Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: zahc on September 29, 2013, 10:23:24 PM
-
I had a big culture-shock moment today.
Since I moved to North Carolina I've been church-shopping. Being unaffiliated with any particular denomination other than Not Catholic, I end up visiting many different church cultures, and I'm used to that. I typically just throw darts at a map, then try to weed them out, first "on paper" and then by actually visiting.
The one I went to today was one of the modern ones with casual dress, a big foyer, chairs instead of pews, a coffee shop, and "contemporary" worship, which I have come to understand means "we play guitars and spend good money on lighting effects".
This was the second time I've been to this one, since the fundamentals seemed very promising the last time. This time, however, I brought my 13-month-old. I was taking him into whatever they call the sanctuary/worship center/mosh pit area when I was accosted by about 4 ushers who more-urgently-than-politely informed me I couldn't take children in the worship center. I told them I only planned to stay with Junior during the music, and I usually take him out as soon as he starts to get squirmy, and watch the preaching on the many TVs. The worship music is so loud that there is zero chance he could disturb anybody during the music. They didn't care; children are not allowed in the worship center. I was welcome to check him into their nursery or hang out in the mothers room with him but that's it. Flabbergasted and not wanting to argue (their place and all), I didn't ask what they considered "children". As I was walking to the mother's room I looked around for one of those "you must be this tall to ride this ride" fixtures, but didn't see one.
The mothers room was fine, but after being cooped up in there for about half of the service, I decided to be social and avail myself of some coffee, not because I like coffee but on the general theory that it's polite to partake in whatever drugs the natives are offering. While drinking coffee and holding my perfectly-behaving kid, I kept getting visits from greeting staff informing me that I can check him into their nursery. The tone of the visits went from "Did you know we have a nursery..." to "There is plenty of room in our nursery, and it's really nice..." and eventually I got the impression that I was either breaking the rules or breaking the norm by having my (perfectly behaving) 13-month-old with me in Not-Nursery and Not-Mothers-Room areas. My wife took him to the playground outside, I watched the rest of the service and we left early.
I'm still trying to come to grips with a church where children aren't allowed. The pastor seemed so good and the church seemed good in every other way; it's still clashing in my brain.
-
Mark 10:13-16
-
And these idiots wonder why churches get a bad name. What part of NC?
Might be able to point you to the nearest Lutheran church if that's your speed.
-
Do you care enough to talk to the pastor about it?
Sounds like there was a "policy" and the policy is being rather absent-mindedly enforced or encouraged by all staff. It can probably be adjusted, and churches react to capitalism just like any other business.
-
If you otherwise liked the church except for the rudeness of the ushers, call the pastor on Tuesday (a lot of them take Mondays off) and talk to him about it.
-
I don't know how it is in other parts of the country but down here some churches can get "out there" with the way they do things. Like downright assholy, with petty infighting and cliques that run the church.
Some of said churches are good at concealing the bad side until a bit of it slips out and there's often a whole layer of bad to be found that's hidden in those cases.
Damn shame really, when churches get distracted from their purpose by petty things...
-
I don't know how it is in other parts of the country but down here some churches can get "out there" with the way they do things. Like downright assholy, with petty infighting and cliques that run the church.
Some of said churches are good at concealing the bad side until a bit of it slips out and there's often a whole layer of bad to be found that's hidden in those cases.
Damn shame really, when churches get distracted from their purpose by petty things...
one of the reasons I like my church. Very little BS.
-
one of the reasons I like my church. Very little BS.
Mine too....our pastor has even been known to incorporate noisy children into his sermons....
-
I don't know how it is in other parts of the country but down here some churches can get "out there" with the way they do things. Like downright assholy, with petty infighting and cliques that run the church.
What a great word! :D
-
I is flabber-mo-gasted. I guess that's why the local Lutheran radio cranks are always going on about how happy they are to hear crying babies in the sanctuary. I didn't know there were churches going all zero-tolerance on it. :facepalm:
-
I'm still trying to come to grips with a church where children aren't allowed. The pastor seemed so good and the church seemed good in every other way; it's still clashing in my brain.
You're too far away, or I'd say come to our church.
I'll compose a better response later. I'll just say I am not in the least bothered by infants in church. Kids ought to be there, all the way through childhood until adult. Otherwise they don't soak anything up.
-
Mine too....our pastor has even been known to incorporate noisy children into his sermons....
We have a children's sermon, same theme as the main one but geared for the kids where they come up and it's more interactive for them.
We do have a cry room for the fussy ones, but I don't think any of the ushers have ever asked someone to actually use it.
-
Life long church goer here, I'm pretty puzzled by this story. Children should be with their parents, if either party so desires, unless they are being really loud.
-
They keep messing with kids at our church, because Sunday school sort of straddles the second and third services, so either kids are there at the start and depart en masse partway through, or else the kids are in Sunday school at the start and troop in en masse partway through. Then they change the schedule.
But infants ... those little rug rats who are too young by far to be ready for even the nursery class at Sunday school? Always welcome. If baby gets disturbingly fussy, usually one of the parents will take him/her out of the sanctuary and hang out in the coffee room ... but not always. Just makes people sing a little louder when we get to the hymns.
The church you're describing wouldn't interest me at all. I'm old-fashioned. Church music is and should be sacred music. It pretty much demands to be accompanied by an organ, not by a rock band with lighting "effects."
-
The church you're describing wouldn't interest me at all. I'm old-fashioned. Church music is and should be sacred music. It pretty much demands to be accompanied by an organ, not by a rock band with lighting "effects."
A few hymns need a pipe organ (like A Mighty Fortress), but most are best accompanied by a piano -- preferably an upright.
(now the *really* old traditionalists can go on about Sacred Harp music, and shaped-note hymnals :D
-
Yeah, that strikes me as Not OK(tm).
We do expect parishioners to use the nursery or the cry room for feeding, crying, or really unruly children. When The Monster gets going during the sermon, she gets tossed, but cooing or squeaking during a hymn is tolerable. Any noise during the Children's Message is considered par for the course. We also have a sort of unofficial but universally observed 'kids section' where all the families with young children tend to sit.
I'm ok with politely encouraging parents to deal with really unruly urchins, but a No Kids Policy isn't the kind of group I want to be a part of.
I also picked his church because we have a $2mil organ and one of the best organists around anywhere.
-
$2mil organ
:O
Did not know that organs can go for that much...
-
$2mil organ
Did not know that organs can go for that much...
As long as they don't come from Chinese prisoners or Indian (sub-continent) slum dwellers, I guess they could go for as much as someone is willing to pay. =| ;)
bob
-
:O
Did not know that organs can go for that much...
It's technically three organs. Well, two and a half. It's a long story that I don't know all of, but we have *A LOT* of organ in our little church that we got for basically nothing. I handle insurance for the place, and the rebuild value (as best we can determine given the origin) is $2mil. It's a stunning instrument in our small sanctuary.
-
one of the reasons I like my church. Very little BS.
I like the little voices in church - they are the future.
-
$2Mil for a just-better-than-baic pipe organ is actually a good price. When the cost is broken down the pumpware is more expensive than the pipes, and tuning the pipes is more expensive than everything else put together.
Forget which Episcopal church it was in western Virginia that ordered a new organ (they had neen getting by on something just bigger than a Wurlitzer) and after it was installed and they started tuning it the decision was reached that there was no way the acoustics could be fixed so they tore down the church and built a new one around the organ.
Here's a church's (Grace Baptist in Sarasota, FL) list of the parts of their organ they were looking for folks to adopt as they tried to save their mid-sized masterpiece. Opens you eyes to what is inside one of those beasts. http://www.savetheorgan.org/stoplists/GraceBaptist.htm
stay safe.
-
It's technically three organs. Well, two and a half. It's a long story that I don't know all of, but we have *A LOT* of organ in our little church that we got for basically nothing. I handle insurance for the place, and the rebuild value (as best we can determine given the origin) is $2mil. It's a stunning instrument in our small sanctuary.
Funny - same here - we have more pipe organ than church.
We got it for free and only had to have it installed and tuned by a voicer.
It was valued at $1 million.
It will definitely rock the house.
-
The church you're describing wouldn't interest me at all. I'm old-fashioned. Church music is and should be sacred music. It pretty much demands to be accompanied by an organ, not by a rock band with lighting "effects."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4g-wx2Y_wg
-
Crazy-sauce. The church I go to has tons of folks who keep their kids of all ages throughout the service. We have a nursery for the babies, split about evenly between folks who put their kids in right away and those who keep them through the singing then turn them over. After singing we split the pre-jr high kids off into their own secondary service with lots of activity and age appropriate stuff. Not required though, plenty of folks keep their kids of all ages in there the entire time. Not quite FIC but leaning more towards that than anything.
I did go to a friend's church once (for a baby dedication, ironically) where people kept politely hassling my wife about how there was a nursery when she was standing in the foyer with our daughter.
-
Odds are the nursery is perfectly acceptable, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable turning my 13 m.o. child over to total strangers, even in a church setting. I'm a little shocked that they would push so hard for that.
-
People are one reason I avoid organized religion.
-
People are THE reason I avoid organized religion.
-
People are one reason I avoid organized religion.
Dear old dad explained it to me: neither organized labor nor organized religion are.
The last place I got dragged to stated their system of belief as "Equivacal Polydoxy". Made the Unitarian/Universalists look downright fundamental.
My ideal church would be a Conservative Jewish Congregation with a Southern Baptist rabbi.
stay safe.
-
Dear old dad explained it to me: neither organized labor nor organized religion are.
The last place I got dragged to stated their system of belief as "Equivacal Polydoxy". Made the Unitarian/Universalists look downright fundamental.
My ideal church would be a Conservative Jewish Congregation with a Southern Baptist rabbi.
stay safe.
There was one in Anniston Alabama. I would imagine it's still there.
-
It's harder to get your wallet out with a kid in tow.
As my gramma used to say- scew em.
-
It's a widely known fact that children are satanic until they're about 15. Then they're just lesser evil. For the most part.
-
Dear old dad explained it to me: neither organized labor nor organized religion are.
The last place I got dragged to stated their system of belief as "Equivacal Polydoxy". Made the Unitarian/Universalists look downright fundamental.
My ideal church would be a Conservative Jewish Congregation with a Southern Baptist rabbi.
stay safe.
I miss the church I grew up in, a Roman Catholic church that was ran by a monestary. The monks were more concerned with health of the congregation then drumming up money all the time. We also seemed to have no problem with the collection plates or folks leaving sizable parts of their estates to a chruch trust fund. This all seemd to disappear when the monks left the parish and it went back to diocese priests who beat the donation drum every chance they got.
-
I miss the church I grew up in, a Roman Catholic church that was ran by a monestary. The monks were more concerned with health of the congregation then drumming up money all the time. We also seemed to have to problem with the collection plates or folks leaving sizable parts of their estates to a chruch trust fund. This all seemd to disappear when the monks left the parish and it went back to diocese priests who beat the donation drum every chance they got.
This is something I like about my church as well. The only time the drums are beaten is when the check book is getting a mite light, or theres something specific. And its from a organizational perspective, not a "show Jesus da $$$!"
There is one Sunday a year with a message dedicated to stewardship, but its more about being involved. Finances are a small part of it.
-
This is something I like about my church as well. The only time the drums are beaten is when the check book is getting a mite light, or theres something specific. And its from a organizational perspective, not a "show Jesus da $$$!"
There is one Sunday a year with a message dedicated to stewardship, but its more about being involved. Finances are a small part of it.
Sounds like a nice church.
-
I came very close to doing physical violence to the "preacher" who presided over my grandfathers funeral earlier this year when he turned the sermon/eulogy/whatever from a rememberance of my grandfather's life to "you're all going to hell if you don't join a church".
Also the speech done by both of the preachers for both of my grandfathers were just pathetic. I told my family that if my funeral service was that lame I was going to come back and haunt the *expletive deleted* out of everybody. I'd rather have no funeral service than the fiascos they had.
-
Dear old dad explained it to me: neither organized labor nor organized religion are.
James 1:27
It's not about the organization.
-
If you're looking for a church and don't like the way they treat women with children - keep looking. Elsewhere.
I miss the church I grew up in, a Roman Catholic church that was ran by a monestary. The monks were more concerned with health of the congregation then drumming up money all the time.
I attended a parochial school run (mostly) by nuns. There were several priests in the rectory and the old monsignor was everything a priest should be - which meant he'd never rise above running a single parish. When the diocese forced him into retirement the local cardinal appointed one of "his" minions who did things like canceling the annual carnival - not because it lost money (it didn't!) but because in his eyes it didn't make enough. That it was a very popular community event that drew the whole parish together was irrelevant to him. Then there was a bit of a scandal when money collected for the school went missing - and it turned out the diocese was taking it and diverting it to ghetto congregations across town. (This was in Chicago, btw.) Big stink ensued, as this didn't set well with donors who'd been told their pledges would be spent on THIS school.
And before anyone asks, despite the fiscal/social problems with the new "leadership" I'll go on record as saying that to the best of my knowledge, no children were sexually abused by the clergy, nuns, or anyone else while I was attending school there.
School is still running, and by their website, the current student body is almost all Mexican/Hispanic/Latino or whatever today's accepted term is, with an enrollment about 1/4 of what it was when I went there.
-
. I'd rather have no funeral service than the fiascos they had.
Viking Pyre for you bud.
-
At the Church I grew up in, the little kids were in a Sunday School class separate during the sermons. There was a nursery too. Kids did go to the main auditorium for the sermon but were expected to keep quiet and still. They had sizeable TV rooms for those who had trouble keeping quiet, were coughing or were showing up late. The sermon was on the intercom in half the church anyway.
The purpose of the quiet requirement was to show respect for those others in the Church who were serious students of the Word of God so that you didn't disturb them. I never knew anyone who had a problem with it. It was and is a pretty technical church and people do take it seriously.
Take it however, you want it, but it seems a bit selfish to me to expect any given church to adapt to whatever you want to do on that given day.
-
Viking Pyre for you bud.
Thats actually what I want.
-
Viking Pyre for you bud.
I would like to be loaded into a photon torpedo casing and lauched, to the strains of 'Amazing Grace' played on the bagpipes.
-
beat the donation drum every chance they got
I actually got excommunicated for not tithing :facepalm:
Long story ... I knew that I was going to eventually leave (take a trip and not come back) over other reasons. Sorta precipitated things. =(
When I started going to church again up until I finally quit forever, I would only give cash so they couldn't track it to me one way or the other.
-
I came very close to doing physical violence to the "preacher" who presided over my grandfathers funeral earlier this year when he turned the sermon/eulogy/whatever from a rememberance of my grandfather's life to "you're all going to hell if you don't join a church".
I don't know what was actually said, so I won't defend it. But I don't think it's unusual for a funeral homily to stress the imminence of death, and the need for salvation. A Christian funeral is not solely, or even primarily, about the deceased or the mourners. It is also about (or perhaps it is really about) the gospel message.
But again, I'm not defending that particular funeral sermon, as I don't know what was said.
-
If someone wants to preach at my funeral, it's going to be over my dead body :mad:
-
And before anyone asks, despite the fiscal/social problems with the new "leadership" I'll go on record as saying that to the best of my knowledge, no children were sexually abused by the clergy, nuns, or anyone else while I was attending school there.
No....they were too busy *expletive deleted*ck -ing the donors....
-
If someone wants to preach at my funeral, it's going to be over my dead body :mad:
Your proposal is acceptable.
-
Just my thoughts:
There is a difference in religion and spirituality.
I got bounced out of a church, I was NOT a member of, but I was married the first time in, by a female minister.
[Which will tick off many of the 400+ "guests", whom, don't think females should be ministers...]
Why? I Married a gal whose momma was a "big deal" in that church. Wife/daughter was on "the books" if you will.
Why II? Even though I came home early from a business trip and found my wife in bed with a co-worker it was "my fault".
And who says there is NO politics is religion?
Ironic is, this MIL, did the same thing with my wife's daddy, meaning my
FIL found his wife (MIL) in bed with another man.He too was banned, and he too was not member of that church. Like me , he (FIL) called his attorney after discovering, and asked divorce pretending start ASAP!
Well, it was MY fault, as my good Doctor Shooting/Hunting/Fishing buddy and personal MD/ FIL told to me NOT marry his daughter..."she is lot like momma".
Just me, then again it is between YOU and whatever HIGHER POWER one chooses.
And again I reiterate this part about a difference in religion and spirituality
*what do i know*
sm
-
No funeral. Graveside military service at the Abraham Lincoln Veterans Cemetery. Anyone and everyone will be invited to say their piece, good bad or indifferent. Then this played while the flag is folded and then presented to my son.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEaRiGZBmw0
or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjxqZWWmgc >:D >:D
-
No funeral here as well.
Instructions are for my body to go to Medical Science.
I was here one day, not here the next.
Life is Life and Reality is Real.
-
SM,
Have you made any arrangements? Wife &
I were discussing this very option but we don't know who to contact or where to start.
-
I actually got excommunicated for not tithing :facepalm:
Long story ... I knew that I was going to eventually leave (take a trip and not come back) over other reasons. Sorta precipitated things. =(
When I started going to church again up until I finally quit forever, I would only give cash so they couldn't track it to me one way or the other.
There are a lot of people that get turned about Christianity for that or similar reasons. It is unfortunate. There are actually churches who don't believe in asking for money and teach that you shouldn't give at all for the wrong motivations.
-
Just my thoughts:
There is a difference in religion and spirituality.
Not really.
In the church where I grew up, I was inculcated in that very idea - that spirituality was great, and religion was, at best, dead formalism. Fortunately, the dichotomy is a myth.
A spiritual person is a religious person. To say otherwise is to misunderstand either spirituality, or religion, or both.
-
A group that teaches that all men are fundamentally depraved (and thus need a Savior), that points out that many many people who claim to be a part of that group are impostors demonically inspired to corrupt and pervert that message, and that even those who have actually accepted salvation are in a life long process of sanctification is demonstrated false because: some people who claim to be Christians are jerks. Got it.
-
Many religions seem to propagate the philosophy that heavy tithing (to them) allows one to buy their way into heaven.
Earthly riches are verboten to be a true Christian, unless one is the pastor - who always seem to live very well.
I find it interesting that a pastor who lives in extravagance is not recognized as a hypocrite.
Religion, like love, can be blind for the ignorant.
-
There are a lot of people that get turned about Christianity for that or similar reasons. It is unfortunate. There are actually churches who don't believe in asking for money and teach that you shouldn't give at all for the wrong motivations.
The money wasn't really the issue, to me at least.
I won't go into it all here. You wouldn't believe most of it anyway.
-
No funeral here as well.
Instructions are for my body to go to Medical Science.
I was here one day, not here the next.
Life is Life and Reality is Real.
I want a green funeral, not casket no embalming, just buried into the earth. If this is not possible cremation without embalming, dump my ashes at least a two days paddle into the BWCA.
-
A group that teaches that all men are fundamentally depraved (and thus need a Savior), that points out that many many people who claim to be a part of that group are impostors demonically inspired to corrupt and pervert that message, and that even those who have actually accepted salvation are in a life long process of sanctification is demonstrated false because: some people who claim to be Christians are jerks. Got it.
=D
I was taught (rightly I think) that salvation is a one time event and doesn't need to be repeated no matter what you do after. There is no lifetime of qualification or anything. Different people believe different things for whatever reason. To me that all smacks of working/buying your way into heaven which is not good doctrine.
Many of these comments are the main reason I don't think anyone should stay in a Church they are uncomfortable in or don't like. There are lots and lots of different CHurches and denominations. Find one that suits you.
-
GOD HATES ZAHC'S
-
I want my head decapitated & used to scare children on Halloween ( not this Halloween please!)
Than I want the corpse dragged to the top of a hill where vultures and ravens and crows can have a feast....
-
=D
I was taught (rightly I think) that salvation is a one time event and doesn't need to be repeated no matter what you do after. There is no lifetime of qualification or anything. Different people believe different things for whatever reason. To me that all smacks of working/buying your way into heaven which is not good doctrine.
Many of these comments are the main reason I don't think anyone should stay in a Church they are uncomfortable in or don't like. There are lots and lots of different CHurches and denominations. Find one that suits you.
Justification vs. Sanctification. Justification is a one-time event; bang, you are "saved". Sanctification is a process that starts at that point and doesn't finish until you die (then there's another churchy word, "glorification") If sanctification stalls or never gets off the ground or regresses, you are still safe -- although it does call into question whether your salvation was real in the first place (which is between you and God, and none of my business)
HTH :)
-
I came very close to doing physical violence to the "preacher" who presided over my grandfathers funeral earlier this year when he turned the sermon/eulogy/whatever from a remembrance of my grandfather's life to "you're all going to hell if you don't join a church".
Also the speech done by both of the preachers for both of my grandfathers were just pathetic. I told my family that if my funeral service was that lame I was going to come back and haunt the *expletive deleted* out of everybody. I'd rather have no funeral service than the fiascos they had.
Bear with me a little bit here.
What I want in a funeral is that the story told be true. It does no one any good to say things one has no warrant to say. There's a lot of "folk religion" out there that's not really any accurate version of Christianity.
The Bible does not place great emphasis on "going to heaven when you die" (though that is certainly there) and is close to silent on the details of what that is like. What the Bible places great emphasis on, multiple long discussions on, is the resurrection on the last day. That is what we're pointed to.
When I go, say what you want about me. Remember me as you would. (Speaking theoretically, I ain't plannin' on dying soon.) What I want is that the story be gotten right. Get death right, and get the resurrection right. Also, a funeral's audience is going to be less reliably Christian than one in a Sunday worship service.
Noobie sm came in after it all, but most of you are aware that we lost 2 sons this summer, within weeks of each other. For my sons, that's what I asked for, and pretty much what I got. Whether the audience heard it the way I did, or heard what they thought was a heavy handed evangelistic message, I can't say. Video of the one for my oldest is on my Facebook page.
This can be done well, or it can be done poorly.
The next Sunday after my oldest's funeral, the pastor preached a sermon on the resurrection. Providentially enough, he's working through Luke, and had come to the passage where Jesus answers the Sadducees' trick question on the resurrection. I wish I had a place I could upload it to, and point y-all too. It was quite good. And, quite a bit longer and more complicated, for a different audience.
There came to him some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died without children. And the second and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. Afterward the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife.”
And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.” Then some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.” For they no longer dared to ask him any question.
-
Not really.
In the church where I grew up, I was inculcated in that very idea - that spirituality was great, and religion was, at best, dead formalism. Fortunately, the dichotomy is a myth.
A spiritual person is a religious person. To say otherwise is to misunderstand either spirituality, or religion, or both.
Well. Basically I am old phart heathen then.
So be it.
Agree to disagree if you will.
Then again I am from the South, so what do I know? *grin*
-
A spiritual person is a religious person. To say otherwise is to misunderstand either spirituality, or religion, or both.
Like sm, I disagree. The most spiritual people I have known in my life have no "religion."
-
GOD HATES ZAHC'S
:snort:
That reminded me of a joke that (IIRC) was scrawled on a boys' room stall in my high school:
"God is dead." (Nietzsche)
"Nietzsche is dead." (God)
-
The most spiritual people I have known in my life have no "religion."
As I said, with a proper understanding of the two terms, the dichotomy disappears. Spirituality leads one to a careful observance of moral guidelines, love for one's fellow man, obedience to God, etc. Which to say, religion.
-
For those planning on leaving your earthly shell to science. Do put that in writing somewhere, and have some cash set aside. Having gone through the price list of several funeral homes, it averaged above $3000 to "Donate" your body to science. Even my simple service will cost north of $5k, due to prep, pick-up and delivery costs. Once you start getting into wakes, funerals, caskets with lots of bling the price climbs rapidly. Pre-planned and pre-paid is the way to go. Do NOT leave your loved ones guessing. The will be emotionally devastated and susceptible to sales techniques, especially if "He would have wanted that."
-
For those planning on leaving your earthly shell to science. Do put that in writing somewhere, and have some cash set aside. Having gone through the price list of several funeral homes, it averaged above $3000 to "Donate" your body to science. Even my simple service will cost north of $5k, due to prep, pick-up and delivery costs. Once you start getting into wakes, funerals, caskets with lots of bling the price climbs rapidly. Pre-planned and pre-paid is the way to go. Do NOT leave your loved ones guessing. The will be emotionally devastated and susceptible to sales techniques, especially if "He would have wanted that."
I've never gotten the point of fancy caskets. Just chuck me in a plywood box (well if I wasn't doing the whole viking funeral boat thing)
The nice thing about SC is there is nothing required to go through a funeral home by law other than the death certificate and Burial-Removal-Transportation certificate from the county. So if you so desire, you can be chucked into a hole and covered up. Embalming is not required.
http://thetandd.com/s-c-funeral-and-burial-laws/article_e59449c6-c5ad-11e2-86c4-0019bb2963f4.html
-
On religion - I do see a difference between religion and spirituality. Fistful had the first part right - careful adherence to moral guidelines, etc. But religion is an organized doctrine and in many instances has little to do with the spirit.
On death (mine) - I've always found it morbid to put a dead body in a box and stick it in a hole in the ground. If the loved ones need to see my body then so be it, but then organ's donated followed by cremation with ashes scattered at the mouth of the Wilmington River. And I want a party in which folks who cared about me can share fond memories, and there better be good food and good booze flowing freely - which will be arranged (as Scout said) prior to my demise. That is all.
-
On religion - I do see a difference between religion and spirituality. Fistful had the first part right - careful adherence to moral guidelines, etc. But religion is an organized doctrine and in many instances has little to do with the spirit.
That is the modern myth - an arbitrary redefining of the word. There is no reason why "religion" should now apply only to any aspect of spiritual beliefs and practices that our culture finds less important, or chooses to look down upon. If there is, then what is there about the spiritual person that can't also be described as religious?
Additionally, there is no reason why spirituality should only apply to the happy, fuzzy parts of a religion. The people directing the planes into the World Trade Center were most certainly animated by some spirit or other.
-
wow in spite of wishing otherwise i agree. thats very disturbing
-
On religion - I do see a difference between religion and spirituality. Fistful had the first part right - careful adherence to moral guidelines, etc. But religion is an organized doctrine and in many instances has little to do with the spirit.
"Spirituality" is what one have when there's not much definite content to one's religion.
Re that Ross Douthat's Bad Religion (http://www.amazon.com/Douthat-Rosss-Bad-Religion-Hardcover/dp/B008EAWFY2) is a pretty good read, on the state of United Statesist religion, post WWII.
On death (mine) - I've always found it morbid to put a dead body in a box and stick it in a hole in the ground.
Depends.
-
Around here cremation costs about $2000.00 tops. One guy comes with a minivan and a gurney. My brother in law and I helped put my FIL's remains in a transport bag and helped the guy put him in the van. Ashes were available for pickup about a week later at a local cemetary's office. His and my MIL's ashes reside now with my wife's sister.
My brother and I helped with my aunt when she passed. We had talked to her prior to her death and we asked what she wanted. She said she'd like cremation and to be put in between her mother and father who died long ago. Since she had a marvelous sense of humor, we told her if she'd like, sort of kidding with her, we'd do it ourselves under the guise of planting some perrenials between their graves. She laughed loudly and said that would be a great joke on the city to beat them out of the $500.00 "opening fee" to put her small box a couple feet down between the graves. We did so. It actually was a very respectful action, especially knowing that was just what she wanted us to do.
-
Despite not being Christian, I have seen a LOT of churches come up with great ways of committing institutional suicide
My favorite was the local church a friend attended. He met a girl and fell in love: she was pagan, but encouraged him to attend services regularly.
The pastor (younger guy) and church council (one was an old hs teacher of mine) took offense at a member of their congregation marrying outside their faith, and booted him.
Last I heard, that congregation was rapidly dying due to folks leaving...
-
For those planning on leaving your earthly shell to science. Do put that in writing somewhere, and have some cash set aside. Having gone through the price list of several funeral homes, it averaged above $3000 to "Donate" your body to science. Even my simple service will cost north of $5k, due to prep, pick-up and delivery costs. Once you start getting into wakes, funerals, caskets with lots of bling the price climbs rapidly. Pre-planned and pre-paid is the way to go. Do NOT leave your loved ones guessing. The will be emotionally devastated and susceptible to sales techniques, especially if "He would have wanted that."
This is veering off topic, but I'll add to what you said.
Get receipts for EVERYTHING and make sure they go to executor of the estate, and it wouldn't hurt to have a lawyer on tap.
My mom is the executor of my grandmother's estate, did have to go to a lawyer.
Grandma had an escrow account with the funeral home since Grandpa died several years ago, out of which she paid most of her own funeral expenses ahead of time. Funeral director (in the days between my Grandmother's death and her funeral) presented my Mother with 5-figure bills after the funeral and told her that the account didn't have enough money to cover the costs. My Mother disputed the claim with receipts in hand and had to sic the family lawyer on the matter.
My Mother thinks that they deliberately tried to scam her into overpaying by $5000 in a time of grief- interestingly enough, my BIL ran into a similar situation with the same funeral home when he buried his father 6 years ago. i wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't common practice as I tend to equate the funeral business right down their with used car sales.
-
There are a LOT of funeral homes that pull that crap.
The funeral home that handled my wifes grandmother tried to pull it with all sorts of crap she specifically stated she did not want.
When my Grandfather passed the funeral home knew damn good and well my Grandmother wasn't paying, has mental issues, and wasn't to make any decisions on her own. My Uncle, who was cutting the checks, made this very clear to them. They then happily talked her into coming back down by herself and buying an expensive ugly ass urn and the ugliest damned necklace pendants with a little bit of ash in them to hand out to everyone and their brother.
-
Two words.....Body Farm.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_farm
-
Despite not being Christian, I have seen a LOT of churches come up with great ways of committing institutional suicide
My favorite was the local church a friend attended. He met a girl and fell in love: she was pagan, but encouraged him to attend services regularly.
The pastor (younger guy) and church council (one was an old hs teacher of mine) took offense at a member of their congregation marrying outside their faith, and booted him.
Last I heard, that congregation was rapidly dying due to folks leaving...
You just had to remind me.
25 years ago I married a gal (second marriage for both of us) and moved to the town she was then living in. We chose a small Congregational church and asked the pastor to perform the marriage, which we held outdoors at a site of our choosing rather than in the church. So far, so good.
Once we were married, I liked the pastor and I thought I liked the church, so I joined. (My wife didn't.) On the Sunday they formally took in new members (including yours truly), there was an announcement that they were looking for Sunday school teachers. Not many hands went up, so I decided it might be a way of meeting people and I volunteered. They assigned me the pre-school class. If any of you have dealt with pre-schoolers, although we had a set curriculum, complete with its own picture book, that I tried to follow, "teaching" pre-schoolers is much like trying to herd cats. But I enjoyed it. For all of about two months.
My new wife was a public school teacher in another town, but in our town of residence she had a practice as ... an astrologer. And the local newspaper decided to run a FRONT PAGE article about her, and about astrology. In said article, the reporter mentioned me by name, and stated that I was a Sunday School teacher in the ____ church in town.
WHOOPS! In short order they convened a special inquisition by meeting of the Board of Deacons, at which I was summoned to explain to them that I didn't believe in astrology. Problem was, I couldn't honestly say that ... so I refused. I told them that my wife didn't use it for "fortune telling," but as a psychological counseling tool, I explained that statistically it had been proven valid, and I assured them that I did not practice astrology and that I was most certainly not filling the innocent little pre-schoolers' heads with anything other than what was in our book ..., but that I was NOT going to lie and tell them that I didn't believe in astrology.
They began to get nervous when I asked them if they believed in the story of Jesus' birth and the three magi ("wise men").
Then one of them asked me if I believed in original sin. My response was that I did not, but that even if Man is born in sin, Christianity teaches that Jesus died to cleanse our sins, so everyone born after Jesus' crucifixion would be automatically delivered from sin even IF he were born in sin. They didn't like that at all ... and when they started to object, they liked it even less when the pastor himself (bless his heart) interrupted them to point out that, "You know, your view is extremely fundamentalist, and the answer he just gave you is the answer you would get from probably 98 percent of practicing Christians."
No, they didn't like that at all. So ... there ended my career as a Sunday school teacher. (The marrriage didn't end until six years later, but that's a story for another day.)
-
Despite not being Christian, I have seen a LOT of churches come up with great ways of committing institutional suicide
My favorite was the local church a friend attended. He met a girl and fell in love: she was pagan, but encouraged him to attend services regularly.
The pastor (younger guy) and church council (one was an old hs teacher of mine) took offense at a member of their congregation marrying outside their faith, and booted him.
Last I heard, that congregation was rapidly dying due to folks leaving...
By "took offense," do you mean that they interpreted II Cor. 6.14 to prohibit marriage between Christians and non-believers?
I don't know what you mean by "booted." If you mean that he refused to repent, and was told he couldn't be a member/deacon/usher/whatever, then it sounds like they followed Biblical guidelines. If you mean that they told him he was no longer welcome to attend services, then maybe they went too far? Their call, I guess.
None of that sounds particularly egregious. Sounds like they take their faith seriously, just from the way you described it.
Then one of them asked me if I believed in original sin. My response was that I did not, but that even if Man is born in sin, Christianity teaches that Jesus died to cleanse our sins, so everyone born after Jesus' crucifixion would be automatically delivered from sin even IF he were born in sin. They didn't like that at all ... and when they started to object, they liked it even less when the pastor himself (bless his heart) interrupted them to point out that, "You know, your view is extremely fundamentalist, and the answer he just gave you is the answer you would get from probably 98 percent of practicing Christians."
No, they didn't like that at all. So ... there ended my career as a Sunday school teacher.
I don't see how you'd get that answer from 98% of Christians. I've never heard it explained that way. Where did you pick up that view of the matter? ???
It sounds like you lost the Sunday School gig because your view of Christianity is much different from (and probably less orthodox than) the church where you were teaching it. Yet you seem to think they were in the wrong. Sounds like another congregation that takes their religion as seriously as it deserves, although the pastor sounds very squishy, and in need of some remedial Bible courses. Just from the way you've described it.
-
>By "took offense," do you mean that they interpreted II Cor. 6.14 to prohibit marriage between Christians and non-believers?
I don't know what you mean by "booted." If you mean that he refused to repent, and was told he couldn't be a member/deacon/usher/whatever, then it sounds like they followed Biblical guidelines. If you mean that they told him he was no longer welcome to attend services, then maybe they went too far? Their call, I guess.
None of that sounds particularly egregious. Sounds like they take their faith seriously, just from the way you described it.<
Their house, their rules... up to a point
There (as always) is more to the story. After informing him that he was no longer welcome, they started sending regular letters demanding that he attend an "ecclesiastical trial" at the church, and "answer for his sins". Got to a point he was expecting them to show up at the door.
Since I knew one of the deacons, I had a discussion with him, where he said they planned exactly that. I explained the foolhardiness of that idea (as my friend probably would have answered the door gun in hand. He was REALLY tired of their bullscat).
Your church can exclude anyone they want. But it seems foolish to this pagan to exclude someone for marrying outside the faith, especially when that person is encouraging them to continue going to church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just read the passage you mentioned.
"14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
By the same passage, wouldn't you be "yoked with unbelievers" simply by taking part in APS? After all, there are atheists, Jews, pagans, and others here... all folks who are unbelievers...
-
By the same passage, wouldn't you be "yoked with unbelievers" simply by taking part in APS? After all, there are atheists, Jews, pagans, and others here... all folks who are unbelievers...
What is your understanding of the word "yoked"?
-
Still recovering from a couple 24hr workdays, so brain working a lil slow.
-
Their house, their rules... up to a point
Not marrying unbelievers is not "their rules." Nor is excommunication. Those are both based on scripture. Now, your friend can question whether they are interpreting scripture correctly, but if he has such a major disagreement with them, he's best advised to find another church.
There (as always) is more to the story. After informing him that he was no longer welcome, they started sending regular letters demanding that he attend an "ecclesiastical trial" at the church, and "answer for his sins". Got to a point he was expecting them to show up at the door.
Oh, so way off the deep end, then. Yeah, definitely find another church.
-
I don't see how you'd get that answer from 98% of Christians. I've never heard it explained that way. Where did you pick up that view of the matter? ???
That was the pastor's comment, not mine.
It sounds like you lost the Sunday School gig because your view of Christianity is much different from (and probably less orthodox than) the church where you were teaching it. Yet you seem to think they were in the wrong. Sounds like another congregation that takes their religion as seriously as it deserves, although the pastor sounds very squishy, and in need of some remedial Bible courses. Just from the way you've described it.
They were in the wrong. I "lost the Sunday school gig" because they didn't like what my wife did in her spare time, not (ultimately) because of anything about me. As to where I picked up my view of the matter, I picked it up through four years at an Episcopal-based college, taking university level theology courses.
In response to Protestant accusations ("Pelagianism") and errors (original sin remains even after Baptism, though it is not "imputed"), the Council of Trent summed up the traditional teaching on original sin, without deciding the questions discussed among the different theological schools [cf. TCF, # , 5th session of the Council, AD 1546]: Intro. [DS 1510]
Canon 1 [DS 1511] Adam's sin and its consequences for Adam. See Second Council of Orange, Canon 1 [DS 371].
Canon 2 [DS 1512] Consequences of Adam's sin for the whole human race: not only punishment (death) is transmitted, but also "sin," "death of the soul," loss of holiness and justice. See II Orange, Canon 2 [DS 371].
Canon 3 [DS 1513] Original sin is "one in origin" yet "in each and proper to each." This is especially against Albert Pighi (1490-1542) who held that original sin is numerically one in all and not proper to each.
Original sin is transmitted by propagatione and not by imitation; this is a rejection of the Pelagian view, without deciding whether natural generation is the cause, or rather only the necessary condition (as most theologians today believe) of original sin.
Original sin can be taken away only by the merits of Christ.
Canon 4 [DS 1514] See Council of Carthage, Canon 2 [DS 223] -- Even infants, "who in themselves have committed no sin," are truly baptized "for the remission of sins." Thus, peccatum originale originatum is truly "sin" but distinguished from personal sins (see also Canon 5).
The Vulgate interpretation of Romans 5:12 does not seem to be defined, even though it would surely be contrary to the mind of the Council to deny that Romans 5:12 (in its context, and not necessarily with the explicitness of later theology) teaches original sin.
Canon 5 [DS 1515] Baptism takes away everything that is truly "sin" -- it is not only "imputation" of righteousness, but real transformation.
"Concupiscence" remains, but it is not really sin.
Ergo: If a person is baptized in Christ, any original sin with which he/she might have been born is gone. The deacons at this church wanted me to acknowledge that original sin remained even after baptism. It doesn't.
And, now that you've challenged me on my view, I am forced to remember that "interview" in more detail. In fact, the elder deacon didn't ask me if I believed in original sin, he asked me if I believed that I was a sinner. (Subtle difference.) That was what led to the discussion about the sacrifice of Jesus cleansing all who come after of sin.
-
That is the modern myth - an arbitrary redefining of the word. There is no reason why "religion" should now apply only to any aspect of spiritual beliefs and practices that our culture finds less important, or chooses to look down upon. If there is, then what is there about the spiritual person that can't also be described as religious?
Additionally, there is no reason why spirituality should only apply to the happy, fuzzy parts of a religion. The people directing the planes into the World Trade Center were most certainly animated by some spirit or other.
What I'm trying to say (though not very well) is that one can be spiritual/religious but not follow the doctrine of a specific religion (or denomination of a religion). I'm not arguing that spiritual and religious have the same or similar meaning or that one can't be both. Though one can be spiritual without being religious, but I don't think one can be religious without being spiritual.
One can believe in God, adhere to the moral principles outlined in the bible - and other religious literature - and live his life accordingly, but not adhere only to the doctrine of a specific religion. There are aspects of Christianity, some Pagan doctrines, Judaism, and Buddhism that are solid moral guides and good life principles. There are also aspects of each other those, including Christianity, that are illogical and potentially damaging, that I refuse to accept. But I'm not rejecting God, I'm rejecting an aspect of a religion that is organized and run by simple humans.
-
The big mistake IMHO was allowing a brand new member to teach. This was their fault, not yours. (at least they didn't try to make you a deacon)
I'm not sure I agree with the doctrine of "original sin" -- I'd have to study it to see what the boundaries are. Romans 5:12 is a pretty good summary of our current condition, but I am not responsible for my parents' sin (and certainly not Adam's sin, for one thing that was more than 4 generations ago, Numbers 14:18); I have enough sin of my own, thank-you-very-much.
-
The big mistake IMHO was allowing a brand new member to teach. This was their fault, not yours. (at least they didn't try to make you a deacon)
Absolutely. They should have vetted Hawkmoon out before letting him teach. (And vice versa.)
'm not sure I agree with the doctrine of "original sin" -- I'd have to study it to see what the boundaries are. Romans 5:12 is a pretty good summary of our current condition, but I am not responsible for my parents' sin (and certainly not Adam's sin, for one thing that was more than 4 generations ago, Numbers 14:18); I have enough sin of my own, thank-you-very-much.
"federal headship" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_headship). Not an individualistic western notion.
-
What I'm trying to say (though not very well) is that one can be spiritual/religious but not follow the doctrine of a specific religion (or denomination of a religion). I'm not arguing that spiritual and religious have the same or similar meaning or that one can't be both. Though one can be spiritual without being religious, but I don't think one can be religious without being spiritual.
One can believe in God, adhere to the moral principles outlined in the bible - and other religious literature - and live his life accordingly, but not adhere only to the doctrine of a specific religion. There are aspects of Christianity, some Pagan doctrines, Judaism, and Buddhism that are solid moral guides and good life principles. There are also aspects of each other those, including Christianity, that are illogical and potentially damaging, that I refuse to accept. But I'm not rejecting God, I'm rejecting an aspect of a religion that is organized and run by simple humans.
You should start a religion. ;) :P :P
-
Why not: worked for Gerald Gardner. With what have been some fairly humorous results over the years
-
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard, too.
For awhile.
-
You crazy Calvinists and invented ideas of original sin.
[popcorn]
-
You crazy Calvinists and invented ideas of original sin.
[popcorn]
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between the Calvinists and the Arminianists (sp?) They both got part of it right, then went too far. Arminians discount man's depravity and God's grace, and Calvinists discount man's responsibility. Or something like that; maybe I'm not drawing the line quite right either (been a few years since I researched it) ;)
ETA: The truth has to accommodate the "whosoever" in John 3:16 and the "elect" and "predestined" in several of Paul's letters.
-
I taught an adult Bible study class at the church where I met my wife, as they needed someone responsible enough to provide responsible leadership. I took me a while but I came to realize that my doctrine and the church's were a ways apart on certain topics. Out of respect for the church and my fellow students, and to not be the cause of internal strife, I did not address those points directly in my studies or would foist off a "I would suggest you speak with Asst Pastor SoAndSo for the church's position on that." Only got pinned a few times, where I was asked point blank, "What is your belief?" I did not lie or dissemble, but first presented what I thought the church's doctrine was in that area and that they ought to get further guidance from Asst Pastor SoAndSo. I then described my position and how it contrasted with that of the church's.
If the church had not been so hard up for responsible adults with a pulse I would have not volunteered. Same thing for staying on when I got wind of the second-tier doctrine. Wife and I managed to bow out gracefully at a later point.
At any point, if the church had objected to my leading that class I would have understood and bowed out. It is their right and their responsibility to provide sound doctrinal instruction according to their lights.
Oh, and "yoked" is in regard to marriage, not general dealings in society.
-
Caught that.
Like I said: several 24hr shifts, turns brain to tapioca
-
You should start a religion. ;) :P :P
Worked pretty good for Hubbbard.
-
That one thing nice down here in a way. There are hundreds of churches within 100 miles of me. If I don't like one, there are a bunch more around. Find one that works for you. Not even mentioning online or remote study.
-
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between the Calvinists and the Arminianists (sp?) They both got part of it right, then went too far. Arminians discount man's depravity and God's grace, and Calvinists discount man's responsibility. Or something like that; maybe I'm not drawing the line quite right either (been a few years since I researched it) ;)
ETA: The truth has to accommodate the "whosoever" in John 3:16 and the "elect" and "predestined" in several of Paul's letters.
Sure. Also has to account the God's idea of justice in Ezekiel 18. Or the idea in 2 Peter 2 that one can be saved, but then also lose that state of grace again. Or again in 2 Peter 3 that God desires all to be saved.
When simpler and numerous explanations lead in a different direction than the more complicated and rarer explanations, I suggest its reasonable to start from the simple and try to understand the complex from that. In other words, if the conclusion from the complex contradicts the simpler explanations, then the interpretation of the complex is where we are wrong, not the interpretation of the simple.
But backing up from that, I think it interesting that when confronted with Gnosticism and similar philosophical issues, the apostles and prophets did not argue these things from a philosophical or theological stand. But rather, they focused on the simpler facts that ought not to be denied. In John's case of confronting Gnostics, he explained exactly what love of God looks like (its obeying) and that Jesus came in the flesh, despite the conclusions that the Gnostic might have come to. But he never really confronts the core assumptions and speculations of the Gnostics, only the erroneous conclusions.
In Peter and Paul's case of confronting the Jewish/Christian hybrids, they explained it is OK to be circumcised, just don't require that of others. And gentile Christians should avoid doing things that stir up strife.
Which reminds me of the instruction to Timothy, to avoid arguing about myths, genealogies. And to not permit teaching of strange doctrines [I think the implication is public teaching, but not sure on that]. These things focus on speculations rather than the things we know we ought to do (in the context, "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith"). Paul goes back to saying, keep the instruction focused on the real things people need to avoid, lawlessness, profane, murderers, immoral, homosexual, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is against sound doctrine (1 Tim 1). These things (righteousness behavior) is the doctrine of God, not high ideas of philosophy.
The way these various speculations and ideas are treated, it seems that the apostles are willing to allow people to search out these things as much as they want, as long as they aren't creating division and arguments over it. AND as long as they aren't inventing ways to do what is plainly wrong (denying Jesus, denying baptism, accepting divorce and remarriage, lust, hatred, greed, etc).
So circling back to what Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and Popes and Arminians have taught, I don't really care what they speculated, as long as they do not contradict the things which is clearly commanded.
-
You should start a religion. ;) :P :P
Are you saying I'm a Goddess? :rofl:
-
Are you saying I'm a Goddess? :rofl:
I must resist ...
I must resist ...
I must resist ...
I SOOOO want to post a smart-alecky retort ... but (for once) I won't.
-
I must resist ...
I must resist ...
I must resist ...
I SOOOO want to post a smart-alecky retort ... but (for once) I won't.
I will for you. =D
Are you saying I'm a Goddess? :rofl:
Kitchen, Domestic, Sammich. Your choice.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Are you saying I'm a Goddess? :rofl:
All you need is someone to worship you. =)
-
All you need is someone to worship you. =)
[sign]WILL WORSHIP FOR SAMMICHES[/sign]
....Maybe she'll be like Shiva....eight arms with sammich ingredients in each one....
-
I must resist ...
I must resist ...
I must resist ...
I SOOOO want to post a smart-alecky retort ... but (for once) I won't.
Go ahead - what could possibly go wrong?
Kitchen, Domestic, Sammich. Your choice.
Clearly you don't know me that well. Using any of those terms to describe me should inspire fits of giggles.
-
Looks like the whole thing was invented by Roman aristocrats anyway! Debate over! http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm (http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm)
[popcorn]
-
So, like Al Gore, you are saying this is settled science?
Next up on the agenda: "Cornbread: Southern Conspiracy or Northern Product Innovation."
[popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn]
-
Cornmeal: Grits or polenta?
Brad
p.s. Chili with beans is an abomination.
-
Chili without beans is a sin. #11 on list in fact. :P
-
But backing up from that, I think it interesting that when confronted with Gnosticism and similar philosophical issues, the apostles and prophets did not argue these things from a philosophical or theological stand. But rather, they focused on the simpler facts that ought not to be denied.
Even Jesus deflected people who asked pointy questions sometimes. This admirable skill of "refusal to be distracted from core issues" is an underrated value.
-
Are you saying I'm a Goddess? :rofl:
Isn't "priestess" a lot easier?
-
Go ahead - what could possibly go wrong?
I'm afraid to even ask ...
Clearly you don't know me that well. Using any of those terms to describe me should inspire fits of giggles.
Okay, then ... you are not a kitchen.