Should the Bible get a 3rd Testament?

[okinrus]

My God says fences are unhealthy. My God says fences prevent you from being your brother's keeper. My God says stay away from people who build fences -- then she whispered in my ear and said, "you know, like the fences Christians build."

What does John says about the gate and those outside of the gate? Why do you assume the one who whispers is God?

 

[§outh§tar]

Since when was this knowable?

Face it, the only reason you think God is a man is because an ancient book written by patriarchal pigs uses "he" instead of "she." That, and part of you really needs God to have a booming dude's voice -- because if it turned out God sounded like Sarah Vowel on Helium, a little bit of the cinematic magic would be taken away.

Reminds me of a certain Wizard of Oz who turned out to be...

But then a Spirit can't be He or She necessarily, but since He created a "he" first, I guess that's why we associate that with Him. Not that it should matter but I wouldn't want my God to be a "she" would you?

 

[JustARide]

But then a Spirit can't be He or She necessarily, but since He created a "he" first, I guess that's why we associate that with Him.

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with centuries of male domination and patriarchy. It must have been a coincidence that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible and magically God turned out to be male, along with the first being created, his only son, all of his officially recognized disciples, etc.? Give me a break.

I particularly like the next part.

Opening statement:

Not that it should matter

Contrary statement immediately following:

but I wouldn't want my God to be a "she" would you?

SouthStar, you certainly are a piece of work. It doesn't matter, you say, whether God has a gender, but, on the other hand, you do have a preference. Good grief. You Christians can't even go one sentence without contradicting yourselves.

By the way, I would much prefer my creator to be female. In case you hadn't noticed, they're a lot prettier, generally smarter, and lots more fun to ogle. Consider how few painters and sculptors choose the scrotum as their muse. God may have created man first, but clearly, it was a trial run.

 

[okinrus]

God does not have a gender (to say that God was either male or female would be comparing God to man.) The second person of the Trinity became man, however.

 

[JustARide]

God does not have a gender (to say that God was either male or female would be comparing God to man.) The second person of the Trinity became man, however.

If the Bible-God doesn't have a gender, he's certainly a very mannish whatever-he-is.

 

[§outh§tar]

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with centuries of male domination and patriarchy. It must have been a coincidence that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible and magically God turned out to be male, along with the first being created, his only son, all of his officially recognized disciples, etc.? Give me a break.

God isn't male, but I suppose "Him" is better than calling God "It"? That's why I say later on that it doesn't matter since He is a Spirit in the first place.

I particularly like the next part.

Opening statement:



Contrary statement immediately following:



SouthStar, you certainly are a piece of work. It doesn't matter, you say, whether God has a gender, but, on the other hand, you do have a preference. Good grief. You Christians can't even go one sentence without contradicting yourselves.

It was a joke JustARide. Sheesh!

By the way, I would much prefer my creator to be female. In case you hadn't noticed, they're a lot prettier, generally smarter, and lots more fun to ogle. Consider how few painters and sculptors choose the scrotum as their muse. God may have created man first, but clearly, it was a trial run.

You have let down your dominant peers in our race for brawn over brain!

 

[JustARide]

God isn't male, but I suppose "Him" is better than calling God "It"? That's why I say later on that it doesn't matter since He is a Spirit in the first place.

OK, then why did you initially bristle at the use of "She"? And why, if Christians have always believed God to be a genderless spirit did they not refrain from using masculine terms (He, His, Father, etc.)? Why not alternate "he" and "she" like some translations of the Tao Te Ching? Or dispense with troublesome pronouns altogether?

It was a joke JustARide. Sheesh!

Ohhh! Just like your theological arguments! Now I get it.

You have let down your dominant peers in our race for brawn over brain!

Well, what can I say? I am a feminist... who loves boobs.

 

[§outh§tar]

OK, then why did you initially bristle at the use of "She"? And why, if Christians have always believed God to be a genderless spirit did they not refrain from using masculine terms (He, His, Father, etc.)? Why not alternate "he" and "she" like some translations of the Tao Te Ching? Or dispense with troublesome pronouns altogether?

I didn't "bristle" first of all. Like I said, it seems to better than using "it". I don't know enough now to say any more since I just didn't think it mattered. If it troubles you that much, substitute the pronouns for "God".

Ohhh! Just like your theological arguments! Now I get it.

There was nothing "theological" about it ok? When I said I wouldn't want my God to be a she, it's because my God isn't a she! God is a Spirit and why exactly Jesus referred to Him as the Father, I don't know. Again, it doesn't diminish "spirituality" or raise hairs because of a change in pronoun. Or at least it shouldn't..

Well, what can I say? I am a feminist... who loves boobs.

Are you feeling ok? :bugeye:
Never again break your vow of celibacy, Catholicism depends on you!

P.S. Did you see the thing on NBC today about priests and celibacy? I think there's a documentary or something coming out on it, should be interesting.

 

[okinrus]

OK, then why did you initially bristle at the use of "She"? And why, if Christians have always believed God to be a genderless spirit did they not refrain from using masculine terms (He, His, Father, etc.)? Why not alternate "he" and "she" like some translations of the Tao Te Ching? Or dispense with troublesome pronouns altogether?

I was told by someone that God's the bridegroom we are the groom, and that God's nature has a masculine role and our's is a femine role. It's a mystery that we are called to bear Christ within us.

 

[Logically Unsound]

on a seperate note:



i dont think anyone would mind if they put in an apologies section.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What does John says about the gate and those outside of the gate? Why do you assume the one who whispers is God?

*************
M*W: Come on, oki! I said that metaphorically, and you knew it. What John was attributed as saying was an analogy or parable. How do you know if John was even the one who said it? How do I know the "one who whispers in my ear is God?" The same way you assume the one who whispers in your ear is God. I used the word "whispers" metaphorically. When God has something to say to me, sometimes she slaps me in the face with it. Other times, I may have to eat some dirt. The reality of it, is that all the time when God speaks to me, it's the logic and reason that becomes clear to me. It's the good feeling of understanding what is right for me or my loved ones. It's finally seeing a bit of darkness suddenly light up. It's knowing that I am not alone in the universe, that I'm an integral part of the universe as is everyone of us, and that my being here has been beneficial to at least some members of humanity. There is no God greater than the one whose spirit dwells within the body of humanity. That's how I know the God who whispers in my ear is the same God who whispers in everybody elses' ears. Call God what you want, but there's only One Spirit that is God.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

God does not have a gender (to say that God was either male or female would be comparing God to man.) The second person of the Trinity became man, however.

*************
M*W: For once, I agree with your first statement, but even that is short-lived. Your "second person of the Trinity became man..." is on a par with SourStar's mentality. I believe I can expect better thinking from you.

The "second person of the Trinity," (not that I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, mind you), I am quite familiar with its concept, but when you went on to state, "the Trinity became man...," your misogyny is talking here. The Trinity didn't just "become man" in the form of Jesus, my fine young man, the second person of the Trinity refers to the son, or creation of God, in the form of HUMANITY. This is what Jesus allegedly stood for as an example of what HUMANITY receives through the concept of the Trinity. Example, my dear, example -- not the literal truth.

To infer that Jesus was the only "man" of the Trinity is like saying the Christian concept of God is the only true concept of God. But, that's not true. There's only ONE CREATOR but many mansions or beliefs that lead to only ONE CREATOR. The traditional Trinity of Christianity is an example of this:

1) The Father - the first person of the Trinity is the misogynistic father figure who created us humans as worthless sinners to be punished eternally for original sin before it was originally a sin;

2) The Son - the second person of the Trinity, is the male-only issue of his misoygynistic, genderless, ball-less, father-type creator figure, who is considered to be the only dying demigod savior-son of mankind (but, what about womankind?). This is the son whom Christianity says is the ONLY savior of humanity, who was more than just an example to what humanity could achieve by simply believing that one person died for all, but was really a man in the flesh who the mythmakers of Christianity said was inspired with the holy spirit and flesh of his creator;

3) The Holy Spirit - or Ghost, if you prefer, is the only spirit of both the Father and the Son, referred to as "He," who is the third person of the Trinity. Following the personality of the creator-Father, with the human sacrifice of His Only Son, the Holy Spirit gives the example to humanity that only those who believe in Jesus will be saved from their sins so they can reach this faraway waterfront location known as heaven.

Until we realize that the Trinity, as you call it, describes the interconnected SPIRITUAL nature of humanity on this Earthly existence, your truths about the efficacy of the Trinity are flawed. Maybe someday in the future humanity will begin experiencing the trinity that dwells within. My point -- HUMANITY is the manifestation of the Trinity.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: Come on, oki! I said that metaphorically, and you knew it. What John was attributed as saying was an analogy or parable. How do you know if John was even the one who said it?

Yes, John did not say it. Jesus said it.

How do I know the "one who whispers in my ear is God?" The same way you assume the one who whispers in your ear is God.

That's not so. Not every spirit that "whispers" is from God. When I say whisper though, I mean the range of phenomenal from interior locution to full fledge whisper
but not its metaphorical meaning.


So I agree with the one who said this to me that all of mankind has a distinctively femine(not to be confused with the modern definition) role of growing Life within themselves but this does not make mankind God. It's the Life that is God.

The "second person of the Trinity," (not that I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, mind you), I am quite familiar with its concept, but when you went on to state, "the Trinity became man...," your misogyny is talking here. The Trinity didn't just "become man" in the form of Jesus, my fine young man, the second person of the Trinity refers to the son, or creation of God, in the form of HUMANITY. This is what Jesus allegedly stood for as an example of what HUMANITY receives through the concept of the Trinity. Example, my dear, example -- not the literal truth.

Yes, you are correct. Jesus assumed human nature, becoming man. Jesus is of the same nature as you and me. But your making a false separation. The separation between male and female is a separation of role but not nature, as should be clear because Eve was of Adam's rib.

My point -- HUMANITY is the manifestation of the Trinity.

This is untrue. Humanity, being made in the image of God, is called to reflect God's nature. But to use manifest implies that mankind is the Trinity or makes up the Trinity, which is false.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I didn't "bristle" first of all. Like I said, it seems to better than using "it". I don't know enough now to say any more since I just didn't think it mattered. If it troubles you that much, substitute the pronouns for "God".

*************
M*W: SourStar, I shall remind you of Jesus' alleged words... "Our Father WHICH art in heaven...," implies that the Father is NOT a person referred to as "he" nor "she." Using "it" for some unidentifiable entity is perfectly correct, since God is generally not identifiable. Using "it" in the place of a personal pronoun helps to identify the non-identifiable creator.

The reason I bite my tongue and scroll-down rather than make an attempt to reply to your posts, and the reasons which I can't reason with you, are because you just admitted that you "don't know enough to say any more..." since you... "didn't think it mattered!"

When I said I wouldn't want my God to be a she, it's because my God isn't a she! God is a Spirit and why exactly Jesus referred to Him as the Father, I don't know. Again, it doesn't diminish "spirituality" or raise hairs because of a change in pronoun. Or at least it shouldn't..

*************
M*W: I'm all for everyone identifying their concept of God with whatever their understanding is of God. What's in a name? I'm not Muslim, but I feel I have a better understanding of God by calling it Allah. I'm not a Hebrew, but I have a better understanding of God by calling it Eloh. I might even be correct calling the whole bunch of gods these Elohim or those Elohim. I feel comfortable calling God "she" as I can identify with the concept of "her." Ultimately, God is not a he nor a she. My concept of God has either both genders because God creates both genders, or God has no gender. My concept of God's spiritual sexuality is more of a he/she/it, the androgynous creator of all. A asexual concept of our Creator isn't correct, because how could God create us male and female as in us/you/them? Our sexuality, if its healthy, comes from our spirit. Sexuality, when it stems from the ego, is not healthy. However, I am NOT implying here that homosexuality is NOT healthy. Far from it. I know more homosexuals who are more spiritually driven that heterosexuals where sex stems mainly from the ego which is unhealthy. Why oh why are there so many divorces, sexual perversions (yes, all those pedophile priests out there, I'm talking to you!). Your healthy sex drive has been repressed, and when anything is repressed, it comes out some other way or another as a perversion. Spiritual sexuality cannot be repressed and continue to be healthy. Just like if I lost my hands and couldn't write, or deliver babies, I'd soon die, or at least have to get one of those voice-activated computers, but I'd have to learn to deliver babies with my feet, I guess, and I'm too old and not as spry as I used to be to do that!

Neither can we repress anger, because it would eventually cause us to explode and die from within. Nor can we repress love, because fear is the perversion of love, and that would cause us to avoid human interconnectedness and we would become empty like an empty vessel. What would the point of our existence be if we repressed our sexuality? Where would all the art come from if we repressed the sexual part of our brain? Where would all the poetry be if we denied our sexual feelings? Where would the music be? The literature? The great inventions of the world? The desire to build great wonders? The need to procreate? The drive to be fruitful and to multiply?

I think the pedophile priests who have been identified are just the tip of the iceberg. Since celibacy was instituted as doctrine, I believe priestly pedophilia has been going on more than we realize. I believe somewhere in the sub-conscious part of the mind of priests, their need for sexual contact is so strong, and the reason most of them focused on boys, was because once you repress a desire that is as strong as one's sexuality, one fails to mature beyond that point. These young men who have been molested were loyal members of their churches, altar boys, who probably reminded the priests about their own boyhoods before studying for the priesthood. I believe, sub-consciously, these pedophile priests are somehow trying to relive some boyhood fantasies where their sexuality started being repressed. I think it manifests like some kind of perverted initiation rite.
Funny thing, I left Roman Catholicism long before we knew about the preverted pedophile priests.

My point -- sexuality stems from the desire of the spirit. Sexuality is healthy, it's one of our basic needs in life. It's delicate and nurturing. I fail to see how A&E could be banished for their resulting "knowing" each other, since God obviously planted an aphrodisiac... blah, blah, blah. I really don't believe in the literal translation of this story, but it WAS the patriarchs JustARide mentioned who wrote that it was Eve who caused man to fall. Men have historically loved and feared the female, because they know that the woman has something that would give humanity eternal life. And, that's my explanation for circumcision. Mankind wanted to be like womankind -- and only women bleed. And now a joke: Do you know why Jews get circumcised? Because they get 20% off.

I apologize for the rambling, but I'm sticking to my beliefs!

 

[§outh§tar]

God does not have a gender (to say that God was either male or female would be comparing God to man.) The second person of the Trinity became man, however.

*************
M*W: For once, I agree with your first statement, but even that is short-lived. Your "second person of the Trinity became man..." is on a par with SourStar's mentality. I believe I can expect better thinking from you.

The "second person of the Trinity," (not that I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, mind you), I am quite familiar with its concept, but when you went on to state, "the Trinity became man...," your misogyny is talking here. The Trinity didn't just "become man" in the form of Jesus, my fine young man, the second person of the Trinity refers to the son, or creation of God, in the form of HUMANITY. This is what Jesus allegedly stood for as an example of what HUMANITY receives through the concept of the Trinity. Example, my dear, example -- not the literal truth.

What are you talking about, my mentality??? And misogyny? I don't know of Jesus showing any tangible sort of preference in scripture either for man over woman.

All I want to tell you is that the Bible is not about man or woman, it is about God. Man is not a Spirit, ok?

 

[§outh§tar]

*************
M*W: I'm all for everyone identifying their concept of God with whatever their understanding is of God. What's in a name? I'm not Muslim, but I feel I have a better understanding of God by calling it Allah. I'm not a Hebrew, but I have a better understanding of God by calling it Eloh. I might even be correct calling the whole bunch of gods these Elohim or those Elohim. I feel comfortable calling God "she" as I can identify with the concept of "her." Ultimately, God is not a he nor a she. My concept of God has either both genders because God creates both genders, or God has no gender. My concept of God's spiritual sexuality is more of a he/she/it, the androgynous creator of all. A asexual concept of our Creator isn't correct, because how could God create us male and female as in us/you/them? Our sexuality, if its healthy, comes from our spirit. Sexuality, when it stems from the ego, is not healthy. However, I am NOT implying here that homosexuality is NOT healthy. Far from it. I know more homosexuals who are more spiritually driven that heterosexuals where sex stems mainly from the ego which is unhealthy. Why oh why are there so many divorces, sexual perversions (yes, all those pedophile priests out there, I'm talking to you!). Your healthy sex drive has been repressed, and when anything is repressed, it comes out some other way or another as a perversion. Spiritual sexuality cannot be repressed and continue to be healthy. Just like if I lost my hands and couldn't write, or deliver babies, I'd soon die, or at least have to get one of those voice-activated computers, but I'd have to learn to deliver babies with my feet, I guess, and I'm too old and not as spry as I used to be to do that!

Neither can we repress anger, because it would eventually cause us to explode and die from within. Nor can we repress love, because fear is the perversion of love, and that would cause us to avoid human interconnectedness and we would become empty like an empty vessel. What would the point of our existence be if we repressed our sexuality? Where would all the art come from if we repressed the sexual part of our brain? Where would all the poetry be if we denied our sexual feelings? Where would the music be? The literature? The great inventions of the world? The desire to build great wonders? The need to procreate? The drive to be fruitful and to multiply?

I think the pedophile priests who have been identified are just the tip of the iceberg. Since celibacy was instituted as doctrine, I believe priestly pedophilia has been going on more than we realize. I believe somewhere in the sub-conscious part of the mind of priests, their need for sexual contact is so strong, and the reason most of them focused on boys, was because once you repress a desire that is as strong as one's sexuality, one fails to mature beyond that point. These young men who have been molested were loyal members of their churches, altar boys, who probably reminded the priests about their own boyhoods before studying for the priesthood. I believe, sub-consciously, these pedophile priests are somehow trying to relive some boyhood fantasies where their sexuality started being repressed. I think it manifests like some kind of perverted initiation rite.
Funny thing, I left Roman Catholicism long before we knew about the preverted pedophile priests.

My point -- sexuality stems from the desire of the spirit. Sexuality is healthy, it's one of our basic needs in life. It's delicate and nurturing. I fail to see how A&E could be banished for their resulting "knowing" each other, since God obviously planted an aphrodisiac... blah, blah, blah. I really don't believe in the literal translation of this story, but it WAS the patriarchs JustARide mentioned who wrote that it was Eve who caused man to fall. Men have historically loved and feared the female, because they know that the woman has something that would give humanity eternal life. And, that's my explanation for circumcision. Mankind wanted to be like womankind -- and only women bleed. And now a joke: Do you know why Jews get circumcised? Because they get 20% off.

I apologize for the rambling, but I'm sticking to my beliefs!

I understand where you're going although I must admit some of this stuff is past me right now.. There's a thread on pornography somewhere in Human Sciences that you might wanna take a look at too.

P.S. I hear it's a sin to think a sexual thought (for Catholic priests). Now to make up a rule like that, you would have to know what a sexual thought is.. which means you would have to be thinking it.. eh.. the complications!

 

[JustARide]

I didn't "bristle" first of all. Like I said, it seems to better than using "it". I don't know enough now to say any more since I just didn't think it mattered. If it troubles you that much, substitute the pronouns for "God".

But that's what we were already doing. :bugeye:

There was nothing "theological" about it ok?

The comment referred to all of your theological arguments, past and present.

When I said I wouldn't want my God to be a she, it's because my God isn't a she! God is a Spirit and why exactly Jesus referred to Him as the Father, I don't know. Again, it doesn't diminish "spirituality" or raise hairs because of a change in pronoun. Or at least it shouldn't..

Sure, everything is fine and dandy from your perspective.

This reminds me of the old saying the developed when Ford offered cars in only one color. "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black."

God can be anything you want, as long as he's male.

Are you feeling ok?

Never felt better. Why? You don't like boobs? Boobs are God's most wonderous creation.

P.S. Did you see the thing on NBC today about priests and celibacy? I think there's a documentary or something coming out on it, should be interesting.

I think I caught a few minutes just as it was going off. Or that might have been something on MSNBC... not sure.

Whatever the case, remember the new Catholic rule: Pro-choice politicians are evil devil-worshippers who should not even be offered communion. Priests who fuck little boys, however, are entirely worthy of receiving the divine sacrement after a little smack on the wrist.

 

[JustARide]

I was told by someone that God's the bridegroom we are the groom, and that God's nature has a masculine role and our's is a femine role. It's a mystery that we are called to bear Christ within us.

Dress it up however you like, oki. Christianity is and always has been a patriarchal religion.

Its phallocentrism is evident from the start. Hell, the very first book includes a male god, creating the first being (male, of course), then as a servant he creates woman (the "second" sex) who is immediately blamed for screwing up paradise.

Not exactly a Susan Sontag essay, is it...

 

[§outh§tar]

The comment referred to all of your theological arguments, past and present.

I don't recall insisting that God is/should be male. Besides, I have just assured you otherwise, He's not a man or a woman.

Sure, everything is fine and dandy from your perspective.

This reminds me of the old saying the developed when Ford offered cars in only one color. "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black."

God can be anything you want, as long as he's male.

How can God be male? None of us have seen Him before.. You haven't been checking under His toga have you? :bugeye:

Never felt better. Why? You don't like boobs? Boobs are God's most wonderous creation.

Next time you see some sagging wrinkly ones, remember your words..

I think I caught a few minutes just as it was going off. Or that might have been something on MSNBC... not sure.

Whatever the case, remember the new Catholic rule: Pro-choice politicians are evil devil-worshippers who should not even be offered communion. Priests who fuck little boys, however, are entirely worthy of receiving the divine sacrement after a little smack on the wrist.

NBC.. MSNBC it's all the same to me. Who would you trust if they claimed to have repented, George Bush, or the Pope? Meh.. scratch that..

 

[Knife]

No.

Rev. 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

i was under the impression "the book" was written/compiled many years later (afte the death of jesus), by paul, luke, john, etc. whose quotes are these? if they are attributed to Jesus, then what book is reffered to in the quotes? if they are attributed to paul, luke....then what gives them the right to make such a statement on behalf of god?

and how does this explain differences between the different authors/editions? would this not be considered additions/deletions?

thanks.
peace.