references to God

[Elijah John]

I notice it seems to be the habit of many atheists and agnostics here on these forums to refer to God as "it".

And I think I understand the motivation, in that such references are most probably a desire to remain gender neutral, because a lot of folks are uncomfortable with calling God "He" or referring to Him in masculine terms. Fair enough.

But most of us Theists know that the masculine pronoun is due to the limitations of the English language, and some of us realize that such usage may be unneccesarily anthropromorphic to some who doubt the very existance of God.

But is the word "it" any better when referring to God?

Many theologians consider the word "it" to be limiting as well, in reference to God. And many of them say that God is no THING. "It" implies a "thing".

What I am trying to say, for those non-believers who also want to treat the subject of theism with respect and in the interest of civility, would you consider humoring us Theists by using the pronouns "He" when referring to God, or "She" if referring to a Goddess?

The word "it" in reference to God sounds demeaning and disrespectful to us believers. Obviously if one just does not care, one may consider my request unreasonable. And no one is questioning your RIGHT to call God "it".

But on the other hand, many who are quick to embrace the latest politically correct terminology from the Left will use whatever phrase is requested or dictated to them, newly fashionable acronyms such as "LGBT", or not LGBTQ" rights, instead of simply the old fashioned "gay rights" without a second thought.

So why not show us Theists the same respect, even if you do not respect our beliefs?
The "why or why not" is the question for debate, and is this request in and of itself yet another attempt of a Theist to control behavior?

If so, why do you accept control of speech from the political Left, but not from a politically neutral perspective in matters of Spiritual terminology? Is there a double standard here?

Or what may be some alternatives that every one could be happy with?

Believe me, we get it, if you were to call God "He" we would not think all of a sudden you converted or changed your fundamental world view. We would just consider it a sign of respect.

[Clownboat]

I perceive that ideas are different from human beings, thus using the two together, then claiming "doing it for consistency" is illogical.

Clownboat, the whole thing is either about ideas, or people, because only people can have ideas.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between non-believers who deliberately use dismissive and insulting words to describe the deity of the believer they are talking to....and the folks who use insulting language to refer to gays, or Jews, or Poles, or anybody you like, is who believes what.

Or, to be more clear:

Insulting gays is wrong, according to you, because you support them and see nothing wrong with their lifestyles or beliefs, and because you really don't like and disapprove of those who use that insulting langauge.

Insulting the deity of believers, on the other hand, is perfectly fine by you because you don't like the believers, the idea of the deity they worship, and think you are correct in your opinions about both.

Here's a question: this makes you different from the pulpit pounding, hellfire and brimstone revival preacher who tells you that you are going to hell because you don't swallow his specific idea of what's what, how, exactly?

Because I don't see a difference. You both think you are right, you both think you have the right to behave in any manner you wish because you think you are right, and you both think that everybody should accept the fact that you are right and simply swallow the discourtesy.

Up to you, of course, but really, I see absolutely no difference between the guy consigning you to hell because you don't believe in his stuff, and the non-believer feeling free to insult, mock and consign to the ranks of utterly worthless because they don't like his POV.

Does make conversations simple, though; everybody is so busy being insulted that no actual discussion ever goes on.

Readers.
Note (bold above) how not capitalizing "god" or certain pronouns is being equated to telling a person that they deserve to go to hell and burn in fire for eternity.

I want to show this side by side:
- Your, god (idea/concept), when he said X in your holy book, did he.......
- You (person/member of the great ape family) are a sinner and deserve to burn in a lake of fire for eternity for not believing....

You keep making me out to be some liberal speech Nazi, and that is just not me. I was mad when they took "Midget" away. I thought it was a good strong word and much better than the alternative and never have I gone on a "restrict word X" campaign.

Dianaiand, we are all members of the great ape family and all deserve a certain level of respect. But to check for consistency, which is the only thing I have been addressing, while comparing an "idea" to an actual member of the "great ape" family is IMO not going to be accurate.

I would consider capitalizing god for debate, but I really don't want to show support for this idea that I don't care for while being on a forum where I am suppose to be allowed to challenge said idea I don't care for.

Emails to my mother for example, which are not held on a debate forum get the "g" capitalized. If I were sending you an Easter card, I would have the capitalization that you would like. Here though, this is a place to debate ideas (debating people often times gets a person moderated), and this is my point of contention. People go to far IMO to expect their pet ideas to be treated special in an environment where specifically they are not special (Holy Huddle being an exception). If anyone's ideas here get there feelings hurt by any capitalization issues, I am sorry to said ideas. If I hurt any people here, I expect to be moderated.

[Clownboat]

I wish people would focus on expressing their ideas as clearly as possible and not who they may or may not offend. I see no reason we can't speak of "the gods" as a way to speak about someone's God. The focus should be on the point being made, not the sensitivities of the reader.

From my experiences, believers are extra sensitive. I would imagine it comes from weak faith. After all, if they believe they're right in their belief, and they are, there's no reason to be defensive.

I agree, and it seems to speak to the personal nature of the God Belief. Since people associate their own thoughts and feelings as those of their gods, they take criticism personally - as expected.

My goal would be to show them how their personal feelings have nothing to do with gods, but that their pastors have lied to them by making them believe their feelings are legitimate evidences of gods.

Let's see if I have this line of reasoning right:

Because theists believe in something that is not real, they are not believing correctly, and they falsely attribute their own thoughts and feelings to that of the deity they worship. Therefore, they consider that discourtesy aimed at their deity is actually aimed at them, and therefore take offense.

Non-believers understand that the deity in question is not real, and so any disparagement of that deity IS aimed at the believer (there's nothing else to aim at, after all) and so understand quite well that the offense is aimed at the believer, not the belief, but that's ok because in the view of the non-believer, the believer is wrong and thus deserves it anyway.

The believer, if he is correct in his beliefs, should simply accept such criticism humbly and not object, being, after all, secure in his truth.

However, if it's the non-believer's ox that is being gored, reverse the above logic.

Gotcha.

I think I get this now.
IMO, the problem is, you see offence when there is none intended.

A lack of support (not showing preferential capitalization for competing concepts) over an idea/concept taking place on a format designed to discuss opposing ideas/concepts should not be taken as an offence. It should be expected that anyone that is discussing this lack of support will not offer preferential treatment while trying to refute said idea/concept.

Please allow us to use "god" while discussing god concepts here on this debate forum. My lack of support (mine deserves to be capitalized) for your idea is not meant as an offence, it is meant to avoid showing preferential treatment.

People getting butt hurt over this really makes me

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 82 by Clownboat]

It appears that theism is like sport fanaticism. If i critisize a player on my team, its ok. But if i critisize a player on another team, or a persons analysis of the player or team, all hell breaks loose. The fan is so emotionally connected to the team that any slight, real or perceived, is seen as a direct personal attack.

Clearly, the attack is on the player, play, team, performance, etc, but the fan refuses to see it.

When they begin to hem and haw, they declare themselves open to mockery because its silly to care so much about a team like that... Or religion.

Religion, sports, politics, even music, attracts people who love to offer opinions about things that are subjective. Everyone and noone is an expert.

Some people take those things so seriously they get 'butt hurt' about and may even feel violence is a justified response.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 81 by Clownboat]

but I really don't want to show support for this idea that I don't care for while being on a forum where I am suppose to be allowed to challenge said idea I don't care for.

Excellent post - particularily this quoted statement!
This is not a formal setting and it should be treated as such.
Anyone who demands/expects their god's name to be made 'proper' on an informal site such as this one is expecting too much IMO.
As you said, ideas and expressing them are a big part of this place. Those that can't accept this should leave - IMO.

People getting butt hurt over this really makes me

I've been thinking this for a while now - glad to see someone else is thinking it too!

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 81 by Clownboat]

but I really don't want to show support for this idea that I don't care for while being on a forum where I am suppose to be allowed to challenge said idea I don't care for.

Excellent post - particularily this quoted statement!
This is not a formal setting and it should be treated as such.
Anyone who demands/expects their god's name to be made 'proper' on an informal site such as this one is expecting too much IMO.
As you said, ideas and expressing them are a big part of this place. Those that can't accept this should leave - IMO.

People getting butt hurt over this really makes me

I've been thinking this for a while now - glad to see someone else is thinking it too!

"Demand?"

I saw no demands. I made none. I gave what my practice is, and I gave my opinion about those who ignore common courtesy, their probable motives, and the hypocrisy behind their actions in demanding respect for one idea (and "demand"IS the proper word there, in terms of LBGT issues, where those doing the demanding seem to have lawsuits in greased holsters), while they insist that those to whom they show disrespect deserve none and have no right to object.

As for me, I don't care. Do as you wish; if you don't care about what others think of your manners, nobody is going to sue you, stop you, or refrain from inviting you to the party.

I do, however, see no reason to pretend that those manners are good ones, or appropriate.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 81 by Clownboat]

but I really don't want to show support for this idea that I don't care for while being on a forum where I am suppose to be allowed to challenge said idea I don't care for.

Excellent post - particularily this quoted statement!
This is not a formal setting and it should be treated as such.
Anyone who demands/expects their god's name to be made 'proper' on an informal site such as this one is expecting too much IMO.
As you said, ideas and expressing them are a big part of this place. Those that can't accept this should leave - IMO.

People getting butt hurt over this really makes me

I've been thinking this for a while now - glad to see someone else is thinking it too!

"Demand?"

I saw no demands. I made none. I gave what my practice is, and I gave my opinion about those who ignore common courtesy, their probable motives, and the hypocrisy behind their actions in demanding respect for one idea (and "demand"IS the proper word there, in terms of LBGT issues, where those doing the demanding seem to have lawsuits in greased holsters), while they insist that those to whom they show disrespect deserve none and have no right to object.

As for me, I don't care. Do as you wish; if you don't care about what others think of your manners, nobody is going to sue you, stop you, or refrain from inviting you to the party.

I do, however, see no reason to pretend that those manners are good ones, or appropriate.

When you bring up LBGT issues, do you mean to discuss the systemic homophobia propagated by the Church, including the Mormon Churches role in denying basic rights to gay people - Prop 8? Is that the kind of courtesy you mean to discuss?

Do you mean to bring up the harassment of LBGT people by the Mormon and Christian Churches?

Is this what you mean by good manners?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 85 by dianaiad]

I saw no demands.

That's good as I never claimed you did Not everything is about, or directed towards you. Sometimes, statements are made in a general sense.
My statement was directed towards Clownboat - not you - which is why I quoted Clownboat - not you. But I'm happy to listen to your responses no matter what.

As for me, I don't care.

I don't believe that or you woudn't have posted a comment defending yourself without good reason. Clearly, you do care.
Rather or not it's justified....? I suppose only you can answer that. And I would suppose only you care.

I ... see no reason to pretend that those manners are good ones, or appropriate.

I see no reason to pretend that this matters to those who use those 'manners'.
In closing, while I shouldn't HAVE to do this, I will to prevent offending:
My response to you wasn't meant as being offensive, insulting, said in malice or bad taste, just simply 'said'.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 81 by Clownboat]

but I really don't want to show support for this idea that I don't care for while being on a forum where I am suppose to be allowed to challenge said idea I don't care for.

Excellent post - particularily this quoted statement!
This is not a formal setting and it should be treated as such.
Anyone who demands/expects their god's name to be made 'proper' on an informal site such as this one is expecting too much IMO.
As you said, ideas and expressing them are a big part of this place. Those that can't accept this should leave - IMO.

People getting butt hurt over this really makes me

I've been thinking this for a while now - glad to see someone else is thinking it too!

"Demand?"

I saw no demands. I made none. I gave what my practice is, and I gave my opinion about those who ignore common courtesy, their probable motives, and the hypocrisy behind their actions in demanding respect for one idea (and "demand"IS the proper word there, in terms of LBGT issues, where those doing the demanding seem to have lawsuits in greased holsters), while they insist that those to whom they show disrespect deserve none and have no right to object.

As for me, I don't care. Do as you wish; if you don't care about what others think of your manners, nobody is going to sue you, stop you, or refrain from inviting you to the party.

I do, however, see no reason to pretend that those manners are good ones, or appropriate.

When you bring up LBGT issues, do you mean to discuss the systemic homophobia propagated by the Church, including the Mormon Churches role in denying basic rights to gay people - Prop 8? Is that the kind of courtesy you mean to discuss?

Do you mean to bring up the harassment of LBGT people by the Mormon and Christian Churches?

Is this what you mean by good manners?

One's courtesy is another one's oppression it seems.
Because we all know, denying people legal rights is a sure fire way to make sure they get into heaven and love god!

[Ooberman]

And to follow up that point:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/tw ... ss&emc=rss

Two Mormons who have gained national attention for pushing their church to ordain women to the priesthood and to accept openly gay members have been notified this week that they face excommunication for apostasy.

The two are Kate Kelly, a human rights lawyer who founded the Ordain Women movement, and John P. Dehlin, the creator of a popular online forum for Mormons and a doctoral candidate in psychology who has published his research into the problems faced by gay church members.

It is the first time since 1993, when the church ejected a handful of intellectuals known as the September Six, that it has moved so forcefully to quash such prominent critical voices.

The move is a sudden change of course for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had been working to project an image of greater diversity and openness. The churchs Im a Mormon advertising campaign featured an ethnic rainbow of faces and some members who proudly identified as feminist, gay or liberal. And in the last year, the church has been attempting to comfort members with doubts by posting essays on its website addressing sensitive historical and theological issues, such as polygamy and why blacks were mostly excluded from the priesthood until 1978.

If ever there was a train wreck religion, Mormonism is it.

[Zzyzx]

If ever there was a train wreck religion, Mormonism is it.

Moderator Warning

Do not make statements condemning any religion or individual.

Do not make one line posts that contribute nothing to debate.

Please review the Rules.



______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.[/quote]