I didn't claim god isn't real. I doubt it, but don't know. I claimed Christianity cannot be correct due to logical and internal inconsistency. Start with this fundamental problem: Why would God need to incarnate himself as a human, only to sacrifice himself to himself to forgive his own creation that he made inherently imperfect? Explain that little gem of cosmic justice while also asserting this god is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
So you will be the first person on the thread to claim that God the Father is biological. Interesting.
Your historic context indicates that God being a "he" is cultural, not biological. Do you understand that? You keep going back and forth on this one.
And this is why I told you to be careful. Because neurological research on trans people shows that their brains more closely match those of the gender they identify with rather than the one they were assigned at birth. Also from the NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
I really don't know why this is so difficult for the OP to understand. At the time the Bible was written biology determined the gender and the culture determined the role a male and female played in their society. He's wanting to change the way they looked at gender by how he looks at it. That won't fly.
What I've heard you guys confess so far is that gender is also social and neurological, and not just a matter of gonads and chromosomes. Hm, weird. Meanwhile, what part of God's biology determined his gender? You are contradicting yourself again, and that won't fly.
Then you fundamentally fail. You can no more claim that the religion of Christianity is wrong, any more than I can claim you aren't a dragon. I don't care less about your orthodoxy problems. Folks by definition, must have faith. Absent faith, we get folks, like you who are determined to attack faith, which isn't fact based in any real sense. So it's a fools errand from the get go. So why continue trying?
Since I didn't state that, why would you attempt to smear me with your own limited understanding of what I wrote?
You aren't a dragon. Hm, that was easy. Absent reason, we get folks like you who claim that all propositions are equally valid and that evidence should never enter into the discussion. It's a fool's errand from the get go, so why continue trying?
And yet I did not. I gave a contextual historical account from the Summarians. You simply ignored it. I also referenced the story that intimated that those same gods cheated to make mankind have the ability to propagate. I know, you missed that part, and then went on to clarify that in doing so, there had to be two genders. Why ignore all of this?
A study that essentially is impossible to produce until they are dead and a post mortem examination is allowed to happen. Sorry to drop the hammer on your "ifs and buts", but this isn't going to go anywhere near where you think it will.
This is silliness based on silliness. God is our Father. That makes him a male. Jesus Christ is his only begotten Son. That makes him a male as well. We are all Gods Sons and Daughters. This would suggest that God the Father has a Wife rather than that God is genderless so as to approximate the mental illness of gender confusion infecting the national dialogue. Gods spiritual offspring are either male or female. And we come to life according to our spiritual gender or sex. So yes, we have a heavenly Mother as well as a heavenly Father. But God the Father holds the authority and this is his work to manage and bring about. It is to him that we are subject and beholden just as we are to our earthy Fathers.
Not at all. You aren't even attempting to understand, as usual. Faith is what would be required to believe in religions that make sense but cannot be proven. I guess on one level I would question the validity of faith to begin with, but Christianity is something worse. Believing in something that is illogical without even attempting to defend it, well, I guess people lie to themselves to feel better about the afterlife. Why debate things with people who have abandoned reason? Because I like to understand and want others to do the same. I've really never seen somebody come up with a good explanation for my question. So it's all about self-deception and willful ignorance I suppose.
Some aren't really here to understand the language used in Biblical times even when it's shown to them by Biblical scholars or people like us who understand the issue. Some are here to
So, simply stated, you failed to read the thread and chose to respond anyway. And since you have zero evidence to provide, you should be the last person to wag a finger...
Brain scans can't be done on living people? Weird. I had two for checking for epilepsy. So did my sister and my niece. I didn't know it was impossible to perform a brain scan on a living person. This will come as a big surprise to the over 500 people whose brains were scanned for the study I linked.
I've provided evidence. Meanwhile, the Judeo-Christians on this thread still won't answer the questions I've asked.
Your question is at best puerile. So why bother with it. I offered an option to consider that wasn't. And you've chosen to not accept there are a myriad of options. lenses. etc to pick through here.
So, dragging this back to the actual thread topic. Do you have a scan of God? If not, how can you quantify your assertion?
No "myriad of options" have been offered that address the question. The question is, if gender is purely biological, how can a non-biological being have a gender? It's a simple question. I have heard some of you on the thread say that gender is neurological as well (which didn't work out in your favor, mind you) or cultural as well (which also doesn't work out in y'all's favor).
