"Anglican archbishop declares 'Our Father' to be 'problematic:'"

Started by Donald_Kirchner, July 07, 2023, 11:56:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Weedon

Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 09:26:00 AM

God is revealed to us with words that are grammatically gendered.  But, grammatical masculine does not necessarily imply biological gender.  The creation contains biological elements and gender is a biological attribute.  There is no basis for assuming that God is a biological entity.  So, the conclusion that God (except for God's incarnate Word) is a masculine being is the real silly.

Which is why no one should be confused by: God made man in his own image; in the image of God made he him, male and female made he them.

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 10:29:00 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 08, 2023, 09:31:35 AM
John, you're confusing sex and gender, at least as the (unhelpful) distinction was introduced into common parlance in the last several decades. Gender= masculine/feminine. Sex=male/female. There is no biological gender, only biological sex.

I believe the word "gender" was imported into lgbtq discussions from grammar in languages where all nouns are gendered regardless of anything to do with sex. It was seen as a more genteel way to talk about sex.

I think those who compiled the OED would disagree with you.

You err.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

David Garner

Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 09:26:00 AM
Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 09:02:48 AM
1) Jesus Christ, our Lord, God and Savior, is a man.
2) The same Jesus Christ refers to God the Father, as Father, and refers to Him as "He."
3) The same Jesus Christ refers to God the Holy Spirit as He.

Now, "gender" is a word that we use to ascribe masculine or feminine qualities to words.  So the question is silly.  But God is revealed to us as masculine because God said He is.

God is revealed to us with words that are grammatically gendered.  But, grammatical masculine does not necessarily imply biological gender.  The creation contains biological elements and gender is a biological attribute.  There is no basis for assuming that God is a biological entity.  So, the conclusion that God (except for God's incarnate Word) is a masculine being is the real silly.

Nonsense.  Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Beware Nestorius.  He's hiding under the bed of your argument.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

peter_speckhard

Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 10:29:00 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 08, 2023, 09:31:35 AM
John, you're confusing sex and gender, at least as the (unhelpful) distinction was introduced into common parlance in the last several decades. Gender= masculine/feminine. Sex=male/female. There is no biological gender, only biological sex.

I believe the word "gender" was imported into lgbtq discussions from grammar in languages where all nouns are gendered regardless of anything to do with sex. It was seen as a more genteel way to talk about sex.

I think those who compiled the OED would disagree with you.
Well sure, if you go by their latest musings. They update definitions regularly to fit progressive ideology. If you go back to when gender studies became a thing, it was made very clear that the first thing to know is the sex and gender are distinct categories, sex referring to biology and gender referring to cultural associations with the sexes. Now that they've moved on from that to confusion about biology itself (and scotus justices participating in the charade) they have to go back and rethink what they've been saying all along. The whole thing is a joke, and people are increasingly onto them.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 09:02:48 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 08:51:44 AM
Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 08:18:53 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 07:54:47 AM
Is the issue with "Father" just about traumatic experiences with abusive parents?  Or, is there also a problem with the implication that God is gendered, as we understand biological gender and, therefore, patriarchy is ordained by God?

I don't think there's a problem at all.  So there's that.

What is God's gender and what is the basis for assuming that God has gender?

1) Jesus Christ, our Lord, God and Savior, is a man.
2) The same Jesus Christ refers to God the Father, as Father, and refers to Him as "He."
3) The same Jesus Christ refers to God the Holy Spirit as He.

Now, "gender" is a word that we use to ascribe masculine or feminine qualities to words.  So the question is silly.  But God is revealed to us as masculine because God said He is.

1) Yes, Jesus Christ, God in human flesh had a penis.

2) Yes, Jesus Christ refers to God with Aramaic, abba, and/or Greek pater. English translators use "father." Although, they often let abba be untranslated.

3) No, it is the translators who refer to the Spirit as "he". The Greek pronouns are neuter, "it," to match the gender of the Greek word pneuma. Check out verses that are about an "evil spirit." Translators will use "it" in translating the pronouns, which are exactly the same words, pneuma and auton are used for Holy Spirit. Or "she" to match the Hebrew the gender of the Hebrew word, ruach.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

John Mundinger

Quote from: Weedon on July 08, 2023, 10:35:53 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 09:26:00 AM

God is revealed to us with words that are grammatically gendered.  But, grammatical masculine does not necessarily imply biological gender.  The creation contains biological elements and gender is a biological attribute.  There is no basis for assuming that God is a biological entity.  So, the conclusion that God (except for God's incarnate Word) is a masculine being is the real silly.

Which is why no one should be confused by: God made man in his own image; in the image of God made he him, male and female made he them.

God create man in God's image.  God created him male and female.  As I read Genesis 1, those are two independent statements.  And, if you choose to read it otherwise, then you have to conclude that God's gender is male-female.

That said, although we are created in God's image, we are conceived and born into sin.  There is only one dimension of God's image that we can believe with confidence - that is the image of love.  Any effort to add attributes to the divine image is a manifestation of original sin, our selfish desire to recreate the divine in our own image.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

John Mundinger

Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 10:47:57 AMNonsense.  Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

I acknowledge that in my post.  You might have missed it.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 10:47:57 AM
Nonsense.  Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Beware Nestorius.  He's hiding under the bed of your argument.

Again, the use of "man" in that confession is the word of the translators. The original Latin in the Athanasian Creed uses  homo from which we get homo sapiens. It's a word that means  "human beings;" not a male.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

John Mundinger

Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 08, 2023, 11:03:49 AMWell sure, if you go by their latest musings. They update definitions regularly to fit progressive ideology.

If you are going to argue that gender is grammatical attribute, then you also should be honest enough to acknowledge that the use of masculine nouns and pronouns to reference the divine does not imply that the God-self is masculine.

Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 08, 2023, 11:03:49 AMIf you go back to when gender studies became a thing, it was made very clear that the first thing to know is the sex and gender are distinct categories, sex referring to biology and gender referring to cultural associations with the sexes. Now that they've moved on from that to confusion about biology itself (and scotus justices participating in the charade) they have to go back and rethink what they've been saying all along. The whole thing is a joke, and people are increasingly onto them.

You seem to suggest that we are all born cis-gendered heterosexuals and that to be otherwise is a personal choice.  However, to the extent that we have objective biological information, that conclusion would be incorrect.

Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

David Garner

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 08, 2023, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 10:47:57 AM
Nonsense.  Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Beware Nestorius.  He's hiding under the bed of your argument.

Again, the use of "man" in that confession is the word of the translators. The original Latin in the Athanasian Creed uses  homo from which we get homo sapiens. It's a word that means  "human beings;" not a male.

In the words of a dear friend, and Lutheran deaconess, "that baby boy was circumcised."

I mean, seriously y'all?
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

David Garner

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 08, 2023, 11:49:05 AM
Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 09:02:48 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 08:51:44 AM
Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 08:18:53 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 07:54:47 AM
Is the issue with "Father" just about traumatic experiences with abusive parents?  Or, is there also a problem with the implication that God is gendered, as we understand biological gender and, therefore, patriarchy is ordained by God?

I don't think there's a problem at all.  So there's that.

What is God's gender and what is the basis for assuming that God has gender?

1) Jesus Christ, our Lord, God and Savior, is a man.
2) The same Jesus Christ refers to God the Father, as Father, and refers to Him as "He."
3) The same Jesus Christ refers to God the Holy Spirit as He.

Now, "gender" is a word that we use to ascribe masculine or feminine qualities to words.  So the question is silly.  But God is revealed to us as masculine because God said He is.

1) Yes, Jesus Christ, God in human flesh had a penis.

2) Yes, Jesus Christ refers to God with Aramaic, abba, and/or Greek pater. English translators use "father." Although, they often let abba be untranslated.

3) No, it is the translators who refer to the Spirit as "he". The Greek pronouns are neuter, "it," to match the gender of the Greek word pneuma. Check out verses that are about an "evil spirit." Translators will use "it" in translating the pronouns, which are exactly the same words, pneuma and auton are used for Holy Spirit. Or "she" to match the Hebrew the gender of the Hebrew word, ruach.

So you are suggesting that the "Our Father" is simply an English translation error?

Why does the Greek Church disagree with you on that point?  Do the Greeks not understand Greek as well as you do?

https://www.goarch.org/-/lords-prayer
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 08, 2023, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: David Garner on July 08, 2023, 10:47:57 AM
Nonsense.  Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Beware Nestorius.  He's hiding under the bed of your argument.

Again, the use of "man" in that confession is the word of the translators. The original Latin in the Athanasian Creed uses  homo from which we get homo sapiens. It's a word that means  "human beings;" not a male.

Go for it, Dan!   :o
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Dan Fienen

Just trying to bring some clarity, probably failing.


God is a spiritual being by nature, not corporeal, certainly not mammalian, He does not reproduce, is not by nature sexual. This I believe from what I read in the Bible.


I do not believe that the male/female sexual duality is some transcendent characteristic of the universe of which our earthly sexual reproductive characteristics are merely one manifestation. There is not some cosmic masculine state of being that God shares with male humans. (I actually read an article in a Lutheran journal that argued that.)


The personal beings that we encounter on a daily basis are humans, typically male or female. Humans are typically not neither, a sort of natural neuter. In talking about or to God we generally personify Him, that is talk to or about God as though He were human (which He is not) and use typical human referents. God revealed Himself in Scripture usually using male referents.


While I think that we should respect God's preferred pronouns as used in the Bible, we should not read too much into that. The Imagio Dei, the Image of God in which we were created does not include us looking like God, being mammalian like God (I believe that God is not mammalian), or men being male being more in the image of God than women. Emphatically not the latter. This whole God is male not female, or specifying God as "Our Mother" has been way too much overblown from both sides. I am not going to argue that God is male in any other way than by convenience He presented Himself as male for convenience in communication. But to turn around and insist that we refer to God as female is again making way too much of us trying to gender God and making Him more like us, recreating God in our image.


Saying that God is, in His essence, male or female is a category error. By His nature God does not fit into male or female categories as do humans. It would be like asking whether the color chartreuse is loud. Colors do not have sound levels except by analogy.


In English we have not had personal referents (pronouns or words that could be used to refer to someone, like men, women, boy, girl, etc.) that are gender nonspecific. Traditionally, male referents have been used for that, i.e. man for human, gender nonspecific. I don't know but could speculate that such an impulse could have been part of using male as God's nonexistent gender.


These concerns change a bit when we come to God Incarnate, Jesus. In Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity because a real human being, and as human beings come with gender, as True Man, so did Jesus. Attempts to fudge about the gender of Jesus inevitably distort or downplay the incarnation. To talk of Jesus as Christa, or Christa Sophia begins to reduce the incarnation to a sort of symbolic God becoming one of us, a symbol that we are free to rearrange or modify to suit our sensibilities. Jesus was many things, but sensitive to avoid upsetting sensibilities He emphatically was not.


One of the fronts in the current culture wars is gender. We do not serve God well when we try to enlist Him into our side, whether Team Man, Team Woman, Team Queer, or any of the other myriad alphabet soup of genders that people have discerned that they are. While I resist those who would insist that God come out as woman, or more recently queer, those who want to insist that somehow God is cosmically male also are trying to stick God into a pigeonhole that was never really designed to hold Him.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

peter_speckhard

Quote from: John Mundinger on July 08, 2023, 12:00:48 PM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 08, 2023, 11:03:49 AMWell sure, if you go by their latest musings. They update definitions regularly to fit progressive ideology.

If you are going to argue that gender is grammatical attribute, then you also should be honest enough to acknowledge that the use of masculine nouns and pronouns to reference the divine does not imply that the God-self is masculine.

Quote from: peter_speckhard on July 08, 2023, 11:03:49 AMIf you go back to when gender studies became a thing, it was made very clear that the first thing to know is the sex and gender are distinct categories, sex referring to biology and gender referring to cultural associations with the sexes. Now that they've moved on from that to confusion about biology itself (and scotus justices participating in the charade) they have to go back and rethink what they've been saying all along. The whole thing is a joke, and people are increasingly onto them.

You seem to suggest that we are all born cis-gendered heterosexuals and that to be otherwise is a personal choice.  However, to the extent that we have objective biological information, that conclusion would be incorrect.
I don't seem to suggest any such thing. Mankind is designed a certain way. For example, humans are designed to have to eyes.  I do not refer to myself as a member of the two-eyed community. Having two eyes, I am simply normal. Being "cis-gendered" and "heterosexual" is like being "two-eyed". Yes, I acknowledge the existence of people with no eyes or only one eye, but they are sad deviations from the design of humanity, not just different ways of being perfectly normal. One-eyed people may have been born that way or become that way later somehow (it doesn't really matter). They are still human, still fallen, and still redeemed despite not being normal in that way.

Our reproductive systems, like our digestive systems and nervous systems, can work properly or not for a variety of reasons. In the case of homosexual attraction or gender dysphoria, something is amiss. To be erotically attracted to one's own sex is like being constipated or seeing double-- some biological system of the body is malfunctioning.

Your error is in assuming that if someone was born a certain way or is a certain way without having chosen it, then there can be nothing wrong or amiss with that way. It isn't true. I can without pride or arrogance say that it would be better if every one-eyed or no-eyed (or three-eyed) person had two eyes. That is God's design. And it would be better if nobody were homosexual or transgender. What you call cis-gender heterosexual is just a normal state of health. Every malady would ideally not exist. That having been said, maladies of all kinds do exist, and i do not seem to suggest they don't or that those who have them must have chosen them. I simply recognize them as maladies, not normal states of health.       

RogerMartim

Your post is so offensive, Pastor Speckhard, I almost have no words to comment. So, I am akin to a one-eyed or three-eyed monster alongside with millions upon millions of others.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk