per Member on the list, while the Republicans average $34.8 million per Member on the list."

Of the top six on the Richest list, five are Democrats. The wealthiest person in Congress is, natch, the Democrats' nominee for president. Kerry and his wife "are worth, by conservative estimates, at least $900 million and possibly as much as $3.2 billion." (That's the estimate from the L.A. Times inquest into the John-and-Teresa fortune).

All of the Congressional wealth estimates are, of course, low-ball figures--members of Congress are only required to declare a range of their holdings. And, notes Roll Call, "Kerry's disclosure forms are at best vague. Whenever possible, the Senator uses the category 'Over $1 million' instead of a category that might give a more definitive sense of his wealth, such as '$5 million to $25 million.'" The paper goes on to tell us that, "Further complicating the process of making estimates is the fact that many of Kerry's wife's assets are kept separate from her husband's, and that he refuses to discuss the family's wealth, on the grounds that it is a private family matter. In addition to the many millions Kerry and his wife own in stock, they also have a fair amount of money tied up in real estate. Their properties include a $5 million home in Idaho, a $9 million beachfront property in Nantucket, Mass. and a $4 million estate in Pennsylvania."

The third richest man in Congress is the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commitee, Jon Corzine of New Jersey. Only Kerry and GOP Rep. Amo Houghton--the Corning heir--are ahead of him. But Houghton is retiring this year, meaning that Corzine is really Number Two. The bearded Corzine "made his millions as chairman of Goldman Sachs. Although he stated as a candidate that he would divest himself of the stock, he still has declared at least $25 million in stock as well as smaller amounts in Goldman Sachs-run funds." (And remember, these are low-ball numbers).

Goldman Sachs, you'll remember, turned a rapacious profit in Third World usury, making out like bandits under Corzine's chairmanship from, among other things, the U.S.-financed Mexican bailout--and Corzine hasn't lost his eye for foreign profits. Roll Call reports he's got investments in Argentina and in Japanese banks. Corzine has been moderately liberal, but he bought himself his Senate seat by self-financing his campaign (with an assist from his check-bundling Wall Street buddies). As one Democratic county chairman in the Garden State told me when I covered the primary Corzine bought, "I don't object to Corzine, I object to the idea of Corzine."

Rounding out the richest six are Democratic Senators Herb Kohl of Wisconsin (#4, with at least $275 million) and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia (#5, with a minimum of $200 million), and California Rep. Jane Harmon (#6, conservatively worth $117.1 milllion). And we shouldn't forget the Democrats' leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi--#17 at a paltry $16 million.

But the entry that really sent my Democratic strategist friend ballistic was the one for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat. La Rosa--tied for #48 on the Richest list--gets the lion's share of her wealth from her husband--Clintonista pollster and campaign strategist Stan Greenberg. Says Roll Call, "DeLauro's primary asset is a 67-percent stake in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., a Washington-based firm run by her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Her share in the company nets the Representative $5 million to $25 million. She has a partial stake in two other polling/consulting firms. The first is Greenberg Research, of which she and her husband own 100 percent, and Sun Surveys, in which she owns a 60 percent stake. Neither of these is as lucrative as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, however."

My bud the political warhorse snorted, "Hell, she first ran for Congress she didn't have a dime--I was one of her biggest contributors. And Stan Greenberg, who worked for me back when he was starting out, used to have holes in his socks!" Noting that Congressional wealth is usually closer to the higher than to the lower estimates on the disclosure forms, my dour Democrat gasped, "That means they're making around $50 million! These people shouldn't be running Democratic campaigns!"

So, if you want to know why the national Democrats seem, in this campaign, to have a tin ear where touching the hearts and minds of the working stiffs is concerned, think about this: the three partners in the Democracy Corps--Greenberg, James Carville, and Kerry's chief message-shaper Bob Shrum--are all multimillionaires. And yet their counsel--proferred in an endless series of free Democracy Corps memos distributed to the party elite well before and during the presidential primaries, whose content (or lack of it) they helped shape--is taken as gospel by Democratic liberals feverish for victory. Well, as the old Texas populist Maury Maverick Jr. used to say, "a liberal is a power junkie without the power."

Yo LP, I don't care what you spam. Republicans are for the rich. That's the bottom line. You can throw out all kinds of bs, including Cheney gives millions to charity, and none of it means a damned thing because of the sheer scale of their criminal enterprise. They are as bad or worse than the mafia because they use their governmental powers and religion to cover their crimes. It's a shame greedy weasels like them are able to get away with it. And people like you support these heartless vermin.

Happy Easter all.

I've tried to stay out of this folder for the most part.

But I'll return to share that during Easter service, I was reminded of how much people focus on the minor angles of Christianity and the foibles of its adherents. Extreme examples on getting caught up in the "thick of thin things" or "majoring in minor points"

The essence of Christianity is Christ, cruicified as a sacrifice for sin, and resurrected as a promise of our own eventual victory over death.

Using him as an example of pacifism or conqueror or of Republican "family values" or Democratic "concern for the poor" misses the point entirely. Taking a piece of God to use as a puppet for our own purpose, rather than surrendering ourselves as willing servants for HIS greater purpose.

I've been guilty of same. Just sharing my Easter "epiphany" with a community of friends.

Once more, Happy Easter.

We can all, always use a new beginning, padre.

Happy Easter

you really are tragically aware of our shortcomings, aren't you?

even with the self-deprecating nod to your own transgressions, you really need to get over yourself.

Happy Easter...

Like it or not, Jesus as portrayed in the scriptures was(is:~) pacifist... it's not jUSt a political point... it's reality.