Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 202

Thread: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

  1. #101
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    Actually, the whole idea of the celibacy of the priesthood is more likely based on Paul's assertion: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: it is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am." (1 Corinthians 7:8)

    This, of course, ignores the fact that Paul also seems to regard marriage as a good thing, even though apparently to him celibacy is better.

    My understanding is that the Puritan tradition arose as a reaction against what were perceived as the excesses of the established church, resulting in a plain, austere form of Christianity, rather than (primarily) because of any particular scriptural emphasis. That's not to say that they didn't justify their way of life biblically, of course, but I'm talking about primary motivation.

    Indeed they would have, if they had existed. The fact that no such impression seems to have been made argues against the existence of such stories.

    That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However, let me say that I have given it a lot of thought over the years. Just because I don't post all my thought processes here for everyone to see doesn't mean they're not there. I'm just trying not to go into too much depth if I can avoid it because I have a life and only limited time at my computer!
    In the end, it comes down to an act of imagination. I did not say, by the way, that such stories existed; I was arguing against the suggestion that it doesn't matter whether Jesus was married or not and therefore the church would not have needed to suppress such stories. Now I don't believe the church did suppress such stories, but if they had existed, the church could not have been constructed as it is, and therefore those people who made it like it is could well have had motives for such suppression. If the stories had existed. Hence the act of imagination. If the NT had been significantly different - if Jesus had preached more family values instead of rather abstract love and meekness, and if he had been a family man - I guess Paul could still have made the church in the way that he did, but maybe not. And then christianity might have been a very different creature.

    Of course the faithful will find it really difficult to imagine such a thing, because to them we're on an ice rink sloping toward the centre circle - everything will keep sliding back to the status quo because they believe the status quo is inherently perfect.

  2. #102
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Quoth Wikipedia, "in addition, some Christian groups recognize additional books as canonical members of the Old Testament". I see the addition and removal of entire books as significant. If you don't like that example of changes, DavidJames has provided information about others, and you've mentioned the removal of NT books.
    Note the wording: "some Christian groups..." Most don't recognise those extra books as canonical. Even those who do are not altering the undisputed canonical books in any way.

    Nobody has removed New Testament books either. Certain books were accepted as canonical scripture, others were not, for a variety of reasons (mainly because they showed gnostic rather than Christian beliefs). That doesn't amount to "removing" anything.

  3. #103
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    I'm just trying not to go into too much depth if I can avoid it because I have a life and only limited time at my computer!
    I had a life, once...

  4. #104
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    he is portrayed as an ascetic, rather than a bloke.
    In mediaeval sources, perhaps, but not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says very little about his personal life, preferring instead to focus on his teachings and out-of-the-ordinary actions. The Bible, as I read it, doesn't portray Jesus as a family man, an ascetic, a sports fan, a vegetarian, allergic to cats, or anything else. Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, those points were not considered to be relevant to the message being portrayed.

  5. #105
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    There is a horse in harness staring at the back of a cart here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    One of the things you and other christians say to justify your claims is that the Bible provides evidence (for many, provides proof) of the existence of God.
    OK, I'm a Christian, and I'm going to go on record as agreeing that the Bible does not provide evidence or proof of the existence of God. The Bible only makes sense if one presupposes the existence of God. If one presupposes the non-existence of God it is nothing more than a collection of interesting stories with a morla background with which one may or may not fully agree.

    The whole point of Christianity (and every other theistic religion, come to that) is that it is founded on faith, not proof. Once that faith is present, then the Bible becomes very relevant.

    (And no, Barry, I don't want to get back into the whole debate over the existence of God here - there's another thread already for those who want to do that.)

  6. #106
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    I’ve also heard of people who set out to write a book that disproved God, the result being that they became Christian.
    Didn't work for Dawkins, though.

  7. #107
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    The Da Vinci Code is comedy fiction. I don't have any respect for Nicky Gumbel or anyone else who jumps on the bandwagon and tries to refute made-up facts to a gullible public.
    The problem is that, since a seemingly large section of that "gullible public" has been taken in by the half-truths and fictions of The Da Vinci Code, a redress of the balance is needed.

    Personally, I'd recommend "Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code" by Bart D. Ehrman. It goes into it from a historian's perspective and makes interesting reading if you want to know more about original source materials.

  8. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    The time of Jesus on earth is seen as a major alteration to the way of things. So, yes - He stopped being terrifying in His power. But He's saving that for Judgement Day.
    I promise you it'll be a big disappointment. Like going to see the Beatles and Queen turn up.
    Yes, there are parts of the Bible where this is the case, although I wouldn't say 'casually'. But this is also the God that says the faithful will be spared, and that He will be with the faithful every day of their lives - you can't mention the death and destruction without mentioning the other side of it.
    Either you just don't get it, or you are not facing up to it.
    Because, in the OT he provided for his chosen people. And, if you'll indulge me, you can explain the savagery. He set out to settle the Israelites in the promised land. For anyone to carve out a space of land for themselves which is already occupied, you need to do it by force. Why did God choose this way, ie not create some land and put the Israelites there? I don't know. But what he did for the Israelites is no less than the Roman Empire did in its time, and that is generally hailed as the source of modern civilisation - in other words, the period of bloodiness led to a better time. The savagery is just the way of the world - Christian or no, you can't deny that.
    What difference do his motives make? He is supposed to be ineffable, and presumably any moral code we can come up with cannot hold a candle to his Code of conduct. But even a school child will tell you that someone shouldn't act in the way the OT god behaves. And it simply doesn't cut it to pull the 'mysterious ways' like a rabbit out of a hat. He creates the universe, and then for the first several thousand years (or after a 4 billion year gap, whichever version works for you) he spends all his time slaughtering and pillaging just so the Jews can get to the Promised Land? The dead, incidentally, all being unshrived and presumably most of them never having heard of him, and therefore condemned to eternal damnation. Seems more than a trifle unfair.
    Moving to the NT, he promises peace and eternal life. yes, he sets trials. So does my boss. So what? No-one ever said life was easy - not even God. But a Christian is receptive to God and takes strength and support from Him through that.
    Your boss doesn't set trials out of an idle desire to see whether you pass the test or not (at least, if he does you have a good claim against your employer!) Wasn't it Jephthah who had to sacrifice his daughter because the Lord arranged for her to be the first person he saw when he got home? Wouldn't it have been more loving and merciful if God had taken Jephthah on one side and said, 'Look here, you're being a bit grandiose and boastful in vowing to sacrifice the first living thing you see when you get home. Suppose it was your wife or your daughter? Their death isn't going to improve my existence one jot. Consider yourself told off and try and be a bit more humble in future.' Instead with what can only be considered as breathtaking callousness your omnipotent god arranged for the daughter to rush out of the house to greet her father.
    That is a big jump! The last of the books in the OT are written hundreds of years before Christ was born, but as we get closer and closer to his birth, the prophecies get more detailed as to what we should expect. Such things that the Messiah will be born of the line of David and what miracles he would perform. If it was all a big hoax, why the long wait of centuries before moving to the next stage, namely the Messiah? I imagine that people then wondered as much about the first coming of the Messiah as we do now about the second coming.
    I don't see the significance of how much time elapsed between the OT and Jesus' birth. Also, I don't consider the OT a hoax, just (largely) nonsense. The point is, christians can't disown it as it is what gives Jesus some semblance of credibility.
    Whatever your views on religion in general and Christianity in particular, I don't think Jesus can ever be branded an ordinary man.
    In the sense of not being divine, dolt!
    I'd switch 'obey' to 'believe' as a matter of personal preference, but in essence that is correct...I'm not too sure how the Bible defines Hell, but it does say that non-believers will suffer from eternal death, as opposed to eternal life for believers. It might seem inhumane - by human standards. But who are we to apply human standards to Him?
    Why not? by your lights didn't he provide us with not only our brains but the basis for the morality which we generally all believe in. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal - unless you are killing people on my orders so that you can seize the land they have been living on for all their life...
    It's a philosophical argument. Again, who are we to question God - we can't understand Him anymore than ants can understand us.
    That must be wrong. We'd hardly spend any time sending someone down to teach the ants how to live a good life and try and get them to worship us. We must be far more important in relation to him otherwise what would be the point in him worrying about what we do. We can understand god, and billions of words written over the last two thousand years have been setting out exactly what the writers do think they understand about god. Of course, we may not be able to understand what colour he is, or how he can know everything, but there's no essential problem with understanding how he has behaved.

    The question is this. He has given us a series of rules by which we are supposed to conduct ourselves. It is perfectly right that we can ask him to explain himself when he acts in complete contradiction to those rules. Well, actually we can only ask christians to explain it, but they promptly say 'passeth all understanding' and shut their traps. Well, excuse me, but that's cobblers.
    No, I'm not saying this God can exercise his power as He sees fit.
    Ah, but can he? Is he not constrained to do things which are good? Or is whatever he does, by definition, good?
    To choose to bow to his power is up to you - as I've said it is a personal choice, and one that took me 20 years to make. Being Christian isn't blind acceptance - believe it or not, I once asked questions much like you and Barry, and still do. I do come at them from a different angle, though. I found it hard to come to faith, especially as I have an engineering background which is based upon logic.
    Hmm. You should be aware that I am asking questions of you not to see whether you have answers for problems that are troubling me, but to see if I can shake your certainty of belief in what I consider to be pernicious nonsense. Sorry about that, but there we are.
    As for choosing to go to Hell? Well, if you do choose that path, in the words of your average Glaswegian, "On yersel', big man." Which loosely translates as "best of luck to you"
    Considering what god revealed of himself in the OT, it might be that the further you are from him the safer you'll be...
    Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 18th-January-2007 at 01:00 AM.

  9. #109
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Princess Fi View Post
    So while the OT is still read and taught from, its the NT which the religion is based upon.
    I would dispute that point. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament makes no sense. Many of the principles of the Old Testament are presupposed in the New.

    Christianity is founded on both Testaments, not just on the New. Jesus, as a Jew with mainly Jewish followers (during his lifetime, at least) took the Old Testament (the only scriptures he had) as granted. His teachings qualified and built upon that foundation, but are not independent of it.

  10. #110
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    quite true. It would be interesting to hear anyone explain why, if the Christian god is the creator of the earth and everything on it etc.. that would be a reason to worship her (or even care about that fact) ? After all, we have a labour government, but not everyone votes labour. Henry Ford invented the car but we don't all drive Ford cars !
    I have a friend who is a recording artist and songwriter. When I found one of his songs moving and really enjoyed it, I told him and "praised" him for it. As a Christian, I find the world that I believe God created to be an amazing, beautiful work of art, so I want to praise its creator.

    Most Christians believe that God not only created the world, but is intimately involved with it in an ongoing way. Also there is the whole concept of the sinfulness of humanity and God providing a way of forgiveness and redemption, which is a major theme in praise and worship. Thankfulness plays a big part in that.
    Last edited by Baruch; 18th-January-2007 at 01:14 AM.

  11. #111
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Many Christians think that Jesus came to abolish the Old Testament Law.
    True, but that's not the same as all Christians believing it. I don't, for one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    As Baruch says, where a passage can be interpreted or translated in various ways, "each group will choose the one that fits its own theological bias". As a non-Christian, with no grudge against Christianity, I can be a little more objective.
    I don't believe that makes you more objective; it just means that you come to the text with a different set of biases.

  12. #112
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    you mean like this ?

  13. #113
    Registered User andystyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glesgae!
    Posts
    582
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    Actually, the message is not always the same - the different emphases in translation between Christian and Jewish translations give a rather different "spin" on things at times - but the whole point is that you're talking about translations here. No Jewish or Christian scholar would claim that the translations are divinely inspired anyway. The original Hebrew text is what is considered to be inspired. So for example, whether the word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is translated as "virgin" (Christian emphasis) or "young woman" (Jewish emphasis), the word remains the same in the original text. Dispute over its meaning does not amount to deliberate alterations to the text, as Martin Harper claimed.
    My knowledge of the difference between Jewish and Christian views on the OT is limited. To clarify, I am addressing the difference between translations of the Christian view of the Bible, and the fact that the fundamental message through the Bible is the same…if that’s not true, then I stand corrected. What I’m not clear on is this – when a new translation of the Bible comes about, where does this translation come from? Is it the original scripture interpreted differently or is it from another source?

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    OK, I'm a Christian, and I'm going to go on record as agreeing that the Bible does not provide evidence or proof of the existence of God. The Bible only makes sense if one presupposes the existence of God. If one presupposes the non-existence of God it is nothing more than a collection of interesting stories with a morla background with which one may or may not fully agree.

    The whole point of Christianity (and every other theistic religion, come to that) is that it is founded on faith, not proof. Once that faith is present, then the Bible becomes very relevant.

    (And no, Barry, I don't want to get back into the whole debate over the existence of God here - there's another thread already for those who want to do that.)
    I guess it depends on what you want to consider as proof. Personally, I think it does – I’m looking at the prophecies here. For me, the fact that a prophecy which came from God hundreds of years before Christ was born, and was then realised in Jesus Christ’s birth is proof. I’ll re-iterate, however – this is my personal view, I don’t expect it to suddenly make the collective light-bulb go on. I’m not trying to start/prolong a debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Either you just don't get it, or you are not facing up to it.
    To the contrary. I see exactly where you’re coming from. I’m simply saying (in what may be a roundabout way) that there is more than the bloodiness and mayhem in the OT to God. It’s up to each person how they want to view that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    You should be aware that I am asking questions of you not to see whether you have answers for problems that are troubling me, but to see if I can shake your certainty of belief in what I consider to be pernicious nonsense.
    I understand that, and I certainly wouldn’t be arrogant enough to presume that you were – I appreciate the stance you have taken and the motives behind your rational. We simply have opposing stances – what you consider pernicious nonsense, I consider important to the life I choose to lead. Bluntly, you are trying to get me to see Christianity as the nonsense you purport it to be (in your opinion) and I am trying to get you to see that your position of non-belief is ill-advised (in my opinion).

    As for the rest of your post, I am not going to attempt to answer it. This isn’t because I can’t – given time to sit and read it thoroughly, I could then answer from a Christian perspective. Just because I’m not, please don’t think that I don’t think your points worthy of consideration (I do), I just don’t see the point in replying. All that would happen is you’d reply, and then me, and then you…the best course of action is to agree to disagree and respect each other’s position. So, to close…

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Considering what god revealed of himself in the OT, it might be that the further you are from him the safer you'll be...
    …I’ll say ‘maybe so, but maybe not.’

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    I would dispute that point. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament makes no sense. Many of the principles of the Old Testament are presupposed in the New.

    Christianity is founded on both Testaments, not just on the New. Jesus, as a Jew with mainly Jewish followers (during his lifetime, at least) took the Old Testament (the only scriptures he had) as granted. His teachings qualified and built upon that foundation, but are not independent of it.
    I think what Fiona is saying is thus: although, as Christians, we have the OT, Jesus fulfilled the OT law and then died for our sins on the cross. Hence, to come to God we go through Jesus (‘No-one can come to the Father except through me’, my apologies as I can’t remember the exact location). We therefore come to Christ and attempt to live by the example he has set for us – hence the basis in the NT. I think this is what Fi is getting at.

    You OK with that, Fiona, or have I mis-read you utterly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    I have a friend who is a recording artist and songwriter. When I found one of his songs moving and really enjoyed it, I told him and "praised" him for it. As a Christian, I find the world that I believe God created to be an amazing, beautiful work of art, so I want to praise its creator.

    Most Christians believe that God not only created the world, but is intimately involved with it in an ongoing way. Also there is the whole concept of the sinfulness of humanity and God providing a way of forgiveness and redemption, which is a major theme in praise and worship. Thankfulness plays a big part in that.
    Very nicely put.

  14. #114
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    Didn't work for Dawkins, though.
    I heard good things about "The God Delusion", so I bought it.

    Frankly, it's not very good, it reads too much like a continuous rant to be interesting, so I gave up after about 40 pages. Anyone want a second-hand copy?

  15. #115
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    So...you're worshipping god because if you don't he'll punish you in the very worst way ever conceived? Doesn't sound very much like a grown up way of doing things.'
    Surely that's the very definition of Pascal's Wager?

    It may still be childish - French philosopher's, bunch of kids really - but it's a well-established philosophical position.

  16. #116
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    Nobody has removed New Testament books either. Certain books were accepted as canonical scripture, others were not, for a variety of reasons (mainly because they showed gnostic rather than Christian beliefs). That doesn't amount to "removing" anything.
    Oh come on, that's just silly. Excluding books from "The Bible" doesn't amount to removing them? Of course it does - that's what censorship does, it excludes things.

    They may (probably were) have been removed (or "not included") for what seemed like good and valid reasons, but it's indisputable that what we call the Bible has been through a lot of changes over the centuries.

    Which is fine, as long as you don't take a completely dogmatic "Every word is true and unalterable" viewpoint on the Bible. Which most Christians don't.

  17. #117
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    I heard good things about "The God Delusion", so I bought it.

    Frankly, it's not very good, it reads too much like a continuous rant to be interesting, so I gave up after about 40 pages. Anyone want a second-hand copy?
    actually - i wouldn't mind

  18. #118
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Back on topic...

    One aspect of the feminine divine in modern religons is the idea that the confrontational and aggressive manner in which religion is often debated serves to alienate women and discourage them from undertaking serious study of their religion. How much truth is there in that? I'm interested in both male and female responses to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by andystyle View Post
    Hence, to come to God we go through Jesus (‘No-one can come to the Father except through me’, my apologies as I can’t remember the exact location).
    John 14:6.

  19. #119
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by Baruch View Post
    I don't believe that makes you more objective; it just means that you come to the text with a different set of biases.
    It's amazing how those with faith assume that those without are suffering from some form of balancing bias, or that they simply hold a different set of 'beliefs'. It's also wrong.

    This is not like an old fashioned set of scales, with belief on one side and atheism on the other. There is no evidence for the existence of any type of supernatural creator. Whenever any particular thing is advanced as evidence, on closer examination the evidence falls apart. The faithful are eventually reduced to saying either 'the whole is more than the part' or alternatively 'I know because I know or because I have personal experience'.

    The former does not work. If we are being asked as ordinary people in our everyday lives to evaluate the benefit of a piece of government policy, we look to see the gaps in the evidence that is presented to us. "We've put more money into X" - ok, but where are the improvements? "We've introduced sweeping reforms" - ok, but where are the improvements? "We've instituted a thoroughgoing investigation" - ok, but...

    Apparently, when considering the evidence for the existence of supernatural divinity we are supposed to apply a completely different set of principles. 'Any old rubbish will do.'

    As for the latter - 'personal experience' - that is no more and no less persuasive than those people who claim to have personal experience of dead Indians who introduce them to people who have 'passed on' or 'crossed over' to deliver messages to their nearest and dearest (still living), nor than Peter Sutcliffe's claims to have heard voices coming out of a gravestone.

  20. #120
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Aspects of the feminine divine in 'modern' religions

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Surely that's the very definition of Pascal's Wager?

    It may still be childish - French philosopher's, bunch of kids really - but it's a well-established philosophical position.
    You should have got further in to The God Delusion to where Pascal's wager is comprehensively dismissed!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Ten Commandments of Modern Jive
    By Baruch in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 3rd-November-2006, 06:12 PM
  2. Ceroc and Modern Jive Champs - Sydney 2005
    By Julie G in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 22nd-June-2005, 02:26 PM
  3. Ballroom meets Modern Jive
    By Minnie M in forum The Land of a 1000 dances
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29th-March-2005, 03:13 AM
  4. Timing in Modern Jive
    By DavidB in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 4th-September-2002, 04:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •