I don't. Nor have I made any assertion that depends on any such thing. What assertion are you talking about? You guys are the ones claiming to know that God is a "he" while also contradicting yourself by saying that biology is the only thing that determines who is a "he" and that God has no biology. The shortcomings of your reasoning are not my responsibility.
God is a male, an exalted and perfect man, with a body of flesh and bones. And no, one cannot change ones sex. But this is irrelevant to Jesus Christs gospel of repentance which is the path to salvation.
They'll relentlessly feast all day. Mostly solitary hunters, they never seem to get full. They'll pester you to death if you let them. One of my kids worked at Sea World, and gave us first-hand accounts of their pesky and often annoying as hell behavior.
Are you just trolling now? lol. Seriously, I do think that the problem I mentioned earlier invalidates christianity, as far as I've ever been able to tell. Few actually attempt, but nobody has ever been able to explain it, probably because it is simply not logical. It would be nice if Christianity were correct in a way. At least some people I know would have found peace. But no. It's all a lie.
Good, your opinion that Christianity is a lie is noted and dismissed. Go in peace. God loves you anyway.
Don't you find it odd that millions upon millions of people have found peace through Christianity and yet someone wants to claim it's not real? What's unreal about the peace they have?
Most religions do that. And most of them must be incorrect as well where they conflict with each other. Incorrect isn't quite the same as lacking utility. Lies can be useful, but they're still lies.
You're focusing on the doctrinal aspects of religion, where I'm speaking of the practical. I have no problem with people "finding" God through other avenues if it fills a void in their lives. I don't have to agree with their doctrinal positions, but I can't deny the positive impacts it has on them. God is not limited to a religion, He's limited by a lack of belief in Him.
It would be interesting to have kind of a William James-style thread about a pragmatic consideration about the personal benefits of religion. Of course, like you said, there's a difference between useful and correct. Also, religion can also cause a mountain of psychological harm -- it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Believing in evangelical Christianity did me more harm than good. Hanging out with Quakers and Eastern Orthodox folks was pretty neutral-to-positive for me, though.
One of my daughters graduated Earlham College, a Quaker school that holds meetings, but attendance is totally optional and open to the community. Their athletic competition fight song: Fight, Fight, Inner Light! Kill, Quakers, Kill! Knock 'em Down, Beat 'em Senseless! Do It til We Reach Consensus!
I don't think I've ever heard anything funnier than seeing the words "Quakers, kill!" together. The inner light reference, though? Chef's kiss. I've got to share this with some of my friends. "Violent" chants from some of the most nonviolent people you could ever possible meet. You made my day.
So your gender neutral God scenario was merely a segue to attempt to justify gender insanity? You may as well just push them out the window in Gods name. This reminds of the old move, Soylent Green, where people were shown pretty pictures before being killed and turned into food. In short, people deserve the truth, not pretty lies to placate them.
What's unreal is how some go to great lengths to convince others that God is not real, and in the same vein ask if God, the HOLY SPIRIT, has a gender. I feel nothing but sorrow for those who care so much about something they don't believe in. I chalk it up to misery loves company. What else could it be?
I was asking about God the Father, not God the Holy Spirit. And you still haven't told me what pronouns you use when referring to the Holy Spirit, though you were fine with referring to the Father as "He."
I think there's a few possibilities explaining it. For some, who use to be Christians, it could simply be resentment. That resentment could be due to the belief that they were lied to and having been freed from the lie, they want other Christians to hear that they are just believing a lie. It's like they are still proselytizing, but away from the Lord rather than towards him. And for some, it can be a confirmation need. By trying to instill doubt in others it confirms that they were right to doubt leading to their own falling away. These are just a few elements I've observed over my many years of interactions with people willing to talk about it.
But if you listen to some of them that's exactly what they believe; it's hurting not only them, but society at large. They claim we want to force our beliefs on them, yet isn't that what activists among are trying to do -- force their opinions on us by trying to intimidate Christians to shut up anywhere in the public sphere? Take this current thread. It's really got nothing to do with a pronoun associated with the God of the Bible; no it's only goal is to try to shame Christians for opposing transgenderism. If successful, we will be too ashamed to say we don't accept it.
When I was a Christian, those beliefs hurt me very deeply, for reasons I've provided in the past. And non-believers aren't forcing their beliefs on you . . . even though the Bible justifies in the past forcing those beliefs on people on pain of death. As for the current thread, it has everything to do with the pronoun associated with God the Father. Why is that a difficult question to ask? Christians have been fine with assigning this pronoun for thousands of years, and the Israelites for thousands of years before that.
Yeah, that much was very clear from the very beginning of the thread. Hey, I'm not ashamed to say that I don't accept it. It has nothing to do with my Christian belief either. It has to do with science.
So do you not consider God the Father to be a "he" (in contradiction of scripture you've already quoted), do you think that God the Father is biological, or do you think there is more to being a "he" than just biology? Those are the only options, bud.
If you're interested in this, you should look up the work of Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who has written a book on it, God: An Anatomy. I haven't read the book, so I can't recommend it or not. However, I've watched some interviews of her on YouTube, and she has put forward the idea that God has a body, at least in the early days. They are all very long videos so I can't recommend a video that covers God's body except a very short part of a larger interview.
