A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism

[kladner]

Originally Posted by chappy

'Cause He's a dick.

TOUCHE'!

[xilman]

Originally Posted by kladner

.....and how do you know a bodiless spirit is male?

Until quite recently "he" was used for the third person pronoun when referring to both men and women. Come to that, "man" was also gender unspecific. "Woman" is but a contraction of wyfman in the old spelling; wife-man in the current. We see evidence for the same in the word "midwife", the modern English version of which would be "with woman". The "mid" portion is the only surviving example in modern English of the Germanic "mit" and "wife", again, indicates an adult female human generally rather than a married one specifically.

So jasong is communicating in 800 year old English that the Holy Spirit has (at least some) human characteristics.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by chalsall

That's not evidence.

That's belief.

Very different things.

Perhaps you should look up some salvation experiences on Google.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by xilman

Until quite recently "he" was used for the third person pronoun when referring to both men and women. Come to that, "man" was also gender unspecific. "Woman" is but a contraction of wyfman in the old spelling; wife-man in the current. We see evidence for the same in the word "midwife", the modern English version of which would be "with woman". The "mid" portion is the only surviving example in modern English of the Germanic "mit" and "wife", again, indicates an adult female human generally rather than a married one specifically.

So jasong is communicating in 800 year old English that the Holy Spirit has (at least some) human characteristics.

No, He says He's male, therefore He's male.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by jasong

No, He says He's male, therefore He's male.

No, he is often referred to by MEN who wrote stuff down as male, therefore your perception of him as male is colored by the belief that ancient writings can capture the actual nature of an ultimate being. That is utter nonsense.

Why do you continue to hold the opposing beliefs that God is Ultimate and that God is Limited to Maleness?

[only_human]

Respectfully, what is the point of either God or the Holy Spirit being male?

[kladner]

Originally Posted by only_human

Respectfully, what is the point of either God or the Holy Spirit being male?

As noted above, it mostly provides information about the source of the perception (or believed perception.) It probably also reflects the early church's desperate need to differentiate itself from earlier religions, many of which were/are matriarchal.

[TheMawn]

I would very much like to have an encounter with God. He should know that I am the type of person to believe something as soon as I see concrete evidence. It shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent being to prove his existence to me... All I want is the truth.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by jasong

Perhaps you should look up some salvation experiences on Google.

Yeah... No.

I'll make up my own mind, thank you very much.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by TheMawn

All I want is the truth.

As you et al might imagine, I often debate religion with many people.

A very good friend of mine (and a "true believer") once asked me what I would do if I died and found myself before a god trying to explain to them my incomplete faith.

I argued that if any god exists, they gave us a brain for a reason. Uncertainty is reasonable.

Interestingly, my friend is now an atheist, while I am still agnostic....

[TheMawn]

Originally Posted by chalsall

As you et al might imagine, I often debate religion with many people.

A very good friend of mine (and a "true believer") once asked me what I would do if I died and found myself before a god trying to explain to them my incomplete faith.

I argued that if any god exists, they gave us a brain for a reason. Uncertainty is reasonable.

Interestingly, my friend is now an atheist, while I am still agnostic....

Very interesting. This brings up something that has happened to me a lot. Every time, in fact. I have debated religion with all sorts and there is one very disturbing consistency among Catholics.

Ask an Agnostic (or Atheist for that matter) what they would do if presented with proof of the existence of a god. I have been asked this many times. I said I would believe in the existence of that god. If it wants something particular from me, I would be happy to provide as long as I do not harm the existence of others, though I would continue to question the will of a god who would punish me for not doing its bidding. Very strange coming from an omnipotent god who loves us all...

The Agnostic then asks a Catholic what they would do if presented with the proof of the existence of NO god. I have asked this to many people and EVERY SINGLE Catholic replies "There is no such proof." I ask if presented with some hypothetical proof which shows, beyond the shadow of ANY doubt, AT ALL, 100.0000000% infallibly that no god exists, what would they do? "There is no such proof. You couldn't ever come up with something like that." Right, but WHAT IF I did? "You wouldn't."

Even after instructing them to forget every single thing that they know and only consider this one single question and nothing else about anything while repeatedly emphasizing that this is some hypothetical proof that "yes I ****ing know doesn't exist but what if it did", very few ever managed to understand what I was asking, and none came up with any answer that made any kind of sense.

I've even tried proposing wild what-if situations having nothing to do with religion to people, and the more religious among my test subjects are incapable of producing an answer. I've found that Catholics are virtually unable to consider their beliefs being incorrect. They simply cannot imagine that they are wrong. They cannot even begin to imagine anything that exists outside the realm of what they believe to be true. God and the Bible and everything else is carved so deeply into their heads that they cannot function without whatever it is they gain from the religion.


I've had this kind of conversation a couple of times:

"Why don't you kill people?"

"Because of the Commandments. God says I'm not allowed to kill."

"What if, tomorrow morning, God told us that murder is okay? That killing people will not result in you going to hell?"

"That would never happen."

"I don't think it would. But what if it did?"

[Repeat previous two lines as many times as you wish]

"Well, I... I don't... Would you kill people?"

"NO!!!! How can you seriously ask me something like that? Why do you have to think about your answer?"


It seems like a huge stretch for these particular people that I can have morals and be an ethical human being without a religion to guide me. Like the Bible or equivalent is somehow the ultimate and only code of ethics that exists.

The reason I don't kill people is not that some god is telling me that killing is bad. I don't kill people because taking one life will ruin the lives of dozens of others, and I don't wish death or the associated devastation on anyone. Why not? Because I would hate for something like that to happen to me or to the people I love. Because I am accountable to them for my actions, which are mine and mine alone.

It really scares me that such a fundamental concept is foreign to some of the people I went to school with. If their entire morality hangs by a thread that nobody can prove even exists...