Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bombadil
I even recognize that my continued use of the masculine pronoun implies a conception that others may strongly disagree with. But that detail is not central to the question of whether a generally faith-based society, as portrayed in TOS, is or might be a good thing.
|
Calling God "He" is of course a anthropomorphism. If we speak of God as in the Judeo/Xtian sense, God is Self-revealed, and whatever we know about Him comes from Him. In terms of our Human frame of reference, there are really only two ways we can conceptualize God, in terms of gender. Obviously, there was a 50/50 chance it might have gone the other way, in which case centuries of bitching would have reflected
that reality. Why God has chosen (if you accept the J/C world view, of course) to be known as "Him" and not "Her" is something we are not told. Perhaps it is something our limited minds cannot fully grasp?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bombadil
Having said that, I will take slight issue with just one part of your response: “God, as defined by the method and means of worhip whose practices, forms and symobism I recognise to be acceptable. . .” Strictly speaking, you are absolutely correct. However, your statement might be understood to mean that I merely accept blindly the definition of the establishment (whatever that is). If, however, you mean it to signify “God, as my limited and fallible self understands Him. . .” then I will not disagree with you. There is a God, but describing Him in a manner that is agreeable to everybody is not an easy task.
|
We must ask ourselves, acceptable where, and by whom? After all, some religions conceive of God as a bloodthirsty warrior who slaughters for the sheer joy of it. Others as a hungry, angry diety, who demands Human flesh to eat. Still others as some nameless, faceless natural force. Obviously, they can't all be right, and when we use the word "acceptable", we need to qualify what we mean thereby.
