HuffPo: Isn’t it time for the Pope to declare that God is bisexual?
posted at 10:29 pm on April 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
No, silly, not bisexual in orientation, merely bisexual in gender identity. Androgynous, in other words, like an early 1970s David Bowie except a lot older and even more charismatic. And maybe hermaphroditic? It’s all a bit vague.
Thus does freaky deaky sex ‘n religion day at Hot Air end with a bang:
The Church’s opposition to birth control and to abortion even early in pregnancy is largely an outgrowth of its all-male composition and those males’ attempts to degrade women’s physical powers by asserting that women and the intercourse into which they putatively tempt men are necessary evils (“It is well for a man not to touch a woman,” Paul instructed the Christians of Corinth), the only purpose of which is procreation. The condemnation of homosexuals is based entirely on Old Testament rules established by men who feared anything that placed in question their insistence on the polarity of the sexes.
The idea that God is solely male is the work of the Church Fathers who chose which gospel accounts to include in the official New Testament and excluded all the Gnostic Gospels that contain references to an androgynous God, and of the bishops who met at Constantinople in 381 and modified the Creed to say that the Holy Spirit is male. The idea that a Creator could be of only one sex is absurd on its face. Yet this nonsensical belief, which actually diminishes God, has been one of the main bases for the subordination of women and values associated with them — precisely the values taught by Jesus — throughout the history of the Church…
During the second week of his papacy in 1978, John Paul I sensibly declared that God “is a Mother as well as a Father.” Eighteen days later John Paul I was dead, only 33 days after his election. Despite that unfortunate example and his own stance against desperately needed reform, Benedict XVI owes it to Catholics to take the bold steps needed to break the hold on the Church of earlier flings with relativism and to bring the institution he heads into line both with the needs of the modern world and with the teachings of Jesus.
Forgive the atheist for quibbling about theology but doesn’t Church dogma about Christ’s parentage make this a hard argument to pull off? Not an impossible argument — by definition, nothing is impossible if God is omnipotent — but it does raise the question of why He/She chose to be father to Jesus instead of taking on some more nuanced role. Also, Christ himself specifically refers to God as “Father” numerous times, doesn’t he? That would seem like … a clue. I’ve got no dog in this hunt, though. Catholics, want to take it from here?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I just think it’s strange the emphasis on propriety and respect on a site famous for HUMPING ROBOT. Jeeeezzze!
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Thanks for that. What a great piece! I was delighted when I heard Fr. Jonathan Morris say today that the crowds at St. Peter’s Square have been much greater than those for Pope John Paul II (not to put him down – he served a different purpose). Fr. Jonathan’s point was that there is something very special about Pope Benedict. People come not to see him, but to hear him – to hear his wisdom. I prayed so hard that he would be chosen. He has been desperately needed.
Connie on April 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Oh yeah! I move we make that Approved Comment #1.
All in favor?
Apposed?
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Well, there’s a difference between joking about a robot and joking about someone’s faith.
terryannonline on April 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Not really
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:13 AM
wazzamatter ronsfi? bored? thorazine wear off?
29Victor on April 16, 2008 at 12:15 AM
You just want elevate faith beyond criticism so you don’t have to defend it. It is not on a par with…I don’t know Murder, Molestation, Slavery…etc.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Like all good libs you respond to a comment you have no answer for by declaring the commenter ignorant. That you ignorantly assume that my knowledge of the soul is derived from only one source is rather arrogant.
As I stated earlier your soul, if it exists, is your business. Rehashing the beliefs of dead philosophers does not in any way quantify the soul, only one persons belief. All I get from the works of Aristotle is one man’s philosophical vision of the soul. Maybe I buy into his beliefs maybe I prefer Kierkegaard or Chesterton. It does not matter the end result is the same none of them know any more about the soul then anyone else. You may have a deep seated need to fall into some approved idealogical camp, I do not happen to suffer from that affliction.
jdkchem on April 16, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Nope, but I see your meth habit is still going strong.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Translation: “I know you are, but what am I?”
Touche ronsfi, touche.
29Victor on April 16, 2008 at 12:19 AM
29Victor on April 16, 2008 at 12:15 AM
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM
ronsfi…
Not gonna go there, wouldn’t be prudent…
29Victor on April 16, 2008 at 12:22 AM
meh. How else do you respond to Nenernerner?
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Yeah like you secretly had something meaningful to say. HAH!
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:23 AM
The soul is that which animates a person, by simply calling into question a living persons “soul” (as defined by everyone who has seriously decided to think on the subject — Aristotle, Avicenna, Aquinas to name a few) you’ve displayed your ignorance. Seeing that you obviously do not know what a soul is (considering that you would suggest a living being doesn’t have one) and being that you’ve been very condescending in this thread already I felt free to criticize your ignorance.
The way you’re arguing about the soul is irrational. I may not agree with Avicenna’s view of the soul, but we can at least agree what it is, you don’t even seem capable of that. Picture different people with differing recipes for pancakes, some people like blueberries, some like nuts, but the thing is we can all agree on what a pancake is; you on the other hand are arguing that a pancake is actually a waffle because your religion says it is.
Nonfactor on April 16, 2008 at 12:24 AM
No, Terry I think his comments were a shot at me, not at you, however I don’t care what he chooses to say. I refuse to allow it to bother me at this point. Maybe some other time, but not today.
Vntnrse on April 16, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Translation: “Oh, yeah!”
Really, c’mon, you can do better than that.
You only like playing offense, don’t you.
29Victor on April 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Look. We live in America, people can criticism people of faith all they want. It’s in the First Amendment. But just don’t expect to engage in an conversation when you’re throwing verbal bombs at them. That’s all.
terryannonline on April 16, 2008 at 12:28 AM
So anyway TAO I have no personal animosity towards you but no one is insulting YOUR God. Nor making crude comments or allusions about Him/Her whatever. We’re being respectful but we don’t have to be pious if we don’t believe. It just seems that if we say anything outside of your orthodoxy you take umbrage and call us disrespectful. It’s a little to Jihadi for me. So I tweak your nose a little bit. I doubt you respect my views but I’m not whining about it.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Are you flirting with me? You little Minx!
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Woah! You are assuming a whole lot. How do you know I don’t respect your views? Really, if anyone is being a little too sensitive, I’m afraid it’s not me.
terryannonline on April 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Fine! Yeah. Mister Sensitive. That’s me! Way to smash the dove with hammer. Have a swell week TAO and may your Faith bring you peace and comfort. I’m going for a beer then 6 solid hours with the sandman.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Oh, I get it. Sorta like that freak on Babylon 5. Ooops…bad choice of words I guess. That shapechanger fella. God is just a doppelganger, sorta like a democrat.
Limerick on April 16, 2008 at 1:00 AM
right on AP. Paul also…that’s why we cry abba (daddy) father. As far as homosexuals being O.T. well yes but Romans chap. 1 describes that as being idolatry. Not completely left unattended in the N.T.
mjkazee on April 16, 2008 at 2:30 AM
I will say one more thing before heading to bed. The left’s hatred of Pope Benedict should give every conservative a clue, believer or non-believer.
Think about it.
Connie on April 16, 2008 at 2:48 AM
Does anyone other than the five or six asylum inmates who read this trash daily give a flying flaming rat’s patootie what the Huffing-Puffing-PO has to say about literally anything?
pilamaye on April 16, 2008 at 5:56 AM
*applauds*
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 6:24 AM
Also, have read through this thread and it’s amusing that a number of regular commenters, mostly nonbelievers as it happens today, apparently can’t distinguish between disagreement and disrespect. What’s so hard about, there’s a big difference between “it makes no sense to me that a virgin can give birth” and (for example) “hot white sticky Holy Spirit” (courtesy Amanda Marcotte).
We Catholics and other Christians HAVE defended our faith reasonably, many times over, on these threads at HotAir, and anyone can see that we are in fact eager to do so (500+ comment threads anyone?). That we object to our faith being ridiculed and gratuitously insulted is also reasonable, and to claim we don’t want dialogue because of this is, to be blunt, ridiculous. Respect isn’t a dirty word.
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 6:30 AM
Whose dog was it then that was sniffing around for an I-phone Christmas present? Must be an atheist cultural thing.
JiangxiDad on April 16, 2008 at 6:55 AM
I haven’ t read all of the other comments, but I think in some languages the Holy Spirit and the Trinity are referred to with the feminine article. Christ has a gender, and that is unavoidable. In a metaphorical sense, the Church has a gender, as his bride and as our mother. God the Father really has no gender, and that simply makes sense. He is not at all human, as Christ is. He doesn’t have chromosomes or anything like that, so AP’s logic of providing the other half of Christ doesn’t necessarily make God the Father male just because Mary is female. What it really comes down to is the Trinity, though, which also has no gender.
I’m not aware of the full historical controversy, but I don’t believe this has been in question for quite some time in the orthodox churches.
Also, humans themselves were not necessarily created as men. It says “man,” but it seems pretty clear that gender didn’t develop until both genders were created out of the one “man” or “human.” This is why the two becoming one flesh is a sort of completion (though still limited). For those who don’t marry the completion takes place ultimately through Christ, regardless of their gender. This last part is a bit difficult, but it’s what I gleaned from a few glances at the Theology of the Body.
Vagueperson on April 16, 2008 at 7:03 AM
Nobody hates him.
Also, an equally deep observation is that 99% of liberals eat soup with a spoon. I shudder to think of the implications that you make for yourself in terms of your daily life.
freevillage on April 16, 2008 at 7:04 AM
How’s this one:
May God the Father Almighty, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit Bless us all.
Now, go forth and work hard.
Zorro on April 16, 2008 at 7:04 AM
Except… the Orthodox church also opposes these things… and if they heard the Malaevin to the Theotokos their minds would be broken. Sad, sad materialists…
Also, God is not ‘androgynous’: God has no gender at all. Gender is a physical manifestation of the archetype of masculine/feminine. I.e, you can have masculine or feminine beings without them actually being sexed. God is beyond any such things. The word ‘Father’ means that we know he has a Son.
As for why the word ‘Father’ and not ‘Mother’, you’ll have to ask the archetypes themselves. As Lewis put it, ‘In some ways a married couple takes on the roles of Sky Father and Earth Mother…’ The picture of what masculinity is includes a sense of transcendence, while the feminine an immanence. Thus the Church is always referred to in the feminine.
I should think this is all very basic stuff… forgive me if it is not.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 7:12 AM
ZsaZsa’s site is the modern day Pravda. If you’re looking for truth and reality, turn away and avert your eyes, lest ye be turned into a pillar of salt…
adamsmith on April 16, 2008 at 7:31 AM
God is very specifically male in the Hebrew Bible. Originally Yahweh had a wife, Anat, and for centuries her statues or totems were found in temples and sacred groves alongside His own, but she was purged by the priesthood as part of Saul’s reforms. Though a few gods such as Zeus have behaved bisexually (as with his passion for Ganymede), there have been almost no actual hermaphroditic gods worshipped in any culture, Hermes being a major exception. The notion of the Christian God as bisexual or hermaphroditic is relatively recent (in Gnosticism all sexuality is rejected as materialistic) and is merely an expression of Gay and Lesbian Liberation Theology.
Hope P. Muntz on April 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM
I just want to know how to change the order in which comments are listed, right now it is from last to first which is annoying.
Anyone?
Kahuna on April 16, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Wow. I thought we were going to have a civil, adult discussion of theology. Was I wrong.
abcurtis on April 16, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Hope: Right, but God’s masculinity is not ‘maleness’ in the sense of sex, like most gods. It is wholly improper to assume that God is a ‘guy’ in the same sense a man is.
Both Gnostics (anti-materialists) and liberation-theologists (materialists) are two sides of the same coin. They state that material things are what is important, whether being absorbed and enticed by them or rejecting them. The Gnostics try to recruit certain fathers who were world-deniers, but world-denial in the context of the church has always existed on the hope of the resurrection (a thing manifested physically) and against not material things but against our sin which has corrupted them and ourselves.
It is an idiot materialist who would think that a group being composed of male members would necessarily make it anti-female. In fact, it’s such an unrealistic concept that it is hard to believe that they’re being serious at all.
As for John Paul I’s statement, it can only being understood within the context of the church; a materialist would not understand that God could be considered in such a way. In fact it was a distinct error (maybe) for him to state that publicly. If the Church acts as our mother and is the body of Christ who is God, well, the logic works out fine. But to state it unqualified can create issues.
Pope’s not my bishop, so he can say whatever he wants. Sad, though.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Sorry, I choose to believe that God is male, complete with male anatomy. I also choose to believe that there are goddesses, complete with female anatomy.
The idea of male and female has been forth since the beginning of time. In most of what we would consider higher life forms, there is male and female, why should there not be the same with deity?
Many cultures have had both male and female gods. To deny that there are female deity is to deny the equality of the sexes.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 16, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Following that logic, if you dare call it logic, women should be closer to God, as they are the only ones who can bring new life into the world. They don’t need the priesthood, as they are already “enlightened” beings.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 16, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Wish I had more time to read the comments and see what the consensus is. I think its silly to even worry about what God’s sex is. God is a spirit and not of the flesh. God is symbolized as a male because throughout history the masculine has symbolized dominance. God can speak things into existence and create them from will….I would guess that God has no need for sexual identification. Like I said at the beggining…God is not of the flesh, and not of this world.
Jay on April 16, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Is this woman joking?
jeanie on April 16, 2008 at 9:19 AM
When you figure out that you are God, a part thereof….
none of this talk matters
Male & Female are just parts of the whole.
bridgetown on April 16, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Too funny.
reaganaut on April 16, 2008 at 9:39 AM
I find it amusing that some on this site, mostly believers can’t distinguish between respect and reverence. Case in point. You could not find an example in the comments and had to go to an outside source (Amanda Marcotte) for your offensive statement. I notice your comments never deal with the post but instead whine about what victims you forlorn believers are who must suffer the indignity of having to defend your views. Quit playing the martyr and join the fray.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 9:43 AM
I have to disagree with this. I used to pop in on an atheist forum for discussion. The Pope was regularly referred to there as “Benny the Rat”, and accused of willing Nazi collaboration.
mikeyboss on April 16, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I find it all too typical that this Lefty tool is instructing the Pope himself how to lead his flock. Aren’t they just so much smarter than everyone. Who do these people think they are?
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Nonfactor, I think you may be insisting on too specific a definition of the soul. I don’t think there is anything near universal consensus on this.
mikeyboss on April 16, 2008 at 9:51 AM
bridgetown: Hate to burst your bubble, but there is this thing called death. It waits for us all. God does not die; he is life. If death does not really exist then neither does the material world. So, it’s basically a gnostic position without the ’soul journey’ or whatever bull-honkery.
I suppose if it makes you feel good no one will be able to dissuade you. And frankly, setting you right is not something I’m capable of. However, keep in mind that those same men who came into union with God said, ‘Love not the world, neither the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes nor the pride of life.’ There is something that is outside of God, which is sin. We live in it. Get used to it.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM
I can think of something disrespectful to say but I won’t. What I will say is that I was trying to avoid singling out anyone in this thread.
How about this, since you insist:
I also find it amusing that you apparently don’t remember your own posts from just a few days ago, and these are just a FEW examples, including but not limited to, “go pray to the tooth fairy” (not verbatim but almost. Yes, that was YOU, ronsfi. (Didn’t think I remembered?) Nonfactor, just a few days ago, on a post about Obama: “Your god is a lie.” (I’m supposed to start with the Thomas Aquinas on an Obama thread?) And you want examples on ths thread? How about the “God has balls” crack? (that was freevillage)
You are quite simply in error. Big time. Now if you’d spend the amazing amount of energy you seem to have making cracks at people, actually reading who says what on this site, you’d realize I and lots of others ARE “in the fray” re: posts about religion and Catholicism in particular. I defend my faith with reason quite a bit on these forums and so do others. In fact on the religion posts I’ve tried to make fewer comments lately as I feel I’m hogging the thread on others.
IOW I’ll be very blunt with you since you seem to appreciate that: You’re either lying or so wrapped up in your own postings that you’re unaware that others are defending their faith. Which is it?
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM
And this has what to do with the Pope? The Puffington? Why must you prove my point?
P.S You forgot to throw in the kitchen sink.
P.P.S. Is the Tooth Fairy male or female.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I find many of your jokes funny, ronsfi, on political and other topics, and I’ve said so. But you don’t like it when people ridicule (i.e. reduce to an absurdist joke your sincere beliefs) your atheism, and I don’t like it when people do the same to my faith. Got it?
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I don’t give a crap if people ridicule Atheism. I am however annoyed when they make outrageous unsupported claims for their particular faith. Got it?
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 10:13 AM
We cross posted. See, now I can tell from your 10:10 post, ronsfi, that you really are interested in the theological implications of the Tooth Fairy’s gender and what that means for your spiritual life and your contact with the Divine (or lack thereof.) So I’ll spend 30-60 minutes constructing a theological argument for a blog thread on just that topic. *rolls eyes*
Do me a favor. Do a little hunting on the religion threads, look at ALL the comments (not just the three-or-less line ones) and stop making yourself look silly. :)
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Oh you mean like “I know for SURE that NOTHING exists that I can’t touch taste see or smell!” You mean that faith? :)
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Or: “It was just a Big Bang!!! Case Closed!!” –Oliver in Bloom County, to Opus
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 10:16 AM
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM
No bubble burst here.
Of course there is sin…there is free will…
and many different journeys.
I don’t believe in death. You cannot kill energy….you can change it, but not kill it.
okay…I’m way OT now….don’t know why you took me so far off. :)
bridgetown on April 16, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Philosophy 101.
You know the meme about how scholastic philosophers supposedly showed their stupidity by asking “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?” You were lied to (surprise!). Scholastics were serious philosophers. But philosophers ask what unserious thinkers consider stupid questions. In modern philosophy, we might ask “Can a man envy himself?” Not because the question has a real life application, but because the answer tells us something about the nature of “envy” and the nature of mental states.
So the medievals get a bum rap by drive-by liberal blowhards on the angel-on-pin question. But the malicious hit comes as no shock, considering the lack of serious thinkers on the left.
After that long intro, here’s the punch line. It is painfully ironic to see liberals doing for real what they inaccurately mocked scholastics for doing – namely, asking idiotic philosophical questions like “Does God have Primary Sex Characteristics?”
Sad.
jeff_from_mpls on April 16, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I didn’t say that. So you must be talking to someone else.
I mean statements like “The (insert your book here) is a perfect model of the universe.” Or finding a hopelessly vague statement in (insert your book here) i.e. Circle of the earth or some such and claiming it is evidence that God told the author that the earth was round. Or that a vision described in (insert your book here)is proof of Alien visitations. etc.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 10:26 AM
You should have been at some of the websites I visited yesterday.
Connie on April 16, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Nonfactor, mikeyboss: Yes, since the soul is not material it is difficult to come up with a consistent idea of what is within it and what is not, or what it actually is. It is clear that you (nonfactor) are correct in stating that it is what animates us: for instance, ‘ensoulment’ (God breathing upon the clay and it becoming life) and ‘animus’ indicate that the soul has to do with animation. But, it is not universally agreed that animals have souls. Thus, while animation is included it is not the entirety of what is contained within it.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I’ve never said any of these things either, yet other less rational atheists do, and do you see how your comment shows that you don’t like being lumped in with them? Well we religious people don’t like it either.
Also, see now, you’re getting the hang of it. Your 10:26 posts has three perfectly reasonable objections and can be answered (even though I’ve never said any of them–you see how this can work two ways?).
To #1 I would say, who says that, what do you mean by “a perfect model of the universe, physically, morally or what and which book, or what verse are you talking about, does it really make that claim?” To # 3 I’d say that Jewish and Christian Scriptures never talks about aliens-can’t help you there. To # 2, I’d first ask if you were talking about the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. If so, I’d have to get into a long reconstruction here of the four theological senses of Scripture as the Catholic Church teaches and even though the a) literal sense implies “round” (it could be poetic but we have to understand the author’s intent, writing as he was at the time, his style, etc, the b) spiritual, c) moral and d) anagogical senses say that what God is trying to teach us through this Scripture is not that the earth is flat like a pie crust but that He created it, and loves us, and wants to spend forever with us. And I’ve not even MADE the argument, I’m just telling you how it goes.
But did you really want all that when you say, “tooth fairy” or “your God is a lie?”
You see how the flowchart goes here? I trust you’re beginning to see why believers react to “just cracks” about faith. To seriously argue it takes lots of time and effort, and yes, believing that you and the other person is the discussion will actually get some benefit out of the mutual discussion. Not worth it otherwise.
Hence the objections to people who clearly by their tone are not interested in serious discussion about serious matters, but just want to ridicule and reduce to absurdity serious theological questions. Whether or not we owe a Creator trust and love, and where we came from and where we go, if anywhere, after we die may not be a serious matter to you but it is to believers.
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 10:45 AM
=
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I think we can all agree that there is a truth, i.e, a single truth. The real argument always is ‘what is truth?’ Theological liberalism, i.e, ‘each has their own one truth’ is a surrender to lies, period. If it is a one truth it is singular and absolute and there is nothing aside from it. If we are humble and admit our own failure to grasp it then we need not have any kind of theological liberalism; we need only say, “There is one truth, even though in my limitations I do not grasp it.”
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 10:57 AM
You have completely missed my point. Though I do appreciate your snide condescension.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I prefer Darth Benedict myself, but I can’t say that I hate the man, I’m just not catholic.
Oh, and for those of you who don’t mind sacrilege if God wasn’t male, how did he knock up Mary?
…
I am so going to hell for that…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Are you talking to me? If so, I’m sorry I missed your point and would appreciate knowing what your point was.
I respectfully suggest (again, if you were talking to me) that you are perhaps projecting a bit re: my tone. I wasn’t trying to be snide or condescending; I’m sorry it appeared that way to you. I was trying to show you that reasonable objections CAN be answered but also why believers prefer not to spend the significant time required answering serious theological questions, to respond to insulting and “appeal to ridicule” statements by those who don’t agree.
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Well, there you go. Struck down before his time. Shows what the deity thinks of this freaky deaky theory.
PattyJ on April 16, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I am right there with you in this credo. I’m not sure, though, that all modern physicists would agree. But that’s another kettle of horsefeathers.
mikeyboss on April 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM
So, let me get this straight. We men have insisted on seeing god the Father as a male in order to impose our views on abortion and homosexuality on women and the populace at large. I think the author has read the DaVinci Code too many times.
gwelf on April 16, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Are you Obama’s apology writer?
Unfortunately the answer is always “It’s Magic!”.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 11:26 AM
How about: beyond gender?
This is part of the reason why organized religion and i don’t get along. The church doesn’t accept God as a non-gendered higher power and I don’t accept God as He or She, (The Gawdess, which is just as stoopid).
However, I have alot more trouble with atheism than giving God a gender.
Christine on April 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” — Thomas Jefferson
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 11:45 AM
“The foolish reject what they see and not what they think; the wise reject what they think and not what they see.” — Huang Po
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Did huffpo report on this? A year after Imus was targeted and hit by MMFA they are back at it again. Different names same faces. Imus supports McCain coincidence? I doubt it seriously people should take a look at all the folks who are not falling in line with big pharma over the autism act in Congress Lieberman, McCain Santorum was supporting legislation to look into the causes of Autism. Hillary Clinton was a big proponent of Childhood vacines when she was first lady you know her experience.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/04/15/soros-s-political-hit-man-brock-takes-aim-mccain
Dr Evil on April 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Christine,
Sydney Carton addressed this yesterday:
mikeyboss on April 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
There you go again.” –Ronald Reagan
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I’m glad you learned a new word and can use it in a sentence. Unfortunately, I don’t think it applies as theism in essence is belief in the mystical. Superbeings in other dimensions that perform miracles not bound by the physical laws of the Universe. Magic.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I have not encountered a specific teaching in Orthodoxy about this other than that it is impossible for God to be gendered in the sense that we are. God is beyond knowing, and if anything our genderedness is a reflection of the archetypes of male and female (as I noted before) since God is one and the source of all life those archetypes must have their source in him (since he is not two.) That being said ‘it’ depersonalizes God who is personal (and impersonal at the same time) so we are stuck with a conundrum. We follow faithfully the tradition of our Fathers who call God Father, and don’t take that to mean God is equipped, if you know what I mean.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Also, magic does not exist in the sense of ’supernatural’ – I do not hold that the natural law is a law in the sense that God is bound to it; God is beyond necessity. However, since God reveals that he is Reason we know that he does things for a purpose, and with an order. God is not capricious – and the fact that we are able to comprehend order indicates that there is also an order to comprehend. The totality of it may be beyond us either entirely or for now, but it is real. Miracles are not supernatural in the sense of ‘breaking natural law’ but rather a manifestation of God’s will, just as the rest of creation is. ‘Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.’ If all things are a result in some way either directly or indirectly of God’s will, then we know that a miracle or what appears magical or beyond material rationality is simply another manifestation of God’s will.
Of course, the key to understanding this is that God’s will is not the only will; each of us has our own will that is an image of God’s. This is common-sensical and we experience it every time we make a decision.
So this is probably the simplest and most reasonable explanation of all things; though it obviously leaves out the details – and the research necessary to discern the different levels of order and their specific purposes.
Thus you can hold that God is indeed all-powerful without holding that the operation of the universe is random and capricious and not discernible. God does not suspend natural law to do the miraculous; what we call natural law is simply another part of the bigger thing, that is the will of God.
’supernatural’ as used is a misnomer; what we see is either beneath the natural or natural. If there are supernatural things I would say that we have imagined them but not witnessed them. But I can not say that for sure, either.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I can’t imagine that Huffpo cares about God’s gender status. They just saw it as a good avenue of attack on the Church and believers. Thought they’d throw a hot button issue out there and see how many people in basic agreement would go at each other’s throats. It also continues to unmask the odd troll.
snaggletoothie on April 16, 2008 at 1:02 PM
ronsfi, all of those arguments presuppose that God is bound by some kind of necessity. He is not.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM
LOL! Well, at least you explained yourself; was beginning to, seriously and not in a snide way, wonder if you understood logic at all. Not sure what you mean by “mystical” but by definition, if something “supernatural” does exist, it means that it is above the laws of nature. No, that’s not a circular argument for God’s existence. I’m just saying that if a supernatural being does exist then being able to supersede the laws of nature on occasion isn’t such an unbelievable thing.
But, as with all these arguments, there’s nothing new under the sun and in my experience atheists tend to talk as if that their objections to the existence of God have only just occurred to the world in the last 100 years or so. Most atheists I’ve encountered have read extensively of atheist authors, and some more recent arguments but I’ve yet to see one who’s read a lot of Thomas Aquinas (to take one example) and can make a logical and well thought out response.
Anyway, you claim to want theological argument but your posts contradict you. Anytime I bring up a theological response your response is, “it’s magic!” or whining, “you’re being snide and condescending!”
Did you think I wouldn’t notice that you had no cogent response whatever to my questions back to you on what I called your very reasonable objections? (Or BTW that despite my request, you never specified what “point” you were making that you claim I missed?)
So no. You don’t want theological responses. Ridiculously, you claim I never actually discuss religion on these threads; making me wonder what else you missed and, frankly, making it hard to take you seriously at all: “I win you should fall down like you’re dead cause I shot you ten times already!!eleventy!!”
BTW, speaking of “magic,” I noticed that you also never answered Opus’ theological question to Oliver: “wellll, what happened before the Big Bang?” Got a better answer for Opus [who was claiming there was a God who caused it] than Oliver did?
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 1:20 PM
What is your evidence of this claim?
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Same thing that happened before God.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 1:39 PM
The existence of natural order, free will, and miraculous events simultaneously.
For will to be truly free it must be, within its constraints of operation, free of necessity.
I am not forced to think about cheese, but I may decide to. I may decide to spend all of my time thinking about cheese. That still does not mean that I am by some mechanistic rule compelled to do so.
If God is the explanation for that which is beyond all things and the source of all of them, and the reason for them, then this God must be beyond all constraints that we can conceive of.
This conception is testified to variously by those who have witnessed or experienced him. Their language often lacks the acuity to explain this, but their stories told in aggregate point to this truth.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
These were just Examples of outrageous claims I have come across. You treat them as my assertions there for the paragraph below amounts to nothing more than a straw man besides being far to obtuse for me to glean any cogent point. One might say you’re being too cute by half.
To #1 I would say, who says that, what do you mean by “a perfect model of the universe, physically, morally or what and which book, or what verse are you talking about, does it really make that claim?” To # 3 I’d say that Jewish and Christian Scriptures never talks about aliens-can’t help you there. To # 2, I’d first ask if you were talking about the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. If so, I’d have to get into a long reconstruction here of the four theological senses of Scripture as the Catholic Church teaches and even though the a) literal sense implies “round” (it could be poetic but we have to understand the author’s intent, writing as he was at the time, his style, etc, the b) spiritual, c) moral and d) anagogical senses say that what God is trying to teach us through this Scripture is not that the earth is flat like a pie crust but that He created it, and loves us, and wants to spend forever with us. And I’ve not even MADE the argument, I’m just telling you how it goes.
“He created it, and loves us, and wants to spend forever with us.”
Now that is an outrageous, unsupported claim.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM
What is before God? God. This is the definition of eternal, having no beginning or end.
In fact, in the book of John in the Greek the language for ‘And the Word was with God’ – with is an unusual ‘pros ton’ meaning (as far as I can tell) among and towards, both with and before, that is, God is before himself.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Maybe it’s just me, but Papa Ratzi looks scary. Put his face on the post office wall and you’d swear he’s wanted in an ax murder.
NNtrancer on April 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Then he is of no use to the concept of the Universe, being so meaningless, and is therefore unnecessary to whole Cosmological model and so according to Occam’s Razor should be removed from the equation.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Ahhhh yes, religious arguments…..these are always fun and they never get messy at all….as this thread clearly shows….I wish I knew more about religion…you would think going to christian school from kindergarten all the way through college would have given me a good background but in a way it turned me away from it. I still consider myself a christian but every once in awhile I have my doubts about religion…I think that is normal though
SoCalInfidel on April 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Except, he won’t let us.
Pain in the ass, ain’t it?
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Then I can say the Cosmos has no beginning or end.
So your God is not God of the Bible who made us in his image? Instead he is some undefinable variable that can take on any form needed to suit your argument.
Again, many extraordinary claims, 0 evidence.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Also, if he is the source of all things, then his imprint exists in them; and so does his reason. Therefore why things happen in the Universe is inextricably tied in with questions about God – either generally or specifically. What testifies to this is that scientific development halted in the Islamic world because their conception of God prevented them from investigating the natural world with any kind of rigor.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Now you’re just making it up as you go along.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Actually, no. Time and Eternity are distinct but tied up with one another. I can not fault you for doubting this, after all those who discovered it were indeed those who experienced God. In fact the idea that the Cosmos has no beginning or end does not fit with the conception of God of have shown you; God is not his creation. Again, taken in aggregate the evidence of reality makes this clear.
If it is created than ‘from nothing comes nothing’ as they say, it will pass away. It has been shown that normal matter is unstable and eventually will break down. (Though it would be trillions of years, I think.)
Also, God’s ‘image’ does not mean ‘he has a face’ or ‘he has literal arms and legs’. It is understood that three things distinguish the presence of his image (from the lack thereof) uniqueness, free will, and relation.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM
That’s a rich statement there, I think ‘improvising’ is a better term.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Actually, God is asexual.
Amy Proctor on April 16, 2008 at 2:17 PM
it is so funny arguing about something that no one was around to see millions of years ago. it is a never ending argument. I do know advances in astronomy and physics are giving us a better idea of what happenned in the past. it all comes down to faith in the end….As rodney king once said “cant we all just get along?”
SoCalInfidel on April 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »