She started a band
that raised a prayer
that started a chant
a jig, an aire
a movement began
a challenge a fight
which moved like dance
of grace and of light
the community that rose
from the ground to the sky
was full of love
with grit in their eyes
a better day would come
they knew it to be true
because they were the ones
who would see it through.
She started a band
and that's the point.
40 comments:
And lest anyone should confuse this for a political message (which it may be), to be clear: "She" is God in this poem, in my mind.
God's never referred to as female in all of Scripture.
[Rolls eyes] Seriously? THAT'S what your take away from this post is?
If you want to comment here further, Marshal, answer the questions/points in bold below. Or just move on with this angle that is rather demeaning of an almighty God.
1. You're factually wrong. There are many images of God as a woman in the Bible, figuratively speaking.
("Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from your birth, carried from the womb"... "as a mother hen gathers her children beneath her wings", etc)
2. AND, of course, there are images of God using male language, as well. Figuratively speaking.
3. Here's the thing: God's not a man nor a male. God has no penis. No johnson. No wienie or wee wee. There's no data to suggest that. It's really a bit silly of you to make that suggestion, if you are.
God is a Spirit, and those who worship God must worship God in spirit and in Truth, which is to say, penis-less (because that's the fact). As the Bible sort of says.
4. Does God NEED to have a penis for you to feel good about yourself? If so, why? What does that say about you?
5. Presumably, you don't imagine that your "god" needs to have a penis for you to feel good... You're probably just imagining that because MANY of the figurative passages in the Bible that speak of God figuratively as a male or using HE language, you think that is God's preference.
6. Here's the thing: "The bible" nowhere says that it hurts God's feelings or is otherwise wrong to refer to God as SHE - SHE who birthed the world... SHE who birthed nations from HER womb... etc.
Do you recognize that "the Bible" nor God insist that God should be called "HE" and that referring to Mother God or She who loves her children is nowhere claimed to be wrong or improper?
Gen 1:27 Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them; female and male, God made them.
Deuteronomy 32:18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth
Psalm 123:2-3 Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress. Have mercy upon us, O Lord, have mercy upon us: for we are exceedingly filled with contempt.
Psalm 131:2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me
Isaiah 42:14 For a long time I have held my peace; I have kept still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labor; I will gasp and pant
Isaiah 49:15 Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you.
God as the midwife: Isaiah 66:9 Shall I open the womb and not deliver? says the LORD; shall I, the one who delivers, shut the womb? says your God"
Isaiah 66:13 As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
Hosea 13:8 Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and tear them asunder.
Matthew 23:37 How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
Luke 15:8-10 Or what woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
It's rather a ridiculous false claim he made. You have to assume he's aware of such verses.
Do they mean that God is literally a woman with a womb? Of course, not. All mentions of gender in reference to God are clearly figurative... at least as far as anyone can prove.
It's just that the Marshals of the world feel a need to place a penis on God, for some reason.
Dan
So today, women’s bodily rights have been lost in some places and are now under threat everywhere. People’s sexual identities are pathologized and they live in threatening environments. Those in racial groups that are underserved, badly served, won’t get relief soon.
For us over 50 I have to say that in my lifetime we have never been this close to the tipping point on Supremacy Hill. Close to the downhill side towards majority interest in shared power and domestic healing - still a long way off. But the opportunity was here to start. And it’s still in front of us.
Too many White people knowingly backed away.
He didn’t win hearts and minds. He gave permission. White people, to feel White, need to feel our power over others. He’s the avatar of Whiteness.
A felon, an assaulter, a liar, a hate mongerer… doesn’t lead. He gives hate permission.
But he didn’t change anyone. Change is still gaining real numbers and gaining in determination.
Ms Harris brought us together again, in enthusiasm and/or political practicalities. That will generate progress.
It’s 500 years waiting for shared power, and now, in the next decade, also different conceptions of power.
Screwtape has a way for words, a manipulative sarcastic power of influence. Like Trump he motivates the inherent thrill to brutality of those who want power.
But we shall overcome.
Indeed. All of that.
And now, we go back to doing that work that we do every day... building affordable houses, teaching children, empowering those with disabilities, being an ally for the immigrants, for LGBTQ folks, for women... doing what we can to make the world a better place.
Yep
"[Rolls eyes] Seriously? THAT'S what your take away from this post is?"
No. I wasn't even commenting on the post or the poem, to which you attributed no poet. It's crystal clear you have some demented need to believe that it is, though.
No, Dan. I was commenting on your comment which preceded mine you purposely referenced in such a negative tone. But let's consider that comment in full:
"And lest anyone should confuse this for a political message (which it may be),..."
It seems you're a bit confused as well if you must add the parenthetical "which it may be". So while you're not certain, you then go on to assert:
"to be clear: "She" is God in this poem, in my mind."
So, we're to be clear that "in your mind", the poet is speaking of God as a "she". OK, that's fine. In YOUR "mind". But what of the poet's mind? Maybe your "mind" could have been validated by providing thoughts of the poet as to who the poet references when using the word "she".
"1. You're factually wrong. There are many images of God as a woman in the Bible, figuratively speaking."
No. You're factually wrong, and neither you nor your pal have provided any examples that are describing God Himself as in any way female. If I say "Dan Trabue" guards his Tootsie Rolls like a mother hen guards her chicks, am I ascribing to you a feminine nature, or simply saying you're especially fond of your Tootsie Rolls? Clearly it's the latter (not my graciousness in the implication you're a man...you're welcome).
"God's not a man nor a male."
God's not corporeal, unless He chooses to be. But throughout Scripture He's referred to with male pronouns and labels. "He", "His", "Father"...etc. These terms are used in reference to Him. Never does anyone refer to Him as "She", "Hers", "Mother". And this is true of every Biblical figure described in Scripture from one cover to the other. He is always described in masculine terms. He created Adam first in His Image and Likeness and from Adam created Eve. And while she is also created in His Image, creating first a man to reflect that Image is telling.
"Does God NEED to have a penis for you to feel good about yourself? If so, why? What does that say about you?"
No. The thought never has occurred to me. But what it says about you to ask such a question of me is quite a bit and none of it good. It's a cheap and grace embracing way to imply (to say the least) something disparaging when there is no just cause for you to do so.
"You're probably just imagining that because MANY of the figurative passages in the Bible that speak of God figuratively as a male or using HE language, you think that is God's preference."
Curiously, there's not the slightest hint anywhere in Scripture that He might prefer otherwise. I've no doubt you're likely choosing to believe that all masculine references to God the FATHER are due to Biblical authors being themselves men. If so, how very feminist of you. Does Jesus feel good about Himself in the same way you accuse me because He refers to God as "Father"?
"Do you recognize that "the Bible" nor God insist that God should be called "HE" and that referring to Mother God or She who loves her children is nowhere claimed to be wrong or improper?"
Why would that be necessary that either must?
Marshal:
So, we're to be clear that "in your mind", the poet is speaking of God as a "she". OK, that's fine. In YOUR "mind". But what of the poet's mind? Maybe your "mind" could have been validated by providing thoughts of the poet as to who the poet references when using the word "she".
I'm the poet, Marshal. I think I almost always (always) cite the poet or writer involved if I use other authors. So yes, I know what I had in mind. I said it the way I did ("in my mind...") because I recognize and value the notion that other people may bring their own interpretations and thoughts on any given reading, but for ME, SHE is God in this poem.
You're factually wrong, and neither you nor your pal have provided any examples that are describing God Himself as in any way female.
I can't help you. There IS feminine imagery used to speak of God in the bible. We've pointed out several instances of it for you. You are welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts. WHEN the Bible (or any text) says something like "now I (God) will cry out like a woman in labor;" that is literally using feminine imagery to speak of God.
I think part of the problem in much of this is that so many conservatives appear to have problems dealing with figurative language. When the Bible uses "HE" to speak of God, it's not saying that God is masculine/male and when the Bible uses "From my womb" it's not saying that God is feminine/female. It's just figurative language. Period.
there's not the slightest hint anywhere in Scripture that He might prefer otherwise.
Again, God's a grown up. God does not give a darn about if you call God he, she, they or Gizmoid. God is the almighty creator of the universe and the mother of all that is. God is not described in the Bible as being so petty and tiny as to get God's feelings hurt by someone saying She.
That is more the purview of humanity and men like you.
Why would that be necessary that either must?
YOU are the one saying that there's a problem with saying Mother God, She who births all of creation. YOU are the one with the gender problem, not me. I'm fine (so far as that goes) if you want to call God "he." I've never said anything about it, have I?
So, answer the question or move on.
"Do you recognize that neither "the Bible"
nor God
insist that God should be called "HE" and that
referring to Mother God or She who loves her children
is nowhere claimed to be wrong or improper?"
IF you recognize that reality (and it IS a reality), then why do you bring it up?
"I'm the poet, Marshal."
I thought as much. The poem is just that silly and pretentious.
"I said it the way I did ("in my mind...") because I recognize and value the notion that other people may bring their own interpretations and thoughts on any given reading..."
While some...possibly most...actual poets are cool with people "bringing their own interpretations" about their work, I doubt many of them compose without purpose, without intending to convey a specific meaning. Thus, most who "bring their own interpretations" are doing no more than inferring what they believe the poet's meaning is or might be.
"WHEN the Bible (or any text) says something like "now I (God) will cry out like a woman in labor;" that is literally using feminine imagery to speak of God."
But not as a description of God, but is descriptive of how God is "crying out". Somehow, you pretend that nuance is lost on you, when in fact, you're simply projecting onto God that which you find pleasing.
" I think part of the problem in much of this is that so many conservatives appear to have problems dealing with figurative language."
So you choose to believe. The reality is that the problem is your twisting and corrupting Scripture until it suits you personally, and conservatives and others who revere the truth of Scripture oppose such self-serving, self-satisfying perversions. Those like me fully understand metaphor, hyperbole and figurative language, but don't confuse how it is used, nor insist it means what it doesn't. Your attempts here doesn't change the fact as I've presented it: "God's never referred to as female in all of Scripture."
"God does not give a darn about if you call God he, she, they or Gizmoid."
An unsupported claim if ever there was one, and one which is in stark conflict with Scriptural teaching with regard how God expects us to regard Him. So provide proof of this claim or correct yourself that it's only your opinion.
"God is the almighty creator of the universe and the mother of all that is."
He never describes Himself in anything akin to being a mother, nor is there any reference of anyone else in Scripture doing so.
"God is not described in the Bible as being so petty and tiny as to get God's feelings hurt by someone saying She."
It's not a matter of Him being petty. It's a matter of you deciding you can recreate Him to fit your personal preferences. But God's never referred to as female in all of Scripture.
"YOU are the one saying that there's a problem with saying Mother God, She who births all of creation."
There is a problem with it. It's not an accurate description of the Being who presents Himself only in masculine terms. You presume otherwise because you find it personally appealing to do so. I don't feel any such compulsion to create a false god in my image. I love, revere and worship God as He is...as revealed to us in Scripture.
"YOU are the one with the gender problem, not me."
Really? It's not me who needs to insist He's feminine. I'm perfectly fine with how He presents Himself.
"Do you recognize that neither "the Bible"
nor God
insist that God should be called "HE" and that
referring to Mother God or She who loves her children
is nowhere claimed to be wrong or improper?"
No. Nor do I need for the Bible or God Himself to insist that I refer to Him as He refers to Himself, which is always in masculine terms. And since He NEVER refers to Himself as "Mother God" or "'She' who loves 'her' children", it is wrong for us to do so.
So, it is not a "reality" that you can just reference God in any way you choose because it pleases you to do so. It's just your desperate hope that you can do so without consequence. But again, I have more reverence and respect for my Father in Heaven than to presume anything goes.
But you do you, and good luck with that.
Correction: In my haste to finish up, what was stated as "Nor do I need for the Bible or God Himself to insist that I refer to Him as He refers to Himself, which is always in masculine terms." should have been "Nor do I need for the Bible or God Himself to insist that I refer to Him in any way but as He refers to Himself, which is always in masculine terms.
I also forgot to provide the following relevant link:
https://biblereasons.com/is-god-a-woman/
It's NOT a relevant link. It's some white guy asserting his personal opinion and presuming to speak for God that, TO THAT GUY, HE thinks that IN HIS HEAD that God thinks of himself as a male.
But the problem is that this is an utter bullshit claim. It's nonsense. It's wholly unsupported by anything beyond, "But when I personally read these words, I REALLLLLLY think it means that God considers God's self a male."
It's nothing. It is a complete black hole of nonsense and empty-headed nothing.
I asked you to answer one VERY specific question, Marshal:
"Do you recognize that neither "the Bible"
nor God
insist that God should be called "HE" and that
referring to Mother God or She who loves her children
is nowhere claimed to be wrong or improper?"
You responded with nothing, saying...
No.
PROVE it or admit you can't.
Here's a hint: You absolutely can not.
You continued:
Nor do I need for the Bible or God Himself to insist that I refer to Him as He refers to Himself, which is always in masculine terms. And since He NEVER refers to Himself as "Mother God" or "'She' who loves 'her' children", it is wrong for us to do so.
That is YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND PULLED OUT OF YOUR BOTTOMLESS ASS PERSONAL OPINION and 100% factually NOT the Word of God.
Do you acknowledge that this is only your personal subjective, unproven, misogynistic, bigoted, religious opinion and NOT anything that God has told you in any way whatsoever?
Answer the question or move on.
You see, even though your own bigoted male self do not recognize the reality that God never said it's wrong for people to refer to me as female, that IS the reality of it all. God hasn't told you that. It's your personal unproven and frankly rather stupid opinion. You're welcome to ridiculous and unsupported personal opinions but you're not welcome to your own personal facts.
Good God, have mercy.
Your idiot white bigot, "Fritz" (your nonsense link from an unknown bigot) says:
How do we know God is male?
God is spirit, but when He appeared in personified form, as when He came to Abraham, He came as a man. The two angels accompanying Him also appeared as human men (Genesis 18 & 19). He revealed Himself to Jacob as a man and wrestled with him (Genesis 32:24-30). He appeared to Joshua as a man, the Commander of the Lord’s Armies, and Joshua worshiped Him
WE do not "know" that. THAT is "Fritz's" personal subjective idiotic opinion. God has NO PENIS. God is NOT a male/not a man.
What in the name of all that is holy, good and rational is wrong with you all? You take some verses, tell us what you think they are saying and insist that it's a "fact." It's NOT. Words have meanings.
This level of misogyny and dismissal of the Feminine Divine is part of the reason why you all were able to vote for a known conman, felon, rapist/sexual predator, idiot and MAKE that vote in good conscience... because of this human tradition that is just plain irrational and goofy and dangerous.
Lord, Lord, Lord... save us from your "followers..."
Marshal continues to contain god to a book - an ancient book - so he can control his god. The opposite of believing in a god.
This is how christians turn into thugs.
Feodor
"It's NOT a relevant link."
It's totally relevant. You reject it...as is your manner...simply because it contradicts your position. Period.
"It's some white guy asserting his personal opinion and presuming to speak for God that, TO THAT GUY, HE thinks that IN HIS HEAD that God thinks of himself as a male."
What does his race have to do with anything? Tell me. Prove it matters in this case. Prove there's no possibility that a woman of Asian and Zulu ancestry could agree with everything he says...which would be unsurprising given how on point Fritz's position is. BTW...I've tried to look him up on line, found him on FB, and among the 333 followers he has, many are both black people and women. So I guess only white progressive grace embracing Christians from Louisville consider race of an individual an important factor in determining the truth and logic of a position that individual might hold. Good to know.
In any case, there's nothing in his article which suggests "HE thinks that IN HIS HEAD that God thinks of himself as a male." Like me, Fritz is only asserting the fact that God's never referred to as female anywhere in all of Scripture.
"But the problem is that this is an utter bullshit claim."
What's "an utter bullshit claim"? That God's never referred to as female anywhere in all of Scripture. If it is, then you must have some actual verse which presents such a reference you've chosen to not yet reveal. None so far provided by either you or feo refers to God as female.
"It's wholly unsupported by anything beyond, "But when I personally read these words, I REALLLLLLY think it means that God considers God's self a male.""
At what point to you actually argue against the actual fact I've presented, rather than pretend either of us (me or this Fritz dude) has said anything like this? Asking for a friend.
"It's nothing. It is a complete black hole of nonsense and empty-headed nothing."
The reality is (because you like to pretend reality is important to you) that the article presents a solid, Scriptural based argument to prove that God's never referred to as female anywhere in all of Scripture. Now clearly, you like to pretend that you and feo have proven this fact to be untrue. But the difference is stark. What you provide is addressing the fact I presented superficially...obliquely. Fritz handles it directly by showing how even God presents Himself in masculine terms. You want all these references you provide to be regarded refutations of the fact. But what you've provided is nothing more than references (mostly) to actions God has perpetrated. Again, if I describe you as having guarded your beef jerky as a mother hen guards her chicks, that's not referring to YOU as female, but referring to your regard for your beef jerky in the same way a mother hen regards her chicks. If I said you sip your Shirley Temple the way a woman sips her tea, that's not referring to you as female, but to your mannerism as effeminate. That's not at all the same thing. And is someone overhearing me say this then chose to presume I meant I regard you as female, I would correct him by explaining the distinction between describing your actions or mannerisms versus describing your self.
The distinction is really quite plain. You pretend it isn't so as to protect your presumption in referencing God in female terms in your...uh..."poem".
Do you acknowledge that this is only your personal subjective, unproven, misogynistic, bigoted, religious opinion and NOT anything that God has told you in any way whatsoever?
Dan
"I asked you to answer one VERY specific question, Marshal:"
--snip--
"You responded with nothing, saying...
No."
Clearly, responding "No" is not "nothing". It's a direct answer to your strained question. What followed further destroys whatever you hoped to accomplish with your foolish question. I'm not obliged to find any direct command of the type you demand from Scripture in order to acknowledge the fact that no where within It's pages does It refer to God in feminine terms. As my link explained quite clearly and in a most unassailable manner, God refers to Himself in masculine terms and so does everyone else in Scripture, including Himself in the human form of Jesus Christ, HIS "Son". Not "HER" "daughter". Only leftists henpecked by radical self-serving feminists ever try to pretend it's appropriate to refer to God in terms by which He never anywhere in Scripture refers to Himself. No one else ever feels the need, be they white guys or chicks.
" That is YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND PULLED OUT OF YOUR BOTTOMLESS ASS PERSONAL OPINION and 100% factually NOT the Word of God."
First of all, in your typical grace embracing manner, you again assert what isn't true in order to disparage and insult, after constantly scolding me for not being respectful. My comment to which this totally Christian-like response was not an opinion. Rather, there is no "Word of God" which refers to God as "mother" or "she" or "her". Anywhere in Scripture. All of His referencing of Himself is in masculine terms. Remember, I'm speaking of how He references Himself, not every little action He takes. Again, if everyone acknowledges Dan Trabue giggles like a little girl, it's not stating that Dan Trabue is a little girl. If everyone can plainly see you throw like a girl, that just refers to how poorly you throw. (Women athletes don't wish to throw like a girl)
"Do you acknowledge that this is only your personal subjective, unproven, misogynistic, bigoted, religious opinion and NOT anything that God has told you in any way whatsoever?"
No.
Having answered your question unequivocally, I now will move on to your next comment.
"You see, even though your own bigoted male self do not recognize the reality that God never said it's wrong for people to refer to me as female, that IS the reality of it all."
I'm confused. Do you mean God never said it's wrong for people to refer to YOU as female, or to HIM as female?
But, I'm not at all bigoted...except against the many bad behaviors in which you constantly perpetrate (as well as others)...and I've not made the case that God "said" it was wrong to refer to Him as a chick. Why do you continue to pursue this fictional point? My position has always been limited in this thread to "God's never referred to as female in all of Scripture." That's a fact you haven't come anywhere close to refuting.
"God hasn't told you that. It's your personal unproven and frankly rather stupid opinion."
No it's not. It's the one you need me to have because the fact I presented is beyond any possibility of refuting. Once again, that is "God's never referred to as female anywhere in all of Scripture." It's really not even a legitimate point of contention. It's so obvious as to be a moot point unworthy of debate. Yet, you need to find fault with those who aren't down with the liberties you take with the faith.
"You're welcome to ridiculous and unsupported personal opinions but you're not welcome to your own personal facts."
Despite my opinions having far better evidential support than any of yours, I tend to focus on actual facts...not what you need to believe are somehow only my "personal" facts. Facts are either facts or they're not facts. When I present facts you find personally problematic (the only real evidence of the personal in our exchanges on the subject of "facts"), it's your job to provide better evidence to persuade me from regarding that to which I refer as "facts" to be facts. I will mark my calendar when you finally choose to provide such an argument against any fact I present.
"Good God, have mercy."
Are you praying to God the Father, the only One Who is Good, or your "god the mother", who is total fiction?
"Your idiot white bigot, "Fritz" (your nonsense link from an unknown bigot) says:"
How do you know he's either an idiot or white? I can't seem to find a picture of him. I put in a friend request on his FB page and if I am accepted, I'll be asking him his race. I find a lot of dudes with that name who are black dudes, so we'll see if that's the case with this particular Fritz who you've not shown to be an "idiot" at all:
"WE do not "know" that. THAT is "Fritz's" personal subjective idiotic opinion. God has NO PENIS. God is NOT a male/not a man."
You're obsession with God having a penis or not aside, Fritz cited multiple passages in which God appeared in the form of a man and others where He referred to Himself in masculine terms. Thus, we absolutely "KNOW" that what Fritz said is true if we actually revere Scripture.
As to your weird obsession with whether or not God has a penis, do you think if your genitalia was removed for whatever reason, and you, after recovering from the event, appeared to total strangers, do you think they would look at you and question what sex you were? That is to say, if you walked in public dressed as you usually do, would you not appear to the public as a man? Do you think people would naturally assume that without demanding first that you drop your pants? None of the passages cited by Fritz describes God exposing His groin before being assumed to be present in male form. So what do YOU think, in your fevered imaginings, might lead those telling the story that God appeared to Abe, Jacob and Joshua as a man?
"What in the name of all that is holy, good and rational is wrong with you all?"
You've demonstrated beyond question your lack of understanding with regard to any of those three terms. But as the average person would understand them, the answer is clearly and without any doubt, "nothing".
"You take some verses, tell us what you think they are saying and insist that it's a "fact.""
There's no fact presented which isn't accompanied by Scriptural support. Thus, they are indeed facts until you can provide better Scriptural support to the contrary. As is typical, you've not done that here. You just don't like the fact, which in this case is simply "God's never referred to as female anywhere in all of Scripture."
"Words have meanings."
Really? I never knew that.
"This level of misogyny and dismissal of the Feminine Divine is part of the reason why you all were able to vote for a known conman, felon, rapist/sexual predator, idiot and MAKE that vote in good conscience... because of this human tradition that is just plain irrational and goofy and dangerous."
First, there's no "misogyny" in anything I've presented. That's just you choosing without basis to insult me in the very manner you would regard as disrespectful if it was said about you by me. But then, words have meanings and it's clear you don't understand the meaning of that one.
Secondly, please provide the passage (Chapter and verses) which speak of the "'Feminine' Divine". I'll wait here while you don't.
Thirdly, your eagerness to again extend an graceful embrace of a man who is a far better person than yourself by regarding him in terms for which you have no legitimate basis indicts you once again as the fraud for which I've long taken you. Your description of Trump is far more accurately appropriate for both Biden and Harris, if not for the entirety of the Democrat Party you support wholeheartedly. That's another fact you can't rebut.
"Lord, Lord, Lord... save us from your "followers...""
"Lord" being a masculine term.
You asked again:
"Do you acknowledge that this is only your personal subjective, unproven, misogynistic, bigoted, religious opinion and NOT anything that God has told you in any way whatsoever?"
My answer cannot help but remain the same. It is "No". But it's really two questions, isn't it? To the first question, the answer is fixed, as the answer reflects truth and fact: "God's never referred to as female anywhere in all of Scripture."
The second question refers to what God has told me. Which, is in fact aligned with the fact in quotes above. If we regard Scripture as the Word of God, then He has indeed told me He referred to Himself only in masculine terms. Thus, that is not opinion, either, but a fact supported by a clear reading of Scripture.
Why don't you try asking me yet again the same question I've answered the same way every time you ask it?
Marshal:
To the first question, the answer is fixed, as the answer reflects truth and fact: "God's never referred to as female anywhere in all of Scripture."
The question was NOT, "Is God referred to as a female anywhere in all of Scripture."
That question has been objectively answered: God is objectively factually spoken of using female imagery. The mother giving birth, for instance. God has not been called a female in the pages of the Bible, any more than God has been called a man. God has no penis, nor vagina. God is God, not a human being with a gender. All of that is objectively found in the Bible.
The question I'm asking you is:
Do you acknowledge that God has not told you or anyone else - anywhere in all of history upon all the earth - that God considers God's self to be male (or female)?
Do you acknowledge that neither God nor "the Bible" have said it's wrong to refer to God as She?
Last chance. It's easy. The facts are the facts. I'm just asking you if you can acknowledge the facts.
One other way of asking it:
Do you imagine in your head that, to you, you believe personally and in an unproven manner that it is wrong (in your personal subjective opinion) to refer to God as She?
If so, do you acknowledge that it's only your personal opinion and nothing God has told you to believe nor that the Bible or reason demands?
"The question was NOT, "Is God referred to as a female anywhere in all of Scripture.""
Clearly I didn't say it was. I said my factual statement, that God's never referred to as female anywhere in all of Scripture, is the answer to your question. Indeed, it's there plain as day.
"That question has been objectively answered: God is objectively factually spoken of using female imagery."
It has been falsely answered because the use of female imagery is simply metaphor, simile or analogy describing, not God Himself, but something He's doing...such as loving His Chosen People...like a mother hen. Or even like a human mother. The type of affection common to women is not unknown among men, but it evokes something familiar which gets the point across more accurately. This is what all your examples are doing.
But the REALITY is that God presents Himself only in masculine terms or appearances, which also evokes something specific about Him. He's never referred to in feminine terms despite your weak attempts to make your citations stand as examples of that occurring. No. He's referred to by others and Himself with terms like Father, King, Lord, Husband and the like. Never with terms like Mother, Queen, Lady, Wife and such. Pronouns are also always masculine, such as He, Him, His and never She, Her or Hers.
So you offerings are NOT examples of God being "spoken of" with female "imagery" is not true. It's not speaking of God specifically, but something God is doing. This is true even when He (as Father or Son) speaks of Himself.
"God has not been called a female in the pages of the Bible, any more than God has been called a man."
This is true, but again the question is how is He addressed or referenced, and it is always in masculine terms. No one in all of Scripture refers to Him as "She". No one but lefty feminists presume to have the liberty to call Him what is contrary to what He calls Himself.
"God is God, not a human being with a gender."
Not precisely accurate and therefore not actually true. God is not a human being...that's true...and as such doesn't have human biology. But gender isn't a biological thing. It's a construct and He does have a male gender. That is to say, He presents as male...throughout all of Scripture. That's objectively, factually and unequivocally found in the Bible from beginning to end.
"Do you acknowledge that God has not told you or anyone else - anywhere in all of history upon all the earth - that God considers God's self to be male (or female)?"
No, because it's not reflected in Scripture that He doesn't consider Himself in terms related to maleness. We know this without question because He, while in human form as Jesus of Nazareth, refers to Himself as Father and tells us to do so as well.
"Do you acknowledge that neither God nor "the Bible" have said it's wrong to refer to God as She?"
I can only acknowledge that it is your well-known arrogance to presume that if something isn't stated in a specific manner in Scripture or the Words of God revealed to us therein, you regard that as liberty to do whatever the hell pleases you. In my case, I seek to act only in a manner which mirrors God/Christ to the best of my ability, and if God/Christ does or says something specific in a specific way...and as consistently as He does in referencing Himself in masculine terms...I'm inclined to act or speak in kind. If He doesn't reference Himself in masculine terms, I can't see how one can say it's "OK" to refer to Him as "She" or "Mother in heaven" or "Wife of Her Husband, the church". But hey...it's nice to know I have the liberty to refer to you according to things you've said and done. Thanks.
"The facts are the facts. I'm just asking you if you can acknowledge the facts."
I did in my first comment. You choked on it immediately. You threw a hissy fit, just like a small girl.
"Do you imagine in your head that, to you, you believe personally and in an unproven manner that it is wrong (in your personal subjective opinion) to refer to God as She?
If so, do you acknowledge that it's only your personal opinion and nothing God has told you to believe nor that the Bible or reason demands?"
These questions are improper. Rather than ask them, stand up and admit that you imagine in YOUR head that TO YOU, YOU believe personally and in a wholly unproven manner that so long as there's no express, definitive prohibition about something that tickles your fancy, despite everything which might suggest otherwise, you assume the liberty and authority to do whatever the hell you want.
God "tells" us He presents as masculine by every reference to Him throughout Scripture, be it by how others refer to Him or how He refers to Himself. You willingness to ignore all that indicates His preference belies your claim of reverence and devotion to Him, as well as your claim of having spent your life seriously and prayerfully studying Scripture.
I had asked:
"Do you imagine in your head that, to you, you believe personally and in an unproven manner that it is wrong (in your personal subjective opinion) to refer to God as She?
If so, do you acknowledge that it's only your personal opinion and nothing God has told you to believe nor that the Bible or reason demands?"
Marshal responded, without answer but choosing to try to make a nonsensical attack.
These questions are improper. Rather than ask them, stand up and admit that you imagine in YOUR head that TO YOU, YOU believe personally and in a wholly unproven manner that so long as there's no express, definitive prohibition about something that tickles your fancy
The QUESTIONS are "improper..."? To whom? Just because you don't want to answer them directly doesn't make them improper. IF you are making a claim that we should not say Mother God or refer to God as She, then it's reasonable to ask why AND to get you to admit that it's only your personal opinion, nothing God has told you nor that the Bible dictates and certainly not anything that reason insists upon.
As to this bit of nonsense:
stand up and admit that you imagine in YOUR head that TO YOU, YOU believe personally and in a wholly unproven manner that so long as there's no express, definitive prohibition about something that tickles your fancy
I believe that nothing obviously good, just, helpful, caring, wholesome and respectful is wrong. Those things tickle my fancy and hopefully, they'd appeal to you, too.
On the other hand, some perverts like people we all know have their "fancy tickled" by abusing their power and money to ogle teen-aged girls and grope/sexually assault women. Those things are, of course, bad and opposed by me.
But none of that is the answer to the question.
Your complete refusal to even TRY to answer these reasonable questions demonstrate that, of course, you can't prove that your god gets "his" feelings hurt when people refer to Mother God. It is clearly just your own personal opinion. Which is fine. I just wish you'd have the personal integrity and intellectual courage to admit these little whifflenothings are your opinion binding upon no one else.
Marshal:
I can only acknowledge that it is your well-known arrogance to presume that if something isn't stated in a specific manner in Scripture or the Words of God revealed to us therein, you regard that as liberty to do whatever the hell pleases you.
I do not believe that if something isn't stated in Scripture, then we have the liberty to do whatever pleases us. Driving drunk is not mentioned in Scripture, voting for an open sexual predator to an elected office is not mentioned in Scripture, dropping nukes on the enemy and their families is not mentioned, etc, etc. There are MANY things that are not mentioned in Scripture that are, nonetheless wrong. Many things are given direct or tacit approval in Scripture that are, nonetheless, wrong. As I've made abundantly clear and as you continually demonstrate by your inability to argue rationally against it: The Bible is not our "rulings book," where we go to find all answers for moral questions.
It literally, directly, objectively never says so anywhere in its pages. We have our God-given moral reasoning to sort those things out.
So, no, I do not believe what you just claimed, that would be a false claim, objectively and demonstrably so. Making false claims, on the other hand, IS something that is wrong - which the Bible also mentions, but it's not "bad" because the Bible tells us so, but because it causes harm and is not good, loving or helpful. What you claim is "well-known," then, is demonstrably false.
Now, if you're not going to engage in respectful adult conversation and answer reasonable questions put to you, go away. I'll be reviewing your comments and probably deleting some, if not all of them, because you're not answering and you're being abusive towards women, girls and others.
"Marshal responded, without answer but choosing to try to make a nonsensical attack."
This is deceptive to the utmost. Your question is your typical loaded question. It's not enough for you to simply ask if I believe this or that. No. You have to apply insult and false innuendo. I don't "imagine" that it's wrong to refer to someone...especially to God...in a manner that Someone doesn't refer to Himself. Indeed, in a manner OPPOSITE to how God refers to Himself. What's more, my position on this specific issue is is ironically bolstered by your hypocritical position on addressing the so-called "trans-women". You would regard someone referring to Bruce Jenner, Richard Levine and William Thomas as men, as he and him, as insulting, "hateful", "bigoted" and "oppressive" because they now refer to themselves as women with female names and pronouns. Yet, you have no problem referring to God any damned way you choose and pretend He would have no problem with it as if you have any possible evidence to support the position, simply because nowhere in Scripture is He reported as saying, "Thou shalt not refer to me as if I'm a chick". You could not be more absurd (please don't take that as a challenge...I've no real confidence you couldn't be).
"The QUESTIONS are "improper..."? To whom?"
To God and to common sense and reason. You have no basis by which you can presume to call Him whatever you deem fashionable or to presume He should NOT regard your doing so negatively. Once again, this is no better than you inventing a god in your own image and likeness and insisting it's the God of Scripture.
..."nothing God has told you nor that the Bible dictates and certainly not anything that reason insists upon."
Nonsense. His every mention of Himself, all references to Him by every character throughout Scripture, including Himself in the form of Jesus Christ, every instance of Him presenting Himself before mortal men is of a masculine being. Period. End of story. Not a single one of your citations refute this FACT in the slightest, your constant petulant insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.
"I believe that nothing obviously good, just, helpful, caring, wholesome and respectful is wrong."
You don't get to dictate that what has personal appeal for you is actually any of those things. If you choose to believe that crapping in someone's lap is "good, just, helpful, caring, wholesome and respectful", it isn't necessarily so. But that's what you do constantly. It's not even an intelligent argument, nor a mature one. It's just you inventing your own little world and calling it "good". It doesn't work that way. What's more, you couldn't (or you would have) even try to explain why calling God "mother" or "she" is possibly "good, just, helpful, caring, wholesome and respectful". So there you go. You clearly ARE more absurd!
"On the other hand,..."
Your Trump hatred is wholly irrelevant to this conversation and still based on nothing of substance.
"Your complete refusal to even TRY to answer these reasonable questions..."
Is untrue...a lie in fact...both because I've answered your questions directly and comprehensively, and because they're not the least bit reasonable. You defense of calling God "She" is even less reasonable and without factual basis of any kind.
"...you can't prove that your god gets "his" feelings hurt when people refer to Mother God."
Of course I don't need nor intend to prove what I've never argued. That's something you made up, pretended it came from me, and now insist I back it up. If your position was in any way sound, you wouldn't need to so routinely do such things (and then complain about how I engage in discourse!).
"It is clearly just your own personal opinion."
Again, it is not. It's an intentional lie of your own making projected upon me. No where have I so much as hinted at that argument. I just wish you'd have the personal integrity and intellectual courage to argue whatever the hell your position is without lying about mine.
"I do not believe that if something isn't stated in Scripture, then we have the liberty to do whatever pleases us."
Then why do you act as if you do? Constantly.
"As I've made abundantly clear and as you continually demonstrate by your inability to argue rationally against it: The Bible is not our "rulings book," where we go to find all answers for moral questions."
There's no answer to moral questions which can't be found in Scripture, for God is the source of morality. You simply disagree, but you've never proven your contrary position is even close to being truer than mine.
"Driving drunk is not mentioned in Scripture,"
But drunkenness is (1 Corinthians 6:10, Galatians 5:21), and I don't think where one happens to be at the time matters.
"...voting for an open sexual predator to an elected office is not mentioned in Scripture..."
So you thought it was OK to vote for Joe Biden. Got it.
"dropping nukes on the enemy and their families is not mentioned"
But if it's an unprovoked attack, it does as well (Exodus 20:13). However, you pretend that no self-defense measures should be taken if the families of the enemy might be harmed in the process. This is the position of the false Christian, who is always free to sacrifice his own family so that the families of the wicked might not be harmed. There's nothing Christian about this (1 Timothy 5:8, Nehemiah 4:14, Ecclesiastes 3:3)
"It literally, directly, objectively never says so anywhere in its pages."
Again, you deceitfully insist that Scripture must say something specific in a specific manner to YOUR satisfaction before abiding it's clear teachings.
"We have our God-given moral reasoning to sort those things out."
There's no such thing without Scripture to teach us what is moral. Everything you assert as your "God-given moral reasoning" is (very loosely) based on Scriptural teaching, minus that which you find inconvenient and that which you adopt as "moral" because you find it personally pleasing. You have no way of proving, even theorizing, that you would be as "moral" as even you think you are were it not for having been raised in a Christian culture which bases it's moral code on Scripture. But I have evidence in looking at non-Judeo-Christian cultures and find their code of morality quite different from ours. (I use the word "ours" as loosely as you do "your moral reasoning".)
"So, no, I do not believe what you just claimed, that would be a false claim, objectively and demonstrably so. Making false claims, on the other hand, IS something that is wrong - which the Bible also mentions, but it's not "bad" because the Bible tells us so, but because it causes harm and is not good, loving or helpful. What you claim is "well-known," then, is demonstrably false."
All of this remains false no matter how many times you re-state it. What's more, because I believe in Scripture and God's clearly revealed morality, you lied by saying it again, you lied by saying my claim is false (assuming you meant the facts I've presented about God never being described in feminine terms) and you most certainly lied about being "demonstrably" so while never once demonstrating it to be.
"Now, if you're not going to engage in respectful adult conversation..."
Oh, this lying crap again! Here it comes!
"...and answer reasonable questions put to you..."
Your questions are absolutely NOT "reasonable", but I've answered them all anyway. What's more, I didn't even employ your nonsense "just because you didn't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't answer your questions." No. I actually answer you goofy questions as well as anyone could given how goofy and unreasonable they are.
"I'll be reviewing your comments and probably deleting some, if not all of them, because you're not answering and you're being abusive towards women, girls and others."
More lies. If you delete any of my comments, it will be solely because you're unable to deal with the truths I present and you can't stand it. Worse is your BLATANT lie that I've in any way been "abusive towards women, girls and others." You can't even explain where that's happened or what makes the comments in question "abusive towards women, girls and others." You just put that out there after deleting as an excuse for your cowardice and inability to face the fact that you're wrong again. "Truth" is a punchline to you. It has no value to you.
I had said:
"I do not believe that if something isn't stated in Scripture, then we have the liberty to do whatever pleases us."
Marshal responded, NOT with an apology, but to double down on stupidly false claims...
Then why do you act as if you do? Constantly.
But I don't.
I am opposed to nuclear wars. Never mentioned in the bible.
I am opposed to the normalization of the personal auto. Never mentioned in the Bible.
I am clearly opposed to voting for sexual predators for president. Never mentioned in the Bible.
I am opposed to many bad behaviors never mentioned in the Bible and you KNOW I am opposed to them because we've had the conversations. It's a stupidly false claim and you're too - what? Obtuse? Arrogant? Pharisaical?? - to just admit it was a stupidly false claim. And now that you're caught in it, you're still too proud or whatever to just admit it, apologize and move on.
I've been abundantly clear that I think treating the Bible like a magic rule book is abusive and disrespectful of the Bible and a God of truth and grace. It was perhaps the primary sin of the Pharisees. Ancient and modern.
Move on.
Marshal:
There's no answer to moral questions which can't be found in Scripture, for God is the source of morality.
That certainly is AN OPINION, but it's not objectively proven. I don't think God thinks of morality the way you do... as if God just willy nilly creates "morality" out of nothing, then expects us to live up to that weightless "morality."
I don't think the Bible teaches that and I know God has never said that. Not in those words or suggested it in ANY words.
And you are free to disagree with MY opinion. What you're not free to do is insist that your opinion has the weight of "fact" or certainty or God's Word. It IS YOUR OWN PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE UNPROVEN HUMAN OPINION.
Do you recognize that simple reality?
And I know by now that the answer is, "NO. I, Marshal, do NOT recognize that reality..." But it doesn't change that it is reality.
Humble thyself, small man. Your arms aren't long enough to box with God nor even with another mere mortal. If you can't recognize the distinction between your subjective opinions and known objective facts, you're not ready to have adult conversations.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment said:
What's more, as no one I know regards Scripture as a "magic rule book", you're again projecting a lie upon your opponents of discourse in order to insult them, rather than to present an intelligent, evidence-based argument against positions you find inconvenient.
I've made my case why I view your approach to the Bible-as-rulings-book. Repeatedly. While you can say that you don't find my case convincing, you can't say that I haven't made my case. Again, you're not welcome to your own reality.
You all think that the Bible is a rulings book and say things like:
There's no answer to moral questions which can't be found in Scripture, for God is the source of morality.
and...
What's more, because I believe in Scripture and God's clearly revealed morality, you lied by saying it again, you lied by saying my claim is false
and...
Clearly there are rules and those rules define morality.
and, on the latter, while there ARE literally, objectively actual RULES found in the bible (it's okay to enslave people, it's okay to sell your children into slavery and your daughters into forced marriages... here's how to do it, etc) those rules 100% objectively factually do NOT "define morality." There are SOME rules spoken of in the Bible that humans can generally agree should be universally honored (don't kill, don't rape[ish], don't enslave... oh wait, that is NOT in the Bible..., etc) but the presence of those rules in the Bible alongside OTHER rules in the Bible that are disputable or otherwise completely evil (go in and slaughter all the people, animals and children, saith the Lord) do not make them universally moral or moral at all.
The reality is that IF we treat the Bible as a rulebook, gleaning that it's okay to treat women as beneath men, it's okay to enslave people in some instances, it's okay to rape/forcibly wed women in some circumstances, etc, etc, then we are dishonoring the notion of God as a perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly decent God AS found in the Bible.
At least that's my opinion. You all have the opinion that it is, in some sense, a rule or rulings book where we can find "morality defined." And that's certainly an OPINION, but it's not an objective fact. You have not proven that objectively. It is factually a subjective and unproven opinion.
Furthermore, you all hold the unproven theory that the Bible "defines" morality, but don't say how you can objectively glean the right morality from the Bible. If you have no objective, authoritative rubric that says, "HERE IS HOW we know which lines should be taken as literal rules, HERE IS HOW we can infer universal rules about a line here and there, HERE IS HOW we can know which rules are not universal..." without that, then the Bible is perforce at best a subjective potential source for possible rules, but they'd be rules we can't authoritatively prove one way or another.
I don't think you even understand the rational and biblical problem that you're having. And that is probably why you think - without proof - that you objectively have "proven" what you simply have not proven.
It's like this, Marshal: We can say (perhaps) that all or at least nearly all the references to God in the Bible appear to be using male pronouns (when pronouns are used). That is objectively demonstrable just by compiling all references to God where pronouns are used. (there are at least some They pronouns - "Let US make humans in OUR image," for instance). At any rate, we can objectively READ that.
But where you make a leap is going from "Nearly all references to God are using he/him language" to "THEREFORE, it is wrong to refer to God as She or Mother God..." or, "Therefore the "right" pronouns and names for God should be He/Him and Mr Godman."
Do you understand the distinction? It does not seem like you do. And that's the problem. That you don't even recognize your reasoning problem.
Marshal:
Clearly there are rules and those rules define morality. What else could? YOUR "reason"?
We are created in the image of God, at least some of us believe, with a moral conscience or mind... with the ability to look at situations and weigh them and their impact and decide, "Is that moral or is it not?" ...and make rationally moral decisions. We do it every day.
Do you disagree with this reality?
Indeed, YOUR VERY PREMISE that, "We have the Bible to show us all moral answers" IS a bit of moral reasoning. You've decided, in that case,
A. I think that the Bible is a reliable source for moral reasoning
B. I think that I am capable of reading the Bible, weighing its words, and come to moral conclusions.
C. For instance, because there are a handful of verses that seem to portray at least some homosexual behavior in a negative sense, I am able to therefore extrapolate that all LGBTQ-related behaviors in all times and contexts are immoral and even deserving of punishment, perhaps.
ALL of that comes from YOUR moral reasoning, not directly from God.
WHO SAYS that the Bible is a reliable source for understanding morality? Who says that the rules you glean from it are universal? Who says that there are some rules in the OT (kill the gays!! You can sell your children, here' show!!) are not universal and some are and SOME rules that are NOT in the Bible are ones you can extrapolate based upon the words of the Bible, etc
Are you able to see that you, yourself, are in fact using your moral reasoning in all of that (poorly, in my opinion)?
Post a Comment