At 10/27/09 03:53 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:
Anyway.... There really isn't any proof that God is male or female, well in the Bible I suppose sais God is the father and son, but yeah no one here is going to take what the Bible sais seriously anyway.
There really is no proof for God period. But for the purposes of what you're saying, I must whole-heartedly concur. There is no evidence for the sex of God other then a book written by men, and there's ample evidence this was a continuation of the obliteration of Matriachal (female/mother based) religious worship and a turn to Patriarchal (male/father based) religious worship. If you want one sex to be viewed socially as superior to another, the easiest way to do it is to a) personify your deity as the "superior" sex and then b) have all religious writings that represent to be the accurate words of said deity purport this desired "superior" sex to in fact be superior. Very simple and crafty stuff that works on people who didn't know any better, or still don't know any better.
The reason why I myself call God him/he is because I'm male and I feel more comfortable calling "him" that because it seems a bit disrespectful to call him "it", just like a woman may call God her/she.
But most women won't because again, they've been socialized and taught that God is male. The role of "Father and Son" can only be occupied by a male. The idea for Christians that Jesus was both the son and living avatar of God further ingrains that God is male (or at least finds the male shape to be more "correct" and desirable). So to me, it's propaganda. I would have to think a superior being would not be able to be pigeonholed into one sex or the other, why would it need that sort of limitation? Plus look at Angels, Angels are sexless, so if the first creations are sexless...why wouldn't the creator also be sexless?
Anyway to the inquisition part, does the fact that those people held the title of christianity make what they did right? Ofcourse not, and what does the Bible say about murder? So obviously those people were not acting by God's will but their own.
I would agree, but the problem is that according to the dogma involved, they WERE acting in God's will. Hey, the Catholic Pope (the office, not any one specific pope I'm referencing here) has it written in as a tenent of the faith that he is both infallible and can interpret the will of God, and if he decides to change the laws of the faith on Earth, God will honor them in heaven. So we now end up with why many people are so against organized religion, but maybe not necessarily the creator belief: The church has usurped the belief for their own benefit and used it as a tool to control and harm people.
just like an atheist could shoot up their schoon shout that God doesn't exist or something crazy like that, does that make a fair generalization to all atheists? Ofcourse not, so just because one person or group of people did something doesn't speak for a group of people,race,religion as a whole. It would be like if you said all black people ate chicken and kept concealed guns with them....... yeah I'm done lol.
I agree, but the problem with your example is that Atheists have no centralized organizing body. Atheists do not have a place where they congregate, and a system in place for their beliefs. The religious have churches of all shapes and stripes (ALL religions), they have preists and leaders, The Catholics have a country (yes yes, I know it's only a city, but it is a legal sovereign state). They have a system that claims to be able to interpret the will of their deity. They have PEOPLE who represent themselves in an OFFICIAL capacity as interpreters or messengers for their. They usurp the authority of their deity and they get people to follow them because of it.
Does that mean the main ideas of the religion are somehow wrong and bad? No, not necessarily, I think the starting point can be considered pure and not objectionable, but when it fell into the hands of the priesthoods and what not, it's now been corrupted and used for wrongness. It also makes the faith easier to attack then something like atheism, or a race. Because those groups did not create a system of leadership that represents and interprets their essential truths, they cannot be attacked in the same way. The faithful gave their authority on religious matters to the church, and if they don't like the results then it's high time to take that authority back.
