I go off habit. I try to say they, but it requires intention.
You could say ‘God’. It can sound a little awkward when it comes twice in a sentence, where we would normally use a subject pronoun, but it might (or might not) come more naturally to the vocal chords.
I do say God. I say a lot of other words, too. When I want to refer to Jesus as gender-neutral, I say Logos… but that’s usually not the reason why I’m calling him that.
I would like to participate on this topic too because it’s interesting to me but i’m having a hard time finding a point in the OP and comments thereafter.
What exactly are you trying to say about God @Socrates ?
Only by profit can anybody be fed, and the Catholic Church was, at least while it was still The Catholic Church, at the forefront of that effort.
This is out of idiosyncracy. Its aim is to represent God on earth.
Now, to you: since you are alive, I can only assume you have made money (profit) and not used it to procure food for children.
So what gives? Evil?
From the ‘language’ perspective.
No, it was clear to me that God had been the one thing that had always existed, until He created everything else.
I think this is incorrect doctrine, confusion that inevitably creeps in from millenia of holding together all religious thought, but no, it wasn’t difficult to understand at all as a child.
Yeah. I would spend hours asking questions and getting answers.
No. This was beyond me to formulate. It was just a feeling.
Because of your characterization of the Catholic Church, holier than thou and spiteful and arrogant. Not to mention ignorant.
That the Church pursued some mission other than what it professed.
Yeah, not the first time I come across this arrogance. Yes, I would say I’m pretty devout.
But this is different from claiming they were cynically pursuing something different than what they professed.
Do you mean, other than what I said?
Yes.
___________________________
If I think of anything to say other than what I’ve said, I’ll post it here or on another thread, so keep an eye out.
1 Like
An ability to create the Universe; All there is; Totality; or Everything, clearly.
And, the One and only thing that has ‘this ability’ is God, Itself, which, as I have already mentioned, God, in the physical form, is the Universe, Itself.
Furthermore, since God is said to be eternal, and the fact that the Universe, It-Self, is eternal, then this fits together perfectly. The Truth is God did not create the Universe all at once, once upon a time in the past, but is Creating the Universe - It Self - NOW. The Universe is IN Creation - ALWAYS - NOW. The Universe is in a constant state of change – alive and living – and through this evolutionary process Everything is Created, all at once, NOW. ‘In the beginning’ is NOW, and at every moment of NOW, the living God/Universe has Created It-Self - Everything - all at once, continually.
And your point is?
Are you ‘trying to’ justify the use of the anthropomorphic “he” here as well?
I am not sure if you are trying to make a point here or not.
Okay. I am not sure how attributing False claims/qualities to God is actually meaningful and useful, but if some people want to keep doing attributing False things, like God is “he”, then okay.
I agree, totally.
I would suggest that worshipping God as though It is a “he”, or has some kind of ‘personhood’ at all, is, and would be, Truly meaningless. However, ‘whorshipping’ the very Thing - the Universe, It Self - that Creates and provides Life could be something worthy of ‘worshipping’ (if worshipping is the Right word here).
The word “jesus” is ‘a name’ placed upon a male-gendered human body. The word ‘God’, however, is ‘a name’ placed upon some Thing that is NEITHER a male-gendered body NOR could even be any gender at all.
As 'greenfuse" just pointed and said;
Surely, in the days when this is being written, human beings had evolved enough to KNOW that still referring to God as a “he” is ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and Truly OUTDATED.
Does anyone else here agree that only by profit can anybody be fed?
I am not sure what you are asking here exactly.
What does the word ‘evil’ mean or refer to, to you, exactly?
So, to you, is calling God a “he” the Wrong word from the ‘language’ perspective also?
I am not sure what you are saying and meaning here.
And do all of those answers still hold true, to you?
Okay.
Could that ‘perception’ that ‘you’ have ‘me’ here be wrong or incorrect?
So, if someone has not yet read your words or heard you speak about “christianity” before or about ‘your devotion to “chrisitanity”,’ previously, then ‘that one’ you will call “arrogant” because they simply asked you a simple clarifying question about this, correct?
Why did you say, ‘cynically’, here?
Jesus referred to God as Father. … and he did not refer to the Holy Spirit as mother. I’m pretty sure you’re just gonna have to deal with that.
but there’s also this:
https://www.christian-thinktank.com/female_all.pdf (scroll to overview list… first one is semi-relevant)
and this:
Pasted/rearranged from Bing AI overview:
While God is fundamentally spirit and beyond gender (John 4:24), the Bible frequently uses feminine metaphors to describe God’s character and actions. Several passages emphasize God’s role in giving life and nurturing creation. For example, Deuteronomy 32:18 refers to God as the one who bore Israel, and God is depicted as a mother eagle carrying Israel on her wings (32:11-12). Isaiah portrays God as a nursing mother providing comfort and sustenance (49:15), and likens God’s comfort to that of a mother consoling her child (66:13). God is also compared to a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings, illustrating care and protection (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34). In the Wisdom literature, such as Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24, Wisdom is personified as a feminine figure, described as present with God before creation, guiding and sustaining humanity.
(Maryann/Ichthus77: This last part is associated with Logos here: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php.)
For the same reason this question is cynical.
I am not sure that ‘that’ is even something to be ‘dealt with’ or to ‘deal with’ from the outset. But anyway.
But, from the outset, the question was not and is not cynical.
Surely you can see that I was suggesting a way for her not to use a gendered pronoun, given that she does not think God is a ‘he’. She understood, in any case.
That was exactly what I saw, understood, and was agreeing with.
But then on the other hand yes it is.
From whose perspective?
The writer/speaker or the reader/listener?
Remember only one KNOWS the True intention and meaning. The other only THINKS they know.
From the perspective of what it is that the thing is.