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.
75 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)?
"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."
Typical and tiresome. Spew whatever nonsense comes to mind and then say you've made a case.
"Again, you're not welcome to your own reality."
Yet clearly, you feel perfectly free to invent your own. I don't have a reality. There's only reality. You pretend I'm unaligned with it when you can't come up with an intelligent, adult counter to actual facts I present, defend and support.
"You all think that the Bible is a rulings book..."
The Bible is the source of our knowledge of God and His Will. Included in that source are rules of living which affirm our devotion to God and by that devotion shine His Light to the world.
You regard it as a book of suggestions you're in no way obliged to abide if you find them inconvenient and opposed to your personal fiction of what and who God actually is.
"...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)..."
And here you go again with more tiresome corruptions to serve your agenda.
"...those rules 100% objectively factually do NOT "define morality.""
All of them absolutely do when honest people study them in the context they are presented. Find and honest person and ask.
"There are SOME rules spoken of in the Bible that humans can generally agree should be universally honored..."
ALL of them are to be honored by actual followers of Christ and children of God. "Humans" don't get to pick and choose which should be or don't need to be.
"... but the presence of those rules in the Bible alongside OTHER rules in the Bible that are disputable or otherwise completely evil..."
There are no such rules. There are only those low intellect and dishonest people misunderstand or purposely distort. You're of both groups.
"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."
To reject the Bible as a source of rules for living because some people "glean" that which isn't promoted, implied or mandated is absurd and a dishonest rationalization for insisting God, by virtue of His revealed Word to us in Scripture, isn't the source of morality. You dishonor God by pretending this is a rational argument.
"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."
This is just you once again presuming you have the authority or the sense to dictate what is or isn't reality. Since you don't like the truth, you assert it's opinion and not reality. And you use nonsense as if it's rational argumentation to bolster this petulance. You haven't come close to refuting the fact of Scripture as the source of morality.
"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."
Nonsense and absurdity. Make up your mind...are we dealing with whether or not the Bible is the source of morality, or are we arguing over which of us best understands each and every rule and commandment. My ability to defend a position on a given point of morality has nothing to do with the FACT that Scripture, as the revealed Word of God, is the source of morality.
"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."
This is not at all a legitimate, honest argument. It's just another cheap rationalization for presuming you have the liberty to dictate which Laws of God are binding and which are not. It subordinates Scripture to what for you passes for "reason", which is a wholly unreliable and deceitful "rubric" if ever there was one.
" I don't think you even understand the rational and biblical problem that you're having."
But I have no "rational and biblical problem". You just need me to have one in order to prohibit my defense of truth and the Will of God.
"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)."
There's no "perhaps" about it. There's no "nearly all" about it. All references to God, including how He presents Himself, are masculine. Period. End of story and you have no evidence to the contrary whatsoever. That He might say "I" or "MY" or "Us" doesn't in any way mitigate the unequivocal truth that HE is always referenced in masculine terms.
"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.""
I've made no leap of any kind. And I've certainly never said anything like "Nearly" all references..." I've stated the fact that ALL references to God are masculine...because that is indeed the fact. And if you're going to pretend that referring to Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce, or He, or Him is somehow some great horror of oppression and disrespect, how much more so is it for you to presume you can refer to God in any manner of your own choosing which is opposite of how He refers to Himself? It's worse. Far worse and again demonstrates the dishonesty in your claim of being Christian.
" 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."
I'm talking to a petulant child who dares to condescend! I have no reasoning problem. You have an dishonesty problem.
"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?"
Again with the presumption you can dictate to anyone what constitutes reality! Then you condescend in your arrogance that those like me should humble ourselves! Amazing. Try embracing a little grace and simply ask: Do you agree with this position or not?
No. I most certainly don't agree with your perversion of reality. We're created in His image and likeness, but we have a sin nature and a heart the Bible describes as deceitful and unreliable, leaning toward the self instead of God. THAT is reality according to Scripture. And as such, too many...and you're a good example...choose to label what appeals to you as moral, rather than honestly assessing it's true moral state.
In the meantime, the rest of us studies Scripture to determine what is moral and what isn't. Our decisions for how we behave are grounded in the moral teachings of Scripture, even though at times we decide poorly. What's more, you, in your perverse way, continue to make your decisions informed by your having been raised in a Christian culture, regardless of how badly you've learned from it in general. Our civil laws and what used to be our social mores are also informed by Judeo-Christian tradition. Yet those like you resist Christian teaching when it's inconvenient for your agenda while pretending what you do contrary to it is still "Christian" somehow.
"Indeed, YOUR VERY PREMISE that, "We have the Bible to show us all moral answers" IS a bit of moral reasoning."
Wrong again. It's a statement of fact.
"A. I think that the Bible is a reliable source for moral reasoning"
I never said "I think that the Bible is..." I've stated emphatically...because it's fact...that the Bible is THE source of moral understanding. At least be honest and courageous enough to deal with me according to what I actually say or have said, and not what you think will be easier for you to rebut (though this false attribution doesn't help you either).
"B. I think that I am capable of reading the Bible, weighing its words, and come to moral conclusions."
Few honest people can read Scripture and not understand what is or isn't moral. Find an honest person who's read Scripture and ask.
"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."
Question begging. You insist on pretending verses referring to the moral quality of homosexual behavior only "seem" to regard it as sinful. All verses referring to homosexuality regard it as sinful. You also insist on pretending the clear references to homosexuality as abjectly sinful are somehow mitigated by context or circumstance. That's just a straight up lie for which you haven't the slightest hint of Scriptural evidence to support it. It's the behavior which is sinful and thus deserving of death and the context or scenario in which it might take place is wholly irrelevant and has no mitigating effect on it being sinful and deserving of death.
ALL of this comes from God and His Apostles back it up. I didn't make it up, and my position regarding it's abject immorality is because God prohibits it as abomination. I didn't have to "reason" anything, except that it goes without saying that if no exceptions are ever suggested overtly or implicitly...and there indeed are absolutely none...then it goes without saying that every context and situation in which this sinful behavior takes place is still sinful.
And the only way to get around this fact is to reject it entirely and pretend there is some loophole...."it refers to 'some form' of homosexual behavior"...without the slightest Scriptural evidence to back it up. No. Worse than that, you pervert Scripture to invent the loophole. You can repeat your falsehoods regarding this issue all you want and they'll remain false. That's not "reasoning" to get to truth. That's scheming to get around it.
" WHO SAYS that the Bible is a reliable source for understanding morality?"
The Bible itself, through the words of many of the people presented therein, including Jesus Christ Himself and all honest people whose only agenda is God's Will. Find one of those people and ask.
"Who says that the rules you glean from it are universal?"
Those same honest people whose only agenda is God's Will. Such people do not find Scripture to be cryptic and difficult to understand to any extent which would make right and wrong a puzzle.
"Are you able to see that you, yourself, are in fact using your moral reasoning in all of that (poorly, in my opinion)?"
There is no comparison for how I determine the morality of an action with how you do. I don't consider my own benefit or profit. I don't do it with any agenda other than God's Will. Thus, I would never promote or condone anything so insipidly stupid and insulting as "Kill the gays!". But then, I'm also not trying to demonize those who disagree with me in any attempt to reason I might make. You demonize yourself, as with your homosexual friends of whom God says "their blood will be on their own heads". You're good with that. You're more concerned with their temporal pleasures than you are their eternal destination.
The same is true in general. As regards the actual topic...using female terms to reference God when He Himself always uses masculine...the sin is in your arrogance of presuming you can do what you like without regard to what may or may not please Him. You choose find reasons to believe He follows Dan's Word rather than you devoting yourself...putting yourself at risk...by adhering to and revering HIS Word. The ironic part is how in doing this you think you can posture as really understanding Him and His ways and nature. How easily convinced you are of your own "reasoning" abilities! Amazing. Sadly amazing!
A simple question and a request, Marshal:
Is it objectively, factually wrong to refer to God as She or Mother God?
If so, prove it, objectively.
How far you go down an absolutely nothing path while you all are catching the world on fire!
Lest you fail to understand, the point of this post is that women have long taken steps, taken action and, with deep spiritual and physical strength and grace, worked to make the world a better place. We need more of that.
Beyond rambling on and on about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, do you have any on topic comments?
But really, don't bother.
I had asked Marshal:
"Is it objectively, factually wrong to refer to God as She or Mother God?"
Marshal offered the opinion - wholly and demonstrably unsupported:
Yes.
I had, in advance, asked Marshal:
"If so, prove it, objectively."
Marshal declined to do so, in a post that is now deleted because of his vulgar sexist/misogynistic language, saying, instead:
I did already.
I don't know how to help you understand that you absolutely have not offered objective proof of your little human theory based upon your sexist human traditions that it is wrong - that God does not WANT us - to refer to God as She or Mother God. You've offered precisely a bunch of opinions based upon how you personal wish to understand your godling and your sacred text (meaning, here, your personal interpretations and understandings of the Bible and what God thinks).
Saying, "there are no lines where God says 'Call me She...'" is NOT objective proof of anything other than there are no lines that say that. That's all that is. FROM THERE, you use your human reasoning and cultural biases to GUESS that your little god is offended by SHE.
But the Almighty God of the Universe, if you believe in such a God, is so much greater than your little opinions. Especially/specifically ones you can't prove.
Move on, Marshal. You literally, objectively, demonstrably failed to even begin to objectively prove your hunch and you don't even understand that much. For your sake, move on. You're embarrassing yourself and you don't even know it.
One last thing... Marshal followed his "I done diddit" comment above with:
You reject my argument because you don't like it, not because it lacks merit.
No. I don't reject your argument. I note that it is literally an unproven human opinion. It has nothing to do with whether I liked it or not. It's just that I'm acknowledging the objective fact that you have not objectively proven it. And you don't even understand that. I don't know how to help you with that. Move on.
Marshal said, in another deleted comment:
What I fail to understand is where you get off presuming you can refer to God in a manner He never does Himself?
1. Because I think the God of the Universe is not a snowflake who cares if we call God He or She or Them.
2. Because God has never told me that. Not once. Some HUMANS have tried to insist upon it, but I don't worship at the altar of Marshal, nor should anyone else. Nor any other human, especially any other privileged and arrogant man.
3. Because God has always (as recorded in the bible and affirmed by common moral sense given to humanity) affirmed that God is on the side of the poor and marginalized, that God identifies with the poor and marginalized. So much so that when Jesus taught the story of the Sheep and the Goats, he affirmed that what you do for/with the least of these you do for and with GOD'S OWN SELF.
God IS poor. God IS marginalized. God IS a woman (and here, again, we're speaking metaphorically).
4. Because God does not demand we call God "he" or Mister God man or any other such a thing.
5. Because God is a Spirit, not a male or a female. God is God. And once again, God has not told us to refer to God as He. THAT is a human tradition and rule.
How else can I explain it so you understand it?
Move on and just accept that you're failing to understand something fundamental. Perhaps it's beyond your ken.
Marshal still comments, still gets deleted for hateful and disrespectful words and comments and attacks. In a now-deleted comment, he said:
you do nothing to provide any "objective proof" that you're free to refer to God in any manner you want, and God is obliged to accept it without taking any offense.
I do not have any objective proof about what God thinks. Nor do you. None of us do. How many times must I say it?
I gladly recognize that MY personal subjective human opinion, unproven and unprovable. That's never been in question.
Do you understand how I've been quite clear on that point?
The problem is when YOU offer your personal subjective, unproven human opinion and try to insist that it is an objective fact. YOUR personal opinions on the question of "Does my little goddy get "his" feelings hurt if people refer to God as She?" ARE subjective, not proven.
Do you recognize that simple, demonstrable reality?
This is your chance to begin saving face, Marshal. Admit you misspoke and it is YOUR subjective, unproven opinion, not anything God has said or that you can objectively prove that God thinks.
Save yourself.
I said:
Marshal offered the opinion - wholly and demonstrably unsupported:"
Marshal responded:
This is a lie.
The question is NOT "Did Marshal put up his opinions and offer some reasons (based upon a rulebook-theology/belief system) why he holds those opinions. The question is: Can you OBJECTIVELY PROVE YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN HUNCHES something that God has never told you? NOT "can I offer my reasons which begin with the unproven theory of Bible-as-rulings book..." IF some people agree with a BUNCH of your presuppositions, THEN some people might agree with you. But why should anyone agree with your presuppositions which are NOT objectively proven?
This is the problem with your subjective human theories that you don't seem to get.
Marshal...
Then, like the fake you are, you dare claim it makes him petty.
I've said nothing of the sort. Anyone can look at my words and see that. I do not object to God Almighty. I object to YOUR personal caricature of what you personally imagine your little god to be like. And you portray YOUR godling as pathetic and sickly and silly.
Disagreeing with your personal opinions of God is not the same as disagreeing with God. You, as anyone can see, are not God.
"Saying, "there are no lines where God says 'Call me She...'" is NOT objective proof of anything other than there are no lines that say that."
It's evidence. That's all I need to support my relating the truth. In doing so, it also indicts you as arrogant in presuming you have the liberty to refer to Him in ways He does not use to refer to Himself. And that's really the point here. YOUR behavior is arrogant, dishonoring, blasphemous and sacrilegious. You don't even care if it might offend Him. Without any basis whatsoever, you choose to believe it not only doesn't, but you demand that it shouldn't.
"...you use your human reasoning and cultural biases to GUESS that your little god is offended by SHE."
More lies. I use my superior reasoning (compared to what YOU laughingly refer to as YOUR "reasoning") to understand I'm not at liberty to refer to God in ways He never uses to refer to Himself. It's not "cultural biases", but an honest and intelligent understanding of Scripture and the God of the universe presented therein. I choose to abide it and defer to it, just as you choose to corrupt it, ignore it and abuse it to serve your PERSONAL biases. Furthermore, I've still not made an argument that He's offended by your presumptuousness, though I wouldn't be surprised. And I would never accuse Him of being a "snowflake" (He's not a marxist progressive like you) if He IS offended, nor would I presume to insist He should not be offended, as you always do whenever you choose to worship your invented god rather than God.
" But the Almighty God of the Universe, if you believe in such a God, is so much greater than your little opinions."
I haven't offered any opinions. And yes, I believe in the Almighty God of the Universe, and as such I find it heretical when you speak of Him, given you prefer your own invention to Him. And I certainly wouldn't presume that any opinion I would offer is ever "greater" than Him. That's YOUR thing, not mine.
"No. I don't reject your argument. I note that it is literally an unproven human opinion. It has nothing to do with whether I liked it or not. It's just that I'm acknowledging the objective fact that you have not objectively proven it. And you don't even understand that. I don't know how to help you with that. Move on."
You DO reject it and then you ASSERT that it's mere opinion, when I've totally shown that it's fact-based truth. Indeed, it doesn't matter how much evidence is ever provided, how much stronger and superior an argument is made, you'll continue to write it off as "unproven" opinion and declare victory. In the meantime, you don't provide jack to back up your opposing position or even your objection to what is laid down by me. "Nyuh uh" is always the alpha and omega of your immature, non-adult, disrespectful debate strategy.
But I persevere.
Marshal, in a now deleted comment, asked:
Who are you to call Him anything different than what He calls Himself?
God has not "called himself" ANYTHING. Those were human authors. Literally, objectively. God never claimed to write the Bible. Those were the words of human men in a patriarchal and sexist culture and time.
As an objective fact, GOD has never called himself male or female, him or her.
Again, I'm just dealing in objective observable facts.
Do you disagree with reality on this point?
Dan:
"Saying, "there are no lines where God says 'Call me She...'" is NOT objective proof of anything other than there are no lines that say that."
Marshal:
It's evidence. That's all I need to support my relating the truth.
1. I did not ask for EVIDENCE. We're talking about whether something is objectively proven to be factual OR whether it is your silly little human preference and opinion.
Are you admitting now that you can NOT objectively prove your personal opinion claim that your widdle god gets their widdle feelings hurt by calling her SHE...?
2. I'm not sure that it even rises to the level of "evidence." What it is is a bunch of lines in an ancient text written and passed on literally by ancient men about their personal ideas of God.
3. What we CAN say is that the verses in the Bible where humans reported God referring to God's Self, those verses always say either He or Them. Never She. THAT is objectively provable. We can look at the words and see them. But there's a stretch of personal subjective human opinion to move from that to, "Therefore, it hurts my god's widdle feelings to be called She."
Do you understand that simple, observable reality?
That is, when God is recorded speaking of God's Self in cases where pronouns are used, God is recorded by the human authors as mostly using He and sometimes They, but never She. THAT is objective and observable.
But that's not the same thing as saying that God doesn't want to be called She or that it is morally wrong to refer to God as She.
Unless you want to humble yourself and admit you misspoke and acknowledge that you can not objectively prove your little human theory, move on.
Dan said:
"1. Because I think the God of the Universe is not a snowflake who cares if we call God He or She or Them."
Marshal asked:
Based on what?
1. Reason
IF there is an almighty God of the Universe, the Creator of all things... a God more powerful than any force in all the universe, a God who created all of humanity and this earth and all that is within it... A God who is neither man nor woman, but THE Great I Am, a Spirit, not a person... then WHY would such a God care one single bit about what fallible human beings think of that God... that they may think God has male characteristics or female characteristics or is called He/Father or She/Mother?
IF it is not meant in any ill-intent, HOW is it reasonable to guess that God thinks it's somehow wrong?
2. The Bible
The Biblical authors NEVER ONE TIME SAY that God prefers to be called He, not She. The Biblical authors never one time make the case that they think that God thinks it's wrong to call God She or Mother.
Why would I guess that God might think it wrong (as you, somehow, do) to call God She/Mother? Based on what? That YOU PERSONALLY have an opinion about it? An opinion with zero proof?
Come, be rational. And quit wasting my time. You lost this argument a long time ago and I'm being quite patient in dealing with your silly little human opinions, but it's time to move on.
You lost.
Missing the point entirely, Marshal asked a couple of questions:
But even YOU wouldn't refer to God as "poor". He's the Creator. Everything that is is His. How can that be and at the same time can He be "poor"?
1. Of course, I would. I take Jesus' teachings fairly literally and he literally said that HE, himself was the poor, the sick, the imprisoned. When you, Marshal, fail to aid and ally with the poor and marginalized, you fail to do it with/for Jesus. It's what he literally said.
You take all the wrong passages literally.
2. Further, Jesus owns nothing. God owns nothing. It's not about ownership or money or wealth, for God. Or at least the bible never has humans making that claim about God.
3. I would say, in one sense, God is beyond wealth and poverty. Those are human constructs that don't apply to God. And, in the other sense, Jesus SO CLOSELY aligned and allied with the poor and marginalized, that God himself (Jesus) said that you fail to help HIM (Jesus was recorded to be a man) when you fail to ally with the poor and marginalized.
So, who to trust? Marshal's hunches or Jesus?
Marshal, you should know that you can not/will not speak ill (in any way) of trans people, of women, of girls on this blog. Any comments like that are deleted. They've been oppressed by people like you long enough. Not here.
And your empty and endless words CONTINUE to be complete devoid of objective proof.
Don't say ANYTHING more without answer this question:
Do you have objective proof that God almighty thinks it's morally wrong to refer to God as She/Mother?
Objective, demonstrable proof. You don't offer it, ever, because you don't have it. ALL you have are the opinions of a little human man who does not appear to understand the difference between subjective and objective.
Your failure to provide objective proof will suffice as objective proof that you have none. Because of course you don't. It's a silly little weightless human opinion. I don't know how to help you with that.
I will repeat one question from you where you speak of trans people, but only to hammer the last nail in your misogynistic, irrational coffin. Marshal asked:
If it's wrong to ignore how trans people refer to themselves, how can it not be equally wrong to ignore how God refers to Himself?
IF a person tells you their name is Ralph and he wants to be called Ralph and He, and you choose not to do so, then you're a jackass. What the hell is wrong with people who can't afford that basic level of reasonable human decency?
And here is the point that you continue to fail to miss:
GOD HAS NOT ASKED US TO CALL HIM MR GOD/HE.
NOT ONE TIME.
That some human authors and misogynists like you REALLY want God to be called HE is not evidence that God wants us to call God HE.
As an objective, demonstrable fact. Can you understand and acknowledge that little bit of rational understanding?
Marshal:
I may be wrong. Of course that possibility always exists, but it will never be proven by YOU, because it's beyond your ken (I like that. I'm going to use that a lot now!). And it's beyond your ken because there is no way for you to prove I'm wrong.
You mean, your personal hunch that God doesn't like us to call God, She, IS a subjective opinion and not objective fact? You mean, you're admitting you can't objectively prove it?
Then why not do so with a bit of humility and penance. It's okay to admit you're wrong. It's not okay to do so with a bullying and unrepentant attitude.
As to proving one another objectively wrong when it comes to God's opinions, that's what I'm saying. We can't PROVE objectively what God thinks. We can have opinions but they will, perforce, be subjective and unproven and unprovable, at least until such time as God clarifies for us.
Move on.
Marshal was asked to admit his opinions are subjective and unproven OR to provide objective proof. He did neither. Instead he rambled on for many, many paragraphs adding more subjective and unproven opinions upon opinions.
Regarding the fact that God has never asked us to call him Mr Him, that the stories told in the Bible are EVERY ONE OF THEM written by men, not God, Marshal responded with this weightless rebuttal...
Nonsense. It's absurd that God would allow falsehoods in Scripture
1. It's not a falsehood for the men of the day who wrote the Bible to refer to God as Him. It's their way of expressing how they view God.
2. The societies throughout the biblical narrative were all patriarchal societies. Of course, they would imagine God as "he." Why wouldn't they? It doesn't make it a lie.
3. Setting that aside, you have not proven in any objective manner this additional theory that "God would not allow falsehood..." to show up in the pages of the Bible. It's a cute human theory, but not one you've proven in any objective manner.
My points above are ALL objective facts, anyone can see them. The words say what they say and don't say what they don't say.
You've lost and you're just abusing yourself, Marshal. Move on. Unsupported, disrespectful, false and demeaning claims will not remain here.
Marshal...
If God is not appearing (where He did) before them in a male form, if God might be displeased with being referenced in masculine terms only, why would He allow the writers to record history as they did?
There are eight recorded appearances in the Old Testament where God took upon Himself a physical form for a short duration. Three times He appeared as a man, once in a burning bush that was not consumed, and four times as the Angel of the Lord.
Three times in the OT's recorded "history" God appeared as a man. Over man thousands of years. It's not like it was a common thing, even by biblical standards.
And in a patriarchal, misogynistic society, if God appeared as a woman, WHAT MEN would have even listened to Her?! Sometimes, one might opine, God appears in a form that God thinks best, to meet people where they are.
Move on. On every point, you've lost and you don't even know it.
As you've abundantly demonstrated, this is ONLY your subjective opinion. If you had hard data, you would have provided it by now.
Humble thyself.
Marshal:
If God is not appearing (where He did) before them in a male form, if God might be displeased with being referenced in masculine terms only, why would He allow the writers to record history as they did?
Who says God demanded editorial control of the various biblical authors? That would be yet another huge unsupported subjective hunch that you all hold (and me, once upon a time).
The Bible doesn't say that God gave the final stamp of approval of each book in the Bible. Just as a point of fact.
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole, pointing out how very little substance there are in your subjective opinions.
"Do you have objective proof that God almighty thinks it's morally wrong to refer to God as She/Mother?"
Do you have objective proof that this was an argument I was making? Do you? Any at all? Even "subjective" proof?
Dan...
"Is it objectively, factually wrong to refer to God as She or Mother God?"
Marshal...
Yes.
Perhaps you can understand when I ask you directly, point blank and clearly: IS IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG to refer to God as She? And you answer simply YES, I assume you think it's wrong. That this is your working theory. If I somehow misunderstood your YES to mean, "NOT yes," please let me know.
"Who says God demanded editorial control of the various biblical authors?"
So by asking this inane question, you seem to be suggesting God had no influence on anything written about Him whatsoever, and that every author was just some dude writing whatever...and God was cool with it. Yeah. That makes perfect sense. Why would He care if men were accurately relating all that occurred where it involved Him or related to Him, as if He isn't the Creator of all things? What an incredibly desperate angle! You really think God's incapable of exerting "editorial control" regarding what is essentially HIS biography, as if that requires some special effort on His part? You're inane if you do.
So these dudes were part of the patriarchy and thus they'd never refer to God in feminine terms. Their politics, lusts, habits, personal opinions on right and wrong all dictated how they recorded the history of the relationship between God and mankind. Yeah. Sure. If the patriarchy tainted their work, how can you be sure none of those other things did? Once again, you reject what you don't like in order to promote what you prefer and call that "Christian". Good luck with that.
"The Bible doesn't say that God gave the final stamp of approval of each book in the Bible."
Oh...I keep forgetting. If the Bible doesn't say what Dan insists it must, then what Dan opposes can't be true or factual. Of course, the Bible doesn't say anything like that, either, and no one would dream of relying on your perspective!
"You're just digging yourself a deeper hole, pointing out how very little substance there are in your subjective opinions."
Naw, that's just you wishin' and a-hopin' so that you don't have to do the heavy lifting of proving my position wrong. It's enough for you to say it is, and like all small children, that's all you'll ever offer.
While Marshal can't make up his mind if it's right or wrong - objectively so - to refer to Mother God/She (I DO think he thinks it's wrong, but he certainly has not objectively proven it and he has not admitted it's only his personal subjective opinion, which at this point is abundantly clear), he moved on to his personal subjective human theories about reading the Bible.
I asked:
"Who says God demanded editorial control of the various biblical authors?"
Marshal responded/asked:
So by asking this inane question, you seem to be suggesting God had no influence on anything written about Him whatsoever,
No. You can tell by the way I didn't say that. Instead, I asked a reasonable question that you did not answer, other than by asking a series of questions intended to try to push me to accept your theory.
I'm stating that God has never said - anywhere to anyone on record - that God held editorial content over the Bible. God has objectively never said, "These 66 books (in the major protestant traditions) are the Bible, and they're 'infallible,' whatever you mean by that."
These are just objective facts. I'm pointing to the reality that you are part of a HUMAN tradition that has made a series of theories about what you all personally and subjectively think these various texts say, even though they literally don't say them.
What we DO know is that the Bible is a series of stories and essays and poems, and each and everyone of them were passed on or written down by humans. Not one single one of them was "written by God." What we DO know is that God never claimed that all these human authors got every point right about what they were saying about God. COULD an almighty God have forced them to write only "perfect God words..."? SURE, that COULD happen. But you have no hard data to prove it objectively. It is your human theory.
That is an essential starting point on these kinds of topics. If you presume to speak for God and your personal human theories and opinions can't be mistaken, well, then, that undermines what the biblical text says about fallible humanity. YOU CAN BE MISTAKEN, Marshal. Your theories and the theories of those humans who came before you are HUMAN theories and can be mistaken. You have zero objective proof of your theories. They're literally what seems reasonable to you.
Once you can begin with that humble admission, you are in a better place to try to offer opinions about what you think is pleasing to God. But beginning with the hubris that you and yours can't be mistaken... well, it's irrational and unbiblical.
Marshal:
By virtue of all the evidence I've presented which unequivocally suggests a God who "identifies" and presents Himself in only masculine form and terms? Evidence for which you have presented no equally hard data to the contrary?
Repeat to yourself, over and over:
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NORMAL OR GOOD OR AN EXPECTATION THAT WE SHOULD HEED/FOLLOW/NORMALIZE.
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NORMAL OR GOOD OR AN EXPECTATION THAT WE SHOULD HEED/FOLLOW/NORMALIZE.
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NORMAL OR GOOD OR AN EXPECTATION THAT WE SHOULD HEED/FOLLOW/NORMALIZE.
etc.
There is SLAVERY commanded in the Bible. That does NOT mean that slavery is a moral option. Just the opposite.
There is SELLING OF GIRLS/DAUGHTERS into marriage as an option. That does NOT mean that sex slavery is moral. Just the opposite.
Women are treated as chattel and non-entities - people with few to no rights of their own - in the Bible. That does not mean that sort of misogyny is moral. Just the opposite.
Polygamy is normalized and accepted in the Bible. That does not mean that polygamy is a moral option.
There are commands to slaughter entire cities, down to the children and babies and goats. That does not mean that slaughtering children is a moral option. Just the opposite.
There are ALL sorts of teachings found in the Bible that are not to be taken as normative or moral or THE RIGHT WAY to do things. Nothing in the Bible says that.
That God is referred to by the men writing the Bible as "He" means NOT ONE THING other than those men decided to call God, He, that is how THOSE MEN experienced or thought of God. It does not mean that God expects us to call God HE. THAT LAST PART is the bit that you're extrapolating. YES, objectively, the text has many people referring to God as He throughout the Bible. That is objectively true and observable. Going beyond that to make the HUMAN GUESS unsupported by anything else is literally an extrapolation, an add-on to the text. A human theory that goes beyond what the text literally says.
But we've covered all that before.
You have zero proof that God wants to be called He. God has NOT told you that. The Bible does NOT tell you that. It is YOUR PERSONAL HANG-UP, perhaps rooted in some deep-seated misogyny on your part. Ask your therapist.
Now move on. I've wasted way more time than I should repeating the same obvious, objective facts.
Dan, speaking of the human theory of inerrancy and related matters:
"These are just objective facts."
Marshal asked:
That's a truth claim. Where's your evidence?
In the reality that it's simply not in there. By its complete absence. Because it does not exist. It is a bogey, a ghost, swamp gas. Naught else but human opinion and swamp gas.
Now, ALL you have to do to objectively prove your opinion is present hard data. Not another verse that you then proceed to mansplain to me, "Ya see, THAT verse MEANS that the Bible is inerrant or infallible..." That kind of phrase is precisely when you move to subjective human opinion.
You can't provide hard data because there is none. As we have seen by your constant inability to do anything more than point to some verses and say, "SEE! That REALLLLLY really really means what I think it means." You opinion is subjective swamp gas, son. I don't know how to help you with that.
You appear incapable or unwilling to understand the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact. Go back to school, perhaps?
I had pointed out what should be obvious:
"JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NORMAL OR GOOD OR AN EXPECTATION THAT WE SHOULD HEED/FOLLOW/NORMALIZE."
And Marshal responded, with no data to support his hunch:
Well that would depend upon the specific "something" at issue, wouldn't it? It's not an applicable blanket statement that can even cover whatever it is you think would be found under that blanket.
No. That would NOT depend. JUST BECAUSE a line is found in the bible, that does not mean that it is normal or good or justified. Period. Full stop.
Why?
Because the Bible is not a rulings book and no where says that it is.
Because the Bible has all manner of vulgar/evil actions depicted as acceptable which simply aren't.
It is never moral or good to enslave people.
It is never moral or good or even acceptable to sell your children into slavery, nor your daughters into sex slavery/forced marriages.
It is never moral or good or even acceptable to deliberately and intentionally slaughter all the children of a city.
These are not crazy, wild-eyed "out there" liberal opinions. They are the common moral understanding of the vast majority of humanity.
Do you disagree?
The PROVE IT. Somehow.
You won't because you can't. Just admit it and move on.
But what of OTHER lines in the bible that we CAN agree upon? Thou shalt not kill? Beware of rich people, those who oppress you? Thou shalt not steal? Should we heed them BECAUSE they are in the Bible?
NO. Period. Full stop. We should NOT do those things because they are an affront to human rights and basic decency. They are a violation of the nearly universally held Golden Rule.
And what of the Golden Rule? Should we heed it BECAUSE it's in the Bible? NO. Period. Full stop. We should heed the Golden Rule because it's a basic common morally rational position to take. Our God-given reasoning says YES to that, even if it weren't in the Bible.
The Bible is not - never claims to be - a rulings book. We do the right thing because they promote health and goodness, because they stand against oppression, because the Golden Rule is common sense and morally rational.
Also, we don't use the Bible as a rulings book precisely because we have NO RUBRIC to say, "Okay, which Rules in the Bible are universal and which aren't?" If we have no rubric, then merely saying, "But it's in the Bible!" is meaningless.
Not sure what you're failing to understand in all of that. But failing to understand, you are.
Marshal asked:
When are you going to prove this claim (that the male authors of the Bible wrote HE about God because it was how THEY understood God)? When are you going to prove that they "experienced" and "thought of" God in masculine terms for reasons other than that's the only way God presented Himself?
We can't objectively prove it. YOU can't objectively prove that it's wrong to refer to God as She. Or even "she" lower case. (As if an almighty God cares about our grammar rules!). But it IS a rational position to take, knowing that ancient Hebrew (and other) societies WERE patriarchal.
Feel free to hold another opinion but humility and reason demand that you begin with acknowledging the reality that it is YOUR PERSONAL and unproven opinion. Not an objectively demonstrated fact.
I had said:
I'm stating that God has never said - anywhere to anyone on record - that God held editorial content over the Bible. God has objectively never said, "These 66 books (in the major protestant traditions) are the Bible, and they're 'infallible,' whatever you mean by that."
These are just objective facts.
And
"In the reality that it's simply not in there. By its complete absence. Because it does not exist. It is a bogey, a ghost, swamp gas. Naught else but human opinion and swamp gas."
Marshal responded, with no support:
Your saying so NEVER makes it so...
That's not objective proof.
? It LITERALLY is. IN the Bible, God NOWHERE says or intimates, "I hold editorial control of the Bible and the words you use." As an objective fact. Not in those words or ANY words.
You all like to use ONE LINE in all the Bible ("all scripture is God-breathed") to suggest, "Well, to us, that one line means that the Bible is dictated by God." But that is very much a reading into the text something the text does not say. It literally doesn't.
Now, some people may hold THE SUBJECTIVE AND UNSUPPORTED OPINION that this is what it means. But that they hold that theory does not make it an objective fact.
Understand?
Now, short of providing some hard data for your theories, move on. You've lost and all unbiased people reading your words can see that.
Move on. OR prove your hunches. Objectively. With data.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment...
So from who or where do any of those "truths" originate?
Truth is Truth. It doesn't originate. It just IS. IF one takes the time to make a present for someone else and gives it to them as a gift of love and appreciation (let's say they wrote a song), the Truth is that this IS a gift of love. It just IS. Truth is like that.
It's not like God has some Truth that's just "God's Truth," and then there are other Truths. There's just Truth.
Do you think otherwise?
As to the rest of your complaints and entirely unsupported hunches, they were deleted. IF you want to make fact claims, THEN PRESENT DATA. Period.
IF you want to make subjective human opinion claims (in the vein of, Because I value the bible's teachings, when I read these words... it makes me personally think that X is true...), then be clear about that.
But don't make fact claims that you can't back up with objective data.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment...
So from who or where do any of those "truths" originate?
Please answer: Do you think God "created" or "originated" Truth? If so, based upon what? It seems a strange theory to hold. Also, if that's your theory, do you recognize that it IS an unsupported theory?
I had noted the objective reality that the Bible does not one time say, and God has not said one time, said that the 66 ARE "the Bible" or that the words therein are all "infallible." Marshal responded:
It's a meaningless "fact".
? Really? So, it's your theory that some facts are "meaningless..."? How so? Where is your objective proof for that claim, or do you have no proof, it's just your hunch?
I think facts are good things to note. Do you disagree? They may be small or less significant fact or they may be larger/more significant facts. But facts ARE important and I can't imagine in what sense a fact is "meaningless."
Interesting theory, though.
Marshal then proceeded to offer less than a handful of verses that he thinks supports his unproven theory that the Bible is the 66 books and that those books are "infallible," but none of them say anything like that. Objectively, factually, they simply don't.
I don't guess you can't see that, can you? Or can you admit that those are the proof texts that you use to form your personal theory of "infallible 66 books..." ARE your subjective human theory, not objective proof of infallibility?
Marshal then proceeds to say:
Thus, your objections are naught buy more childish "Nyuh uhs"
That is, he's saying "nyuh uh, your opinions are wrong! nyaah!!" Funny.
If you want to make a fact claim, you'll have to support it more than with "nyuh uh!" Marshal.
The difference between you and I is that I can support my objective fact claims and otherwise, I make clear it's a subjective (but reasonable) opinion, you don't even try.
Post a Comment