-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
From Father God to Mother Earth
- Thread starter new man
- Start date
Bartholomew
New Member
I'm saying he's male; and it's unbiblical for you to say or suggest otherwise.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
Bartholomew - What does it mean that God is male?
Joshua
Joshua
Bartholomew
New Member
It means HE is a HE! I know you think that a male is someone with male genitals. Well, Jesus is God, and he has male genitals! Do the Father and Holy Ghost have male genitals? Possibly - God has hands, fingers, a back, etc...
But I don't care whether that is the case or not. I can't understand how God can be both three and one; yet I believe it. You may not be able to understand how God can be male, but you should still believe it. If you don't, you're exhalting yourself above the Bible.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
For the word "male" to have any relevance, it must have meaning.
The only uniquely male attribute is male genitalia, and since the (presumably non-existent) genitalia of God is totally irrelevant to the worship of God - sexual identity is likewise irrelevant.
Joshua
The only uniquely male attribute is male genitalia, and since the (presumably non-existent) genitalia of God is totally irrelevant to the worship of God - sexual identity is likewise irrelevant.
Joshua
Bartholomew
New Member
Jesus is a man. Jesus is God. Jesus has male genitals. Jesus is "he". God is "he". God is male.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
God incarnate as Jesus has a sexual identity, but that is a limited form of God; not the full and holy transcendant Creator.
Joshua
Joshua
You just left the orbit of Christian theology and wandered into Mormon theology.
Then it is unbiblical for us to refer to God as "El Shaddai", since it literally means "the one with many breasts". We should also remove the biblecal passages that describe us as God's suckling children.
Then we should remove the Psalm 91 references that say God is the Mother Hen and we're her chicks cuddling under her wings.
No, the Bible describes God the Father as also being a nurturing Mother.
Of course, that doesn't even touch on the biblical reference that in Christ, there is neither male nor female.
It's unbiblical to attribute feminine qualities to God? God can't have the attributes of a mother? I know many Godly women who would say otherwise.
Johnv, your argument is a red herring. It is irrelevant that God is spoken of metaphorically "as" feminine. As I pointed out earlier, and some of you have simply ignored it, God is NEVER, not once, ever referred to in the feminine gender in scripture. God IS Father, not LIKE a father. Not only are you rebelling against the plain teaching of Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:16; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:4; Mark 11:25; Mark 13:32; Mark 14:36; Luke 6:36; Luke 9:26; Luke 10:21; John 1:14; John 3:35; John 4:23; John 5:19), you are arguing against 2000 years of church tradition. Nowhere in scripture are we ever instructed to address God as "Mother." Your stubbornness does nothing but confirm your persistent rebellion. You would prefer to create a God in man's image rather than man in God's image to allegedly appease some poor unfortunate soul who "has a problem" relating to God as Father. This is liberal, feminist thealogy at it's root, eisegesis not exegesis, an ear tickling distortion of the truth of God and dangerous to the unschooled layman.
Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!
In the Father,
Russ <><
[ November 03, 2002, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: new man ]
Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!
In the Father,
Russ <><
[ November 03, 2002, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: new man ]
Bartholomew
New Member
You just left the orbit of Christian theology and wandered into Mormon theology.
</font>[/QUOTE]I said it was possible for the Father and Holy Ghost to have male geitals. Go on, back up your accusation: prove from the Bible that it is impossible.The fact that the Mormons are wrong in many areas doesn't mean they're wrong in every area. They believe Jesus died on a cross. Are we going to call that heresy as well?
Bartholomew
New Member
So, if you're being consistent, that means we should call God "chicken", does it?
"Our chicken, which art in heaven; hallowed be her name..."
To refer to God as "a" chicken? No. To refer to God as "a" man is also wrong. But to refer to God as the Heavenly Father, or refer to God as the Mother Hen of us, His chicks, neither is wrong.
We're referring to the use of a pronoun.
Not only are you rebelling against the plain teaching of Jesus Christ...
Jesus doesn't refer to God as a man. However, he refers to God as the Heavenly Father, not to define God's gender, but to define God's relationship to us.
...you are arguing against 2000 years of church tradition.
1500 years of which is Catholic tradition, and since you're anti-catholic, you should have a problem with bucking tradition.
Nowhere in scripture are we ever instructed to address God as "Mother."
No where in scripture are you instructed to define God as a male.
Your stubbornness does nothing but confirm your persistent rebellion.
Rebelling against what? God? Nope, my relationship with God is pretty secure.
You would prefer to create a God in man's image rather than man in God's image to allegedly appease some poor unfortunate soul who "has a problem" relating to God as Father.
God created both male and female in His image. When you infer that God can't have female qualities, you limit God, and it is you, therfore, who created God in his image.
I don't think anyone has said they have a problem refering to God as "Father". I certainly don't. But I also don't have a problem with someone else seeing God as mother of all as well as father of all.
This is liberal being a liberal is not forbidden in the Bible feminist being a feminist is not forbidden in the Bible. thealogy at it's root, eisegesis not exegesis, an ear tickling distortion of the truth of God and dangerous to the unschooled layman. Before you begin insulting the unschooled layman, please learn how to spell "theology" and brush up on the rules of using "it's" and "its".
[ November 03, 2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
We're referring to the use of a pronoun.
Not only are you rebelling against the plain teaching of Jesus Christ...
Jesus doesn't refer to God as a man. However, he refers to God as the Heavenly Father, not to define God's gender, but to define God's relationship to us.
...you are arguing against 2000 years of church tradition.
1500 years of which is Catholic tradition, and since you're anti-catholic, you should have a problem with bucking tradition.
Nowhere in scripture are we ever instructed to address God as "Mother."
No where in scripture are you instructed to define God as a male.
Your stubbornness does nothing but confirm your persistent rebellion.
Rebelling against what? God? Nope, my relationship with God is pretty secure.
You would prefer to create a God in man's image rather than man in God's image to allegedly appease some poor unfortunate soul who "has a problem" relating to God as Father.
God created both male and female in His image. When you infer that God can't have female qualities, you limit God, and it is you, therfore, who created God in his image.
I don't think anyone has said they have a problem refering to God as "Father". I certainly don't. But I also don't have a problem with someone else seeing God as mother of all as well as father of all.
This is liberal being a liberal is not forbidden in the Bible feminist being a feminist is not forbidden in the Bible. thealogy at it's root, eisegesis not exegesis, an ear tickling distortion of the truth of God and dangerous to the unschooled layman. Before you begin insulting the unschooled layman, please learn how to spell "theology" and brush up on the rules of using "it's" and "its".
[ November 03, 2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
You just left the orbit of Christian theology and wandered into Mormon theology.
</font>[/QUOTE]I said it was possible for the Father and Holy Ghost to have male geitals. Go on, back up your accusation</font>[/QUOTE]"Accusation" is too strong a word. I did not seek to condemn, only to point out that what you suggested is clearly not Christian teaching, though it is compatible with Mormonism.I can't "prove" a negative, but the Old and New Testaments make it very clear that the Father and Spirit are not flesh (and thus capable of having fleshly genitals). Here's a classic text on the subject:
John 4:24 (KJV) "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
"
Only the Son, Jesus the Christ, was incarnate (in flesh) and he indeed was fully a human male (in addition to being fully God).
Actually, because they have such a warped view of God(s) -- the basis of a Christian theology -- every other doctrine is radically affected and corrupted. It is no accident that one of the foundational truths that God teaches His people is that there is only *one* God. Since Mormons are polytheists, they reject the foundation of Christian theology. If they are correct in a doctrine, I can't think of it off the top of my head.
The fact that Jesus died on a cross is historical fact. What Mormons think it means is indeed heresy.
The Mormons may affirm some facts from the KJV, but their polytheistic views completely undermine believing what the Bible teaches.
Bartholomew
New Member
Hi Bible Believer,
And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. (1 Samuel 28:14)
The Bible clearly teaches that spirits can have form, and that God in particular has a face, hands, a back, etc. All I was saying is that it is conceivable that he also has genitals (I didn't say he had them for sure, or even that I thought he did). If you're going to say this statement is incompatible with Christianity, you'll need better evidence than that.
Your friend and brother,
Bartholomew
P.S. I think we agree about Mormonism
It is far from clear.
Who said anything about fleshly genitals???
What does that prove? I don't doubt that God is a Spirit. What I doubt is the assertion that spirits can't have a form (and hence body parts). Samuel, as a spirit, was called up from the dead, and he even had a cloke on!
And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. (1 Samuel 28:14)
The Bible clearly teaches that spirits can have form, and that God in particular has a face, hands, a back, etc. All I was saying is that it is conceivable that he also has genitals (I didn't say he had them for sure, or even that I thought he did). If you're going to say this statement is incompatible with Christianity, you'll need better evidence than that.
Your friend and brother,
Bartholomew
P.S. I think we agree about Mormonism
Sure it is. Here is the definition of "pronoun:"
Main Entry: pro·noun
Pronunciation: 'prO-"naun
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pronom, from Latin pronomin-, pronomen, from pro- for + nomin-, nomen name -- more at PRO-, NAME
Date: 1530
: any of a small set of words in a language that are used as substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and whose referents are named or understood in the context
Main Entry: al·le·go·ry
Pronunciation: 'a-l&-"gOr-E, -"gor-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English allegorie, from Latin allegoria, from Greek allEgoria, from allEgorein to speak figuratively, from allos other + -Egorein to speak publicly, from agora assembly -- more at ELSE, AGORA
Date: 14th century
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
2 : a symbolic representation : EMBLEM 2
(Webster's)
You seem to be confusing allegory with pronoun. Big difference!
Keep kicking against the goads if you choose.
Yet another red herring. Where have I been "anti-catholic?"
Undergirding Jesus’ teaching about God as Father is the idea that God has revealed Himself as to be such and that His revelation should be normative for us. God, in other words, calls the theological shots. If He wants to be understood primarily in masculine (male) terms, then that is how we should speak of Him. To do otherwise, is tantamount to idolatry—fashioning God in our image, rather than receiving from Him His self-disclosure as the Father.
I have never inferred or suggested that. In fact in a previous post I affirmed that it is theologically correct to attribute feminine qualities to God. However, (again I say) there is a HUGE difference in attributing feminine qualities to God and calling God "mother."
And that is certainly your perogative, however unscriptural it might be. The person whose God is a Mother would, as C. S. Lewis observed, not be a Christian believer.
If we insist on overthrowing this understanding, as the church is in danger of doing, we will no longer be able to speak coherently of God. We know of no 'personhood' which is not gendered. Certainly there is no human person who is co-equally both 'he' and 'she'. If, therefore, we treat these terms as interchangeable in referring to God, we will in fact create an image of a 'god' which cannot correspond to our normal use of language. If we cease referring to God exclusively as 'he', the only viable options are, with similar exclusivity, to call God 'she' or 'it'. On the day when God becomes 'she or it' we must admit that we have redefined the God of the Bible (created God in our image).
Whatever this is, it is not Christianity, which affirms that God has spoken to us in Jesus Christ. C.S. Lewis, in an essay on women’s ordination in Anglicanism, put the matter thus:
But Christians think that God himself has taught us how to speak of him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favor of Christian priestesses but against Christianity.
Cardinal Ratzinger made a similar point in The Ratzinger Report: “Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not ‘our’ work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship he came to reveal to us.”
A sure sign of childish immaturity when one is reduced to picking at another's punctuation or spelling. FYI, thealogy is not a misspelling. For your enlightenment:
http://members.aol.com/Ashira/whatft.html
Now people are certainly free to reject Christianity. But they should be honest enough to admit that this is what they are doing, instead of surreptitiously replacing Christianity with the milk of the Goddess, in the name of putting new wine into old wineskins.
In the Father,
Russ <><
I disagree with the arguement that referring to God in the feminine gender is unscriptural. To get to the point, I looked up the reference in the NT where a pronoun would typically be used in place of the proper name of God (theos). As it turns out, the common greek words are either "ho" or "tou", both of which are gender neutral. It is in English (which has does not have gender neutral words for persons) that we find the pronoun "he" attributed.
Thus, it would be difficult to argue that the NT pronoun references to God must be male, because the NT greek isn't using gender specific pronouns.
Funny how accusing someone of rejecting Christianity because they have different biblical view seems to be socially acceptible on this board.
As far as your misspelling of theology, I refer you to the dictionary instead of a website that was poorly constucted by someone on his or her lunch break.
[ November 05, 2002, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
Thus, it would be difficult to argue that the NT pronoun references to God must be male, because the NT greek isn't using gender specific pronouns.
Funny how accusing someone of rejecting Christianity because they have different biblical view seems to be socially acceptible on this board.
As far as your misspelling of theology, I refer you to the dictionary instead of a website that was poorly constucted by someone on his or her lunch break.
[ November 05, 2002, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
As it turns out, you are mistaken. I am leaving town for a few days and I don't have the time to respond to your assertion right now. When I return I will. Once again, "thealogy" is merely a a descriptive word to differentiate between true orthodox theology and feminist theology. Feminist thealogy is the examination of doctrines, scriptures, and practices in various religions focusing especially on:
-Portrayal and voice of women in sacred writings and practices
-Role of women in the religion historically and at the present time
-Concept and imaging of the divine.
The spelling of the word deliberately departs from the more common "theo-" prefix to assert the feminine in the Greek-rooted word as "thea." The first modern use of the term is usually attributed to Naomi Goldenberg in her book Changing of the Gods (1979).
In the Father,
Russ <><