PDA

View Full Version : HE is a SHE?



Benedikt
02-06-2015, 22:57
http://www.orf.at/#/stories/2281751/

i am sue google or yandex will do a nice translation....

rusmeister
03-06-2015, 05:03
The most intelligent response (if you will read the essay in English; I don't think Google Translate will do a good job):

http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/priestesses.html

Benedikt
03-06-2015, 06:02
The most intelligent response (if you will read the essay in English; I don't think Google Translate will do a good job):

http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/priestesses.html


we started in school when i was 11 years old. and are using it more ever since than my native german language...

rusmeister
03-06-2015, 21:09
we started in school when i was 11 years old. and are using it more ever since than my native german language...

If that's so what do you have to say to the man's main ideas?

Benedikt
03-06-2015, 21:30
If that's so what do you have to say to the man's main ideas?

HE also had his followers and not a few were women. And did HE not ell all of them ( and not the men only) -gehet hin und lehret alle Völker- roughly translated i would say it means, you all get out and teach/instruct all nations...

I am not starting was HE married, did he have children and the likes.
Where i am now, there is not enough to do for the local priest (Batushka we call him, including me) so he is fixing gas. equipment, tubes and the likes. and we see no contradiction in this.
So why can it also not be that women could be the same? ordained as priests, after all they do it in the protestant/Anglican church and the Queen is the head of all of them. i suppose it was the idea of a few senile men who wanted to have the cake, but also eat it. Reform is long overdue.And if they will not do it sooner than later, the catholic church will just lose out in the long run.

penka
03-06-2015, 22:25
If that's so what do you have to say to the man's main ideas?

You so want to be holier than though.... And it is so sad. Given your life.

We call God for "He" as of tradition, not out of correctness, as He got no gender or no any remote association with any category we are familiar with.

Only the arrogant hypocrites dare to interpret His sayings or His being.

Benedikt
03-06-2015, 23:18
You so want to be holier than though.... And it is so sad. Given your life.

We call God for "He" as of tradition, not out of correctness, as He got no gender or no any remote association with any category we are familiar with.

Only the arrogant hypocrites dare to interpret His sayings or His being.



after all the bible says =and he made (a) man in his likeness. and it was good and HE liked it=. or something to that sort. so he must have been a male?
no one, not even Rus, is trying to be holier than God. we are just discussing things. that's what the forum is all about.

rusmeister
04-06-2015, 05:26
You so want to be holier than though.... And it is so sad. Given your life.

We call God for "He" as of tradition, not out of correctness, as He got no gender or no any remote association with any category we are familiar with.

Only the arrogant hypocrites dare to interpret His sayings or His being.

I think you mean "holier than thou".

It IS true that I want to be holier than I am. But you make unsupported leaps in thinking that a person who thinks something you disagree with to be true to think himself better than you, as well as labeling them "hypocrites" or "arrogant".
Is a scientist "arrogant" if he tells you the world is round, or what stars appear to be composed of? Is a historian arrogant because he believes the report of Pliny the Younger to be genuine?

And what does this have to do with anything Lewis said, anyway?

rusmeister
04-06-2015, 05:28
HE also had his followers and not a few were women. And did HE not ell all of them ( and not the men only) -gehet hin und lehret alle Völker- roughly translated i would say it means, you all get out and teach/instruct all nations...

I am not starting was HE married, did he have children and the likes.
Where i am now, there is not enough to do for the local priest (Batushka we call him, including me) so he is fixing gas. equipment, tubes and the likes. and we see no contradiction in this.
So why can it also not be that women could be the same? ordained as priests, after all they do it in the protestant/Anglican church and the Queen is the head of all of them. i suppose it was the idea of a few senile men who wanted to have the cake, but also eat it. Reform is long overdue.And if they will not do it sooner than later, the catholic church will just lose out in the long run.

Not sure what this
And did HE not ell all of them means.

And what does this have to do with Lewis's article on priestesses? It seems to just ignore it.

Benedikt
04-06-2015, 05:58
Not sure what this means.

And what does this have to do with Lewis's article on priestesses? It seems to just ignore it.



fingers got away before the eyes could realize it should be =tell=:bowdown:.and the spell check is lousy too.:bowdown:

fenrir
04-06-2015, 16:30
You so want to be holier than though.... And it is so sad. Given your life.

We call God for "He" as of tradition, not out of correctness, as He got no gender or no any remote association with any category we are familiar with.

Only the arrogant hypocrites dare to interpret His sayings or His being.

What do you base that on? The Bible and Koran see God as a He.

penka
04-06-2015, 16:58
What do you base that on? The Bible and Koran see God as a He.

Due to the human limitations, we cannot grasp the nature of the Supreme Being. How can we say, if God is a He or a She? It's more natural to suggest, the Supreme Being is beyond such categories.

TolkoRaz
04-06-2015, 18:20
Transgender?

Benedikt
04-06-2015, 20:47
Due to the human limitations, we cannot grasp the nature of the Supreme Being. How can we say, if God is a He or a She? It's more natural to suggest, the Supreme Being is beyond such categories.



HE made a man after hHIS image. so HE must have been a man.

penka
04-06-2015, 21:21
HE made a man after hHIS image. so HE must have been a man.

Indeed, it is said so. But according to the Biblical texts, no human ever saw God (John, 1:18), apart from in the shape of an angel (Jacob, if I recall correctly). So, can it be, the text "man in His image" should not be understood literally?

Benedikt
04-06-2015, 22:01
Indeed, it is said so. But according to the Biblical texts, no human ever saw God (John, 1:18), apart from in the shape of an angel (Jacob, if I recall correctly). So, can it be, the text "man in His image" should not be understood literally?



and i let it be from my part. maybe there are others who have studied the Scriptures more, so be it.

fenrir
04-06-2015, 22:22
Indeed, it is said so. But according to the Biblical texts, no human ever saw God (John, 1:18)

That's true but 2000+ years of Judeo-Christian scholarship says God is a He and that is good enough for me. Btw, angels are angels and God is God. One doesn't appear as the other.

penka
04-06-2015, 23:34
That's true but 2000+ years of Judeo-Christian scholarship says God is a He and that is good enough for me. Btw, angels are angels and God is God. One doesn't appear as the other.

That is why I referred to the tradition initially.

I am aware of that and also of Areopagita's gradation of the angels.
You might want to look through Exodus and Judges - as I've said, I don't remember the text very clearly.

fenrir
05-06-2015, 00:24
That is why I referred to the tradition initially.

I am aware of that and also of Areopagita's gradation of the angels.
You might want to look through Exodus and Judges - as I've said, I don't remember the text very clearly.

I read the Bible on a regular basis and I am very clear on this.

penka
05-06-2015, 00:29
I read the Bible on a regular basis and I am very clear on this.

Of course, you do;)

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 06:41
Transgender?

Zeus? Thor? Isis?

I mean, heck, if you're going to grasp at mythological categorizations, might as well go for broke...

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 06:56
Indeed, it is said so. But according to the Biblical texts, no human ever saw God (John, 1:18), apart from in the shape of an angel (Jacob, if I recall correctly). So, can it be, the text "man in His image" should not be understood literally?


That is why I referred to the tradition initially.

I am aware of that and also of Areopagita's gradation of the angels.
You might want to look through Exodus and Judges - as I've said, I don't remember the text very clearly.

Hi, Penka,
I think I can sum up your posts here as recognizing that you need to appeal to a tradition (otherwise, you're just making up stuff on your own). And you seem to have taken a little trouble to educate yourself on at least a few of the ideas judged to be heretical, but essentially no trouble to educate yourself on the orthodox (ie, ultimately agreed-upon and triumphant) view of the ancient Church. You can mention Aeropagites but don't know Maximus the Confessor. And so on.
I can't pretend to know everything (indeed, we have too much, not too little history to work with), but I have availed myself of resources like Ancient Faith Radio to listen to Fr Tom Hopko's lecture series on the ancient Church (sprinkled through his podcast "Speaking the Truth in Love (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko)), as well as (now Metropolitan) Kallistos Ware's excellent summary history of the Church (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/6.aspx), and so know there's an awful lot to that Tradition that you dismiss or ignore so brusquely.

Unless you can refer to a tradition that contains a LOT more knowledge than you do, you're going to be blind folk stumbling in the dark. If it's just "you and the Bible", you're totally screwed, as you have no authority except your own on which to understand ancient cultures and beliefs, and to construct a correct world view that explains life, the universe, and everything. You can't do it. I can't do it. Nobody can do it on their own.

Fantastika
17-06-2015, 16:07
Zeus? Thor? Isis?

I mean, heck, if you're going to grasp at mythological categorizations, might as well go for broke...

I think TolkoRaz was referring to transgender "Kaitlyn" Jenner, the former Decathlon champion, who has has revealed his inner woman (and trying to make a pile of cash with the unveiling in the meantime).

Now there is a white woman in Spokane who claims she is black (trans-racial).

What is wrong about calling God "He" or "She" is not that feminists may prefer "She" (in reaction to perceived discrimination, not as a result of any sort of real insight) but that the modern Progressive is now attempting to enforce non-discrimination in all facts of writing and authorship.

So if you don't want to be called a sexist, and you are writing a university research paper, you better be careful to be gender-neutral and use "he" and "she" interchangeably, or you will be labeled a "bigot."

English always used "he" as the gender neutral pronoun. The progressive fad would now have you use both "he" and "she".

For example:

"A banker may offer to lend money. She must specify the rate of interest and he must also specify the amount of the loan."

This is just confusing, not enlightening.

If the Bible was rewritten with all "He's" replaced by "She's" that would be readable, but replacing half of the "He's" with "She's" - that would just be gobbledygook.

Of course, such Progressives do not know what a "church" is, let alone a "bible."

TolkoRaz
17-06-2015, 16:22
I think TolkoRaz was referring to transgender "Kaitlyn" Jenner, the former Decathlon champion, who has has revealed his inner woman (and trying to make a pile of cash with the unveiling in the meantime).

Now there is a white woman in Spokane who claims she is black (trans-racial).

What is wrong about calling God "He" or "She" is not that feminists may prefer "She" (in reaction to perceived discrimination, not as a result of any sort of real insight) but that the modern Progressive is now attempting to enforce non-discrimination in all facts of writing and authorship.

So if you don't want to be called a sexist, and you are writing a university research paper, you better be careful to be gender-neutral and use "he" and "she" interchangeably, or you will be labeled a "bigot."

English always used "he" as the gender neutral pronoun. The progressive fad would now have you use both "he" and "she".

For example:

"A banker may offer to lend money. She must specify the rate of interest and he must also specify the amount of the loan."

This is just confusing, not enlightening.

If the Bible was rewritten with all "He's" replaced by "She's" that would be readable, but replacing half of the "He's" with "She's" - that would just be gobbledygook.

Of course, such Progressives do not know what a "church" is, let alone a "bible."

And here she is! ;)

Fantastika
17-06-2015, 17:16
"Shhe" (щи ? :) ) also had several operations to the face - lips, cheeks, lift, to enhance her "femininity." Maybe had his (at first I wrote "her" :eek:) brain replaced with щи...