• YTG123@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I can follow this, up to

    they are neopronouns

    I believe that that’s a decision made by translators of the bible. Hebrew doesn’t have lowercase letters, and the Greek versions of the New Testament that I found don’t capitalize as much. And are they distinct?

  • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    *Hits the Blessed Waterpipe of Panaji*

    Under Trinitarianism, God would be a they/them, because they’re literally several people.

    According to the common understanding of the doctrine of virgin birth, Mary got impregnated through the Holy Spirit rather than The Father rawdogging her. This suggests that the Holy Spirit is a dick and thus probably male.

    The Father is, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not a man or a woman. That being said, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic nor Koine Greek have gender-neutral pronouns (except perhaps calling The Father “it” in Koine Greek, which would be hilarious but sadly would not be approved of by a killjoy like Paul).

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I don’t think He/Him are neopronouns as the prefix neo- means new. Surely His would be old (paleopronouns), or timeless (aeternuspronouns), rather than new

    • Grail@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Out of curiosity, would you say My pronouns are neopronouns? I use capitalised pronouns too. And I’m also a god. Not a capital-G god, just a regular polytheistic kind. Does the acceptance of our current society play a role in whether they’re neopronouns? Are they new when I use them, and old when Deus uses them?

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Newness is the quality of having been recently created or having started existing recently. The deific pronouns surely came before the standard canon of human/mortal pronouns, just as their subject deities predate humanity, perhaps both having always existed. It doesn’t have anything to do with societal acceptance.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Uh, pronouns are just words. They don’t have some innate quality that means they had to exist when the entities those pronouns describe began. He/Him is likely about as old as he/him.

          • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            The original post described them as neopronouns, which is a category of pronouns that have arisen recently due to changes in how we understand and describe gender. Pronouns like xe/xer, for example. The pronouns for a timeless being that predates humanity would hardly be “new” by any standard. I was having fun with the idea they would be old or eternal pronouns by comparison to Humanity’s pronouns. You took the joke too seriously.

  • half coffee@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    In mormonism if you don’t do their special ceremonies and have multiple wives, you lose your dick for eternity. I learned that in Sunday school when I was 12 lol.

    • wjrii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Mormon theology also pretty much just cuts the Gordian knot proposed in this post by saying, “Fuck yeah he’s got a dick. Uses it ALL THE TIME.” I believe that a “perfected body” was the verbiage I was taught in Sunday School. Tritheistic heresy, Shmitheistic Shmeresy…

    • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Kid: “Then I won’t do the ceremony because I never wanted a dick in the first place.”

      Mormons: “No! That’s not how you play the game!”

  • Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 day ago

    You should know how much time Christian monks spent reasoning about the foreskin of Christ.

    It’s a lot.

    Long enough to postulate that once the Jesus ascended, his foreskin ascended as well and become. The. Rings. Of. Saturn.

    Sky will never be the same, won’t it?

    • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      Does Jesus have a gender tho? As stated above, Jesus has a fully human body and nature (or else you are deemed a heretic by the council of Chalcedon). He is described as a man and several churches and rulers have historically claimed to hold a piece of his foreskin, so he must’ve had a penis. Therefore:

      • Either Jesus was agender despite having a penis, therefore penis doesn’t imply male gender or
      • Jesus was male. So either:
        • Jesus and God don’t have the same gender, so they aren’t the same entity, which the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon would deem a heresy, or
        • God can manifest as male or agender, making Them genderfluid.
      • Praise Idleness@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Jesus and The Father is not just the same entity. From what I understand it’s like water: liquid water is water. Ice is water but it’s not a same thing as (liquid) water.

        The Father is just something above gender. Jesus is a man.

        • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s also been mentioned in other parts of this thread, but the holy foreskin has been considered an important relic, and there are accounts of many kings like Charlemagne having owned it.

      • zea@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I know people like to call the holy trinity absurd because of the multiple entities being 1 entity, but I would like to direct your attention to plural people. Holy-trinity-like situations actually occur in real people. Even with different genders.

  • Live Your Lives@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 day ago

    Technically, you can’t say that He/Him are God’s preferred pronouns because the capitalization doesn’t appear in the oldest texts. They are more a matter of tradition than of reality. However, you could say that’s even worse because Christians have embraced these neopronouns on God’s behalf.

  • lath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Considering how consistently the world gets fucked, yeah, I’d say there’s a divine Dick out there doing all the fucking.

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    There are several other gods and goddesses named in the old testament, so I’m willing to buy that the Christian god has a dick, and it’s for inserting into goddesses. And given the personality on display by said diety, I’d wager said dick could pass through the eye of a needle and still have room for the camel.