Is God gender fluid?

[Taz]

Like what?

Thank you for proving my point.

Shaddap! You have nothing as usual.

Life is a test and you are failing it.

You said that already and never answered my questions: who decides if I'm failing? And what good came out of the murders and execution?

You decide. You have free will. You control your own destiny despite your insistence on transferring your power to external sources.

So then I decide that I'm winning the test at a 100% clip. Now that that's settled, what good came out of the murders and execution?

 

[ding]

I’m a rabbi, and so I’m particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as “he.” In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to “her” tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a “young man.” And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as “them.”


Opinion | Is God Transgender?

God, in Himself, must contain both masculine and feminine. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Some might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity on the other hand is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Then why do you continue to call him "Himself."

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

 

[ding]

I am referring to a previous conversation here where you avoided answering direct questions about your beliefs or were intentionally vague in your answers.

So he was pulling a ding?

I knows full well I'm not a rabbi. And he doesn't understand understatement, he's so culturally underdeveloped.

Right, you are Jewish... and intentionally vague about your beliefs. As is almost every Jew I have had discussions with. I just can't figure out why. It makes no sense.

What do you mean, my 'beliefs'? You think all Jews are the same?

Just in their argumentativeness. You wouldn't know how to collaborate with someone with diverse beliefs if it fell on your head.

 

[Taz]

I’m a rabbi, and so I’m particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as “he.” In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to “her” tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a “young man.” And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as “them.”


Opinion | Is God Transgender?

God, in Himself, must contain both masculine and feminine. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Some might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity on the other hand is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Then why do you continue to call him "Himself."

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a WINNER!!! And the trophy for dumbest statement EVER at USMB

"God is a verb" - ding

 

[ding]

I like how people pretend to KNOW what their God has or doesnt have

Sort of like how they pretend they don't act like they are God.

 

[ding]

I’m a rabbi, and so I’m particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as “he.” In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to “her” tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a “young man.” And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as “them.”


Opinion | Is God Transgender?

God, in Himself, must contain both masculine and feminine. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Some might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity on the other hand is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Then why do you continue to call him "Himself."

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a WINNER!!! And the trophy for dumbest statement EVER at USMB

"God is a verb" - ding

What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

It seems you are the answer to your own question.

 

[Mindful]

I am referring to a previous conversation here where you avoided answering direct questions about your beliefs or were intentionally vague in your answers.

So he was pulling a ding?

I knows full well I'm not a rabbi. And he doesn't understand understatement, he's so culturally underdeveloped.

Right, you are Jewish... and intentionally vague about your beliefs. As is almost every Jew I have had discussions with. I just can't figure out why. It makes no sense.

What do you mean, my 'beliefs'? You think all Jews are the same?

Just in their argumentativeness. You wouldn't know how to collaborate with someone with diverse beliefs if it fell on your head.

You just came up here to anthropromophise me?

I can't get to grips with your dogmatic arguments. Perhaps some of the problem lies with you

 

[OldLady]

I’m a rabbi, and so I’m particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as “he.” In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to “her” tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a “young man.” And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as “them.”


Opinion | Is God Transgender?

God, in Himself, must contain both masculine and feminine. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Some might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity on the other hand is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Then why do you continue to call him "Himself."

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

I like "God is a Verb."

 

[OldLady]

I’m a rabbi, and so I’m particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as “he.” In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to “her” tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a “young man.” And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as “them.”


Opinion | Is God Transgender?

God, in Himself, must contain both masculine and feminine. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Some might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity on the other hand is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Then why do you continue to call him "Himself."

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a WINNER!!! And the trophy for dumbest statement EVER at USMB

"God is a verb" - ding

God IS a verb, imo.

 

[Taz]

I’m a rabbi, and so I’m particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights. In fact, the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender. And I do mean highly elastic: In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as “he.” In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to “her” tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a “young man.” And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as “them.”


Opinion | Is God Transgender?

God, in Himself, must contain both masculine and feminine. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Some might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity on the other hand is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Then why do you continue to call him "Himself."

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a WINNER!!! And the trophy for dumbest statement EVER at USMB

"God is a verb" - ding

What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

It seems you are the answer to your own question.

So what good came out of the murders and execution?

 

[Mindful]

Is God a noun or a verb?

Ronald Turnbull, professional writer of hillwalking guidebooks and magazine articles

God is a proper noun (the name of a, possibly non-existent, person, place or entity). As such it fits into sentences nounwise

God is good

He thinks he can talk to God.

God can also be an interjection. God! My dog is just so stupid!

Like any noun in English, it can be used as a verb. This would be a very unusual usage but would be comprehensible to a native speaker.

That politician gods himself about on TV - would be understood as meaning he behaves as if he were God.

He has godded up his politics - inserted religion into it.

 

[ding]

For what it is worth it is worth all while. It is something unpredictable but in the end there is right. I hope you had the time of your life. Green Day.

 

[ding]

So he was pulling a ding?

I knows full well I'm not a rabbi. And he doesn't understand understatement, he's so culturally underdeveloped.

Right, you are Jewish... and intentionally vague about your beliefs. As is almost every Jew I have had discussions with. I just can't figure out why. It makes no sense.

What do you mean, my 'beliefs'? You think all Jews are the same?

Just in their argumentativeness. You wouldn't know how to collaborate with someone with diverse beliefs if it fell on your head.

You just came up here to anthropromophise me?

I can't get to grips with your dogmatic arguments. Perhaps some of the problem lies with you

I’ve been coming to the belief forum since the day I joined. I come here to share my beliefs. You never really enter into the equation.

 

[Mindful]

I knows full well I'm not a rabbi. And he doesn't understand understatement, he's so culturally underdeveloped.

Right, you are Jewish... and intentionally vague about your beliefs. As is almost every Jew I have had discussions with. I just can't figure out why. It makes no sense.

What do you mean, my 'beliefs'? You think all Jews are the same?

Just in their argumentativeness. You wouldn't know how to collaborate with someone with diverse beliefs if it fell on your head.

You just came up here to anthropromophise me?

I can't get to grips with your dogmatic arguments. Perhaps some of the problem lies with you

I’ve been coming to the belief forum since the day I joined. I come here to share my beliefs. You never really enter into the equation.

There's an equation? Seriously?

You don't do beliefs. You do dogma.

You are also very intolerant.

 

[ding]

Right, you are Jewish... and intentionally vague about your beliefs. As is almost every Jew I have had discussions with. I just can't figure out why. It makes no sense.

What do you mean, my 'beliefs'? You think all Jews are the same?

Just in their argumentativeness. You wouldn't know how to collaborate with someone with diverse beliefs if it fell on your head.

You just came up here to anthropromophise me?

I can't get to grips with your dogmatic arguments. Perhaps some of the problem lies with you

I’ve been coming to the belief forum since the day I joined. I come here to share my beliefs. You never really enter into the equation.

There's an equation? Seriously?

You don't do beliefs. You do dogma.

You are also very intolerant.

Figuratively, yes, there is an equation. We all weigh the information and evidence.

As to dogma and tolerance, that’s your opinion. I don’t agree with it. I’m not going to argue with you or try to convince you though. I simply don’t care what you believe about me.

 

[ding]

God, in Himself, must contain both masculine and feminine. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Some might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity on the other hand is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Then why do you continue to call him "Himself."

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a WINNER!!! And the trophy for dumbest statement EVER at USMB

"God is a verb" - ding

What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

It seems you are the answer to your own question.

So what good came out of the murders and execution?

You tell me.

 

[Meriweather]

But why did god make evil that humans wanted to know about it?

Also answered yesterday. Anything can be used for good, and that same thing can be used for evil. Humans have the ability to choose how to use something. One can use fire for good; the next might choose to use it for evil.

 

[Taz]

Then why do you continue to call him "Himself."

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a WINNER!!! And the trophy for dumbest statement EVER at USMB

"God is a verb" - ding

What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

It seems you are the answer to your own question.

So what good came out of the murders and execution?

You tell me.

Less evil? That's all Ive got, not much, I know.

 

[ding]

Convention, convenience.

The reality is that God is no thing. Logic tells me he cannot be a material thing. Which means he is more like a verb than a noun. People refer to God as a being but the word being also means to exist. This is how ancient man knew him, not as a material being but as existence itself.

Now we know about physics and such and the only solution to the first cause is something which is not material. Otherwise, it would have to be turtles all the way down (so to speak) and that just does not make sense from a physics stand point.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a WINNER!!! And the trophy for dumbest statement EVER at USMB

"God is a verb" - ding

What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

It seems you are the answer to your own question.

So what good came out of the murders and execution?

You tell me.

Less evil? That's all Ive got, not much, I know.

How about forgiveness?

 

[Taz]

But why did god make evil that humans wanted to know about it?

Also answered yesterday. Anything can be used for good, and that same thing can be used for evil. Humans have the ability to choose how to use something. One can use fire for good; the next might choose to use it for evil.

But why did god make evil in the first place? Why not make a universe without evil?