why do unbelievers...
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
JDawg
Ok, so let's say his creator created him with a penis. This means he can, with the collaberation of a female, he produce off-spring.
God produces off spring, and we can understand that he used the natural elements to place his seed (collaberation).
I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I, nor any scripture (to my knowledge), as ever defined God as a man.
Never.
I hear they've got fleas.
I don't think dominance is a feminie trait, but females can, and obviously do project dominance, and males can easily project femininity.
To be dominant in the real sense requires masculinity, hense the term 'ladet'.
It doesn't matter what makes him male, as far as your concerned he's not real.
Wrong.
I have.
Which man can create like the character God does?
If you refer to superman as a "he", because he is portrayed that way, then why not refer to God as "he" because he is portrayed that way?
Why, when refering to the biblical, and Koran(ical) character do you use references like "it", and "she", when in fact they are not portrayed that way?
It has substance, but like some folks refusal to refer to God at least how he is portrayed, you straight-ahead refuse to accept it has substance.
What a load of arrogant bollocks.
It doesn't matter what I accept, can you not see that?
What matters is (as far as this thread is concerned), why atheists in particular (not all) cannot bring themselves to refer to God as "he", prefering to use terms like "it", "she", and terms which are obvioiusly derogative.
It's just simple question.
Deal with it.
jan.
Ok, so let's say his creator created him with a penis. This means he can, with the collaberation of a female, he produce off-spring.
God produces off spring, and we can understand that he used the natural elements to place his seed (collaberation).
I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I, nor any scripture (to my knowledge), as ever defined God as a man.
Never.
I hear they've got fleas.
I don't think dominance is a feminie trait, but females can, and obviously do project dominance, and males can easily project femininity.
To be dominant in the real sense requires masculinity, hense the term 'ladet'.
It doesn't matter what makes him male, as far as your concerned he's not real.
Wrong.
I have.
Which man can create like the character God does?
If you refer to superman as a "he", because he is portrayed that way, then why not refer to God as "he" because he is portrayed that way?
Why, when refering to the biblical, and Koran(ical) character do you use references like "it", and "she", when in fact they are not portrayed that way?
It has substance, but like some folks refusal to refer to God at least how he is portrayed, you straight-ahead refuse to accept it has substance.
What a load of arrogant bollocks.
It doesn't matter what I accept, can you not see that?
What matters is (as far as this thread is concerned), why atheists in particular (not all) cannot bring themselves to refer to God as "he", prefering to use terms like "it", "she", and terms which are obvioiusly derogative.
It's just simple question.
Deal with it.
jan.
Well IF all the theists were to decide that God is a fictional character, they can prove God is a he.. no problem
If he is a fictional character (which the atheists in question do), and is portrayed as "he", then he is a "he".
What's the point of not accepting that?
jan.
jan said:
Because we have male and female attributes, doesn't mean that male and female end with the universe. To me male and female is about interactions and relationships, not molecules and atoms.
God, whether you believe in him or not, clearly has interactions and relationships with others.
Human notions is necessary in wanting to understand God. We can understand some aspects of God through understanding ourselves, not everything of course. But enough to come to certain realisations.
jan .
Well I think images of god with male/female reproduction organs gives additional humor to the notion of an intelligent first cause.
What do you mean by molecules and atoms? Humans can't understand God, regardless of our efforts. That's why humans aren't supposed to question God.
Jan,
“ Originally Posted by Enmos
Jan, I'm not clear on something. Who are God's pals ? ”
What does it matter to you?
“ Originally Posted by jpappl
who are Gods pals ? ”
What do you mean?
jan."
Jan, it's a joke. Trying to be funny. It's nothing significant.
I'm not looking for a serious answer to the question.
“ Originally Posted by Enmos
Jan, I'm not clear on something. Who are God's pals ? ”
What does it matter to you?
“ Originally Posted by jpappl
who are Gods pals ? ”
What do you mean?
jan."
Jan, it's a joke. Trying to be funny. It's nothing significant.
I'm not looking for a serious answer to the question.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The point is that theist do NOT claim God is a fictional character and still claim to know for certain that God is a he. That's the problem here.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I'm curious that's all. According to your quote God said "Let us make man in our own image?"
I was always under the impression that God created man on his (assuming God's a he for a sec, hope you don't mind
) own.But apparently he had some help, or was part of a group of equal gods.
So I ask you, as you are a self-proclaimed Christian, who the others were that were in league with God creating us.
Some folks believe the characters portrayed in soap operas are actually who they portray, but it doesn't change the fact these portrayals are understood by both believers and non-believers alike.
The term theist, is not a one size fits all situation, other than a theist believes in God. Unless you know every theists position on belief, how are you so certain that they claim to know for certain that God is a he.
And to add to that. I haven't claimed any knowledge of whether God is a "he".
I am refering to God as a "he" because he is defined in scriptures as "he".
jan.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I didn't mean ALL theists, I meant the ones that do claim God is a he, and there are plenty.
You also made it appear you believe God is a he. Further.. you replied to a post of mine that wasn't even directed at you.
I rather want you to answer post 115. Thanks
Enmos,
I can't imagine why you are so adamant about wanting to know who Gods' asociates were, especially as you do not, nor are likely to believe any explanation or that God himself exists.
The bible does not explain who the "us" are in that quote, not to my knowledge anyway.
However, in the qur'an, the cow 2.30, Allah (God) says;
Lo! I am about to place
a viceroy in the earth, they said:
Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee ?
He said: Surely I know that which ye know not.
In the next verse he goes on to say;
And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.
While this does not directly answer your question, it gives insight into Gods' asociates before Adam was created on the earth.
jan.
I can't imagine why you are so adamant about wanting to know who Gods' asociates were, especially as you do not, nor are likely to believe any explanation or that God himself exists.
The bible does not explain who the "us" are in that quote, not to my knowledge anyway.
However, in the qur'an, the cow 2.30, Allah (God) says;
Lo! I am about to place
a viceroy in the earth, they said:
Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee ?
He said: Surely I know that which ye know not.
In the next verse he goes on to say;
And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.
While this does not directly answer your question, it gives insight into Gods' asociates before Adam was created on the earth.
jan.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member