The Growing Power of Feminism

[Nick_A]

How well do you read?

"If possible," could be a rare event.

Good catch, W. Or, more literally, an impossible one.

It's the attempt to deceive that is the subject of that sentence. This passage is in Mark 13, speaks of many false messiahs, of various wars and rumours thereof, and of the end times (v. 19-20). "The elect" is a select group out of the Jewish nation (see v. 2, 9, 14), at the end of times, not people in general, and not now, as Nick thinks. So it does not apply to now, and emphasizes that some people WILL NOT be deceived, because they are "the elect," not that everybody will be.

This is the problem with Gnosticism. It does not read the text, or pay any attention to context. It "mines" the text, isolating particular bits in order to get it to "say" whatever it wants to hear. And when you point this out, the Gnostic says, "Well, I'm doing an esoteric reading, and you're not illuminated, so you don't get it."

Well, one can't say much to that kind of argument, can one?

Yes, this raises the question of the relationship of the elect to predestination. Of course such a question is too insulting, as with all common sense, to consider so best avoided.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, this raises the question of the relationship of the elect to predestination.

Nope. Calvinistic Predestination isn't even relevant here. This "elect" is Messianic and Jewish, and the passage is explicitly referring to the end times. You can see that from the context.

[gaffo]

There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

lol, funny, i laughed at least.

Prince Harry is (was) my doppelganger, when i was his age - 20-15 yrs ago.

I've lost too much hear now though to make that claim.

same BWT WRT to Art Garfunkil.

[gaffo]

There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

Both of them are 'feminists' of the same form if he agrees to something she proposed. How do you intepret their separation from 'royalty' as related to her power unless you presume Harry acted in submission to her wishes ALONE? He never knew anything distinct from being royalty and appears to have opted to leave for another concern besides themselves: the people's growing distaste for the institution of Royalty and the constant harassment.

I of course don't know either of them, but nor have i heard either as dicks, so i fine with assuming they are both decent folks, and ok with letting them live their lives in peace.

is that a wrong view?

[Scott Mayers]

There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

Both of them are 'feminists' of the same form if he agrees to something she proposed. How do you intepret their separation from 'royalty' as related to her power unless you presume Harry acted in submission to her wishes ALONE? He never knew anything distinct from being royalty and appears to have opted to leave for another concern besides themselves: the people's growing distaste for the institution of Royalty and the constant harassment.

I of course don't know either of them, but nor have i heard either as dicks, so i fine with assuming they are both decent folks, and ok with letting them live their lives in peace.

is that a wrong view?

No, of course not.

I'm for their choice to drop 'royalty'. It is respectable in light of what it represents. I kind of laugh at the term they used to describe what they want instead though: "financial independence". That term is more often used to describe ANYONE able to lack any dependence of money itself. That is, the Royalty were always 'financially independent' by default of them being not required to worry about money directly (in principle). I would like to see if they would be willing to restart from scratch: imagine Prince Harry having to apply for McDonalds, for instance. The reality though is that they still have a default power NOT TO FAIL regardless of what they choose to do. Can you imagine Harry not being hired for anything he applied for?

Thus, "financial independence" might be a an odd thing for them to assert. Rather, they just don't want the onus of public appeal and all the baggage that goes along with it. It is reasonable considering Harry was born into the fame and not the same as one who gains fame but only afterwards hates its side effects.

[gaffo]

Both of them are 'feminists' of the same form if he agrees to something she proposed. How do you intepret their separation from 'royalty' as related to her power unless you presume Harry acted in submission to her wishes ALONE? He never knew anything distinct from being royalty and appears to have opted to leave for another concern besides themselves: the people's growing distaste for the institution of Royalty and the constant harassment.

I of course don't know either of them, but nor have i heard either as dicks, so i fine with assuming they are both decent folks, and ok with letting them live their lives in peace.

is that a wrong view?

No, of course not.

I'm for their choice to drop 'royalty'. It is respectable in light of what it represents. I kind of laugh at the term they used to describe what they want instead though: "financial independence". That term is more often used to describe ANYONE able to lack any dependence of money itself. That is, the Royalty were always 'financially independent' by default of them being not required to worry about money directly (in principle). I would like to see if they would be willing to restart from scratch: imagine Prince Harry having to apply for McDonalds, for instance. The reality though is that they still have a default power NOT TO FAIL regardless of what they choose to do. Can you imagine Harry not being hired for anything he applied for?

Thus, "financial independence" might be a an odd thing for them to assert. Rather, they just don't want the onus of public appeal and all the baggage that goes along with it. It is reasonable considering Harry was born into the fame and not the same as one who gains fame but only afterwards hates its side effects.

I esp like your last sentence, and think that is the case for old Harry, concur with the rest of your post too BTW.

IMy mind goes to that old Simon and Garfukel song Richard Corry - (and the Beatles - without the bullet in the head - lol - Money Can;t Buy you Love) - it can't buy you happiness either.

but to those in sewer, they see only envy of those with money and think such mentality is folly.

......"and i i work in his factory, and i curse the life i'm lving and i curse my povery and i wish that i could be Richard Corry" - well mabye old Rich knew something you did'nt Factory Worker, he had the money and you just dream of having it.