"God Will no Longer be 'He' or 'Lord' in Sweden"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Attempting to anthropomorphize the concept of god is one of the many things that make religion so goofy.

If you've ever come across a god that isn't an anthropomorphism, I'd love to hear about it.

IMO, a god is a device used to put a relatable human face on the universe. That's the whole point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are incorrect. I am not making the assumption because God calls himself the Father. I am going by the scripture I listed in post #2. How do you know that Jesus referring to God as "he" is a limitation of language? You don't, your assuming that. I am not assuming anything. I am going by what Jesus said and taking his word for it. As far as I can tell God identifies as a male, considering how he allowed to be written in his book multiple times that way. Had God listed "she" or "they" I would be arguing for those pronouns instead of "he".

Father Heathern used "she" intentionally and multiple times I've seen him do this, instead of "he" God's preferred pronoun. According Bill C-16 in Canada that is a hate crime. Not that I am saying he should be arrested or fined or anything of the likes. Just saying that his train of thought is considered a hate crime.

Your interpretation of Canadian law seems pretty wonky, but that aside, as soon as God announces his preferred pronouns - not people who claim to speak for God, but actually God - I'll be more than happy to honour them.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you've ever come across a god that isn't an anthropomorphism, I'd love to hear about it.

No problem: deism, pantheism, panentheism, pandeism, panendeism, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No problem: deism, pantheism, panentheism, pandeism, panendeism, etc.

Those are all anthropomorphisms.

 

[Father Heathen]

Those are all anthropomorphisms.

What traits do you consider to be specifically human?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What traits do you consider to be specifically human?

Will, personality, relatability to humans, etc.

Another way of looking at it: the difference between pantheism's "the universe is God" and simply believing that the universe exists is entirely anthropomorphism of the universe.

 

[Liu]

Will, personality, relatability to humans, etc.

Another way of looking at it: the difference between pantheism's "the universe is God" and simply believing that the universe exists is entirely anthropomorphism of the universe.

Then you don't really know what pantheism is. I for one am pretty agnostic whether the something that I consider the universe to be a manifestation of has anything that could be considered personality or will in human terms. I call it a deity since it's the sum of all consciousness and since it's the underlying reality that creates everything we perceive. Sure you may call that a fancy kind of atheism, but I don't consider myself an atheist.

Of course I also use personifications, e.g. myths, to be able to better relate to (aspects of) it, but those are tools to make it easier comprehensible, not literal truths.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then you don't really know what pantheism is. I for one am pretty agnostic whether the something that I consider the universe to be a manifestation of has anything that could be considered personality or will in human terms. I call it a deity since it's the sum of all consciousness and since it's the underlying reality that creates everything we perceive. Sure you may call that a fancy kind of atheism, but I don't consider myself an atheist.

Of course I also use personifications, e.g. myths, to be able to better relate to (aspects of) it, but those are tools to make it easier comprehensible, not literal truths.

If you're saying that the universe is conscious, then I'm saying that you've anthropomorphized the universe.

 

[Liu]

If you're saying that the universe is conscious, then I'm saying that you've anthropomorphized the universe.

Why? Humans are far from the only thing that is conscious.
Also, I'm pretty agnostic regarding whether it's really conscious in any way similar to humans (i.e. as one coherent consciousness), and I doubt that it's self-aware.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why? Humans are far from the only thing that is conscious.

I sincerely doubt that you're relating to the universe as if it's a squid.

In any case, I was trying to speak more to personhood than it being like any particular species.

Also, I'm pretty agnostic regarding whether it's really conscious in any way similar to humans (i.e. as one coherent consciousness), and I doubt that it's self-aware.

So in what sense is it a god?

 

[Skwim]

True, they are not adding anything, but I think we are not to subtract anything either. So they are taking away His gender.

I don't think to many people would like it if we took a big eraser and erased their boy and girl parts making them gender neutral.

See post #5, which lists 13 Bible versions that regard god in gender-neutral terms.

.

 

[Enoch07]

Your interpretation of Canadian law seems pretty wonky, but that aside, as soon as God announces his preferred pronouns - not people who claim to speak for God, but actually God - I'll be more than happy to honour them.

That's why I said for Christians only. Because most Christians believe in the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity then when Jesus speaks, that is God speaking as well. So when Jesus uses male pronouns repeatedly. It is easy for Christians to make the connection.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why I said for Christians only. Because most Christians believe in the Trinity. If you believe in the Trinity then when Jesus speaks, that is God speaking as well. So when Jesus uses male pronouns repeatedly. It is easy for Christians to make the connection.

Same applies for Jesus: I've never heard Jesus express an opinion on any subject; only ever people who claim to speak for Jesus.

 

[Enoch07]

He did? I found no instance of this in this thread here at least, so I asked.

I've been on these forums for years. I've see him repeatedly use she for God in that time. Which is not a big deal. But it does make me worry when someone shows lack of respecting someone's identity.

 

[Enoch07]

Same applies for Jesus: I've never heard Jesus express an opinion on any subject; only ever people who claim to speak for Jesus.

Jesus is speaking in the NT all the time. All you have to do is open it up and read.

Unless you only gather the opinion from the original source. In which case I'd imagine you don't believe in gravity, since Newton is not alive to tell you himself.

 

[Misunderstood]

See post #5, which lists 13 Bible versions that regard god in gender-neutral terms..

Yes, I did see that earlier. I am not able to translate from the original texts, so if I make a wrong assumption I will accept any correction. I feel if the original text is in masculine, feminine, or neutral reference it should be preserved as much to the original as possible. If someone reading feels to interpret this to mean the writer was using masculine as it is the way they wrote at that time that is up to them to decide.

However, for Christians, Jesus I feel is God and refers to God in the masculine. If that is true He would be the best source to convey how to reference God.

Now maybe He manifest Himself as male and referenced God as male because in the time Jesus was here it was better that way. I don't know. Myself, I don't see why He would be male or female, for us humans it is used to refer to a persons genitalia for reproduction, or the genetic coding you are born with, but I don't think he has a sex. Although, maybe it is because God the Father is Whom orders Creation by speaking, and the Holy Spirit (usually referred to in the feminine) moves over the Creation and brings it to life, hence male and female parts of God. I really don't know so I accept what God refers to Himself as.

For nonbelievers it does not matter as they do not believe, have respect, or do not care. Some Christians may have a problem with a male figure and not want a male God because of a bad experience with a male figure in their life. That is up to them. But for me I do believe and feel out of respect I will address him by what he requests. Just like if you know a person is a doctor, it is disrespectful to call them mister (if Male or Ms if female).

 

[Father Heathen]

Will, personality, relatability to humans, etc.

That seems rather contrary to their definitions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus is speaking in the NT all the time. All you have to do is open it up and read.

Stuff is attributed to Jesus in the NT all the time.

Unless you only gather the opinion from the original source. In which case I'd imagine you don't believe in gravity, since Newton is not alive to tell you himself.

I can test gravity. My acceptance of gravity isn't based on my reliance that Newton's works are faithful to his original words.

 

[Enoch07]

Stuff is attributed to Jesus in the NT all the time.


I can test gravity. My acceptance of gravity isn't based on my reliance that Newton's works are faithful to his original words.

Yeah you probably are not smart enough to have tested and made scientific law of it. You know you can test it because Newton already did the work, you just take it for granted. Unless your a world famous scientist that has scientific laws named after you, this is a safe assumption.

 

[Liu]

I sincerely doubt that you're relating to the universe as if it's a squid.
In any case, I was trying to speak more to personhood than it being like any particular species.

Funny you bring up this example. I actually encountered people metaphorically describing the divine all as some form of kraken with myriads of arms (each of which corresponding to a consciousness).
While I see value in that image, most of my religious tradition rather imagine their main deity in the form of a dragon or some animal-human-mix. Or even geometric figures or simply darkness.
But ultimately it's all just figurative language, crutches for the mind.

So in what sense is it a god?

I guess we are heading towards circular logic here. Your definition of god includes it having to be a personification of some sort or another which therefore means that all gods are anthropomorphisms, by your definition.
But let's try once more... I consider it a god because it's the creator of everything, ruling us all, omnipresent, and because it's venerated by humans. I think that should be enough reasons.
And I think that also many polytheists have such abstract notions of their deities.