Animals must not be scapegoats

[Guest guest]

I would think it best to say God rather than he/she in this case. i.e. 'he

says.....' could be God says .....'. I can't really see any reason why a

gender name is necessary.

 

Jo

 

 

-

" compassion2grace " <compassion2grace

 

Friday, December 15, 2006 7:32 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

 

> The male pronoun has been generally used as inclusive of everybody

> in general usage for generations ... mankind, for example. " He " is

> generally used when speaking in general terms, without a specific

> personal assignment. It may be right or may be wrong, but even

> though there are some small changes being made in this regard in our

> day and age, it is not to God alone that this applies.

>

> peace,

> sharon

>

>

> , " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

> >

> > Hi Anouk

> >

> > > My question would then be Why is God anthromorphicized as a male.

> >

> > Because the Babylonian deity from which he came (Yahweh) was male.

> There is

> > some suggestion that earrly Judaism recognised a goddess as well

> (Asherah),

> > but with the highly patriachal society that developed, the female

> side of

> > divinity was suppressed.

> >

> > > Overwhelmingly when speaking in general terms,everyone speaks of

> God

> > > as a male.

> >

> > God is the name for a particular deity, who happens to be male -

> it would be

> > nonsensical to talk of that deity as female, as much as it would be

> > nonsensical to talk of Hades or Odin as female. They just aren't!

> I think

> > the more important question would be why the feminine side of

> divinity is

> > not recognised at all in some religions (although Catholicism does

> have

> > Mary, so that can't really be a criticism of all Christian sects)

> >

> > > I was speaking of God as a general term.

> > > No one ever says Goddess or Lady. They say Lord, or Praise him.

> >

> > That depends on what circles you move in.

> >

> > BB

> > Peter

> >

>

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

[Guest guest]

In lots of faiths the Earth is female and the Sun is male - both needed to create life.

 

Jo

 

-

peter VV

Friday, December 15, 2006 7:14 PM

Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

Good last point Peter.

Every body knows that nature is female?................mother nature? from whom all life springs?

 

The Valley Vegan...............Peter <metalscarab wrote:

 

 

Hi Anouk> My question would then be Why is God anthromorphicized as a male.Because the Babylonian deity from which he came (Yahweh) was male. There issome suggestion that earrly Judaism recognised a goddess as well (Asherah),but with the highly patriachal society that developed, the female side ofdivinity was suppressed.> Overwhelmingly when speaking in general terms,everyone speaks of God> as a male.God is the name for a particular deity, who happens to be male - it would benonsensical to talk of that deity as female, as much as it would benonsensical to talk of Hades or Odin as female. They just aren't! I thinkthe more important question would be why the feminine side of divinity isnot recognised at all in some religions (although Catholicism does haveMary, so that can't really be a criticism of all Christian sects)> I was speaking of God as a general term.> No one ever says Goddess or Lady. They say Lord, or Praise him.That depends on what circles you move in.BBPeter

Peter H

 

 

 

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

[Guest guest]

I would not think this offensive Peter. I have friends who believe totally in Greek and Roman Gods/Goddesses - and look at how many people think that they are not true and call them myths and stories with no truth. I don't think my friends get particularly offended.

 

Faith is exactly that - faith, and nobody needs any other person to believe in their beliefs, even though it is pleasant to share with others.

 

Jo

 

-

peter VV

Friday, December 15, 2006 7:11 PM

Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

stories probably passed down from generation to generation, spiced up with artistic liscence and then written down.To me that means nothing more than folklore. Purely personal dont you know, dont want to offend ...........

 

The Valley Vegan.................. jo <jo.heartwork wrote:

 

 

 

While it can be interesting to discuss these old texts it must be remembered that they are only stories written by men.

 

Jo

 

-

Shhhhh

Friday, December 15, 2006 12:51 AM

Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

Actually, the Bible does say God created amoebas. I think that would fall under "life that swarms in the water," which is the first of all living things listed in creation.

 

peace,

sharonflower child <zurumato (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote:

 

 

yet, the bible says, god created man, not god created amoebasThe more scientist dig up old bones from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked like at the beginning, the more the bible does not make any sense. I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him. Nor do Ithink God is a woman. Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal expression until a later period, then why does it make sense that Maleswhere made first. I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think thatgod humanlike. -anouk , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:>> Hi Peter> > >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa orprimeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standingargument between creationists and> > evolutioneries?> > But why does God making the animals automatically mean that thoseanimals can't evolve?> > The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher whodecided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that nothingbefore then had existed - that is the basis of the "creationist"viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makesevolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of beings whichmay or may not be given the ability to evolve.> > BB> Peter>

 

 

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

 

Peter H

 

 

 

All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

[Guest guest]

Hi Jo,

 

it would be refreshing to hear god as a she.

 

Language is an important reflection on the state of our society.

 

 

 

, " jo " <jo.heartwork wrote:

>

> Dear Anouk

>

> I respect your resentment which you have a right to express - but it

does

> not make you right.

>

> To put it in your perspective - my friend believes that god is

female and

> calls her 'her'. Would you accept that as the truth just because

another

> person states it? You would not. And just because you believe in a

god - I

> do not accept it as truth - just as your own personal truth.

>

> Jo

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Sharon

 

> The male pronoun has been generally used as inclusive of everybody

> in general usage for generations ... mankind, for example. " He " is

> generally used when speaking in general terms, without a specific

> personal assignment. It may be right or may be wrong, but even

> though there are some small changes being made in this regard in our

> day and age, it is not to God alone that this applies.

 

This is indeed true. There is a small, but growing trend to use gender

neutral pronouns: zhe (he/she) and hir (him/her), if anyone feels so

inclined :-)

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter

 

Congratulations, you win this month's wooden spoon award ;-)

 

BB

Peter

 

-

peter VV

Friday, December 15, 2006 7:14 PM

Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

 

Good last point Peter.

Every body knows that nature is female?................mother nature? from whom all life springs?

 

The Valley Vegan...............

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter

 

>stories probably passed down from generation to generation, spiced up with artistic liscence and then written down.To me that means nothing more than folklore.

> Purely personal dont you know, dont want to offend ...........

 

Hey - whadayamean "nothing more than folklore" - folklore's a wonderful thing. The stories may not (or possibly may) depict actual events, but you can learn so much about a culture from their oral / folklore traditions, it shouldn't be sneezed at :-)

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

I would guess that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years" means time is different for God, rather than offering a literal interpretation. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 wrote: but more than 7 thousand years? The Valley Vegan.............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: It says God created everything, but now how. While I do believe evolution to be a theory with plenty of room for questioning in its own right, there is nothing in the Bible that absolutely prevents that method of creation. I do note that the order of creation would fit in pretty well with the order set forth by the theory of evolution. And as for the time span ... the Bible says that with God a thousand years is as a day, so seven creative days are not necessarily 24 hour days. peace, sharonflower child <zurumato (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: yet,the bible does suggest that creation is spontaneous,god created man. period. no slow process of change over time orsurvival of the fittest or genetic mutations

over timeor adaptations to climates etc. no room for a single celled organism to improve and turninto something else, something with an advantage over others, something stronger. it was just Poof! man. There you are. , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:> > Whereabouts in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't exist? Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta. Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

This is very true also. peace, sharonjo <jo.heartwork wrote: Very true - but it must also be remembered that many people believe Greek,Roman, Celtic, Northern myths to be the truth, whereas others say they arejust stories.Jo-"compassion2grace" <compassion2grace >Friday, December 15, 2006 7:28 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats> Actually, it must be remembered that some people believe they are> stories insired by God.>> peace,> sharon>> , "jo" <jo.heartwork wrote:> >> > While it can be interesting to discuss these old texts it must be> remembered that they are only stories written by men.> >> > Jo> > -> > Shhhhh> > > > Friday, December 15, 2006 12:51 AM> > Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats> >>

>> > Actually, the Bible does say God created amoebas. I think that> would fall under "life that swarms in the water," which is the first> of all living things listed in creation.> >> > peace,> > sharon> >> > flower child <zurumato wrote:> > yet,> > the bible says,> > god created man,> > not> > god created amoebas> >> > The more scientist dig up old bones> > from the dirt that show how people REALLY looked> > like at the beginning,> >> > the more the bible does not make any sense.> >> > I also have a deep resentment of people calling God He/Him.> Nor do I> > think God is a woman.> >> > Also, if human fetus is nebulous at first, with no chromosonal> expression> > until a later period, then why does it

make sense that Males> > where made first.> >> > I think it is shortsighted and highly anthropocentric to think> that> > god humanlike.> >> > -anouk> >> > , "Peter" <metalscarab@>> wrote:> > >> > > Hi Peter> > >> > > >I thought it said in the begining god made man? not> protezoa or> > primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing> > argument between creationists and> > > > evolutioneries?> > >> > > But why does God making the animals automatically mean that> those> > animals can't evolve?> > >> > > The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher> who> > decided that God

created the world in around 4000 BC, and that> nothing> > before then had existed - that is the basis of> the "creationist"> > viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makes> > evolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of> beings which> > may or may not be given the ability to evolve.> > >> > > BB> > > Peter> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------------------> -----------> > Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful> email and get things done faster.> >>>>>> To send an email to - >

Groups Links>>>

[Guest guest]

Could be done. Could be a bit awkward, but could be done. peace, sharonjo <jo.heartwork wrote: I would think it best to say God rather than he/she in this case. i.e. 'hesays.....' could be God says .....'. I can't really see any reason why agender name is necessary.Jo-"compassion2grace" <compassion2grace >Friday, December 15, 2006 7:32 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats> The male pronoun has been generally used as inclusive of everybody> in general usage for generations ... mankind, for example. "He" is> generally used when speaking in general terms, without a specific> personal assignment. It may be right or may be wrong, but even> though there are some small changes being made in this regard in our> day and age, it is not to God alone that this applies.>> peace,> sharon>>> , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:> >> > Hi Anouk> >> > > My question would then be Why is God anthromorphicized as a male.> >> > Because

the Babylonian deity from which he came (Yahweh) was male.> There is> > some suggestion that earrly Judaism recognised a goddess as well> (Asherah),> > but with the highly patriachal society that developed, the female> side of> > divinity was suppressed.> >> > > Overwhelmingly when speaking in general terms,everyone speaks of> God> > > as a male.> >> > God is the name for a particular deity, who happens to be male -> it would be> > nonsensical to talk of that deity as female, as much as it would be> > nonsensical to talk of Hades or Odin as female. They just aren't!> I think> > the more important question would be why the feminine side of> divinity is> > not recognised at all in some religions (although Catholicism does> have> > Mary, so that can't really be a criticism of all

Christian sects)> >> > > I was speaking of God as a general term.> > > No one ever says Goddess or Lady. They say Lord, or Praise him.> >> > That depends on what circles you move in.> >> > BB> > Peter> >>>>>> To send an email to - >

[Guest guest]

Interesting. I hadn't heard those. peace, sharonPeter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Sharon> The male pronoun has been generally used as inclusive of everybody> in general usage for generations ... mankind, for example. "He" is> generally used when speaking in general terms, without a specific> personal assignment. It may be right or may be wrong, but even> though there are some small changes being made in this regard in

our> day and age, it is not to God alone that this applies.This is indeed true. There is a small, but growing trend to use genderneutral pronouns: zhe (he/she) and hir (him/her), if anyone feels soinclined :-)BBPeter

[Guest guest]

hi peter,

 

since spanish words have gender differences of a and o

as in Latino, Latina, Doctor, Doctora, Profesor, Profesora etc,

 

the young kids no longer use those terms and instead have adopted

at least in the internet community....

 

the symbol @

 

they write Latin@, Doctor@, Profesor@ and so on and so forth.

they just write one word to represent both, that way it stays

neutral and no one knows what gender someone is over the internet.

 

this has been happening for a little while in Argentina and other

countries

among the new generation.

 

 

 

, " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

>

> Hi Sharon

>

> > The male pronoun has been generally used as inclusive of everybody

> > in general usage for generations ... mankind, for example. " He " is

> > generally used when speaking in general terms, without a specific

> > personal assignment. It may be right or may be wrong, but even

> > though there are some small changes being made in this regard in our

> > day and age, it is not to God alone that this applies.

>

> This is indeed true. There is a small, but growing trend to use gender

> neutral pronouns: zhe (he/she) and hir (him/her), if anyone feels so

> inclined :-)

>

> BB

> Peter

>

[Guest guest]

Whats that supposed to mean? Dont mention the wooden spoon to a Welsh man........... The Valley Vegan............Peter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Peter Congratulations, you win this month's wooden spoon award ;-) BB Peter - peter VV Friday, December 15, 2006 7:14 PM Re: Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Good last point Peter. Every body knows that nature is female?................mother nature? from whom all life springs? The Valley Vegan............... Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.