|
|
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) If God is really a donkey, and Jesus had come to Earth and said, "Ok, now let's say Our Donkey in Heaven" do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously? In that society (and some would argue this society), being a woman didn't mean (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) I think the more we build up the idea of love, the more disappointed we are in how it plays out in reality. By accepting a more science-based view, I feel I have something closer to the truth of it and I am therefore not disappointed in my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: <<a bunch of stuff here and elsewhere...omitted for the sake of brevity>> Bill, its hard for me to respond to your comments because you ACTUALLY believe this stuff and I DO NOT. This is like talking (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
| (...) Er, I didn't mean that ("He and nothing else") literally -- I meant to say "male gender equivalent," which would cover He, His, Him, Father, etc... It's a good thing, too -- because if deities could have other genders, then one question which (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Is God a He, a She, or an It? (was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
| (...) OK, so it's a very long-established convention to use He and nothing else. Got it! (...) Ya, this reminds me of back in the late 80's when it was popular among certain groups not to acknowledge that the word "woman" (or "women") contained the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
