Is God A "He"...?

[Vox]

Still off topic but let's admit the word "blessèd" is synonymous with "gullible".

nope, not necessarily.

the discussion is a depiction of the base agnosticism lies on - you can not prove either way.

And nobody claims the Bible was written by God Himself. It was inspired by God Himself.
There is the difference.
Plus there is a difference in interpretation - some go with a literal one and some are on the symbolical side, much like Jesus with His parables.

That's the same circular argument we started with.

Do we not understand what this means?

"God exists"
How do we know?
"It's in the bible"
Who wrote the bible?
"Men who claim to be inspired by God"
Who?
"God -- the guy in the bible"

NOPE. That is what YOU claim.

God exists NOT because He is in the Bible. That is what you say, but not what Mertex or I am saying.

 

[Flopper]

myself, I can't bring myself to believe that God has anything so base as a gender...

Since God is the invisible Creator, it is non-gender.

Since we are speaking English, it is either illiteracy to refer to a sentient being as "it", or an intentional attempt at offending people by a crass boor.

Which one describes you? Unable to use English correctly, or trash?

Used to refer to that one previously mentioned. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; a group of objects or individuals; an action; or an abstraction: polished the table until it shone; couldn't find out who it was; opened the meeting by calling it to order.

IT - definition of IT by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Pogo]

nope, not necessarily.

the discussion is a depiction of the base agnosticism lies on - you can not prove either way.

And nobody claims the Bible was written by God Himself. It was inspired by God Himself.
There is the difference.
Plus there is a difference in interpretation - some go with a literal one and some are on the symbolical side, much like Jesus with His parables.

That's the same circular argument we started with.

Do we not understand what this means?

"God exists"
How do we know?
"It's in the bible"
Who wrote the bible?
"Men who claim to be inspired by God"
Who?
"God -- the guy in the bible"

NOPE. That is what YOU claim.

God exists NOT because He is in the Bible. That is what you say, but not what Mertex or I am saying.

It's simply an example. Bottom line: you can't use a point as its own basis; that is circular reasoning, and it's fallacious.

 

[Pogo]

I did also.
However, He is a Spirit. And Spirits do not have genders.

so... it's complicated

we won't have gender on the other side as well, so the question is only relevant for our Earthly path.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Male imagery referring to God

The male imagery used to depict God is fundamentally different from the female similes found in Scripture. God may be like a mother in certain aspects, but He is Father; Jesus prayed to Him as Father and taught His disciples to do the same (Matt 6:9). The Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, became incarnate as a man, not a woman, and Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit with the pronoun ‘He’ (John 14:16–17). These are not similes or metaphors, but teaching regarding the very nature of God and how He relates to His creation, and how the members of the Godhead relate to each other.

What's in a pronoun? The divine gender controversy

I think the male gender pronoun is connected to the patriarchal structure of the human society and as such it gives the males more authority. It's not sexual matter but rather strength matter, so to say. but that is just my feeling on the issue

Bingo-roonie. We have a winner.

 

[Pogo]

mebbe it's just me, but I still have a hard time imagining the creator having gender-specific reproductive organs...

whether it be a monstrously huge swingin' dick or an all-encompassing vagina...

anyone wanna help me on this...?

I see the latter as far more logical Bill. The horn of plenty; the fertile Earth; the Nurturer.

Huge swingin' dick, all that does is get in the way; doesn't actually produce anything.

 

[Montrovant]

The 200 times figure is from my sociology professor in college and people didn't believe me so I found supporting evidence on the web and saved it to my thumb drive and I have no idea if the support is still on the web.

What is the difference between listening to dead people through their autobiographies lie or living people lie? You trust them anymore than dead people?

If you take the attitude that people are going to lie to you, why listen to anybody?

Wait....you say that people lie 200 times a day, then wonder why someone would have an attitude that people are going to lie to you? You just explained that people are, in fact, going to lie to you!

And we have people questioning whether Sandy Hook was a conspiracy:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tapes-scrutinized-more-questions-raised.html

The problem is not the Bible. The problem is you.

When did I say anything about the Bible having problems? What are you responding to, exactly?

I was commenting on something you said. If you cannot respond to that, fine, but why bring up completely unrelated things having nothing to do with me in this thread?

 

[Chuckt]

Wait....you say that people lie 200 times a day, then wonder why someone would have an attitude that people are going to lie to you? You just explained that people are, in fact, going to lie to you!

And we have people questioning whether Sandy Hook was a conspiracy:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tapes-scrutinized-more-questions-raised.html

The problem is not the Bible. The problem is you.

When did I say anything about the Bible having problems? What are you responding to, exactly?

I was commenting on something you said. If you cannot respond to that, fine, but why bring up completely unrelated things having nothing to do with me in this thread?

The fact that they can't believe anything they don't want to believe.

Who else is like that? When the news is "conspiracy" and we can't believe anything... what do they become? Conspiracy theorists.

 

[Montrovant]

And we have people questioning whether Sandy Hook was a conspiracy:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tapes-scrutinized-more-questions-raised.html

The problem is not the Bible. The problem is you.

When did I say anything about the Bible having problems? What are you responding to, exactly?

I was commenting on something you said. If you cannot respond to that, fine, but why bring up completely unrelated things having nothing to do with me in this thread?

The fact that they can't believe anything they don't want to believe.

Who else is like that? When the news is "conspiracy" and we can't believe anything... what do they become? Conspiracy theorists.

Ok, well, you're obviously determined to talk about something completely unrelated to me or any of my posts, so I'll leave you to it.

 

[Pogo]

There have always been goddesses ... many chose to ignore her.

Sophia: Goddess of Wisdom & God's Wife.
By Katia Romanoff (with contributions by young Mark Raines) Sophia Figurine available

I have old Christian articles from Watchman Fellowship on the heresy called Sophia Worship. I thought at the time that it was sick that I have to have them but it is a heresy being forced on the church this century. It is paganism and not Christianity.

"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" (an article
from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, page 8) by Ronald
Nash.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0169a.txt

You can thank Robert J. Fox of the Roman Catholic Church for the "Re Imagining Conference".

According to Smith, even though Fox claims to be a Trinitarian, Fox posits Jesus as the Supreme Model of Panentheism in Scripture. Jesus as Immanuel (Matt. 1:22) seems to be Fox's proof-text. However, for Fox, it appears that Jesus is not a literal figure, but a principle of divine potentiality which is found in every living creature. One can not help but think of the many intrusions of the New Age human-potential movement in the business sectors of our society, such as the ubiquitous seminars and infomercials which teach that humans have "unlimited" potential (p. 298).

Fox's theology naturally affects his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Fox holds that the Holy Spirit is the feminine aspect of God. He states that "the Spirit, who is evergreen (Hildegard) and who is transformer (Eckhart) is essentially a feminine spirit." The description of the spirit is Mother Sophia from wisdom literature texts, where he says "come from North Africa where a Mother Goddess was worshipped before the Israelite people were formed" (Creation Spirituality, p. 62).

Watchman Fellowship, Inc. - The 'Changing' God of the New Theologies

This isn't Christianity. This is New Age garbage that is basically apostasy because it is not based on fact or Christianity but it is make believe being put on the Church because there are people who are apostates following apostates.

not based on fact?? After what we just did with the circular reasoning bit?



Trust me, this goes back way before Robert Fox. Try reading Robert Graves The White Goddess or George James Frazier's Golden Bough.

>> A Gnostic creation myth said Sophia was born from the primordial female power Sige (Silence). Sophia gave birth to a male spirit, Christ, and a female spirit, Achamoth. The latter gave birth to the elements and the terrestrial world, then brought forth a new god named Ildabaoth, Son of Darkness, along with five planetary spirts later regarded as emanations of Jehovah: Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloi and Uraeus. These spirits produced archangles, angels, and finally, men.

Ildabaoth or Jehovah forbade men to eat the fruit of knowledge, but his mother Achamoth sent her own spirit to earth in the form of the serpent Ophis to teach men to disobey the jealous god. The serpent was also called Christ, who taught Adam to eat the fruit of knowledge despite the god's prohibition << -- Walker, Barbara: The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, after Jonas, Hans: The Gnostic Religion (1963)

 

[Chuckt]

There have always been goddesses ... many chose to ignore her.

Sophia: Goddess of Wisdom & God's Wife.
By Katia Romanoff (with contributions by young Mark Raines) Sophia Figurine available

I have old Christian articles from Watchman Fellowship on the heresy called Sophia Worship. I thought at the time that it was sick that I have to have them but it is a heresy being forced on the church this century. It is paganism and not Christianity.

"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" (an article
from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, page 8) by Ronald
Nash.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0169a.txt

You can thank Robert J. Fox of the Roman Catholic Church for the "Re Imagining Conference".

According to Smith, even though Fox claims to be a Trinitarian, Fox posits Jesus as the Supreme Model of Panentheism in Scripture. Jesus as Immanuel (Matt. 1:22) seems to be Fox's proof-text. However, for Fox, it appears that Jesus is not a literal figure, but a principle of divine potentiality which is found in every living creature. One can not help but think of the many intrusions of the New Age human-potential movement in the business sectors of our society, such as the ubiquitous seminars and infomercials which teach that humans have "unlimited" potential (p. 298).

Fox's theology naturally affects his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Fox holds that the Holy Spirit is the feminine aspect of God. He states that "the Spirit, who is evergreen (Hildegard) and who is transformer (Eckhart) is essentially a feminine spirit." The description of the spirit is Mother Sophia from wisdom literature texts, where he says "come from North Africa where a Mother Goddess was worshipped before the Israelite people were formed" (Creation Spirituality, p. 62).

Watchman Fellowship, Inc. - The 'Changing' God of the New Theologies

This isn't Christianity. This is New Age garbage that is basically apostasy because it is not based on fact or Christianity but it is make believe being put on the Church because there are people who are apostates following apostates.

not based on fact?? After what we just did with the circular reasoning bit?



Trust me, this goes back way before Robert Fox. Try reading Robert Graves The White Goddess or George James Frazier's Golden Bough.

>> A Gnostic creation myth said Sophia was born from the primordial female power Sige (Silence). Sophia gave birth to a male spirit, Christ, and a female spirit, Achamoth. The latter gave birth to the elements and the terrestrial world, then brought forth a new god named Ildabaoth, Son of Darkness, along with five planetary spirts later regarded as emanations of Jehovah: Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloi and Uraeus. These spirits produced archangles, angels, and finally, men.

Ildabaoth or Jehovah forbade men to eat the fruit of knowledge, but his mother Achamoth sent her own spirit to earth in the form of the serpent Ophis to teach men to disobey the jealous god. The serpent was also called Christ, who taught Adam to eat the fruit of knowledge despite the god's prohibition << -- Walker, Barbara: The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, after Jonas, Hans: The Gnostic Religion (1963)

Is there any eyewitness testimony to these myths that you gave me?
Do you have a date when these myths were created?
Where are their followers today? In Wicca? In Paganism?
These myths are parasitical in nature. They were created to feed off of another religion which shows the intent that they aren't real.

 

[Vox]

That's the same circular argument we started with.

Do we not understand what this means?

"God exists"
How do we know?
"It's in the bible"
Who wrote the bible?
"Men who claim to be inspired by God"
Who?
"God -- the guy in the bible"

NOPE. That is what YOU claim.

God exists NOT because He is in the Bible. That is what you say, but not what Mertex or I am saying.

It's simply an example. Bottom line: you can't use a point as its own basis; that is circular reasoning, and it's fallacious.

and I am not. Your claim that God does not exist is as unprovable scientifically as ours that He does exist.

 

[Pogo]

I have old Christian articles from Watchman Fellowship on the heresy called Sophia Worship. I thought at the time that it was sick that I have to have them but it is a heresy being forced on the church this century. It is paganism and not Christianity.

"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" (an article
from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, page 8) by Ronald
Nash.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0169a.txt

You can thank Robert J. Fox of the Roman Catholic Church for the "Re Imagining Conference".



Watchman Fellowship, Inc. - The 'Changing' God of the New Theologies

This isn't Christianity. This is New Age garbage that is basically apostasy because it is not based on fact or Christianity but it is make believe being put on the Church because there are people who are apostates following apostates.

not based on fact?? After what we just did with the circular reasoning bit?



Trust me, this goes back way before Robert Fox. Try reading Robert Graves The White Goddess or George James Frazier's Golden Bough.

>> A Gnostic creation myth said Sophia was born from the primordial female power Sige (Silence). Sophia gave birth to a male spirit, Christ, and a female spirit, Achamoth. The latter gave birth to the elements and the terrestrial world, then brought forth a new god named Ildabaoth, Son of Darkness, along with five planetary spirts later regarded as emanations of Jehovah: Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloi and Uraeus. These spirits produced archangles, angels, and finally, men.

Ildabaoth or Jehovah forbade men to eat the fruit of knowledge, but his mother Achamoth sent her own spirit to earth in the form of the serpent Ophis to teach men to disobey the jealous god. The serpent was also called Christ, who taught Adam to eat the fruit of knowledge despite the god's prohibition << -- Walker, Barbara: The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, after Jonas, Hans: The Gnostic Religion (1963)

Is there any eyewitness testimony to these myths that you gave me?
Do you have a date when these myths were created?
Where are their followers today? In Wicca? In Paganism?
These myths are parasitical in nature. They were created to feed off of another religion which shows the intent that they aren't real.

The Jonas book can be read here. Discussion of Sophia starts about page 299. I haven't read it all so I can't pin down an era but Gnosticism stretches well back before Christianism.

As myths, they don't really have "followers"; it's folklore by now. And like any myth, they don't have "eyewitnesses"; if they had eyewitnesses they wouldn't be myths, they'd be history. Much like the God concept-- same thing. And no, they're not "parasitical" -- they were actually there before Christianity. The Sophists were esteemed teachers of ancient Greece. It's where we get the word philosophy.

What we have to remember is that there are many streams of thought on our origins and spirituality beyond the narrow stream of the officially endorsed one that survives. Some have been forgotten, some actively persecuted or distorted. Some remain only in fragments. All are equally worthy of consideration.

"To re-member: to put back together"

 

[Pogo]

NOPE. That is what YOU claim.

God exists NOT because He is in the Bible. That is what you say, but not what Mertex or I am saying.

It's simply an example. Bottom line: you can't use a point as its own basis; that is circular reasoning, and it's fallacious.

and I am not. Your claim that God does not exist is as unprovable scientifically as ours that He does exist.

I haven't made such a claim. It would be impossible since I have no way to know that. It would be as fallacious as declaring "God exists because He told me He does".

 

[Chuckt]

The Jonas book can be read here. Discussion of Sophia starts about page 299. I haven't read it all so I can't pin down an era but Gnosticism stretches well back before Christianism.

As myths, they don't really have "followers"; it's folklore by now. But no, they're not "parasitical" -- they were actually there before Christianity. What you have to remember is that there are many streams of thought on our origins and spirituality beyond the narrow stream of the officially endorsed one that survives. Some have been forgotten, some actively persecuted or distorted. Some remain only in fragments. All are equally worthy of consideration.

"To re-member: to put back together"

Preface to the Third Edition
It may be said that in this century Gnosticism, which is bound up
with the development of Early Christ
ianity, matured or graduated from a
field for church historians, and mainly
as an object of stern criticism on the
part of the Church Fathers, to a topic that has drawn into its orbit more
scholars of different fields.*

http://luizfernando.info/pbd/The Gnostic Religion - Hans Jonas.pdf

I happen to have a thick Christian book on disproving Gnosticism. I may look it up.

 

[Pogo]

The Jonas book can be read here. Discussion of Sophia starts about page 299. I haven't read it all so I can't pin down an era but Gnosticism stretches well back before Christianism.

As myths, they don't really have "followers"; it's folklore by now. But no, they're not "parasitical" -- they were actually there before Christianity. What you have to remember is that there are many streams of thought on our origins and spirituality beyond the narrow stream of the officially endorsed one that survives. Some have been forgotten, some actively persecuted or distorted. Some remain only in fragments. All are equally worthy of consideration.

"To re-member: to put back together"

Preface to the Third Edition
It may be said that in this century Gnosticism, which is bound up with the development of Early Christianity, matured or graduated from a field for church historians, and mainly as an object of stern criticism on the part of the Church Fathers, to a topic that has drawn into its orbit more scholars of different fields.*

http://luizfernando.info/pbd/The Gnostic Religion - Hans Jonas.pdf

I happen to have a thick Christian book on disproving Gnosticism. I may look it up.

You can't "disprove" myths. They're just there.
Just as I told Vox, I can't "disprove" God. It's not the point.

Myths are not for proving or disproving. They're like art; symbolic of something. What they teach is under their surface. And often, what they teach us is about the origin of something we already have.

Like, for example, Christmas.

 

[Chuckt]

The Jonas book can be read here. Discussion of Sophia starts about page 299. I haven't read it all so I can't pin down an era but Gnosticism stretches well back before Christianism.

As myths, they don't really have "followers"; it's folklore by now. But no, they're not "parasitical" -- they were actually there before Christianity. What you have to remember is that there are many streams of thought on our origins and spirituality beyond the narrow stream of the officially endorsed one that survives. Some have been forgotten, some actively persecuted or distorted. Some remain only in fragments. All are equally worthy of consideration.

"To re-member: to put back together"

Preface to the Third Edition
It may be said that in this century Gnosticism, which is bound up with the development of Early Christianity, matured or graduated from a field for church historians, and mainly as an object of stern criticism on the part of the Church Fathers, to a topic that has drawn into its orbit more scholars of different fields.*

http://luizfernando.info/pbd/The Gnostic Religion - Hans Jonas.pdf

I happen to have a thick Christian book on disproving Gnosticism. I may look it up.

You can't "disprove" myths. They're just there.
Just as I told Vox, I can't "disprove" God. It's not the point.

Myths are not for proving or disproving. They're like art; symbolic of something. What they teach is under their surface. And often, what they teach us is about the origin of something we already have.

Like, for example, Christmas.

If myths aren't evidence then you can't use it to disprove Christianity.

I honestly feel like if I disprove Gnosticism, it will mean nothing to you. That is an unfair argument. I believe it is a cop out.

cop-out also cop·out (kpout)
n. Slang
1. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely.
2. A person who fails to fulfill a commitment or responsibility.
3. An excuse for inaction or evasion.

copout - definition of copout by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Pogo]

http://luizfernando.info/pbd/The Gnostic Religion - Hans Jonas.pdf

I happen to have a thick Christian book on disproving Gnosticism. I may look it up.

You can't "disprove" myths. They're just there.
Just as I told Vox, I can't "disprove" God. It's not the point.

Myths are not for proving or disproving. They're like art; symbolic of something. What they teach is under their surface. And often, what they teach us is about the origin of something we already have.

Like, for example, Christmas.

If myths aren't evidence then you can't use it to disprove Christianity.

I honestly feel like if I disprove Gnosticism, it will mean nothing to you. That is an unfair argument. I believe it is a cop out.

You cannot "disprove" either one. They're not factual assertions. Does not apply. They're myths. No "evidence" is needed, because no assertion is made. Gnosticism exists historically; Christianity exists historically. The myths within them are myths, just like any other myths.

Do you not understand what we're talking about?

myth:
1a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

Can you "disprove" the existence of Santa Claus? And even if you could, what would be the point?

Myths are cultural spiritual building blocks. They're ALL there for our edification and comfort, or in some cases for our terror. And they offer insight to our past and how we got where we are. They're allegories that interpret the supernatural and the life forces. They give us hope, warnings, or amusement.

What you're going for with "cop out" and "disproving" is suppression; you seem to want all thought channeled to your own stream, even the myths (?). That's a bit bizarre. You get yours, but everybody else gets theirs too. That's just the way it is.

 

[Chuckt]

Santa exists in its cultural expression that he was a real person that tradition follows.
I'm Santa to my children.

Santa doesn't exist but evidence of absence of God is not absence of evidence.

The Presumptuousness of Atheism | Christian Research Institute

 

[Pogo]

Santa exists in its cultural expression that he was a real person that tradition follows.
I'm Santa to my children.

Santa doesn't exist but evidence of absence of God is not absence of evidence.

The Presumptuousness of Atheism | Christian Research Institute

I suspect you mean that the other way 'round...

Santa doesn't exist? How do you know?

We're off the topic again.

 

[Dajjal]

Santa exists in its cultural expression that he was a real person that tradition follows.
I'm Santa to my children.

Santa doesn't exist but evidence of absence of God is not absence of evidence.

The Presumptuousness of Atheism | Christian Research Institute

I suspect you mean that the other way 'round...

Santa doesn't exist? How do you know?

We're off the topic again.

Santa doesn't exist because we have not found him at the north pole, and we have been there. Also because it is logically impossible for him to fit down a chimney