Topic awaiting preservation: The Emaculat Revelation (Page 1 of 3)

*DISCLAIMER.1.* This thread assumes the existence of God. It is not meant to debate whether or not God exists or not since that question cannot be answered. So please try avoid that question. However whether or not you believe in him if you would like to take the assumption that he does exist you are welcome to post.*
*DISCLAIMER.2.* This statement will make me sound like a chauvinistic pig. I am not (women and men can do all the same things and are completely equal) I am just stating what I believe can be a very well backed up statement.*

Now with that down here is the actual post:

GOD IS A MAN.
By the christian doctrine he must be a man. First off Jesus refers to Him as Him and he refers to Him as father all through the bible. Now that can be argued very well. But this next statement cannot.
The christian doctrine states that Jesus was created throught the emaculate conception between God and Mary. Correct?
If God was a woman than that would be a lesian relationship something the christian doctrine says is unholy and wrong/bad/imperfect.
Well if being a lesbian is all that then God someone the Christian doctrine sars is holu and right/good/perfect cannot be a lesbian therefor he has to be a man. Sorry feminists.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

I cannot find, for the life of me, a coherant point or a logical argument in your post.

You desperately need some serious work on your english (if it's not your first language, forgive me...).

question 1) That aside, tell me what christian 'doctrine' has to do with anything. What specifically constitutes this 'doctrine' that defines homosexuality as wrong?

question 2) what does lesbianism have to do with the conception of a child?

This is a gigantic flaw in your logic. If we are talking immaculate conception, then I must assume that this skips the concept of sexual intercourse altogether.

Add to that the fact that lesbian sex cannot result in conception since there is no sperm present, and that leaves us nowhere.

Why could not god be female, and have simply chosen mary as teh vessel for a son, and simply deemed her to be pregnant? Is this not exactly what is considered the case, disregarding the gender of god?

How do you reconcile these holes in this 'theory' you have?

Finally - isn't it 'god' that determines things, and not christian 'doctrine'?



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-19-2004 03:35)

God is referred to as "him" to reinforce the allegory of God's relationship to mankind, i.e. that of a father-figure in an abstract, not physical, sense. So, for example: in a typical family the male and female have traditionally held "pre-ordained" roles, and the relationship that God has with mankind is most similar to the male's. Therefore: he.

I'd assume that God has no physical form, nor gender.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

quote:

---

So please try avoid that question.

---

Thanks for ruining my fun :P

- James
Google Boards | Great Big Blog

quote:

---

I cannot find, for the life of me,

---

Thank you for that.... I was just about to check myself in... =)

Hmmm..., I would chime in but..., I'm too confused as to the purpose of this topic. Normally I would say it was flamebait, but it doesnt even have the level of coherency necessary to rile anyone.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Ok, I think I know what Sangreal is trying to say here. He is trying to say that God the Father is not God the Mother. He is trying to say the God is a He (masculine qualities) and not a She (as some have grossly misenterpreted). I don't really think Sangreal is refering to God as a human being, just as a He. Does that help?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

What specifically constitutes this 'doctrine' that defines homosexuality as
wrong?

---

I can quote from the Bible about ten verses from Paul (he talks about it in almost all his letters) and several from the Gospels, and many from the books of law. Maybe not doctrine, but God's Words, yes.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

what does lesbianism have to do with the conception of a child?

---

Absolutely nothing, that is his point. Lesbianism does not produce a child, therefore, Lesbianism could not have produced Jesus.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Why could not god be female, and have simply chosen mary as teh vessel
for a
son, and simply deemed her to be pregnant? Is this not exactly what is
considered the case, disregarding the gender of god?

---

Well, two reasons:
1.) Again, as Sangreal pointed out, God is a "Father" and not a "Mother" because Jesus refered to Him as such.
2.) In the Bible it says that the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary. There was no sexual intercourse since that is a sinful act, but there was an embodiment of God inside of Mary. From that point when the Holy Spirit was in Her until Jesus was born, and then again when Jesus saved her. With God's Spirit actually being inside of her, He actually planted Jesus as a child inside of her. It was probably a very interesting experience.

(I would have loved to have seen Joseph's face when Mary told him that she was pregnant with God's son )

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Absolutely nothing, that is his point. Lesbianism does not produce a child, therefore, Lesbianism could not have produced Jesus.

---

That wasn't his point (or atleast he made no representation of that being his point...). His point was that lesbian sex was 'wrong', and therefore god wouldn't have done it.

Again - are we saying that god is not above the human concept of sexual reproduction?
Because lesbian sex does not produce a child, a female god could not have conceived a child inside whomever she chose?

And why does god even need to be a specific gender? With all the other things that you people assign to god, and justify by simply saying that god's logic and scope of being is beynd our understanding, is it so much of a leap to say that god is not defined by our concept of gender?


Don't get me wrong - I really don't care what gender anyone chooses to assign to their deities..

but the argument just doesn't hold here.

Ok, Gideon, what is your view of homosexuality, then? And what "sex" is your "god"? And please describe how Mary got pregnant. And why is sex a sinful act?

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Paul (he talks about it in almost all his letters)

---

Maybe he should have gotten a hobby, apparently he was obsessed with homosexuality. Do you think he was masking some inner tendencies or fantsies with "judgement"?

And I often wonder what it was like to live in the time when the bible was written. I wonder if any of the authors fancied rye bread. I know keeping food from spoiling was often an issue. And of course we all know what comes from rye mold, right?

So maybe these guys had a few moldy rye sandwiches and decided to write.

I wonder what it would be like to be a maggot on that cheese sandwich, eh?

Oops, maggots dont have eyes...

Oh, I meant a "fly on the wall".

Do flies have ears?

I wonder what people sound like to flies. I guess that ... huh I was gonna say colloquialism but it doesnt really fit. I mean it certainly is informal speech or in this case writing but I am not sure the word was meant to be used that way...

hmmm metaphor?

Oh well, I'm gonna go see if blaise is still toasting on Suho's thing-a-ma-bob...

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

cfb wrote:

I'd assume that God has no physical form, nor gender.

---

But man was made in God's image.

quote:

---

Gideon wrote:

I can quote from the Bible about ten verses from Paul (he talks about it in almost all his letters)... Maybe not doctrine, but God's Words, yes.

---

No, those are Paul's words.

quote:

---

But man was made in God's image.

---

Again, a problem with interpretation, or a difference of interpretation. "God's image" is such an equivocal phrase. It could mean: God's physical image, God's emotional image, God's intellectual image, God's spiritual image, God's capacity of thought, God's capacity of free will.

But, considering the fact (theory, in reality. We're assuming the existence of God in this thread) that man was constructed, or evolved; it seems logical that man was not created in God's physical image, if God has a physical image.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

quote:

---

that man was constructed, or evolved; it seems logical that man was not created in God's physical image,

---

Not at all.

If we're assuming the existence of god, then god having 'created man' could mean any variety of things.

The enrire process of evolution could be summed up as the process of god creating man.

God could very well have created 'man' in his image, and what god would therefore look like would depend on what point in evolution man was considered 'created'.

Perhaps god is nothing more than an amino acid...

Of course, realistically, the story of man being created in god's image is nothing more than some simple self-aggrandizment on the part of humankind.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

1.) Again, as Sangreal pointed out, God is a "Father" and not a "Mother" because
Jesus refered to Him as such.

---

Not to fuck ants here Gideon but the stories from the Bible have been told and re-told, translated and re-translated, and changed and changed again so many times over I don't know how strong of an argument that is.

I don't know how reliable you would consider a story someone told you from a friend of a friend of a friend ... well you get the point. With 2000 years of extreme change in the Bible it seems a bit silly to be inflexible over wording.

That, and the fact that the bible was never meant to be taken 100% literally. I mean, Hinduism's scriptures and Judaism's scriptures were jammed full of metaphors. I don't understand why some Christians have a hard time accepting that their scripture was metaphoric, as well.

quote:

---

Not at all.

If we're assuming the existence of god, then god having 'created man' could mean any variety of things.

The enrire process of evolution could be summed up as the process of god creating man.

---

I agree with this, actually - I "believe" in the process of evolution, and that God's creation of mankind was metaphorical. However, this thread, as Sangreal stated, assumes the existence of God and, from the original post, the theory that man was literally "created" by God.

quote:

---

Of course, realistically, the story of man being created in god's image is nothing more than some simple self-aggrandizment on the part of humankind.

---

Again, agreed.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

assuming, assuming

man was created in god's image
god is the real thing, man is just a mirror
. . . shades of flatland

quote:

---

Sorry feminists.

---

i'm not sure if this is an apology or a nose thummin'

quote:

---

from theotherside.org

The creation story begins by affirming that God is neither male nor female, but both. The first chapter of Genesis emphasizes that both male and female are made in the image of the creator God. Both are equally created in the divine image of one supreme Being--who therefore must be understood to encompass both maleness and femaleness and everything in between. According to scholars of Genesis, the original creature was adam, an earth creature who was both male and female. It was only in response to adam's need for companionship that God put adam into a deep sleep to divide the creature into what we now understand as male and female.

Regarding gender inclusion in Scripture, perhaps the best example is that of the eunuch, a term that refers to castrated men or to people who are unable to have children. By modern understanding, the term includes intersexuals and post-operative transsexuals and symbolically includes homosexuals and celibates.
In ancient Israel, eunuchs were excluded from the temple--and thus from the assembly of God's people (Deut. 23:1). But the prophet Isaiah reverses that legislation, proclaiming inclusion and offering to faithful eunuchs "a monument and a name better than sons and daughters" (56:4-5).
Jesus also spoke well of eunuchs in his discourse on marriage and divorce, classifying people who do not marry as either "so from birth," or "made eunuchs by others," or those who "made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:12). This movement toward acceptance is capped by Acts 8:26-40, where a eunuch from Ethiopia is baptized into the new covenant community of Jews who are disciples of Jesus. This eunuch, symbolizing the community of ostracized sexual minorities, is among the first of the outcasts from ancient Israel to be welcomed into Jesus' discipleship of equals.
Jesus, whom Paul refers to as the second adam, also defied gender norms. He didn't marry, although he had the religious obligation to do so at eighteen. He performed acts like cooking or washing the feet of his disciples--acts culturally assigned to wives or slaves, not to a free male, and certainly not to a rabbi.
Contemporary Christians need to embody this same daring biblical inclusiveness toward all people of faith. This would entail simply accepting people's gender presentation at face value, approaching everyone as the human equals they are, and relaxing about gender--our own and everyone else's.

---

quote:

---

outcydr said:

Jesus, whom Paul refers to as the second adam, also defied gender norms. He
didn't marry, although he had the religious obligation to do so at eighteen. He
performed acts like cooking or washing the feet of his disciples--acts
culturally assigned to wives or slaves, not to a free male, and certainly not to
a rabbi.Contemporary Christians need to embody this same daring biblical
inclusiveness toward all people of faith. This would entail simply accepting
people's gender presentation at face value, approaching everyone as the human
equals they are, and relaxing about gender--our own and everyone else's.

---

Blasphemer!

How dare you preach tolerance! Off to the North Tower!

Without your pills!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

I saw god, she was black...

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?Computer games don?t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we?d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.? (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.) }-

^

UnknownC:

quote:

---

I wonder if any of the authors fancied rye bread. I know keeping food from spoiling was often an issue. And of course we all know what comes from rye mold, right?

---

I think you've answered everything right there... don't know why I didn't see this before.

quote:

---

what comes from rye mold

---

Ergot!! LSD. ErGO: Religion is nothing but one big-ass halucination! Put'em all in rehab! =)

quote:

---

this thread, as Sangreal stated, assumes the existence of God and, from the original post, the theory that man was literally "created" by God.

---

Nope - just that god exists. the rest was up for debate.

And again - the idea that the process of evolution was god's process of creating man is not a metaphorical one. It's simply a way of stating that what we call evolution is the process god used to create man. Considering the power and longevity attributed to god, what to was an extraordinarily long process could be a simple "day's" work to god...

You know DL...sometimes I really wonder how you keep so calm...hehe.

quote:

---

Jestah said:

quote: Gideon said: 1.) Again, as Sangreal pointed out, God is a "Father" and not a "Mother" because Jesus refered to Him as such. Not to fuck ants here Gideon but the stories from the Bible have been told and re-told, translated and re-translated, and changed and changed again so many times over I don't know how strong of an argument that is. I don't know how reliable you would consider a story someone told you from a friend of a friend of a friend ... well you get the point. With 2000 years of extreme change in the Bible it seems a bit silly to be inflexible over wording.

---

well, the dead sea scrolls are dated from 200 BC to around 60-something AD and there's some other fairly old existing manuscripts as well. considering that there have been some modern translations done from older texts the bible we have is probably more accurate than most give it credit for. if you look at the overall consistency and tone of texts from a few dozen authors over several hundred years its actually pretty surprising. people also tend to quote things out of the bible with no regard to context and talk about it being *fill-in-derogatory-term-here* whereas it actually makes much more sense when read with respect to the audience and purpose.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 11-22-2004 08:12)

quote:

---

the idea that the process of evolution was god's process of creating man is not a metaphorical one. It's simply a way of stating that what we call evolution is the process god used to create man.

---

I'd just like to inject an idea here, though it may not fit entirely within the scope of this thread: Who then says the process is complete? Assuming the above statement is true, isn't it fair to say we have not yet reached our final stage of evolution, and therefore we do not yet reflect the image of God?

Rye for thought ...

[2cents_philosopher_mode]
Emaculate revelation or ejaculate conception, that is the question.
[/2cents_philosopher_mode]

quote:

---

Assuming the above statement is true, isn't it fair to say we have not yet reached our final stage of evolution, and therefore we do not yet reflect the image of God?

---

While in my personal view that is certainly a valid statement, I think in the context of a biblical view of things, the creation of man is stated in the past tense, and therefore would have to be complete at the time of writing.

To clarify, in case it's needed - my initial statement was made in the context of accepting biblical accounts, whereas my personal view is quite different.

Again this will sound chauvinistic, i am not.

quote:

---

Genesis emphasizes that both male and female are made in the image of the creator God.

---

Genesis states that God created Adam in his image. Eve was made from Adam's ribs not in image or duplication of God. Otherwise Eve would have been perfect and would not have tempted Adam to eat the apple.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

I think you take Dan Brown way too seriously.

Sangreal:
One of the preliminary requirements for understanding the Bible is that we learn to read what is written, as it is written, and not assume that it aligns or conforms with what we (or some "teacher") think it says.
adam - ha' adham, mankind, the ethnos, male and female, were created on the sixth day
adam - 'eth-ha' adham, THE (particular) man, through whose bloodline Christ Jesus would come, was created on the eighth day
the scriptural significance attached to the number eight being - new beginnings
i.e. - it was Jesus who brought us the NEW covenant

but, perhaps this is a deeper study than you are ready for.

When there is a discussion on the Bible why dicuss things that are not mentioned?
Unless ofcourse the can be harmonized with outside HOOPLA.

Outcydr,

God "rested" from creation beginning on the 7th day and that day has not ended for several times in scripture persons are invited to "enter God's rest".

If you are interested in knowing more just asked.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

What is your view of homosexuality

---

Same as the Bible's.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

what "sex" is your "god"?

---

He is a Father, I think that might help to explain things.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

describe how Mary got pregnant

---

The Holy Spirit came over her and she was miraculously with child. That is all there is in the Bible. Anything else I would say about it would meerly be pulling hairs out of thin air.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

why is sex a sinful act?

---

Do you want me to say that it is against one of God's commands, or try to explain His reasoning?

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:

Maybe he [Paul] should have gotten a hobby, apparently he was obsessed
with
homosexuality.

---

Not really. He commented on it in many of his letters, but that wasn't his major focus. His major focus was taking the Gospel to the Jews first, then the Gentiles.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The enrire [sic] process of evolution could be summed up as the process
of god
creating man.

---

Not really. If we are still taking what the Bible as truth and not tuning this into a Creation debate (if you have anything about this topic say it on that thread). The Bible makes it clear that God created man one the sixth of seven days (still this is according to the Bible, so please do not argue this on this thread). Meaning that God did create man in His image. I find it interesting that God didn't create woman in His image. He took woman from a rib in man's side. I wonder if that will shed any light on this thread.

Jestah-about the wording of the Bible. I take them as God's words. You may not, but the fact remains that not all of the Bible was spoken before written. It is actually the opposite. It was written then spoken. Pauls epistles are letters, not telephone calls.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

I don't understand why some Christians have a hard time accepting that
their scripture was metaphoric, as well.

---

Jesus' parables are metaphors; Jesus telling us to cut our eyes out if they do bad things is a lesson, but those are when Jesus was talking to the crowd. There are 100% literal parts of the Bible, 100% parables or lessons in the Bible, and there are images in the Bible. I just find it hard to believe that God would want to start the Torah (a book of History and Law) out with a picture of a Creation (History) that is not true, just to point out a few interesting points.

Outcrydr- That was an interesting quote you found. I enjoyed the last part about inclusion. That part hit me good. I agree that we (Christians) need to include people and not look down on them for: gender, skin color, ethnic background, etc. I know it is a hard thing, but God's Kingdom is about love, not division.

About Jesus doing "girl" things: that guy had it kinda mistaken, but if he wants to view things like that then so be it. I personally believe that Jesus did those things to prove a point, not to show that He was a girl too, but whatever.

quote:

---

DmS said:

I saw god, she was black...

---

You know, I saw a special on tv that focused on a church that believed Jesus was black.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

what to was an extraordinarily long process could be a simple "day's" work to
god

---

So God needs billions of years to create things? He is that weak? Hmmmm...
One other thing. If you want to say that the days are long, is the order correct, or is that wrong too? And the fact that using that theory means that each day was a different amount of time and completely unequal (billions of years on one and millions of years on another). That would also mean that God's seventh day hasn't ended yet...

quote:

---

Wes said:

Who then says the process is complete? Assuming the above statement is true,
isn't it fair to say we have not yet reached our final stage of evolution, and
therefore we do not yet reflect the image of God?

---

And that thought leads into Hinduism...

quote:

---

outcydr said:

adam - ha' adham, mankind, the ethnos, male and female, were
created on the sixth dayadam - 'eth-ha' adham, THE (particular) man,
through whose bloodline Christ Jesus would come, was created on the eighth
day

---

So are you saying that the Adam created on the Sixth day is not the same as the one on the Eighth day?

quote:

---

valpal1 said:

God "rested" from creation beginning on the 7th day and that day has not ended
for several times in scripture persons are invited to "enter God's rest".

---

So God is resting right now?

quote:

---

valpal1 said:

If you are interested in knowing more just asked.

---

Please tell.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

in answer:

quote:

---

So are you saying that the Adam created on the Sixth day is not the same as the one on the Eighth day?

---

yes. and if you will, note the words for created and formed. another even deeper word to study would be rib. think - rib - curve- dna. (hope that's not to much of a stretch!)

quote:

---

God "rested" from creation beginning on the 7th day and that day has not ended for several times in scripture persons are invited to "enter God's rest".

---

Hebrews 4: 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. [/quote]
chew on that meat

quote:

---

So God needs billions of years to create things? He is that weak? Hmmmm...
One other thing. If you want to say that the days are long, is the order correct, or is that wrong too? And the fact that using that theory means that each day was a different amount of time and completely unequal (billions of years on one and millions of years on another). That would also mean that God's seventh day hasn't ended yet...

---

Such measures of time are human conventions. How can you presume to say that god devoting such an amount of time (which is only long by our standards, not by "his") to a wonderous creation makes 'him' weak?
Must god make his creations in the blink of an eye for you to deem him powerful?
I don't understand this rationale at all. How can you possibly think to quantify the power of god?

I didn't say anything regarding his day of rest, nor did I about the 'days' being of different length, but I see no reason that either concept should be problematic.

As for the order - how does what I say have anything to do with changing the order of things? All I spoke of was that the 'days' in question need not be what we call a day now.

quote:

---

outcydr said:

(hope that's not to much of a stretch!)

---

Nah, it works for me.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Must god make his creations in the blink of an eye for you to deem him powerful?

---

Of course not. He can take all the time in the world because He has shown me that He is powerful in my own life. The thing is that saying He needs all that time to create something kinda looks like a limiter to me. I don't know what it says to you, but to me it means that God needs all that time to do something that big.

In the same argument, why couldn't He have made a world in one day?Doesn't He have the power to do that too?

As for the order of the days I was wondering if you would have anything to say now about that since God created the sun, moon, and stars after He created light. Even after He created vegitation.

Outcydr-thanks, I will definitly chew on those!

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:

Hmmm..., I would chime in but..., I'm too confused as to the purpose of this topic. Normally I would say it was flamebait, but it doesnt even have the level of coherency necessary to rile anyone

---

errr..., nevermind.

I guess one should never underestimate a persons need to be right, and to tell others how it is so...

Oh well..., on another note:
[ASIDE]

Anyone know how to make a drop shadow using css, dhtml, or would javascript be needed. I don't want to make a whole page of it, but maybe one set of letters that needs a little more POP!

If not a drop shadow, can html, css or js make text have an outline?

[/ASIDE]

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

The thing is that saying He needs all that time to create something kinda looks like a limiter to me. I don't know what it says to you, but to me it means that God needs all that time to do something that big.

---

And who are you to judge the implications of how long god takes to create what seems to be the 'grand finale' of his creations?

And again - just because to our limited human perception, millions of years seems very long, it obviously would not be to a being with the timelessness of 'god'.

A "timeless being" would essentially be everywhere at once (and everywhen), right? So, one day, one million days, they all make no difference, in that sense.

quote:

---

Gideon wrote:

As for the order of the days I was wondering if you would have anything to say now about that since God created the sun, moon, and stars after He created light. Even after He created vegitation.

---

He would have had to create light first. The sun (and moon and stars) would be nothing if light did not yet exist.

As for vegetation, scientists say that plants use sunlight for photosynthesis to grow, but who says they are right? God could make plants grow any way He wants to. And maybe he created photosynthesis after he created the plants.

Now, I don't believe any of this, but if we are going to go by the original premis of this topic, then these arguments are as valid as any other.