to wonder if posters on here would refer to Islam as "a load of old tosh"..

[OhdearNigel]

...in the same way that they think it is acceptable to ridicule Christianity. If a poster had started a thread about considering joining a mosque I wonder how many people would be prepared to post that Muslims were a bunch of bigoted fools due to their religious belief on homosexuality ? Or that a Hindu's beliefs were, to quote " a load of old tosh" ? If you don't think that would be alright to post, it's not alright to post it about Christianity either.

Whilst i agree in the tenet of free speech, i don't think one should use the excuse of free speech to be rude and inconsiderate of the person with whom you are debating. surely one can debate robustly and not be rude

But Custardo a lot of religions do maintain that a magic man lives in the sky. I don't think it is rude to phrase it like that, but I apologise if you find it so. It is not meant to be.

Erm - the christian god is refered to as male throughout the bible isnt he?

Riveninabingle . Really ? I was under the distinct impression that all Abrahamic religeons refer to God as he and him

.. and we are made in his form.

the magic man analogy is offensive, but i accept your apology and thank you for apologising. i think it is a rarity on mn these days.

yes whilst god is referred to as he and him in a gender specific way, it is god is neither male or female god is ...god

I read the bible and the book of mormon a number of times (making notes) though I did skim lightly over some of the begats in the old testament. I never did get around to the Koran, but as there's only one god that doesn't matter too much.

The bible is not really meant to be read that way of course, but you need to at least once to find out where everything is. It's not really a book, but a collection of books. if you got 30 random books from the library, tore out the middle third from each and glued them together you could have a new bible.

I forget loads of it now of course. All I remember about the book of Ruth is the love story between her and the landowner and me thinking "Did they include this by mistake? or did someone's brother-in-law write it just about the time they were assembling the bible".
I think there's a section on motorcycle maintenance in there somewhere. I think it's just after the bit where the guy who lived in a cave for months eating nothing but mushrooms came out and saw wheel shaped UFOs everywhere.

becuae god is spirit without the anatomy

Most religions teach there is a creator who is so beyond human experience we cannot imagine him

Hmm maybe in theology class, but surely most encourage you to think of god as a dear friend/parent looking over your shoulder.

"Our father, which art in heaven"

I'm sorry. I do agree that if there was a God it would be beyond our understanding, have no gender. But the entire teachings of the Christian church across all denominations refer to God as a he for the last 2000 years.

Jesus was a God no ? Didn't he refer to God as his father ? With Mary as the mother ?

I just get a bit confused on these threads when Christians remove themselves from aspects that are clearly part of their chosen faith.

I mean great if you reject the gender of God but that is part of your religion no ?

I agree rudeness is best avoided.

But the point I am making is that perceptions of rudeness are often subjective.

You can say that my membership of the BHA is silly. I don't find that 'rude' but someone else might. Define 'rudeness'.

i don't know about Islam. certainly i have had no further eduction than RE classes at school. Catholics don't usually do sunday school - usually. Yet i am aware that god is not gender specific. this has been explicitly taught to me as a /catholic. Not in later theology debates, not through later research. As a clear and present part of teachings of my religeon.

to ascribe human atributes to god is an anthopomorphic way of looking at things and certainly not what i was taught

Wow. That is very interesting. Ya learn something new everyday :)

Islam is a load of old tosh.

Buddhism is a load of old tosh.

Jedi is a load of old tosh.

All religions are a load of old tosh.

Prove something then I'll believe in it. Otherwise, tosh.

Riveninabingle from the little I've just been reading the 'he' is used to signify authority. Obviously from a time and place.

Where has all this stuff come from about women not being allowed to participate in religions as priests/imams whatever? I thought it was clearly because 'god' was a 'he' and thus only men could be his representatives on earth.

Didn't a lot of Christians consider the ordination of female priests in Church of England a sufficient blasphemy to mean they had to convert to Catholicism? Why do catholic priests have to be celibate? Why can't muslim men and women worship together?

It is this apparently authorised dislike of and contempt for women which really turns me off religion.

The genealogy is interesting in the bible and I believe Ruth was distantly related to the prostitute Rahab in Jericho when Joshua went into the city. also I think Boaz who she married was related as well.

Ruth showed humility and kindness and supported her mother in law Naomi.

Some authors and indeed some translations of the bible are now being careful to use gender neutral terms for God. Jesus was male, obviously, and needed to be in that society in that time, but was radical in his inclusiveness and respect for women. There is no reason to believe 'God' and 'the Holy Spirit' are male or indeed female. The creation account uses the phrase 'let us create mankind in our own image...male and female God created them', which kind of implies that men and women equally reflect God's image, so equally reflect God.

God as 'he' in the 'men are more equal than women' sense has been used for centuries as a wrongful tool of oppression for ignorant misogynists who never really followed the real Jesus.

Spero, yes, a lot of people think because Jesus was a man anyone 'representing' him in a priestly capacity should also be male. This does not reflect the thinking of a good majority anymore, thankfully (hopefully )

Personally, as Jesus was the one sent by God to break down barriers between God and people, I've never been utterly convinced by the argument that we need someone (specifically male) to 'represent' Jesus or mediate between us and God. I see priestly roles in quite a different way, but I know many beg to differ.

'let us create mankind in our own image'

Good thing it wasn't Ganesh or Horus then!