William Ess wrote: It is no good blaming me for the Bible. I didn't write it. If I may say so you are confusing function with hierarchy. Woman and men have different roles and separate functions. It does not mean that one is inferior to the other nor is it implied.
I have never seen God but I have felt the results of his presence.
Women just get all the crappy roles eh?
Sexuality of the God concept
Sexuality of the God concept
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Sexuality of the God concept
911 wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]
Gosh, I thought he was kidding. Like he had an ex-wife who took him to the cleaners or something.
I thought it was a joke. It wasn't? :-3
sadly no...
Gosh, I thought he was kidding. Like he had an ex-wife who took him to the cleaners or something.
I thought it was a joke. It wasn't? :-3
sadly no...
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
Hamster wrote: Freedom of expression has not been abolished..and I can understand that you have had "trials" with certain females as mentioned above..but does that give you the right to wish that all women had not been created?
There are certain males I do not agree with but I would never wish this kind of thing...
I think you should observe the position of the tongue relative to the cheek.
There are certain males I do not agree with but I would never wish this kind of thing...
I think you should observe the position of the tongue relative to the cheek.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
zinkyusa wrote: [QUOTE=911]
sadly no...
On the contrary. I have been happily married since 1969 and the only topics my wife and I have ever argued about are my driving and tobacco. My sense of humour has survived.
sadly no...
On the contrary. I have been happily married since 1969 and the only topics my wife and I have ever argued about are my driving and tobacco. My sense of humour has survived.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
[QUOTE=Hamster]I am not blaming you for the bible-I never implied that.
I have also felt the presence of God but I still do not know that it is a man or a woman..and neither do you....
Since almost all the principal roles in the Scriptures were given to men, it seems a reasonable inference to presume that God is also male.
Why do you think I am confusing hierachy with function? Please explain what you mean?[/QUOTE]
I suspect that if I say the men and women have different roles in life, you will presume that I am suggesting one is superior to the other. In fact it is a non sequiter.
I have also felt the presence of God but I still do not know that it is a man or a woman..and neither do you....
Since almost all the principal roles in the Scriptures were given to men, it seems a reasonable inference to presume that God is also male.
Why do you think I am confusing hierachy with function? Please explain what you mean?[/QUOTE]
I suspect that if I say the men and women have different roles in life, you will presume that I am suggesting one is superior to the other. In fact it is a non sequiter.
Sexuality of the God concept
911 wrote:
Gosh, I thought he was kidding. Like he had an ex-wife who took him to the cleaners or something.
I thought it was a joke. It wasn't? :-3
I think you're mis-attributing it - Zinky's innocent
Gosh, I thought he was kidding. Like he had an ex-wife who took him to the cleaners or something.
I thought it was a joke. It wasn't? :-3
I think you're mis-attributing it - Zinky's innocent
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
Hamster wrote: Are you saying that your statement was intended as a joke?
I never for a moment suspected that it would be taken as anything else.
I never for a moment suspected that it would be taken as anything else.
Sexuality of the God concept
Bryn Mawr wrote: I think you're mis-attributing it - Zinky's innocent
Thanks Bryn Mawr...911 that quote was from William Ess not me..
Thanks Bryn Mawr...911 that quote was from William Ess not me..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Sexuality of the God concept
Triangles and God are both words. For "triangle" we have the advantage of both simplicity and a dictionary. The dictionary restricts the definition of triangle to something very specific and (not that I've looked) three-sided.
God, on the other hand, is a word for something undefined which many groups have appropriated to their own restricted sense. W've seen discussion here of a Christian understanding of God, which is restrictive (in a dictionary context) in that it eliminates other meanings as invalid and wrong. Other faiths focus on other attributes of the mystery. Most faiths contradict each other to such an extent that to hold one is to deny the others, yet truth presumably corresponds to what's actually responsible for the way we all are.
Faiths talk in terms of the Creator, the Creation, sometimes the Redeemer, and most often of the sense of the presence of God which comes through either worship or meditation or prayer. It's a human interpretation of understanding and experience, and some religions would add that the interpretation is divinely inspired (while others, of course, would deny that).
To hold up the Christian belief of God as male-father is to exclude two points of view, that of the majority of Christian mystics who predominantly talk of the response to meditation as female-oriented and that of perhaps half the world's non-Abrahamic religions. I feel we're taking on a considerable burden by restricting words to that extent.
Until we can divest the male-father image of cultural concepts such as authority and force and law and judgement, and divest the female-mother of love and nurture and sacrifice, and recognise that any of those attributes are sexless in a human context as well as a divine one, I'm not sure that sex as an attribute is even remotely helpful in approaching whatever it is that's divine.
God, on the other hand, is a word for something undefined which many groups have appropriated to their own restricted sense. W've seen discussion here of a Christian understanding of God, which is restrictive (in a dictionary context) in that it eliminates other meanings as invalid and wrong. Other faiths focus on other attributes of the mystery. Most faiths contradict each other to such an extent that to hold one is to deny the others, yet truth presumably corresponds to what's actually responsible for the way we all are.
Faiths talk in terms of the Creator, the Creation, sometimes the Redeemer, and most often of the sense of the presence of God which comes through either worship or meditation or prayer. It's a human interpretation of understanding and experience, and some religions would add that the interpretation is divinely inspired (while others, of course, would deny that).
To hold up the Christian belief of God as male-father is to exclude two points of view, that of the majority of Christian mystics who predominantly talk of the response to meditation as female-oriented and that of perhaps half the world's non-Abrahamic religions. I feel we're taking on a considerable burden by restricting words to that extent.
Until we can divest the male-father image of cultural concepts such as authority and force and law and judgement, and divest the female-mother of love and nurture and sacrifice, and recognise that any of those attributes are sexless in a human context as well as a divine one, I'm not sure that sex as an attribute is even remotely helpful in approaching whatever it is that's divine.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: I never for a moment suspected that it would be taken as anything else.
Sometimes humour gets lost in the presentation.
Sometimes humour gets lost in the presentation.
Sexuality of the God concept
spot wrote: Triangles and God are both words. For "triangle" we have the advantage of both simplicity and a dictionary. The dictionary restricts the definition of triangle to something very specific and (not that I've looked) three-sided.
God, on the other hand, is a word for something undefined which many groups have appropriated to their own restricted sense. W've seen discussion here of a Christian understanding of God, which is restrictive (in a dictionary context) in that it eliminates other meanings as invalid and wrong. Other faiths focus on other attributes of the mystery. Most faiths contradict each other to such an extent that to hold one is to deny the others, yet truth presumably corresponds to what's actually responsible for the way we all are.
Faiths talk in terms of the Creator, the Creation, sometimes the Redeemer, and most often of the sense of the presence of God which comes through either worship or meditation or prayer. It's a human interpretation of understanding and experience, and some religions would add that the interpretation is divinely inspired (while others, of course, would deny that).
To hold up the Christian belief of God as male-father is to exclude two points of view, that of the majority of Christian mystics who predominantly talk of the response to meditation as female-oriented and that of perhaps half the world's non-Abrahamic religions. I feel we're taking on a considerable burden by restricting words to that extent.
Until we can divest the male-father image of cultural concepts such as authority and force and law and judgement, and divest the female-mother of love and nurture and sacrifice, and recognise that any of those attributes are sexless in a human context as well as a divine one, I'm not sure that sex as an attribute is even remotely helpful in approaching whatever it is that's divine.
that was "Spot" on!:D
God, on the other hand, is a word for something undefined which many groups have appropriated to their own restricted sense. W've seen discussion here of a Christian understanding of God, which is restrictive (in a dictionary context) in that it eliminates other meanings as invalid and wrong. Other faiths focus on other attributes of the mystery. Most faiths contradict each other to such an extent that to hold one is to deny the others, yet truth presumably corresponds to what's actually responsible for the way we all are.
Faiths talk in terms of the Creator, the Creation, sometimes the Redeemer, and most often of the sense of the presence of God which comes through either worship or meditation or prayer. It's a human interpretation of understanding and experience, and some religions would add that the interpretation is divinely inspired (while others, of course, would deny that).
To hold up the Christian belief of God as male-father is to exclude two points of view, that of the majority of Christian mystics who predominantly talk of the response to meditation as female-oriented and that of perhaps half the world's non-Abrahamic religions. I feel we're taking on a considerable burden by restricting words to that extent.
Until we can divest the male-father image of cultural concepts such as authority and force and law and judgement, and divest the female-mother of love and nurture and sacrifice, and recognise that any of those attributes are sexless in a human context as well as a divine one, I'm not sure that sex as an attribute is even remotely helpful in approaching whatever it is that's divine.
that was "Spot" on!:D
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
Hamster wrote: Yes I agree with this...If it is to be taken as a joke it is something I don't find amusing! And with half the members of this forum being female its not so wise to joke about it!
I presume even members of the fair sex as represented herein have a sense of irony. You can take political sanctity too far..............
(You could, of course, have responded with an appropriate mot juste).
I presume even members of the fair sex as represented herein have a sense of irony. You can take political sanctity too far..............
(You could, of course, have responded with an appropriate mot juste).
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: I presume even members of the fair sex as represented herein have a sense of irony. You can take political sanctity too far..............
(You could, of course, have responded with an appropriate mot juste).
Now see that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.
(You could, of course, have responded with an appropriate mot juste).
Now see that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
spot wrote: Triangles and God are both words. For "triangle" we have the advantage of both simplicity and a dictionary. The dictionary restricts the definition of triangle to something very specific and (not that I've looked) three-sided.
God, on the other hand, is a word for something undefined which many groups have appropriated to their own restricted sense. W've seen discussion here of a Christian understanding of God, which is restrictive (in a dictionary context) in that it eliminates other meanings as invalid and wrong. Other faiths focus on other attributes of the mystery. Most faiths contradict each other to such an extent that to hold one is to deny the others, yet truth presumably corresponds to what's actually responsible for the way we all are.
Faiths talk in terms of the Creator, the Creation, sometimes the Redeemer, and most often of the sense of the presence of God which comes through either worship or meditation or prayer. It's a human interpretation of understanding and experience, and some religions would add that the interpretation is divinely inspired (while others, of course, would deny that).
To hold up the Christian belief of God as male-father is to exclude two points of view, that of the majority of Christian mystics who predominantly talk of the response to meditation as female-oriented and that of perhaps half the world's non-Abrahamic religions. I feel we're taking on a considerable burden by restricting words to that extent.
Until we can divest the male-father image of cultural concepts such as authority and force and law and judgement, and divest the female-mother of love and nurture and sacrifice, and recognise that any of those attributes are sexless in a human context as well as a divine one, I'm not sure that sex as an attribute is even remotely helpful in approaching whatever it is that's divine.
I think the truth is that to talk of God in terms of gender is rather fruitless. One may as well ask whether he is human since he also created animals. It is not a topic that is likely to be brought to a conclusion.
You talk of divesting men of their active characteristics and woman of their passive attributes but you don't draw it to a conclusion. What is the end product.
I am all in favour of changing things provided the result is an improvement on what we have at the moment. I am not persuaded that woman have had an especially bad time of it in the past: life for the man in his role as breadwinner and provider has not always been easy. I don't think all the blows have been on one side alone.
God, on the other hand, is a word for something undefined which many groups have appropriated to their own restricted sense. W've seen discussion here of a Christian understanding of God, which is restrictive (in a dictionary context) in that it eliminates other meanings as invalid and wrong. Other faiths focus on other attributes of the mystery. Most faiths contradict each other to such an extent that to hold one is to deny the others, yet truth presumably corresponds to what's actually responsible for the way we all are.
Faiths talk in terms of the Creator, the Creation, sometimes the Redeemer, and most often of the sense of the presence of God which comes through either worship or meditation or prayer. It's a human interpretation of understanding and experience, and some religions would add that the interpretation is divinely inspired (while others, of course, would deny that).
To hold up the Christian belief of God as male-father is to exclude two points of view, that of the majority of Christian mystics who predominantly talk of the response to meditation as female-oriented and that of perhaps half the world's non-Abrahamic religions. I feel we're taking on a considerable burden by restricting words to that extent.
Until we can divest the male-father image of cultural concepts such as authority and force and law and judgement, and divest the female-mother of love and nurture and sacrifice, and recognise that any of those attributes are sexless in a human context as well as a divine one, I'm not sure that sex as an attribute is even remotely helpful in approaching whatever it is that's divine.
I think the truth is that to talk of God in terms of gender is rather fruitless. One may as well ask whether he is human since he also created animals. It is not a topic that is likely to be brought to a conclusion.
You talk of divesting men of their active characteristics and woman of their passive attributes but you don't draw it to a conclusion. What is the end product.
I am all in favour of changing things provided the result is an improvement on what we have at the moment. I am not persuaded that woman have had an especially bad time of it in the past: life for the man in his role as breadwinner and provider has not always been easy. I don't think all the blows have been on one side alone.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
YZGI wrote: Now see that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.
I am sorry but I didn't understand a word of that.
I am sorry but I didn't understand a word of that.
Sexuality of the God concept
zinkyusa wrote: Thanks Bryn Mawr...911 that quote was from William Ess not me..
Yes, I know. that's where I took the quote from.
I think there is something wrong with the quote thingy. If you'll notice where I was quoted saying something someone else said.
Yes, I know. that's where I took the quote from.
I think there is something wrong with the quote thingy. If you'll notice where I was quoted saying something someone else said.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=Hamster]
If I remember my scriptures correctly, God created the animals and gave Adam dominion over them. When Adam could not find a suitable companion amongst the animals, God created woman out of Adams ribs.
First of all, I don't think you remember your scriptures correctly. If so, then you would be saying that God created man and then let him have a go at a little bestiality. Then he went to God and said that the animals just weren't working for him and could God in his infinite wisdom create something a whole lot better and a little less hairy. So God created Woman. Or was that tongue in cheek also?
I believe that God is referred to as male. As I stated in my first post, Jesus called him 'My Father'. To discount gender in the Bible is to discount everything in the Bible. We as a modern being tend to pick and choose what we believe and what we refuse to follow from the Bible. That just makes us weak. We can call most of the stories in the Bible parables and render our on conclusions on how certain things happened but if we discount gender for God then we must discount gender for Jesus and Moses and Abraham and all the other 'males' in the Bible. I'm not ready to do that.
Of course, we would also have to assume that Ruth and Mary were males.
(Hamster, I know you didn't say that, I was quoting Willie. Somethings wrong or I've forgotton how to do this!! I hit the quote button on post #44)
If I remember my scriptures correctly, God created the animals and gave Adam dominion over them. When Adam could not find a suitable companion amongst the animals, God created woman out of Adams ribs.
First of all, I don't think you remember your scriptures correctly. If so, then you would be saying that God created man and then let him have a go at a little bestiality. Then he went to God and said that the animals just weren't working for him and could God in his infinite wisdom create something a whole lot better and a little less hairy. So God created Woman. Or was that tongue in cheek also?
I believe that God is referred to as male. As I stated in my first post, Jesus called him 'My Father'. To discount gender in the Bible is to discount everything in the Bible. We as a modern being tend to pick and choose what we believe and what we refuse to follow from the Bible. That just makes us weak. We can call most of the stories in the Bible parables and render our on conclusions on how certain things happened but if we discount gender for God then we must discount gender for Jesus and Moses and Abraham and all the other 'males' in the Bible. I'm not ready to do that.
Of course, we would also have to assume that Ruth and Mary were males.
(Hamster, I know you didn't say that, I was quoting Willie. Somethings wrong or I've forgotton how to do this!! I hit the quote button on post #44)
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
911 wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]
First of all, I don't think you remember your scriptures correctly. If so, then you would be saying that God created man and then let him have a go at a little bestiality. Then he went to God and said that the animals just weren't working for him and could God in his infinite wisdom create something a whole lot better and a little less hairy. So God created Woman. Or was that tongue in cheek also?
I)
Check it for yourself. I can't quote the thing word for word but God created woman after the animals and after Adam reported that there was no suitable companion for him. You seem to have summed the position up more or less adequately.
First of all, I don't think you remember your scriptures correctly. If so, then you would be saying that God created man and then let him have a go at a little bestiality. Then he went to God and said that the animals just weren't working for him and could God in his infinite wisdom create something a whole lot better and a little less hairy. So God created Woman. Or was that tongue in cheek also?
I)
Check it for yourself. I can't quote the thing word for word but God created woman after the animals and after Adam reported that there was no suitable companion for him. You seem to have summed the position up more or less adequately.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
911 wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]
I believe that God is referred to as male. As I stated in my first post, Jesus called him 'My Father'. )
That is a very good point. I should have thought of it..................
I believe that God is referred to as male. As I stated in my first post, Jesus called him 'My Father'. )
That is a very good point. I should have thought of it..................
Sexuality of the God concept
Tell me, why are all these christian musings considered either definitive or exhaustive?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
spot wrote: Tell me, why are all these christian musings considered either definitive or exhaustive?
Who said they were?
Who said they were?
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=911]
That is a very good point. I should have thought of it..................
uh so what?
That is a very good point. I should have thought of it..................
uh so what?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Sexuality of the God concept
zinkyusa wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]
uh so what?
I was referring to the Jesus quote as in so what, just because in the Bible Jesus said it?
uh so what?
I was referring to the Jesus quote as in so what, just because in the Bible Jesus said it?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
zinkyusa wrote: [QUOTE=zinkyusa]
I was referring to the Jesus quote as in so what, just because in the Bible Jesus said it?
You should not take the Bible at face value and there are times when it can act as a brake on intellectual theology. The Bible can be likened to a cryptic crossword puzzle; the scriptures being the clues and the answers being the result of intelligent contemplation of the clues.
I was referring to the Jesus quote as in so what, just because in the Bible Jesus said it?
You should not take the Bible at face value and there are times when it can act as a brake on intellectual theology. The Bible can be likened to a cryptic crossword puzzle; the scriptures being the clues and the answers being the result of intelligent contemplation of the clues.
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: Who said they were?The thread's full of "God is this" or "The bible tells us that" as though christian musings are considered by the author to be both definitive and exhaustive, that's all. No qualification of "within Christian dogmatics" or "the understanding of some christians suggests". Those posts exclude the majority of human opinion about and practice toward God.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Sexuality of the God concept
"You should not take the Bible at face value ".....and yet, so often, that's exactly what happens. I can pull more than a few quotes from this very thread claiming "God" is a guy because it SAYS so........etc.
It's either to be taken literally or NONE of it is to be taken literally. And since a great deal of it is contradictory or totally ignored these days....it's meaningless to insist that ANY of it is literal truth.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? :wah:
It's either to be taken literally or NONE of it is to be taken literally. And since a great deal of it is contradictory or totally ignored these days....it's meaningless to insist that ANY of it is literal truth.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? :wah:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Sexuality of the God concept
Not that other religions necessarily dispute Christian notions of gender in the Godhead - Hindu religious philosophy encompasses a male nature, as in:
All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all-pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord. He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable. The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is perceived in the heart. They who know Him become immortal.
Yajur Veda, Svetasvatara Upanishad, Part I, Chapter III
All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all-pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord. He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable. The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is perceived in the heart. They who know Him become immortal.
Yajur Veda, Svetasvatara Upanishad, Part I, Chapter III
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
spot wrote: The thread's full of "God is this" or "The bible tells us that" as though christian musings are considered by the author to be both definitive and exhaustive, that's all. No qualification of "within Christian dogmatics" or "the understanding of some christians suggests". Those posts exclude the majority of human opinion about and practice toward God.
I don't agree. Contributors have suggested that God has certain characteristics based upon what is contained within the Bible but that does not suggested that the writer is proof from an opposing argument.
I do not know what the majority of human (is there any other) opinion is on God or religious practice.
I don't agree. Contributors have suggested that God has certain characteristics based upon what is contained within the Bible but that does not suggested that the writer is proof from an opposing argument.
I do not know what the majority of human (is there any other) opinion is on God or religious practice.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
[QUOTE=Lulu2
It's either to be taken literally or NONE of it is to be taken literally. And since a great deal of it is contradictory or totally ignored these days....it's meaningless to insist that ANY of it is literal truth.:
That is, I am afraid, a nonsense. One could argue perfectly reasonably that whilst much of Genesis is allegorical - primitive man could not have grasped the concept of evolution and therefore it had to be presented in a digestible form - much of the New Testament is literal.
There is remarkably little in the Bible that is contradictory provided you take the trouble to study it.
It is an extraordinary indicment on contemporary intellect that the Bible is ignored as being a complicated anachronism (usually by those with litle or no experience of it) whilst its critics are quite content to believe in aliens from outer space and Bermuda triangles. The age of reason sometimes seems to have run out of steam.
It's either to be taken literally or NONE of it is to be taken literally. And since a great deal of it is contradictory or totally ignored these days....it's meaningless to insist that ANY of it is literal truth.:
That is, I am afraid, a nonsense. One could argue perfectly reasonably that whilst much of Genesis is allegorical - primitive man could not have grasped the concept of evolution and therefore it had to be presented in a digestible form - much of the New Testament is literal.
There is remarkably little in the Bible that is contradictory provided you take the trouble to study it.
It is an extraordinary indicment on contemporary intellect that the Bible is ignored as being a complicated anachronism (usually by those with litle or no experience of it) whilst its critics are quite content to believe in aliens from outer space and Bermuda triangles. The age of reason sometimes seems to have run out of steam.
Sexuality of the God concept
Who said I buy into aliens and the Bermuda triangle? :wah:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
spot wrote: Not that other religions necessarily dispute Christian notions of gender in the Godhead - Hindu religious philosophy encompasses a male nature, as in:
All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all-pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord. He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable. The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is perceived in the heart. They who know Him become immortal.
Yajur Veda, Svetasvatara Upanishad, Part I, Chapter III
Is it really significant? The French, for example, divide everything into male or female and include inorganic items. Le Bateau, La France......... etc. It does not actually mean that a ship is literally masculine.
All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all-pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord. He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable. The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is perceived in the heart. They who know Him become immortal.
Yajur Veda, Svetasvatara Upanishad, Part I, Chapter III
Is it really significant? The French, for example, divide everything into male or female and include inorganic items. Le Bateau, La France......... etc. It does not actually mean that a ship is literally masculine.
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: I do not know what the majority of human (is there any other) opinion is on God or religious practice.It is, rather excitingly, still non-Christian, that's the point I was trying to get across.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: Is it really significant? The French, for example, divide everything into male or female and include inorganic items. Le Bateau, La France......... etc. It does not actually mean that a ship is literally masculine.
I was considering more the use of omnipresent, great, Lord and Ruler rather than "He", the power-words as opposed to the feminine aspects.
I was considering more the use of omnipresent, great, Lord and Ruler rather than "He", the power-words as opposed to the feminine aspects.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
spot wrote: It is, rather excitingly, still non-Christian, that's the point I was trying to get across.
I think you may be wrong. I will take up the theme in the morning.
I think you may be wrong. I will take up the theme in the morning.
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: I think you may be wrong. I will take up the theme in the morning.
Here's a hook for you to hang your comment on, then.
The generally recognised figure for worldwide religious affiliation is one third christian, two thirds not, but the basis of who is a christian is (to my mind) shockingly inflated at least in those parts of the world with which I'm familiar.
Taking the United Kingdom, where I live, the CIA World Factbook gives (in this inflated sense):Total population: 57,591,677. Anglican 27 million, Roman Catholic 9 million, Muslim 1 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 400,000, Hindu 350,000, Jewish 300,000 (1991 est.)That's 38 million christians in the UK? Where are they all? 1.7 million people attend an Anglican service at least once a year. The other 25.3 million counted by the CIA are christians? Whose definition of christian allows that sort of fudge?
Here's a hook for you to hang your comment on, then.
The generally recognised figure for worldwide religious affiliation is one third christian, two thirds not, but the basis of who is a christian is (to my mind) shockingly inflated at least in those parts of the world with which I'm familiar.
Taking the United Kingdom, where I live, the CIA World Factbook gives (in this inflated sense):Total population: 57,591,677. Anglican 27 million, Roman Catholic 9 million, Muslim 1 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 400,000, Hindu 350,000, Jewish 300,000 (1991 est.)That's 38 million christians in the UK? Where are they all? 1.7 million people attend an Anglican service at least once a year. The other 25.3 million counted by the CIA are christians? Whose definition of christian allows that sort of fudge?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Sexuality of the God concept
It's interesting, Spot, to see how many people will identify themselves as "religious" or "Christian" on surverys.....but we don't really SEE them, do we? I've seen surverys, for example, which say that half the people in this country don't believe in evolution!
Where'd they take the survey? Kansas? :wah:
Where'd they take the survey? Kansas? :wah:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Sexuality of the God concept
SnoozeControl wrote: Wouldn't "gender" be a more appropriate word to use in the title?
Yes, I agree, Snooze. I confused the meaning of the title when I first read the thread a few days ago but I didn't bother to mention it as I thought it was probably just me and my frequent habit of misunderstanding something.
Yes, I agree, Snooze. I confused the meaning of the title when I first read the thread a few days ago but I didn't bother to mention it as I thought it was probably just me and my frequent habit of misunderstanding something.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
spot wrote: Here's a hook for you to hang your comment on, then.
The generally recognised figure for worldwide religious affiliation is one third christian, two thirds not, but the basis of who is a christian is (to my mind) shockingly inflated at least in those parts of the world with which I'm familiar.
Taking the United Kingdom, where I live, the CIA World Factbook gives (in this inflated sense):Total population: 57,591,677. Anglican 27 million, Roman Catholic 9 million, Muslim 1 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 400,000, Hindu 350,000, Jewish 300,000 (1991 est.)That's 38 million christians in the UK? Where are they all? 1.7 million people attend an Anglican service at least once a year. The other 25.3 million counted by the CIA are christians? Whose definition of christian allows that sort of fudge?
Do you have to go to church in order to be a Christian?
The generally recognised figure for worldwide religious affiliation is one third christian, two thirds not, but the basis of who is a christian is (to my mind) shockingly inflated at least in those parts of the world with which I'm familiar.
Taking the United Kingdom, where I live, the CIA World Factbook gives (in this inflated sense):Total population: 57,591,677. Anglican 27 million, Roman Catholic 9 million, Muslim 1 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 400,000, Hindu 350,000, Jewish 300,000 (1991 est.)That's 38 million christians in the UK? Where are they all? 1.7 million people attend an Anglican service at least once a year. The other 25.3 million counted by the CIA are christians? Whose definition of christian allows that sort of fudge?
Do you have to go to church in order to be a Christian?
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: Do you have to go to church in order to be a Christian?
If you were a christian, would you not go to church?
The fruits of christianity include communion, which surely implies meeting up as a recognisable group with a common identity; worship, which implies gathering for the purpose; and learning from the religious leaders, which is why church services have sermons.
There was a time when a financial reckoning of the value of England's assets would have found churches accounting for the largest investment. Generations built those stone buildings so that they could be used. What are the buildings there for now? Attracting tourism? The population's gone up by twenty times since they were erected.
Yes, in essence. You do have to go to church in order to be a Christian. In what way is that an inaccurate statement, as far as it relates to the missing 25 million? You don't have to watch TV either but they're damned good at doing that between them. Tell me what the reply would have been from the church builders, if they were asked "Do you have to go to church in order to be a Christian?".
If you were a christian, would you not go to church?
The fruits of christianity include communion, which surely implies meeting up as a recognisable group with a common identity; worship, which implies gathering for the purpose; and learning from the religious leaders, which is why church services have sermons.
There was a time when a financial reckoning of the value of England's assets would have found churches accounting for the largest investment. Generations built those stone buildings so that they could be used. What are the buildings there for now? Attracting tourism? The population's gone up by twenty times since they were erected.
Yes, in essence. You do have to go to church in order to be a Christian. In what way is that an inaccurate statement, as far as it relates to the missing 25 million? You don't have to watch TV either but they're damned good at doing that between them. Tell me what the reply would have been from the church builders, if they were asked "Do you have to go to church in order to be a Christian?".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
spot wrote: If you were a christian, would you not go to church?
The fruits of christianity include communion, which surely implies meeting up as a recognisable group with a common identity; worship, which implies gathering for the purpose; and learning from the religious leaders, which is why church services have sermons.
There was a time when a financial reckoning of the value of England's assets would have found churches accounting for the largest investment. Generations built those stone buildings so that they could be used. What are the buildings there for now? Attracting tourism? The population's gone up by twenty times since they were erected.
Yes, in essence. You do have to go to church in order to be a Christian. In what way is that an inaccurate statement, as far as it relates to the missing 25 million? You don't have to watch TV either but they're damned good at doing that between them. Tell me what the reply would have been from the church builders, if they were asked "Do you have to go to church in order to be a Christian?".
To be a Christian one has to do no more than follow the teachings of Christ who does not himself, after throwing out the money changers, seem to have been an attendee himself although detail on the matter is sparse.
Unless one is a Roman Catholic in which case attendance is mandatory since the mass is one of the sacraments, the church is not an essential element of Christianity. Christ recommended regular meetings amongst his followers in order to maintain contact and for many years this was deemed to be part and parcel of Christianity, principally because of the RC requirement. It was also a very useful way of addressing a community on a variety of topics prior to the advent of newspapers, etc.
Even though most of the British population do not attend church and have rather foggy ideas on matters spiritual, it is a fact that most of our law and, per se, actions are rooted in most of the ten Commandments. This includes blasphemy which, although it has not been put to the test for many years, is still an offence.
Whether such a second-hand adherence will be enough on the judgement day is not something I can speculate on but the fact is that society as a whole is very much more Christian in collective behavioural terms than it was two hundred years ago.
The fruits of christianity include communion, which surely implies meeting up as a recognisable group with a common identity; worship, which implies gathering for the purpose; and learning from the religious leaders, which is why church services have sermons.
There was a time when a financial reckoning of the value of England's assets would have found churches accounting for the largest investment. Generations built those stone buildings so that they could be used. What are the buildings there for now? Attracting tourism? The population's gone up by twenty times since they were erected.
Yes, in essence. You do have to go to church in order to be a Christian. In what way is that an inaccurate statement, as far as it relates to the missing 25 million? You don't have to watch TV either but they're damned good at doing that between them. Tell me what the reply would have been from the church builders, if they were asked "Do you have to go to church in order to be a Christian?".
To be a Christian one has to do no more than follow the teachings of Christ who does not himself, after throwing out the money changers, seem to have been an attendee himself although detail on the matter is sparse.
Unless one is a Roman Catholic in which case attendance is mandatory since the mass is one of the sacraments, the church is not an essential element of Christianity. Christ recommended regular meetings amongst his followers in order to maintain contact and for many years this was deemed to be part and parcel of Christianity, principally because of the RC requirement. It was also a very useful way of addressing a community on a variety of topics prior to the advent of newspapers, etc.
Even though most of the British population do not attend church and have rather foggy ideas on matters spiritual, it is a fact that most of our law and, per se, actions are rooted in most of the ten Commandments. This includes blasphemy which, although it has not been put to the test for many years, is still an offence.
Whether such a second-hand adherence will be enough on the judgement day is not something I can speculate on but the fact is that society as a whole is very much more Christian in collective behavioural terms than it was two hundred years ago.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Sexuality of the God concept
I shall have to drop out of the debate for a couple of days as I have to run across country to Cambridge for a reunion. I shall try and pick up the threads on Monday.
Sexuality of the God concept
I agree with WilliamS
Going to church is not a necessity to being a Christian. And even in the Catholic Church, it is not necessary to attend Mass to be Catholic. It is a sacrament and considered a sin to not attend Mass on Sunday but a Catholic is a Catholic unless they renounce their faith or are excommunicated.
Going to church is not a necessity to being a Christian. And even in the Catholic Church, it is not necessary to attend Mass to be Catholic. It is a sacrament and considered a sin to not attend Mass on Sunday but a Catholic is a Catholic unless they renounce their faith or are excommunicated.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Sexuality of the God concept
William Ess wrote: I shall have to drop out of the debate for a couple of days as I have to run across country to Cambridge for a reunion. I shall try and pick up the threads on Monday.
Have a good time william ess....we'll miss your er ah "point of view":-5 LOL
Have a good time william ess....we'll miss your er ah "point of view":-5 LOL
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.