God's Gender

I believe I actually referenced this before. So why not use gender neutral pronouns for God now?

Edit: yes, waaaaay back in post 1, I references both men and women being made in the image of God.

 

God is not male or female, he is spirit. I refer to God as the Holy Spirit.

 

Are you saying you never, ever, ever refer to God as a "he"? You just quoted the Bible doing so. And, again, I'm referring to God the Father here, not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.

 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread (in answer to the core question of the OP). The Bible was written to a culture that predates ours. They only knew of two genders - male and female - and each played a significant role in their society. The role of the father (the male) was to provide for the family. God provides for His family -- His children. He provides food, shelter, and protection. The people of that time period could readily RELATE to that aspect of their God. God is interested in a RELATIONSHIP, and had the Holy men of God use the pronoun - he - that THEY could relate to.

Imagine saying a prayer to a "they": "Oh heavenly They, give us this day . . . ."

 

You are literally describing God identifying as a male based on social factors rather than biology.

 

I probably do because there are no pronouns for Holy Spirit. Why do I find I need to keep repeating this for you?

 

I asked about God the Father, not God the Holy Spirit, and you literally used "he" as a pronoun for God the Father. Meanwhile, I'm sorry, but how do you write multiple full sentences about the Holy Spirit without ever using pronouns?

 

The pronoun "it" in relation to the spirit applies, but an "it" doesn't carry a relationship connotation, thus we use the pronoun he.

 

Yeah it's pretty simple. There is no god like the one described in the bible, and the one in the bible was made up by men who happened to be patriarchical, amongst other messed up or incorrect beliefs/values of their time.

Please elucidate that...

 

It made sense to and worked for them. Your opinion wasn't a consideration for them.

 

Your simple question has been answered.

That you refuse to accept the answer is not the problem of the poster. Gender is totally biological. There is not more to gender than biology. God is a SPIRIT, A SPIRIT IS GOD.

However, when God was written about by men, God was referred to as a "he" primarily because of cultural norms handed down from the church. I even authored a post on this, complete with a source that you didn't understand or ignored. Post #24, and then see your response to it.


Your topic has thoroughly been addressed. IF you don't understand this, have someone explain it to you better than the author explains it to us. (Post 24)

Gendered Language for God
"Do you think of God as male? It seems a lot of people do. This is probably due to the fact that God is typically referred to in English Bibles with masculine pronouns such as “he,” as well as a few masculine terms including “father.” But does this masculine language really mean that God is male or masculine?"

"God’s transcendent nature and divine character are beyond our human understanding. To help our understanding, God is often portrayed in the Scriptures metaphorically, using imagery and similes that we humans can identify with. These Biblical metaphors of God are primarily designed to help us understand God “relationally and analogically” and should not be taken literally.[1]"

"God is sometimes portrayed in the Bible with metaphors we tend to associate with maleness and masculinity. He is sometimes referred to as a father,[2] a king, and a warrior, etc. These masculine metaphors have dominated the Church’s view of God. However, the Scriptures also refer to God using metaphors we tend to associate with femaleness and femininity. These feminine metaphors of God have been largely ignored by many in the Church. We will be looking at some examples of these feminine metaphors below, but first, let’s see what Genesis 1 says about men and women."

Is God Male or Masculine? - Marg Mowczko

 

What trans people do makes sense and works for them. Your opinion isn't a consideration for them.

 

"He" for God = cultural not biological. Correct?

 

All of it. I mean, let's be honest. You pushed a bald faced, naked assertion. Choice? Obviously.

 

How not? Thinking that you as a man want to be a women doesn't make you a woman regardless of how many surgeries you have done. The brains, the physical body will never by female. You cannot be a women. it's insulting to women to think it could be. It is also equally as viable an observation the other way. A woman will never be a man. Period. No amount of cosmetic surgery, hormones can change that fact. Women and Men do not think in the same way. Biological fact. If you believe you have a revelation to make here, I'm not sure this is the appropriate place for it.

 

My assertion is that God is referred to as "He" while his believers say he is not a biological being. Which of those assertions is false? Which is a "bald faced, naked assertion"?

 

If gender is purely biological, then either God is biological or God isn't a "he."

 

Ah, so you are saying there is a difference between female brains and male brains? (Hint: you will want to be careful with that answer)

 

Go ahead,

 

How do you know this? You claim it, and yet you could no more prove this assertion than you could magically turn yourself into a dragon. You might believe that you can. So, here's a different problem. Can I claim you are a dragon? Do I not need any of the same proof that you chose that you didn't need to provide? I mean, I know I can't prove that you are, or are not a dragon. Does my claiming that you are, or are not have impact? None that I can see, and it's the same for your assertion here.

If you believe that men made up a story, that is certainly your opinion. It doesn't make the opinion factual, no matter how much self importance you ascribe to yourself. It could just as easily be argued that you, as a human made up this story. If you don't want to let others make things up, why should we let you?

 

I don't normally promote folks like the NIH, but just this once, they have a readily available reference guide on this specific topic that I suggest you read for yourself.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih... in,processing different types of information.

 

How do I know this? It's a logically and internally inconsistent religion. I don't have all of the answers, but Christianity cannot be the answer. Some religions I have come across and said "Oh that's nice but it can't be proven so I won't believe it." Christianity is on a whole other level - like ridiculous santa claus-level stuff, actually worse than that.

 

Quibbling doesn't make you right here. I gave you actual historic context that essentially negates your set of concerns here. Why did you drop that to continue to dangle on this?

 

If it turns out that your understanding of what "biological" isn't sufficient to address the concept of god, why should your comment be given any credence at all?

 

Again, if I claim you are a dragon, does that in fact make you one? It's a simple problem. And if you claim god isn't real because you can't prove he is, what difference in there in my having claimed that you were or were not a dragon? The fallacy is still the same.