Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Treacle Worshipper · 07-20-2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Now I think that God is a guy, although I could be wrong. Will find out someday I guess.

Ok, to start, a few definitions.
Non-physical things can have gender, eg. words (le/la, der/die/das). (Some words don't have gender eg. in English.)
They can be masculine, feminine, neuter & so on.

Physical things can have a sex, eg. people, animals. (Some living things don't have a sex, or are hermaphrodite.)
They can be male, female etc, but their sex is a result of their physical bodies. If something does not have a physical body, by definition it cannot have a sex.

So:

If angels have a physical being, then they might have a sex (or they might not, or they might be hermaphrodite, or they might have a "sex" which we don't recognise). They could be male, female or something else.

God, AFAIK, is usually thought to be a spirit. This means he doesn't have a physical body. He can be masculine and have the "personality" characteristics we see in human males (if we're "made in his image") but he can't be actually male.

In other words, R'BAC, if you really think God is a guy with a dick & balls & a long white beard, you're a classical anthropomorphist &, as far as the church is concerned, a heretic.

<- to indicate that this is all a bit of a joke, but I'm serious about god not literally being a guy.

TW

Rational BAC · 07-20-2003, 07:48 AM

So I am a heretic am I.

Why does that not surprise me? Heretics make the best Christians you know. Being called a heretic does not bother me one diddly squat. Sorry about that.

(You are being a little nit picky about gender. It can be used correctly to denote male and female, along with its grammatical usage. --------actually gender refering to male and female is listed as 2nd choice and the language part refering to gender of nouns is listed 3rd)

Will admit I would have been understood better by most people if I had used the word "sex" instead.

None of us really knows what God looks like, whether male, female or neither, whether is a body or a spirit. All anyone does, "heretic" or "non-heretic" is make up stuff.

So for lack of any provable guidance on this subject, I get to make up stuff too, and choose my own ideas on the subject. And still be a bona fide Christian in my opinion------(which is all that really matters anyway)

I realize you were not posting in any serious manner. Please consider this response to be just as lighthearted about subjects no one really knows the answers to.

mike_decock · 07-20-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55 I can almost guarantee you, there will NOT be sex in Heaven. There is no need for it since the pleasures of the flesh will be gone. [/B]

Then what is the point of having a body at all, Magus?

-Mike...

emotional · 07-20-2003, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Treacle Worshipper
In other words, R'BAC, if you really think God is a guy with a dick & balls & a long white beard, you're a classical anthropomorphist &, as far as the church is concerned, a heretic.

Michelangelo was a heretic?

Magus55 · 07-20-2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
Then what is the point of having a body at all, Magus?

-Mike...

Eat, drink, handle objects, hug, etc.

JGL53 · 07-20-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Eat, drink, handle objects, hug, etc.

So, e.g., eating a mango, drinking a glass of milk, preening your wing feathers, etc., and friendly, non-sexual hugs for all eternity, but no sex of any kind?!?

Doesn't sound like perfection to me. I think your god is a big dork.

Maybe the Interdimensional Council of Gods will soon review your god's competency, Magus, and suspend his licence to practice. We can only pray.

mark9950 · 07-20-2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

The Bible most obviously does not seriously discuss this subject.

Mainly because at that time talking about sex was taboo,womans menstruation was also taboo,because at that time they taught that a menstruating woman was dirty.Which she is is not.

The men were not considered dirty probably because the bible was written by them.

All through the OT women are second class citizens and jesus did not change that fact,our modern society did.

Rational BAC · 07-20-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
I am still waiting for answers from Magus to my questions about resurrection. EstherRose made a stab at answering one of them, but she was scrupulous enough to differentiate between what the bible says and her own interpretation.

The reason I am asking these questions is because the more I think about it, the more I am puzzled by the whole concept of physical resurrection. Quoting what the bible says is no explanation. I get the impression that the writers of the bible hadn't given the idea much thought.

As I understand it, xians believe that all human beings have a soul, which is totally insubstantial and separate from the body but which is a sort of essence of the person, so that when I think about *me* I am really thinking about my soul.

So one of my questions was about what happens to the souls whose bodies are awaiting resurrection. The catholic church invented the concepts of limbo, for pre-xians, and purgatory, for the rest, but I don't think most other churches subscribe to these concepts.

There is also the problem of the "incorruptible" body. In the English of the time when the bible was translated, "corruption" meant "rotting", as in "moth and rust doth corrupt". I think that if we are to acquire incorruptible bodies but not die, the concern is therefore not about rotting after death but about the effects of ageing, which starts for our usual bodies from the moment we are born and leads eventually to death and the consequent destruction of the body. That's why I asked about what "age" the new bodies would have? If they look like the body of a 20-year-old, then they already have the appearance of "corruption".

But in any case, why, if the soul can exist independently of the body, do we need new bodies anyway? What are they for? How many physical functions will they have? Presumably sex might be problematical, particularly since sections of the church frown on sex for non-reproductive purposes. Eating, drinking and excretion, intimately linked to "corruption" would also probably be excluded.

Then again, will we all be issued with identical bodies, or will we look something like our previous selves?

I could go on, but I am simply trying to explain why these are serious questions and that Magus, who claims to understand the concept of resurrection and the rapture and to be able to explain the details of both, has so far failed to engage seriously with them.

Magus! Yoo-hoo! I'm still asking!

Magus does not seem very interested in this subject so I am going to throw my 2 cents in. --------

#1 I don't see what real difference it makes (except for having sex in heaven and being able to chug down a few beers there) whether the resurrection is spiritual or physical. Will admit I would prefer a physical resurrection since I like my beer and my sex. But, what the hell, you take what is offered. Will find out one way or the other some day.

#2 What is this corrupted crap all about? I look at it this way. Our bodies are uncorrupted up until the time we stop growing more cells than die off. When more cells die than are reproduced (called the slow but inexorable path towards death) then the human body can be considered corrupted. But not before then.
And I think the turning point is about the age of 25 or so. So most obviously if there is a physical resurrection, we will all go to heaven with the bodies we had at the age of 25.

NEATO !!!!!!! I remember 25 as being a very good year.

mark9950 · 07-20-2003, 02:03 PM

The resurrection will not happen it should have happened 1 CE as page 2 of this tread proves.Jesus was supposed to have come back 2002 years ago and that did not happen.

Magus55 · 07-20-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mark9950
The resurrection will not happen it should have happened 1 CE as page 2 of this tread proves.Jesus was supposed to have come back 2002 years ago and that did not happen.

It only proves that to you Mark, and maybe a few other atheists. How about you give up the stupid argument about Jesus' return. NOBODY knows except God, not the Biblical authors, not us, no one. Jesus is not late on His promises - He never intended to return in the 1st Century to judge the earth, you are just too stubborn to realize it and have to bring up the same drawn out argument, over and over and over.

07-20-2003, 06:29 AM	#171
Treacle Worshipper Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Wales, UK Posts: 931	the sex of god Originally posted by Rational BAC Now I think that God is a guy, although I could be wrong. Will find out someday I guess. Ok, to start, a few definitions. Non-physical things can have gender, eg. words (le/la, der/die/das). (Some words don't have gender eg. in English.) They can be masculine, feminine, neuter & so on. Physical things can have a sex, eg. people, animals. (Some living things don't have a sex, or are hermaphrodite.) They can be male, female etc, but their sex is a result of their physical bodies. If something does not have a physical body, by definition it cannot have a sex. So: If angels have a physical being, then they might have a sex (or they might not, or they might be hermaphrodite, or they might have a "sex" which we don't recognise). They could be male, female or something else. God, AFAIK, is usually thought to be a spirit. This means he doesn't have a physical body. He can be masculine and have the "personality" characteristics we see in human males (if we're "made in his image") but he can't be actually male. In other words, R'BAC, if you really think God is a guy with a dick & balls & a long white beard, you're a classical anthropomorphist &, as far as the church is concerned, a heretic. <- to indicate that this is all a bit of a joke, but I'm serious about god not literally being a guy. TW

07-20-2003, 02:03 PM	#179
mark9950 Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: midwest usa Posts: 1,203	Sorry The resurrection will not happen it should have happened 1 CE as page 2 of this tread proves.Jesus was supposed to have come back 2002 years ago and that did not happen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2003, 07:48 AM	#172
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	So I am a heretic am I. Why does that not surprise me? Heretics make the best Christians you know. Being called a heretic does not bother me one diddly squat. Sorry about that. (You are being a little nit picky about gender. It can be used correctly to denote male and female, along with its grammatical usage. --------actually gender refering to male and female is listed as 2nd choice and the language part refering to gender of nouns is listed 3rd) Will admit I would have been understood better by most people if I had used the word "sex" instead. None of us really knows what God looks like, whether male, female or neither, whether is a body or a spirit. All anyone does, "heretic" or "non-heretic" is make up stuff. So for lack of any provable guidance on this subject, I get to make up stuff too, and choose my own ideas on the subject. And still be a bona fide Christian in my opinion------(which is all that really matters anyway) I realize you were not posting in any serious manner. Please consider this response to be just as lighthearted about subjects no one really knows the answers to.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.