rainjade

Wonderful & Beautifully Done

Revisado: 12-15-20

Beautifully narrated by Daniel Junior Sabweira. A peaceful joy to listen to, & to take rest in the words of Jesus.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Just Awful

Revisado: 12-02-20

Padded, repetitive, contradictory, convoluted, & sets himself up as dictating his personal opinions as doctrinal authority. Terrifying for new believers. No freedom in Christ, no perfect love, no guiding, no repentance leading to obedience & understanding God's will and truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit; just "one fraction" of uncertainty of whether correctly understanding the slightest doctrinal point leads straight to hell. AVOID!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

WHY "RESPECTABLE" SINS NEVER MATTER

Revisado: 11-23-20

Because women who love women are apparently the hideous nadir and utter downfall of morality and humanity, not the never publicly called out "respectable" sins of pride, gluttony, lust, envy, greed, lying, selfishness, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, anger, and all the rest, like male sexual violence. Because then you'd have to look inward at yourselves instead of outward toward we who hurt no one in loving women.

Aside from pagan fertility orgy rituals mentioned in Romans 1:26, there is ZERO mention of women-loving women. Both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 SPECIFICALLY speak of men having sex, NOT women. Modern translations replaced the KJV's correct rending of the original Greek text "arsenokoitai" references with "homosexuals," in order to be able to include and condemn sex between women alongside that of sex between men. Women/women sex was NOT prohibited in Mosaic, i.e. Levitical / Deuteronomy laws, only men/men sex. Why? Because men/men sex was associated not with love but with humiliation, shame, conquest, violence, force, coercion, war. Sorry, can't claim women's inclusion where not included, just because you want to. And no, it cannot be taken for granted that women / women would be similarly assumed: women do not commit bestiality, and yet that repulsive male act of sexual violence *was* explicitly condemned for both men AND for women in Leviticus / Deuteronomy. Both sexes are specifically spelled out, despite it being solely a male sexual act. It is inconceivable that sex between women would have gone unmentioned if it was meant to be condemned as sin alongside sexual acts between men.

Regardless, women actually *loving* women isn't even conceived of, let alone addressed biblically.

Worry about publicly denouncing all the "respectable" sins that actually ARE the nadir & downfall of humanity, ESPECIALLY public figures & those in leadership or political roles.

You sounding brass. You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Shockingly disingenuous.

Revisado: 08-14-18

Presents only extremely limited contemporaneous writings in order to give a disingenuous perspective exonerating Mary of every motivation and action both before and after the murder of her husband Darnley. Untrustworthy in the extreme. I was hoping to get an intimate window into what led Mary to her portion of culpability. Instead, Mary is treated as a helpless, faultless ingénue with no one to advise her, despite the fact that EVERYONE--from Elizabeth I to Catherine de Medici to the influential French bishops to Pope Pius V--instructed Mary repeatedly in stern or beseeching letters that she must put Bothwell on trial for the murder of Darnley, that she must put her husband's killer far from her, and then, failing both these courses of action, ALL then warning her not to marry the murderer of her husband. Not one of these correspondents' letters are even mentioned. Mary isn't innocent; she loved Bothwell with an obsessive irrationality, marrying him in a Protestant ceremony despite her own Catholicism, and refusing to divorce him even with both her kingdom and her life at stake. It is inexplicable that almost five hundred years (and basic common knowledge) later, Antonia Fraser is determined to portray her thusly. All writings, records, and circumstances to the contrary are just completely ignored. A falsified biography, not merely mistaken, lazy, biased, or incomplete. Beyond disappointing.

Narrator gratingly nasal and cannot correctly pronounce "Riccio" or "Medici" or indeed any other non-Anglocized name.

Jane Dunn's brilliant "Elizabeth and Mary" gives a far more realistic, balanced, sympathetic, deftly nuanced portrait, presenting all possibilities both pro and con, without stretching credibility to the breaking point.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 22 personas