God and gender discussion - split off
the bear - 3-1-2008 at 23:08
A worrying thought, there is a rumour going around about God, I hear-tell she's a woman!!!!!!!!!
Regards the Bear
victor - 3-1-2008 at 23:20
Depends how you interpret this
Man being either male or female.
janet - 3-1-2008 at 23:25
I don't think the divine has a gender, but why would God being female be more worrying than God being male?
the bear - 3-1-2008 at 23:29
I have to do the washing up down here on earth, give me a break, lol
Regards the Bear
scholar - 3-1-2008 at 23:41
The Christian God is certainly male. He is the Father, He is the Son (Jesus was certainly a male in the physical sense), and the Holy Spirit is even
referred to by the male pronoun, even though the word for spirit is neuter.
victor - 3-1-2008 at 23:55
Scholar can you tell me in Genesis 1:26 who was god speaking to?
marymary100 - 3-1-2008 at 23:55
Assertions that God is definitely male or female reflect shallow thinking into God's true Nature.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 00:02
Would you then say that God reflects shallow thinking about His own nature when He uses male terms?
From the Incarnation onward, God the Son has a male human body. Was He thinking shallowly?
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 00:17
Jesus was both fully human and fully divine; therefore, his human masculinity must take the back seat to the divine nature of God.
janet - 4-1-2008 at 00:21
This is one on which we disagree, scholar.
I see God as infinite mystery, surpassing all boundaries.
Please don't post a screed of texts - believe me, I know them. I've come to my conclusions through study, thought and prayer, just as you have.
We have simply come to different conclusions. I respect yours, and would ask you to respect mine, and *not* imply that the God I worship is not the
God of Christianity.
the bear - 4-1-2008 at 00:25
If GOD (the father), had a son (The CHRIST JESUS) how can GOD the Almighty be one and the same.
GOD said I am a jelous GOD, have no other gods but me, so except that Jesus was the son of God and your doing as you are comanded, what happenes if
you give The Christ god status???? You then confuse it further by rolling it all together with GOD's holy spirit.
Didnt GOD say may the Holy spirit be amongst you (his Holy Spirit)
Regards the Bear
Regards the Bear
janet - 4-1-2008 at 00:34
Bear, I'm sure scholar will be along in a minute to explain it all but from me, you get a story...
St Augustine was once walking along the sea shore, pondering these very questions. Being the inquisitive type, and a father himself, he asked a young
boy who was playing there, what he was doing.
The child looked up and said, "I'm emptying the sea into this hole I dug".
Augie laughed and told him the task was impossible - at which the child said, "I'll do this before you understand the Trinity". (The story is
obviously to get the point across - the child supposedly an angel).
The Trinity is one of the greatest of the Christian mysteries....
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 00:38
There is no indirect object in the
the bear - 4-1-2008 at 00:53
Janet I hear that!!!
Scholar will doubtlessly explain
Regards the Bear
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 00:58
As long as it's not endlessly.............
the bear - 4-1-2008 at 01:04
One never knows!!!!
Regards the Bear
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 01:06
The Christian Fathers expressed it this way, God is three Persons in One Essence. He is Triune, Three-in-One.
He is, and always has been, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He was this way before He created time. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be distinguished
(for example, at Jesus' baptism, the Father spoke and the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove), but they are not separate in such a way as to be different
gods. Each has the nature of being God.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 01:40
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh."
Later in the chapter, the command is given not to worship other gods, because Yahweh is a jealous God in your midst.
Yahweh is the Name of God, not just the Father. In Ezekiel 34, Yahweh says that the shepherds He put over Israel did not take care of them, so He was
not going to send any more agents. Instead, He, Yahweh, would come to be their Shepherd Himself. When Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd," [John10] He was saying He was the fulfillment of that prophecy. He wasn't just "a" good shepherd, but "the" Good Shepherd, Yahweh Himself come to
shepherd His people.
The Holy Spirit is also Yahweh.
the bear - 4-1-2008 at 03:33
How can this be, We call on GOD by name, Yahweh ( he is also called Jehovah (Psalms 83.18))
Jesus tells us he goes to prepare a table for the disciples, and tells them "in my fathers house there are many mansions.
Jesus at his death cries to GOD, father why have you forsaken me.
Is he crying to himself then
God being all powerful anybody looking directly at him would be consumed, ( Moses saw evidence of GOD, spoke to him, but never saw him)
This being so how can God as Jesus walk amongst us.
The Trinity is a man made doctrine and not ordained by the Almighty.
Timothy 6: 1-17 tell us that GOD is King eternal, immortal invisible. the only God. This is refering to The father (singular).
Corinthians tell us that there is One GOD, and One Jesus,
both totally seperate entities,
When was the word trinity first made manifest, not in Our Lords time. The trinity is just a ploy to blind us from true worship?
Regards the bear.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 03:55
The story behind the spelling Jehovah where the Scriptures say Yahweh is a little strange. Written Hebrew originally consisted essentially of
consonants. Vowel marks were added later, to show what vowel sounds should be pronounced between the consonants.
It was the practice of the rabbis to substitute the word for Lord instead of saying His personal name, including when they would read the Scriptures.
This was done out of extreme reverence, and a desire to avoid even the possibility of using the Lord's name "in vain" (uselessly). The rabbis put
the vowel points for their word Lord under the consonants for Yahweh, since they would not actually say Yahweh. If you combine the consonants from
Yahweh with the vowels from the word for Lord, you get Jehovah (J and Y are the same, W and V are the same). In the King James Bible and the ones
that follow the same practice, the word LORD, with the ORD in small caps, is usually written for Yahweh. There are a few verses where GOD is
substituted in that way.
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 12:51
Despite what scholar would have us believe, there is no consensus on God being imagined exclusivly as male, even in the bible.
God is imaged in many forms in the Bible — a rock, a wind, she-bears, even a little red hen (Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34). The Bible describes God as a
seamstress (Gen. 3:21); possessing a womb (Jer. 31:20, Isa. 46:3-4); as a woman in labor (Deut. 32:18, Isa. 42:14 John 3:3-7); as a nursing mother
(Isa. 49:15, Num. 11:11-14); as a mother with her weaned child (Ps. 121:1-2); as a comforting mother (Isa. 66:11-12, Hos. 11:1-4,8-9); as a mother
bear (Hos. 13:6-8); and as a midwife (Ps. 22:9), among many other feminine images.
The first 12 chapters of Genesis were written primarily by the Yahwist (J), making use of some material provided by the Elohist (E) — both of them
so-called by their preferred name for God. Passages that refer to Yahweh allahiym are generally called JE passages.
Some scholars believe that the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, is an acronym for El, the father god; Asherah, the mother god; Yehoshua (Joshua/Jesus), the son
god; and Anath, the daughter god. (Anath/Anat is the feminine equivalent of “Adonai,” Lord.)
Hebrew is not English. One scholar has opined that one of those ehyehs might actually refer to the god Ea, making Ex. 3:14b into, “Ea has sent me to
you.” One radical scholar has pointed out that a perfectly valid translation of the phrase is “I am Asherah.”
When you're reading your own translation/transliteration, be aware that when you see the word “Lord” you are seeing the Hebrew word Adonai, a
euphemism based on the perfectly valid point that God has no name. When you see the word “LORD,” you are seeing an English euphemism for Yahweh
(actually YHWH) — who was probably an amalgam of many different gods and goddesses. When you see the phrase “LORD God,” you are seeing a translation
of Yahweh allihiym, literally “Yahweh of the gods” — and remember, “Yahweh” and “Elohim” were words that referred to both gods and goddesses.
(Remember that the Hebrew Scriptures promote monolatry, not monotheism. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is only one of the dozens of
acknowledgments that Yahweh, Asherah, El, Eloah, Shaddai, Rahab, and Leviathan were not the only gods worshipped in Israel and Judea.)
We can take for granted that most of the men who inscribed their words onto parchment early in the first millennium BCE considered women inferior. But
remember that Hebrew has no concept for “it,” and most words in Hebrew default to the masculine gender. When all is said and done, the fact remains
that the Bible consistently refers to God using words that encompass both the male and the female, using “he” because Hebrew has no “it.”
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 15:46
No, no, no! I am NOT saying there is a consensus.
To have a consensus, everybody agrees. (They all may be wrong, but if everybody agrees on the same false proposition, there is a consensus.)
I am saying the truth, the way God really is, according to the language of the Holy Scriptures, is male.
Jesus, God Incarnate, Immanu-el (With Us-- God) is male.
the bear - 4-1-2008 at 16:10
MMI have read your posts with great interest on this topic,
( I can see I have a great deal of study to do yet).
Whe I was in my teens with a very scant knoweldge of the Bible (a couple of years Methodist Sunday school). I pondered this very topic.
I think as a result of Moses going up the mountain epic I concluded that God was super energy with limitless power that included unimagineable
interlect. I likened God to a thinking, reasoning atomic furnace. I also used to read Issac Asimov and other SF round about then
Regards the Bear
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 16:38
janet - 4-1-2008 at 17:13
And so much for my request for respect for my beliefs.... which were reached, as I say, after study, thought and prayer.
There is, as MM says, no consensus.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 17:36
It isn't arrogant to hold that one proposition is true, and another is false.
It's not as if I created something (say, a painting, or a work of poetry) and said that mine is better than everyone else's, because I made it.
In the case of the Scriptures, they already described God as male (including Jesus, God Incarnate), and I am merely lining up with what they say. I
highlight some of the most direct points from Scripture because I invite others to believe what the Scriptures say on that subject.
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 17:47
I've pointed out other passages which do not use gender to give an image for God. As far as I'm concerned, God transcends gender. It amounts to
blasphemy for The Divinity to be placed in a human or an animal sexual gender category.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 18:13
A good starting point for understanding in this matter is the Incarnation. God did not say, "I'm transcendent. I won't be born as a human
being." He was born as a real human Baby, a Son.
Since He was born male, how could it be true that it is blasphemy for Him to be placed in a human gender category? He placed Himself in that human
gender category. (More precisely, that sex category.)
He is under no obligation to conform to our ideas. We are to conform to His. Christ taught His followers to pray, "Our Father. . ." That's clear
enough, isn't it?
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 18:14
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 18:32
Neither Jesus nor any of the apostles taught this. The only human author mentioned in connection with the Books of Moses is
janet - 4-1-2008 at 18:45
How is it not arrogant to say, "this is the truth", when others who self define as Christian, have already said that they disagree with the
I'm not going to argue the theology - I've been into in depth for myself, and have reached my own conclusions.
I respect yours - and would ask for respect for mine but I suspect that won't be forthcoming.
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 18:49
I don't take metaphors to be the literal truth. That is my faith and I'd ask you to respect that too scholar.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 19:22
I chose to highlight Jesus, God in human form, partly because that avoids any question of literal or metaphorical expressions in
some of the other passages. Do you agree that He was literally a human being, as well as God, and that He was literally male?
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 19:39
God is not limited to being a Palestinian 1st century male.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 19:51
"arrogant: adj. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance."
If I have argued for a position based on my self-worth or self-importance, then I have been arrogant. (E.g. "It's this way because I'm a better
Christian." "It's this way, because I'm in close touch with God." "It's this way, because I feel a sense of assurance about it.")
If I have placed all the importance on the position, and argued from the Scriptures or other reasons outside myself, then it is not arrogance.
You might disagree with me, and I with you, but that doesn't make either of us arrogant. It only means that, if we truly disagree, one or both of us
janet - 4-1-2008 at 19:53
Would it not be possible to say, "This is my understanding" rather than, "This is truth" - when I think we would both agree that God surpasses
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 19:56
We would Janet............
janet - 4-1-2008 at 20:16
I admit to being much influenced by friends from the Eastern Churches - the idea of relaxing into the mystery of God, the idea of Hesychasm has always held much attraction for me - which
is perhaps odd for someone who self defines as a scholastic feminist theologian.
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 20:19
I took some time out from my Christian upbringing to study other faiths. I'm always a bit suspicious of people who have never looked into other ways
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 20:23
That would be a weaker assertion. It would make it a declaration about
myself--"This is MY understanding." No one could argue with the truth of that--whether I understand something as it truly is, or understand
something in a false, mistaken way, it would be my understanding (unless I were lying). If I sought to convince someone because it was MY
understanding (not because it was true), it would be arrogance--there is no reason that anyone else should believe as I do, UNLESS it is true (because
it is good to affirm the truth).
If I only say, "This is my understanding," there is no room for discussion. (Who is going to argue that it ISN'T my understanding?) And, talking
about subjective opinions as such doesn't advance knowledge or even have a possibility of persuading anyone, either poster or gallery. But, if the
truth of a subject is discussed, and the reasons for holding it to be true (or not) are considered, there is a possibility of advancing knowledge, or
persuasion, or better formulation.
janet - 4-1-2008 at 20:28
Have it your way, scholar. You are right, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, no matter how they have arrived at their conclusions.
There is no room for discussion in this situation, so I shall refrain.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 20:32
I was already studying other religions in high school. I've been through church history
and the study of the other Christian denominations and cults/sects.
janet - 4-1-2008 at 20:35
What would you call a cult or sect? Ignoring the "cultus" use of the term.
I tend to be rather careful about the use of such terms, as they tend to be pejorative - and stick with the academic usage of "New Religious
Movement" or NRM...
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 20:40
Quite the contrary. I point not to
my rightness, but to the meaning of the Scripture (or other arguments). These can be examined and discussed. "My way" is irrelevant. But, what
God teaches about Himself is both true and powerful, and worthy of discussion.
janet - 4-1-2008 at 20:59
There is no discussion possible when you assert that your point is the truth.
Dreamweaver - 4-1-2008 at 21:17
So what your saying is theres no point in answering because your God's teaches "He is both true and powerful" is the "be all and end all?" End
of discussion I think, it then becomes a "my way or the highway".
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 21:35
No, the opposite is true.
If a person is wishy-washy, unwilling to assert anything definite, then discussion is like nailing jello to the wall.
If a person sticks with what is subjective (This is how I feel about it, this is MY undestanding) but does not connect to truth in reality, there is
no basis for discussion. As long as the person is talking about his subjective thought processes or feelings--well, he does indeed feel or think what
he feels or thinks, no matter whether he is mistaken or not.
And I don't think anyone asserts falsehood: "This is false, and it's what I stand for."
But, if a person affirms a truth, it can be discussed. How can the rightness of the affirmation be tested? What is meant by the terms? Do we agree
up to a lesser point, then diverge before the conclusion? If so, why? Can it be tested? Does experience, or logic, have bearing on the question? Is
there authoritative information? Has the question been considered or solved by others? Whole books can be written in discussion of truth
affirmations, hours can be spent in classroom discussions of it.
janet - 4-1-2008 at 21:37
I'm aware of the classroom applications, thank you - I've been teaching theology at university level for more than 10 years.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 21:54
Well, in a discussion among
Christians about whether God is male or not, the Scriptures bring in a lively, energizing element. There is a verse in Hebrews which says, "The Word
of God is living and active." More generally, I've been in discussions where three or four passages are brought up, and they teach something
(considered together) that I didn't catch when I read them separately. That's pretty great! I've known Christians who have had great insight into passages, which they would share and affirm, to my benefit
and greater knowledge. That's one reason I so love to discuss topics from the Bible.
There are historically Christian denominational bodies whose ministers teach that the Bible is a mixture of truth and error, where you sort of have to
pan for the gold. It can be hard to come to an agreement in discussion, because you might get to the point of agreeing that the Scripture teaches
something, but then some in the discussion might say, "Yeah, but that's just gravel--that part is wrong."
On the subject of the maleness of God, I think that would be impossible to figure out without the Scriptures, or without knowledge that Jesus was God
born as a human being.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 21:59
With that being the case, it is strange that you would say "no discussion is possible."
janet - 4-1-2008 at 22:02
You have said that your view is the truth.
I see no point in discussion.
I disagree with your view but will say *again* I respect your right to hold it.
Dreamweaver - 4-1-2008 at 22:08
From what I have seen from earlier posts Scholar, the scriptures were predominately written by males, so why would they even consider God was female?
I fail to see man of old getting in touch with his "female side".
So as an adult female in todays freethinking society forgive me if I think the scriptures are to say the last one sided.....
victor - 4-1-2008 at 22:37
You know that feeling you had when you first found out there was no Father Christmas?
the bear - 4-1-2008 at 23:09
Scholar it appears that you are unable to accept that other people have thier own understanding of God and his word the bible; Other peoples truths
are nontheless "the truth" because its thier truth.
You post that Jesus was GOD born as a human being, by stating this you presume that everybody accepts the tenet of the Trinity.
Many people, (Christians) find the concept of the Trinity to be of mans making, not from the bible.
You will doubtlessly be able to quote chapter and verse to back up YOUR belief, your TRUTH, but conversely others will be able to do the same to
endorse thier TRUTH.
It is arrogant to stamp on other peoples beliefs because YOU believe YOUR TRUTH to be the only truth.
" A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"
Knowledge helps understanding, but many of us are like David, who wrote all those psalms, we lead simple lives without a vast education but like David
we have faith, faith based on belief, belief in our own personal truths that have been honed by life, experience and prayer.
Everybody has a RIGHT to his own belief.
Regards the Bear
Dreamweaver - 4-1-2008 at 23:18
Modern correction!! His/Her own belief.
marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 23:20
I do believe we almost have a consensus.
the bear - 4-1-2008 at 23:23
Ops, sorry Madam, Your Royalness, fabled and revered holder of the Golden Chainsaw.
Regards the Bear
scholar - 5-1-2008 at 00:19
Friend Bear, I certainly recognize that people have the choice to think or believe as
With respect to religious ideas, I heartily recommend what Jesus said and taught. He promised His group of disciples that He would send them another
of the same kind as Himself, who would lead them into all truth. Before He ascended into heaven, He told them to disciple all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to keep everything He had commanded them. When He told them to
disciple (make students and followers) by teaching, I follow that instruction in my own life by sharing the teachings from the Scripture, as well as
studying it myself to be a better disciple/student/follower.
the bear - 5-1-2008 at 05:12
As I read your post I can hear my fathers voice, as he offered one of lifes little adages, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
If you answer a knock on the door and find the JWs you listen politely make your excuses close the door and go about your chores, but how would you
feel if you were answering your door to them 4 and 5 times a day?????
Regards the Bear
janet - 5-1-2008 at 12:02
Are you saying that those who do not think as you do, are not listening to Jesus and the Spirit?
LSemmens - 5-1-2008 at 12:34
Ecclesiastes 12:13 - 14
the bear - 6-1-2008 at 00:57
Leigh don't wrap it up, say what you you really want to say.
"Give it a rest, its done to death now, Time out. sheeeesh" lol
Regards the Bear
Dreamweaver - 6-1-2008 at 01:11
I think that rather depends on
A/ he is bored
B/ Your a woman with a point of view.(alternate to a male with an axe to grind)
the bear - 6-1-2008 at 01:21
Being a mere male, I have to ask, do we read chainsaw for axe?? lol
janet - 6-1-2008 at 01:25
Wry grin - Dreamweaver, when I trained, the ratio was 100 men to every woman in my university.... Theology is changing, and rapidly, however -
"feminist theology" is no longer the scary term it used to be, for most academic theologians.
As I've said, I'm not going to argue this one - I know my stance on it, and am happy with it (though of course it's open to continual readjustment,
as I live and learn). But I've never learned well when browbeaten by verses or simply told that I should accept something as truth because someone
tells me it is so.
the bear - 6-1-2008 at 01:29
Sory, if you two are going to "gang up" I'm going for a walk, I don't stand an earthly lol
Regards the Bear
janet - 6-1-2008 at 01:30
Not ganging up at all, bear.
Dreamweaver - 6-1-2008 at 01:32
Would I ????
the bear - 6-1-2008 at 04:17
As our Statesside posters would say, I plead the 5th and decline to answer, (discretion being the better part of valour, that way I will live to fight
err, post another day)
Salutations from the Bear.
LSemmens - 6-1-2008 at 07:23
None of the above! It was aimed at diffusing a potentially unpleasant situation where one person may be offended. The disgussion appeared to be going
in the "I'm right, you're wrong" direction although, that, I don't think" was the intent.
These discussions quite interest me as it does cause me to assess my own belief set and decide upon which foundation I stand. If we are unwilling to
satnd for something, we'll fall for anything.
the bear - 6-1-2008 at 07:29
I agree, it was going on a bit, thats why I tried to inject a little leverty into the proceedings, but inconnection with another recent post its
sometimes fun to be "norty" like standing up and posting:-
Regards the Bear
janet - 6-1-2008 at 10:30
victor - 6-1-2008 at 12:37
You speak of God as an individual, but I see God as encompassing all things therefore In my eyes you cannot attribute God with any known physical
the bear - 6-1-2008 at 22:08
More like the Native Indians of America, they identify God as the Great Spirit in some cases.
Regards the Bear
LSemmens - 7-1-2008 at 04:38
In every statement you are correct, Victor. God is and individual that we can know and have relationship with. He is also all encompassing so, as you
have said, we cannot set any limiting attributes on Him. The Bible, whose tenets I believe, says that no man has seen God, or can look upon Him and
live, so our image of God is only limited by our own worldly experience, and our interpretation of our own Holy Scriptures, be they the Bible, the
Quoran, or any other "holy" text. Upon the day of judgement, I suspect, that we'll all be surprised, some, more so than others.
scholar - 7-1-2008 at 04:52
Here is a passage to think about, about seeing God, from John 14 (ESV):
6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have
known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."
8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not
know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
the bear - 7-1-2008 at 05:50
I see that as Jesus saying I am my fathers son we are working together, to the same end.
How often do you hear someone say, he's a grown man now, but isnt he just like his dad.
Regards the Bear
marymary100 - 7-1-2008 at 07:13
scholar, you post that as if we haven't ever read it before. I, for one, do not interpret this literally as I suspect you do.
janet - 7-1-2008 at 09:54
I've pointed this out a number of times...
LSemmens - 7-1-2008 at 11:43
To many, this may well be a revelation, ladies, not all are as versed in the Scriptures as some. I would have difficulty with scriptures form another
faith were the discussion centred around them.
That said, having seen Jesus would be like having seen the father, as Bear has illustrated.
scholar - 7-1-2008 at 12:30
No, I post it as if I think it is worth having before our eyes as part of the discussion. I've read it at least as many times as
I've read through the New Testament, myself (I'm thinking that's 44 times) and I considered it worthwhile to look up for review, myself. Please
direct yourself to the subject of discussion, instead of making remarks about me. (The teachings would be the same, whether I were ever born or not.)
The same Gospel says, "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." John 1:18
In some sense, John says no one has ever seen God. And Jesus says to the disciples, "You have seen him [the Father]." He also says, "Whoever has
seen me has seen the Father."
I also remember that when Jacob struggled with God, he remarked afterward that he had seen God face to face, and lived. (Genesis 32:30)
marymary100 - 7-1-2008 at 17:52
I've said all I'm going to on this matter. Circular arguments hold no thrall for me. Nor am I impressed by how many times you've read something if
you keep getting the same thing out of it each time.
scholar - 7-1-2008 at 18:29
When I bring in something to consider in addition to
what has been part of the discussion, the discussion is not circular, but rather advancing to consider additional material.
My point in mentioning that I've encountered the same passages many times is not to impress you, but to indicate that in my own experience I find it
worthwhile to look at the Scripture again and again, and so the idea that posting a verse I've reviewed somehow indicates I don't think you're
familiar with the passages is mistaken.
So long as posts are made about the posters (Marymary does not intend to say more. Marymary declares the argument circular. Marymary is not
impressed. Or, anything about Scholar. Or, about any other poster), the subject under discussion does not advance. But, if more is said on the
subject (verses, proposed meanings, other suggested reasons to favor one understanding over another), then the discussion advances.
I invite you to share anything about what Leigh and Bear and I have been considering: What does it mean to see God? What are the meanings of these
passages, and how do they fit together?
janet - 7-1-2008 at 18:31
I don't know about MM but I'm very loathe to post, as you've already said that my views are contrary to the truth of Christianity.
scholar - 7-1-2008 at 19:04
I credit you with thinking your views are true, or you wouldn't hold them. (How strange would it be for
any person to think, "These views are false, and I hold them anyway. I like to be on the mistaken side.")
But nothing about the posters ("I'm very loathe to post") adds anything to the subject. Besides which, we were not thinking about what it means to
see God, or about the verses recently posted, at that point in the discussion.
Here's another verse for consideration
"For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall
see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another."
Job 19:25-27 English Standard Version
This may be especially familiar to some of our members because it is often used in memorial services.
janet - 7-1-2008 at 21:25
Actually, we were talking about views of God. I'm not talking about posters - I'm talking about your defacto declaration that your view is the
Therefore, if one disagrees with you...
I have no desire for discussion under those terms.
Dreamweaver - 7-1-2008 at 22:40
Scholar, I have read numerous books, watched numerous films on the same subject but I don't think Harry Potter or Peter Pan is real, what, can I
ask, can you tell me apart from quotations (from a very, very old and masculine book) is real within your concept of God and how does it come across
scholar - 7-1-2008 at 22:52
All of the knowledge of God as male that I consider reliable comes from the Bible. I don't know a way to figure it out from natural knowledge of God
(either findable in nature or internal), and I have never had a personal revelation.
Did you want me to list other things I know about God, apart from the Bible?
Dreamweaver - 7-1-2008 at 22:56
No not really. just cold hard facts that make you believe it/he/she or whatever is male.
victor - 7-1-2008 at 23:11
Cold hard facts are hard to come by in religion, only believe and only that comes with time.
janet - 7-1-2008 at 23:52
I've said it before and will probably say it again - the basis of Christianity as with most religions is ultimately personal experience. In
Christianity, it's experience of "Jesus Christ, risen".
For some that may be an earth shattering thing, for others it might be quite quiet and gentle - but it's experience.
And it's not really transferrable - if it were, we'd all share belief.
I have a moral certainty about some parts of my faith, based on my own experiences - but while I can tell someone about it, Ican't make them share my
In the same way, I can tell you how wonderful my children are, but I can't make you feel for them, what I do; it just doesn't work that way.
(I *could* point out that all "facts" are ultimately based on experience... but that'd be a major thread drift).
Dreamweaver - 7-1-2008 at 23:54
so, it's all based on hearsay and whatever "man" would have us believe.
Judging on "mans" antics (from fact) on days gone by I will keep my (female) views open..
Forgive me if that seems twee or silly, but I have yet to see anything to make me think otherwise.
I wasn't looking for an argument, more for clarity.
janet - 8-1-2008 at 00:13
Um, no? See my post above?
victor - 8-1-2008 at 00:19
DW you put man in inverted commas do not forget there are and have been a lot of women preaching religion.
Dreamweaver - 8-1-2008 at 00:50
Yes of course there are a lot of women lately, but that doesn't alter that fact that the bible and all it's preachings are male orientated. All the
female chapters are dominated by male influences, that is what makes me wonder...
the bear - 8-1-2008 at 01:42
Do you not think that its better to have A concept of GOD. What ever gender, (if any)we percieve God to have becomes irrelavent.
I think its fair to say that because of everybodies lifes experiences
we all view all things with a personal slant.
For me, the "big picture" remains a constant, (but personal), GOD is ever present, His works are all around us.
The relationship I have with GOD is mine, and (quite unique). To some people it could be wrong; but thats between God and myself.
Regards the Bear
LSemmens - 8-1-2008 at 12:25
Janet and Bear have both made good points. Our relationship with God is only ever a personal one, another's experience of God will be different and
unquantifiable for those who have not had the same experience. The god of the Bible is often referred to in a masculine way but that does not mean
that God is male nor does it mean that God is Female either. Biblical authority does not consist of democracy, it is a Monarchy with God as King! What
God says, goes! Currently, the only recognised "word of God" to Christendom is the Bible, I'm certain that Muslims would also say the same about
their "Bible" too. If, therefore, we want to know what God is about, then we must refer to His words.
janet - 8-1-2008 at 17:56
Without a woman, there would *be* no Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) - the king calls for a woman to authenticate the scrolls
And women have been active in preaching Christianity since just about the year dot... Of course, in a much less prominent way than men overall.
However, you might find it interesting to read the works of people like Phylis Trible, and Rosemary Radford Reuther, who approach the ancient texts
from the point of view of feminist theology - that is, looking for the voice of women.
janet - 8-1-2008 at 17:57
Grin - as a Catholic, I'm going to add two additions to that.
For me: the Bible, the Tradition of the Church and personal experience.