| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Artimus Bena
Admiral
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 637
Location: Dreamland.
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I love that the only way for religious speeches to carry any weight anymore is to be spoken with archaic structures of language. If people said it normally, it would sound quite a lot like some nonsense a preteen ejaculated from his or her psychotically imaginative brain.
Religious people in general still using such old forms of language on a daily basis, when not even quoting scripture or something, seems to me a bit pompous and self-aggrandizing. I just don't think some ants with a so-called free will are that intelligent or important in the big picture, to be making themselves out as messengers of some sort.
"Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here"
_________________
SACRE BLEU!
|||Compositions!
|||Eldardeen Soundtrack!
|||Red Mercury! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Shaede
Tuck in your shirt.
Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, "he" is appropriate when referring to "man" or "mankind".
It is worded funny, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camdog
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 606
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaede wrote: |
Actually, "he" is appropriate when referring to "man" or "mankind". |
That depends on who you ask. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shaede
Tuck in your shirt.
Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Camdog wrote: | | Shaede wrote: |
Actually, "he" is appropriate when referring to "man" or "mankind". |
That depends on who you ask. |
What do you mean? Maybe the politically correct form is "they" now, or a radical feminist may claim it to be "she" (the same radicals who claim the Christian god to be a "she"), but I think that "he" has pretty much been the standard otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This was the subject of a weeks-long debate in my linguistics class in my last semester of college. You'll hear about the singular "they," but it doesn't exist; not in my book, anyway.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camdog
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 606
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaede wrote: | | What do you mean? Maybe the politically correct form is "they" now, or a radical feminist may claim it to be "she" (the same radicals who claim the Christian god to be a "she"), but I think that "he" has pretty much been the standard otherwise. |
The question is not if it is standard (which it obviously is), but if it is appropriate. I think you'd be surprised how many people would take issue with the assumed male pronoun. (Or maybe I just hang out with too many hippies)
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the phrase "he with a womb" is much stupider than "she". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shaede
Tuck in your shirt.
Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Camdog wrote: | | Regardless, I think we can all agree that the phrase "he with a womb" is much stupider than "she". |
I think it's funny, not stupid. From a biblical standpoint, at least, "man" (Adam) was once genderless. It wasn't until Eve was created that there became a distinction. Thus you could reason, from that point of view on things, that "he" would be accuratly in reference to "mankind" as a whole.
It reminds me of a comedian I saw on TV. According to him, God came down to Adam and said, "Here's a woman for your entertainment. To use her, though, you'll need this adapter." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iblis
Ghost Cat
Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1233
Location: Your brain
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beyond the issue of appropriateness, it just would've made more sense to say "person" instead of "man" which he then had to clarify. If he just said "man" and let it be assumed he meant it in a neutral way, well it works, but see my comments below. However if he's going to go out of his way to make it known that he means everyone and not just men, it makes no sense to write it how he did.
"Any person can have his evil removed if he accepts the Son's death in payment."
See? No awkward womb comments necessary.
Regarding the appropriateness of the allegedly neutral "he" and "man" and all that, I hate to make a big deal over it, but guys, consider this: if you were in a group that was constantly referred to collectively as "women," and not as a joke, would you think that was totally cool? Some of you might not mind (I wouldn't), but most guys I know would be bothered by that. I'm not trying to do the PC "these words are okay and these aren't" thing, because that's retarded, I'm just trying to point out that there is a real, non-feminist reason for gender-neutral terms.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camdog
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 606
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaede wrote: | I think it's funny, not stupid. From a biblical standpoint, at least, "man" (Adam) was once genderless. It wasn't until Eve was created that there became a distinction. Thus you could reason, from that point of view on things, that "he" would be accuratly in reference to "mankind" as a whole.
It reminds me of a comedian I saw on TV. According to him, God came down to Adam and said, "Here's a woman for your entertainment. To use her, though, you'll need this adapter." |
Really? The Bible explicitly says Adam didn't get a penis until AFTER Eve was created? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, the point is that if Adam was the only person in existence, there would be no other gender, so "man" would by necessity be all-inclusive.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Valigarmander
Bye-Bye
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 750
Location: Nowhere
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since when did this thread become a stupid debate on theology?
Oh, yeah. Right at the start. Bleghmah! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camdog
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 606
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moogle1 wrote: | | Uh, the point is that if Adam was the only person in existence, there would be no other gender, so "man" would by necessity be all-inclusive. |
But that doesn't make him genderless. Nor does it mean he needed an "adapter" after Eve was created.
(Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what Shaede was trying to say, but I'm not arguing anything here. Just curious if that passage is actually in the bible) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, it's not in the Bible. It's not necessarily the best argument, either, but it does make sense that without any females there should be no word for male.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shaede
Tuck in your shirt.
Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moogle1 wrote: | | No, it's not in the Bible. It's not necessarily the best argument, either, but it does make sense that without any females there should be no word for male. |
Exactly. The issue isn't on if Adam had a penis or not, the point is that without the distinction between the two, there was no such concept as "gender" and the term "man" was all encompassing for the entire race. Thus Adam was "genderless".
The added joke was an attempt to add a little humor to the post, which it seems I failed miserably at doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Valigarmander
Bye-Bye
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 750
Location: Nowhere
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaede wrote: | | The added joke was an attempt to add a little humor to the post, which it seems I failed miserably at doing. |
I thought it was funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
