Memes

It

it

Advertisements

108 thoughts on “It

  1. “God created them, male and female. In his own image he created them.”

    Leave it to the atheist to dumb down magnificence into something absurd.

    Atheists do that habitually either because they don’t have the capacity to ponder the great mysteries or simply because they are leftists spreading anti-Christian propaganda.

    Like

      • John,

        When the Spanish and the French put masculine and feminine pronouns in front of nouns like pencil and kitchen and rutabaga, are they declaring that the pencil, the kitchen and the rutabaga are men and women?

        In this post you have revealed the radical, profound and malignant provincialism that governs and guides atheist thought.

        Atheists, as this post shows, are really just a bunch of intellectual hicks from the philosophical sticks.

        Like

  2. God is not even an “it”. God is supposedly everything and all. But also nothing. Alpha and Omega stuff. So, depending on your mood, you can use any word you like. He one day, she, the next. Or cat. Or Jezus. John works too. I’ll go with Alf today.

    Like

  3. Frankly I’d bite Him. Her. It. Them … oh God, this is confusing~!

    I’d often wondered if Jesus (a Jew) was ever circumcised, and if so what happened to the Holy Foreskin?
    And then I pondered if Him being divine and stuff, did His Holy poops decompose like anyone else’s or is the Middle East still littered with incorruptible sacred shits? At (say) one six inch specimen a day over (say) 35 years … equals … ye gods, more than a mile of blessed excreta! (Did the Pope miss an opportunity here for divine relics? I imagine sales would have gone through the roof …)

    Like

  4. When I read this title, I thought your were going to do a parody on Kipling’s poem “If”. Being disappointed, and not wanting to spend the day imagining castrated gods, I re-read Kipling and thought of lines that could apply to the camps alluded to:

    To Theists:

    If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;

    If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;

    To Atheists:
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;

    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

    For Both::

    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

    So, which quotes were in the wrong categories? My fortune cookie for the sharks in the pond here.

    Like

    • No idea. Leo said it followed Jesus into space, so maybe he was just damn fast and it gave up the pursuit somewhere around Saturn? Jesus is, of course, coming back to earth one day, so the course of action really makes perfect sense. Authorities always say, “If lost stay right where you are and wait for help to arrive.” I guess the foreskin was simply erring on the side of caution 😉

      Like

  5. If we can read secular literature using the pronoun he to represent both sexes, why couldn’t we do the same with the bible? Aren’t there passages where god is referred to by name or lord or his etc. without an accompanying He? I couldn’t say for sure, and I sure don’t have time to check, so I’ll pose that to any experts. I am curious now because of your post.

    Like

    • Sure, we could use the name, but scripture (inerrant and inspired as it is) uses “He.” If, though, we use the name, then which one? The Middle Eastern Christian god has multiple names, and is even a different god from time to time, as in El.

      Like

      • Sorry John. Maybe I asked it wrong. What I wonder is if it is possible that in some place He is used, and in others there is just one of the many others names or titles, perhaps offering a possibility of the feminine. So both in one being essentially.

        Like

      • I think that’s probably the case, but i’m just nitpicking 🙂

        So my learned friend, you obviously survived the dreaded polar vortex, but have you survived the equally dreaded university/government bureaucracy?

        Like

      • I wonder because there wasn’t a lot of gender equality at the time of the writing lol. As far as this shit weather and equally large snow job I got from the govt, it’s all settled down 🙂

        Like

    • Didn’t the sons of God look upon the daughters of men and take some to wife? Without wishing to offend sensitivities that sounds as if God had cootchy (several, or lots) with ladies unmarried to him—or He was polygamous, or ‘lived in sin?

      Why on Earth would the Grand Ultimate God of the entire entirety need a toggle-and-two anyway? (Dumb question—how else is he going to get His jollies?) (Ooops … by smiting everyone, just like any other sexually frustrated god/man/thing …)

      Theology is actually quite complicated, Dammit—I’ll stick to biting …

      Like

      • True, Yhwh married Ashera in the 7th Century, El’s wife, Yhwh’s father. Damn, that was hard to write that sentence. My brain is farting, sneezing and coughing simultaneously in protest.

        Like

      • After an excellent run-ashore in an Asian port once I awoke with a screeching hangover, still vomiting, dry horrors, and very severe diarrhoea simultaneously. Firing all guns fore-and-aft in nonstop broadsides called for a toilet and bucket and lots of searoom. I can relate to how your brain feels about trying to square religious circles … but hey, millions can—what do they have in the intellect department that you lack, huh?

        Like

      • Oh. God made the angels, rather than got the missus to do it for Him the old fashioned way?

        His call. But they should rewrite the Good Book, that ‘Sons of God’ bit may be poetic but is a bit misleading to we pedantic types—all part of the Divine Plan, I guess. And if I ever dared suggest in church that angels go round scruffing earthly women I’d get promptly scragged. Trust me on that one. (In a southern Baptistry it would be suicide …)

        Or was it intended as honest straight-out reporting, to be taken literally … damn, I’m so confused. Can no-one help an old dog?

        Like

      • Well yes, the bible can be misleading if you try to follow it literally. People are the children of god as well, but there’s no issue with that. If one is truly pedantic I’d think they’d teach the metaphorical side if the bible as well, yeah?
        As far as teaching about the watchers in a Baptist area, preachers have done it for centuries. And they’ve taught about Lot, and Abraham, and I’m pretty sure the flock has caught on to the incest of Adam and Eve. There’s buggery all over the bible. Pretty sure they can handle it lol.

        Like

  6. It does sound very sinister. But for all these modern-fangled Christians trying to make it all seem plausible by describing their god as above and beyond sexual organs or gender identity, was Jesus not reported to have called ‘it’ Father? That wasn’t gender neutral in the original language, was it? Their god is bloke, and they should be worried about all the women undressing he’s peeking in on (assuming he’s hetero, but on second thoughts, given his childish hang-ups about gay sex, we all know what he’s really looking at).

    Like

  7. Yeah, so I saw the clip and I can’t help but feel that it’s a rather fitting metaphor for people and their relationship with god (people being the girl in the well and god being the maniac sexually confused lunatic on top)

    Like

  8. I coined this several years back. Then I bumped into it again a few months back somewhere in the atheosphere – don’t know if someone else developed it independently or not.

    Anyhow: Since we cannot see to verify, and since some feminists are adamant in calling God She, I think the only politically correct and inclusive pronoun to be She/he/it, or succinctly, S/h/it.

    Like

      • I did read somewhere a very long time ago that in the earliest writings god was referred to in the feminine. Makes more sense—I prefer my Creators/divinities soft and fluffy rather than smiters.

        In the meantime why has no-one written to the Pope for an official ruling? Surely if he’s taking his church ‘back to basics’ and selling off the cutlery he can get together with all the other popes of other franchises and work something out? (At least it should take the heat off of the ‘priests and little boys’ question for a while) (until someone pops him off like they did that thirty-day-wonder guy that time).

        Like

  9. I prefer the Santa Claus-looking version of god. He’s so jolly and delightfully fabricated. Naughty list. Nice list. No presents. Many presents. He’s perfectly telling: Follow these imposed rules (because I said so), or rot in coal infested caves made of frog semen for eternity. I’m a stick to Santa rather than It. I like Santa. It, not so much.

    Like

    • Ha! What was the line in The Good Sheppard?

      “I remember a senator once asked me. When we talk about “CIA” why we never use the word “the” in front of it. And I asked him, do you put the word “the” in front of “God”?”

      Like

  10. In my native Finnish we have only one word for him/her. It is gender neutral “hän”. But it is a common in some of the Finnish dialects to call everybody and everything “se” = it. I can assure you this really does not make any conversation more, or less comprehensable.

    I think there is some logic in calling the god Jesus talks about, father, as Jesus supposedly had a biological mother, but his dad was alledgedly not his biological father. Instead this alledged creator of the universe, decided to impregnate some poor buggers new wife. I bet the locals in the village where they lived did not find the story very plausible. Why was that impregnation important is a nother question, as it happened not so different way as for example many daughters of the pharaos used to be impregnated by gods before Mary? Instead of, that the god become man had had two biological parents. Why did a god becoming a man (and for some reason not a woman) need a single womb donator, but not a sperm donator is interresting only in the sense, that the contemporaries in that part of the world seemed to think a god is good at doing a man’s job, or something… Perhaps, it was supposed to demonstrate some miracle, like baby Jesus getting Y-chromosomes from outside physical reality…

    Perhaps, if Jesus had been – miraculously – born of a father without a mother, the miracle would have been even greater and more convincing. In that case the Christian god would be called Mother… Right?

    What if Jesus had just popped into existance from out of thin air as a full grown man, or a woman? Or perhaps as an androgyne? Would the Christian god then be called it? That could have really been impressive, if it had been performed in front of multitudes of people (and later confirmed by more than single source), and not totally out of sight from everybody, like his alledged resurrection.

    Patriarchy and matriarchy of any deity are matters clearly reflected from the society that worshipped/worships these particular gods. To me this rather clearly reveals the common andropomorphical nature of almost any god including the monotheistic ones, though they are often claimed not to be andropomorphical and therefore somehow more plausible suggestions as a god.

    Like

    • “Hän,” I like that! You Fins were/are truly ahead of the game. “Se” is even better. In Brazil you call your wife “woman” and your husband “man.” When i first heard this i was utterly repulsed. i couldn’t bring myself to say it! “My woman is coming along soon…” It doesn’t work.

      Your point, though, is valid… i was just being silly with this meme.

      Like

    • I read about Sikh guards in WW2 who would brutalise and rape their male prisoners. Rape?

      Then I was told that Sikhs apparently believe that their Redeemer/Saviour equivalent would be born of a male “and it’s every Sikh’s ambition to be either the father or the mother“.

      Gods move in mysterious ways, whatever turns ’em on, I guess …

      Like

    • Always good to get further information. I did the camels in the post, “How those are paid to know…”. Such a benign thing, yet rather conclusive. Add it to all the other anomalies and out-of-place cities and people and we can see why even the Rabbi’s have thrown their hands up and confessed “OK, OK! It’s myth, we get it!”

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s