I don't think she should mock people who have chosen alternative medicine or are considering it no matter how ignorant it is to let your child die from a curable condition. It isn't deliberate ignorance. It's heartfelt belief.
If your heartfelt belief leads to the preventable death of your child, I'd say that, in particular, is a belief that we don't need to respect.
I don't think she should mock people who have chosen alternative medicine or are considering it no matter how ignorant it is to let your child die from a curable condition. It isn't deliberate ignorance. It's heartfelt belief.
If your heartfelt belief leads to the preventable death of your child, I'd say that, in particular, is a belief that we don't need to respect.
The belief doesn't need to be respected, the person should be respected, assuming the goal is to end preventable deaths not just vent.
If dogmatic religion is vomit, dogmatic political ideology is diarrhea.
The belief doesn't need to be respected, the person should be respected
"Don't hate the player, hate the game".
Pondering posted this article, commenting thus:
Yet many accomplished scientists agree with the Pope not you. (a human geneticist , a neuroendocrinologist , a molecular biologist, among others)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/17232/title/Religi...
First off, the whole article is pretty much standard evolution denier playbook. None of the quoted scientists present any evidence for their view, they merely say the 'believe' something. Well, anyone can believe. In that respect, a scientists opinion is no better or worse than the opinion of the janitor where they work.
This is also a standard technique for the climate deniers, strangely enough. I guess they think if they put 'scientist' in front of an opinion it carries more weight.
There was one interesting bit, which I'll quote:
... A molecular biologist, Tendler favors the episodic school of evolutionary biology--which maintains that evolutionary change happened in infrequent, large jumps, a position that has emerged from a fringe viewpoint 10 years ago to a mainstream belief today--over gradualism, whose proponents believe that species appeared by gradual change from precursors.
This former 'fringe' viewpoint was in fact the work of none other than Stephen Jay Gould, a brilliant paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. From the early 80's, until his death in 2002, Gould was at the top of the evolutionary world, holding the Alexander Agassiz chair for zoology at Harvard. He wrote 300 monthly essays for Natural History magazine, along with many popular books on various subjects within evolutionary biology.
It was he and Niles Eldridge that first proposed 'punctuated equilibrium' back in 1972. Far from being a fringe viewpoint, it was at the center of a debate about the process of evolution. There was an ongoing debate between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins on this particular subject, that lasted until Gould's passing in 2002.
Unfortunately for Gould, creationists latched onto his 'punctuated equilibrium', and tried, by various twists and turns, to use it to justify their belief in God's 'creation'. Gould was absolutely opposed to their views, and was prominent in the fight against bringing creation science to the classroom.
In any case, what's especially funny about this is that it is precisely Gould's view that I was pointing to when I commented on the contingency of life on earth. It was Gould who told me, through his books, that the various life forms extant are contingent.
From the Wikipedia entry for Stephen Jay Gould:
Gould's interpretation of the Cambrian Burgess Shale fossils in his book Wonderful Life emphasized the striking morphological disparity (or "weirdness") of the Burgess Shale fauna, and the role of chance in determining which members of this fauna survived and flourished. He used the Cambrian fauna as an example of the role of contingency in the broader pattern of evolution.
However, the posted article was correct in one respect. The difficulty people have with the concept of non-purposeful evolution. It is not only a difficult concept for the human mind, but our language is manifestly unable to describe evolution in a non-teleological way. I saw an article on the CBC website last week about some topic in evolution, and throughout the writer was saying how evolution caused some animal to grow longer fingers, or bigger wings, or whatever.
It is really important when thinking of evolution to understand that evolution doesn't drive plants or animals to do this or that. What natural selection does is reward those variations that happen to make the 'owner' of them more likely to have successful offspring. Most of the time, such variations don't occur, and that explains why such a high percentage of life forms that have existed are now extinct.
There is no purpose in evolution, there is only contingency.
I'll just add to the above a bit more on 'directed by God' evolution. Evolution isn't just a theory of biology. Evolution ties together all of the earth sciences. From the aging of the earth's crust, to such events as asteroid collisions, to local phenomena. The strata at which an organism is found has to match the age of the strata it's in. It all has to work, or evolution fails.
In fact, as the various earth sciences became more and more accurate, they tended more and more to support the theory of evolution. So if 'God' directed evolution, he also had to direct everything else as well. Earth is like a giant Rubik's Cube. Change one variable, and changes occur everywhere else.
All life on earth is a creation of the earthly environment. Nothing is separate from anything else. If God 'directed', he directed it all, not just the development of humans.
First off, the whole article is pretty much standard evolution denier playbook. None of the quoted scientists present any evidence for their view, they merely say the 'believe' something. Well, anyone can believe. In that respect, a scientists opinion is no better or worse than the opinion of the janitor where they work.
They are not claiming that their belief is scientific. They are not creationists. They are not presenting intelligent design as a scientific theory. They are not denying evolution nor any scientifically established fact.
If you know science then you know it cannot be proven that God did not create mankind. He could have chosen a system that appears random to work his miracle. Can you tell me how the first matter was created? Where did what caused the big bang come from? Can you tell me what came before infinity or what comes after? Can you prove infinity exists? Can you prove there is no other universe in which there exists another mankind? What if aliens did show up and they did look pretty much like us? What if we are the equivalent of ants living in someone's ant farm and everything we imagine we have proven pertains only to our tiny slice of reality?
There is nothing scientific about faith therefore science cannot prove or disprove it. As far as I can tell religion is a natural human belief system that fulfils a need. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many forms of it and the same ones wouldn't have dominated and survived for centuries.
For the sake of argument, lets say it's important to prove religion false.
What scientific evidence is there that mocking people is the most successful approach to education?
All life on earth is a creation of the earthly environment. Nothing is separate from anything else. If God 'directed', he directed it all, not just the development of humans.
That's what the most popular religions that I know of believe.
Given the frequency of belief in the supernatural doesn't it follow that this is some sort of important coping mechanism for humanity? Is there any civilization that has developed without religion? From a scientific perspective doesn't this suggest it fulfils an important psychological need? (but one that can perhaps be otherwise satisfied?)
Religion fulfills a need all right which is a tool of the masters to keep slaves ignorant
Religion fulfills a need all right which is a tool of the masters to keep slaves ignorant
That doesn't explain why so many people are religious believers, why religion has survived government taking over control nor all the indigenous religions which don't seem to be about controlling people.
I think most religions were born out of a need to explain the inexplicable or attempt to make it less fearful. I agree that religion turned into a means of controlling people but that doesn't explain why people have followed religions for centuries. Astrology isn't used to control people yet 25% of Canadians believe the stars and planets affect our lives.
People can believe whatever they wish but when it conflicts with science they need to keep their personal nonsensical mumbo-jumbo to themselves particularly in the schools where young impressionable people are involved Can’t thank Payette enough for her comments
Look at the political chaos going on today in the USA which is being engineeered by the masters manipulating the masses through their conservative religious mumbo-jumbo
For the sake of argument, lets say it's important to prove religion false.
What scientific evidence is there that mocking people is the most successful approach to education?
I was in Grade 3 in about 1971, and back then in Ontario at least, every school day began with the Lord's Prayer.
But I also remember studying the Greek and Roman Gods, and a little bit of Norse as well, and I remember how each cosmology was presented as backward, magical and silly. Zeus taking the form of a swan? Har har, children, can you imagine?
Everyone knows that God appears as a burning bush. Mind you, this was years before the first time His Son appeared on a tortilla.
That's what the most popular religions that I know of believe.
Christianity, it seems to me, is a curious and incohesive hybrid of "yes, God controls everything (or what would the the use in praying for something?)" and "yes, God is very 'hands-off', so if you're gay, it's your doing, not His, and you need to fix it".
This is why "God works in mysterious ways" -- in order that God can be presented as omnipotent, those who believe are kind of on the hook to explain why God would kill a baby and let a murderer die happily in old age, or why He made so many diseases and so on. Eventually, people would start to wonder why the God that purportedly made them and loves them also made so many arbitrary things to make them needlessly miserable.
Also, why God would make so many things that He apparently doesn't want on earth.
I think most religions were born out of a need to explain the inexplicable or attempt to make it less fearful.
The common theme of just about every religious belief I can think of (including even those Greek, Roman and Norse beliefs) is the notion of an afterlife.
If humans didn't die, I doubt there would be any religions, because we simply wouldn't need them to fix our most intractable problem -- one day ceasing to exist.
People can believe whatever they wish but when it conflicts with science they need to keep their personal nonsensical mumbo-jumbo to themselves particularly in the schools where young impressionable people are involved Can’t thank Payette enough for her comments
That's what I find bizarre. If religion is such a problem shouldn't Payette be educating people rather than mocking them?
So far no one in this thread has shown any evidence of mocking people being a successful means of convincing anyone of anything.
If religion is such an enemy to science why aren't we fighting to have religious protections removed from the constitution?
Christianity, it seems to me, is a curious and incohesive hybrid of "yes, God controls everything (or what would the the use in praying for something?)" and "yes, God is very 'hands-off', so if you're gay, it's your doing, not His, and you need to fix it".
This is why "God works in mysterious ways" -- in order that God can be presented as omnipotent, those who believe are kind of on the hook to explain why God would kill a baby and let a murderer die happily in old age, or why He made so many diseases and so on. Eventually, people would start to wonder why the God that purportedly made them and loves them also made so many arbitrary things to make them needlessly miserable.
Also, why God would make so many things that He apparently doesn't want on earth.....
The common theme of just about every religious belief I can think of (including even those Greek, Roman and Norse beliefs) is the notion of an afterlife.
If humans didn't die, I doubt there would be any religions, because we simply wouldn't need them to fix our most intractable problem -- one day ceasing to exist.
Yes to all, which is why I don't understand why religion still exists anywhere people are mildly educated.
The story is that because Eve took a bite out of that apple from the tree of knowledge all of mankind will now be punished for all of eternity by being granted free will to make mistakes and be cruel. I think we were given different languages to speak because we tried to build a tower to heaven, tower of Babylon. Talk about collective punishment.
I would dearly love to believe in God and an afterlife I just can't trick myself into it.
In my opinion in North America religion is getting weaker by the day. Quebec threw off the shackles of the Catholic Church. Evangelicals are a problem but they are a minority. For the most part churches struggle to maintain a congregation big enough to support the church. Churches have been pushed back on birth control, abortion, marriage, gay rights etc. Social liberalism is winning. 40 years ago gay people couldn't adopt.
In my opinion it is education not mocking people that is making the difference. I'd be happy to hear why anyone thinks it is mocking people not education that has led to progress in reducing the influence of religion on society.
....
So yes, she got it wrong but where the heck is the understanding of what she meant and a little understanding of the context?
I pretty much agree with all your remarks there, but with a higher ammusment factor.
What Payette said, and even her incredulous tone, is ok with me. But Payette agreed to this dubious job of "Queen's representative" which, in practice, mostly entails gilding a Government's often noxious policy with pomp and risable solemnity.
She will likely learn to play the game she was paid to do, unless she intends to be slyly subversive about it; (that would be an endeavour I would prefer to see my tax dollars wasted on).
Quoted in an earlier post is a portion of the Preamble fom the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which, it has been suggested, she fails to adopt:
“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God..."
Shudder.
To have A typical state colonizing myth also invoke God as instrument for a state's "founding" in a preamble written as late as the 1980's is cringeworthy and offensive, though not "offensive" in the priveledged religious sense that assumes any established wacky belief sacrosanct.
Central to these "Godly principles of founding" would have to be the skins ripped from trap-tortured beavers and land stolen from indigenous people. But Avarice, after all, does hold a place in the Good Book.
Yet as dismal as the preamble is, it does not require adherence to its blather.
Note also that the GG's Oath of Office itself specifically allows the discarding of of "God" from its affirmation.
As for the The Charter proper, it protects freedom of belief but does not mandate belief.
There is nothing in Payette's speech, or subsequently, that suggests she would not wish to support the Rights of these provisions.
As for Con leader Scheer, when not appointing one of those sensitive Rebel Media operatives hilariously plays the identity politics card, giving a litany of all those supposedly offended by Payette's "insults".
You know, the "diversity" that Rebel Media aficionados sensitively care so much about:
"It is extremely disappointing that the prime minister will not support Indigenous peoples, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Christians and other faith groups who believe there is truth in their religion..."
In his press performance, Scheer craftily does not even mention the speaker of the remarks, being "the Queen's representative". Instead he attacks Trudeau who predictably defended his appointee Payette in only the most general terms, never referencing directly her words.
So there you have it. Scheer attacking the content-- but ignoring the speaker, and Trudeau defending the speaker--but ignoring the remarks.
All good fun.
That's what I find bizarre. If religion is such a problem shouldn't Payette be educating people rather than mocking them?
You can't educate someone without their participation.
If religion is such an enemy to science why aren't we fighting to have religious protections removed from the constitution?
Because the majority of those protections only protect personal belief, and generally even hardcore atheists aren't interested in forced "reprogramming". Those protections that protect, say, separate school funding or prayer at City Council meetings ARE being fought, as they should be.
I'd be happy to hear why anyone thinks it is mocking people not education that has led to progress in reducing the influence of religion on society.
It's a bit like ostracizing smokers. We all know it's not really going to make a lifelong smoker quit, and as such it might even sometimes seem cruel. But we hope that it makes todays tweens and teens less enchanted by the "glamourous" and "rebellious" image of smoking.
So in short, mocking the belief that God appeared and spoke as a burning bush isn't going to make a lifelong Christian abandon their religion. But it might raise some questions in the heads of the next generation.
Like smoking, the trick is to catch them BEFORE they're "hooked".
All life on earth is a creation of the earthly environment. Nothing is separate from anything else. If God 'directed', he directed it all, not just the development of humans.
Maybe separateness is just an appearance where "God" is conceived of as being the inclusivity of the universe, including us? For some, the term "God" can be interchangeable with the term "universe" which may explain why many scientists support science and believe in "God." A definition of "God" can be "the eternal non-separateness of the universe, including human beings."
I've heard that bizarre formulation before, from Stephen Hawking, of all people, when he was on Larry King ~20 years ago. It translates to "Yes, I believe in God, as long as God means something completely different than what any religious people mean by it." It's akin to saying "I believe in freedom of speech, as long as that means everyone is free to agree with me, but not to disagree." In 2017, surely we can come up with a better alternative than that Inquisition-era evasion.
All life on earth is a creation of the earthly environment. Nothing is separate from anything else. If God 'directed', he directed it all, not just the development of humans.Maybe separateness is just an appearance where "God" is conceived of as being the inclusivity of the universe, including us? For some, the term "God" can be interchangeable with the term "universe" which may explain why many scientists support science and believe in "God." A definition of "God" can be "the eternal non-separateness of the universe, including human beings."
Whew! Thanks for validating my life experience. I've always considered God to be a hefty steaming turd, and there's nothing I love so much as a leisurely crap. That's when I feel closest to the Creator.
I've heard that bizarre formulation before, from Stephen Hawking, of all people, when he was on Larry King ~20 years ago. It translates to "Yes, I believe in God, as long as God means something completely different than what any religious people mean by it." It's akin to saying "I believe in freedom of speech, as long as that means everyone is free to agree with me, but not to disagree." In 2017, surely we can come up with a better alternative than that Inquisition-era evasion.
What alternative would you suggest?
All life on earth is a creation of the earthly environment. Nothing is separate from anything else. If God 'directed', he directed it all, not just the development of humans.Maybe separateness is just an appearance where "God" is conceived of as being the inclusivity of the universe, including us? For some, the term "God" can be interchangeable with the term "universe" which may explain why many scientists support science and believe in "God." A definition of "God" can be "the eternal non-separateness of the universe, including human beings."
Whew! Thanks for validating my life experience. I've always considered God to be a hefty steaming turd, and there's nothing I love so much as a leisurely crap. That's when I feel closest to the Creator.
There is this prayer in Judaism:
"Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who formed man with wisdom and created within him many openings and many hollows. It is obvious and known before Your Throne of Glory that if even one of them ruptures, or if even one of them becomes blocked, it would be impossible to survive and to stand before You (even for a short period). Blessed are You, Hashem, Who heals all flesh and acts wondrously."
What alternative would you suggest?
Not to answer for CCO, but I could suggest a non-anthropomorphized God.
If you believe that "God" is just the interconnectedness of all things, why any need to give Him consciousness, or a beard?
It's amusingly ironic that religions claim that God created humans "in his own image" when really, it looks so much more like we created God in ours.
As an aside, since childhood I've found it funny that the Abrahamic God is a singularity, and yet for some totally unknown reason, He needs a gender. He's the ultimate bachelor -- the odd fling notwithstanding.
What alternative would you suggest?Not to answer for CCO, but I could suggest a non-anthropomorphized God.
If you believe that "God" is just the interconnectedness of all things, why any need to give Him consciousness, or a beard?
It's amusingly ironic that religions claim that God created humans "in his own image" when really, it looks so much more like we created God in ours.
As an aside, since childhood I've found it funny that the Abrahamic God is a singularity, and yet for some totally unknown reason, He needs a gender. He's the ultimate bachelor -- the odd fling notwithstanding.
Theologians have often said that it is impossible to state what "God" is but one can state what "God" isn't and only what the attributes of God are. So, in this case, anything you can point to isn't "God." So "God" isn't a person. But "God" has positive attributes such as masculinity, femininity, solidity, changability, etc....
The term "God" is so loaded that it may not be a useful term but it is very commonly used when discussing spirituality so it is hard to get away from.
Thelogians have also remarked that the only basic truth of existence is that existence exists and that there is consciousness of existence. So some theologians have said that "God" is "existence/consciousnesses." But theologians have said that saying that is too much though it points in the right direction.
Pondering said:
If you know science then you know it cannot be proven that God did not create mankind. He could have chosen a system that appears random to work his miracle. Can you tell me how the first matter was created? Where did what caused the big bang come from?
I know some logic as well, and what it tells me is that you can't prove a negative. What I would like is some religious person to present their evidence that God exists. I promise to listen to that evidence. The second part of your statement is pretty much directly out of the creationist library. The argument from incredulity.
The problem with that argument is that it's kind of open-ended. It's true I can't confirm that God didn't 'start' the universe, but what leads you to believe that your chosen God did? Rather than, say, one of the hundreds of other Gods that are promoted by a variety of different groups. What privileges your God? If I was a believer I would have an equal right to say that Zeus created the whole she-bang. Or Shiva, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you couldn't prove I was not correct.
Meanwhile, while you're working up your argument for your God, you might try thinking of why science assumes a natural universe, and why it's been so incredibly successful over the years.
What alternative would you suggest?
Mine is "refusing to bow to religion". The only reason people say "Sure, I believe in God, defined as (not what religious people mean by God)" is that they're threatened, be it by familial/social opprobrium, lack of career advancement, criminal prosecution, or actual guns to the head. In many countries, it's now legal to say "No, actually, I don't believe in God." (This may not apply, apparently, if you're the Governor-General.)
I know some logic as well, and what it tells me is that you can't prove a negative. What I would like is some religious person to present their evidence that God exists. I promise to listen to that evidence.
Religion is about faith not science. Wherever science has proven religion wrong the mainstream western religions have "modernized" so as not to contradict hard science.
The second part of your statement is pretty much directly out of the creationist library. The argument from incredulity.
Except I wasn't arguing in favor of creationism I was pointing out that science is not yet able to answer those questions. When it can I suppose that would be proof that God doesn't exist.
If I was a believer I would have an equal right to say that Zeus created the whole she-bang. Or Shiva, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you couldn't prove I was not correct.
Correct.
Meanwhile, while you're working up your argument for your God, you might try thinking of why science assumes a natural universe, and why it's been so incredibly successful over the years.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God.
I do believe in hard science that makes no claims beyond that which can be proven. That is the difference between science and faith.
What alternative would you suggest?
Mine is "refusing to bow to religion". The only reason people say "Sure, I believe in God, defined as (not what religious people mean by God)" is that they're threatened, be it by familial/social opprobrium, lack of career advancement, criminal prosecution, or actual guns to the head. In many countries, it's now legal to say "No, actually, I don't believe in God." (This may not apply, apparently, if you're the Governor-General.)
Nope. Wrong again. The Governor General has every right to declare herself atheist and to defend the veracity of climate change and evolution. I applaud her for all three.
Theologians have often said that it is impossible to state what "God" is but one can state what "God" isn't and only what the attributes of God are. So, in this case, anything you can point to isn't "God." So "God" isn't a person. But "God" has positive attributes such as masculinity, femininity, solidity, changability, etc....
I've honestly tried my best to understand this, but I can't.
Can we start with a very simple question? Is God a "he", as often described? Did so many religions get this totally wrong? And if so, how and why??
Ha!
What alternative would you suggest?
Mine is "refusing to bow to religion". The only reason people say "Sure, I believe in God, defined as (not what religious people mean by God)" is that they're threatened, be it by familial/social opprobrium, lack of career advancement, criminal prosecution, or actual guns to the head. In many countries, it's now legal to say "No, actually, I don't believe in God." (This may not apply, apparently, if you're the Governor-General.)
I agree that suffering leads many people from all walks of life to religion and/or spirituality. But how many people don't suffer? I think modern spirituality should not be controlled by organized religions nor should it oppose modern science.
I think modern spirituality should not be controlled by organized religions nor should it oppose modern science.
To be fair, spirituality certainly isn't controlled by any organized religion. You're free to believe that God is a dolphin.
But it's also true that many organized religions -- but not necessarily the belief that God is a dolphin -- does oppose modern (and also not-modern) science. Because we all know what science would make of the idea that (just as one example) women were made from a man's rib bone. Why does "science" have to stick its nose in everyone else's business?
Theologians have often said that it is impossible to state what "God" is but one can state what "God" isn't and only what the attributes of God are. So, in this case, anything you can point to isn't "God." So "God" isn't a person. But "God" has positive attributes such as masculinity, femininity, solidity, changability, etc....I've honestly tried my best to understand this, but I can't.
Can we start with a very simple question? Is God a "he", as often described? Did so many religions get this totally wrong? And if so, how and why??
Most religious leaders have said that "God" is not a "he." That's why the Hebrew Bible says that people should not make any graven images of "God." One reason "God," is "he" in the Hebrew Bible is because Hebrew is a very gendered language where even objects like "shoe" are gendered. "Shoe" in Hebrew is feminine.
One reason "God," is "he" in the Hebrew Bible is because Hebrew is a very gendered language where even objects like "shoe" are gendered. "Shoe" in Hebrew is feminine.
I guess women like shoes.
But why do you suppose "God" is masculine? Did "God" just win the shekel toss?
One reason "God," is "he" in the Hebrew Bible is because Hebrew is a very gendered language where even objects like "shoe" are gendered. "Shoe" in Hebrew is feminine.I guess women like shoes.
But why do you suppose "God" is masculine? Did "God" just win the shekel toss?
Israelite society was patriarchal so it probably was an easy decision for them to designate the divine as masculine.
In the Hebrew Bible Moses asks God who he is and God answers, "I am as I am." Some say that this means that "God" was saying that he is existence itself.
Has the Pope said that he believes that evolution is not random? Einstein seems to have given credence to there being a pantheistic "God" similar to what Spinoza articulated.
Einstein said he felt belief in a personal god was childish. He simply felt our consciousness was not big enough to understand everything in the universe. And he also disliked others calling him an atheist because he considered them so condescending and angry about organized religion.
Spinoza's "god" was not a god at all in the judeo christian sense, since it was not a being, and had no consciousness or will, but was a state of nature, something more like the modern gaia. He also was considered an atheist because of this.
As for the judeo christian god's gender, that also isn't so clear, since originally it had no form, therefore no sex, and in some incarnations had both male an dfemale attributes.
The old bearded guy in the white smock came later.
Hebrew is a very gendered language where even objects like "shoe" are gendered. "Shoe" in Hebrew is feminine.
This is the first of two things I have learned from reading comments in this thread. The second thing I learned is that, in order to learn the first thing, I’m going to regret wasting my time.
Theologians have often said that it is impossible to state what "God" is but one can state what "God" isn't and only what the attributes of God are. So, in this case, anything you can point to isn't "God." So "God" isn't a person. But "God" has positive attributes such as masculinity, femininity, solidity, changability, etc....I've honestly tried my best to understand this, but I can't.
Can we start with a very simple question? Is God a "he", as often described? Did so many religions get this totally wrong? And if so, how and why??
It's been changing. As knowledge expands the theory is tweeked to account for new information, much like science lol.
Although the Gender of God in Judaism is referred to in the Tanakh with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, traditional Jewish philosophy does not attribute the concept of sex to God, but does attribute gender.[1] At times, Jewish aggadic literature and Jewish mysticism do treat God as gendered. The ways in which God is gendered have also changed across time, with some modern Jewish thinkers viewing God as outside of the gender binary.
And
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32960507
he Christian Church has always had a bit of a problem with God's gender. He doesn't have one, but - as that statement demonstrates - it's hard to talk about God without giving God a gender. To talk about God we have to call God something, and avoiding pronouns altogether is cumbersome, as I've just demonstrated again. "It" seems a bit rude, talking as if God was an impersonal force like gravity or inflation. So God has to be "He" or "She", and in a patriarchal society there's no contest. As The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "God is neither man nor woman: he is God".
Other Christian groups have gone further than this though. A church in third-century Syria seems to have been in the habit of praying to the Holy Spirit in female terms. One of their holy books, the Acts of Thomas, tells of St Thomas presiding over a communion service, and calling on the Holy Spirit, saying: "Come, she that manifests the hidden things and makes the unspeakable things plain, the holy dove that bears the twin young. Come, the hidden mother… Come and communicate with us in this eucharist".
I guess women like shoes.
But why do you suppose "God" is masculine? Did "God" just win the shekel toss?
While you’re up all night wrestling with that question, I’m going to be in bed having a dream about building a go-cart with my next door neighbor.
Sorry to be so sarcastic but here’s the thing, if religion is just a bunch of hocus pocus according to everyone who’s commented in this thread, you guys sure as hell like to comment about it????
And I don’t mean to just pick on you MrMagoo, but I know you can take a joke. Thanks
Hebrew is a very gendered language where even objects like "shoe" are gendered. "Shoe" in Hebrew is feminine.
This is the first of two things I have learned from reading comments in this thread. The second thing I learned is that, in order to learn the first thing, I’m going to regret wasting my time.
Hmmm, I'm not sure but I think the Hebrew word for "patience" is also feminine.
I guess women like shoes.
But why do you suppose "God" is masculine? Did "God" just win the shekel toss?
While you’re up all night wrestling with that question, I’m going to be in bed having a dream about building a go-cart with my next door neighbor. Sorry to be so sarcastic but here’s the thing, if religion is just a bunch of hocus pocus according to everyone who’s commented in this thread, you guys sure as hell like to comment about it???? And I don’t mean to just pick on you MrMagoo, but I know you can take a joke. Thanks
I hope to be dreaming about one of my neighbours tonight too but I hope we won't just be building a go-cart.
I guess women like shoes.
But why do you suppose "God" is masculine? Did "God" just win the shekel toss?
While you’re up all night wrestling with that question, I’m going to be in bed having a dream about building a go-cart with my next door neighbor. Sorry to be so sarcastic but here’s the thing, if religion is just a bunch of hocus pocus according to everyone who’s commented in this thread, you guys sure as hell like to comment about it???? And I don’t mean to just pick on you MrMagoo, but I know you can take a joke. Thanks
I hope to be dreaming about one of my neighbours tonight too but I hope we won't just be building a go-cart.
ya I hope to god you’re not my neighbor!
Sorry to be so sarcastic but here’s the thing, if religion is just a bunch of hocus pocus according to everyone who’s commented in this thread, you guys sure as hell like to comment about it????
Well here's the thing. Even though there is no god, what these things do tell you a lot about is what was going on in the heads of the people who cooked them up. That is why religion and scripture are actually useful things to study.
And why when Richard Dawkins declared that he doesn't have to study leprechaunology to assert that leprechauns don't exist, he just proves that he really doesn't get the point.
I guess women like shoes.
But why do you suppose "God" is masculine? Did "God" just win the shekel toss?
While you’re up all night wrestling with that question, I’m going to be in bed having a dream about building a go-cart with my next door neighbor. Sorry to be so sarcastic but here’s the thing, if religion is just a bunch of hocus pocus according to everyone who’s commented in this thread, you guys sure as hell like to comment about it???? And I don’t mean to just pick on you MrMagoo, but I know you can take a joke. Thanks
I hope to be dreaming about one of my neighbours tonight too but I hope we won't just be building a go-cart.
ya I hope to god you’re not my neighbor!
I guess God does work in mysterious ways
WWWTT said:
Sorry to be so sarcastic but here’s the thing, if religion is just a bunch of hocus pocus according to everyone who’s commented in this thread, you guys sure as hell like to comment about it????
Hocus-pocus it is, but those who believe the hocus-pocus still have a great deal of control in our society. That is what makes it important.
When the Catholic school system in Ontario is weaned off taxpayers money, when churches are no longer tax-free, when Trinity Western University no longer has the right to make students agree to religion based covenants, when religion no longer tells us what we can and cannot teach in schools, then perhaps we can end this discussion. Religion is important because of the role it plays in our society, not because of it's inherent truthfulness.
For Pondering:
How would you prove that I am not God?
6079_Smith_W said:
And why when Richard Dawkins declared that he doesn't have to study leprechaunology to assert that leprechauns don't exist, he just proves that he really doesn't get the point.
Actually, the person who invented the term 'meme' to describe ideas like religion doesn't need a lesson from you on how to think of religion, or leprechauns for that matter. Because he dismisses leprechauns as real doesn't mean he isn't interested in the idea and how it came to be. Or how it is transferred from one generation to the next.
Whew! Thanks for validating my life experience. I've always considered God to be a hefty steaming turd, and there's nothing I love so much as a leisurely crap. That's when I feel closest to the Creator.
*snort*
6079_Smith_W said:
And why when Richard Dawkins declared that he doesn't have to study leprechaunology to assert that leprechauns don't exist, he just proves that he really doesn't get the point.
Actually, the person who invented the term 'meme' to describe ideas like religion doesn't need a lesson from you on how to think of religion, or leprechauns for that matter. Because he dismisses leprechauns as real doesn't mean he isn't interested in the idea and how it came to be. Or how it is transferred from one generation to the next.
Sure. But if he is going to write a presumed scholarly work on the subject - that is, why people do believe in God - he should at least do his homework. He didn't. In fact, he bragged about the fact he didn't.
This guy explains it in a bit more detail:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
He wouldn't have gotten away with that if he was writing a critical work on racism or sexism, but on religion there are plenty who fall for the same "meme" about all believers being brainwashed or driven by fear.
Again, there are actually good reasons to consider what people really think of their gods, rather than just making false assumptions.
And to bring this back to the topic, there are plenty of religious people who aren't as brainwashed as some assume, and who completely support what Payette said.
ya I hope to god you’re not my neighbor!
I guess God does work in mysterious ways
[/quote]
LOL!
