Thursday, April 23, 2009
does facebook kill this blog?
yes, does facebook kill this blog? Nobody reads it, anyway. facebook has already killed myspace -- shed no tears for that. it was pretty boring and static. I will soon cancel my page there. facebook is much more interactive, and allows in only those pre-approved. it's certainly been more fun to use than myspace. so this blog might lay dormant for quite a while -- who needs to talk to an empty room? see you on facebook -- if i let you in.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
umbrella
The word umbrella is from the Latin word umbra, which in turn derives from the Ancient Greek ómbros (όμβρος). Its meaning is shade or shadow. Brolly is a slang word for umbrella, used often in Britain, New Zealand and Australia. Bumbershoot is a fanciful Americanism from the late 19th century.
all gods
let's just believe in all the gods. every one of them. they're all true and real!!! hooray!!!! all gods, goddesses, angels, demons, devils, spirits, sprites, fairies, elves, ghosts. yup, all of them. there, problems solved!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
trumpet or sax?
Which do you prefer for jazz? trumpet or sax? Which is better? What are the differences?
Monday, April 6, 2009
god topic getting dull
maybe that's enough on god and belief for a while. i've got it figured out well enough for now, and I'd hate to sound like a sappy god freak with a crazy smile going on about god is love and all that. i don't believe in the conventional sense and i'll leave it at that. i'm not alone in this at all. millions of others refuse to be defined by stale terms and obsolete ideologies. I'll read the Psalms when I feel the urge to, and continue to study bible topics for my class.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
need another entry
I need another entry to get rid of the I blank in god entry on top. i don't like the way it looks.
one thing is this; why does paul worry so much about perfection and absolute salvation? he claims that following torah, and doing good works, is an impossible way to be righteous with god. in other words, he believe that salvation through works in impossible -- because there are so many rules to follow in torah that no one will ever live a perfect life. his solution is jesus -- faith in jc brings salvation through faith, a salvation independent of works and permanent. once saved, always saved, no matter what the person does. am i reading paul right? you see, his hangup is with this obsession with perfection. he seems to think that a Jew who didn't perfectly follow the teachings of torah does not have righteousness with god -- he thinks there is some problem.
lighten up, paul! God, yahweh, is merciful. he sets up rules for behavior for his chosen people -- yes. but is everyone who falls short with one little mistake condemned? nope. where do you get that, paul?
i think paul's big idea was to universalize judaism for all humanity. hey, not a bad concept. he thought that following the rules of torah was too hard for people, so he uses faith in jc as a substitute -- that's the "new covenant."
is there some greek mind at work here? the obsession with unattainable perfection? the lack of respect for good deeds on earth?
Let's remember that most of his letters were written in the 50s CE -- and all before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE by the romans. So he's commenting on Temple based judaism -- with animal sacrifices, etc. One with pharisees, sadducees, essenes, and others. Maybe we wanted a more portable judaism -- one not dependent on temple offerings and sacrifices. How could the Roman empire accept Jerusalem as the center of religious worship?
His flip from fanatic pharisee to fanatic christian, i think, was caused by his realization that the resurrected christ concept solves this problem of creating a universal non-temple, non-torah based "judaism." Jesus is a functional component of the system. It doesn't matter what else Jesus said or did -- what matters is that he is the resurrected Messiah. That could explain paul's lack of interest in the life of jc. That's why it wasn't important for him to consult with the apostles -- it didn't matter to paul what they had to say -- they weren't jesus.
His main interest was to convert the roman empire to a sort of judaism -- a sort that he, paul, invented once he saw how believing in the resurrected jesus as messiah and bringer of a new covenant would put his system in operation.
so, what do you think?
one thing is this; why does paul worry so much about perfection and absolute salvation? he claims that following torah, and doing good works, is an impossible way to be righteous with god. in other words, he believe that salvation through works in impossible -- because there are so many rules to follow in torah that no one will ever live a perfect life. his solution is jesus -- faith in jc brings salvation through faith, a salvation independent of works and permanent. once saved, always saved, no matter what the person does. am i reading paul right? you see, his hangup is with this obsession with perfection. he seems to think that a Jew who didn't perfectly follow the teachings of torah does not have righteousness with god -- he thinks there is some problem.
lighten up, paul! God, yahweh, is merciful. he sets up rules for behavior for his chosen people -- yes. but is everyone who falls short with one little mistake condemned? nope. where do you get that, paul?
i think paul's big idea was to universalize judaism for all humanity. hey, not a bad concept. he thought that following the rules of torah was too hard for people, so he uses faith in jc as a substitute -- that's the "new covenant."
is there some greek mind at work here? the obsession with unattainable perfection? the lack of respect for good deeds on earth?
Let's remember that most of his letters were written in the 50s CE -- and all before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE by the romans. So he's commenting on Temple based judaism -- with animal sacrifices, etc. One with pharisees, sadducees, essenes, and others. Maybe we wanted a more portable judaism -- one not dependent on temple offerings and sacrifices. How could the Roman empire accept Jerusalem as the center of religious worship?
His flip from fanatic pharisee to fanatic christian, i think, was caused by his realization that the resurrected christ concept solves this problem of creating a universal non-temple, non-torah based "judaism." Jesus is a functional component of the system. It doesn't matter what else Jesus said or did -- what matters is that he is the resurrected Messiah. That could explain paul's lack of interest in the life of jc. That's why it wasn't important for him to consult with the apostles -- it didn't matter to paul what they had to say -- they weren't jesus.
His main interest was to convert the roman empire to a sort of judaism -- a sort that he, paul, invented once he saw how believing in the resurrected jesus as messiah and bringer of a new covenant would put his system in operation.
so, what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)