I guess we don't have better noun than Father. Why no reference to "God the Mother"? Mother would certainly describe many of it's alleged qualities...His contention is that the Bible never applies feminine terms or imagery to God. Ryan Anderson refused to open his mind and really look at what the texts say. It doesn't take long to find a lot of material demonstrating that God has no gender as humans do and that both male and female imagery is applied by scripture to help us understand who and what God is and is not. Here is a good link to an article on this subject written by a Christian.
Bible Verses They Never Taught You in Sunday School… | Purging my soul…one blog at a time.
People think that because the Bible is such an ancient text that it prescribes and condones sexist attitudes for men and and against women. Unfortunately some go as far as accusing the Bible of misogyny. The history of the church and God's people is filled with various examples of such stupidity and mistakes. This is because of our sin not because of our God - Jew and Christian alike. Such attitudes are not Biblical nor pleases God. God is described using female imagery showing that without femininity humanity is incomplete. Sure the ignorant my counter that if I'm right than its because of Christians coming along and changing everything that was Jewish. Completely wrong. Here is a link to an article discussing the feminine imagery of God from a Jewish views of scripture!
Dr. Esther Shkop wrote:
Silly, Atheist, God is for everybody. I totally agree with Dr Shkop on this. I think it's important to look at a few (not all) of the references she and the other referenced article are using.One can only be impressed by the majestic beauty and profound emotion which Jewish sources, especially in the Prophets, conjure through the use of feminine imagery. The numerous and various strong feminine images more than balance the masculine ones. While we must remember that the Divine is beyond form and gender, human language by necessity conceives even the most Abstract in visual images. The multiplicity of feminine images alongside the masculine, and the context in which one or the other is used requires close study and (often mystical) understanding. Careful analysis of the Hebraic texts will reveal that religious experiences and the immediacy of God are to be found in the world of women no less than in that of men. It would be a tragedy - and a travesty - to "castrate" the language, for it would then remove God from the experiential milieus of both men and women, rendering us mortals mute, unable to commune with or communicate about our Creator.
1. Genesis 3:21
2. Jesus Washing the disciples feet is noteworthy because in the first century only slaves and women did that work. This is what made the act so noteworthy given the status of slaves and women.
3. Jeremiah 31:20
4. Isaiah 42:14
5. Isaiah 46:3-4.
6. Deuteronomy 32:18
7. Isaiah 49:15
8. Isaiah 66:12-13
9. Isaiah 66:9
10. Isaiah 42:14
11. Matthew 23:37
You have got to love the following written by Dr Shkop:
Yet we must realize that God does have a name, the famous Tetragrammaton, or four-lettered name of Hashem - which is made up of the letters yud-heh and vav-heh. The ineffable name of Hashem is a contraction of the Hebrew verb, to be, in past, present and future, and is therefore often translated as The Eternal. However, in the Hebraic source this name is written as a feminine noun - and signifies the aspect of rachamim, which, as indicated earlier, is quintessentially feminine. Thus every blessing and prayer we say, every evocation of the Eternal Presence [Kabbalistically called the "Shechina" ] is in fact an evocation of the feminine concept - the unconditional love of the Creator.The Bible presents men and women as ontologically equal and necessary to one another, but neither equivalent nor interchangeable. We need each other to fulfill the purpose of humanity and together we are the image of our Creator. God is neither male nor female and to try to cast those categories on the infinite God shows that one has no idea who God is.
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." - Matthew 22:29
First off Marcus, it's "granted" not "grant it", but that's not important.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I do actually agree with you partially on this one. If the god if classical theism, actually does exist, it wouldn't have a gender. The problem is that this is not the god of the bible who's explicitly described as male.
His contention is that the Bible never applies feminine terms or imagery to God.
Third, that's not my contention at all (and you got my "challenge" wrong, but more on that later). My contention is that the god of the bible is never described explicitly as female, where as he (sure, why not?) is explicitly described as male.
1. Genesis 3:21 It's a stretch to say they are describing god as a "seamstress" in that, the author simply doesn't do that. It literally says "god made coats of hide". One would be just as justified to say they are describing god as a "tailor" as they would "seamstress", but not at all justified in smuggle in gender...
2. Women and Slaves, right? But in any case, remember how I said "pre-Hellenized"? Not that it really makes a difference in this example.
3. Jeremiah 31:20 Another stretch, although the word me'ah can be translated as "womb" it makes little sense to do so in this verse, and at a quick glance, I didn't see any versions that do so. "Bowels" makes more sense as a direct translation given the context and the NIVs treatment also makes sense. And no, he's not described as giving birth in this verse.
4. Isaiah 42:14 In this case, yalad is not describing god, but his cry. If I said you where whining like a baby, I wouldn't be saying you have the physical qualities of baby, I'd be saying you are whining, similarly to how a baby whines...
5. Isaiah 46:3-4 This is a tricky verse, and I think the NIV gets it right. It really has more to do with carrying idols versus having your god carry (support) you than it does any sort of female description of god.
6. Deuteronomy 32:18 Been over this one...
7. Isaiah 49:15 I think you need to read this one closer. The verse is saying "Can a woman forget her child? Yes, but god cannot". If this was a logical syllogism... you'd be in trouble. Definitely not a good example.
8. Isaiah 66:12-13 God is describing himself like a river, and then describing rivers with motherly qualities. Close, but no cigar.
9. Isaiah 66:9 In this verse, again, god is not describing himself as feminine, but is describing the formation of a nation in terms a human birth, chronologically, labor pains before birth, not the other way around, etc...
10. Isaiah 42:14 We've already done this one!!! Trying to pad the list?
11. Matthew 23:37 Definitely post-Hellenic, no? But in any case, this is simply another analogy and if you want to make the case that this is definitive proof that god has feminine qualities, then it's also definitive proof that god is also a chicken.
First, I thank God that God used you to point out my mistake in typing "Grant it". I freely admit the mistake because God has blessed me through you. It's one of the few things you got right in these comments. Savor it.
DeleteSecond, I think you missed the whole point I was making and this post is in line with what I was saying. The Bible does not tell us that is God is male or Female. Masculine and Feminine imagery is used to help us understand God. You obviously don't understand. You should carefully re-read Dr Esther Shkop's article that is linked in the post. It will help you.
Third, anyone who takes the time to read the earlier thread, knows that when it began post-Hellenic examples were not excluded and I never agreed to that. I still don't. God is the same in the Old and New Testaments.
1. In ancient times, sewing was women's work. There were no tailors and a foreign concept to the original readers of the passage. You ought to do better than that
2. Jesus was neither female or slave - and given the place held by slaves and women in the first century, even you should not be able to miss the weight of the argument.
3. Let me quote Dr Shkop again
The great 19th century commentator Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch illuminated the fact that the concept of rahum (mercy) is rooted in the noun rehem (womb). The Jewish conception of compassion and love is grounded in the essentially feminine image of the womb, which holds, nurtures and protects the fetus - be it perfect or malformed, pretty or ugly, worthy or undeserving.
4. No where in the Bible is God described as having physical qualities of a man or a woman. The point of the verse is that God is busy bringing life like a woman who is giving birth.
5. You might want to re-read Isaiah 46:3-4
3 “Listen to me, you descendants of Jacob,
all the remnant of the people of Israel,
you whom I have upheld since your birth,
and have carried since you were born.
4 Even to your old age and gray hairs
I am he, I am he who will sustain you.
I have made you and I will carry you;
I will sustain you and I will rescue you.
Again I see mother and father imagery in the passage. No Idols. You sure you read English?
6. Yes, indeed we have discussed that in the previous thread and you are still wrong and probably confused.
7. I don't think you red Dr Shkop's article at all. You missed the point. She writes:
Inspired by the words of the Torah, the Prophet Isaiah adds more drama and depth to the maternal imagery. He renders God as the loving mother of Israel who can never forget the child She bore and suckled, who then asks incredulously:
Can a woman forget her babe,
Cease loving the son of her belly?
Indeed, these may forget,
But I will never forget you. (49:15)
8. Female imagery. Too bad you don't understand. Just like in the previous thread, you are looking for something - God called female - because you erroneous think that God is described as being male and it does not. This is why you are confused.
9. By describing the formation of Israel as a human birth, and taking responsibility for that birth God is using feminine imagery to describe who God is. God is not saying that God is man and God is not saying that God is a Woman. As Dr Shkop pointed out in the article you did not read that God is above gender but you need both to understand God.
10. No, I'm not padding the list. You are just still wrong.
11. If you think that the metaphor Jesus used shows that God is a chicken you admit two things
a. You don't understand the use of metaphor
b. Jesus is God. A trinitarian atheist? Who knew?
Your exegesis is atrocious. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Way to phone it in Marcus.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible does not tell us that is God is male or Female.
Except that it does describe him (?) as explicitly male. It's god the father, not "god is like a father" or "god so taught Israel like a father throwing a baseball to his son".
God is the same in the Old and New Testaments.
Not true.
1. In ancient times, sewing was women's work.
Substantiate that assertion, but in any case, at the supposed time of the narrative, there was only one female, and she wasn't a seamstress.
Can a woman forget her babe,
Cease loving the son of her belly?
Indeed, these may forget,
But I will never forget you. (49:15)
Try this out, if a woman can forget her babe, and god cannot forgot his (!) bade, then...
etc... blah blah blah...
Now, let's get back to the really important question. Is it or is it not true that the bible being wrong is not even among your possible options? A simple yes/no will suffice.
1. How do you know Eve didn't do any sewing? And I explicitly stated I was referring to what the people who were originally reading the text would have thought.
ReplyDelete2. I think you should quit beating around the bush and just state what you think the problem is with Isaiah 49:15 and go back and re-read Dr. Shkop's commentary carefully this time.
Now, let's get back to the really important question. Is it or is it not true that the bible being wrong is not even among your possible options? A simple yes/no will suffice.
If I found out the Bible was false I would reject it. Your problem is it's not wrong.
A better, even more relevant question: Have you ever read Numbers 23:19 or 1 Samuel 15:29? If you had, you would know that you can't take a single passage to mean that God is male or female. If you do then you are making a choice to conclude that the Bible Contradicts itself when you have no reason than your own blind faith to conclude such. You are still embarrassing yourself.
If I found out the Bible was false I would reject it.
ReplyDeleteSo, the bible being wrong is among one of your possible options when you read it? Yes/no.
A better, even more relevant question: Have you ever read Numbers 23:19 or 1 Samuel 15:29?
Of course I have, and I'm sure you're aware those passages are not talking about gender...
If you do then you are making a choice to conclude that the Bible Contradicts itself...
Although it does, numerous times. This conversation is not about it contradicting itself.
So, the bible being wrong is among one of your possible options when you read it? Yes/no.
ReplyDeleteI already Answered the question. Re-read it.
Of course I have, and I'm sure you're aware those passages are not talking about gender...
Exactly the point! No where does the Bible assign a gender to God. Those verses show that you can't assign gender to God. Only masculine and feminine imagery is used to describe what God is like so we can understand our creator.
Although it does, numerous times. This conversation is not about it contradicting itself.
Do you know what truly is numerous? The number of times you have claimed that the Bible conflicts with itself and not being able to demonstrate it. In order for you to have a conversation you have to be able to understand what is being said. I don't think you do The point being raised is that you are pretending there is contradiction saying that the Bile says God is male when we have two passages that explicitly says God is not like us.
Exactly the point! No where does the Bible assign a gender to God.
ReplyDeleteNot nowhere, but not in those two verses...
The number of times you have claimed that the Bible conflicts with itself and not being able to demonstrate it.
I've not been able to demonstrate it to the satisfaction of someone who I'm slowly beginning to think is really mentally ill. Or stupid.
No where does the Bible assign God a gender. You need to back up such assertions.
ReplyDeleteYou have not demonstrated any Bible contradiction. I have challenged you to do so on more than one occasion - all ending in failure. Don't feel bad. Much better people than you have tried to prove Bible contradictions and they failed too. You're in esteemed company.
You need to back up such assertions.
ReplyDeleteI did in my post from 7/6 at 11:42pm.
Much better people than you have tried to prove Bible contradictions and they failed too.
It's not that they've failed, it's that they've forced people like you to commit all sorts of mental gyrations trying to justify your belief.
So, is it or is it not true that the bible being wrong is not even among your possible options? A simple yes/no will suffice.
ReplyDeleteI did in my post from 7/6 at 11:42pm..
You call that an answer? I don't. Book, Chapter, and Verse.
So, is it or is it not true that the bible being wrong is not even among your possible options? A simple yes/no will suffice.
I already Answered. You have nothing than your own limited faculties to concluded that the Bible is wrong about anything and you can't demonstrate that it's wrong about anything.
I already Answered.
ReplyDeleteYou hedged.
You have nothing than your own limited faculties to concluded that the Bible is wrong about anything and you can't demonstrate that it's wrong about anything.
These would be the same limited faculties you use to conclude that the bible being wrong is not an option?
1 YOU still haven't demonstrated a single bible passage assigning a male gender to God.
ReplyDelete2. You have failed to point out or demonstrate a single contradiction in the Bible and you have been commenting here over a year.
3. My faculties are obviously less limited than yours. You can't exegete scripture worth beans.
3. My faculties are obviously less limited than yours.
ReplyDeleteKeep telling yourself that. We're all dumb, you most of all.
I never deny the stupidity of all humanity. Some are just more stupid than others (ie you)
ReplyDelete(ie you)
ReplyDeletei.e.
My typos do not improve your silly arguments...but I guess you gotta use what you got, even if I give them to you.
ReplyDeleteMarcus, in all seriousness, your arguments and your typos, and your terrible grammar, and your lying about having watched videos you post on, and your post-hoc rationalizations, etc... etc... do more to argue against you "being filled with the holy spirit" than anything else could.
ReplyDeleteKep up wrk.
When I make mistakes, I admit them. You make lots of typos yourself and even if you never did it wouldn't help your arguments especially on this subject. You can't point to a single Bible passage that tells us God is male. Period. In all seriousness you are a joke. And while I am humble enough to repent of my mistakes and admit when I have something something wrong. You don't and you won't, unless God saves you from your sin. I put no stock in your opinion about my spiritual condition. You have no idea what you are speaking about - you are a reprobate apostate (by your own admission) and never had the Holy Spirit or really knew God. Some authority you are. If the stakes were so high (your soul) it would be hilariously funny. But it's just pathetic.
ReplyDeleteWhen I make mistakes, I admit them.
ReplyDeleteUntrue.
Yes, I do. Just because you think I have made mistakes does not mean that they are. You just think they are. Your problem not mine. God will judge between us. I have nothing to worry about, but you are in danger of eternal separation from God. It truly sucks to be you.
DeleteJust because you think I have made mistakes does not mean that they are.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but you admit a mistake if it doesn't cost your belief system anything, otherwise, you do not.
I haven't made such a mistake. And besides there is not a single mistake I can make that will falsify the Bible or anything God has said, done, or promised. Your quarrel is not with me, but with God. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteI haven't made such a mistake.
ReplyDeleteThat you would admit to.
No, there hasn't been such a mistake that you can prove or demonstrate.
ReplyDeleteNo, there hasn't been such a mistake that you can prove or demonstrate.
ReplyDeleteTo your satisfaction, certainly not, but that's not really the point. I've received some emails from some of your readers over the last year or so that you'd not be happy about (oh well, they weren't real christians to begin with, I suppose)...
You are welcomed to keep trying. It's all your really have. Any of my readers who have a problem or a comment with anything I've posted are free to e-mail or comment here. As for people who have talked to me about your comments: they think you are extremely misguided. Take heart, God still loves you no matter how stupid you are.
ReplyDeleteAs for people who have talked to me about your comments: they think you are extremely misguided.
ReplyDeleteI'd expect nothing less from in-group conversations.
Just out of curiosity, how many "souls" have you "won" for "god"?
And why do you think that all the e-mails from my blog readers that seemingly agree with you are not "in-group conversations"? I'd also be more worried about your soul if I were you.
ReplyDeleteAnd just for you information, we don't win souls. God gives the increase. God saves people. I hope God shows you mercy gives you Himself.
And why do you think that all the e-mails from my blog readers that seemingly agree with you are not "in-group conversations"?
ReplyDeleteTell me they aren't.
I don't know. That's why I asked you.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know if you are conversing with christians? OK...
ReplyDeleteI know that they are Christians. I was talking about the people you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteThe folks I've talked to were christians, and now they are not.
ReplyDeleteAnd honestly, if this wasn't the case, I wouldn't be giving you the time of day.
ReplyDeleteSo remember going forward, who I'm actually talking to.
ReplyDeleteSo yoU were talking to apostates like you who agree with you and disagree with me. So you don't see that as a "in-group conversation"? And you think that means something? That is almost too pathetic to be funny.
ReplyDeleteSo yoU were talking to apostates like you who agree with you and disagree with me.
ReplyDeleteNo, I was talking to folks that were christians, and now they are not. They agreed with you, and now they don't.
How is That "no"? I agreed with you. But it is an in-group conversation because they agree with you and part of your group of apostates . How is it that they're opinion ( or yours for that matter) is more relevant than mine or anyone's?
ReplyDeleteThey're in "both groups" being freshly created apostates. Heck, you have no idea if some of the "christians" you are talking to are not secret, future apostates.
ReplyDeleteNo they are not in both groups. They are in your group. So what if I don't know if someone is claiming salvation now will become an apostate. If so, they demonstrate they were never really believers. What point are you making? Do you even have one?
ReplyDeleteI'd bet you are a secret future apostate. Since you've admitted the holy spirit doesn't give you a mechanism to gauge potential apostatcy, you can't claim that you are not in fact a future apostate.
ReplyDeleteIf this blog is your "fruit", I'd say the chances are actually very good.
No they are not in both groups. They are in your group.
ReplyDeleteWell now they are, as much as I have a "group", but when they found your blog and first contacted me, they were in your "group".
I'd bet you are a secret future apostate. Since you've admitted the holy spirit doesn't give you a mechanism to gauge potential apostatcy, you can't claim that you are not in fact a future apostate.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the Holy Spirit give me such knowledge?
If this blog is your "fruit", I'd say the chances are actually very good.
Then I'll be in Hell right next to you.
Well now they are, as much as I have a "group", but when they found your blog and first contacted me, they were in your "group".>
Do you realize how stupid you sound? How are apostates who find my blog make them part of my group? Are you rational?
Jesus said that no one snatch the chosen from the Father's hand. He promised to cast no one who comes to Him aside. You never did.
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm rational, I'm not the one presupposing the existance of souls and magical metamorphosises or souls.
ReplyDeleteI doubt your rationality because no one said anything about presupposing anything. if you want to make an argument, you have just as much a need to demonstrate your claims as I do.
ReplyDeleteI doubt your rationality because no one said anything about presupposing anything
ReplyDeleteOne usually doesn't state that they are presupposing something...
if you want to make an argument, you have just as much a need to demonstrate your claims as I do.
ReplyDeleteOf course, when talking about souls or the magical metamorphosises or souls, the above statement is simply not true.
It would be if you could prove that there are no souls. And you don't understand at all what Christianity is if you think "Magic" is involved. You keep showing just how never was a believer if that is what you thought of your "Christian" life.
ReplyDelete