Cobol - Re: What Jews believe

Author

Re: What Jews believe

James J. Gavan

2008-02-18, 6:56 pm

Judson McClendon wrote:
> "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, that was a mistype, it should have been Matthew 23:9:
>
> (Matthew 23:9 NASB)
> And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
> (Matthew 23:9 NKJV)
> Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
> (Matthew 23:9 KJV)
> Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your
> Father, He who is in heaven.
>
> (Matthew 23:9 RSV)
> And call no man your father on earth, for you have one
> Father, who is in heaven.
>
> Unless one distorts the clear context, that is an explicit injunction
> in the words of Christ against calling anyone on earth "father," in
> a decidedly spiritual and/or authoritative context. One might
> reasonably interpret it not to mean biological fathers, because
> that relationship is true for them in both the biological and
> authoritative sense, as instituted by God Himself. The Bible even
> calls biological fathers by that name (e.g. John 2, where both God
> and humans are called "father"). But if it means anything at all, it
> would have to at least mean "father" as used in a spiritual and/or
> authoritative sense. Since Roman Catholic priests are specifically
> called "father" in a spiritual and authoritative sense (as celibates
> they can't be anyone's father in any other sense), I can't see how
> this is not a direct contradiction of the words of Christ, hence my
> question.

Are you on pot or something ? That last paragraph is so patently absurd,
with your play on words. Phone the pope at Vat 69 and politely suggest
we Rat Catchers use one of the terms padre, papa, parson, Mr. Priest or
whatever, to ensure we don't offend anyone's sensibilities by using the
term 'father'.

>
> There are many other issues that appear clear cut to me, but this one
> is so direct, simple and unambiguous that I thought it would be a
> good example.

So that one crazy example above explains your confusion; go see a
doctor, (trick cyclist).

Jimmy

Clark F Morris

2008-02-19, 9:55 pm

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:49:31 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Clark F Morris wrote:
>
>It's the same in the UK. Mind you even if the padre was a group captain
>(brigadier), we always called the Catholic padre 'Father'; sometimes we
>might throw in a 'sir'.
>
>In the RAF we had to do periodic physical counts from our personnel
>records arriving at totals for :-
>
>- C of E(ngland) = Anglicans
>- Roman Catholics
>- OD (Other Denominations) - that would have included Jerry if he had
>been in the RAF. Guess this one included Agnostics and Atheists as well.
>
>Where camps in UK didn't have padres but were 'serviced' by civilian
>honorary chaplains, these returns determined what the Air Ministry paid
>them, based on the headcount. Overseas of course there were
>chaplains/padres. With the sunset on the British Empire, apart from
>Afghanistan, I don't think there can be too many British military
>overseas (???), so chaplains wouldn't be warranted.
>
>Clark, I'm assuming you are in the East, but for Bill's info, and I
>referred to this a couple of years back. Homosexuality was going to
>create a problem in the Anglican church, certainly the Canadian branch.
>Female priests seem to be acceptable. What's the opposite of padre,
>'Mater' ?
>
>I already knew that Anglicans in Africa and South America are very
>conservative in their thinking, and their cultural beliefs apparently
>don't accept homosexuality, which isn't to say that homosexuality isn't
>practiced on those Continents.
>
>However, one at least and perhaps a couple of other churches in
>Vancouver, B.C., don't buy into the acceptance of homosexuality; I think
>the tipping point was the ordination of homosexuals. What's happening
>now ? They, (the rebels), are opting out of Canadian Anglicanism and are
>going to submit, at arm's length, to some bishop(s) in South America.

I think that it is one of the African dioceses that the Vancouver
churches are looking to. When Baptists split from their convention,
they keep the church because the local congregations own the property
and hire and fire all employees. As a Baptist, I therefore look upon
the travails of my Anglican co-religionists from a different
perspective. Schisms among Baptists are not exactly unknown. We also
have been accused of being a part of disorganized religion.

Clark Morris, formerly a member of a church in the American Baptist
Churches of the USA and now a member of a church in the Atlantic
Baptist Convention, a part of the Canadian Baptist Convention.
>
>I guess when the switch occurs, the Vancouverites are going to have to
>learn to say :-
>
>"Por favor, Padre"
>
>so they don't step on somebody's toes.
>
>It will be messy because the Vancouver diocese, while unhappy about this
>change of allegiance has already pointedly said, they, (the rebels),
>wont be taking their church property (buildings) with them. Ughh !
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>As Tweety Pie used to say, "That's all folks !". I only popped in here
>this past w

, just out of curiosity, to see what was going on. Perhaps
>I'll take a look in July. By then the religious threads will be dead,
>hopefully ! It's off-topic. but if somebody asks, "How does this work in
>your religion ....", It's an honest question. However once you start
>proclaiming dogma or challenge somebody else's dogma, it's a
>non-starter, and you can put money on it, no-one is going to be
>convinced and convert to another belief system.
>
>Jimmy, Calgary

Sponsored Links