Category: philosophy/religion topics
Hi people!
Sometimes, I am very interested to religions, last times very often.
I was born, as Christian, but I have a different view.
Sometimes I feel, that people went to church not to find a pathway to
god, but only from habits.
And prayers now are, like some required recitated verses.
There are another ways for got, but not killing anothers. God is love, not
evilness.
I read in one book in English, that devil is creation of people (priests) to
get a face to badness.
Sorry for my terrible English.
And, I must say, that I belief little on magick, some people, which heals
another with energy. By myself is one god for every people.
But, why god must be male? What do You say, that there is also female
god, which loves us and there is male god of creation?
Warning, this is only my idea and We haven't same thinkings.
I often times tease that God is she, not he.
I tend to think of God not in a male female form, but a spirit.
I agree with the one God, just that people have different names, or titles for God.
I also agree God is love, not the raftful God.
I'd say Wayne / Forereel is someone you can reliably talk to about this stuff. Many will tell you there's a difference between religion and spirituality. As to what god is or isn't, if that interests you, at least you're thinking about it.
Yes, I'd agree. They are not the same at all.
As to talking to me, I'm not like other relitious people. I don't subscribe to the God most do I'd say.
I think people try to put God in a box, or a set from of rules, but if God is all things, or what have you, how can that be done?
The idea that God is a he or she, when a baby needs both guiding parents to become and grow well.
I don't mean they must be a family, I'm not going from that angle, just that at this time it requires both to make a child.
But, if we are talking God, then we need a mother and a father.
So, why does God need to be either?
I disagrree. I believe that God is male gender, and believe He sent His Son to die on the cross, and be raised on the third day. I'm not telling you what to believe, just telling you what I believe.
I have a way of thinking. If you believe something, you shouldn't be ashamed to express what you believe. Don't push it, but if someone asks, don't be scared to answer. I fought making a choice, because, people as in my stepdad, tried to say I shouldn't do this or that. He said that going to church takes family time away. I found that church can be just as welcoming and caring as family.
One thing bothering me, is some people that don't give up, even when you say:
"No thanks. I already go to church."
They claim their help comes with no price. If that's true, I'll drive truck for the next year. You ask them to go away, and not come back, and 2 weeks later, their "Missionaries," knock on my door.
If someone's not interested in what I have to say, I don't push the topic. What's the point of making someone feel pressured?
So, there it is. That's what I believe, and I made the choice myself. That's what makes me satisfied. Nobody said I had to. I wanted to go the way I'm going, and to the kind of church I attend.
Blessings,
Sarah
God died on the cross for all our sins (there is a reason why they say he) and that is because He is male. You never hear Christians talking about God as "she" because that would be incorrect.
Some religions do claim a female God. The Jewish Christian God emerged in a patriarchal culture. In cultures less patriarchal, the feminine is revered allowing a female God or Goddess to emerge.
I've been read the "god's coming back and she..." As a kid I thought they were funny. Now that I'm a "she," I'm so glad I believe in a male God!
I also know the Greeks have somefemale figures/gods they believe in. Being an adult, I'd like to research the personalities of them, cause I'm curious about weird stuff like trying to figure out the kind of gods others believe in.
Blessings,
Sarah
Jesus was male. Jesus was the son.
Couldn't she have sent her son?
Catholics believe that Mary birthed Jesus and they also refer to Her.
So, if you believe Jesus, a male died on the cross, that would be correct, but God doesn't need to be male, nor female for that matter.
But, okay, as you wish.
I probably won't be describing my daughter's stance correctly here.
But, she is definitely Christian although liberal Christian as she says. She says the god has no gender, or the spirit of the god has no gender.
The stalwart evangelical may contest her right to call herself Christian. But aside from those, yes, there is at least one Christian who claims the god is not necessarily a he. or in her words the spirit of god has no genders.
Humans have fought over this before: In the middle ages men argued over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They weren't arguing if it could be o1, 2, 25, or `100. They were arguing whether it was a fixed number or infinite. That was their real argument, much as we have mistakenly contrived it to be argumentum absurdum these days.
So today I guess the argument is whether or not the god has a gender.
What intrigues me is this: The most ardent evangelical circles are not merely populated by a pack of "misogynist" cave dwelling men. No, in fact, most of the most hard-liner churches are much more populated by women than men. One could argue the reasons, Stockholm syndrome and the like. But if you've ever been on the inside of one of these places, you'll notice that while the constitutional monark must legally possess XY chromosomes, much of the decision making, and many complaints that get raised, comes from the female demographic. The majority.
And yet they maintain the Jewish patriarch deity.
Perhaps it's the similar conundrum of the Jewish patriarchal matrilineal structure of Judaism where the Jew by birth is only so if their mother was a Jew, but by institutional structure it is the men who (officially) run things.
I don't actually know of course.
But to those who say all Christians claim a male-specific deity, I know of one who does not.
Now the one argument I did hear for a male Christian god was this: God could present as either, but chooses to do so as a male. Because according to Christianity, we aren't part of the god, but its creations. Consequently, humans would get confused if the deity was female. Because while both a male and female deity could create with their "hands", only a female could procreate, and according to Christian tradition, we are not "little gods" but creations. So to make the matter clear, the deity presented as male.
This was an argument that circulated in the 90s.
Admittedly, that's a reasoned explanation, not a "divine command theory" explanation, as some of our other posters have presented here.
I wouldn't say there was an argument, or debate.
It is just a concept that some have like myself.
God doesn't need a gender if you think of God being in all things male female.
Humans are comfortable giving things gender when actually everything has no gender at all.
Like storms,, we have to have female or male.
Smile.
Leo, just to point something out, the Jews had Prophetesses, too. I cannot remember a name right now. But, I remember one from the Old Testament.
The thought of God not having a gender, I find confusing. That's just me. And, Mary was a female human. Catholisism was brought about by a Roman Emporer. He did it to bring pegan beliefs to be mixed with Christian beliefs. Christians were told to renounce Christ and follow this jumbled mixture, or they would die. Frankly, I'd rather die, than try to be told what to believe. Catholosism was a "State Religion." And, I'm for the freedom to believe in what you choose to. Not what you're told to.
On the other hand, Christians have made some similar mistakes with other peoples. Forcing a faith or belief, or a non-belief on someone is a bit wrong, to me. Andd, I'm not saying I know everything. Just stuff I remember learning in Historical studying..
Just some thoughts.
Blessings,
Sarah
I've never thought it was possible to force someone to believe anything. Most of us could probably be coerced into prostrating ourselves and begging God for forgiveness. That's behavior, not belief.
When I said there seems to be a debate, I do not mean a fight, or even necessarily a civil debate in contest as we've seen in recent decades between Creationist literalists and the rest of us.
I'm just going to hazard a guess here, however.
Just like the "angels on the head of a pin" was not about a specific number, but finite vs. infinite. I imagine probably this discussion between the two camps may be based on whether a deity's gender matters, or whether it does not.
I'm not sure Sarah's claim for or against enforcement of beliefs has anything to do with the discussion, it's merely two groups attempting to sort something out.
And Sarah, as to your claim that Catholics are not Christian, I'm afraid the evangelical leaders have long since left you behind on this one. After all, your pro-life anti-abortion doctrine is distinctly Catholic in nature. This was a political decision in the 1970s to gain Catholic support for the Republican Party, and to mobilize the evangelical masses who beforehand had crossed the political spectrum based on more naturally developed factors like social and economic status, alliances with different sectors in society, and so forth.
The pro-life and anti-birth-control stance is very near and dear to the Catholic position. Otherwise, the Catholic would not side with the Republican because there are enough other ideological differences to keep them separate.
In short, The Family and other evangelical Powers in Washington, D.C. have long since abandoned Luther's position that Catholics were not Christians.
You are, of course, correct about the Emperor Constantine. Although the record is not clear whether he converted before or after the unification of the church. I think it's imprudent for either the evangelical apologist or the Dan Brown supporter to definitively declare his motives for conversion. But you have to consider that before universal religions like Christianity, religions were always linked to empire. Well, they still are, for the most part. Islam is not now, but that is only because the Ottomans were defeated in World War I.
Anyhow, consider that Christianity was severed into many factgions and using many books, a great deal of which you would probably find offensive. So to unify would mean the Roman State would be able to do what states do best: count, control, tax, and publish propaganda. But you would have a difficult time finding what you call the "true Christians" from that time period. It was the Catholic monks who codified the texts and compiled the list you now use.
And today we have another empire, that of the evangelicals, who also have sold themselves for votes and money, adopting positions they formerly did not hold, such as the hardest pro-life positions, and the notion that Jesus was a free market capitalist. Never mind that a majority of fertilized ova are spontaneously aborted without incident in humans and other species. And never mind that all of us who exercise the free market and strive for it to prosper, by doing so violate your Jesus' principles on a daily basis without even the slightest stirring of conscience. And I mean many of your evanglelical leaders, as well as atheists like I am. I don't say this in judgment, after all I think Adam Smith and Thomas Payne were right on the money with a great many things.
Catholics are for sure Christians. Some of Christian churches are based in the Catholics mold they should probably just be.
For that exact statement is why I am no longer willing to call myself Christian.
Christians don't have unity, and they are suppose to.
But, that is a different subject.
Christians do have unity; you just have to find it. It's definitely out there though. (I say this because my church welcomes anyone) and I know there are others in the world who do the same.
But that is "your church."
Christians are suppose to welcome other Christians no matter what church they come from.
This is not done.
I was a church musician for years, and we'd not be invited to specific churches for different reasons.
Sometiimes we'd go, but not be treated well.