NATION

PASSWORD

The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What is your denomination?

Roman Catholic
130
34%
Eastern Orthodox
41
11%
Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc.)
2
1%
Anglican/Episcopalian
27
7%
Lutheran or Reformed (including Calvinist, Presbyterian, etc.)
44
11%
Methodist
2
1%
Baptist
39
10%
Other Evangelical Protestant (Pentecostal, Charismatic, etc.)
32
8%
Restorationist (LDS Movement, Jehovah's Witness, etc.)
14
4%
Other Christian
56
14%
 
Total votes : 387

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10818
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Northern Davincia » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:19 pm

Andromeda Islands wrote:There is nothing "just" about eternal punishment for finite sin.
What purpose would there be for such punishment?
If someone is being good only from fear, they are being good for the wrong reason.
Why would an all wise, all loving creator create beings that are totally evil, in the first place?
Is this creator all merciful or not?
The problem of evil is not easily explained or understood.
The problem is evil, the solution is to be good.
It could be that simple.

As Nietzsche put it,

"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the
impulse to punish is powerful!"

The creator allows the capacity for evil, but does not compel it. In the same manner that being a criminal results in imprisonment, you punish yourself with sin.
Right-Libertarian, Minarchist, Laissez-faire Capitalist, Catholic

Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Elenir
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 133
Founded: Oct 01, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Elenir » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:23 pm

Well, God did give us humans freedom, that's why we perform evil acts. I personally think its better to have free thought than to be a puppet of good. I like worship, but I prefer for it to be voluntary.
The supreme bigot.

User avatar
Kowani
Minister
 
Posts: 2920
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Kowani » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:47 pm

Elenir wrote:Well, God did give us humans freedom, that's why we perform evil acts. I personally think its better to have free thought than to be a puppet of good. I like worship, but I prefer for it to be voluntary.

>Voluntarily
>Literal eternal suffering

See no contradictions...
My Nation doesn’t reflect my actual views, nor do I use NS stats for Roleplay.
Atheist and proud of it.
Pro: Freedom of Speech, LGBT rights, Abortion, Atheism, Secularism, Technophilia, Humanity, Peace in general, Egalitarianism, Pizza.
Anti: Religion, Violence, Misogyny, Misandry, Racism, Pedophilia, Facism, SJW’s, Willful Ignorance, Promotion of harmful cultural practices in the name of “cultural diversity”, whoever created "Ebola-chan."
Catalan Separatist. Catalunya Independiente!

User avatar
Menassa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33227
Founded: Aug 11, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Menassa » Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:12 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Menassa wrote:I don't know... John 14:6 seems pretty intolerant to me. :meh:


I think exclusive is a better word

One man's exclusivity is another mans intolerance.
-NS's one and only Tanna!
Radical Monotheist
Their hollow inheritance.
This is my god and I shall exalt him
The NS Steam Thread
Jewish Discussion Thread בְּ
"A missionary uses the Bible like a drunk uses a lamppost, not so much for illumination, but for support"
"Imagine of a bunch of Zulu tribesmen told Congress how to read the Constitution, that's how it feels to a Jew when you tell us how to read our bible"
"God said: you must teach, as I taught, without a fee."
"Against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgement and accounting before the king, king of all kings..."

User avatar
Kowani
Minister
 
Posts: 2920
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Kowani » Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:16 am

Menassa wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
I think exclusive is a better word

One man's exclusivity is another mans intolerance.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Can I just mention all the delicious innuendoes I can make with this?
My Nation doesn’t reflect my actual views, nor do I use NS stats for Roleplay.
Atheist and proud of it.
Pro: Freedom of Speech, LGBT rights, Abortion, Atheism, Secularism, Technophilia, Humanity, Peace in general, Egalitarianism, Pizza.
Anti: Religion, Violence, Misogyny, Misandry, Racism, Pedophilia, Facism, SJW’s, Willful Ignorance, Promotion of harmful cultural practices in the name of “cultural diversity”, whoever created "Ebola-chan."
Catalan Separatist. Catalunya Independiente!

User avatar
Tarsonis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5209
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:05 am

Stonok wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
It is a somewhat poetic of saying “be a reflection of” this is true but humans are so far removed from the level God that to suggest that humans have the same personality characteristics of God is just not accurate. Part of the incarnation is God experiancing Human experience. Christ had to experience the human life.

Fair point, but you do have to remember that Adam was created in perfect communion with God and before his fall was probably far beyond the level we imagine humans as capable of.

(Preface: I don't really believe in a literal Adam and literal fall, but Adam is a useful metaphor to work with in this case.)
Except Adam didn't have perfect communion with God, At least not in the way that we have communion through Christ. Adam had a perfect nature and lived in the presence of God. The Original sin wounded his human nature, and brought about his concupiscence. Christ being a vessel fully of both Human and Divine natures not only reconciled us to God, but joins our natures in perfect communion. When we say we have but one mediator who is Christ, it is far greater than his sacrifice on the Cross. Christ is everything. In every way that we are joined to God in perfect communion. In any possible way, conceivable or not, that we can commune with God, it is through Christ.


It also doesn't quite make sense to say it means "in the image of Christ" since Christ had no physical body at the time either.


Ah but remember God's plan was known before the dawn of Creation, and God exists outside of linear time. God new Christ would become Flesh,reconcile the world and join Humanity to God before the the universe even existed. So we were made in the Image of Christ, in anticipation of the Incarnation, before he ever walked the Earth. We were made in the Image of God, hundreds of thousands of years before He took Human form.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School ‘18.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Tarsonis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5209
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:11 am

Kowani wrote:
Menassa wrote:One man's exclusivity is another mans intolerance.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Can I just mention all the delicious innuendoes I can make with this?



Yes. Yes. We're all immature. But it would be terribly bad form for you to do so.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School ‘18.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Minzerland II
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5312
Founded: Aug 27, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby Minzerland II » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:33 am

Doesn’t the Catholic Church affirm a literal Adam, Eve and Fall, Tarsonis? Correct me if I am wrong.
Previous Profile: Minzerland
Pope Innocent III wrote:I call myself servant, not lord, according to what the Lord said to the apostles... The honor is great, since I am instituted over the family; but the burden is heavy, since I am servant to the whole family. “I am debtor to the wise and to the foolish” (Rom. 1:14). One can scarcely be served worthily by many; how much less can all be served worthily by one.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5209
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:39 am

Minzerland II wrote:Doesn’t the Catholic Church affirm a literal Adam, Eve and Fall, Tarsonis? Correct me if I am wrong.


From the CCC

"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

I may lean on that rule harder than most, but there's room for my position within the Church.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School ‘18.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Andromeda Islands
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 48
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Andromeda Islands » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:40 am

Kowani wrote:
Menassa wrote:One man's exclusivity is another mans intolerance.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Can I just mention all the delicious innuendoes I can make with this?

I am not sure where you are going with this, but John CH. 14 standing alone suggests both a universalist and unitarian philosophy, and a gnostic atheistic one as well.

Also putting it in context, the statement was in response to a question posed by the most atheistic gnostic disciple, Thomas.

By the way, a similar narrow philosophy is often quoted, Matthew 7:13, that the way is narrow, but read that verse in context, it suggests a very different idea than "Only Christians are good" or that "Only Christianity is the true religion"
John 14 and Matthew 7 present a very different philosophy than traditional Trinitarian dogmatic orthodoxy.
There are clearly universalist and unitarian (and ironically atheist, as well) statements in the Bible, although one could argue that the Bible teaches the opposite as well. Many Christians can concede the point that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, for example it could be claimed that the "born again" idea teaches reincarnation.

Whether you see the Bible figuratively as Spong does, or in a more logical world view as atheists do, you may learn to doubt the dogma of Biblical inerrancy, which has yet to be proven and is only accepted by the narrow minority.
A wise man once said nothing.

User avatar
Minzerland II
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5312
Founded: Aug 27, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby Minzerland II » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:47 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:Doesn’t the Catholic Church affirm a literal Adam, Eve and Fall, Tarsonis? Correct me if I am wrong.


From the CCC

"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

I may lean on that rule harder than most, but there's room for my position within the Church.

Excuse my ignorance, but, in my flawed interpretation, doesn’t that excerpt imply Adam, Eve and a Fall in the past? I ask again that you excuse me for pressing so insistently; my knowledge of this aspect of the Catholic Faith is just lacking.
Last edited by Minzerland II on Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
Previous Profile: Minzerland
Pope Innocent III wrote:I call myself servant, not lord, according to what the Lord said to the apostles... The honor is great, since I am instituted over the family; but the burden is heavy, since I am servant to the whole family. “I am debtor to the wise and to the foolish” (Rom. 1:14). One can scarcely be served worthily by many; how much less can all be served worthily by one.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5209
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:06 am

Andromeda Islands wrote:
Kowani wrote:Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Can I just mention all the delicious innuendoes I can make with this?

I am not sure where you are going with this, but John CH. 14 standing alone suggests both a universalist and unitarian philosophy, and a gnostic atheistic one as well.


Standing alone AKA "out of context." So to understand it as universalist or unitarian, would be wrong because it denies the rest of the Gospel of John which is not. (And for the record, it would take some severe mental gymnastics to make John Chapter 14 Universalist even by itself. All the bits about "Believing in me," "keep my commandments" and "I am in the Father", "no one comes to the father except through me" isn't universalist at all. It's very specific.

Also putting it in context, the statement was in response to a question posed by the most atheistic gnostic disciple, Thomas.


Thomas wasn't a gnostic. There is a Gnostic gospel named for Thomas but it is a forgery. And St. Thomas Christians aren't gnostics.

By the way, a similar narrow philosophy is often quoted, Matthew 7:13, that the way is narrow, but read that verse in context, it suggests a very different idea than "Only Christians are good" or that "Only Christianity is the true religion"




John 14 and Matthew 7 present a very different philosophy than traditional Trinitarian dogmatic orthodoxy.
No the don't. They are Trinitarian dogmatic orthodoxy.


There are clearly universalist and unitarian (and ironically atheist, as well) statements in the Bible,


Which is why we understand these quotes in the whole of the biblical context, not cherry picked out. I can turn Voldemort into the hero and harry potter into the Villain, if I remove certain passages from the context of the story.


although one could argue that the Bible teaches the opposite as well. Many Christians can concede the point that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, for example it could be claimed that the "born again" idea teaches reincarnation.



Whether you see the Bible figuratively as Spong does, or in a more logical world view as atheists do, you may learn to doubt the dogma of Biblical inerrancy, which has yet to be proven and is only accepted by the narrow minority.


Yes and no. Inerrancy requires defining. Traditionally we understand that Inerrancy to be within its intended purpose. The purpose of Scripture is to convey doctrinal truth. You can write a complete work of fiction that still accomplishes this goal. So when we view the Bible as Inerrant we are referring to its memetic property, not necessarily its propositional one.

The idea that it is propositionally inerrant is actually a relatively recent idea.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School ‘18.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Andromeda Islands
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 48
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Andromeda Islands » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:10 am

Of course, the terms "god" and "goddess" are problematic in the sense that not all theists and sheists have the same concepts of what these words mean. In a figurative sense every person creates the deity in an existential way.
You can call me a "sheist" if you want (as long as you don't call me "late for dinner" haha)… but I only believe in goddess in a figurative sense and don't have a comprehensive education in sheology, nor in monosheism, but I do know that Sophia(aka true wisdom) is a good thing. So, in a totally figurative sense only, not literally I am a monosheist.

(oh and on a very important note: those who use the term "literally" to mean "figuratively" are in a figurative sense "literally" dumb,
assuming you know what I am talking about)
A wise man once said nothing.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5209
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:12 am

Minzerland II wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:
From the CCC

"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

I may lean on that rule harder than most, but there's room for my position within the Church.

Excuse my ignorance, but, in my flawed interpretation, doesn’t that excerpt imply Adam, Eve and a Fall in the past? I ask again that you excuse me for pressing so insistently; my knowledge of this aspect of the Catholic Faith is just lacking.


It implies that at the beginning of human history, something went terribly wrong. It doesn't imply a literal Adam/Eve/Eden exactly as it's laid out in the text, but a real fall involving the first human beings, who ever they may have been.

I'm currently working on a propositional explanation on that, reconciling the Church's teachings about evolution and Original Sin, which in their current state can be seen as contradictory, but I won't posit it as true doctrine unless the Church approves it if I ever get around to submitting it for certification and hoping some higher ups hear it and go "yeah That's it, tell everyone that."
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School ‘18.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Tarsonis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5209
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:21 am

Andromeda Islands wrote:Of course, the terms "god" and "goddess" are problematic in the sense that not all theists and sheists have the same concepts of what these words mean. In a figurative sense every person creates the deity in an existential way.
You can call me a "sheist" if you want (as long as you don't call me "late for dinner" haha)… but I only believe in goddess in a figurative sense and don't have a comprehensive education in sheology, nor in monosheism, but I do know that Sophia(aka true wisdom) is a good thing. So, in a totally figurative sense only, not literally I am a monosheist.

(oh and on a very important note: those who use the term "literally" to mean "figuratively" are in a figurative sense "literally" dumb,
assuming you know what I am talking about)


Ignoring the fact that Sheist is a nonsensical term, there is a difference between God and "god/goddess" God is a more or less gender neutral word, because God transcends the concept of sex and gender. god/goddess is a term for gendered polytheistic deities
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School ‘18.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Stonok
Diplomat
 
Posts: 948
Founded: Nov 27, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Stonok » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:52 am

Tarsonis wrote:snip

Having a perfect nature and being in the presence of God sounds quite a lot like being a reflection of Him in terms of the original nature and probably by extension the personal characteristics of Adam before his fall; I understand where you're coming from though and you may very well be right. At any rate it doesn't add or take away from the original point to our Gnostic friend; Christians by default do not believe that God (the Father) is literally a grandfather sitting on a cloud.

As for whether or not Adam and Eve are literal, I agree that Genesis uses a great deal of allegorical language but I don't think it's necessarily impossible that it records actual people to an extent and they may very well be the Mitochondrial Adam and Eve scientists have determined all humans are descended from even though they existed alongside thousands of others. I however am not a Young Earth Creationist who thinks Cain married his sister or somehow interbred with an ape...
Last edited by Stonok on Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5209
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:33 am

Stonok wrote:
Tarsonis wrote:snip

Having a perfect nature and being in the presence of God sounds quite a lot like being a reflection of Him in terms of the original nature and probably by extension the personal characteristics of Adam before his fall; I understand where you're coming from though and you may very well be right. At any rate it doesn't add or take away from the original point to our Gnostic friend; Christians by default do not believe that God (the Father) is literally a grandfather sitting on a cloud.


True enough.

As for whether or not Adam and Eve are literal, I agree that Genesis uses a great deal of allegorical language but I don't think it's necessarily impossible that it records actual people to an extent and they may very well be the Mitochondrial Adam and Eve scientists have determined all humans are descended from even though they existed alongside thousands of others. I however am not a Young Earth Creationist who thinks Cain married his sister or somehow interbred with an ape...


But Mitochondrial Eve and Paternal Adam existed thousands of years apart. It's possible yes, but I don't find it probable.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School ‘18.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Andromeda Islands
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 48
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Andromeda Islands » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:41 am

Tarsonis,
That you for taking the time in your responses. It would take me a very long time to respond point by point, but I will take one point about the gender of "God". When we don't know the gender of a fetus we call "it" an "it". That doesn't indicate that the fetus doesn't have gender. When we use the term "God", that implies a masculine gender, and the term "it" would be a more accurate term to indicate a genderless (albeit personal) creator. The point is that in English the pronoun "He" is used when talking about God.
German is different, the neuter "das" (="the) can refer to a male or female in some cases. It's an issue of language and semantics if you simply it.
A wise man once said nothing.

User avatar
Stonok
Diplomat
 
Posts: 948
Founded: Nov 27, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Stonok » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:57 am

Tarsonis wrote:But Mitochondrial Eve and Paternal Adam existed thousands of years apart. It's possible yes, but I don't find it probable.

Hm, that's true. To be honest I mostly only read up on Mitochondrial Eve and presumed that her "husband" was the male equivalent.

User avatar
Tarsonis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5209
Founded: Sep 20, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tarsonis » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:20 am

Andromeda Islands wrote:Tarsonis,
That you for taking the time in your responses. It would take me a very long time to respond point by point, but I will take one point about the gender of "God". When we don't know the gender of a fetus we call "it" an "it". That doesn't indicate that the fetus doesn't have gender. When we use the term "God", that implies a masculine gender, and the term "it" would be a more accurate term to indicate a genderless (albeit personal) creator. The point is that in English the pronoun "He" is used when talking about God.
German is different, the neuter "das" (="the) can refer to a male or female in some cases. It's an issue of language and semantics if you simply it.



The problem being we use "it" to refer to things, not people or persons, and God is not a thing. So "it" is inadequate. (it's also not appropriate for Fetuses either as fetuses are people as well.)

Traditionally God is considered male, due to reproductive concepts. Jesus is Male, thus he is God the Son. God the Father is called that as such because He conceived the Son (via the Holy Spirit) with Mary the Theotokos the Mother of God. But these are matter of function rather than biological sex and gender, because God has neither.

More modernly, and especially in Protestant circles, God is recognized as having neither Sex nor Gender, and thus God takes on an agender concept, with God's and God'self being the appropriate pronouns, in most academic discourse.


Sheist is also a nonsensical term. Because Theist is derived from the Greek word Theos meaning God. The female version of that is Thea. Theist is a gender neutral term.
Proud NS Keyboard Warrior since 2005. M.A.R. Yale Divinity School ‘18.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much vexation, and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow"
Galatians 6:7 " Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow."
1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
T. Stevens: "I don't hold with equality in all things, but I believe in equality under the Law."
James I of Aragon "Have you ever considered that our position is Idolatry to the Rabbi?"
Debating Christian Theology with Non-Christians pretty much anybody be like

User avatar
Andromeda Islands
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 48
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Andromeda Islands » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:08 am

Tarsonis wrote:
Andromeda Islands wrote:Tarsonis,
That you for taking the time in your responses. It would take me a very long time to respond point by point, but I will take one point about the gender of "God". When we don't know the gender of a fetus we call "it" an "it". That doesn't indicate that the fetus doesn't have gender. When we use the term "God", that implies a masculine gender, and the term "it" would be a more accurate term to indicate a genderless (albeit personal) creator. The point is that in English the pronoun "He" is used when talking about God.
German is different, the neuter "das" (="the) can refer to a male or female in some cases. It's an issue of language and semantics if you simply it.



The problem being we use "it" to refer to things, not people or persons, and God is not a thing. So "it" is inadequate. (it's also not appropriate for Fetuses either as fetuses are people as well.)

Traditionally God is considered male, due to reproductive concepts. Jesus is Male, thus he is God the Son. God the Father is called that as such because He conceived the Son (via the Holy Spirit) with Mary the Theotokos the Mother of God. But these are matter of function rather than biological sex and gender, because God has neither.

More modernly, and especially in Protestant circles, God is recognized as having neither Sex nor Gender, and thus God takes on an agender concept, with God's and God'self being the appropriate pronouns, in most academic discourse.


Sheist is also a nonsensical term. Because Theist is derived from the Greek word Theos meaning God. The female version of that is Thea. Theist is a gender neutral term.
So if a woman is pregnant how would you refer to her fetus, as in the sentence, "Do you think __ will be a boy or girl"... how does one fill in the blank? "he or she"? or s/he? or some"thing" else. something can refer to anything and someone is something... As in do you believe in anything, something, or nothing, the object could be human as well as not.
Last edited by Andromeda Islands on Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
A wise man once said nothing.

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 3598
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:14 am

One can use the word 'they,' as can be generally polite when referring or talking about someone you don't the gender (or sex, or whichever one is the proper one) of.
Osiris Vizier of WA AffairsDee Vytherov-SkollvaldrGameplay Ambassador of ForestThe Black Hawks LieutenantRecruitment and Outreach Director of Lazarus

User avatar
Andromeda Islands
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 48
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Andromeda Islands » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:22 am

Lord Dominator wrote:One can use the word 'they,' as can be generally polite when referring or talking about someone you don't the gender (or sex, or whichever one is the proper one) of.

True, or if one has one daughter named Sue and only a son named Tim and since you are obliged to keep what they did confidential.
"I have a child who was in prison.... "they" did such and such"
A wise man once said nothing.

User avatar
GnosticChristian
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Jan 05, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby GnosticChristian » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:39 am

Andromeda Islands wrote:"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/paine/aor/aor03.htm


You are thinking like a Gnostic Christian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUwdlENVcYg

Regards
DL

User avatar
GnosticChristian
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Jan 05, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby GnosticChristian » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:42 am

Lord Dominator wrote:
GnosticChristian wrote:
Do you agree with the logic or not, and are you a natural creature or something else?

Regards
DL

I do not agree with the logic quite obviously. I am a natural creature only in the sense that I am made of meat.


And the rest of you is un-natural. Ok.

So you do not think that nurturing has anything to do with what you are. Ok.

Regards
DL
Last edited by GnosticChristian on Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Difnis Atali, Dumb Ideologies, Infected Mushroom, Karnatadesha, Negarakita, New haven america, The New California Republic

Advertisement

Remove ads