Do we (Muslims, Christians and Jews) believe in the same God or not?

[LeoSalinas22]

ha-ha. very funny. it is to laugh. your crazy for saying that, though i do understand what you mean. but no, i loves zee women, thank you very much! but i will say that God is my Husband, and i think that He would have it no other way. would you say that i am gay for God? you betcha! i guess you could say that i am spiritually gay? is that possible? wow, i will have to look into this! thanks bobb-o.

 

[dauer]

Thus my preference for, as BB puts it, big tits in the sky over big beard in the sky. Would rather suckle than bend over.

 

[LeoSalinas22]

well, you can look at it that way as well. being nurtured by the Almighty Himself is an awesome thing. no problem here, but as for me, i would rather have God inside me. sucking on His boobs just wouldn't be enough. i want to go all the way. i want to be one with Him. i want to make love with Him. i want to give myself to Him because i am His and no one else's. this, to me, is true love... and i am not ashamed of this.

 

[dauer]

Meh, I'd rather have all distinctions between I and You vanish as She and I merge in the ecstasy of union than get buggered. There's a beautiful hasidic hanhagah that compares shuckling during davennen to making love to the Shechinah or Divine feminine, G!d's indwelling presence in the Jewish tradition.

And there's nothing wrong with being gay for G!d, either, or gay for other people for that matter. Whatever gets you there.

 

[LeoSalinas22]

you see, dauer, this is where i get really confused. i am the kind of guy that is heavily into the TaNaCh, meaning that i can't find it in myself to look elsewhere besides the scriptures. this divine femine, is this the oral law?. so far i have not read anything that states the possibility that God is a she instead of a He (minus His wisdom which is stated in Mishlei as a she, is this what you meant? but that is His Wisdom and not Himself, if that makes sense...). now i know that God isn't a man, but so far the way i understand this is that He dominates all of His creation, the way that man dominates the earth and so forth. in other words, His being a He makes more sense, to me, because His dominance is evident in His works. hope you know what i mean. and no, i am not gay, though there is something wrong with it, but hey, you are right! whatever gets you there...

 

[LeoSalinas22]

sorry, guys! this has really gotten waaaaaay off topic. i will leave it to the moderators to decide what to do with this subject so far.

 

[dauer]

Well in Judaism G!d is neither male nor female, however is described using the language of genders. The tanach uses both masculine and feminine names for G!d, as well as feminine and masculine adjectives. For example rachamim which means compassion is actually related to rechem, womb. Thus it is a wombly compassion. El Shaddai can be translated as G!d of breasts or breasted G!d. The term shechinah is related to mishkan and is a word frequently used in the gemara and targumim. It's a synonym for G!d's kavod. Especially in Jewish mysticism the shechinah came to be related to the Divine feminine or, more specifically, a particular and important element of the Divine feminine which is related to many other things such as Knesset Israel and Shabbat. Shabbat is another feminine, as well as Torah.

In the same way that G!d is not actually a Rock, we would not hold that G!d is actually male or actually female, however the imaginal, expressive properties of that type of language is quite powerful.

The idea of dominance, as it were, is frequently captured in male G!d language where certain elements of the G!dhead are described as more giving, whereas female elements are described as being more receptive. I don't think it is very good to compare G!d to man's domination of the earth. We too frequently rape the land instead of living in harmony with it. There is a Jewish concept of bal tashchit that derives from not chopping down a fruit-bearing tree in wartime, that basically translates to the idea of having a small footprint, and to me that is a much healthier foundation than dominance.

It does not really make sense for you to make an absolute claim that there is something wrong with being gay, unless you are in the habit of elevating biased historical texts to the level of idolatry. If you had said I feel, think or believe there is something wrong with it, or presented unbiased evidence, that would be a stronger case, but there is no objective evidence to support such a thesis, just as there is no evidence to show there is anything wrong with polyamory, polytheism, atheism or blasphemy. Those are only cultural hangups.

It is a curious subject though, homoeroticism and religion, and its relationship to religious prohibitions of homosexuality. I think that it may be a way some of the religious founders discovered to address suppressed homosexual tendencies that were at that time considered taboo although imo that is not likely the origins of a male deity which I would think had more to do with creating G!d in the image of man, which in a patriarchy is going to be male.

 

[wil]

...the origins of a male deity which I would think had more to do with creating G!d in the image of man, which in a patriarchy is going to be male.

Let's see for the past thousands of years in most cultures men have been the priests, the scribes, the authors...and in most households women have allowed men to think they were the king of their castle...

It only stands to reason that when the male priest read what the male scribe wrote about what the male prophet said in a male lead world that G!d would end up male.

And then as Dauer pointed out, while Greek and Latin and Hebrew and Aramaic may have gender specific terms and names....we here in the English speaking world dropped all those and made them gender neutral...um and male being a neutral term to a male dominated world.

But when we look around in nature our creators....those that beget life...they are often female...and that is what created all the goddess tradition early on...after all these females were running around swelling and spitting out babies at a time when men had actually no idea they were even involved in the process...and then when they realized they were...and when they were...ie when they were able to drag a woman away and have their way...the pendulum swung...as it were..

So back on subject yes we Abrahamic folks do believe in Her and She appreciates it!

 

[dauer]

Yes, actually Mariolatry seems to have evolved in Catholicism alongside the increase in the importance of the shechinah in Judaism.

 

[LeoSalinas22]

dauer,

Well in Judaism G!d is neither male nor female, however is described using the language of genders. The tanach uses both masculine and feminine names for G!d, as well as feminine and masculine adjectives. For example rachamim which means compassion is actually related to rechem, womb. Thus it is a wombly compassion.

*sighs* it is times like this that i wish God had given me the ability to know the hebrew language. in this case, dauer, you have the upper hand on this subject, because you know the language and i don't. but this doesn't explain why all the english translated texts translated by the jewish, refer to God as He. if what you say is true, how come this isn't stated in their translations? point me to a particular english translated tanach that was translated by the jewish that states what you are saying about the divine feminine, then your response i will take at face value.

El Shaddai can be translated as G!d of breasts or breasted G!d.

i thought El Shaddai translated into God Almighty?

The term shechinah is related to mishkan and is a word frequently used in the gemara and targumim. It's a synonym for G!d's kavod. Especially in Jewish mysticism the shechinah came to be related to the Divine feminine or, more specifically, a particular and important element of the Divine feminine which is related to many other things such as Knesset Israel and Shabbat. Shabbat is another feminine, as well as Torah.

look, please don't think i am being rude, but the words highlighted in red, i don't understand. remember, i am not hebrew so i don't know the language. i understand that you may be hardpressed for time, but if you are going to explain these things to me or to whomever is reading this post, it would be wise to explain their meaning in english since that is this sights main language. if you are short on time, please state so, so that i can know that is the reason why you didn't explain these words in english. sorry that i am not as smart as you...

In the same way that G!d is not actually a Rock, we would not hold that G!d is actually male or actually female, however the imaginal, expressive properties of that type of language is quite powerful.

this makes alot of sense, but at the same time it doesn't to me, because for some reason, i tend to see a rock more masculine than feminine. men are more "chiseled" and hard and resistant to physical punishment. like a rock. but women are more beautiful, graceful, sensitive. very fragile. not very much like a rock, no? more in tune with something like wisdom. very graceful and beautiful.

The idea of dominance, as it were, is frequently captured in male G!d language where certain elements of the G!dhead are described as more giving, whereas female elements are described as being more receptive.

very true! God has to be masculine. He doesn't receive anything from us because everything we have is His. only He gives to us and we receive. thanks for that. i learned something with this statement.

I don't think it is very good to compare G!d to man's domination of the earth. We too frequently rape the land instead of living in harmony with it.

why is it not good to compare? true that we are ruining the earth, but it still doesn't mean that God didn't give it to us to dominate it. regardless of how man treats God's gift, we still dominate the earth. after all, i am only understanding what it states in the hebrew scriptures.

There is a Jewish concept of bal tashchit that derives from not chopping down a fruit-bearing tree in wartime, that basically translates to the idea of having a small footprint, and to me that is a much healthier foundation than dominance.

to me, truth is more healthier.

It does not really make sense for you to make an absolute claim that there is something wrong with being gay, unless you are in the habit of elevating biased historical texts to the level of idolatry. If you had said I feel, think or believe there is something wrong with it, or presented unbiased evidence, that would be a stronger case, but there is no objective evidence to support such a thesis, just as there is no evidence to show there is anything wrong with polyamory, polytheism, atheism or blasphemy. Those are only cultural hangups.

you see, dauer, that is where you and i differintiate, you look at this world's culteral hangups when i do the opposite. i look at God's works. though i love the hebrew scriptures, i didn't need for them to tell me that God gave man an anus for exit only purposes. i knew this since i first started to do number 2 in the toilet. way before i had knowledge of God. i will not say that i feel or that i think, because i know by seeing God's works, that we are not supposed to be having sex with the same sex. why else would there be all these beautiful women? or vice versa for the ladies! imho, the texts are not biased but truthful. they are there for our own good. so lets just drop this subject because the truth is that you can't change my way of thinking or i you, right?

It is a curious subject though, homoeroticism and religion, and its relationship to religious prohibitions of homosexuality. I think that it may be a way some of the religious founders discovered to address suppressed homosexual tendencies that were at that time considered taboo although imo that is not likely the origins of a male deity which I would think had more to do with creating G!d in the image of man, which in a patriarchy is going to be male.

curious subject indeed! but still doesn't have secure footing causing it to slip and fall and bearing no weight on the matter of God's commandments. God's works are all i see.

 

[wil]

Namaste Leo...

FYI Stone, Rock, Pebble, Mountain....all feminine...

river, ocean, stream, lake, cloud ....masculine

 

[bob x]

i thought El Shaddai translated into God Almighty?

That's what King James does with the name, but there is no basis for that translation.

The term shechinah is related to mishkan and is a word frequently used in the gemara and targumim. It's a synonym for G!d's kavod. Especially in Jewish mysticism the shechinah came to be related to the Divine feminine or, more specifically, a particular and important element of the Divine feminine which is related to many other things such as Knesset Israel and Shabbat. Shabbat is another feminine, as well as Torah. look, please don't think i am being rude, but the words highlighted in red, i don't understand

shekhinah is sometimes rendered the "presence" of God; closest Christian analogue I guess would be the Holy Spirit (ruach "spirit" in Hebrew is feminine also; it is neuter in Greek, only in Latin did the spirit turn masculine). The Gemara is the later section of the Talmud (rabbinical commentaries), and Targum means a vernacular translation (particularly into Aramaic when that was the common language; many Targumim also have commentaries interspersed with the translation). Kavod is "glory" (more literally, "heaviness"). The Knesset is the "assembly" or "gathering" (politically, the "Parliament" of the modern state). Shabbat is the more accurate pronunciation for "Sabbath".

i didn't need for them to tell me that God gave man an anus for exit only purposes.

Apparently you are unaware that there are many homosexuals who aren't particularly into anal sex, nor that there are many heterosexuals who are. You should also consider that the buttocks are filled with sensitive nerve endings for no evident purpose except to make butt-play enjoyable.

i will not say that i feel or that i think, because i know by seeing God's works, that we are not supposed to be having sex with the same sex. why else would there be all these beautiful women? or vice versa for the ladies!

Why would there be all these beautiful guys? And guys who are attracted to them? You aren't really seeing all of God's works if you can't see the beauty that I see.

the truth is that you can't change my way of thinking or i you, right?

What you can change is your unwillingness to understand that others are different, and yet are God's work all the same.

 

[dauer]

*sighs* it is times like this that i wish God had given me the ability to know the hebrew language. in this case, dauer, you have the upper hand on this subject, because you know the language and i don't. but this doesn't explain why all the english translated texts translated by the jewish, refer to God as He. if what you say is true, how come this isn't stated in their translations? point me to a particular english translated tanach that was translated by the jewish that states what you are saying about the divine feminine, then your response i will take at face value.

It is translated as he when that pronoun is used. There is no neuter gender in Hebrew. What I can do is point you to a Jewish source I tend to dislike that says much as what I did about gender:

Seeking the Sacred Feminine

i thought El Shaddai translated into God Almighty?

That's not a literal translation. Shaddai can be understood as referring to either mountains or breasts and has been understood in both ways.

This page explains why it is sometimes translated as almighty:

Shaddai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(note that it was based on Christian mistranslation, or interpretation if you prefer, not on the actual meaning of the word.)

look, please don't think i am being rude, but the words highlighted in red, i don't understand. remember, i am not hebrew so i don't know the language. i understand that you may be hardpressed for time, but if you are going to explain these things to me or to whomever is reading this post, it would be wise to explain their meaning in english since that is this sights main language. if you are short on time, please state so, so that i can know that is the reason why you didn't explain these words in english. sorry that i am not as smart as you..

Sorry, and it's got nothing to do with intelligence. I saw you use the word Tanach and thought you'd understand other hebrew words. The miskan is G!d's dwelling place, the tabernacle. Shechinah is G!d's indwelling presence. Kavod is G!d's glory. The hebrew word kavod carries with it a connotation of weightiness, of substance.

this makes alot of sense, but at the same time it doesn't to me, because for some reason, i tend to see a rock more masculine than feminine. men are more "chiseled" and hard and resistant to physical punishment. like a rock. but women are more beautiful, graceful, sensitive. very fragile. not very much like a rock, no? more in tune with something like wisdom. very graceful and beautiful.

I'm not saying Rock is feminine. I'm saying that just as rock is a metaphor, so too is the masculine and feminine. However for more feminine imagery how about mayyim chayyim? That is the living waters of the mikveh. It is I think Ezekiel who refers to G!d as mayyim chayyim in one instance. The waters are almost womb-like, a receptive, enveloping space. Mikveh is what baptism derives from.

very true! God has to be masculine. He doesn't receive anything from us because everything we have is His. only He gives to us and we receive. thanks for that. i learned something with this statement.

Well that is an important aspect of Jewish theology too, is the giving of G!d and the receiving of humanity, but in that there is a difference because Judaism has both an immanent and transcendent element of deity. The shechinah, being the immanent, is receptive to the transcendent. I could say, as you have said similarly, that everything is G!d and therefore there is no giving or receiving at all. However either of those arguments evades the issue by taking the giving and receiving too literally and then dismissing it.

At a higher level, within Jewish theology, we really can't say anything about G!d at all. But coming down to a lower level we do see differentiation and ways in which G!d interacts with the world and with G!dself, or the way G!d G!ds (as a verb) G!d depending on your understanding, such that we can talk about giving and receiving by G!d.

why is it not good to compare? true that we are ruining the earth, but it still doesn't mean that God didn't give it to us to dominate it. regardless of how man treats God's gift, we still dominate the earth. after all, i am only understanding what it states in the hebrew scriptures.

Yes, you are limiting yourself to a finite historical text that, like many other historical texts, has fueled many wars, much xenophobia, and much closed-mindedness. It seems destructive to say we are here to dominate the world based on what humanity has done in response to that mentality. It only advocates further rape of our home.

to me, truth is more healthier.

But it's not a matter of truth. Just because you believe something to be true, even if you have experienced it to be true, that does not make it so. You cannot objectively demonstrate that the world is ours to dominate. You can only say it is so by pointing to a biased historical text that is paradigmatically limited to the cultural beliefs and trends of its time. There are many other books and many others who, like you, would become idolators in elevating their texts to the level of the Divine.

i look at God's works.

Then your first fallacy is assuming that G!d exists and your second is assuming that G!d has an active relationship with the world. I would suggest that, rather than looking at G!d's works, you are elevating your own egocentric and ethnocentric experiences to worldcentric levels, confusing the two, when in reality many have had contrary experiences to yours and it is only your blind faith which holds you.

i didn't need for them to tell me that God gave man an anus for exit only purposes. i knew this since i first started to do number 2 in the toilet.

Why do you automatically equate sodomy with homosexuality? And to be quite frank, regarding the male anus, due to the presence of the prostate it is quite sensitive to stimulation. And of anuses in general, male and female, when there is the resistance to the sphincter as it clenches that can create pleasant feelings. Friction there can do it too. Taking a dump is pleasurable which encourages the young being to defecate and that built-in (G!d-given if you will) feature also allows for other types of stimulation. However I would still question why you assume sodomy is directly connected to homosexuality. That would be like assuming only homosexuals have oral sex. And what of lesbians? Certainly there isn't much sodomy going on there.

i will not say that i feel or that i think, because i know by seeing God's works, that we are not supposed to be having sex with the same sex

But that is feeling. You may believe it strongly, you may have convinced yourself, but you only have your subjective experience. Your own personal experience does not necessarily demonstrate universal proofs. That would be like a schyzophrenic claiming their hallucinations are real.

why else would there be all these beautiful women? or vice versa for the ladies!

And yet some women would only have an interest in beautiful women, and some men only in beautiful men. Why else would G!d create that same-sex attraction if not as a gateway to holiness? I know, I know, it's the devil tempting those folks into sin, right?

I'm glad you're able to admit that it is only in your opinion that the texts are truthful and not biased. It is an admission of your subjectivity, and that it isn't necessarily a universal truth. If you wish to drop the subject you do not need to respond to me. I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong, only answering your queries and offering counterpoints to your statements. I tend to have a hard time with absolutist ethnocentrism however I am perfectly willing to live and let live so long as it doesn't come to harm others.

curious subject indeed! but still doesn't have secure footing causing it to slip and fall and bearing no weight on the matter of God's commandments.

But that assumes that G!d commands, and that you know what G!d commands even though there is no objective proof that G!d comands, only a book of myths, legends, wars, aphorisms, propoganda, polemic.

edit: Sorry, I didn't see the words in red. Thanks for filling in the gaps, bob.

 

[LeoSalinas22]

Namaste Leo...

FYI Stone, Rock, Pebble, Mountain....all feminine...

river, ocean, stream, lake, cloud ....masculine

lets see. stone, rock, pebble. enlighten me how these are feminine? i can see the mountains. but even then, mountains are tall and strong and immovable. proud even! it has more masculine traits than it does feminine.

then there is the river, ocean, stream, lake, coud. all made of water, which to me is very much feminine because they take on the form of its property. they all are very calm one moment. beautiful and graceful, even. then the next, roaring with rage and frightful, very much like my wife! doesn't remind me of a man at all. what do you make of it?

 

[LeoSalinas22]

hey bob,

shekhinah is sometimes rendered the "presence" of God; closest Christian analogue I guess would be the Holy Spirit (ruach "spirit" in Hebrew is feminine also; it is neuter in Greek, only in Latin did the spirit turn masculine). The Gemara is the later section of the Talmud (rabbinical commentaries), and Targum means a vernacular translation (particularly into Aramaic when that was the common language; many Targumim also have commentaries interspersed with the translation). Kavod is "glory" (more literally, "heaviness"). The Knesset is the "assembly" or "gathering" (politically, the "Parliament" of the modern state). Shabbat is the more accurate pronunciation for "Sabbath".

thanks for your response on that. now i will apply it to dauer's post!

Apparently you are unaware that there are many homosexuals who aren't particularly into anal sex, nor that there are many heterosexuals who are. You should also consider that the buttocks are filled with sensitive nerve endings for no evident purpose except to make butt-play enjoyable.

okaaaay. so then the next question. what makes a homosexual a homosexual? the state of mind? or the physical? if i had a choice, it would be the physical. the mind we really can't help. nasty thoughts always cross the mind, but we sure can prevent ourselves from carrying out a detestable act. i guess it depends. i mean a kiss can be taken different ways depending on how you think about it. Jonathan and David kissed. and according to scriptures, they kissed alot! but they never crossed the line. i guess a kiss is ok. but if i kiss and grab the other dude's butt, well then that is something else entirely.

Why would there be all these beautiful guys? And guys who are attracted to them? You aren't really seeing all of God's works if you can't see the beauty that I see.

oh, don't get me wrong, i know a good looking dude when i see one. just look at Brad Pitt or Eric Bana in Troy! doesn't mean i want to get down with them. i know God's works when i see them. i mean, whomever wrote Genesis thought that Joseph was good looking or whomever wrote Samuel thought David was good looking as well. these writers knew God's works. were they gay? who knows? i think not!

What you can change is your unwillingness to understand that others are different, and yet are God's work all the same.

very true statement. thanks for being patient with me. i am still learning. i don't think i will ever stop learning though. always something new when it comes to God.

 

[wil]

lets see. stone, rock, pebble. enlighten me how these are feminine? i can see the mountains. but even then, mountains are tall and strong and immovable. proud even! it has more masculine traits than it does feminine.

then there is the river, ocean, stream, lake, coud. all made of water, which to me is very much feminine because they take on the form of its property. they all are very calm one moment. beautiful and graceful, even. then the next, roaring with rage and frightful, very much like my wife! doesn't remind me of a man at all. what do you make of it?

I can't answer your questions...the languages that identify nouns as masculine and feminine are much older than english and our current interpretations of same.. If you see these masculine words (masculine in french, latin, spanish etc) as feminine and feminine words as masculine....and you see G!d as masculine...maybe this is an indication that (S)He is feminine as well?

Think about it, those in power and those who viewed women as second class citizens (they aren't even numbered in population counts in the bible) may not have wanted to identify with a feminine G!d. When it was translated to English...they didn't want to say It... and some did perceive G!d as some anthropomorphic being...layover from Greek and Roman mythology...so they portrayed and defined spirit as Him. Again as described before...man making G1d in his image.

 

[LeoSalinas22]

hello wil,

I can't answer your questions...the languages that identify nouns as masculine and feminine are much older than english and our current interpretations of same.. If you see these masculine words (masculine in french, latin, spanish etc) as feminine and feminine words as masculine....and you see G!d as masculine...maybe this is an indication that (S)He is feminine as well?

i know what you mean. i guess what i meant to ask is what do your eyes see in God's works? don't His works defy language? isn't this the same reason why no one can pronounce His name? for instance, He compares us to fruit bearing trees. namely His works. we are all very similar. all conncected. we may not look alike, but we all come from the same stuff. from the dust of the earth. that is why He is described as a Rock at times. or heck, He can be like a shield. what does a man do for a woman, as well? he protects her... like God protects us (man). point being, God has revealed Himself as Fire at night and a Cloud by day. wow, i can keep going, but this post would never end!

Think about it, those in power and those who viewed women as second class citizens (they aren't even numbered in population counts in the bible) may not have wanted to identify with a feminine G!d. When it was translated to English...they didn't want to say It... and some did perceive G!d as some anthropomorphic being...layover from Greek and Roman mythology...so they portrayed and defined spirit as Him. Again as described before...man making G1d in his image.

i disagree. let me tell you why. if this were true, then the people that wrote the scriptures would have ommited the book of Ruth or Esther for that matter! they would have ommitted the fact that Adam listened to Eve instead of God, or Abraham with Sarah, as well. or Samson and Delilah. for such machismo, the dude's in the bible sure listened to women alot, don't you think? seems to me that the women in the bible were the ones with the pantalones! on top, think about it. if man is like the woman, then it makes sense that God gives us anything we want. and we do get what we want, if we just ask Him for it, like a nagging wife to her husband. just my thoughts. thanks for your response, wil.

 

[LeoSalinas22]

dauer,

i am about to get out of work for today, but i will get back to your post tomorrow. i want to make it worth your while to read my crazy remarks. i really enjoy talking with you about God and the history of man. thanks for taking the time to respond, since i personally know that posting here requires our precious little time. see you manana!

 

[bob x]

"okaaaay. so then the next question. what makes a homosexual a homosexual? the state of mind? or the physical? if i had a choice, it would be the physical. "
But you don't have the choice. It is principally the state of mind.

"the mind we really can't help. nasty thoughts always cross the mind"
It is exceedingly rude of you to characterize my feelings for my beloved as "nasty". You are speaking of what is very holy to me.

"Jonathan and David kissed. and according to scriptures, they kissed alot! but they never crossed the line. "
I believe you are grossly mistaken. There is not a single passage where their relationship is mentioned without an overt emphasis on the *physicality* of it. When Jonathan first sees David, "his bowels yearned for him." When they are first alone together, Jonathan strips naked (it is explicitly stated that he took off even his loincloth) and "gave him his all." Jonathan invents a coded signal to alert David whether he should flee, immediately, without coming back to the palace, but David feels he must come back anyway for a last hug. Saul insists on separating the two because Jonathan is loving David "to the confusion of a mother's nakedness", an odd phrase and hard to interpret otherwise than sexually (best guess: Saul means that Jonathan is failing to beget a son, his duty as the next in line to the throne; significantly, Jonathan does not have a son until after he is separated from David). And of course, when Jonathan dies, David mourns, "Most excellent was your love to me, far better than the love of women." I do not know how much more explicit the book of Samuel could have gotten, other than by veering into soft homo-porn; the author of Samuel takes a very matter-of-fact attitude toward their sexuality, clearly not showing the Leviticus attitude at all. (A major problem that Biblical fundamentalists have is refusing to see that different books in the Bible are written by different authors, who often *sharply disagree* with each other.)

"i know a good looking dude when i see one. just look at Brad Pitt or Eric Bana in Troy! doesn't mean i want to get down with them"
I don't really know, and can't know, what it is like to look at Brad Pitt and not have any urge at all to pull his pants down; I suppose it must be like the way I look at women whom other guys feel urges for.
Daniel Dennett had this example: suppose we discovered a long-lost fugue by Bach, but unfortunately, the opening theme-notes were precisely the tune to "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer". Could we possibly ever hear that fugue the way someone in 1720 would have heard it? Similarly, when you look at Brad, are you really seeing the same thing that I am seeing?

 

[LeoSalinas22]

hello dauer,

It is translated as he when that pronoun is used. There is no neuter gender in Hebrew. What I can do is point you to a Jewish source I tend to dislike that says much as what I did about gender:

i was hoping for you to be able to point me to a TaNaCh version that states that God is a she. my assumption is that there is none, that this is just some made up theory. unless, it is like you say, that the jewish translators were biased? thanks anyways...

That's not a literal translation. Shaddai can be understood as referring to either mountains or breasts and has been understood in both ways.
(note that it was based on Christian mistranslation, or interpretation if you prefer, not on the actual meaning of the word.)

well, at least we have the tetragramatton or Adonai...

I'm not saying Rock is feminine. I'm saying that just as rock is a metaphor, so too is the masculine and feminine. However for more feminine imagery how about mayyim chayyim? That is the living waters of the mikveh. It is I think Ezekiel who refers to G!d as mayyim chayyim in one instance. The waters are almost womb-like, a receptive, enveloping space. Mikveh is what baptism derives from.

where can i find the chapter and verse for the mayyim chayyim?

Well that is an important aspect of Jewish theology too, is the giving of G!d and the receiving of humanity, but in that there is a difference because Judaism has both an immanent and transcendent element of deity. The shechinah, being the immanent, is receptive to the transcendent. I could say, as you have said similarly, that everything is G!d and therefore there is no giving or receiving at all. However either of those arguments evades the issue by taking the giving and receiving too literally and then dismissing it.

well, lets take a moment to annalyze the souls that are across the sea from us. somewhere like lets say africa, where children are starving or dying of thirst. do you think that perhaps if you were in their situation, would you still feel the same? that God doesn't give or that we recieve at all? perhaps, you have never suffered a day in your life and perhaps that is why you claim there is a possibility that God doesn't exist? i don't want you to think that i am being personal or attacking you, just wondering what you would be like given you were under different circumstances.

At a higher level, within Jewish theology, we really can't say anything about G!d at all.

but we can say things about God. many say that He is a big mystery. that is completely false. His works are all around us so that we can behold with our eyes and then judge for ourselves. He wants to be seen. He wants us to find Him. that is the ultimate reward. for us to let Him lift the veil off of our faces so that we can see Him clearly, in all His Glory and Might.

Yes, you are limiting yourself to a finite historical text that, like many other historical texts, has fueled many wars, much xenophobia, and much closed-mindedness. It seems destructive to say we are here to dominate the world based on what humanity has done in response to that mentality. It only advocates further rape of our home.

really? which texts am i limiting myself to? i know that dominate is an ugly word. but it is true, we eat off of the land and live off of it. if God didn't want for us to have any food or water, He just wouldn't let us have it, but it is there for the taking. even the air we breath is given to us. He is both merciful with the righteous and the wicked. no matter how we treat this planet, it was given to us. but not all are treating the earth badly, some are actually doing what they can to protect it, though it is for naught, some people actually do good here....

But it's not a matter of truth. Just because you believe something to be true, even if you have experienced it to be true, that does not make it so. You cannot objectively demonstrate that the world is ours to dominate. You can only say it is so by pointing to a biased historical text that is paradigmatically limited to the cultural beliefs and trends of its time. There are many other books and many others who, like you, would become idolators in elevating their texts to the level of the Divine.

ok, i can see why you think i have some sort of earth "machismo". first and foremost, lets get this out of the way, i don't idolize the bible. those verses have been corrupted in many ways. so i tread the ground i walk on very carefully. what i do do i rely heavily on analyzing God's works. many of the Prophets or scribes during the time the TaNaCh was written is all they did. they didn't idolize verses, they looked to God for their answers. also, stop making it seem like i know the truth. i am merely seeing what is presented to me in my face. the earth is ours. the truth is that we breath the air that is in it. we eat the meat that is in it. the fruit, the water. it isn't my fault that the gentiles are charging us for all of this stuff when it is supposed to be for free. it is not my fault neither that the countries set up borders or lay claim to a land, or sell land that isn't even theirs to sell to begin with. these times make it seem like none of this is ours, but through God's Eyes, it is. this is what i think. and i don't blame you for thinking the way you do, because these times suck...

Then your first fallacy is assuming that G!d exists and your second is assuming that G!d has an active relationship with the world. I would suggest that, rather than looking at G!d's works, you are elevating your own egocentric and ethnocentric experiences to worldcentric levels, confusing the two, when in reality many have had contrary experiences to yours and it is only your blind faith which holds you.

well, then, dauer, you explain to me who is giving you the air you breath, or the home you live in, or the clothe you have on your back? are you saying that this was done by your own hand? your might? God does have an active part in this world. if i don't look at God's works, what should i look for then, "o mighty one"? i know that i am unique and that no one will have the same experiences that i have. and i know that you will never see what i see or feel what i feel, but i know in my heart that years from now, we will all be one with God in the new world. this i know, though you may not agree, that is ok. but i never have forced anyone to see what i see. please don't think that of me. just trying to understand myself and God. and another thing, lets not make this about me, please...

Why do you automatically equate sodomy with homosexuality? And to be quite frank, regarding the male anus, due to the presence of the prostate it is quite sensitive to stimulation. And of anuses in general, male and female, when there is the resistance to the sphincter as it clenches that can create pleasant feelings.

"milking the prostate" are we, dauer? to each his own.

Friction there can do it too. Taking a dump is pleasurable which encourages the young being to defecate and that built-in (G!d-given if you will) feature also allows for other types of stimulation. However I would still question why you assume sodomy is directly connected to homosexuality. That would be like assuming only homosexuals have oral sex. And what of lesbians? Certainly there isn't much sodomy going on there.

as i mentioned, i find nothing wrong with any of these things you mentioned, though i myself wouldn't do some of these things, it doesn't mean i will do it with the same sex. if you do it with someone you love and are going to spend the rest of your natural life with that person, then do it, just as long it isn't with the same sex. these are just my thoughts. please don't be offended...

But that is feeling. You may believe it strongly, you may have convinced yourself, but you only have your subjective experience. Your own personal experience does not necessarily demonstrate universal proofs. That would be like a schyzophrenic claiming their hallucinations are real.

it is not about my experience but about analyzing my environment. His works. how would you know that a schizo's hallucinations aren't real? are you God? do you see all? or don't tell me, they just have a chemical imbalance in their brain, right? i completely disagree with chemical imbalances. man can't even figure out how the brain produces thoughts or memories, let alone they are authorized to think for us about what is wrong with our brains. bullcrap if you ask me.

And yet some women would only have an interest in beautiful women, and some men only in beautiful men. Why else would G!d create that same-sex attraction if not as a gateway to holiness?

what ever gets us there, right, dauer?

I know, I know, it's the devil tempting those folks into sin, right?

stop blaming the devil, dude! we commit the transgression, not the devil,ok?

I'm glad you're able to admit that it is only in your opinion that the texts are truthful and not biased. It is an admission of your subjectivity, and that it isn't necessarily a universal truth. If you wish to drop the subject you do not need to respond to me. I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong, only answering your queries and offering counterpoints to your statements. I tend to have a hard time with absolutist ethnocentrism however I am perfectly willing to live and let live so long as it doesn't come to harm others.

thanks for being patient with me, bro. i will continue to talk about the subject as long as you don't point the finger at me and i can assure you that i will not point the finger at you, as well.

But that assumes that G!d commands, and that you know what G!d commands even though there is no objective proof that G!d comands, only a book of myths, legends, wars, aphorisms, propoganda, polemic.

again, i don't go by the texts because the Prophets didn't go by texts neither since there were none at the time. the proof i see is in my surroundings. thanks for reading. hope to hear from you soon.