|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2018 0:32:41 GMT
It's more attempts by liberal Christians top try to "modernize" a Bronze Age belief sytem. I say just throw the baby out with the bath water and give up on Christianity if your gonna go through these riddiculous attempts to make the Bible clumnsily fit in line with modern, progressive values.
And let's burn all science books because some scientists are debating particular theories! Yeah!
And no, it's not about updating to "modern" values, you are just too lazy to read up on any of the arguments and want to spew nonsense based on headlines. Internet arguments 101.
Wait! Are they going to burn the book of common prayer or update it to be asexual?   |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2018 0:35:21 GMT
And let's burn all science books because some scientists are debating particular theories! Yeah!
And no, it's not about updating to "modern" values, you are just too lazy to read up on any of the arguments and want to spew nonsense based on headlines. Internet arguments 101.
"And let's burn all science books because some scientists are debating particular theories! Yeah!"
Actually that is more or less how science works. As new theories and scientific discoveries arises, old scientific information must be revised or even discarded. For instance, while Darwin was a brilliant scientist, there's a reason "Origin of the Species" isn't really used in modern biology studies anymore, it's rather outdated and limited in the information on modern biological evolution. If a science textbook has wrong/outdated information, then yes it should be revised or discarded. So yeah, kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one.
"And no, it's not about updating to "modern" values"
Then what else would it be?
"you are just too lazy to read up on any of the arguments"
As someone that frequents these boards and have heard countless religious arguments/debates, I've heard pretty much all of them (watchmaker argument, moral argument, first cause argument, Pascals Wager, etc)
...butt it seems that you missed 101. THE important one. The Bible of internet arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jul 5, 2018 0:35:29 GMT
And let's burn all science books because some scientists are debating particular theories! Yeah!
And no, it's not about updating to "modern" values, you are just too lazy to read up on any of the arguments and want to spew nonsense based on headlines. Internet arguments 101.
"And let's burn all science books because some scientists are debating particular theories! Yeah!"
Actually that is more or less how science works. As new theories and scientific discoveries arises, old scientific information must be revised or even discarded. For instance, while Darwin was a brilliant scientist, there's a reason "Origin of the Species" isn't really used in modern biology studies anymore, it's rather outdated and limited in the information on modern biological evolution. If a science textbook has wrong/outdated information, then yes it should be revised or discarded. So yeah, kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one.
"And no, it's not about updating to "modern" values"
Then what else would it be?
"you are just too lazy to read up on any of the arguments"
As someone that frequents these boards and have heard countless religious arguments/debates, I've heard pretty much all of them (watchmaker argument, moral argument, first cause argument, Pascals Wager, etc)
"Revised" and seen through a new light is a million times different than abandoning it all in the garbage, as per your suggestion. You afford room for new understanding to science, but believe that religion must adhere to the exact frameworks of fundamentalism, or else it's just a sham. Hypocrisy alert.
So you've heard everything, but apparently have never heard that terms related to motherhood are used for God in the Bible, and also when it is translated in other languages. You could disagree with it perfectly fine and insist they are wrong to want to change their book, but acting like they are not allowed to debate and it is all "modern progressive" nonsense is idiotic.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2018 0:44:59 GMT
"And let's burn all science books because some scientists are debating particular theories! Yeah!"
Actually that is more or less how science works. As new theories and scientific discoveries arises, old scientific information must be revised or even discarded. For instance, while Darwin was a brilliant scientist, there's a reason "Origin of the Species" isn't really used in modern biology studies anymore, it's rather outdated and limited in the information on modern biological evolution. If a science textbook has wrong/outdated information, then yes it should be revised or discarded. So yeah, kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one.
"And no, it's not about updating to "modern" values"
Then what else would it be?
"you are just too lazy to read up on any of the arguments"
As someone that frequents these boards and have heard countless religious arguments/debates, I've heard pretty much all of them (watchmaker argument, moral argument, first cause argument, Pascals Wager, etc)
"Revised" and seen through a new light is a million times different than abandoning it all in the garbage, as per your suggestion. You afford room for new understanding to science, but believe that religion must adhere to the exact frameworks of fundamentalism, or else it's just a sham. Hypocrisy alert.
So you've heard everything, but apparently have never heard that terms related to motherhood are used for God in the Bible, and also when it is translated in other languages. You could disagree with it perfectly fine and insist they are wrong to want to change their book, but acting like they are not allowed to debate and it is all "modern progressive" nonsense is idiotic.
I know I have been joking around in this thread, butt you raise an interesting point with the reference to femininity in the translations. Whilst I dont hold any candle for Catholicism ( in fact usually the reverse as my reputation precedes me on this on the boards) HOWEVER it has always fascinated me that they have raised the status of Mary in their faith. I find it interesting that in a largely misogynistic church, that Mary holds a special divine place, as she was only a human woman...apparently! |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 5, 2018 0:48:15 GMT
"And let's burn all science books because some scientists are debating particular theories! Yeah!"
Actually that is more or less how science works. As new theories and scientific discoveries arises, old scientific information must be revised or even discarded. For instance, while Darwin was a brilliant scientist, there's a reason "Origin of the Species" isn't really used in modern biology studies anymore, it's rather outdated and limited in the information on modern biological evolution. If a science textbook has wrong/outdated information, then yes it should be revised or discarded. So yeah, kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one.
"And no, it's not about updating to "modern" values"
Then what else would it be?
"you are just too lazy to read up on any of the arguments"
As someone that frequents these boards and have heard countless religious arguments/debates, I've heard pretty much all of them (watchmaker argument, moral argument, first cause argument, Pascals Wager, etc)
"Revised" and seen through a new light is a million times different than abandoning it all in the garbage, as per your suggestion. You afford room for new understanding to science, but believe that religion must adhere to the exact frameworks of fundamentalism, or else it's just a sham. Hypocrisy alert.
So you've heard everything, but apparently have never heard that terms related to motherhood are used for God in the Bible, and also when it is translated in other languages. You could disagree with it perfectly fine and insist they are wrong to want to change their book, but acting like they are not allowed to debate and it is all "modern progressive" nonsense is idiotic.
""Revised" and seen through a new light is a million times different than abandoning it all in the garbage"
Which is why I also included "discarded", did you miss that part? Notice how scientists don't bother with Lamarckian evolution or alchemy anymore.
"but believe that religion must adhere to the exact frameworks of fundamentalism, or else it's just a sham"
You're comparing apples to oranges, science must be constantly questioned, updated and revised as new information arises. The Bible is supposed to be the unquestionable, perfect word of God that must never be changed despite new information/values. Simply because people want it to fit in with more "modern" ideals is just a silly mental tapdance.
"but acting like they are not allowed to debate"
When did I say that? I welcome Biblical debate (as I often partake on here as well), but again trying to make it fit in with modern, progressive values require some serious mental gymnastics. You're right, liberal minded Christians are allowed to their interpretation of the Bible and so am I. What's the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 5, 2018 3:50:08 GMT
God Is a Spirit, and therefore, Has no Gender. However, Christianity (as well as other monotheistic religions) teach that God Created from outside of Himself, that is why refer to God in the Masculine sense, as opposed to the Feminine sense. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2018 5:11:35 GMT
God Is a Spirit, and therefore, Has no Gender. However, Christianity (as well as other monotheistic religions) teach that God Created from outside of Himself, that is why refer to God in the Masculine sense, as opposed to the Feminine sense. How was 'he' God the Father, then? |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 5, 2018 5:46:27 GMT
I don't understand why anyone has a problem with this. Western liberals who oppose the concept of a male creator never seem to have a problem with the eastern concept of yin and yang, aggressive and passive, male and female. In Christianity there is a trinity. God the father is male and the Holy Ghost is the female aspect of deity. Obviously the creative force can't be male in isolation, he needs a force to act upon which is female. Why is it obvious? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 5, 2018 6:58:54 GMT
We know that life begins when a male seed fertilizes a female egg. There's a male and female dynamic to life. It's logical to assume that a creator god would work on the same principles. Not necessarily IMO. One is one until you split in half, and together they make two halves of one (as opposed to the way germs reproduce, or those horrible creatures in that "Island of Terror" movie from the 1960's). I don't see why the Creator couldn't remain as one while imposing the male/female split on some (if not all) of the creations. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 5, 2018 8:09:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 9:25:30 GMT
God don`t exist its a fictional character that can be what ever you want it to be. Also it would make no sense if God had a gender if God actually did exist it would be gender less a pure spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jul 5, 2018 10:05:59 GMT
Yes, as clearly explained by the master theologian Navaros: "No, God's Penis is not a biological organ. I never said God's Penis was the same as man's penis. Obviously it wouldn't be. That is why I pointed out God has a Holy, Righteous Penis. That is to say, it's not the same as man's corrupted, fleshy one.
As I said when this subject first came up, once again: Penises are not just for sex & peeing. It is only because man is evil that he thinks of penises exclusively in those terms.
Man is made in the image of God the Father. That is the primary reason why man has a penis.
You cannot insert your evil prejudicial ideas of man's penis onto God - which is exactly what you are doing. God's Penis is not equal to man's penis. It's really not hard to understand. " fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=62318 |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 5, 2018 13:25:45 GMT
God Is a Spirit, and therefore, Has no Gender. However, Christianity (as well as other monotheistic religions) teach that God Created from outside of Himself, that is why refer to God in the Masculine sense, as opposed to the Feminine sense. How was 'he' God the Father, then? By the fact that He Created outside of Himself. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 5, 2018 13:28:10 GMT
I don't understand why anyone has a problem with this. Western liberals who oppose the concept of a male creator never seem to have a problem with the eastern concept of yin and yang, aggressive and passive, male and female. In Christianity there is a trinity. God the father is male and the Holy Ghost is the female aspect of deity. Obviously the creative force can't be male in isolation, he needs a force to act upon which is female. No. The Holy Ghost is spoken of in the MASCULINE Sense, just like the Father Is, & the Son Is. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 5, 2018 13:40:12 GMT
as one more piece of pretend patriarchy comes crashing to the imagined holy ground it sprang from.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2018 20:51:14 GMT
Yes, as clearly explained by the master theologian Navaros: "No, God's Penis is not a biological organ. I never said God's Penis was the same as man's penis. Obviously it wouldn't be. That is why I pointed out God has a Holy, Righteous Penis. That is to say, it's not the same as man's corrupted, fleshy one.
As I said when this subject first came up, once again: Penises are not just for sex & peeing. It is only because man is evil that he thinks of penises exclusively in those terms.
Man is made in the image of God the Father. That is the primary reason why man has a penis.
You cannot insert your evil prejudicial ideas of man's penis onto God - which is exactly what you are doing. God's Penis is not equal to man's penis. It's really not hard to understand. " fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=62318LOL. Thankyou for confirming my theory that God didn't have a working evil penis and that the angels were his turkey baster equivalent when he/they 'came upon' Mary.  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2018 20:53:45 GMT
I don't understand why anyone has a problem with this. Western liberals who oppose the concept of a male creator never seem to have a problem with the eastern concept of yin and yang, aggressive and passive, male and female. In Christianity there is a trinity. God the father is male and the Holy Ghost is the female aspect of deity. Obviously the creative force can't be male in isolation, he needs a force to act upon which is female. No. The Holy Ghost is spoken of in the MASCULINE Sense, just like the Father Is, & the Son Is. It never ceases to amaze me, how Christians in general and Catholics in particular, have to go through so much tortuous 'reasoning' in an attempt to make sense of the inconsistencies in their stories. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 5, 2018 23:53:27 GMT
No. The Holy Ghost is spoken of in the MASCULINE Sense, just like the Father Is, & the Son Is. It never ceases to amaze me, how Christians in general and Catholics in particular, have to go through so much tortuous 'reasoning' in an attempt to make sense of the inconsistencies in their stories. What is so inconsistent about addressing the Holy Spirit in the Masculine sense?!?!  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 6, 2018 0:00:00 GMT
God don`t exist its a fictional character that can be what ever you want it to be. Also it would make no sense if God had a gender if God actually did exist it would be gender less a pure spirit. Your second sentence highlights how pointless your first statement always is. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2018 0:13:56 GMT
It never ceases to amaze me, how Christians in general and Catholics in particular, have to go through so much tortuous 'reasoning' in an attempt to make sense of the inconsistencies in their stories. What is so inconsistent about addressing the Holy Spirit in the Masculine sense?!?! Well, to be perfectly honest, it is the whole triumvirate thing, transubstanciation (sp?) wine and wafers for blood and flesh, Mary's pregnancy, God's 'evil' penis, DNA, sainthood, miracles, the authority of the Pope, the devil, heaven hell etc etc etc |
|
