So Much for Sep. of Church and State - Page 11

GypsySorcerer · #**151** 09-15-2005, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

actually, Genesis says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was WITH God". Many scholars have interpreted the "Word" as being the female aspect, and some say Jesus has referred to HIMSELF as the Word. Jesus has also said: "I and My Father are One". two halves of the same whole in a sense...I happen to prefer the explanation that the "word" was the female aspect because God created things as male and female. God knew the female aspect was a necessary compliment to his "male" energy (IMO!)

I think of God as masculine and feminine ..... both Mother God and Father God in one essence.

irishgrl · #**152** 09-15-2005, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I think of God as masculine and feminine ..... both Mother God and Father God in one essence.

yes. a better way of saying what I was getting at. "God" contains BOTH male and female IMO. The Bible differentiates, but at least it mentions God wasnt "alone". Remember too that the meaning can be altered by the translation. I still believe that "God" is male/female. As is every species on the planet. (yes I know there are some hermophroditic species, but even they require a partner to reproduce...Im thinking worms here.....)

LongBlackScarf · #**153** 09-15-2005, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I think of God as masculine and feminine ..... both Mother God and Father God in one essence.

If this is so, then gay marriage should be sanctified!

Didn't Jesus say on the cross "Father why hast thou forsaken me?" So my interpretation of "God" was that "he" was always a male, capable of impregnating a female (virgin youngster). The male/female as God theory gives us a whole new book with the probable title Jesus Has Two Mommies.

GypsySorcerer · #**154** 09-15-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

yes. a better way of saying what I was getting at. "God" contains BOTH male and female IMO. The Bible differentiates, but at least it mentions God wasnt "alone". Remember too that the meaning can be altered by the translation. I still believe that "God" is male/female. As is every species on the planet. (yes I know there are some hermophroditic species, but even they require a partner to reproduce...Im thinking worms here.....)

Agreed. Based on my own research, I think the feminine Divine was purposefully left out of translations. All JMO, of course.

irishgrl · #**155** 09-15-2005, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongBlackScarf

If this is so, then gay marriage should be sanctified!

Didn't Jesus say on the cross "Father why hast thou forsaken me?" So my interpretation of "God" was that "he" was always a male, capable of impregnating a female (virgin youngster). The male/female as God theory gives us a whole new book with the probable title Jesus Has Two Mommies.

actually I wouldnt have a problem with that

My point is that both aspects are present. One is more manifest, but that is not to say that the other doesnt exist. Each of us has masculine and feminine qualities. The Male/Female dynamic is a constant throughout the Natural world, I have no problem extrapolating it to the Creator: As above/so below.

By the way, I'd remind you that the Bible was written by men of a Patriarchal mindset. That is why God is deemed Male in the Bible. But in Nature, we see that the Female gives birth. It doesnt follow that a Male God would Create life all by his lonesome IMO. Thus, the "mystery" of the phrase "and the Word was God, and the Word was WITH God". Who/What was "the Word" if not a female energy?

As a matter of fact, that is part of the problem the Catholic Church has with the Da Vinci Code, that it reminds us of the importance of the FEMALE contribution. Each needs the other to create. Its only the Desert Religions (Christian/Muslim/Jew) that seek to dominate women. Think about it. They all believe a woman should be subservient to a man. Other cultures had female dieties in their pantheon, why not the Desert Religions? There was a paradigm shift in attitude and I am not sure why............

as to your comment:

Quote:

And how would he impregnate Mary had he not possessed a penis

The Bible says that Mary had an "immaculate conception" that is, (allegedly) without the act of sex (therefore, no penis required) Again, that is one of the mysteries of the Bible that believers are asked to take on faith.

a little off topic, this reminds me of the Ecstacy of Saint Theresa (I think it was her) who was supposedly visited by an Angel who had sex with her (according to some interpretations) The story IS interesting, her description of the encounter is odd to say the least! here is a link

I tell ya, some people have ALL the FUN!

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**156** 09-16-2005, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongBlackScarf

Once again, you are attaching the concept of "goodness" and "morality" to having to believe in a God; if you don't believe in God, you must be a horrid, wicked sinner. Which, of course is utter nonsense and harkens back to my original statements about guilt, and the power of "religion" to make people fearful, and make them feel like **** for not believing. Fortunately, I got over that. Especially the God Was Always There Theory. That doesn't hold water for me. That a "man" was up in the sky forever until he suddenly made his badass self known. No. Too silly.

Actually that is not what "the old saying" means.

What it means is, if you are currently living like there is no God...you better be right, for your sake! In other words, when you die...and let's say you find out that you were wrong and there really is a God...Well, I'd hate to be in your shoes. Therefore I find it more reasonable to live like there is a God then to live like there is no God. I'd rather die and be disappointed, then die and burn in the massive flames of hell for all eternity.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**157** 09-16-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongBlackScarf

This is one of the most amazing things I have heard a Christian say, and surely this is your own opinion. Because if God is NOT a man, I haven't a CLUE as to why he's referred to as "The Father." And why would Jesus say God was his "father." And how would he impregnate Mary had he not possessed a penis?

If you are going to argue about a subject, please do some research before hand.

How about Christian 101 or better yet, Bible 101.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**158** 09-16-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

wrong. look at Genesis again. God created the greater(sun) and lesser(moon) lights, and the Bible says, "the evening and the morning were the first day". so, a day is a regular 24 hours.

And they had those clocks ticking down even before time began.

Scripture recently found

Pre-Genesis 1:1
Prior to the dawn of time, Yahweh God said let there be a clock to institute time.

irishgrl · #**159** 09-16-2005, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

And they had those clocks ticking down even before time began.

Scripture recently found

Pre-Genesis 1:1
Prior to the dawn of time, Yahweh God said let there be a clock to institute time.

it doesnt take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that the Earth takes approximately 24 hours to complete a cycle....it hasnt changed since we started KEEPING time, therefore, it is logical to assume it has always taken that amount of time. Your sarcasm is a poor substitute for your original misstatement.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**160** 09-16-2005, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

it doesnt take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that the Earth takes approximately 24 hours to complete a cycle....it hasnt changed since we started KEEPING time, therefore, it is logical to assume it has always taken that amount of time. Your sarcasm is a poor substitute for your original misstatement.

You seem to be missing my point here. If there was no EARTH in the beginning TO make a complete cycle, then how is it that we know there was an actual time to measure?

irishgrl · #**161** 09-16-2005, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

You seem to be missing my point here. If there was no EARTH in the beginning TO make a complete cycle, then how is it that we know there was an actual time to measure?

no, your original statement was that nobody knew how long a day was. Even if the Sun and Moon were created first, it makes no difference to the length of the day when the Earth WAS created. At that point, the cycle begins, night/day, night/day which is now, what it was then, approximately 24 hours. This is where some people try to insert the idea that a "day" in "God's time" was equivalent to a century or a millenium in order to account for the geologic record and try and reconcile the Bible with fossils etc. IMO, the notion is absurd. A day is a day. A rose is a rose. and so on.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**162** 09-16-2005, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux

You'd rather die and be disappointed and then proceed to die again and burn in flames? How are you planning on dying twice? Aside from this, your lack of rationality is quite something. You're brainwashed actually if you believe that.

And your utter lack of comprehension is quite baffling, my dear friend from down under.

Let's try to break it down here...

I would rather live my life like there was a God; than live my life like there wasn't a God! Because If I die and find out there isn't one...I would just seize to exist and rot in a grave. But If I lived my life as an atheist and found out after death that I was wrong and he really did exist...I would have hell to pay...literally. Sort of a win/lose situation...get it now?

David · #**163** 09-16-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

What it means is, if you are currently living like there is no God...you better be right, for your sake! In other words, when you die...and let's say you find out that you were wrong and there really is a God...Well, I'd hate to be in your shoes.

We have at least three propositions here that should be examined individually:

1. God exists (or, God is) & has no plan for mankind.

2. God has a plan for mankind that is unknown to men.

3. God's plan for mankind is revealed in the Christian bible.

In terms of logical reasoning, what can we say about these propositions?

A. None of these propositions may be true.
B. All of these propositions are nonfalsifiable. (Nonfalsifiable claims contain nothing of either a provable or a disprovable nature in empirical terms; these claims may be true or false, but cannot be deduced through empirical data or evidence.)
C. Propositions 1 & 2 cannot both be true.
D. Propositions 1 & 3 cannot both be true.
E. Propositions 2 & 3 cannot both be true.

So you could believe Proposition 1 or Proposition 2, each of which is just as likely as Proposition 3, which is what you believe -- just as likely in the sense that there is no more empirical evidence disproving either Proposition 1 or Proposition 2 than there is disproving Proposition 3.