‹ First  < 10 11 12
 
   
 

The Convert-Atheist Perspective

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  757
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2018 16:03
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 09 January 2018 03:40 PM
EN - 09 January 2018 12:17 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 09 January 2018 12:01 PM
EN - 09 January 2018 11:41 AM

  Do you want my working definition?

Yes!

God - the eternal, personal entity responsible for all that is not Him.

That’s a working definition.  I’m not saying there is not a better one.  It relates to my understanding of his essence, not necessarily his attributes and characteristics.

Thank you. That makes more sense to me than, “God is love” or “God is nature.”

“The midpoint between science and religion is trying to find out what the meaning of life is.” -Talib Kweli

To my mind, it seems counterproductive on the part of the faithful to anthropomorphize “God” and attempt to ascribe gender (perhaps even more so when claiming that a creator would be male). The most effective rhetorical statements to support the existence of any deity that I’ve heard tended to be based in negative theology (“if man is imperfect, then God must be perfect,” and so on).

Then again, I only believe in life, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20316
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
09 January 2018 16:35
 

Referring to God as “Him” is not an assignment of gender, which I don’t believe God has.  It’s the traditional way that Christians refer to God, and I see no reason to change that. I don’t want to go around creating new pronouns.  Although I’ve toyed with Ze, Zim and Ziz (He, Him, His).  What do you think?

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  757
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
09 January 2018 16:49
 
EN - 09 January 2018 04:35 PM

Referring to God as “Him” is not an assignment of gender, which I don’t believe God has.  It’s the traditional way that Christians refer to God, and I see no reason to change that. I don’t want to go around creating new pronouns.  Although I’ve toyed with Ze, Zim and Ziz (He, Him, His).  What do you think?

If we are speaking of one monotheistic deity for all humanity? It? The Creator? The Beneficent? I dunno.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4785
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
14 January 2018 08:59
 
EN - 09 January 2018 04:35 PM

Referring to God as “Him” is not an assignment of gender, which I don’t believe God has.  It’s the traditional way that Christians refer to God, and I see no reason to change that. I don’t want to go around creating new pronouns.  Although I’ve toyed with Ze, Zim and Ziz (He, Him, His).  What do you think?

Not to quibble unduly but I think that is a minority position among monotheists world wide. God is referred to as male even in languages with gender neutral pro nouns. ‘He’ is depicted as not simply male but as the epitome of all masculine attributes. His social roles are male roles. I appreciate that you have a unique personal view but the tradition you refer to is a man-god tradition. We have feminine and un gendered gods as points of reference and the differences couldn’t be more clear. The rules and regulations in Abrahamic scriptures exist for the benefit of a male dominant society. I don’t think any committee of women would have ever written the old testament.

(any females present feel free to correct me here)

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2159
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
14 January 2018 09:18
 
Brick Bungalow - 14 January 2018 08:59 AM
EN - 09 January 2018 04:35 PM

Referring to God as “Him” is not an assignment of gender, which I don’t believe God has.  It’s the traditional way that Christians refer to God, and I see no reason to change that. I don’t want to go around creating new pronouns.  Although I’ve toyed with Ze, Zim and Ziz (He, Him, His).  What do you think?

Not to quibble unduly but I think that is a minority position among monotheists world wide. God is referred to as male even in languages with gender neutral pro nouns. ‘He’ is depicted as not simply male but as the epitome of all masculine attributes. His social roles are male roles. I appreciate that you have a unique personal view but the tradition you refer to is a man-god tradition. We have feminine and un gendered gods as points of reference and the differences couldn’t be more clear. The rules and regulations in Abrahamic scriptures exist for the benefit of a male dominant society. I don’t think any committee of women would have ever written the old testament.

(any females present feel free to correct me here)

I agree.  Abrahamic religious doctrines are a manifestation of the male values of their times and have been used to subjugate women for millennia.  (Much of the new testament could also use a female perspective, IMO.)  The idea that a supernatural/spiritual god would even have a gender seems rather odd to me.  Which I suppose is the reason why more intelligent religious people might abandon this kind of thinking.

 
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  757
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
14 January 2018 09:30
 
Brick Bungalow - 14 January 2018 08:59 AM
EN - 09 January 2018 04:35 PM

Referring to God as “Him” is not an assignment of gender, which I don’t believe God has.  It’s the traditional way that Christians refer to God, and I see no reason to change that. I don’t want to go around creating new pronouns.  Although I’ve toyed with Ze, Zim and Ziz (He, Him, His).  What do you think?

Not to quibble unduly but I think that is a minority position among monotheists world wide. God is referred to as male even in languages with gender neutral pro nouns. ‘He’ is depicted as not simply male but as the epitome of all masculine attributes. His social roles are male roles. I appreciate that you have a unique personal view but the tradition you refer to is a man-god tradition. We have feminine and un gendered gods as points of reference and the differences couldn’t be more clear. The rules and regulations in Abrahamic scriptures exist for the benefit of a male dominant society. I don’t think any committee of women would have ever written the old testament.

(any females present feel free to correct me here)

I will certainly grant you the obvious fact that the Torah/Pentateuch was edited in order to manufacture the notion that “He” is sacred above all else, and that women are the source of all carnal temptation.
Eve wasn’t the first woman in the story of the Garden.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14783
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
14 January 2018 11:15
 
Jan_CAN - 14 January 2018 09:18 AM

I agree.  Abrahamic religious doctrines are a manifestation of the male values of their times and have been used to subjugate women for millennia.  (Much of the new testament could also use a female perspective, IMO.)  The idea that a supernatural/spiritual god would even have a gender seems rather odd to me.  Which I suppose is the reason why more intelligent religious people might abandon this kind of thinking.


Well, sure ... there is the whole accepting the absurdly obvious cultural influences thing, but how important can that possibly be to interpreting the Bible as compared to moderin liberal sensibilities?

 
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  757
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
14 January 2018 11:22
 
SkepticX - 14 January 2018 11:15 AM
Jan_CAN - 14 January 2018 09:18 AM

I agree.  Abrahamic religious doctrines are a manifestation of the male values of their times and have been used to subjugate women for millennia.  (Much of the new testament could also use a female perspective, IMO.)  The idea that a supernatural/spiritual god would even have a gender seems rather odd to me.  Which I suppose is the reason why more intelligent religious people might abandon this kind of thinking.


Well, sure ... there is the whole accepting the absurdly obvious cultural influences thing, but how important can that possibly be to interpreting the Bible as compared to moderin liberal sensibilities?

It’s too bad Harvey Weinstein never made a movie version of ‘Genesis’... sick

 
 
‹ First  < 10 11 12