Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
No self-respecting Goddess would chose any of the mainstream Gods for a mate.
Their morals would not allow it.
Regards
DL
Why is there no Mrs. God?
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
No self-respecting Goddess would chose any of the mainstream Gods for a mate.
Their morals would not allow it.
Regards
DL
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps a little more respect, we can be very offensive and we should not be so.
My fault entirely.
Alex
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
What is offensive is being horny and never getting your rocks off.
Giving God a dick gives a whole new look to what he and Mary did to have Jesus.
Regards
DL
and he was nothing like him, so how was he the father?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Now now, that will upset folk, think how Tim will feel.
Love your fellow man means bring respectful.
I would like to see the "us and them thing" disappear.
Again my fault for setting a poor initial example.
Alex
God was gay.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
I guess it took human DNA to make the genocidal tyrant produce a goody two shoes.
That wimp producing must have peeved him so much he decided not to make any more children.
Not that I believe that Jesus was any part of God or that stupid trinity concept.
For all we can tell, the biblical Jesus never lived. I do think there may have been an archetypal good man in some of the older myths and folk tales that was named Jesus.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Upset theists?
Hell, if their genocidal son murdering God does not upset their moral sense with all his murders, then a piece of tale won't.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
God was gay.
I don't know, and I doubt it, He was a Jew, and gays are rare in Jewry, but if you believe what was thought of God being androgynous, then Jesus would have been biologically female all of his life.
Regards
DL
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Not if they turn the other cheek.
Which I would encourage you to try.
The pay off for you will be peace.
Alex
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Peace!
Peace and respecting religions that do not deserve it is what has allowed our immoral religions to survive and thrive, to our collective shame.
Regards
DL
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Turn the other cheek ...you picked up the idea real quick.
Alex
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
What do you think of what this guy says about turning the other cheek, and are you aware of just what turning the other cheek meant to the early Jews.
Regards
DL
Of course. Religion is inherently a communal thing; if it's individual, that's spirituality. I daresay that the communal-ritual aspects are far more important that the beliefs implied by them. Religion, especially in ethnic religions where the religion is integrated wholly into the folklore and cultural identity of a group of people, has a socialising function. Religious rituals can often serve as rites of passage, for instance, or as instances of communal catharsis.
Last edited:
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
True. Institutionalized evil that modern people still have not written out of their creeds.
Hence the " attitude " towards females that some have today.
They may have had good reasons for their dog and bitch attitude then, we do not have it now, yet those who follow the Yahwehs and Allahs still treat women like bitch dogs.
Regards
DL
Males are more visually orientated, while females are more audio orientated. Religions place male before female, because visual is considered more important than verbal. The male brain is more wired front to back, while the female brain is more wired right-left.
Say I gathered one person, from every language of the world, in a large conference room. In the middle of the room, I place a table with an apple on it. Everyone in the room can see the apple; its unique red shape, but few if any, in the audience, will agree on the proper noise/sound needed to represent the apple. They will all make different noises, to represent the apple, even though all are seeing the same thing. Verbal is more subjective and arbitrary, while visual is more objective and unified using this basic example.
We can't transfer visual stimulus between two people, like we can transfer audio stimulus between two people. Our visual sense is input only; seeing, while audio can input and output; hearing and talking. We are sort of stuck wth the subjective aspects for communication, unless we can physically move the other person, to the proper place, so reality can input the needed visual data. With audio input and output, via language, we can transfer data, at any time, but there is often loss due to the subjective nature of language.
We can all see the same data, while language can be used to create differences of opinion about what we see. Religion is about absolutes, with the male principle; visual, better for determining common ground. If you believe in a random or subjective universe, a female God makes more sense to you. Those who believe in a male God, think in terms of absolutes, common to all. But again the words get in the way; different religions.
When religions say the husband should lead the wife, it implies visual leads verbal. This who memorize words, do this backwards and tend to get dogmatic, since they lack the visual verification to compensate for subjective doubt brought about by language.
The internet has been a good experiment for the subjectivity of verbal orientations. There are opinions all over the board, with little in the way of convergence. If we were all in the field, looking, we could see common ground. However, once people start to talk, words will get in the way and add subjectivity.
Faith is the belief in things not seen. Faith is connected to the visual sense, which is why it is considered more important than lip service. Faith does no use the direct visual input but a secondary aspect of sight, frontal cortex.
Just as what we hear; input, can be outputted via talking, what we see, can be outputted via an internal process within the imagination. The visionary can anticipate the future of the visual world, through the processing of visual data; see the signs of the times. But as you express this with words, it gets subjective.
Say I gathered one person, from every language of the world, in a large conference room. In the middle of the room, I place a table with an apple on it. Everyone in the room can see the apple; its unique red shape, but few if any, in the audience, will agree on the proper noise/sound needed to represent the apple. They will all make different noises, to represent the apple, even though all are seeing the same thing. Verbal is more subjective and arbitrary, while visual is more objective and unified using this basic example.
We can't transfer visual stimulus between two people, like we can transfer audio stimulus between two people. Our visual sense is input only; seeing, while audio can input and output; hearing and talking. We are sort of stuck wth the subjective aspects for communication, unless we can physically move the other person, to the proper place, so reality can input the needed visual data. With audio input and output, via language, we can transfer data, at any time, but there is often loss due to the subjective nature of language.
We can all see the same data, while language can be used to create differences of opinion about what we see. Religion is about absolutes, with the male principle; visual, better for determining common ground. If you believe in a random or subjective universe, a female God makes more sense to you. Those who believe in a male God, think in terms of absolutes, common to all. But again the words get in the way; different religions.
When religions say the husband should lead the wife, it implies visual leads verbal. This who memorize words, do this backwards and tend to get dogmatic, since they lack the visual verification to compensate for subjective doubt brought about by language.
The internet has been a good experiment for the subjectivity of verbal orientations. There are opinions all over the board, with little in the way of convergence. If we were all in the field, looking, we could see common ground. However, once people start to talk, words will get in the way and add subjectivity.
Faith is the belief in things not seen. Faith is connected to the visual sense, which is why it is considered more important than lip service. Faith does no use the direct visual input but a secondary aspect of sight, frontal cortex.
Just as what we hear; input, can be outputted via talking, what we see, can be outputted via an internal process within the imagination. The visionary can anticipate the future of the visual world, through the processing of visual data; see the signs of the times. But as you express this with words, it gets subjective.
Last edited:
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Exactly. That is why it is so useless in determining reality and why most theists end in adoring Gods that are demonstrably immoral.
Regards
DL