Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What music are you listen...
by zeca
Today at 06:31 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Why is God not female?

 (Read 11547 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #30 - June 11, 2015, 05:00 AM

    "......there can be multiple reasons. I don't feel that any religion is off limits, I view them as a part of human history and life. I am a human. They belong to me as much as anyone else. There's also the fact that religion and belief shape our societies......"  Quote from Quod Sum Eris

    I suppose .. but.... what do you mean "no religion is off limits"? Seems to be odd wording if it isn't from a person who thinks they have the right to belittle and or demean anothers. But perhaps you will let me know what you had in mind.
    Indeed an understand that there in a God and then a turning from that knowledge is as old as mankind as evidenced in the account of Adam and Even and their children. 

    So ..  you think from a basically none religious point of view a Mother Goddess is a better idea. I'm sure there are multiple interesting reasons why you'd feel that way. 

    But really would believing in a god that is "female" opposed to "male" really change the underlying  tendencies of a person. I mean that a lone as a single determining factor.




    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #31 - June 11, 2015, 05:25 AM

    It's not about whether a female deity would be better or worse, Lynna; it's that there were lots of gods and goddesses back in the day, and it seems like there may have been more goddesses than gods, and so the question is, why are the monotheistic gods referred to with masculine pronouns (even when their texts say they are genderless)? Why should God be called male? Why do we use masculine words to refer to it--god itself is a masculine word. So the question is WHY is the god of Christianity and Islam not called "Goddess"? It's not about a goddess being better or worse--it's about why the masculine pronouns won out.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #32 - June 11, 2015, 08:37 AM

    I suppose .. but.... what do you mean "no religion is off limits"? Seems to be odd wording if it isn't from a person who thinks they have the right to belittle and or demean anothers


    I would hope that you would champion my right to belittle and demean someone's faith. I can tell you without hesitation that if someone tried to stop you belittling and demeaning none religious views I would be the first to come to your defence.

    By no religion is off limits, I mean exactly that. I don't simply mean belittle and demean. The fact I don't believe in religion doesn't mean I don't find it interesting. I actually do. There seems to be this idea with theists (not saying you're one of them) that they can't understand why a non believer would find their faith interesting. I would assume they can watch something like Star Wars or the Matrix and enjoy the experience without believing it's a documentary. I'm genuinely interested in religion.

    By no religion is off limits, I also mean that no religion belongs to one person more than another. No religion has the privileged status of being unable to be discussed, dissected, and yes even belittled and demeaned. In fact I would go so far as to say it's a duty when to this very day it impacts the world. Today, I will be critical of faiths like christianity or islam in ways I wouldn't of other faiths that have existed throughout history. This isn't because I'm prejudiced about the ones around today, it's because these ancient beliefs have no bearing on my life or anyone elses. Most of the old gods are dead. No politician will attempt to enact laws/policies born out of his/her belief in the Greek gods. No one today is justifying human sacrifice to the gods of the aesir. So of course I don't focus criticism on them the way I would and do focus it on christianity/islam.

    Indeed an understand that there in a God and then a turning from that knowledge is as old as mankind as evidenced in the account of Adam and Even and their children. 


    Evidence points towards Adam and Eve being myths. They never existed, so you can't say something that never happened is evidence of something. This is actually a prime example of someone's beliefs having the potential to impact me. Things that I need to live a good life, like medicine, are based on evolution. If evolution wren't true, medicine wouldn't work. Creationism is something to be worried about as it will have an impact on my health and quality of life if we're producing a new generation of doctors and scientists who believe it.

    So ..  you think from a basically none religious point of view a Mother Goddess is a better idea. I'm sure there are multiple interesting reasons why you'd feel that way. 

    But really would believing in a god that is "female" opposed to "male" really change the underlying  tendencies of a person. I mean that a lone as a single determining factor.






    My comment wasn't that I do or don't think it's better, that's a completely different discussion, I said that it makes more sense to me. Women give birth. Men don't. On a basic level we see women as givers of life, not men. So just on that basis, a very primary, very primal, very instinctive human level it seems odd to not have a goddess. The oldest religions have this, which I would expect, and it's interesting to me that the two biggest religions today have a male creator deity rather than a female one.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #33 - June 11, 2015, 02:26 PM

    It's not about whether a female deity would be better or worse, Lynna; it's that there were lots of gods and goddesses back in the day, and it seems like there may have been more goddesses than gods, and so the question is, why are the monotheistic gods referred to with masculine pronouns (even when their texts say they are genderlehy should God be called male? Why do we use masculine words to refer to it--god itself is a masculine word. So the question is WHY is the god of Christianity and Islam not called "Goddess"? It's not about a goddess being better or worse--it's about why the masculine pronouns won out.


    The reply to this is an entire study of the Bible.  So what now ... This is hardly the place for that. The point from my prospective is it is already so.

    What is there in changing something that is a certain way for a reason?

    Who knows better how it should be? You?

    Perhaps if you believe their is no God (which you can't prove) you might think wisdom is better.  But from the point of view of some one considers the Bible to be true  that would be equal to the first act of rebellion against God.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #34 - June 11, 2015, 02:41 PM

    It's not about whether a female deity would be better or worse, Lynna; it's that there were lots of gods and goddesses back in the day, and it seems like there may have been more goddesses than gods, and so the question is, why are the monotheistic gods referred to with masculine pronouns (even when their texts say they are genderless)? Why should God be called male? Why do we use masculine words to refer to it--god itself is a masculine word. So the question is WHY is the god of Christianity and Islam not called "Goddess"? It's not about a goddess being better or worse--it's about why the masculine pronouns won out.


    I think this isn't such a difficult answer to figure out here, with our knowledge of patriarchal society and shit.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #35 - June 11, 2015, 02:46 PM

    Quod, you have some interesting points.
    I however must get ready to go someplace.
    One thing I find interesting. That you think it a right to be able to demean or belittle a person's choice in life. No matter how wrong I think some one is I hardly find it in my rights to personally attack them with the intent of dconversations or their choices.  For example on this forum I will not engage in conversations about homosexuality or abortion. As under circumstances do I find either action right.  Do people have the right to choice what is wrong. By all means anyone can make a bad choice.  How I treat them is a reflection of my character.

    Anyhow I hope to share some other points of view when time allows.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #36 - June 11, 2015, 03:09 PM

    Quote from: asbie link=topic=28851.msg824560#msg824560 date=14340wa01
    I think this isn't such a difficult answer to figure out here, with our knowledge of patriarchal society and shit.


    Indeed there are many points that involve patriarcial society. But why was there patriarchal families.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #37 - June 11, 2015, 03:11 PM

    I dunno, I don't see a need for them now though so I'm not sure why its relevant for how god should be referred to as now. Which my own opinion would be as a legend.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #38 - June 11, 2015, 03:38 PM

    I dunno, I don't see a need for them now though so I'm not sure why its relevant for how god should be referred to as now. Which my own opinion would be as a legend.

    Huh!.. what .. what do you mean by "you dunno" asbie? you now it .. you said it already Here  and you used the right word...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #39 - June 11, 2015, 04:52 PM

    Huh!.. what .. what do you mean by "you dunno" asbie? you now it .. you said it already Here  and you used the right word...


    Yeezevee no need to be harsh on asbie. I changed the the question. What I asked

    Indeed there are many points that involve patriarcial society. But why was there patriarchal families.


    So asbie may not consider patriarchal families important or may have never considered family structure and it's effect  on the larger society.

    I was just trying to obtain some insight in to asbie's feeling and Iinsights about how and or why one thing might influence another. 

    I could have said something like, "Why would I want my God  to be a goddess just because some one else believes in a goddess." But how could that lead to understanding?

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #40 - June 11, 2015, 06:57 PM

    The effect of patriarchal societies is a "male god". I don't know what caused patriarchal societies to become predominant in western cultures including Islam. I don't know if it's too relevant.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #41 - June 11, 2015, 07:25 PM

    The reply to this is an entire study of the Bible.  So what now ... This is hardly the place for that. The point from my prospective is it is already so.
     


    Well, it's not really a study of the Bible, it's a study of traditions associated with the Bible. The Bible doesn't really give an explanation. You probably have a particular tradition associated with the Bible that you think is the right answer; but that doesn't mean it's the actual historical answer. The actual, historical answer is something like: when monotheism was retroactively forced onto the texts, since the God of War was the one the redactors wanted to make the only god (Exodus 15, Judges 1:19, Psalms 68), they deleted all the references to the other gods and goddesses, even when this destroyed the story continuity (like Noah's Ark--the original story of Ut-Napishtim makes a lot more sense). The God of War they chose wasn't a universal god or a creator god at first (he just fought for your armies and accompanied them into battle); he was a second or later generation god, son of Elyon (the predominant/highest--basically their pantheon's version of Zeus--see Psalms 82), and he had siblings (last paragraph here), a consort (the queen of heaven), and children/nieces and nephews from a subsequent generation of gods (see Proverbs 8--the monologue of a daughter goddess, who says she is the firstborn of God and was a nursing infant while he created the earth).


    This is hardly the place for that.



    Why not? Do you think that only theologians should be allowed to discuss theology?

    The point from my prospective is it is already so.

    What is there in changing something that is a certain way for a reason?

    Who knows better how it should be? You?


    Just because something was done a long time ago doesn't mean it should continue to be. I mean, slavery was fine in the Bible and Qur'an, doesn't mean that it actually is acceptable. Child marriage and polygamy were acceptable in the Bible and Qur'an, doesn't mean they are. Women were the possessions of men a long time ago, doesn't mean they should be. Just because something was decided a long time ago doesn't make it good or right, and the way we can decide is to apply rationality to it and discuss it with each other. So, I personally can't make a decision about how things should be, but I can think about it, come up with an opinion, voice my opinion, listen to the opinions of others, weigh their arguments, adjust my position, and so on, until society forms a consensus and decides that the way things were done in the past was wrong/immoral/whatever and decides as a group to do something differently.

    Perhaps if you believe their is no God (which you can't prove) you might think wisdom is better.  But from the point of view of some one considers the Bible to be true  that would be equal to the first act of rebellion against God.


    Well that's just a load of bullhonky.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #42 - June 11, 2015, 08:18 PM

    As Gal put it you are studying the Bible through the scope of tradition not academia. If your tradition is wrong then your study approach will get you no closer to some truths regardless of how long or hard you study. This is why academic studies of the Bible have become far removed from many schools of theology since the theology could be based on tradition rather than history. For example if you take the approach that Exodus and the Conquest is a historical fact you are not studying history but a fictional narrative without realizing it. You miss the chance in studying why these stories were created, based on what sources, what events and it's impact on the people of the area. Literalism and inerrency are the two major traditions that prevent most people from actually looking at the Bible as a text of people like any other religious text you do not believe in. If your tradition teaches you not to question it for fear of rebellion against God then it creates this facade of authority and uses indoctrination to reinforcing it's views. However you must realize that this tradition is only an interpretation which anyone can question. Academia breaks with tradition, removing presupposition and looks at the text as it is now and was in the past. Ideology and tradition becomes a mental prison which not only isolates the person but the text from critical study.  However for those that do not accept tradition blindly threads like this one can be a platform so one can hear views they do not hear from their religious leaders without a major investment of money required for Old Testament studies, literacy criticism, archaeology, etc. Gal and I can provide information regarding our views. Zao, Zim and Zeca (the 3 zamigos!) provide views which cross-reference the Bible be it NT or OT with the Quran. Traditions of both which have become mixed, a new view, etc. If you isolate these views by only holding to tradition you can miss out on a massive amount of knowledge from many different approaches. Threads like this one and others on the forum can provide resources one may never be aware of normally. 

  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #43 - June 11, 2015, 08:27 PM

    Quod, you have some interesting points.
    I however must get ready to go someplace.
    One thing I find interesting. That you think it a right to be able to demean or belittle a person's choice in life. No matter how wrong I think some one is I hardly find it in my rights to personally attack them with the intent of dconversations or their choices.  For example on this forum I will not engage in conversations about homosexuality or abortion. As under circumstances do I find either action right.  Do people have the right to choice what is wrong. By all means anyone can make a bad choice.  How I treat them is a reflection of my character.

    Anyhow I hope to share some other points of view when time allows.


    Religion is nothing like homosexuality. Religion is part of history which everyone is free to study. As per my previous comment if I put forward that those that believer in a literal Exodus and Conquest are wrong this will offend people as religion is personal. This is due to their ideology not their education. However just because it is personal to you does not make it off-limits to everyone. This is one of the reasons why history and archaeology do not take theological views that seriously if evidence points to the theology is based on a fiction. Sure it will rock the boat of faith but it is not longer about faith. No longer do people of faith have a monopoly on their text.

    Another thing is you are projecting your sensibilities on to other people then demanding they follow it. I could likewise claim those that do not accept history seriously is reflection of their character namely the inability to question their ideology and tradition, to accept evidence as it is found, etc. While you may find this view rude I find people that ignore academia to be anti-intellectual which is far greater concern than hurt feelings. If anyone is unable to question their religion or hear opinion which they do not agree with then it that person's responsibility to deal with it or remove themselves from the conversation. You can remove yourself from conversation of homosexuality, you can do the same for conversation about your religion.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #44 - June 11, 2015, 08:49 PM

    I believe the emerging tribal-nation organization provided a key fact in the shift from Goddess to Gods as supreme figures. The new state organization are based on settlements rather than nomadic patterns of the past. These settlements would need to be defended from hostile factions both internal and external. This required the emergence of specialized jobs such as soldiers from the hunter/gatherer dynamic. This is a shift away from nature vs humans to humans vs humans in which the males were stronger thus better suited to these new roles. This placed men as not only the protectors of the state but those that maintained the state over generations. Physical force which males could provide more easily than women. This caused the shift in life aspects of religion to be overthrown by law, justice, command, etc which become synonymous with strength of males. Hence figures like YWHW which was a God of War absorbed the life aspect of his consort becoming a singular figure in which life was granted by the aspect of command. Where as life before sprung from the Goddess themselves. Women gave life, men command life. Life was only guaranteed by strength rather than life granting strength. As the new patriarchy system emerged many of life aspect become taboos and were structured by command. Laws on marriage, reproduction, inheritance, etc. All were filter by the male centered view of the new society and became dependent on them. However in modern times strength became a minor factor when it came to government, society and family. Intelligence and education became determining factors in work thus income. War become about technology rather than brute strength especially when someone of low strength can kill anyone with a weapon at a distance. There is a shift in modern time in which life aspects are becoming important again without the need of physical force and command to guarantee life.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #45 - June 11, 2015, 10:04 PM


     While you may find this view rude I find people that ignore academia to be anti-intellectual which is far greater concern than hurt feelings. If anyone is unable to question their religion or hear opinion which they do not agree with then it that person's responsibility to deal with it or remove themselves from the conversation. You can remove yourself from conversation of homosexuality, you can do the same for conversation about your religion.


    Let's take your other post Bogart reply for instance.
    Just from the stand point of logic it has many faults. However would you be willing to admit that it does... because in doing so you would at least show that that line of thought in and of itself doesn't necessarily prove or establish a good reason to be absolutely convinced.

    But if I used logic, examples from the  Bible and examples more recent history to establish WHAT I THINK IS REASONABLE would I not be jumped all over for basing my argument on a non truth. And that without you even having to prove any of what I say wrong beyond a doubt.

    So yes I feel completely justified to withdraw from a conversation in which the terms are that unequal.

    I in the end I would not tell Bogart that he is absolutely wrong. I would ask a lot of questions about how conclusions were reach are how his point of view would work in this or that situation. I would ask as long as I could get answers infact. 

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #46 - June 11, 2015, 10:29 PM


    But if I used logic, examples from the  Bible and examples more recent history to establish WHAT I THINK IS REASONABLE would I not be jumped all over for basing my argument on a non truth.


    You have to make sure your premise is accurate before you draw your logical conclusions. Doesn't matter how well the conclusions all follow each other, if the initial premise is wrong, the whole argument is invalid. Like, for example, if your premise is that the earth is the center of the universe, then it would be logical to conclude that the reason the sun goes up and down each day is that it's circling the earth, and you could decide that some force like gravity was keeping the sun in orbit. You might even be able to calculate some manner of mathematical formula to describe how it takes place, with the moon being roughly equivalent to size of the sun but the sun being farther away, and the stars being the same size but even further away, etc. But since your initial premise--that the earth is the center of the universe--is wrong, no matter how logically the conclusions you drew from it seemed to follow from the premise, your whole argument still is invalid.

    So you need to check the premise, and in your case, the premise is the truth of the Bible--and since the premise can be demonstrated to be untrue, the conclusions are based on non-truth, and therefore it doesn't matter how well they follow from the premise, they're still wrong. You're free to believe something that is false; but you're not free to dictate my life based on your false beliefs. If you wanted to believe that God speaks to you through the words of Charlie Sheen on the TV show "Two And A Half Men", you could; but that doesn't make it true--and you can't tell me how to live my life based on what you believe you know based on that false premise.


    I in the end I would not tell Bogart that he is absolutely wrong. I would ask a lot of questions about how conclusions were reach are how his point of view would work in this or that situation. I would ask as long as I could get answers infact.



    You can't judge whether someone else's argument is right or wrong by comparing it to your own conclusions when your conclusions were invalid. That's like arguing whether or not Galileo was wrong about seeing moons orbiting Jupiter based on the knowledge that the universe is geocentric. If you want to know the answers to questions about other people's conclusions, you have to understand their premises and not just try to figure out how their conclusions do or do not fit into your premise. So the question you're asking is all wrong--the question you should be asking not "what are the conclusions you drew?" but "what is your premise for believing that?"

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #47 - June 11, 2015, 10:36 PM

    EDIT MY LAST  POST. But unicorn would accept an edit.
    I just wouldn't ask forever but until I had enough information to understand.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #48 - June 11, 2015, 11:44 PM

    Didn't bother reading your entire post.

    May not bother reading another one of your post until you can prove beyond a doubt that your premise "that the Bible is false" is base on truth. Until then I'll just conclude that you lack the ability to carry on a reasonable conversation about anything other then your own self righteous point of view.

    But so interesting that you accuse me of what you have done not what I have done.

    In case you don't know what that is, listen to what you said, "You can't judge if some one else's conclusion is right or wrong based on your own conclusion".

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #49 - June 12, 2015, 12:37 AM

    Didn't bother reading your entire post.

    May not bother reading another one of your post until you can prove beyond a doubt that your premise "that the Bible is false" is base on truth.


    ....where do you want me to start? I mean, it's wrong on just about every testable claim it makes. In terms of being wrong as a record of history, everyone in the book's version of history from Adam until David (whether or not that includes David is still debated right now) is fictional. None of the stuff that is reported in Genesis, like the creation myth or the flood myth, is anything more than a fancy morality tale, and most of them have questionable moral conclusions (such as don't work together, always listen to the voices in your head even if they tell you to let your neighbors drown or murder your kid, or don't try to get more knowledge).

    In terms of science, again, it's wrong on almost everything it says. Almost all of it talks about a firmament: that is to say, the authors believed that the upper level of the universe (what they saw when they looked into the sky) was full of water that had been separated from the water on earth, and that they were living on some land floating between the two waters, the water above and the water below. The texts are also geocentric. They also provide no new scientific information that could improve human quality of life, like that germs cause disease, instead perpetuating the ideas people already held, such as that sin or demons cause disease. They don't describe how to effectively treat disease, instead relying on telling you to banish someone from civilization because of their leprosy or unusual discharge or whatever and hope they got better, when antibiotics would have been relatively easy to explain, as in ancient Egypt they did have a form of antibiotic mold they were using to treat wounds.

    In terms of testable moral claims, it's a very bad source for morality; it's ok with slavery, even telling you the worth of a slave, the value of a slave's life in comparison to a free person (eg, if your ox gores another man's slave, you're not executed like you would be if it gored a free man, you're just fined, and if you beat your slave and he dies as a result, you're not punished), and it flat-out states that all female slaves are sex slaves (Exodus 21:7-11). In terms of its ideas of family values, even Jesus promotes hating and abandoning your family, and that's not event he worst ones, in Exodus you have passages telling you that if your family member becomes an infidel, you need to personally murder them, and if your kid doesn't do what you say, you need to publicly execute him.

    It condemns people based on factors they have no control over. Married or engaged victims of rape are executed for losing their virginity, even if they had no control over the situation, and unmarried ones are either executed for forced to marry their rapist. In John 9:2, it is assumed that a man who was BORN blind either sinned or his parents sinned to cause his condition. In books like Deuteronomy, Judges, and 1st Samuel, people--including infants--are put to death for having been born the wrong gender or in the wrong city. There's also a story about one of the kings (I think it was Saul or David), after a city surrendered to him, taking the men of the city and making them stand in a line, then measuring with a cord, and every two cord lengths, the guys were sold as slaves, but the third length was killed. God also killed a ton of people based on the actions of their rulers, with no concern over whether the people were themselves guilty or innocent.

    In terms its value for theological truth, it's self-evident that nothing in the book is self-evident, because you end up needing to interpret it through your own ideas of how the universe works. That's why there are so many different sects today--everyone has their own idea of what the text means, but none of those ideas agrees with the others, so either the other 99% of people who are not in your sect can't read or else the text is just too ambiguous, vague, and self-contradictory.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #50 - June 12, 2015, 01:20 AM

    Quod, you have some interesting points.
    I however must get ready to go someplace.
    One thing I find interesting. That you think it a right to be able to demean or belittle a person's choice in life. No matter how wrong I think some one is I hardly find it in my rights to personally attack them with the intent of dconversations or their choices.  For example on this forum I will not engage in conversations about homosexuality or abortion. As under circumstances do I find either action right.  Do people have the right to choice what is wrong. By all means anyone can make a bad choice.  How I treat them is a reflection of my character.

    Anyhow I hope to share some other points of view when time allows.


    It's not a matter of ridicule. It keeps coming back to this, which is actually something quite far from my mind in the posts I've given on this thread. I believe I have the right to do so, but that doesn't mean I would. Usually if I have a discussion with someone it's a very polite back and forth. I don't see the point in a shouting match, I'd rather be able to clearly say this is what I think and this is why I think it. Though that isn't to say that ridicule never has it's place. Sometimes it does. However I realise there's a time and a place. Ridicule of belief, or satire, can be appropriate at times and very useful for highlighting certain things. But there's a difference between this and being a dick to people just because I feel like it.

    I think it's important to point out that when you say ridicule someone's beliefs, you could mean something very different than what I mean by that, and I'd like to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm not going to walk into a church wearing a t-shirt saying "Jesus is a cunt" or walk into a mosque with a t-shirt saying "Muhammad was a child rapist". I'm not going to hang outside a hindu temple and offer people beef burgers. When I say ridicule, this is not what I'm talking about.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #51 - June 12, 2015, 07:16 AM

    Let's take your other post Bogart reply for instance.
    Just from the stand point of logic it has many faults. However would you be willing to admit that it does... because in doing so you would at least show that that line of thought in and of itself doesn't necessarily prove or establish a good reason to be absolutely convinced.


    Point out the flaw in my logic. Why would I admit to something I do not see which you claim but have not demonstrated?

    Quote
    But if I used logic, examples from the  Bible and examples more recent history to establish WHAT I THINK IS REASONABLE would I not be jumped all over for basing my argument on a non truth. And that without you even having to prove any of what I say wrong beyond a doubt.


    This entirely depends on your examples. You took my comment far to personally but it was more about certain ideologies such as inerrency and/or literalism which are untenable in academia.

    Quote
    So yes I feel completely justified to withdraw from a conversation in which the terms are that unequal.


    You have taken part at some point. You didn't like the response you received and feel it would be better to withdraw. That is fine, you are free to do so. However you are mistaken that everything should be on equal terms as some views regardless of the topic will never be equal. 

    Quote
    I in the end I would not tell Bogart that he is absolutely wrong. I would ask a lot of questions about how conclusions were reach are how his point of view would work in this or that situation. I would ask as long as I could get answers infact. 


    By withdrawing you have closed the door to not just informing yourself regarding how my conclusions are formed but also informing me how your own are formed. You made statements but seem to withdraw the moment anyone puts these to question. This is not our doing but your own.


  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #52 - June 12, 2015, 07:28 AM

    Didn't bother reading your entire post.

    May not bother reading another one of your post until you can prove beyond a doubt that your premise "that the Bible is false" is base on truth. Until then I'll just conclude that you lack the ability to carry on a reasonable conversation about anything other then your own self righteous point of view.

    But so interesting that you accuse me of what you have done not what I have done.

    In case you don't know what that is, listen to what you said, "You can't judge if some one else's conclusion is right or wrong based on your own conclusion".


    Simple. Go read any of the latest work in Syrian-Palestinian archaeology and Egyptology. Both branch have concluded the Exodus and Conquest story is false. There are no records of either but external sources. All but 3 cities were destroyed centuries before the chronology of the Bible statements in the Conquest narrative. This renders the premise the Bible is true to be false. However keep in mind this premise covers the whole Bible. If we were to break it down into sections some will be very accurate, some not, and some will be false. Hence why the two ideologies I mentioned are untenable in academia.

    As Gal said, how much research have you put into the Bible being true before concluding it is true. Did you study archaeology like I have? Taken a literary analysis approach like Gal? More often than not the concept of truth of the Bible is taught before any serious research is done especially if the religion was one of childhood. For example I believed in literalism and inerrancy. I was only exposed to work that reinforced this view but never shown any alternatives until university. Once this happened I realized how narrow the view from tradition became since it was not based on current knowledge but assumed knowledge of the past. If the assumed knowledge was false so was the tradition developed from it.

    You went right on the defense the minute anyone opposed your view after making a few statements. None of us are responsible for your reaction to opposing views. No one called you stupid, a fool or whatever. I only said two concepts were untenable. I later clarified this was due to a lack of knowledge not intelligence. The only reason I see for you becoming offended by this is that you hold these views. However since you are withdrawing from the conversation I can not confirm my conclusion as true thus it only becomes an opinion.

    All this back and forth could stop if you clarified your views and the reason for these views. However you seem to feel that you do not need to argue your position as true but rather anyone that opposes it is required. This is a fallacy, an argument from ignorance, in which you hold a position is true until proven false.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #53 - June 12, 2015, 07:38 AM

    It's not a matter of ridicule. It keeps coming back to this, which is actually something quite far from my mind in the posts I've given on this thread. I believe I have the right to do so, but that doesn't mean I would. Usually if I have a discussion with someone it's a very polite back and forth. I don't see the point in a shouting match, I'd rather be able to clearly say this is what I think and this is why I think it. Though that isn't to say that ridicule never has it's place. Sometimes it does. However I realise there's a time and a place. Ridicule of belief, or satire, can be appropriate at times and very useful for highlighting certain things. But there's a difference between this and being a dick to people just because I feel like it.

    I think it's important to point out that when you say ridicule someone's beliefs, you could mean something very different than what I mean by that, and I'd like to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm not going to walk into a church wearing a t-shirt saying "Jesus is a cunt" or walk into a mosque with a t-shirt saying "Muhammad was a child rapist". I'm not going to hang outside a hindu temple and offer people beef burgers. When I say ridicule, this is not what I'm talking about.


    Too often people take opposing of their views as ridicule and mocking. However this is often made without considering if this is due to a gap in their knowledge rather than the assumed idea that the opposing is calling someone stupid. Knowledge gained or lacking is not about stupidity but what is available to the individual. As per my comment I lacked not only access to archaeological knowledge but was oblivious that there was evidence against my view completely. I do not expect everyone to know what I know. However when the door is shut due to perceived ridicule rather than talking about this knowledge a negative conclusion is easy to make.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #54 - June 12, 2015, 05:57 PM

    Ridicule... yes I'm with you about not going to a another persons place of worship and wearing  or saying disagreeable slogans. I would also not protest at a funeral or wedding.

    But something like ....

    Asking,
    If there is no God, what is the purpose of life?
    Is like asking,
    If there is no Master, whose slave shall I be?

    Just on a post at some appropriate, time is more like whatever.... narrow on the part of the person who asked the first question and just as narrow on the part of the person who responded in such a way. Neither explains anything nor promotes understanding or displays any depth of knowledge about the complex issues of life.

    But then again there are ... arguments about the laryngeal nerve being  evidence of poor design so evaluation must be factual. Well it might help to look at the whole picture. Yes once the animals is developed it may seem odd. But if a person takes a look at embryonic developement and how things change shape as they develope the course of the laryngeal nerve is much more reasonable.

    My Dad would often say, "Statistics never lie but the people who collect and present them them do."

    And from my point of view people who use as part of their argument that, "everyone knows such and such is is so and so wayy"  are hardly worth talking to for a multitude of reasons.

    So are you actually interested in why I am convinced and satisfied with God. (Opposed to a goddess or goddesses)


    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #55 - June 12, 2015, 07:07 PM

    Never said everyone knows. I specifically said certain people have knowledge which you do not. Likewise you have knowledge I do not have. You are constructing a strawman as an excuse. However I do not think you will explain your views regardless of what I say. I hit a nerve talking about inerrancy and literalism. At least this is what I see in all this banter.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #56 - June 12, 2015, 08:18 PM

    Never said everyone knows. I specifically said certain people have knowledge which you do not. Likewise you have knowledge I do not have. You are constructing a strawman as an excuse. However I do not think you will explain your views regardless of what I say. I hit a nerve talking about inerrancy and literalism. At least this is what I see in all this banter.


    Just in passing I'm not talking to you.

    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #57 - June 12, 2015, 08:34 PM



    Asking,
    If there is no God, what is the purpose of life?
    Is like asking,
    If there is no Master, whose slave shall I be?



    That's actually the most insightful and true thing you've said. What needs to happen is you need to break free from the slave mentality and take ownership of yourself, and equally, you need to find your own purpose in life. It's not your fault that you were a slave and had your will broken and were taught not to think or control your own actions. But once you realize that you are free, no matter how scary the prospect of thinking and deciding yourself is, no matter how comfortingly tempting it is to go back into an abusive situation because that's the only life you know, you need to find your own way in life.

    And it's the exact same thing with religion, once you realize it's fairy tales and you don't need to have someone tell you how to live your life, what to think, how to act, who to love...once you realize that the master isn't real and you can walk free, then you can free yourself from the chains that stopped you from being you.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #58 - June 12, 2015, 08:47 PM

    Just in passing I'm not talking to you.


    Sorry but could you clarify? The issue is the word "to". For example I am not talking "about" you as in your examples are not directed to me rather than a refusal to "talk to me" within the current discussion.
  • Why is God not female?
     Reply #59 - June 13, 2015, 07:25 AM

    Ridicule... yes I'm with you about not going to a another persons place of worship and wearing  or saying disagreeable slogans. I would also not protest at a funeral or wedding.

    But something like ....

    Asking,
    If there is no God, what is the purpose of life?
    Is like asking,
    If there is no Master, whose slave shall I be?



    I'm assuming this in reply to me? I don't really see how the above is a bad thing to say. Can you elaborate on why your example isn't appropriate? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

    Just to give some example of demeaning and outright ridicule having a time and place, I'm assuming you're aware of the catholic child abuse scandal? What came out was shocking, particularly the accusations that the pope himself had covered it up and helped the rapists escape justice. One of the responses was a song by a comedian called Tim Minchin. It's quite a vulgar song that has fuck in almost every line, but I quite liked it as there was a point to it. Some of the lyrics:

    Quote
    If you cover for another motherfucker who's a kiddie fucker
    Fuck you, you're no better than the motherfucking rapist


    Quote
    I've no problem with the spiritual beliefs of other fuckers
    While those beliefs don't impact on the happiness of others

    But if you build your church on claims of moral authority
    And with threats of hell imposed on others in society
    Then you, you motherfucker, can expect some fucking wrath
    When it turns out you've been fucking us in our motherfucking asses


    Quote
    If he covered for a single motherfucker who's a kiddie fucker
    Fuck him, he's as evil as the motherfucking rapist


    And quite possibly my favourite part:

    Quote
    If this motherfucking stupid fucking song offended you
    With its filthy fucking language and its fucking disrespect
    If it made you feel angry go ahead and write a letter

    But if you find this song more offensive than the possibility
    that The pope protected priests when they were getting fucking fiddly
    Then listen to me, motherfucker, this here is a fact
    You are just as morally misguided as that motherfucking
    Power-hungry, self-aggrandised bigot in the stupid fucking hat


    It's incredibly offensive. It was intended to be. But I can't say that I feel only respectful criticism of the church should be allowed. I think disrespect towards child rape and those who cover it up while preaching moral authority deserves at the very least scorn and mockery.

    I've ridiculed people for there beliefs before when I've felt it appropriate. I'm not sure if you've heard of an annoying little twat in the UK named Imran ibn Mansur? He calls himself Dawah Man and makes a living from his youtube videos. Vids include such delights as atheists drinking their dad's sperm, walking up to children (a group of girls who looked about 13) in the street and telling them they were asking to be raped, harassing a muslim woman who wasn't wearing a hijab, insulting christians and basically showing himself to be a scumbag. He's also been caught lying multiple times and possibly supporting the islamic state. I did a song mocking and ridiculing him and I didn't feel it crossed a line. As we are speaking about demeaning someone for their beliefs and that's what I did, you can listen to it and give your thoughts if you'd like. Do you think I crossed a line?

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=25477.0

    The lyrics are there as well if you scroll down. At one point I call him a chimpanzee. Grin

    So are you actually interested in why I am convinced and satisfied with God. (Opposed to a goddess or goddesses)




    It was me just wondering in general for the reasons I gave, but if you'd like to give your thoughts I'd be more than happy to read them.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »