LGBTQ is the biological, sociological, psychological truth. Nothing humans do is flawless. Take a look at heterosexual behavior. Holding those with different sexuality to some fictitious and unstated higher standard is blatant aggression. DeSantis hates trans shows. But, he's perfectly fine with all nude, full contact strip clubs such as: https://www.monsvenus.com/
What are those sensible, cultural reasons? If God is our Creator, did your mother not do more to create you, than did the mere seminal contribution, of dear old dad? Also, an argument can be made, from the term for God, "Elohim," to use the pronoun "They," since that word is a plural form (as opposed to Eloha). Lastly, there's the reliably utilitarian, "It."
Culturally, there's more to being a father than just a sperm donor. You're smart enough to know this stuff without me having to educate you on the Patriarchal culture of the time when the Bible was written.
Yes, I understand that Israel, at that time, was a notably patriarchal society-- I just didn't realize that this was your intended argument, as to why we should refer to God exclusively as "He," today. I realize that "tradition," is important to many, but that is not an endorsement of all things, beginning in the past. You would not use this argument to defend a tradition of, for example, wife beating (I assume). BTW, I am not calling the Jews, wife beaters-- that was just an example of something with a long history which, nevertheless, we have decided is not the preferable way, to go.
You can refer to God any way you wish, but I have the impression that you don't believe in one, so I have to ask (assuming I'm right): What's it to you how Christians refer to God? Even though the transgender supporters are trying to blur the lines of the genders known throughout history it's no reason why we should accept their agenda. Forensic anthropologist will continue to identify the male and female species by the bones they inspect. The transgenderism mob can't alter science because it feels right to them.
Our Parents are our co creators with God. They don't actually do anything. As for referring to God as they, that's because it is plural, as in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no she in there. Neither is there a sexually confused mortal.
LGB are preferences for which gender one chooses to have sex with. The rest of the letters are redundant. And there remain only 2 genders. It's biology and well established.
The biology of sex shows that there is significant variety at a biological level. This was recognized in Roman law, where those not clearly male or clearly female were categorized as hermaphrodite (regardless of today's definition), and given the legal rights of male or female, based on which seemed more dominant in the newborn. Of course, that was based entirely on external genitalia. There are other biological features that simply overlooks. For example, the brain got overlooked (how could it not?). And, surely that is by FAR the most significant contributor to sexuality - both physically and mentally.
They hide and travel under assumed names. Sometimes you see them in parades carrying Tonga Torches or breaking windows in the Capitol in make-believe army duds.
It sounds like religious talk, just puts you into a fightin' mood. FYI: 1) I do believe in a force that I consider Divine-- so that assumption of yours was wrong. 2) While that force is no longer in the Christian mold-- more of a Pantheistic one-- I had been a devout Catholic until the age of 21, and I bet that I still remember the Bible-- particularly the Gospels-- better than you do. 3) As the Christian faith is still hugely influential in our society, even someone who had never been one, has ample opportunity to become acquainted with the faith, and its adherents. Also, anyone living in this country, is completely justified in having an opinion on such. This thread, however-- although its originator was most interested in Christian responses-- is not strictly about Jesus, or Yahweh, or Christianity, but asks about the sexual gender of "God." 4) Since this is a debate forum, anyone with an opinion, AFAIK, is welcome to share it. One can offer an argument on any topic, without precondition, other than having some point to make (and, clearly, many respondents lack even that). I suspect the sound of irritation I detect in your tone, stems from your proving to not be able to make much of a case, even against someone, religiously speaking, you apparently took to be a virtual rube. Maybe it's time to either hit, or throw in, the Rosary.
Again, there are are numerous sexualities but they basically boil down to LGB. The rest of them are repetitive. It basically boils down to who you like to have sex with. I guess technically there's one sexuality left that isn't covered by the alphabet soup- beastality. OK, make that two with pedophilia. But gender is hardwired and can be definitively measured and limited to two.
And your references, as an "expert" on God? The beliefs you recite, are only just that. If you wish to support them, with a logical argument, I invite you to knock yourself out. Despite your religious convictions, I take it, though, that you realize that no one can prove anything, with regard to the Almighty. For the sake of argument, however, logic is all that we humans have, on which to rely. Accordingly, I put forth some logical arguments. Since God's own truth, and Its conceptions, are beyond our human comprehension-- so says the Christian faith-- what really is at issue here, since God is not identical to a biological being, is not what gender God is, but what gender is the most appropriate for us to think about God as being, from a human perspective. So, from a human, biological perspective-- something we can comprehend-- if we are to think of God as our "Creator," I will reiterate that our mother is more intimately involved in our creation, than is our father, whose necessary part is fulfilled, with coitus. It is our mothers' body, which nourishes and protects us, throughout our gestation. Ergo, SHE is a bigger part of our creation, than is a father. My second argument was based on linguistics, in that a Hebrew term for God, Elohim, is a plural form. I neglected to mention, that it is also both male and female, because the plural ending, is of a different gender, than the root word. Since your entire argument is built on the notion that there is reliable truth, in ancient texts, you cannot disregard my argument from that textual tradition, without disqualifying your own argument. That is called logic; hopefully you can follow it.
Yeahwell, you don’t know any card-carrying communists either, so I guess they’re just a propaganda trick too.
Isn't "God" a spiritual entity?? so.......there would be no flesh, bones...etc...... Yrs ago......someone decided to give God the gender of a male......... mainly because of the fact yeas ago......it was a MALE dominated society. The mythology that surrounds God and Jesus.......... is astounding and subject to interpretation.
You have it backwards. We are modeled after God, not he after us. Children honor their Parents, not Parents their children. And the foundation goes at the bottom, not at the top. Furthermore, Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins, not in our sins as the God of the Democrat party teaches.
And I’m aware of news and current events, so I know Christian Nationalists exists. So do you so stop denying it.
Since when does logic, in closing, slam the door with an insult? Clearly were God a Woman, she'd be miffed at being called Father, and would have corrected the record long ago. So you insinuate that God is modeled after mankind, rather than mankind after God. This is to say that you believe there is no God. So why didn't you say that to begin with? Why parade nonsensical double talk as logic, and mankinds collective evils as God.
My question, is why do people whose use of logic is very faulty, seem to feel so bold about extrapolating non sequitur conclusions, from their poor logic? I am referring to your "logical" deduction that if God was female, "She'd be miffed at being called 'Father'"-- that is your erroneous assumption, #1-- "and would have corrected the record long ago." Let me explain, that for something to be logical, it should stand on its own, regardless of one's personal beliefs. For example, I explained to you how, biologically speaking, a mother plays a bigger part in creating a child, than does a father; that is undeniable fact, regardless of one's individual opinions. But you are making your argument, that calling God "He," is accurate, as it is done in the Bible, based on the assumption, that the Bible is accurate! Do you not recognize the circular logic? You are saying that the reason we can be sure that the Bible got it right, is because, if it had been wrong, we can be sure that God would have corrected the mistake. That would be a wonderful argument, if it had not left out considering one, tiny possibility: that the Bible is not, in its entirety, strictly the word of God. IOW, you have no logical argument, for the idea of a male Deity, other than because the Bible says so. But you also ignore the Biblical contradictions. It was not originally written in English. God was referred to as Elohim, a word that is part masculine, part feminine, and is a plural. English language cannot represent that idea. IOW, translations require choices, which alter the original meaning-- unless it is your logical argument, that God had conceived of the Bible, in advance, in its English translation. I know, for someone with your devout beliefs, that would certainly seem possible; in truth, however, what it is that you have unquestioning faith in, is the information recorded, and translated, and interpreted by humans, that is in the Bible. So your case relies on human infallibility, in our construction of that text. And your reason for this, is that God wouldn't allow it to be wrong. Please be seated, as I am about to show you, logically, how that is an irrational argument. If God, naturally, would not allow humans to be misled, with false information about Itself, then why did God allow there to be more than one Holy Scripture? What about the Sacred Hindu texts, written before even the Old Testament? It does not stand to reason, if God would not permit any error in one Bible, that It would allow totally erroneous, other "bibles." And what about the Koran? And what about the additions to the Bible, written by Joseph Smith (Mormonism)? Your "argument" boils down to: "because I said so!" On to your ridiculously unfounded assumption #2: that God would necessarily correct any mistakes, because She would be "miffed." Once again, this idea does not stand on its own, so does not qualify as logic. Instead, it relies on the grand assumption, that God gives a crap about how It/They are portrayed, in the Bible-- and only that one particular Holy Book. In other ones, God does not mind being shown as manifesting through all manner of Deities, including animal gods. And your brilliant argument, as to the reason for the difference: because your own book says it is the only true one-- as if no other religion makes that claim (or that it would not be possible to make the claim, unless it was true). Illogical. Your false conclusion #3, is that I depict "God (as) modeled after mankind, rather than mankind after God." The irony here is very rich: I do not know how you deduce this-- as it does not logically follow, from your argument leading to that point, about God needing to be male, or else, She would have corrected the record-- but it is actually your own argument, that to have Her gender misrepresented, would cause God to be miffed, which models God's behavior, after that of humans. My argument, does nothing of the like. Lastly, most comically, and illogically, of all, you take those three false assumptions and conclusions, and-- again, using no visibly sensible, mental process-- say that this means that I "believe there is no God." WTF? Please call on the miraculous powers of your God, to help you explain how that makes sense, in your head. Because you seem to be saying that, since I do not assume that a Female God would have automatically corrected the record-- just in the Judeo-Christian Bible (or just the Christian part of it?)-- that must mean that I don't believe in God(?). I am at a loss of how to reply, except to repeat: WTF??? This is how I see it. I consider God to include ALL. Nothing that exists, can be beyond God, or outside of God. Do you disagree with that? Because, logically, that would make God both male, and Female. How could it be otherwise?
