What are you listening to ...right now?

Reply
Reply
Reply
(Jun 22, 2019 08:42 PM)Syne Wrote: ...

Um...you've already posted that one before. What? Don't you own your own car? Hitchhiking is dangerous, you know. Big Grin
Reply
(Jun 22, 2019 09:31 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jun 22, 2019 08:42 PM)Syne Wrote: ...

Um...you've already posted that one before. What? Don't you own your own car? Hitchhiking is dangerous, you know.  Big Grin

And? The topic is "What are you listening to ...right now".
If you don't like it, just don't hit play.
Reply
lol you two Big Grin
Reply
(Jun 24, 2019 05:17 AM)Leigha Wrote: lol you two Big Grin

Angel Wink


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-bwXhts8Zg

This is off topic, wegs, and I apologize for trying to drag you into this, but I’m really curious. The two of us have been discussing Jordan Peterson, whose rise to fame started with his critique of Bill C-16, which, by the way, passed.

He often argues that we’re not a patriarchal society. He says in his book that there is masculine order and feminine chaos, but that those are just symbolic representations of the two things. He thinks that our social hierarchy structures are primarily masculine, but that’s not his modern idea of patriarchy, that’s for sure. He says that our society is no longer male dominated, but at the same time he calls for the validity of religious language because he feels that there’s nothing else that can communicate that kind of grandeur to people who are in the direst of straits what’s most important in life in a manner that will help set them straight and put their soul at peace. So, according to Jordan Peterson, that’s the advantage of the religious language  

My question to you is, why do you use the pronoun "he" when referring to God?
Reply
(Jun 24, 2019 02:38 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jun 24, 2019 05:17 AM)Leigha Wrote: lol you two Big Grin

Angel Wink


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-bwXhts8Zg

This is off topic, wegs, and I apologize for trying to drag you into this, but I’m really curious. The two of us have been discussing Jordan Peterson, whose rise to fame started with his critique of Bill C-16, which, by the way, passed.

He often argues that we’re not a patriarchal society. He says in his book that there is masculine order and feminine chaos, but that those are just symbolic representations of the two things. He thinks that our social hierarchy structures are primarily masculine, but that’s not his modern idea of patriarchy, that’s for sure. He says that our society is no longer male dominated, but at the same time he calls for the validity of religious language because he feels that there’s nothing else that can communicate that kind of grandeur to people who are in the direst of straits what’s most important in life in a manner that will help set them straight and put their soul at peace. So, according to Jordan Peterson, that’s the advantage of the religious language  

My question to you is, why do you use the pronoun "he" when referring to God?

Probably just a byproduct/habit from my childhood upbringing of how to consider God. I've left faith and come back recently, and I believe that God embodies both female and male attributes. Not necessarily in a human condition kind of way, but that God represents both male and female. ''We'' were created in that likeness. I think ''he'' is a common way of referring to God, as ''it'' sounds impersonal, perhaps?

Jordan Peterson. There's a controversial guy. I don't mind some of his viewpoints, but I tend to take issue with someone who really doesn't follow any one particular religion, but plucks religious viewpoints to back up his own? That doesn't make much sense to me. So, he feels that the patriarchy of say the Abrahamic faiths is a positive?

Not to go off on a tangent...lol
Reply
(Jun 25, 2019 02:02 AM)Leigha Wrote: Probably just a byproduct/habit from my childhood upbringing of how to consider God. I've left faith and come back recently, and I believe that God embodies both female and male attributes. Not necessarily in a human condition kind of way, but that God represents both male and female. ''We'' were created in that likeness. I think ''he'' is a common way of referring to God, as ''it'' sounds impersonal, perhaps?


The Greco-Roman gods at least made pronoun selection easy via their genitals; and for the segment of Christian beliefs that deem "Jesus" to have been the embodied avatar of God on Earth, I guess that would be an additional source of "he/him" being justified. Albeit like other supernatural beings supposedly lacking sexual reproductive capacity from the start (angels, demons, God-not-incarnated) the groin package would be lost after resurrection or apotheosis to a spirit or whatever immortal entity classification. (Theologian Nancey Murphy, for instance, holds a rival view that resurrection revolves only around physical bodies that persist without deterioration. [see footnote, also])

If there are any gods of other cultures that can be legitimately construed as non-personhood agencies, then "it" might be applicable for one of those.

But otherwise, situation does indeed fall back on English and its lack of non-plural, gender-neutral personal pronouns (though English is hardly alone in that respect). The Spivak set of alternatives still isn't widely accepted or easily recognized when used.

Back when knowledge of biological gender was post-natal, circumstances could have been fairly weird in having to use "it" to refer to even a late-term unborn as a "thing".  Except everyone being forced to do that kind of mitigated such. (In fact, the lingering habit both then and now has people calling a baby "it" occasionally even after birth.)

- - - footnote - - -

Excerpt below from a much older "Closer To The Truth" episode than the one in the video link above.

NANCEY MURPHY:  Well this is a very interesting point of contact between science and  Christianity.  It may look to the outsider as though Christians have been dualists throughout their history, continue to be dualists…

ROBERT KUHN:  Dualists meaning…

NANCEY  MURPHY:  Believing in not just a body,  but some other component, generally called the soul, but the concept of soul at certain points in history is equivalent to the concept of mind. So a dualist is a person has been thought to be essential to Christianity. Now it looks as though the neuroscientists  are  coming  along  and  they’re saying, ah, there is no soul, in fact there is no substantial mind. It’s actually the brain or the nervous system that does all of the things that were once attributed to soul or mind. So it looks like yet another place where science encroaches and religion has to step back.

But in the, in the liberal half of Christianity, those who have a higher degree in theology are almost all phsyicalists.  

MICHAEL SCHERMER:  Really?  

ROBERT KUHN:  Physicalist meaning that there is no…

NANCEY MURPHY:  We’re just bodies.

ROBERT KUHN:  There is no non-physical element required to make us human beings.

NANCEY MURPHY: We’re just bodies. That’s right.

=BELOW FROM AN OLD INTERVIEW NO LONGER ON THE WEB=

MURPHY: "I follow New Testament scholar James Dunn in holding that the biblical authors were not interested in cataloguing the metaphysical parts of a human being -- body, soul, spirit, mind. Their interest was in relationships. The words that later Christians have translated with Greek philosophical terms and then understood as referring to parts of the self originally were used to designate aspects of human life. For example, spirit refers not to an immaterial something but to our capacity to be in relationship with God, to be moved by God’s Spirit. It is widely agreed that the Hebrew Bible presents a holistic account of human nature, somewhat akin to contemporary physicalism. The New Testament authors certainly knew various theories of human nature, including dualism, but it was not their purpose to teach about this issue."
Reply
I can’t really think of even a historical male figure that I could elevate to godhood. I wasn’t there, though. If I witnessed dead people crawling from their graves, I might do a 180. I’d probably take it past the feet washing thingy, though, but not from some captain save a hoe effect. I’m just envisioning him with a man bun. Wink 

Oops! That one probably tops Mother Teresa’s, eh?  Tongue 
 
"I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God--tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Crocodiles Listening to Bach Yazata 1 292 May 7, 2018 05:37 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  What Classic rock and roll tunes you listening to cosmictraveler 23 2,571 Dec 5, 2016 08:19 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)