Why does God have a gender?

[nobspeople]

The bible speaks of God as a 'he' or 'him'.
Is it possible that's not true? Is it possible God is an 'it' more than a 'he' or even a 'she'?

If God is not a 'he', would that change how you think of 'him'?
Would it change anything about 'his' story?

I've seen some believers see this concept as offensive. Are you one of those people that are offended if God is spoken about as a 'it' or 'she'?

[The Tanager]

If you believe now that what you are going to experience is all that you will require for eternity, then logically no one can convince you otherwise.
If you have reservations regarding those beliefs you have - such as your mention that you would not like to experience something that wasn't the real deal [so to speak] then this might be a crack in which an SR could utilize to assist you.

What is the logic behind your current beliefs regarding afterlife experience?

Only a few kind of beliefs can be 100% certain. So, although I strongly trust my Christian beliefs, there is always a chance I'm wrong. I will always remain open minded. The current logic behind the afterlife centers on the reliability of the Bible in maintaining the true teachings of Jesus and the historicity of the Resurrection showing Jesus to be who He claimed to be and that His teachings are true.

[William]

If you believe now that what you are going to experience is all that you will require for eternity, then logically no one can convince you otherwise.
If you have reservations regarding those beliefs you have - such as your mention that you would not like to experience something that wasn't the real deal [so to speak] then this might be a crack in which an SR could utilize to assist you.

What is the logic behind your current beliefs regarding afterlife experience?

Only a few kind of beliefs can be 100% certain. So, although I strongly trust my Christian beliefs, there is always a chance I'm wrong. I will always remain open minded. The current logic behind the afterlife centers on the reliability of the Bible in maintaining the true teachings of Jesus and the historicity of the Resurrection showing Jesus to be who He claimed to be and that His teachings are true.

Of those teachings specific to what Jesus reportedly said, are they all understandable without interpretation?

[The Tanager]

Of those teachings specific to what Jesus reportedly said, are they all understandable without interpretation?

What do you mean by "interpretation"? To me, every understanding is, by definition, an interpretation. Some interpretations are clearly correct, some interpretations are more likely to be correct than others, perhaps some are equally correct, some are less likely to be correct, and some are clearly incorrect.

[William]

Of those teachings specific to what Jesus reportedly said, are they all understandable without interpretation?

What do you mean by "interpretation"? To me, every understanding is, by definition, an interpretation. Some interpretations are clearly correct, some interpretations are more likely to be correct than others, perhaps some are equally correct, some are less likely to be correct, and some are clearly incorrect.

Therefore there is little logical reason to believe any interpretaion as "the truth" so in that logic would take us down another path as a means of attempting to discover truth.

This would have us focusing on what you refer to as "clearly correct" ... please give an example of such truth re metaphisical ideas and belefs.

[The Tanager]

Therefore there is little logical reason to believe any interpretaion as "the truth" so in that logic would take us down another path as a means of attempting to discover truth.

This would have us focusing on what you refer to as "clearly correct" ... please give an example of such truth re metaphisical ideas and belefs.

I'm not sure why you think there is little logical reason to believe any interpretation. Why isn't "more likely correct than others" or "clearly correct" not good enough reasons to believe those interpretations over the alternatives?

[William]

Therefore there is little logical reason to believe any interpretaion as "the truth" so in that logic would take us down another path as a means of attempting to discover truth.

This would have us focusing on what you refer to as "clearly correct" ... please give an example of such truth re metaphisical ideas and belefs.

I'm not sure why you think there is little logical reason to believe any interpretation. Why isn't "more likely correct than others" or "clearly correct" not good enough reasons to believe those interpretations over the alternatives?

Examples - then we shall examine your question, for we have something in which to hang 'good enough reasons' upon...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #227]

When Jesus says "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19), we clearly know that He was talking about His death and resurrection, even though people initially thought He was talking about the temple in Jerusalem.

When Jesus talks about being the bread of life and says "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out (John 6:37)" and more it isn't as clear cut as to what He is teaching, although I still think one interpretation is more likely than the others. Calvinists interpret it as speaking to God electing individuals to salvation. I think it's about the Jews who believed in God seeing that Jesus is the promised Messiah and how Jesus will never fail them.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #227]

When Jesus says "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19), we clearly know that He was talking about His death and resurrection, even though people initially thought He was talking about the temple in Jerusalem.

When Jesus talks about being the bread of life and says "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out (John 6:37)" and more it isn't as clear cut as to what He is teaching, although I still think one interpretation is more likely than the others. Calvinists interpret it as speaking to God electing individuals to salvation. I think it's about the Jews who believed in God seeing that Jesus is the promised Messiah and how Jesus will never fail them.

Ah yes. The problem of interpretations. How this problem cascades into all manner of confusing tactics as folk ask for meaning and example and clarification on how exactly others are using words ...etc... I think I may have found the reason you and I have not connected in a 'same-page' manner. not from consistent want of trying...

It boils down - not so much on how we identify the other, but how we each are identifying our self.

So therein, my question to you is;

Q: "Do you think of yourself as the flesh [human instrument]?"

And if your answer to that question is "Yes", then no amount of information I provide to you to will be of any use to you as it will be interpreted by the flesh you self identify with through those filters which accompany such beliefs.

And in that, you will reject the information...

Do you understand what I am saying here?

We clearly know Jesus was talking about His death and resurrection, because when the temple was eventually destroyed by the Romans on 4 August 70 CE, Jesus did not raise it up but left it in the rubble that it had become.

[The Tanager]

Q: "Do you think of yourself as the flesh [human instrument]?"

And if your answer to that question is "Yes", then no amount of information I provide to you to will be of any use to you as it will be interpreted by the flesh you self identify with through those filters which accompany such beliefs.

And in that, you will reject the information...

Do you understand what I am saying here?

My answer to that question is "No". So, what information do you have for me to consider?

[William]

Q: "Do you think of yourself as the flesh [human instrument]?"

And if your answer to that question is "Yes", then no amount of information I provide to you to will be of any use to you as it will be interpreted by the flesh you self identify with through those filters which accompany such beliefs.

And in that, you will reject the information...

Do you understand what I am saying here?

My answer to that question is "No".

Which question are you answering with "No"

Q: "Do you think of yourself as the flesh [human instrument]?"

or

Q: "Do you understand what I am saying here?"