Is God a man or a woman?

[archenemyfan]

To tell you the truth, I absolutely do not know. My friends have been arguing about it [and these are girls by the way.] They said that since men were more dominant in the bible, they considered God to be a man. If you believe in Him?-That's what I mean. But the girls said that just because they're guys and think it's a man doesn't necessarily mean that. I mean, I can't really say anything because some could consider it biased. Anyways-what do you think?
I have no friggin clue...

[Aleander]

I assume, you are talking about the current Christian God...
according to scripture "He" is male. Your friends are a bunch of feminists.... Just, don't call them that.. the bitching will never end.:D

[UNODRAGONE]

I agree with Aleander, according to the bible God is a he but....God also said he created us in his image so techincally....I could be God which means God has a va jay jay :D

[Matrixwolf]

Both, God as the Christians say all things, No actual designation in the original scriptures its always just GOD, So it is both male and female.

And as an addendum Jesus is a part of god, holy trinity, So that means, since god is all things, God is the devil God is good and evil, A balance, And when Jesus was wrestling with the devil in the desert he was arguing with himself. Holy shit I think I just used the bible to make christianity sound logical.

[ThrasherCub]

Learn Qabalah. The Christian God is genderless.

[DarkHunter]

If God were a man, social customs would dictate that women wouldn't have to wear shirts. If God were a woman, men would enjoy movies like Pretty Woman.

The answer? God is an impersonal force in the multiverse.

[john the baptist]

He can't be either gender because the Bible states that God is everything.

[archenemyfan]

Both, God as the Christians say all things, No actual designation in the original scriptures its always just GOD, So it is both male and female.

And as an addendum Jesus is a part of god, holy trinity, So that means, since god is all things, God is the devil God is good and evil, A balance, And when Jesus was wrestling with the devil in the desert he was arguing with himself. Holy shit I think I just used the bible to make christianity sound logical.

First of all, I never read the Bible so I really don't know that much. Two, I would never think of God being both genders, it seems...different. Three, you made it easy for me to understand, but the church doesn't follow their religion logically...

[UNODRAGONE]

First of all, I never read the Bible so I really don't know that much. Two, I would never think of God being both genders, it seems...different. Three, you made it easy for me to understand, but the church doesn't follow their religion logically...

what do you mean by this??

[GhostBat]

I think the better question here is: does God even exist? A being must exist for it to be male or female. :p

[archenemyfan]

what do you mean by this??

I don't think the church really believes in logic. They just say screw it and believe whatever they want about God.

I think the better question here is: does God even exist? A being must exist for it to be male or female. :p

Well, that question makes my brain itch. But then again, how do the characters in the bible find out about God and if He exists? Where do their theories and beliefs come from?

[UNODRAGONE]

I don't think the church really believes in logic. They just say screw it and believe whatever they want about God.

how do you think they do that? WHat logic is there when it comes to religion, I mean it's really all faith based

[LV426]

I'm female.

[archenemyfan]

how do you think they do that? WHat logic is there when it comes to religion, I mean it's really all faith based

That's exactly what I mean. I mean, they don't use logic at all, but they still have their beliefs and they live by it.

[archenemyfan]

how do you think they do that? WHat logic is there when it comes to religion, I mean it's really all faith based

That's exactly what I mean. I mean, they don't use logic at all, but they still have their beliefs and they live by it.

I'm female

I think we just found our answer here. :)

[Matrixwolf]

First of all, I never read the Bible so I really don't know that much. Two, I would never think of God being both genders, it seems...different. Three, you made it easy for me to understand, but the church doesn't follow their religion logically...


I read it in my younger years and always found it useful to turn against Christians, As far as Logic stand point Christians follow what they believe not whats logical. Hell there are obvious changes that are made to the "Bible" when you compare them to the original scrolls, Why the hell do you think its called the "King James" version? And, For all those Magic followers out there, There are a couple of passages that have Jesus obviously doing magic and rituals from the Jewish Grimoires, I present Jesus miracle of using dirt and spit to heal the blind mans eyes as the most blatant.

And come on the fountain pool where people who were in the water when the angel touched its wings to it were healed?? I can think of a dozen stories that are exactly the same but they are called "Evil tales of Witchcraft" by Christians.

Bottom Line Christians see things only the way they want to so that it fits into their little box of a world, Instead of accepting that the world is more than just groveling to a god every time you do something "Immoral". Life with spice is so much more enriching.

[ThrasherCub]

I'm female.

And you have the greatest form of worship ever.

[MorganaFang]

Gender is becoming irrelevant for defining people so why should something beyond people be defined by it?

[J.L.R.]

Per the original question... God is genderless, if you go by the Bible... El isn't a man or a woman, but a spirit. The reason He is used when speaking of God, is because the masculine word conotates authority. If you READ the Bible you are going to find that there are many passages that depict God with both male and female characterists. The Song of Solomon is a good example... There are also passages the refer to God to be like a mother hen, who lays down her life to save her chics.

[UNODRAGONE]

That's exactly what I mean. I mean, they don't use logic at all, but they still have their beliefs and they live by it.



I think we just found our answer here. :)


just because you have faith/belief in something does not mean you do not use logic

[GhostBat]

Actually...

Faith is belief without proof, while logic requires proof. They're almost complete opposites.

[UNODRAGONE]

Actually...

Faith is belief without proof, while logic requires proof. They're almost complete opposites.

True, at the same time you have 'faith' in your friends and family to be there for you in tough situations, whether you have proof in the past of them being there or not, but it's logical to have faith in the belief your friends/family would be there

[GhostBat]

You can have faith in your friends and family to be there for you when you need them, but it's only logical to assume they'll be there for you if they've shown such action before. Proof.

[UNODRAGONE]

You can have faith in your friends and family to be there for you when you need them, but it's only logical to assume they'll be there for you if they've shown such action before. Proof.


I have recently gotten close to someone and now consider them a very good friend, but they haven't been in the position were they needed to prove to me they were there for me, but I believe they would be

[GhostBat]

Um...ok? :p

And to return to the topic of this thread, Dogma says that Alanis Morissette is God. Therefore, God is female.

[UNODRAGONE]

You can have faith in your friends and family to be there for you when you need them, but it's only logical to assume they'll be there for you if they've shown such action before. Proof.

Um...ok? :p

And to return to the topic of this thread, Dogma says that Alanis Morissette is God. Therefore, God is female.

this new friend of mine hasn't shown me proof, like you stated in the above, but to me it's still logical to believe they would be there for me :) my point was that having faith or believing in something doesn't mean you don't have logic, Archy's post made me feel he was implying that.

Back on topic, does it really matter?

[GhostBat]

Ok, let me just say it one more time. Logic requires proof. There's no arguing against the very nature of logic. Two irrefutably proven premises, through deduction, necessitate a conclusion which by the very laws of nature itself must also be true. That's logic.

[UNODRAGONE]

Ok, let me just say it one more time. Logic requires proof. There's no arguing against the very nature of logic. Two irrefutably proven premises, through deduction, necessitate a conclusion which by the very laws of nature itself must also be true. That's logic.

I totally agree with you in the dictionary sense of the word :D

[GhostBat]

Then you agree, because what use is language if there are no set definitions?

"I drove my keyboard to work."
"You drove a computer keyboard to work?
"No no, I just like calling cars keyboards."

Perhaps there's another word you're looking for besides logic, because logic isn't it. :p

[Matrixwolf]

just because you have faith/belief in something does not mean you do not use logic

True but the Saying of A Christian is good But Christians are crazed seems to fit there A singular Christian can be talked with and a congenial conversation can be had with but try to talk to a group.... Last time I did that the cops were called.


Per the original question... God is genderless, if you go by the Bible... El isn't a man or a woman, but a spirit. The reason He is used when speaking of God, is because the masculine word conotates authority. If you READ the Bible you are going to find that there are many passages that depict God with both male and female characterists. The Song of Solomon is a good example... There are also passages the refer to God to be like a mother hen, who lays down her life to save her chics.

True, Sorta the point I was making though I did go off topic, the bible itself, Original form more so but current does to, Makes male and female insinuations about god.

[archenemyfan]

Ok, logic.....
But you have faith when you believe, but logic does does indeed require proof. If you were to have something illogical, then you would have to theorize and prove it in a reasonable statement, considering the factors of it also.
Now, this is my new question, do you consider God illogical? I don't think so because it's all faith based. If your atheist, it doesn't matter because you don't believe.
But have you ever thought of something that you have proven, even though science isn't there to help, but you have no proof except for your senses. You can't try to get people to believe you unless you have proof. But then again, this is why I hate the smarties. You see a werewolf and then you come on here trying to say that you saw it with your own eyes and then you have users tell you that you didn't because they aren't proven to exist. But you know what you saw, and you know it.
I find it hard to actually tell people you don't know about the situation then to tell your friends.

[GhostBat]

But have you ever thought of something that you have proven, even though science isn't there to help, but you have no proof except for your senses. You can't try to get people to believe you unless you have proof. But then again, this is why I hate the smarties. You see a werewolf and then you come on here trying to say that you saw it with your own eyes and then you have users tell you that you didn't because they aren't proven to exist. But you know what you saw, and you know it.

That is by far one of the most stupid posts I've seen in a long time, which is quite a feat on werewolf.com. How the hell can you try to rationalize against being smart?

[Fenris_brood]

Ok, logic.....
But you have faith when you believe, but logic does does indeed require proof. If you were to have something illogical, then you would have to theorize and prove it in a reasonable statement, considering the factors of it also.
Now, this is my new question, do you consider God illogical? I don't think so because it's all faith based. If your atheist, it doesn't matter because you don't believe.
But have you ever thought of something that you have proven, even though science isn't there to help, but you have no proof except for your senses. You can't try to get people to believe you unless you have proof. But then again, this is why I hate the smarties. You see a werewolf and then you come on here trying to say that you saw it with your own eyes and then you have users tell you that you didn't because they aren't proven to exist. But you know what you saw, and you know it.
I find it hard to actually tell people you don't know about the situation then to tell your friends.

We need "proof" because:
#1 We can't be 100% sure that you're telling the truth

and #2 Your senses, and even your mind, may deceive you

And about god being male or female, she's Mother Nature, so I would have to say a she...

[J.L.R.]

We need "proof" because:
#1 We can't be 100% sure that you're telling the truth

and #2 Your senses, and even your mind, may deceive you

And about god being male or female, she's Mother Nature, so I would have to say a she...

El is NOT Mother Nature... If you had read the original question, you would have understood that we are debating God (as in the Christian God)... As far as I know this thread has not opened doors to other dieties...

If so, you will find that there are numerous gods and goddesses of every make and model. Whether you are dealing with Bacchus, Dionysus, Baal, Beelzebub (the almighty Pheonician fly god!!!!) Dagon, Shiva, and Tom Cruise... :P

As for Logic/ Proof... and whot knot...

Honestly guys, that is a debate all in itself, and a good one, but why don't we start a new thread instead if ya want to keep arguing about it...

[BlackRosePhantom]

Answering the original question, god is neither male nor female, he is also male, and also female, and also both, at least the fictional character that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship. I say this because god is supposedly everything. Which means god is that which does not have gender, that which only has one gender, and that which has more than one gender. Although looking at this through a linguistics perspective, god would be male dominate for simply being named a 'god' and not a 'goddess'.

Second, god is also both logical and illogical, though more illogical. In ancient times where things couldn't be explained by something other than the supernatural, like weather, it is considered the work of a supernatural being like a god, goddess, spirit, demon, or other mystic creature.

Now, for the illogical part of this still pertaining to ancient times, blaming all the powerful unexplainable things on just one being is illogical for as nature shows, there can be many different things that all effect the same thing and polytheism makes more sense just by looking at poly-farming, where you plant the seeds of more than one crop in a hole at a time. The different plants put back into the soil what their partner plants took out thus creating balance and keeping the soil rich & healthy. It would thus then be logical that the rest of the world works the same way and the balance within the world is the cause of two or more supernatural things working together to stabilize each other and everything else, and when things become unbalanced those two or more things have stopped working together. That's the reason, at least in my perspective, that so many of the original religions had more than one god(dess), and it wasn't until about 6000 years after humans started coming together in organized civilizations that some crack-pot non-conformist came up with the idea of there only being one god.

We finally get to the modern-day illogical stature of god. Science has been there for me every step of the way. It has explained to me the forces of nature and how the work, it has showed me the vastness of the universe and the insignificance of Earth compared to the rest of the world which alone tells me that even if there were some supernatural being out there that created everything and it made some spectacular paradise, Earth definitely wouldn't be it for all the chaos within and on our planet as well as the fact that humans are so insignifiant that this being would would pay a negligible amount of attention to the planet Earth in comparison to the rest of the universe. Science has also should me natural evolutionary process (which can be proven by the fact that there is domestication and the near perfect breed of police dog has been created within about three-fourths of a century) as well as the formation of life. Science has explained to me all that which otherwise would have no natural explanation and thus would only logically be the work of something supernatural. Of course, with science now providing the answers for all of those things which were once thought to be supernatural, it is illogical and unnecessary for the belief in a god, goddess, or multiple gods and goddesses.

Now then, UNODRAGONE, it could be said that you merely have a strong faith that your new friend would be there for you because they have yet to prove that they would indeed be there for you. On the other hand, it could also be said that it's logical for you to conclude that your friend would be there for you since you have others to compare this new friend to as well common behavioral signals that this person displays telling you that they do in fact care for you and thus would be there for you if you needed them to do so. The debate on whether your belief that your friend would be there for is is based on pure faith or logical assumptions could go both ways depending on how each side structures their argument, but to me, through my perspective, it seems that your belief in your friend is a bit of both faith and logical assumption.

And lastly, archenemyfan, the reason why people do not believe you when you say that you've seen a werewolf is because that there is no proof that werewolves exist part from human told accounts. The reason why people don't accept human told accounts as proof is because that the person could be merely lying when telling the account, like the guy whom claimed to take a picture of the Loch Ness Monster when it turned out that he only took a picture of a toy floating just feet away from shore (aka someone crying wolf), or the circumstances they were in could have caused their perception to lose accuracy as well as there being other, more common and logical, explanations for what they saw. So unless a real life werewolf came right up to you, in the nude, and allowed you to examine its features and make sure there was no zipper or crease where a plastic mask would come off, then what you saw could be blamed on a hoax or trick of the eye, as well as just a bunch of bull. Also the other thing about proof, is that it needs to be duplicated which means you'd need to tape this encounter, or at least get a dozen or so credible witnesses/fellow examiners to back up or claim.

[Sazabi]

That is by far one of the most stupid posts I've seen in a long time, which is quite a feat on werewolf.com. How the hell can you try to rationalize against being smart?

Oh come now, surely you've read other Archenemyfan topics? They're intellectual black holes by default. We're talking about the same guy who gets mad when we argue by invoking scientific methods, and who threatens karma curses.

[edit] what the hell where did my Hillary go? :( SEXISTS

[J.L.R.]

Answering the original question, god is neither male nor female, he is also male, and also female, and also both, at least the fictional character that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship. I say this because god is supposedly everything. Which means god is that which does not have gender, that which only has one gender, and that which has more than one gender. Although looking at this through a linguistics perspective, god would be male dominate for simply being named a 'god' and not a 'goddess'.

Second, god is also both logical and illogical, though more illogical. In ancient times where things couldn't be explained by something other than the supernatural, like weather, it is considered the work of a supernatural being like a god, goddess, spirit, demon, or other mystic creature.

Now, for the illogical part of this still pertaining to ancient times, blaming all the powerful unexplainable things on just one being is illogical for as nature shows, there can be many different things that all effect the same thing and polytheism makes more sense just by looking at poly-farming, where you plant the seeds of more than one crop in a hole at a time. The different plants put back into the soil what their partner plants took out thus creating balance and keeping the soil rich & healthy. It would thus then be logical that the rest of the world works the same way and the balance within the world is the cause of two or more supernatural things working together to stabilize each other and everything else, and when things become unbalanced those two or more things have stopped working together. That's the reason, at least in my perspective, that so many of the original religions had more than one god(dess), and it wasn't until about 6000 years after humans started coming together in organized civilizations that some crack-pot non-conformist came up with the idea of there only being one god.

We finally get to the modern-day illogical stature of god. Science has been there for me every step of the way. It has explained to me the forces of nature and how the work, it has showed me the vastness of the universe and the insignificance of Earth compared to the rest of the world which alone tells me that even if there were some supernatural being out there that created everything and it made some spectacular paradise, Earth definitely wouldn't be it for all the chaos within and on our planet as well as the fact that humans are so insignifiant that this being would would pay a negligible amount of attention to the planet Earth in comparison to the rest of the universe. Science has also should me natural evolutionary process (which can be proven by the fact that there is domestication and the near perfect breed of police dog has been created within about three-fourths of a century) as well as the formation of life. Science has explained to me all that which otherwise would have no natural explanation and thus would only logically be the work of something supernatural. Of course, with science now providing the answers for all of those things which were once thought to be supernatural, it is illogical and unnecessary for the belief in a god, goddess, or multiple gods and goddesses.

Now then, UNODRAGONE, it could be said that you merely have a strong faith that your new friend would be there for you because they have yet to prove that they would indeed be there for you. On the other hand, it could also be said that it's logical for you to conclude that your friend would be there for you since you have others to compare this new friend to as well common behavioral signals that this person displays telling you that they do in fact care for you and thus would be there for you if you needed them to do so. The debate on whether your belief that your friend would be there for is is based on pure faith or logical assumptions could go both ways depending on how each side structures their argument, but to me, through my perspective, it seems that your belief in your friend is a bit of both faith and logical assumption.

And lastly, archenemyfan, the reason why people do not believe you when you say that you've seen a werewolf is because that there is no proof that werewolves exist part from human told accounts. The reason why people don't accept human told accounts as proof is because that the person could be merely lying when telling the account, like the guy whom claimed to take a picture of the Loch Ness Monster when it turned out that he only took a picture of a toy floating just feet away from shore (aka someone crying wolf), or the circumstances they were in could have caused their perception to lose accuracy as well as there being other, more common and logical, explanations for what they saw. So unless a real life werewolf came right up to you, in the nude, and allowed you to examine its features and make sure there was no zipper or crease where a plastic mask would come off, then what you saw could be blamed on a hoax or trick of the eye, as well as just a bunch of bull. Also the other thing about proof, is that it needs to be duplicated which means you'd need to tape this encounter, or at least get a dozen or so credible witnesses/fellow examiners to back up or claim.

Please reframe from using deragatory comments such as: "fictional" in your arguments when referring to God. If you don't believe in God, that is prefectly fine, but please respect the beliefs of those that do.

[greggchamberlain]

him, her, it, hyrm, herm, whatever...

me i figure the Creator (and, yes, i do believe there is a Creator and that's as far as that goes) is whatever he/she/it/hyrm/herm wants to be when he/she/it/hyrm/herm wants to be.

for those who are into the "Goddess" aspect as a counter to the "God" crowd...well, you replace one extreme with another extreme and you still have an extreme...

i like the wiccan version of duotheism with female and male aspects (earth or moon goddess and the horned god)...i like even more the original slavic/rus idea of Mother Earth & Father Sky because that emphasizes the point that one cannot exist without the other if the world is to remain fertile and growing.

[animmortalwound]

I feel repetitive here but in the Bible it says that God is everything, so that means God is both, and yes I do realize that a bunch of people have already stated this but oh well.

so does this mean that god is a tranny?

(I am so going to hell)

[greggchamberlain]

been reading Spider Robinson again, have we?

:D

[Fenris_brood]

El is NOT Mother Nature... If you had read the original question, you would have understood that we are debating God (as in the Christian God)... As far as I know this thread has not opened doors to other dieties...
I don't really give a damn about the Christian god,it's not my god, I didn't notice that this thread was just about the Christian god, I'm sorry for that.

If so, you will find that there are numerous gods and goddesses of every make and model. Whether you are dealing with Bacchus, Dionysus, Baal, Beelzebub (the almighty Pheonician fly god!!!!) Dagon, Shiva, and Tom Cruise... :P

I know all that, except that Tom Cruise had been promoted.:p

Honestly guys, that is a debate all in itself, and a good one, but why don't we start a new thread instead if ya want to keep arguing about it...
I think it's a good idea too...

[Sazabi]

I don't really give a damn about the Christian god,it's not my god, I didn't notice that this thread was just about the Christian god, I'm sorry for that.


Hay just because you worship false idols doesn't mean the rest of us have to tolerate your point of view ok?

[Fenris_brood]

Hay just because you worship false idols doesn't mean the rest of us have to tolerate your point of view ok?
I say the same thing to you, :) .I don't really want to argue...

[BlackRosePhantom]

Please reframe from using deragatory comments such as: "fictional" in your arguments when referring to God. If you don't believe in God, that is prefectly fine, but please respect the beliefs of those that do.
Sorry, but I have to put up with people's religious opinions all day every day, so they can handle a bit of my

so does this mean that god is a tranny?
Tranny is short for transvestite or transgender which is a person of one gender that has an innate desire that the other gender is their true gender. I think the word you're looking for is a hermaphrodite.

[greggchamberlain]

oops!

i misread that other post when i made my last comment.

i thought he said "So God is a tyranny?"

sorry, folks.

[MorganaFang]

oops!

i misread that other post when i made my last comment.

i thought he said "So God is a tyranny?"

sorry, folks.

Hey in the old testament he was a bit moody.

[Sazabi]

I say the same thing to you, :) .I don't really want to argue...

But I don't worship false idols like you do, can you please elaborate I don't understand.

[Pickle Tickler]

Ok, logic.....
But you have faith when you believe, but logic does does indeed require proof. If you were to have something illogical, then you would have to theorize and prove it in a reasonable statement, considering the factors of it also.
Now, this is my new question, do you consider God illogical? I don't think so because it's all faith based. If your atheist, it doesn't matter because you don't believe.
But have you ever thought of something that you have proven, even though science isn't there to help, but you have no proof except for your senses. You can't try to get people to believe you unless you have proof. But then again, this is why I hate the smarties. You see a werewolf and then you come on here trying to say that you saw it with your own eyes and then you have users tell you that you didn't because they aren't proven to exist. But you know what you saw, and you know it.
I find it hard to actually tell people you don't know about the situation then to tell your friends.

^
|
Dumb

Werewolves only are seen in movies and pictures. You didn't see a werewolf. You know why? Because it was the same movie I watched.

[Sazabi]

I saw a unicorn yesterday and we had magical unicorn adventures and I saved its world from the creeping darkness but thats a story for another day.

[Vendetta]

I saw a unicorn yesterday and we had magical unicorn adventures and I saved its world from the creeping darkness but thats a story for another day.
Did you save the Empress on your Luck Dragon?

[BlackRosePhantom]

Did you save the Empress on your Luck Dragon?

No, the Empress was safe all along since she had the pink rose of kindness and made the evil warlord's heart grow by three times that day.

[ThrasherCub]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/ThrasherCub/Bashing/1204556892620.jpg

[Ves]

Surely God is omnipotent and therefore can be whatever It wants. Wakes up one fine era and fancies having a dick and *bam* instant ginormous john thomas the size of a universe.
Such a being is so beyond such things, to us it is completely un-knowable (ineffable even). For us to try would really be like a candle attempting to understand the sun.

[archenemyfan]

^
|
Dumb

Werewolves only are seen in movies and pictures. You didn't see a werewolf. You know why? Because it was the same movie I watched.

I was making a stupid scenario, not telling the world that I saw a werewolf. No one knows yet...
IF you think you do, PROVE IT.


And about God being a gender...I'm starting to reconsider. Like greggchamberlain's post, call it "Creator."

[Aleander]

what do you mean by this??
I don't mean to offend... but Unodragone is right.. You should try and look it up yourself first before plunging a question on the internet...... trust me, people can get really offended on the most trival of subjects.

[Aleander]

^
|
Dumb

Werewolves only are seen in movies and pictures. You didn't see a werewolf. You know why? Because it was the same movie I watched.
The existance of WereWolves is a completely different subject. Lets not stray off course, you don't want this post to get locked.. it looks bad on you.

P.S. They are real though..... private message me if you want to continue that subject.

[GhostBat]

Actually, what will get this thread closed is people continuing to claim werewolves exist. Maybe you should look around the forums a bit before posting anything else.

[Vendetta]

P.S. They are real though..... private message me if you want to continue that subject.
Oh man, now that the PM box is up to 50 I TOTALLY want to do this. Must... resist... urge...

[LadyPiro]

There is no God.

(Oh, I'm gonna die :( )

[J.L.R.]

There is no God.

(Oh, I'm gonna die :( )

That is only a matter of belief, but please remember that that this thread is about whether God (as in Christian God... per the original question) is a man or a woman...

Also per the wiccan werewolf... RPing is in another thread...

[archenemyfan]

That is only a matter of belief, but please remember that that this thread is about whether God (as in Christian God... per the original question) is a man or a woman...

Also per the wiccan werewolf... RPing is in another thread...

Well, if there are different Gods for different religions [which I don't know about any other Gods besides the Christian-based one] there would be multiple Gods and we would have to try and decide which is which gender...Or if there is no gender at all.

[Pickle Tickler]

Holy God! Guys, werewolves totally exist! AEF came and took me out into the woods and shifted right in front of me! I totally shat myself!

What, is it better if I say that?

[archenemyfan]

No. I don't even believe you and you won't believe me.
No, let me reword that.....
I BET YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN WEREWOLVES.

Back on topic....

Do you think God is genderless?

[BlackRosePhantom]

which I don't know about any other Gods besides the Christian-based one

WTF!? You don't even know about Zeus? Neptune? Apollo? Mars? Saturn? Venues? Pluto? Thor? Hashem?* Allah?* Shiva? Ra? Anpu (Anubis)? Iris? The Creator? etc? Dude, how fucking sheltered were/are you? Did you even go to a public school once in your life time? Seriously, just knowing about the Christian god is a whole new low of ignorance because even on Disney they have shows with other gods. I'm not trying to sound mean or be rude, but please listen to me without getting all defensive and insulted when I say get a reality check as well as a 2 minute search on Google or whatever other search tool you use and you'll find something on another religion's god.

* Even though the Christian God is thought to be the same god as Hashem (Jewish god) and Allah (Islamic god), doesn't mean that they were based off of the christian god. In fact, both the Christian God and Allah were based off of Hashem, but differences in prophets/practices & interpretation broke them apart from Judaism.

[archenemyfan]

WTF!? You don't even know about Zeus? Neptune? Apollo? Mars? Saturn? Venues? Pluto? Thor? Hashem?* Allah?* Shiva? Ra? Anpu (Anubis)? Iris? The Creator? etc? Dude, how fucking sheltered were/are you? Did you even go to a public school once in your life time? Seriously, just knowing about the Christian god is a whole new low of ignorance because even on Disney they have shows with other gods. I'm not trying to sound mean or be rude, but please listen to me without getting all defensive and insulted when I say get a reality check as well as a 2 minute search on Google or whatever other search tool you use and you'll find something on another religion's god.

* Even though the Christian God is thought to be the same god as Hashem (Jewish god) and Allah (Islamic god), doesn't mean that they were based off of the christian god. In fact, both the Christian God and Allah were based off of Hashem, but differences in prophets/practices & interpretation broke them apart from Judaism.

I don't consider Gods of the Odyssey real Gods. I consider them MYTHOLOGICAL.
That last paragraph-thanks for the info. Like I said, I'm not that religious and I don't know that much about religion.

[GhostBat]

I don't consider Gods of the Odyssey real Gods. I consider them MYTHOLOGICAL.
That last paragraph-thanks for the info. Like I said, I'm not that religious and I don't know that much about religion.

Hate to break it to you, but those gods are just as real as any christian god.

It's like saying...
"The only cartoon I know of is garfield"
"You don't know mickey mouse or bugs bunny, or even popeye?"
"I don't consider those cartoons; they're FICTION"

[UNODRAGONE]

wow Archy people just love to pick on you. I have heard the stories about Zeus and what not but would I actually say I know them? Nope. Went in one ear out the other could care less, I have heard of them but knowing to me means I know the background and history and what not and that I can honestly say I don't.

know1 Audio Help /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, knew, known, know·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.


I understand that theres also the definition 3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
but if Archy doesn't consider them Gods, then yeah his post makes sense.

[archenemyfan]

wow Archy people just love to pick on you. I have heard the stories about Zeus and what not but would I actually say I know them? Nope. Went in one ear out the other could care less, I have heard of them but knowing to me means I know the background and history and what not and that I can honestly say I don't.



I understand that theres also the definition but if Archy doesn't consider them Gods, then yeah his post makes sense.

That's what I mean, I could care less because I just don't consider them real Gods. In my opinion they're mythological, because when we read the Odyssey, we had an assignment and it was bookwork about the Mythological Gods.
And by the way, this is a forum board, so I care but I don't care if they pick on me. It's because of my attitude and some posts on here. But I don't really care because I don't need them. So, that solves it.

[DarkWolf]

but if Archy doesn't consider them Gods, then yeah his post makes sense.Not really. His post, going by definition of the words used and context, means he had no awareness or knowledge of any other god besides the christian one - he did not know any other religion had any other god. That is not saying "knowing" the gods, he said he didn't know anything "about" them. If somebody said "Zeus" to you, you'd know we meant the Greek god. If we said "Roman pantheon" you know we'd mean the deities the Romans worshipped. Going by Archy's post, if I said the same to him he'd have no knowledge of either Zeus or that the Romans worshipped other gods.

Not considering them gods is stupid. They were icons of worship, thus gods. It's not about what you consider them to be, it's about what they are as defined by the language you use.

For example: the law of murder is based on "murder", if I kill somebody for fun and say I don't consider it murder would that mean I would not be breaking the law?

It's because of my attitudeNo, it's because you show an entire lack of forethought and fail at following conversation properly and make stupid statements. When asked for clarification on your meaning - since you keep using words wrong alot - you take the hump or ignore the requests.

Like now, you say you have no knowledge of other gods simply because you don't consider them gods. Which, frankly, is bullshit. You DO have knowledge of other gods and it shows ignorance of the English language when you ignore direct definition. They ARE gods, whether you consider them to be or not, because they fit the definition of what a god is. It doesn't mean they must be gods "to you", but that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider them gods.

So either you are extremely sheltered and ignorant of mythology OR you are immensely retarded when it comes to English. Take your pick.

[archenemyfan]

Not really. His post, going by definition of the words used and context, means he had no awareness or knowledge of any other god besides the christian one - he did not know any other religion had any other god. That is not saying "knowing" the gods, he said he didn't know anything "about" them. If somebody said "Zeus" to you, you'd know we meant the Greek god. If we said "Roman pantheon" you know we'd mean the deities the Romans worshipped. Going by Archy's post, if I said the same to him he'd have no knowledge of either Zeus or that the Romans worshipped other gods.

Not considering them gods is stupid. They were icons of worship, thus gods. It's not about what you consider them to be, it's about what they are as defined by the language you use.

For example: the law of murder is based on "murder", if I kill somebody for fun and say I don't consider it murder would that mean I would not be breaking the law?

No, it's because you show an entire lack of forethought and fail at following conversation properly and make stupid statements. When asked for clarification on your meaning - since you keep using words wrong alot - you take the hump or ignore the requests.

Like now, you say you have no knowledge of other gods simply because you don't consider them gods. Which, frankly, is bullshit. You DO have knowledge of other gods and it shows ignorance of the English language when you ignore direct definition. They ARE gods, whether you consider them to be or not, because they fit the definition of what a god is. It doesn't mean they must be gods "to you", but that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider them gods.

So either you are extremely sheltered and ignorant of mythology OR you are immensely retarded when it comes to English. Take your pick.

1. I knew about the Greek Gods, but I don't consider them as a modern day God because I have different beliefs.
2. It's not bullshit because I have different beliefs. Like I said, I knew about the Greek Gods but I don't consider them modern Gods.
3. Why am I going to American Lit Honors Pre-AP?
4. Please knock off the flaming. I know you're trying to prove me wrong because you hate me because of my behavior of posting, but you really shouldn't just because you're a Mod. I think that is embarrassing. Take your flaming somewhere else. If I get anymore rude posts by you, I won't respond. Walking away is the best thing to do.

Now, back to the real topic-is there a gender for God?

[DarkWolf]

1. Read my post, you've missed most of it.
2. I'm not questioning your beliefs - you say you don't consider them gods. That's bogus. They're gods by definition. You can say you don't believe in them, fine, nobody's asking you to. But they ARE gods, they were worshipped as gods making them gods. It's the definition of the word, not your beliefs.
3. God only knows.
4. Check your knowledge. I don't hate you, there's nobody on here that I hate. Do not tell me what I should or shouldn't do, you have no such authority. I am not a mod. My posts are not rude, abrupt, yes, but not rude. You are showing either a great lack of knowledge and ignorance in mythology OR you're being retarded with the English language and using it incorrectly. It's one or the other. That's not flaming you, it's asking for clarification in an impolite fashion while making observation of the words you chose to use.

"back on topic": No. As it says in the bible, God is everything. Beginning, mother, father, ending. He is everything therefore he is both male and female, everything that is inbetween and neither. He is a force, not a person.

[Aleander]

I don't really give a damn about the Christian god,it's not my god, I didn't notice that this thread was just about the Christian god, I'm sorry for that.
Look there is no need for bad language... religion is already a heated topic. Next, I am not a Christian... but you will not see me disrespecting it like that.:banghead: You should have apollogised for the mistake and given an answer to the original question and left it be.

[BlackRosePhantom]

1. I knew about the Greek Gods, but I don't consider them as a modern day God because I have different beliefs.
2. It's not bullshit because I have different beliefs. Like I said, I knew about the Greek Gods but I don't consider them modern Gods.
3. Why am I going to American Lit Honors Pre-AP?
4. Please knock off the flaming. I know you're trying to prove me wrong because you hate me because of my behavior of posting, but you really shouldn't just because you're a Mod. I think that is embarrassing. Take your flaming somewhere else. If I get anymore rude posts by you, I won't respond. Walking away is the best thing to do.

Now, back to the real topic-is there a gender for God?

1. You just called them gos, thus you know about them. Just because you don't consider them a real god, doesn't mean they aren't gods. I can say the same thing about 'god' not being a god in my opinion because I don't believe in him/her/shim/whatever, and since I don't believe in 'god', 'god' is thus for not a god. Now, I can guess at what you're thinking, which is that I'm incorrect and 'god' is a god because you believe 'god' to be the only real 'god'. Notice the bolding of the word 'you', that's to point out that you're being biased. If you do not believe in any other god(s) other than the christian one, yet know of others, then its fairly obvious that there would be no other god, thus being hypocritical in pointing out that you don't know of any other gods when the subject of other deities was brought up since your religion in a monotheist one, and thus only has one god. That in itself is not retarded, which means slow, but idiotic and ignorant.

2. Here are a few definitions of the word 'god'



God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.~~~~~~~~

Deity or Supreme Being. Each of the major monotheistic world religions worships a Supreme Being, who is the sole god of the universe, the maker of all things, omniscient and all-powerful. God is also good. In ancient Israel God was named Yahweh. The God of the Hebrew Bible also became the God of Christianity, but generic words, such as theos in Greek or Deus in Latin, were often used to refer to him. In Islam the term is Allah (http://www.answers.com/topic/allah). See also monotheism (http://www.answers.com/topic/monotheism).

~~~~~~~~

The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

~~~~~~~~

God] (http://www.answers.com/topic/god-john-lennon-song), as a male deity (http://www.answers.com/topic/deity), contrasts with female deities, or "goddesses (http://www.answers.com/topic/goddess)" while the term 'goddess' specifically refers to a female deity, words like 'gods' and 'deities' can be applied to all gods collectively, regardless of gender. They don't necessarily refer to male gods in specific. This article focuses on the last category. The most prominent triad of Hinduism Trimurti (http://www.answers.com/topic/trimurti) (which can be seen as three aspects of the same god) is usually depicted as all male (Brahma (http://www.answers.com/topic/brahman), Shiva (http://www.answers.com/topic/shiva) and Vishnu (http://www.answers.com/topic/vishnu)). In most polytheistic (http://www.answers.com/topic/polytheism) religions, both in history and in the present, male deities had the more prominent role. The Greek (http://www.answers.com/topic/greek-mythology-2) and Roman (http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-mythology-2) pantheon (http://www.answers.com/topic/pantheon-gods) was ruled by Zeus (http://www.answers.com/topic/zeus) and Jupiter (http://www.answers.com/topic/jupiter-god), while Wodan (http://www.answers.com/topic/woden-2) had a similar role in the Germanic religion (http://www.answers.com/topic/germanic-mythology). When Ancient Egyptian religion (http://www.answers.com/topic/ancient-egyptian-religion) developed closer to monotheism (http://www.answers.com/topic/monotheism), it was Amun (http://www.answers.com/topic/amen-1), a male god, who rose to the most prominent place. War gods were, like the rulers of the pantheon, typically male, too; Ares (http://www.answers.com/topic/ares)/Mars (http://www.answers.com/topic/mars-god) and Toutatis (http://www.answers.com/topic/toutatis-1) are obvious examples. Woden (http://www.answers.com/topic/woden-2) was both king of the gods and a god of war. Athena (http://www.answers.com/topic/athena-1), a goddess also often associated with war and strategy, is a notable exception. Sekhmet also is an exception, as is Ishtar. Gods have taken several different forms including animals, and elements of nature.
3. American Lit is bull. I can tell you that right off the bat. You're teacher will either put an egotistical view of America in your head, one where Protistan are the founders of American and thus should be the favored religion, or give you one where America looks like a tyrant. Rarely to do ever get a teacher that will give you all the sides of a story, especially when it involves a county's history. My history teacher is trying to do that, but her only problem is that she's not giving them all at the same time, and is giving us the American-egotistical one first (which is going to make a good chunk of my class become egotistical about America since we know how the first message is the one that sticks best). Also, it has nothing to do with religion and pre-AP might as well as be PSP, which even failing the year before, I still got into English-PSP (though that was due to a schedule changing) in 8th grade. Not that hard of a class (I only failed the year prior because of the teacher, like the other 3/5 of the class, and that's why she was fired after her first year there). Was the Christian 'god' in this myth book of yours as well? If not, then I can tell you that the only reason why the Greek gods would be in the myth book is because that religion has died out. If there are still living religions in that book, then you can discard it as a piece of bias trash.

4. DW has answered this one best, but there is a part of it that I still want to mention upon. The blunt truth is always perceived as rude. It's called rude because the person receiving the information doesn't want to receive the information at least in that fashion and hurts their feelings, thus perceived as rude, and that's usually a sign of denial (in this case, of being wrong).

[UNODRAGONE]

1. You just called them gos, thus you know about them. Just because you don't consider them a real god, doesn't mean they aren't gods. I can say the same thing about 'god' not being a god in my opinion because I don't believe in him/her/shim/whatever, and since I don't believe in 'god', 'god' is thus for not a god. Now, I can guess at what you're thinking, which is that I'm incorrect and 'god' is a god because you believe 'god' to be the only real 'god'. Notice the bolding of the word 'you', that's to point out that you're being biased. If you do not believe in any other god(s) other than the christian one, yet know of others, then its fairly obvious that there would be no other god, thus being hypocritical in pointing out that you don't know of any other gods when the subject of other deities was brought up since your religion in a monotheist one, and thus only has one god. That in itself is not retarded, which means slow, but idiotic and ignorant.

2. Here are a few definitions of the word 'god'


3. American Lit is bull. I can tell you that right off the bat. You're teacher will either put an egotistical view of America in your head, one where Protistan are the founders of American and thus should be the favored religion, or give you one where America looks like a tyrant. Rarely to do ever get a teacher that will give you all the sides of a story, especially when it involves a county's history. My history teacher is trying to do that, but her only problem is that she's not giving them all at the same time, and is giving us the American-egotistical one first (which is going to make a good chunk of my class become egotistical about America since we know how the first message is the one that sticks best). Also, it has nothing to do with religion and pre-AP might as well as be PSP, which even failing the year before, I still got into English-PSP (though that was due to a schedule changing) in 8th grade. Not that hard of a class (I only failed the year prior because of the teacher, like the other 3/5 of the class, and that's why she was fired after her first year there). Was the Christian 'god' in this myth book of yours as well? If not, then I can tell you that the only reason why the Greek gods would be in the myth book is because that religion has died out. If there are still living religions in that book, then you can discard it as a piece of bias trash.

4. DW has answered this one best, but there is a part of it that I still want to mention upon. The blunt truth is always perceived as rude. It's called rude because the person receiving the information doesn't want to receive the information at least in that fashion and hurts their feelings, thus perceived as rude, and that's usually a sign of denial (in this case, of being wrong).

uh no thats not biased, thats his belief, he only believes in God in the Christian sense as his only God meaning he worships him alone

[BlackRosePhantom]

uh no thats not biased, thats his belief, he only believes in God in the Christian sense as his only God meaning he worships him alone
Yes, it is his belief, but it is biased at the same time. in the sense that he originally used the word god, it made it seem like he was refering to any and all deties, whether or not he believed in them since in his grammar, the word 'god' was a mere generalization, thus ignoring personal beliefs. If he is unwilling to ignore his personal beliefs when talking about gods in general, then he shouldn't have even said he didn't know about any other god, and merely have said that he doesn't believe that there is any other god, and being the OP, declare that the only god in which should be referenced in this thread, is the Christian god, and possibly the other forms/personas of the Christian god including the Jewish and Muslim gods. Although, since he didn't make that carification, and merely made the generalization of not knowing any gods, and again, thus omitting any personal beliefs, so it is our right as members of this discussion board, of which different subjects are discussed and debated, to call out the ignorance card upon him.

[archenemyfan]

I read those posts and I understand. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

About beliefs, I think this kinda ties in on what we are talking about. I got it off a billboard...

"With our thoughts we make the world"
-Buddha

I think that is true, regarding that I'm not Buddhist, but that seems agreeable enough to me, religiously speaking.

[MorganaFang]

Hey now American Lit is awesome, some teachers of American lit are not. As for spelling, grammatical, blah blah English, that is purely good for communicating, you cannot do that in the real world then you bet your ass you will be ridiculed. As I have been on a pretty regular basis.

[archenemyfan]

Hey now American Lit is awesome, some teachers of American lit are not. As for spelling, grammatical, blah blah English, that is purely good for communicating, you cannot do that in the real world then you bet your ass you will be ridiculed. As I have been on a pretty regular basis.

See BRP? I knew someone actually liked the subject. It sounds hard, but very interesting to me. Can't wait till August!

Anyways, are we going to get anywhere with God?

[MorganaFang]

Anyways, are we going to get anywhere with God?

Probably not as there seems to be a general consensus that in terms of God GOD processes no gender and yet has both at the same time. Other religions may actually clearly define their god/s/ genders (which unfortunately arch has little knowledge of however when that is not your area of focus it is understandable, so shut up and quit over-analysing the situation). AND I say American Lit is awesome because of HP Lovecraft, Faulkner, Emerson, Melville, etc etc...

[archenemyfan]

Probably not as there seems to be a general consensus that in terms of God GOD processes no gender and yet has both at the same time. Other religions may actually clearly define their god/s/ genders (which unfortunately arch has little knowledge of however when that is not your area of focus it is understandable, so shut up and quit over-analysing the situation). AND I say American Lit is awesome because of HP Lovecraft, Faulkner, Emerson, Melville, etc etc...

Well, I'm not a big religious person, and I'm kinda trying to find an answer here. This forum is choc-full of intelligent people who know a lot more than me and they could help. I also like the arguments, how everyone's opinions form and all, theories, etc..
Anal, haha. I'm not talking about me...if you know what I mean.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Hey now American Lit is awesome, some teachers of American lit are not. As for spelling, grammatical, blah blah English, that is purely good for communicating, you cannot do that in the real world then you bet your ass you will be ridiculed. As I have been on a pretty regular basis.

I wasn't trying to dis on American Lit itself, just how its taught. It's a truly rare thing when a teacher can teach it to you without being biased or even accidentally biased because they forgot that the human mind likes grab onto the first information it's told about a subject and put that as true, so when the teacher tries to teach the other side of the story, the student's mind doesn't want to take to it as easily as they did with the prior information since they've already formed their opinion on the matter with that information. That, and the Pre-AP part of it, which basically means that it's only the semi-advanced class, which is actually quite easy if you pay attention whenever the teacher gives you information and don't shut your mind after the first ten minutes to go chat with your friends a desk away and let the bit of information dwell in your subconscious.

Also, as a whole, both the Christian & Jewish form of the collective deity know most commonly as God, is both and neither, though is you ask any Muslim, they're most likely to go by what god's referred to as in the book meant to show authority for the times, and claim that god is male, period.

[chriz]

Anyways, are we going to get anywhere with God?

God is imaginary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ) .

[greggchamberlain]

Why is it so hard for you to believe? Is my physical existence any more improbable than your own?

What about all that hoo-ha with the devil awhile ago from that movie? Nobody had any problem believing that the devil took over and existed in a little girl. All she had to do was wet the rug, throw up some pea soup and everybody believed.

The devil you could believe, but not God?

I work in my own way. I don't get inside little children; they got enough to do just being themselves. Also I'm not about to go around to every person in the world and say, 'Look it's me, I wanna talk to you.'

I'm not sure how this whole miracle business started, the idea that anything connected with me has to be a miracle. Personally I'm sorry that it did. Makes the distance between us even greater. But if a miracle helps you believe that I am who I say I am... I'll give you one. A good one.

I know how hard it is in these times to have faith. But maybe if you could have the faith to start there, maybe the times would change. You could change them.

Think about it. Try. And try not to hurt each other. There's been enough of that. It really gets in the way.

However hopeless, helpless, mixed up and scary it all gets, it can work.

If you find it hard to believe in me, maybe it would help you to know that I believe in you.

God (as voiced by George Burns, Oh, God!)

[MorganaFang]

I wasn't trying to dis on American Lit itself, just how its taught. It's a truly rare thing when a teacher can teach it to you without being biased or even accidentally biased because they forgot that the human mind likes grab onto the first information it's told about a subject and put that as true, so when the teacher tries to teach the other side of the story, the student's mind doesn't want to take to it as easily as they did with the prior information since they've already formed their opinion on the matter with that information.

Truly rare, because you know you have had pretty close to every teacher out there. Honey no, maybe your teachers do not try to embrace their students more when it comes to their teaching style but that does not mean most of them out there (especially ones teaching a pretty liberal arts class) are like that. Sometimes it is not even up to the teacher, it is up to the student and how they want to take the information they are receiving and if they are too busy fighting the teacher because they perceive them as too biased then man are you missing out learning the information and why you perceive it as biased. Being against the teacher may help to strengthen interest in a field of study. I had a shitty pysch teacher in high school but man oh man did she totally not define how other psych teachers are. So back it up a bit and chill.

[chriz]

Why is it so hard for you to believe? Is my physical existence any more improbable than your own?

God has no physical existence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlSySWuoiA) .

[archenemyfan]

God has no physical existence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlSySWuoiA) .

Well, everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. I for one believe in God and Satan. Because, in my mind, if there is a God, there must be an Anti-Christ. But that's just me.

[Vendetta]

Holy shit Genna, did you just use H.P. Lovecraft as a GOOD example of American literature? Look, I enjoyed his stories too, but he was a TERRIBLE writer, and should not be held up as an example of good literature.

[Pickle Tickler]

1. I knew about the Greek Gods, but I don't consider them as a modern day God because I have different beliefs.
2. It's not bullshit because I have different beliefs. Like I said, I knew about the Greek Gods but I don't consider them modern Gods.
3. Why am I going to American Lit Honors Pre-AP?


You seriously need to stop listening to your teacher. He sounds a lot like my Freshman Biology guy, whose head was so far up his ass that he told us to drink rattlesnake venom, because it was full of protein and it wouldn't harm us. What if someone had a sore in their mouth and tried that? I ask you.

Please knock off the flaming. I know you're trying to prove me wrong because you hate me because of my behavior of posting, but you really shouldn't just because you're a Mod. I think that is embarrassing. Take your flaming somewhere else. If I get anymore rude posts by you, I won't respond. Walking away is the best thing to do.

Now, back to the real topic-is there a gender for God?

Darky is a mod again!?

[DarkHunter]

Holy shit Genna, did you just use H.P. Lovecraft as a GOOD example of American literature? Look, I enjoyed his stories too, but he was a TERRIBLE writer, and should not be held up as an example of good literature.

Most good writers have been, at one time or another, considered terrible writers. There are people that still stubbornly insist that John Steinbeck is just Communist trash.

But anyway....is this conversation still going on? Even if God existed or had gender to speak of....why the hell would it matter if God was male or female? Isn't this like the MOST narcissistic a person can get? "God must be MY gender."

Whether God is male or female, people are still stupid.

[Vendetta]

Most good writers have been, at one time or another, considered terrible writers. There are people that still stubbornly insist that John Steinbeck is just Communist trash.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure that Lovecraft has never been seriously considered as good literature by anyone, let alone held aloft as a paragon of American literature. I mean can anyone defend his writing? God, are they going to be holding up Stephen King novels in 50 years time as the pinnacle of American achievement in literature?!

But anyway....is this conversation still going on?
Hopefully not.

[Pickle Tickler]

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that Lovecraft has never been seriously considered as good literature by anyone, let alone held aloft as a paragon of American literature. I mean can anyone defend his writing? God, are they going to be holding up Stephen King novels in 50 years time as the pinnacle of American achievement in literature?!


Hopefully not.

It's my belief that the media goes for books that seem easier to read or are written by an already well-known author. Some really good authors are left out of the equation because their books are incredibly long, but the pages flow. Sure, they might get a best-seller award, but they don't get publicity.

That's why I had such a hard time understanding how people managed to read the Bible.

[archenemyfan]

You seriously need to stop listening to your teacher. He sounds a lot like my Freshman Biology guy, whose head was so far up his ass that he told us to drink rattlesnake venom, because it was full of protein and it wouldn't harm us. What if someone had a sore in their mouth and tried that? I ask you.

You gotta remember that I only gathered the knowledge about the Gods, I didn't believe in them. But that's my opinion. And of course, you should have enough common sense to know what is right from wrong, that biology teacher of yours sounds a lot like he should be somewhere where he can get help. If I had a sore in my mouth, I wouldn't do that, I wouldn't trust him. I would make HIM drink it first, then tell me it's not harmful.

But all beliefs are based on opinions, and the way you think. Everyone is different, unique in their own way, and different people think differently from others.

[chriz]

God, are they going to be holding up Stephen King novels in 50 years time as the pinnacle of American achievement in literature?

Sadly, probably. This is a culture that thinks the Harry Potter novels are some kind of literary achievements, too (don't get me wrong, they're fun, but they're mediocre).

[archenemyfan]

Sadly, probably. This is a culture that thinks the Harry Potter novels are some kind of literary achievements, too (don't get me wrong, they're fun, but they're mediocre).

Stephen King books and Harry Potter books are some of the best books you'll ever read. The only reason adults don't like Harry Potter books is because they don't show much interest, like teenagers/kids do. They're not really mediocre. Those fantasy books put in alot of thought and imagination.

[chriz]

Stephen King books and Harry Potter books are some of the best books you'll ever read. The only reason adults don't like Harry Potter books is because they don't show much interest, like teenagers/kids do. They're not really mediocre. Those fantasy books put in alot of thought and imagination.

At 15 I thought I was widely-read, too.

[archenemyfan]

At 15 I thought I was widely-read, too.

But, I don't really read that much Harry Potter anymore, I read the scary shit, i.e. Stephen King, Dean Koontz, etc..
Thrillers, Sci-Fi, Horror all fascinate me.

[MorganaFang]

But, I don't really read that much Harry Potter anymore, I read the scary shit, i.e. Stephen King, Dean Koontz, etc..
Thrillers, Sci-Fi, Horror all fascinate me.

LOL Scary. Oh man, ha. Dean Koontz < China Miéville. Actually Arch, you are about the same age I was when I started reading Clive Barker, I recommend you try him out if you are into horror fiction. Eeeanywho I took this thread way off course, do we ever plan on getting back on?

[Vendetta]

Eeeanywho I took this thread way off course, do we ever plan on getting back on?
No, and let us never speak of it again.

And seriously Archenemy, you need to maybe actually read more books, before you can make claims like King and Rowling being great writers. I'm pretty sure the first book I ever read was the BEST book I'd ever read too.

[Pickle Tickler]

Next he's going to be going on about how awesome Salvatore is.

You want some heavy reading? Try Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series. It'll be enlightening for you AEF.

[Galliard]

I think God is an "it" that we break down into different genders.

[J.L.R.]

God is a spirit... He is not a man or a woman. He is not a gender, as God (the Father) does not exist in the physical world. The ONLY reason He is used is to conotate authority, nothing less and nothing more...

Also... I write my own literature! :P

[archenemyfan]

No, and let us never speak of it again.

And seriously Archenemy, you need to maybe actually read more books, before you can make claims like King and Rowling being great writers. I'm pretty sure the first book I ever read was the BEST book I'd ever read too.

You know, you don't have to be cute.

Pickle Tickler-

If it's longer than 800 pages, I won't read it. But, I don't judge a book by it's cover, I read the summary on the inside cover. I don't consider the author good, only his/her works.

[DarkWolf]

I've read a lot of books. I couldn't even think of counting, I've been reading since 3 years old, first novel was when I was 7. I have spent most of my life reading novels from all sorts of authors from barely known to infamous, all about science fiction and horror and so on.

I still say Stephen King rules.

I care more about the story they put in my head, the imagination to it, the adventure they provide, the ideas they inspire than well, whatever it is people seem to judge books on.

It's also worth pointing out that really, no story is better than another and no author truly better than another. Such measures are based on opinion and personal experience.

So, I don't think it fair to get on AEF's case for saying he likes King or Rowling. Can you provide the precise reasonings on how and why, in absolute truth and logic with no personal bias, these other authors must be better than King or Rowling? How would their writing styles and story content be more suitable to everybody's preferences? Why would their writing talents be superior?

Stephen King is my favourite author followed closely by Anne Rice. I'm sure to you this is something highly flawed. But, if you think I am flawed, then please explain how in exact terms, again, removing the concept of personal preference. You certainly cannot use the excuse of me not being "well-read". :p

[J.L.R.]

I've read a lot of books. I couldn't even think of counting, I've been reading since 3 years old, first novel was when I was 7. I have spent most of my life reading novels from all sorts of authors from barely known to infamous, all about science fiction and horror and so on.

I still say Stephen King rules.

I care more about the story they put in my head, the imagination to it, the adventure they provide, the ideas they inspire than well, whatever it is people seem to judge books on.

It's also worth pointing out that really, no story is better than another and no author truly better than another. Such measures are based on opinion and personal experience.

So, I don't think it fair to get on AEF's case for saying he likes King or Rowling. Can you provide the precise reasonings on how and why, in absolute truth and logic with no personal bias, these other authors must be better than King or Rowling? How would their writing styles and story content be more suitable to everybody's preferences? Why would their writing talents be superior?

Stephen King is my favourite author followed closely by Anne Rice. I'm sure to you this is something highly flawed. But, if you think I am flawed, then please explain how in exact terms, again, removing the concept of personal preference. You certainly cannot use the excuse of me not being "well-read". :p

While Rowlings and King have both been critizied by other... older... more... "superior" writers, the truth is they both do one thing that most author's don't... make money... :P and LOADS of it.

Personally I'd take a good nature book of any of them... There is nothing like expanding one's brain. Barnes and Noble's bargain bin is my best friend... I almost screamed when I saw that Josephus: The Complete Works was on sale for less than 20 bucks... Guess where I'll be tomorrow. :P

[chriz]

Stephen King is my favourite author followed closely by Anne Rice. I'm sure to you this is something highly flawed. But, if you think I am flawed, then please explain how in exact terms, again, removing the concept of personal preference. You certainly cannot use the excuse of me not being "well-read". :p

I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. You can't have an opinion (such as a favorite writer) that's locked down in exact objective terms. Opinions are personal preferences.

"Stephen King is vapid crap" is my opinion. It also happens to be right. ;)

[GhostBat]

While Rowlings and King have both been critizied by other... older... more... "superior" writers, the truth is they both do one thing that most author's don't... make money... :P and LOADS of it.

There's a difference between good writing and good advertising. :p

[J.L.R.]

There's a difference between good writing and good advertising. :p

Very true, but if you consider the business aspect of the trade it is always much more profitable to write pulp culture fiction even if the quality of the material and stories in general isn't as grand or verbrose as... let's say, Hemmingway...

We see this all the time in Hollywood. There are movies that aren't REALLY that good, but because of hype they do really well because they are popular. Pulp culture movies like Spider-Man franchise, Transformers, and their alike rake in huge amounts of money, and yet they hardly ever win an Oscar, where as films like Schindler's List of which is better in all aspects of story telling will produce a modest profit.

[Pickle Tickler]

Yes, but when was the last time you saw an excessively long book (besides the Bible) for sale by the media? Anything over 500 pages is pretty much fucked, unless it's a dictionary or the Bible. And even then they usually are closer to 300 or less.

AEF- The first four books of the series barely scrape 800, and they get progressively longer. Five was at about 950, and I've yet to read six or any of the others yet.

[UNODRAGONE]

I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. You can't have an opinion (such as a favorite writer) that's locked down in exact objective terms. Opinions are personal preferences.

"Stephen King is vapid crap" is my opinion. It also happens to be right. ;)


your opinion makes it right to you, not fact :D

[J.L.R.]

your opinion makes it right to you, not fact :D

Actually Chriz is the almighty Admin, so what ever he says is right... if it isn't he will just edit or delete the post to make it right. :D

[UNODRAGONE]

Actually Chriz is the almighty Admin, so what ever he says is right... if it isn't he will just edit or delete the post to make it right. :D

whoops (bows down) I am sorry oh mighty one :D

[Pickle Tickler]

Stephen King was an average author, that degraded himself into crappiness. That's what happens when you do nothing but write, write, and write some more.

[UNODRAGONE]

Stephen King was an average author, that degraded himself into crappiness. That's what happens when you do nothing but write, write, and write some more.

I've always liked Stephen King, the last book I read was the Cell which I didn't find all that bad. What recent books of his have you read that make you say that?

[Vendetta]

You know, you don't have to be cute.
I wasn't, I was being direct and honest.

If it's longer than 800 pages, I won't read it.
So while you claim to like Rowling, I'm guessing you never read Order of the Phoenix then? That clocks in at 870. Also, I would point out that page counts really depend on the format of the book and spacing of the text. Most paperbacks and trades have more pages, generally, than hardcover editions of the same books. So that seems like a kind of silly way to judge a book.

And about as arbitrary as...
But, I don't judge a book by it's cover, I read the summary on the inside cover.
You know those summaries are written by PR/marketing people, right? Also, they just tell you what the book is about, not how well it's written.

I don't consider the author good, only his/her works.
So instead of naming authors, perhaps you should've named books then. Instead of, you know, making blanket statements like this...
Stephen King books and Harry Potter books are some of the best books you'll ever read.


It's also worth pointing out that really, no story is better than another and no author truly better than another. Such measures are based on opinion and personal experience.
You can't seriously mean this, can you?!

"The cat is cool. REALLY REALLY cool. I like to pet the cat. But today when I petted the cat is scratched me. Now I don't think the cat is good anymore."

Is that comparable to King or Rowling? How about Updike or Capote?


So, I don't think it fair to get on AEF's case for saying he likes King or Rowling. Can you provide the precise reasonings on how and why, in absolute truth and logic with no personal bias, these other authors must be better than King or Rowling? How would their writing styles and story content be more suitable to everybody's preferences? Why would their writing talents be superior?
No one is saying Rowling and King aren't massively appealing or that they are terrible writers. I'm saying that they are AVERAGE authors. And if you STILL think they are the pinnacle of literature, then I'd say yeah, you STILL haven't read enough. This is 100% true, and I'm pretty sure would be corroborated by literary scholars.

Stephen King is my favourite author followed closely by Anne Rice. I'm sure to you this is something highly flawed. But, if you think I am flawed, then please explain how in exact terms, again, removing the concept of personal preference. You certainly cannot use the excuse of me not being "well-read". :p
Uh actually I CAN, if you find those authors to be the best writing there is out there. All you're saying is that they are the best you've come across SO FAR. And my point is if that's the case, you have some reading to do. Because I would dare you to say that to a well-read literary professor and NOT have him/her laugh in your face.

[Gilenea]

Back on topic, people seem to forget that this fictitional version of "God" exists only in the confines of someone's mind that believes in it. Therefore, whether or not the Christian god is a man or a woman is completely up to the preference of the individual. Since society seems to be male-dominated, it's no wonder that the recognized gender of the Christian god is male.

Gil

[UNODRAGONE]

Back on topic, people seem to forget that this fictitional version of "God" exists only in the confines of someone's mind that believes in it. Therefore, whether or not the Christian god is a man or a woman is completely up to the preference of the individual. Since society seems to be male-dominated, it's no wonder that the recognized gender of the Christian god is male.

Gil

You are so full of win :D

[chriz]

Back on topic, people seem to forget that this fictitional version of "God" exists only in the confines of someone's mind that believes in it. Therefore, whether or not the Christian god is a man or a woman is completely up to the preference of the individual. Since society seems to be male-dominated, it's no wonder that the recognized gender of the Christian god is male.

You can, however, look into the history and (at this point) anthropology of the region. Many early religions in that area were pantheon-style polytheistic ones. The most likely origin of the Abrahamic God is some kind of Zeus-like character -- the Old Testament God certainly shares a number of Zeus' characteristics. Not saying God was Zeus, but you could see the fashion at the time...

[J.L.R.]

You can, however, look into the history and (at this point) anthropology of the region. Many early religions in that area were pantheon-style polytheistic ones. The most likely origin of the Abrahamic God is some kind of Zeus-like character -- the Old Testament God certainly shares a number of Zeus' characteristics. Not saying God was Zeus, but you could see the fashion at the time...

It is highly unlikely that the Jews were influenced by anything Greek as the strickness of their religion would have prevented them from interpreting God (as the the Father) in any physical form. Remember one of the Jewish laws, was to not make an image of God.

However, I do agree that Roman Catholic Christian art was heavily influenced by its Greek heritage. This is of course where you get the paintings of God with long flowing white hair. I do believe if histocracy can be trusted, we can trace the mingling of Roman gods and goddesses with "Christian" art and lore once Constantine declared Rome a "Christian" state.

This is of course where we have to break "Christian" tradition vs. what is actually historically written down or existed.

A good example is the Apostle Peter... According to Catholic Christian tradition, Jesus met Peter and informed him that he would be the first pope of Rome. He is said to be buried in St. Peter's Chapel in Rome. HISTORICALLY speaking though, Peter never met Jesus to became a pope. In fact according to the Bible, Peter did everything he could possibly do to keep himself from being lifted up as anybody special. Peter did go to Rome though, and was crucified upside down at the command of Nero. There is no evidence that Peter was ever buried at St. Peter's Chapel
other than a vague enscription in a catacomb under the church.

There is, however, archeological evidence that he was buried outside Jerusalem in a catacomb where other fellow apostiles were buried. The evidence that supports this as an osurary with his name on it. This is where tradition differs from history...

[UNODRAGONE]

It is highly unlikely that the Jews were influenced by anything Greek as the strickness of their religion would have prevented them from interpreting God (as the the Father) in any physical form. Remember one of the Jewish laws, was to not make an image of God.

However, I do agree that Roman Catholic Christian art was heavily influenced by its Greek heritage. This is of course where you get the paintings of God with long flowing white hair. I do believe if histocracy can be trusted, we can trace the mingling of Roman gods and goddesses with "Christian" art and lore once Constantine declared Rome a "Christian" state.

This is of course where we have to break "Christian" tradition vs. what is actually historically written down or existed.

A good example is the Apostle Peter... According to Catholic Christian tradition, Jesus met Peter and informed him that he would be the first pope of Rome. He is said to be buried in St. Peter's Chapel in Rome. HISTORICALLY speaking though, Peter never met Jesus to became a pope. In fact according to the Bible, Peter did everything he could possibly do to keep himself from being lifted up as anybody special. Peter did go to Rome though, and was crucified upside down at the command of Nero. There is no evidence that Peter was ever buried at St. Peter's Chapel
other than a vague enscription in a catacomb under the church.

There is, however, archeological evidence that he was buried outside Jerusalem in a catacomb where other fellow apostiles were buried. The evidence that supports this as an osurary with his name on it. This is where tradition differs from history...

was that in the whole "Jesus's Tomb" documentary they had on TV? I remember when they said they believed they found Jesus body I was thinking, there goes the whole ressurection theory

[sithis]

First of all, I never read the Bible so I really don't know that much. Two, I would never think of God being both genders, it seems...different. Three, you made it easy for me to understand, but the church doesn't follow their religion logically...

ithink god is a unisex

[Pickle Tickler]

ithink god is a unisex

I think you are too.

[chriz]

It is highly unlikely that the Jews were influenced by anything Greek as the strickness of their religion would have prevented them from interpreting God (as the the Father) in any physical form. Remember one of the Jewish laws, was to not make an image of God.

Well, yeah, I wasn't saying literally. I just mean that the Abrahamic God probably descended, culturally, from some pagan king god who fulfilled a role similar to the one held by Zeus, Odin, or Ra.

The Jews have a "no image of God" rule, too? I guess the Muslims had to get theirs from somewhere. But the most well-known similar rule from the Old Testament was "no idols of false gods," implying it was ok to have an image or representation of God himself. Maybe there were other rules elsewhere that contradicted this.

[J.L.R.]

Well, yeah, I wasn't saying literally. I just mean that the Abrahamic God probably descended, culturally, from some pagan king god who fulfilled a role similar to the one held by Zeus, Odin, or Ra.

The Jews have a "no image of God" rule, too? I guess the Muslims had to get theirs from somewhere. But the most well-known similar rule from the Old Testament was "no idols of false gods," implying it was ok to have an image or representation of God himself. Maybe there were other rules elsewhere that contradicted this.

The Jews originally had that rule. Mohammed was greatly impressed with the Jew's religion, as well as the Christians he spoke with. The Jewish tribes of Medina were a huge influence on him. He contributed many of their basic core beliefs into his Quran.

God forbade any graven image, as any images made of stone or wood would eventually seduce idol worship, where the creation would be more valued than the creator.

Again it is highly unlikely that any ancient pagan diety influenced the Jews. El is quite unique as He demands His people to worship Him, without any physical likeness to represent Him. As far back as you go, you will find the Jews worshiping El. The archeology is there.

As touching the gender of God once more...

God is not unisex, bisexual, male or female... God is a spirit. The Bible plainly states that. The physical limitations of male and female as applied to us, does not apply to God.

[archenemyfan]

I think you are too.

I know that was an ill post but don't get pissy over it. It's just one post.

[chriz]

The archeology is there.

Not so much. We really don't even know if Judaism existed before the 9th century BC, with a tentative connection to Pharoah Shoshenk I of Egypt. Using Biblical births and ages, Moses would have lived somewhere 1300-1600BC, and Noah and Abraham considerably earlier. But none of that has any evidence outside the Bible (and the Exodus is downright unlikely, given the archeological record).

[Gilenea]

God is not unisex, bisexual, male or female... God is a spirit. The Bible plainly states that. The physical limitations of male and female as applied to us, does not apply to God.

If the Christian god is a spirit, how were we created in its "image?"

Gil

[DarkHunter]

Gilly, I believe people reinterpret that to mean his "spiritual image", in that we are "higher" than other animals and all of that.

We're talking about influences on the Jews and the Jewish God and we're not going to talk about Mesopotamia? Violent, crazy Mesopotamia?

As unique as good old Yahweh can be, I think that he still displays some characteristics of what could be termed your traditional Pagan god. Prone to destroying humanity, picking favorites, blowing up cities, blessing and anointing heroes.

Granted, Yahweh isn't quite as capricious as some can be (he continually forgives the Jews for CONSTANTLY disobeying him, keeping to HIS word).

I think "the Father" was pretty obvious about gender of the Abrahamic God.

[Gilenea]

Gilly, I believe people reinterpret that to mean his "spiritual image", in that we are "higher" than other animals and all of that.

If you wanna be picky, the word "dominion" doesn't necessarily mean "domination." According to the Bible, God gave man the responsibility to look after the animals, not lord it over them that we have forward-facing eyes and opposable thumbs.

But good point about the "spiritual image" bit. Though I still think it's bogus.

Gil

[DarkWolf]

And if you STILL think they are the pinnacle of literatureI don't. I just like their stories and ideas the best.

Uh actually I CAN, if you find those authors to be the best writing there is out thereI have read hundreds of novels, and that means not well read? So, then, if reading a very large and diverse range of books doesn't qualify as well-read, what does? I think you need to read my post a bit more clearly, I did not say I found their writing to be best, I said I preferred their stories and ideas the most. There is a major difference there.

Their literary talent, as in word-choice/vocabularly, descriptions, etc may not be the best. I have read many whose word-using was far greater. Problem is, their word-use and such as is better but if I find their story content boring, then it's just boring. If they have less word-talent but a better story idea then they're going to ranking higher. When I read fiction, story is more important to me than word-use.

Because I would dare you to say that to a well-read literary professor and NOT have him/her laugh in your face.I have done, and she did not laugh. She did not agree with my choice, but then she didn't like horror or sci-fi stories, she preferred romance. I don't think you're grasping the concept of story-preference very well.

I did not say they were the best writers, I said they were my favourite authors because I liked their stories more. Their stories and ideas fitted my preferences more, hence I'm going to like them more.

[J.L.R.]

Not so much. We really don't even know if Judaism existed before the 9th century BC, with a tentative connection to Pharoah Shoshenk I of Egypt. Using Biblical births and ages, Moses would have lived somewhere 1300-1600BC, and Noah and Abraham considerably earlier. But none of that has any evidence outside the Bible (and the Exodus is downright unlikely, given the archeological record).

Again, that all depends on the archeologist you are talking about. There is a considerable amount of evidence for the Exodus, including stone inscriptions of shepherds worshiping El, to a more logical location of Mt. Sinai of which includes an extinct spring at the top.

Archeology, my friend, has a dark side, and there are archeologists out there who are politically motivated, spiritually motivated, and greed motivated. Watch the Naked Archeologist, and you will get a glimpse of how far some of these people will go to deny Biblical accounts, because they are an atheist, so it couldn't have happened, and yet there is blatant evidence right in front of their eyes.

I have a friend who is HUGE into archeology and goes to all of these crazy conventions, and I asked him about these types, and he said they are more common they he'd like. Of course this isn't just Biblical stuff, but there are numerous people who are in it for the wrong reasons, and so the information gets tainted.

It is sort of like those Literal 6-Earth day Creationists, and go to any length to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old. They let their bias interfere with good science.

A good book to read is the "Exodus: Case."

http://www.amazon.com/Exodus-Case-Discoveries-Confirm-Historical/dp/8772472308

The archeology is there and there is plenty of debate...

It is like the works of Flavius Josephus... you have one stream of scholars that swear to Josephus, and skeptics that state he was a fraud and that his works were tampered with (even though there isn't any evidence to support this rational, other than their bias). There is enough archeology to solidify much of Josephus' histories, but alas the debate continues and probably will until the end of time.

Getting to Gil...

Darkhunter is actually correct. In the "image" of God is reflecting more to a spiritual conception than a physical. Why?

The Bible doesn't say let us create man in our own image... The Bible says let us MAKE man in our own image. This is interpreted that God was referring to a pre-existing creature, dubbed man. Evolutionarily speaking man would have started out to be just like any other animal...

At one certain point during man's evolution God states, "Let us make man in our own image." The Bible then goes on to give an account of man's own conception and then God awakens his soul. The Bible states that man became a living soul, but the proper usage is actually a conscious soul.

Adam and Eve were the first man and woman to have this conscious soul.

So the truth is, they were NOT alone, nor were they the only "humans" per say, but were the first to know and to desire to know God.

This also leads to the greatest misconception in Bible lore...

"The sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and there were giants in the earth, great men of renown..."

This is not in reference to angels, and some 6-dayers have suggested... I happen to have a good conversation with one of these people, and they so far as to say that demons had interbred with humans and created human-animal hybrids and... My brain shut off at the moment... I didn't realize that Tr00 W3r3s had invaded Christianity... :P

The word Giant is a mistranslation... the word used is Nephelim... of which is a Jewish word for hybrid (or there abouts)...

In essence, the Bible is speaking of two races of men. The Sons of God referes to men/women who have been spiritually awakened. The doughters of men, refers to the humans who didn't have the awakened soul.

Evolutionary speaking we do have to well defined "human" species... We have modern man... (us) and then we have Neanderthals, of which evolved on a separate path after a break in the evolutionary ladder.

Archeology has been found that revealed that modern humans and neanderthals not only coexisted at one time, but also interbred... Evidence has been found in the Middle East to support it. I LOVE the Naked Archeologist... :P

[greggchamberlain]

If the Christian god is a spirit, how were we created in its "image?"

Gil

in this case i think it depends on whether you presume a literal or allegorical interpretation of the text.

me...i go with allegorical...

created in the image of God to me means created with the capacity to think and to feel, both sympathize and empathize, to wonder and speculate, and...most important of all...to choose.

in the end it is our ability to choose to do something or choose not to do something that is as important as our ability to think and feel and create.

animals act and react, more or less, on instinct. this is what they have to do given a situation or a season...the old "fight or flight" syndrome would be an example...an animal instinctively chooses to do one or the other but the animal does not stop and sit down and think about whether or not to do one or the other and why one option, while illogical, might take precedence over the other in a particular situation...the whole idea of self-sacrifice for the sake of a stranger where someone will risk his or her own life to save a child in danger even if that child has no kinship or other ties to the person.

[DarkHunter]

I thought Nephilim were the offspring of the angels copulating with women in the Book of Enoch? Though I guess from a scientific point of view, the Neanderthal thing makes more sense.

I do think the Exodus happened, if it didn't happen in quite the way described (Seas parting and all of that). I seem to remember there being some Egyptian record of it, the dispute mainly being about what pharaoh it was. But I doubt the Egyptians were that concerned about it. An interesting thing I heard was that the Jews, as a collective people, didn't exist until the Exodus, that they were a conglomeration of peoples enslaved by the Egyptians. Take what you will from that though. I don't pretend to be the expert on that.

Vendetta, funny you mentioned Stephen King earlier. Do you not consider any of his works as great American literature? Shawshank Redemption?

[Gilenea]

So, JLR, you're telling me that God creating man isn't what the Bible teaches? According to this holy manuscript, Gen. 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.(KJV)" Also, Gen. 2:7 "And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.(KJV)" So you're telling me that these passage doesn't say God created man from dust, but that there were humans already evolved and he just put a soul in them. I'm missing your logic. It says God CREAETED and FORMED man. Not "So God giveth man a little dose of religion so man could knoweth God, since there were already physical humans around who wandereth, counting change or something."

Besides, you said the Bible has misinterpretations of the original text. So unless you can read Hebrew, using some watered down English version with all its difficult wording, I don't think the Bible can be used as an all-out law book for life. The very presence of the misinterpretation means that parts of Bible are incorrect, which means it is not absolute truth.

Gil

[archenemyfan]

As He Creates, So He Destroys

[Gilenea]

As He Creates, So He Destroys

Wow. That contributed more to this thread than anything else I have seen so far. You have just answered the quandry of Christianity. Thanks.

Gil

[archenemyfan]

Wow. That contributed more to this thread than anything else I have seen so far. You have just answered the quandry of Christianity. Thanks.

Gil

Well, it's a song lyric, but the band relates their music to Egyptian History, but it works for this topic. I just thought of it in your last post, with all the citations of the Bible.
You don't need to say thanks, I say thank you.

[Gilenea]

Well, it's a song lyric, but the band relates their music to Egyptian History, but it works for this topic. I just thought of it in your last post, with all the citations of the Bible.
You don't need to say thanks, I say thank you.

You are welcome.

Gil

[Pickle Tickler]

Pshahahahahahahahaha haha.

Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this amazing thread which you made yourself, AEF.

[archenemyfan]

Pshahahahahahahahaha haha.

Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this amazing thread which you made yourself, AEF.

You really want some waste do you?

[Pickle Tickler]

Not particularly. You're just hurting yourself every time you post.

[archenemyfan]

And you want to argue, well your off topc [and I am also] so let's stop arguing and act like civilized people shall we?

[Pickle Tickler]

And you want to argue, well your off topc [and I am also] so let's stop arguing and act like civilized people shall we?

You've already proven yourself incapable of doing so.

And also, do you see how many thanks I'm getting from this argument? This is great, keep it going!

[archenemyfan]

Take it.

[Pickle Tickler]

Or what? *gets imaginary tape recorder* I'll blow my rape whistle too.

[forestlover]

I believe that God is a man. I am a Christian and I am a girl (of course :D) and I do belive that God is man, because all throughout the Bible, it says "He" and I believe that explains it for me.

[Pickle Tickler]

I believe that God is a man. I am a Christian and I am a girl (of course :D) and I do belive that God is man, because all throughout the Bible, it says "He" and I believe that explains it for me.

Did you read through most of this thread?

[J.L.R.]

So, JLR, you're telling me that God creating man isn't what the Bible teaches? According to this holy manuscript, Gen. 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.(KJV)" Also, Gen. 2:7 "And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.(KJV)" So you're telling me that these passage doesn't say God created man from dust, but that there were humans already evolved and he just put a soul in them. I'm