Goddess

I have a friend who is a Gnostic Bishop with a Sanctuary in CA. I like gnosticism. It's closest to what I understand.

Jehovah Unmasked explains the Gnostic version of the creation account.

Have you read "Jehovah Unmasked" by Nathaniel J. Merritt? You likely have.

Reasoning on this pretty much made me give up on the idea of organized religion. Tree of life was guarded by an angel with a flaming sword? Before swords were invented....... The Bible story of A & E seems to be that we are nothing but pawns in a giant bet between Satan and God - God bets that humans will be loyal to him under pressure and Satan bets they will not. Having once been a JW (for most of my life) the blood transfusion issue is one that still peeves me. When the nations around Israel were sacrificing their children to Molech, God said that such a thing never entered into his heart and Israel was not to so the same. Yet JW's sacrifice their children to their God in the name of blood transfusions and don't see the similarity.

Parents make choices for their children all the time. If a parent chooses to raise jihadiis, then let them eat the consequences of that. It's not even comparable to say deliberately raising your kids to be terrorist killers and hauling them off to a battlefield is the same as forcing them in a hijab. Smarten up. Actually I brought this up before on this forum. Why were his parents allowed to raise jihaddis and drag them off to the battlefields? Because there isn't one of you here that would ever allow the government to interfere in what a Muslim parent chooses for their children. I also asked why the family who did this to him is allowed to continue living in Canada, and continue promoting jihadi/terrorist ideals. Again, there isn't one of you here that would allow any governmental interference in Muslim beliefs. I'm not the one supporting parents who do this to their children. You support them by not allowing it happen, but advocating a completely "hands off" approach to Muslim extremism.

Since we allow them to drift back and forth between barbarism and progressiveness, using both to their advantage. They want to kill without impugnity AND be protected from the consequences. I do not agree.

Yet, you have no problem letting Muslims play both sides. I'm just saying - let them make the choice - which the Khadr's did. They CHOSE to not live under our progresive treatment. You're the one advocating that Muslims should be able to do whatever they want - drift back and forth between the two worlds, acording to whatever benefits them the most at the time, AND pay terrorists millions of dollars. You're the one with the double standards.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm advocating. It's relevant because this is the mentality of the people we are dealing with. If they want to train their children to be killers before they are adults, then why should they get to fall back on the "But, he's just a child" arguement after they get caught and demand payments be made? Kind of like having your cake and eating it too. They chose to NOT live under our more progressive treatment. I have a problem with them actively choosing to live this way and then demanding special treatment and cash when it doesn't work out.

According to Islam, he was.

http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/26/islam-party-stirs-controversy-ahead-of-belgian-elections Belgium will get its one chance to fight back against this in the next election. But the article points out there are 780,000 Muslims in Belgium. This article adds some detail https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12203/belgium-islamic-state Perhaps its time for the world to wake up. The empty platitudes about how Islam is no threat to the West and that Muslims do not want to bring religious extremism to other countries is nothing but lies - I doubt it's the Belgium people who are supporting this party and leading its rise to power - so who is?

But.......but........their "rights"!

I think this is great - tackling the extremism in the religion AND the culture that perpetuates the violence. I hope they are able to make some progress. I imagine that the people who insist Muslim extremism has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion or culture think this is pretty stupid though.

I think that's what we're all wondering.

I don't think it's the sole cause. I think men's emotional and physical attributes have always been accomodated in the workplace. Traditionally, in our patriarchal society, women's emotional and physical attributes have not been accomodated. We're working on it, but it's slow. I'm also not sure that men's ability to work long overtime hours while ignoring their families has been a positive thing for society. Or for men.

I read a book about how archaeologists are finding more and more that women were a valued part of hunter/gatherer societies. The men would hunt occassionally, but not always successfully. Tribes relied on the gathering, agriculture and hunting of small prey done by women and it did not just "supplement" what the men were doing. It was in integral, valueable part of survival. The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory - by Adovasio, Soffer & Page

Men and women ARE different and are interested in different careers. (In general) I think the difference is that the fields and careers that women are more likely to go into, are not VALUED by society, because it has always been patriarchal. I'm thinking specifically of the healing, teaching or caregiving careers. It is mostly women who do the caretaking - of children, of the elderly, of men when they are injured or sick or elderly. The problem to me is that the work that women do, while beneficial to society, is not VALUED by our patriarchal society. And this is reflected in the "wage gap".

Why do we even have a border any more? Why bother having the RCMP there? If we're just going to let anyone who wants to walk into Canada and start getting freebies, we could at least save some $$ by not having the RCMP at the borders - it's not like they're there to enforce anything.

Related story: http://www.dw.com/en/2000-berliners-wear-skullcaps-to-protest-anti-semitism/a-43537545

If you want an apples to apples comparison: A lab tech is in a burning science laboratory, the fire was her fault. Who do you rescue - the female lab tech or the petri dish of cells?

I saw this posted today and I checked his numbers RE: the spills.

Saskatchewan is prepared to cut BC off, too, now. http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/saskatchewan-issues-threat-of-its-own-to-b-c-as-trans-mountain-pipeline-battle-escalates

I like this guy: Clarence Louie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Louie We need to clone him 600 times and send him out to all the "nations". Google some of the articles written about him - he's an interesting character.

I think it's very sad that you completely miss the point of what Jesus was saying here. He was not addressing the issue of homosexuality, nor identifying or classifying the sexes. No matter how you try to twist the above words - homosexuality was not what was being discussed here, nor was that the main point of Jesus' comments. Your giant red lettering is not emphasizing the main point Jesus was making and also does not prove your point that Jesus hates gays. In fact, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and neither should those who profess to follow him. No mental gymnastics, no fun with words, no inferring necessary.