Comments on: ‘The DaVinci Code’: for the honour of women. http://troygrisgonelle.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-davinci-code-for-the-honour-of-women/ Learning; thinking; choosing ... every moment. Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:45:56 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Paul Bartley http://troygrisgonelle.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-davinci-code-for-the-honour-of-women/#comment-1908 Paul Bartley Wed, 14 May 2008 13:55:49 +0000 http://troygrisgonelle.wordpress.com/?p=199#comment-1908 Hey Troy, Thanks for the post, it was thought-provoking and good just for remembering a little about the book. Thanks for your call as well, I was just phoning about the motorbike test-rides but we didn't go anyway. Dave and I just put some speakers in his car; the last ones had blown. At least, the left one had. I haven't read it nor heard a summary of its ideas, but have you heard of "Sex God" by Rob Bell? It might be related and interesting. Peace Paul Hey Troy,

Thanks for the post, it was thought-provoking and good just for remembering a little about the book. Thanks for your call as well, I was just phoning about the motorbike test-rides but we didn’t go anyway. Dave and I just put some speakers in his car; the last ones had blown. At least, the left one had.

I haven’t read it nor heard a summary of its ideas, but have you heard of “Sex God” by Rob Bell? It might be related and interesting.

Peace

Paul

]]> By: charliesummers http://troygrisgonelle.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-davinci-code-for-the-honour-of-women/#comment-1904 charliesummers Tue, 13 May 2008 19:54:26 +0000 http://troygrisgonelle.wordpress.com/?p=199#comment-1904 Much too early for such heavy topics. My mistakes were: 1. Mary Magdalene is in the New Testament, not the Old 2. platform, not plateform 3. "FOP" fear of pontificating 4. Switching tenses I would love to correct the mistakes, but apparently that is not possible. So please forgive my errors. Charlie Summers Much too early for such heavy topics. My mistakes were:
1. Mary Magdalene is in the New Testament, not the Old 2. platform, not plateform
3. “FOP” fear of pontificating
4. Switching tenses
I would love to correct the mistakes, but
apparently that is not possible. So please forgive my errors.
Charlie Summers

]]> By: charliesummers http://troygrisgonelle.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/the-davinci-code-for-the-honour-of-women/#comment-1898 charliesummers Mon, 12 May 2008 08:59:10 +0000 http://troygrisgonelle.wordpress.com/?p=199#comment-1898 Might it be more helpful AND edifying to study the Bible's picture of the relationship of man to woman, particularly those verses pretaining to marriage and submission in the New Testment? And of course the revered women in the Old Testament...Esther, Ruth, Naomi, Rahab, Mary of Magdalene, etc. To do so it is imperative that one shed, as much as possible through prayer and meditation, the modern mindset which is saturated with the World View instead of God's view. Clearly understanding the Word on the issue of the woman's role in Society is paramount and no "quick study". But trust me. As a former card-carrying member of the ultra-liberal SDS(Students for a Democratic Society, popular in the 70's) and a rabid advotee of the very dangerous ACLU, I picked and chose issue by issue, party to party to build my own "plateform". I have finally found peace by placing my relationship with Christ before any manmade institutions...especially politics which are dificult,multi-faceted and plural. By plural I include Congress, the Law, The People, and especially the Media. ONE EXAMPLE: Obama is the first Democratic candidate for whom I considered voting. I liked almost everything about him, especially his strong stands on the economy and special interests. Since he is supposed to be a Christian I was exceedingly disappointed to learn that one of his first acts as President will be to approve the law governing abortion, particularly the heinous partial-birth abortion. I have never been a "one-issue voter". But since I am dedicated to the truth of the "Sanctity of Life", and hold it as one of the highest standards of worthiness against which I measure the merits of a candidate, I can find myself in quite a dilemma. Such is my predicament this year. No matter how parallel our philosophies might be on all the other areas of concern I must vote my conscience, however narrow-minded it may appear on the surface. My position is this: I can never vote for a candidate merely because he IS pro-life. But I can never vote for a candidate who is NOT pro-life. Might it be more helpful AND edifying to study the Bible’s picture of the relationship of man to woman, particularly those verses pretaining to marriage and submission in the New Testment? And of course the revered women in the Old Testament…Esther, Ruth, Naomi, Rahab, Mary of Magdalene, etc.
To do so it is imperative that one shed, as much as possible through prayer and meditation, the modern mindset which is saturated with the World View instead of God’s view. Clearly understanding the Word on the issue of the woman’s role in Society is paramount and no “quick study”.
But trust me. As a former card-carrying member of the ultra-liberal SDS(Students for a Democratic Society, popular in the 70’s) and a rabid advotee of the very dangerous ACLU, I picked and chose issue by issue, party to party to build my own “plateform”.
I have finally found peace by placing my relationship with Christ before any manmade
institutions…especially politics which are dificult,multi-faceted and plural. By plural I include Congress, the Law, The People, and especially the Media.
ONE EXAMPLE: Obama is the first Democratic candidate for whom I considered voting. I liked almost everything about him, especially his strong stands on the economy and special interests. Since he is supposed to be a Christian I was exceedingly disappointed to learn that one of his first acts as President will be to approve the law governing abortion, particularly the heinous partial-birth abortion.
I have never been a “one-issue voter”. But since I am dedicated to the truth of the “Sanctity of Life”, and hold it as one of the highest standards of worthiness against which I measure the merits of a candidate, I can find myself in quite a dilemma. Such is my predicament this year. No matter how parallel our philosophies might be on all the other areas of concern I must vote my conscience, however narrow-minded it may appear on the surface.
My position is this: I can never vote for a candidate merely because he IS pro-life. But I can never vote for a candidate who is NOT pro-life.

]]>