(November 15, 2014 at 3:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you look at the evidence it all points to feminine characteristics. Creativity : birthing, for example.

Um, no. The Holy Spirit inseminated the virgin Mary. This implies a masculine characteristic, no? Got anything else?

You are so silly DP. It's not a comedy thread so I shan't partake.

(November 15, 2014 at 6:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You are so silly DP. It's not a comedy thread so I shan't partake.

Oh, if I wanted to do comedy about that little story, it wouldn't be hard to go there.

Quote:Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall cum upon thee,

Boy, I bet that must have been messy.

(November 15, 2014 at 4:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't see your objection rhythm. Are you saying it shouldn't be so because it is too reflective of human traits? That's the distinct leaning of the text, which after all is at best an attempt to explain something in a meaningful way to it's audience. Different beings would no doubt explain it according to their own nature.

Other than objecting to your absurd gender designations of non-specific human traits? What someone feels that a god description should or shouldn't be is someone else's business. The text also speaks of "god the father" as giving birth to a nation (we needn't look to the holy spirit to see god framed in such a way as to make our minds, today, spring to the fairer sex). That this means a particular thing -to us- that it takes on a specific gender implication is less meaningful to me than it appears to be to you - and yes, it's too convenient by far. More tenable to me is that the storyteller was attempting to express something with a comment ready made - just like they do today. When I say, about my car- "Shes a grand old girl"...I'm not actually trying to convince you that my car has a vagina.......frankly, I would be baffled if you took this phrase that way.

But you are using the correct analogy referencing the feminine trait associated with the act. That's all that we're saying here. I have no idea why you want to make an issue of it. It's a perfectly reasonable and workable system that you yourself are using.

"The correct analogy" is cultural idiom,as is a description of a god or a gender specific reference to a holy spirit (laying aside that sometimes it's just the mechanics of language). Understand? My car is not a woman, the analogy is not correct, nor is it actually a reference to the gender of my car (and really has nothing to do with femininity but a wide range of ancillary concepts). Meanwhile, what is or is not a "feminine trait" is, again, cultural idiom.

If it were a snake, it would've bitya. Lonely as a pine tree in a parking lot. Knee high to a grasshopper. Enough money to burn a wet mule.

This is the class of expressions that the "femininity" of the "holy spirit" belongs to. It doesn't tell us anything about a holy spirit (because idioms lack this ability - their communicative power is agreed upon elsewhere and what they refer to may be unconnected even to the words used to express them).

"Feminine traits" weren't used - you interpret some terms or traits as feminine. rgr? Fun fact, in some cultures, women weren't seen as anything more than a jar. This persisted even up to the 19th century wherein some people had the notion that sperm where tiny little guys and gals waiting to be deposited (with umbrellas and all). So even "birthing" is not safe as a "feminine trait". The male birthed the child when he deposited it in his girl-jar, everything that went into making a baby was handled without any involvement from the female (seems absurd to us today, doesn't it..lol). She's just holding it for him. Que the neverending parade of stories about children and gods and demigods that cut themselves out of the belly of some other creature (up to and including male creatures). I could go on and on, but it's an absolute rabbit hole.

or, for the truncated version.

Frods-"They totally -used- girly words"
Rhythm-"No, they didn't. You -see- girly words"

Well the best we can deduce is the sex of the words. Same goes for the masculine connotations. Is God male? ... Of course not, but those are just the assignations we apply. It's how our languages work.

(November 16, 2014 at 10:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Well the best we can deduce is the sex of the words. Same goes for the masculine connotations. Is God male? ... Of course not, but those are just the assignations we apply. It's how our languages work.

You have also to look at historical context. When the image of the jewish and later the christian god has been set up, it has been in paternalistic societies. Starting from Palestine to the Greeks, to the Roman empire. So they wouldn't have readily embraced a female or asexual supreme being.

Jewish society also embraced matriarchy at times.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriline...in_Judaism

(November 16, 2014 at 11:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Jewish society also embraced matriarchy at times.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriline...in_Judaism

But not at the time when Yehowah was established to be the only one.