None, so we should insist they call it It, too… Unless, of course, the theist can present hard gender-specific data at which time I’d be happy to refer to “it” as “Mr.” or Mrs.” of just “Miss.” Really, it’s like an automaker calling their company, “Car.”
“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.
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.
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.
Ah ha, not if she’s dressed in black leather, knee-high boots, some chain mail, feather boar and a fishing cap! That’s got “smote” written all over it!
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 …)
I can tell you EXACTLY what happened to Jesus’ foreskin! According to Leo Allatius (a 17th Century Catholic scholar, theologian, and keeper of the Vatican library) in his published treatise, De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba, or, “Discussion concerning the Prepuce of our Lord Jesus Christ,” it launched itself in space following Jesus after the ascension and took up residence in orbit around Saturn. The rings are, in fact, Jesus’ foreskin.
And no, I’m not making that up. Leo actually published this paper.
Fantastic, I was just talking about that last night at work. Where I was being introduced to the Celtic holiday of Imbolc. Which has a weather divination aspect like Groundhog day here in USA (yesterday). And Imbolc was transformed into The Feast of St. Brigit in Ireland.
This took us to “Candlemas” — also new to me. If I got it right, Candlemas (Feb 2) is the purification of the virgin after childbirth ceremony (for we all know they are dirty). So that got me wondering what happened to Jesus’ Foreskin (taken off Jan 1, apparently).
And today you answered it. Then I surfed more on the issue and learned a lot about the controversy. Well, I can’t tell which parts are facts — no reliable sources yet except blogs.
Foreskin rings? So the Islamics now have to circumcise a whole planet to assert their monopoly over the True Name Of God? (With no pun intended, they’ll have their work cut out …)
I am at a loss why this business line haven’t been considered! People pay to drink sewage, after being convinced it’s tears from an old relic- you must remember the Indian story- and so much.
I think the writer is an optimist … however, if I can raise enough capital I’m going to float a company and make an offer (one he can’t refuse) to the owner of that scat and buy it.
I will then get DNA from it and clone whole herds of Jesi and simultaneously loose them all over the world in a genuine world-wide campaign of enlightenment and salvation. And since He came to bring a sword His divine army will sweep aside all opposition and at last we’ll have peace on Earth and goodwill to all men (okay, to any that survive—them Islamics are a stubborn lot).
Failing that, don’t knock the idea of fossilised poops—I saw a photo once of an archeologist holding (and staring with unfathomable expression at) a fossilised Viking poop recovered from a dunny in northern England. They recovered the seat too, a round hole chiselled into a wee plank. Nothing changes …
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.
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 😉
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.
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.
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.
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 🙂
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 …
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.
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?
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?
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.
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).
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)
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.
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).
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.
“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”?”
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.
“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.
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 …
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!”
thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com
well, that makes of a scary god. What option do they have in referring to their supposed gods?
LikeLike
None, so we should insist they call it It, too… Unless, of course, the theist can present hard gender-specific data at which time I’d be happy to refer to “it” as “Mr.” or Mrs.” of just “Miss.” Really, it’s like an automaker calling their company, “Car.”
LikeLike
This is going to be fun. I would be interesting when their supposed god acquired a gender specific trait
LikeLike
SOM says its hermaphrodite. What would we do without him? 🙂
LikeLike
SOM as they say is a special guy. Sometimes I actually like him.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
Hehehe… So, there is no mystery? The Middle Eastern Christian god is both male and female: hermaphrodite? It has both reproductive organs? Smashing!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Poetry, too! SOM, you truly are a Renaissance Man!
LikeLike
John,
Turning atheism into poetry is a hard job, but someone has just got to take balls in hand and do it!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Samantha has a ring to it 😉
LikeLike
Dunno, sounds a bit too sexy for a dude/sse who smites and stuff
LikeLike
Ah ha, not if she’s dressed in black leather, knee-high boots, some chain mail, feather boar and a fishing cap! That’s got “smote” written all over it!
LikeLike
Perfect – that’s my kinda God!
LikeLike
It’s my Aunt Virginia ! I’d recognize her description anywhere.
LikeLike
🙂 Everyone has an Aunt Virginia!
LikeLike
So true … so very true !
LikeLike
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 …)
LikeLike
I can tell you EXACTLY what happened to Jesus’ foreskin! According to Leo Allatius (a 17th Century Catholic scholar, theologian, and keeper of the Vatican library) in his published treatise, De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba, or, “Discussion concerning the Prepuce of our Lord Jesus Christ,” it launched itself in space following Jesus after the ascension and took up residence in orbit around Saturn. The rings are, in fact, Jesus’ foreskin.
And no, I’m not making that up. Leo actually published this paper.
LikeLike
Fantastic, I was just talking about that last night at work. Where I was being introduced to the Celtic holiday of Imbolc. Which has a weather divination aspect like Groundhog day here in USA (yesterday). And Imbolc was transformed into The Feast of St. Brigit in Ireland.
This took us to “Candlemas” — also new to me. If I got it right, Candlemas (Feb 2) is the purification of the virgin after childbirth ceremony (for we all know they are dirty). So that got me wondering what happened to Jesus’ Foreskin (taken off Jan 1, apparently).
And today you answered it. Then I surfed more on the issue and learned a lot about the controversy. Well, I can’t tell which parts are facts — no reliable sources yet except blogs.
Anyway, thanx for the intro.
LikeLike
Here’s some discussion on the Holy Foreskin:
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=4zFBaBpsp3EC&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=De+Praeputio+Domini+Nostri+Jesu+Christi+Diatriba,+or,+%E2%80%9CDiscussion+concerning+the+Prepuce+of+our+Lord+Jesus+Christ,%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=ex_u4X-ILG&sig=76HB2YEkLgZWz4W6HGbLyJXABXM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RXvvUqyaNKKSyAH8-IDoBA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=De%20Praeputio%20Domini%20Nostri%20Jesu%20Christi%20Diatriba%2C%20or%2C%20%E2%80%9CDiscussion%20concerning%20the%20Prepuce%20of%20our%20Lord%20Jesus%20Christ%2C%E2%80%9D&f=false
LikeLike
Holy Crap! This just got even weirder. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) believed Jesus married her, fashioning his foreskin into a wedding band!
LikeLike
Foreskin rings? So the Islamics now have to circumcise a whole planet to assert their monopoly over the True Name Of God? (With no pun intended, they’ll have their work cut out …)
LikeLike
Oops … what about the holy turds still lying around?
Oh.
Yes.
I see, that’s why the place is so fertile … silly dog.
LikeLike
For Holy Turds see the link a comment or two below.
LikeLike
I am at a loss why this business line haven’t been considered! People pay to drink sewage, after being convinced it’s tears from an old relic- you must remember the Indian story- and so much.
LikeLike
Well, now that you mention it! Behold, The Sacred Stool of Galilee
http://www.avantnews.com/news/38255-fossilized-feces-of-jesus-wreaks-havoc
LikeLike
Hahahaha! That’s hilarious. Imagine guys queuing to watch that in some glass cage and smelling it for cure to different ailments.
LikeLike
Have now seen link.
I think the writer is an optimist … however, if I can raise enough capital I’m going to float a company and make an offer (one he can’t refuse) to the owner of that scat and buy it.
I will then get DNA from it and clone whole herds of Jesi and simultaneously loose them all over the world in a genuine world-wide campaign of enlightenment and salvation. And since He came to bring a sword His divine army will sweep aside all opposition and at last we’ll have peace on Earth and goodwill to all men (okay, to any that survive—them Islamics are a stubborn lot).
Failing that, don’t knock the idea of fossilised poops—I saw a photo once of an archeologist holding (and staring with unfathomable expression at) a fossilised Viking poop recovered from a dunny in northern England. They recovered the seat too, a round hole chiselled into a wee plank. Nothing changes …
LikeLike
No matter what ‘it’ is called, still sounds creepy to me.
And yes, I remember reading about the ‘Saturn’s rings are Christ’s foreskin’ thing, again – creepy!
LikeLike
Well, I’d certainly give Leo a shinny A+ for creativity, but a solid “Room for serious improvement” on his rational approach to problem solving 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Nice words, but I suspect its a trick question.
LikeLike
Put me down for shark. Sharks are survivors, the devout are cannibalistic minnows. Think about it …
LikeLike
Love “it”. Confess I can’t stop laughing at Jesus’ foreskin – any explanation why Saturn? Why didn’t the holy skin flap circle earth?
LikeLike
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 😉
LikeLike
Maybe the foreskin had a change of heart – bailing when it got a chance 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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 🙂
LikeLike
Good to hear! So, graduation later this year, right?
LikeLike
December if I don’t tell them to go stuff it lol
LikeLike
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 …
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Lol how do you get god having sex with human females from the angels having relations with them?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Btw, I absolutely love your profile picture! What a precious little face 🙂
LikeLike
Took it from my passport photo …
LikeLike
Lol great choice 🙂
LikeLike
Love it! Oh, wait…
LikeLike
Oh, very well played, sir… Very well played, indeed!
LikeLike
IT….Ah, and the Stephen King memories come flooding back…
LikeLike
As I discovered trying to find (commandeer without rights) an appropriate “it” photo.
LikeLike
Excellent thoughts for a Monday…thanx…chuq
LikeLike
Low hanging fruit. Been too hot here to think at any greater depth 😉
LikeLike
Just remember when we are sweltering you will be comfy…little consolation but what the Hell….it’s Monday….
LikeLike
I had no idea so many people (read: anyone, actually) were so preoccupied with the foreskin and excrement of It’s kid. Egads!
LikeLike
Oh, theologians are up to their necks in holy foreskins and sacred pooh!
LikeLike
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘Holy Shit!’
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
We’ve already establish Jesus was a walking rainbow! See Secret Gospel of Mark:
LikeLike
Ah yes, I do recall that.
LikeLike
Lol!
LikeLike
Sound, right?
LikeLike
Absolutely, I especially like the last statement about applying lotion… truly odd, and a little bit creepy!
LikeLike
Just to freak you out:
LikeLike
Yeesh! Not sure I need that…
However, knowing that God’s got your back [so to speak] with the lotion could be quite handy if you’re stuck out in the desert for a while…
LikeLike
Sure, if “it” also made cocktails and had a terrific library.
LikeLike
Right [clapping hands together] where do I sign up…?
… oh shit… did I just convert?
Damn!
LikeLike
Hahaha. This made me laugh out loud 😀
LikeLike
“It” is pleased! 🙂
LikeLike
That scene out of SOL was and is bone chilling
LikeLike
Isn’t it. I momentarily thought about taking it down after watching it.
LikeLike
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)
LikeLike
It’s a ghastly scene, isn’t it.
LikeLike
Hey, “It” made a great movie, too! It scared the shit out of me.
LikeLike
The King story? I haven’t seen it. I’m terrible with horror films.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Precisely!
(I found it through Existential Atheism)
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Yeah, if we’re choosing imaginary friends then Santa is the better choice, but the whole “Santa-fearing” doesn’t really work, does it? 🙂
LikeLike
… What’s in that sack of his? Presents? Bollocks! I call conspiracy.
LikeLike
Bad Santa, baaaad!
LikeLike
I read about “It” and I immediately thought of a character named “It” in the Addams Family. This is It: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/18/article-2295110-18C0AE02000005DC-847_306x423.jpg
LikeLike
My favourite Adams! Hand was a close second, but It was, well, it!
LikeLike
Well, I only watched the movies, so from the movies it was Gomez.
LikeLike
Nicely creepy.
LikeLike
Thank the disturbed mind of Donnie Darko
LikeLike
All I can say is, It is not for me.
LikeLike
Me neither 🙂
LikeLike
“It is watching”
“It hears your thoughts”
Hmm, that sounds awful familiar. Are you saying that god is really the NSA?
LikeLike
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”?”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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 …
LikeLike
Sorry to intrude … I just thought you might be able to do something with this—
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11196721
—goddammit but it’s hard to NOT blog … dunno how much longer I can keep it up~!
LikeLike
Why am I not surprised…
LikeLike
And this may be helpful—
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11197092
—please sing out if I’m becoming pestiferous.
LikeLike
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!”
LikeLike
Still, what is good about this article is it shows popular culture catching up archaeology. The rot is sure and true!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on English Language.
LikeLike