The "I just don't get it thread".
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
So, given that, what gender is God?TANGODANCER wrote:I'm for folk believing what they like. I expect the same privilege in return. I'm a Catholic and believe in the Bible. It says:
Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
I'll stick with that.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
Just help you brush up on Queer Theory... here's a reading list... No need to thank me...Bijou Bob wrote:Aaaaaaand now apparently it's LGBT....Q. Queer is no longer the verbal slur it one was and some people like to identify themselves as 'Queer'. Whether they have any more idea than me what it means is a complete mystery.
http://www.critical-theory.com/20-must- ... ory-books/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The article entitled Queer Theory and Native Studies:The Heteronormativity of Settler Colonialism looks particularly enticing.
Last edited by William the White on Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 19597
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: N Wales, but close enough to Chester I can pretend I'm in England
- Contact:
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
"He created them" ... so go on. Take a wild stab Willy.William the White wrote:So, given that, what gender is God?TANGODANCER wrote:I'm for folk believing what they like. I expect the same privilege in return. I'm a Catholic and believe in the Bible. It says:
Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
I'll stick with that.
Not advocating mass-murder as an entirely positive experience, of course, but it had its moments.
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
Well, on the information provided so far - looks like (s)he is both.bobo the clown wrote:"He created them" ... so go on. Take a wild stab Willy.William the White wrote:So, given that, what gender is God?TANGODANCER wrote:I'm for folk believing what they like. I expect the same privilege in return. I'm a Catholic and believe in the Bible. It says:
Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
I'll stick with that.
Did I get it right?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32580
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
So he created mankind in HIS own image...
Doesn't seem to be that difficult
Doesn't seem to be that difficult
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
^ that sounds a little bit more like a god created in human image!!!
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
My difficulty is that HE seems to have created both in his own image.Worthy4England wrote: So he created mankind in HIS own image...
Doesn't seem to be that difficult
Gender bender!
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43293
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
Well, see Will, God is the creator. Man/woman are not, so they need two seperate entities to come together to create life, ie man and woman. So God created the two seperate entities. As Creator no definition is needed for God, but we have to start somewhere so we do that with the Bible and all that has gone before to compile it. It says as I quoted, "i n his own image he created" What you choose to believe beyond that is also as I quoted. Me, I'm not clever enough to know.William the White wrote:So, given that, what gender is God?TANGODANCER wrote:I'm for folk believing what they like. I expect the same privilege in return. I'm a Catholic and believe in the Bible. It says:
Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
I'll stick with that.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
hmmm... given that you say God doesn't need gender - why give God a gender?TANGODANCER wrote: Well, see Will, God is the creator. Man/woman are not, so they need two seperate entities to come together to create life, ie man and woman. So God created the two seperate entities. As Creator no definition is needed for God, but we have to start somewhere so we do that with the Bible and all that has gone before to compile it. It says as I quoted, "i n his own image he created" What you choose to believe beyond that is also as I quoted. Me, I'm not clever enough to know.
as I said - giving God gender is creating God in human image - which is backwards to what you were claiming - that God created humans in God's image...
personally I don't think the word often translated as "image" has anything whatsoever to do with gender.
as for letting people believe what they like - I applaud your sentiment, that's great - except I wouldn't take lessons from the Catholic church in that approach to life! letting people believe what they like is NOT the catholic church's bag...
(biblical language about God is fluid and varied - sometimes male, sometimes female - sometimes plural... I don't think it is faithful to the bible to insist on the maleness of God... nor does it really make sense...)
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43293
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
^ I'm quite happy for you to believe you know more than the Pope in the same way you know more than David Cameron and Neil Lennon.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32580
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
I'm not convinced image and gender are the same thing.William the White wrote:My difficulty is that HE seems to have created both in his own image.Worthy4England wrote: So he created mankind in HIS own image...
Doesn't seem to be that difficult
Gender bender!
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
i think you are certainly correct on that.Worthy4England wrote:I'm not convinced image and gender are the same thing.William the White wrote:My difficulty is that HE seems to have created both in his own image.Worthy4England wrote: So he created mankind in HIS own image...
Doesn't seem to be that difficult
Gender bender!
but how does it support your contention that God is male?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32580
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
This is good - sign of a decent University education.William the White wrote:i think you are certainly correct on that.Worthy4England wrote:I'm not convinced image and gender are the same thing.William the White wrote:My difficulty is that HE seems to have created both in his own image.Worthy4England wrote: So he created mankind in HIS own image...
Doesn't seem to be that difficult
Gender bender!
but how does it support your contention that God is male?
I'm not convinced I made a contention that God was male, I challenged your contention that he might not be from the text provided which I think gives many indications that God is male through use of words like he and his.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
Well, that's certainly strong evidence. But do elucidate further. When he made woman in his own image did he temporarily emasculate himself?Worthy4England wrote:This is good - sign of a decent University education.William the White wrote:i think you are certainly correct on that.Worthy4England wrote:I'm not convinced image and gender are the same thing.William the White wrote:My difficulty is that HE seems to have created both in his own image.Worthy4England wrote: So he created mankind in HIS own image...
Doesn't seem to be that difficult
Gender bender!
but how does it support your contention that God is male?
I'm not convinced I made a contention that God was male, I challenged your contention that he might not be from the text provided which I think gives many indications that God is male through use of words like he and his.
If not, how did he do it?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32580
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
I'm sure with your view of image abstraction, you'll have no problem if you set your mind to it!
Two arms, two legs, head, not quite enough ribs, moobs, facial hair (think he was old enough to be post HRT), proclivity to steal apples (which seems to have formed the basis for current divorce legislation)...how much more should there be?
Two arms, two legs, head, not quite enough ribs, moobs, facial hair (think he was old enough to be post HRT), proclivity to steal apples (which seems to have formed the basis for current divorce legislation)...how much more should there be?
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
TANGODANCER wrote:^ I'm quite happy for you to believe you know more than the Pope in the same way you know more than David Cameron and Neil Lennon.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
Jeff Lynne's ELO. That'll be ELO then?!
May the bridges I burn light your way
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
Has ELO been resurrected or summat?Bruce Rioja wrote:Jeff Lynne's ELO. That'll be ELO then?!
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
Yes. In a big way. I'm guessing other people have a stake in the simple use of ELO.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9125
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: The "I just don't get it thread".
Aye there's still loads of em just not the same lot. Still damn good mindLord Kangana wrote:Yes. In a big way. I'm guessing other people have a stake in the simple use of ELO.
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 130 guests