Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Gender of the Christian God

    Quote Originally Posted by Telex View Post
    Yes, but it is that temporal relationship that doesn't make sense to me. Why did He wait - why did it not occur to Him that Adam had a penis but no way to use it?
    There's just no clear cut answer as to why wait until after.
    Quote Originally Posted by Telex View Post
    "Like" is similar but not equal. So Eve is another degree removed from God compared to Adam. So she is a reflection, but an even more imperfect one.
    I disagree. If Eve is made equal to Adam (and there's ZERO indicators in Genesis I can see to suggest she's treated in any fashion other than as an equal), then it doesn't matter that she was bone instead of dust or that she was created second. She's "like" Adam in God's eyes, thus, equal. If the two are equal in His eyes, then it stands to reason that neither is a physical reflection of the Creator, but rather something more immaterial that both possess is the reflection of the Creator.
    Quote Originally Posted by Telex View Post
    The animals are made in pairs.
    I think you're getting a little lost in the details here. Taking one detail or verse at a time and scrutinising is going to lead to a LOT of problems. Some things are explained later or related in a more "Oh okay" sense. He makes Adam, recognises out loud that it's not good for him to be alone (presumably because NOTHING before then works by itself), and proceeds to create an equal (a counterpart).

    WHY He didn't create Eve at the same time as Adam, I don't know. I don't have the answer to that one.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Gender of the Christian God

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Close. #3 is purely speculative, is in the context of a purely hypothetical situation (not grounded in reality) and it doesn't mean that it cannot transmit the necessary culture...but rather the value of that culture (in so far as the roles described are).
    So the Bible might communicate its cultural assumptions, but it will not necessarily lead to their acceptance? In this line of reasoning it is perfectly valid to reject the Bible's message based on cultural alone. If knowledge of the Bible's culture is required (#1), and yet these cultural assumptions are rejected because of their conflict with existing culture (#3), than the Bible's message will go unheeded because of cultural differences. This still creates a fundamental link between the acceptance of Western culture and the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    I think this is overstating the case. Gender conceptions have been throughout mankind during all of history.

    The issue is the value of the paternal or matriarchal culture and how each would relate to the other.
    Yes, I was referring to the particular gender conceptions held by the Biblical authors.


    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    It requires reason. You are confusing 2 issues here...

    1) The Bible and how it is understood in reality by various cultures and
    2) The Bible and how it may or may not be understood by non-existent cultures in a non-existent hypothetical reality (or world).

    We need to stick with one or the other instead of jumping back and forth.
    They are not separate. I am using hypothetical #2 to explore the nature of reality #1. I am still not buying your rejection of this hypothetical situation as a means to examine reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    Again, you've blurred the lines between what is real and what is not real (your hypothetical). I offered that response to your hypothetical, non-existent culture.
    "I have never seen factual support for the existence of miracles. However, I have seen many records of societies that did not share cultural assumptions with Christians. My hypothetical example is a degree closer to reality than your own. Even though it is a hypothetical situation, it does not mean that everything is equally probable. "

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    Also, in reality a culture need not understand everything in the Bible to be saved. We have threads about this very issue already (people not hearing about Christ - which really means those who have not had the Gospel explained to them).

    So either way, in reality or your hypothetical, there is no real objection.
    If they reject the Bible as a product of a culture instead of a divinity than they will not be saved.


    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    Whether or not this is true (I hold that it is not), it is wholly irrelevant to your argument that non-existent cultures (your hypothetical) cannot understand the Gospel.

    Even if it were true, it's still the case that the cultures are being taught the Gospel. Therefore, your position that they cannot understand it, is rendered refuted. Right?
    My position is not that cultures cannot learn the Gospel, but that they cannot learn it without a cultural transmission. God's male gender is an example of this transmission.

    Your line of reasoning seems to be that simply because it hasn't happened does not mean it is impossible, and yet your answer to how this transmission would be possible is divine intervention. This does not seem a reasonable answer, given what we know of history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde
    There's just no clear cut answer as to why wait until after.
    So why should it be believed?

    [quote=Hyde[I disagree. If Eve is made equal to Adam (and there's ZERO indicators in Genesis I can see to suggest she's treated in any fashion other than as an equal), then it doesn't matter that she was bone instead of dust or that she was created second. She's "like" Adam in God's eyes, thus, equal. If the two are equal in His eyes, then it stands to reason that neither is a physical reflection of the Creator, but rather something more immaterial that both possess is the reflection of the Creator.[/quote]
    I understand your interpretation, but I think that the language leans toward the impression of degrees of likeness rather than equality. But perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde
    I think you're getting a little lost in the details here. Taking one detail or verse at a time and scrutinising is going to lead to a LOT of problems. Some things are explained later or related in a more "Oh okay" sense. He makes Adam, recognises out loud that it's not good for him to be alone (presumably because NOTHING before then works by itself), and proceeds to create an equal (a counterpart).

    WHY He didn't create Eve at the same time as Adam, I don't know. I don't have the answer to that one.
    So if their aren't logical answers, there is only faith. And without that faith already in place, there is no reason to believe the story to be anything but a myth.

  3. #43
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Gender of the Christian God

    Quote Originally Posted by Telex View Post
    So the Bible might communicate its cultural assumptions, but it will not necessarily lead to their acceptance? In this line of reasoning it is perfectly valid to reject the Bible's message based on cultural alone. If knowledge of the Bible's culture is required (#1), and yet these cultural assumptions are rejected because of their conflict with existing culture (#3), than the Bible's message will go unheeded because of cultural differences. This still creates a fundamental link between the acceptance of Western culture and the Bible.
    It does not follow that in the highly unlikely and unsupported scenario that someone with a competing culture randomly finds the Bible, sees that it speaks of a different nation/tribe with different values and cultures, and as a result, it is valid to reject the central message of the Bible.

    You are welcome to prove otherwise however.

    Yes, I was referring to the particular gender conceptions held by the Biblical authors.
    Right. So...relevancy?

    They are not separate. I am using hypothetical #2 to explore the nature of reality #1. I am still not buying your rejection of this hypothetical situation as a means to examine reality.
    The only way it CAN be considered a legitimate method to examine reality, is if it is shown that it can. Please support that it can.

    One could say "So if unicorns were real, and the leader of the unicorn (named Bob) says he wrote the Bible as just a bed time story to his magical baby horsies...then we can legitimately say that what is taught in the Christian Bible, isn't the case (since Bob the Unicorn wrote the Bible and this contradicts the claims of the Bible).

    One could say that...but they wouldn't be taken seriously and it wouldn't be a claim or position that anyone need to take as the truth. If it could be shown that there is indeed evidence that unicorns exist and the Bob the Unicorn is their leader, and he wrote the Bible as a bedtime story intended only for his magical baby horsies....well...then we could, and we should.

    Until then...it's a meaningless hypothetical.

    Remember what your hypothetical required to be reality? We discussed this a few posts back.

    "I have never seen factual support for the existence of miracles. However, I have seen many records of societies that did not share cultural assumptions with Christians. My hypothetical example is a degree closer to reality than your own. Even though it is a hypothetical situation, it does not mean that everything is equally probable. "
    I provided evidence that societies without such cultural assumptions can understand Christianity perfectly well. It's historical fact. You have imaginary scenarios (that are on par with unicorns) trying to compete with what is actual. It doesn't work, it never does.

    It's like examining a hostage situation by a SWAT team. "Captain...what about this? What if we had some invisibility potions? We could use them to get into the building without them knowing about us. Then we could use some freeze rays that only target bad guys. That way, we can resolve the situation without any bloodshed? Awesome or wut!?"

    Not so much. Just because something is "hypothetical" does not mean it has value Telex. You have never once established that there is a connection between your hypothetical and what is real, nor have you established any value to your hypothetical. It has as much "legitimacy" and value as the officer suggesting that hypothetically, if they had invsi-pots and freeze wants, no one would have to get hurt. It's meaningless UNTIL you establish meaning. That hasn't been done (yet).

    If they reject the Bible as a product of a culture instead of a divinity than they will not be saved.
    If the potions and invisibility and freeze wands were brought in, the day would be saved.

    My position is not that cultures cannot learn the Gospel, but that they cannot learn it without a cultural transmission. God's male gender is an example of this transmission.
    I suppose anything is possible. As I said a couple times, I'm not an expert on this issue. I can at least, follow the logic and see where it stops. It doesn't seem to move too far forward with this view...it's highly problematic as pointed out above.

    Where is the evidence that cultures cannot learn the Gospel without cultural transmission? Are you hanging the entire unsupported hypothetical on a couple statements of opinions given by someone who admitted they really don't know? If so, well...it's reasonable to say that your position here doesn't have any real support, it's merely an opinion, or belief. A belief that doesn't pose any threat to any belief system...because it's not a truth claim. I can believe that Santa has 15 reindeer instead of the traditional 9. That doesn't make it a truth claim that others should take seriously.

    Your line of reasoning seems to be that simply because it hasn't happened does not mean it is impossible, and yet your answer to how this transmission would be possible is divine intervention. This does not seem a reasonable answer, given what we know of history.


    So why should it be believed?


    I understand your interpretation, but I think that the language leans toward the impression of degrees of likeness rather than equality. But perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.


    So if their aren't logical answers, there is only faith. And without that faith already in place, there is no reason to believe the story to be anything but a myth.[/QUOTE]
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Gender of the Christian God

    Quote Originally Posted by Telex View Post
    I understand your interpretation, but I think that the language leans toward the impression of degrees of likeness rather than equality. But perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.
    On this, there's something that I think I can address to help clear things up. I started reading the Bible again in the evening, starting from the beginning. Now, the version I have is a Student Edition NIV Bible. Meaning it's got footnotes, reference points, and so forth (I used this for a while to compare with my KJV bible). In any event, here's a bit more on the Adam and Eve thing, and it probably won't be much in the way of convincing you, but it did seem to stand out in contrast to what comes before it.

    So Adam and Eve are roaming around, doing their first people thing, and a serpent starts talking to Eve (make your Harry Potter jokes about her being a parseltongue). They eat the fruit, get ashamed, etc. and so forth. So God tells them what's going to happen to them as punishment, and here's what stood out as odd to me:

    Genesis 3:16
    To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

    Now, the reason that stands out to me is because, if you take the position that Eve is NOT equal to Adam (and thus inferior in some way), then it would stand to reason that Adam ALREADY ruled over her (by virtue of being her husband and a man). It wouldn't make sense to say "You're already his inferior, but now you're REALLY inferior to him!" So it would only seem logical to assume that prior to the Fruit-Tree-Scandal, they were equal. You could even further this line of reasoning by how it all happens.

    Genesis 3:6
    When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

    So consider that Adam's WITH HER when it happens. He wasn't away and she came up later and said, "This apple is REALLY F-in good. It will rock your socks off. Try it." Adam didn't stop her. He didn't even attempt to stop her. Nothing about their behavior as a couple PRIOR to the remark that she will be ruled by her husband suggests that they anything less than equal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Telex View Post
    So if their aren't logical answers, there is only faith. And without that faith already in place, there is no reason to believe the story to be anything but a myth.
    No logical answers that I'm aware of at the moment. I'm not an expert.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Gender of the Christian God

    Hi guys

    Sorry for the delay in posting, I spent all last week moving to a new city and tomorrow will be leaving the country for about a month. Thank you for your replies in this thread, I concede all points on my side

  6. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Gender of the Christian God

    Quote Originally Posted by Telex View Post
    Hi guys

    Sorry for the delay in posting, I spent all last week moving to a new city and tomorrow will be leaving the country for about a month. Thank you for your replies in this thread, I concede all points on my side
    Having to concede isn't THAT big of a deal that you have to flee the country. It's just a debate. It's not like lives hang on the issue.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. The Christian God and free will
    By ians25 in forum Religion
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: August 10th, 2008, 01:17 PM
  2. Replies: 37
    Last Post: September 28th, 2007, 02:42 PM
  3. Is the Christian God truly omnipotent?
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2006, 03:13 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 13th, 2006, 05:05 AM
  5. Christian God... An Abomination?
    By tismdarkling in forum Religion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 11th, 2006, 06:22 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •