The Biblically Minded

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

The Biblically Minded

Post #1

Post by William »

Q: Can the mind-set of the biblically minded be generalized that they are better understood in some coherent context?

For example.

Are they generally heterosexual?
Do they consider YHWH to be Masculine in their imagery of HIM?
Do they idolize the Bible?

What other general characteristics can be added to this list, re the OPQ?

*Thanks to nobspeople for the inspiration for the thread question

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #51

Post by Tcg »

Eloi wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:11 pm Calling God HE has biblical reasons:

Exo. 15:3 Jehovah is a manly person of war. Jehovah is his name.

The hebrew word used there (ish) means "a male, husband, ...", which of course does not mean that God has human gender, but that His personality is like masculine, manly, powerful in strength... and his relationship with his faithful universal family is like that of a husband, or Father in other aspects.

The personal pronoun used by Jesus (who is the Son of Jehovah and was at his side before becoming a human being) and by all the biblical writers to refer to Jehovah, is HE/HIM (3rd Person, Singular Masculine).
Well of course. The obvious reason is that all the biblical writers were men. Those who invented this god were part of a male dominated society so of course their perceived superiority over women is going to be reflected in the god other men created and they helped develop. There's no mystery here.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #52

Post by Eloi »

Last post is based on assumptions, meaning it is of no real value on debates with believers.

Many biblical characters received visits of angels coming from heaven, although they appeared in human forms, with human bodies, until they realized that they were spirits that had materialized in order to be seen and have direct communication with humans, to give them messages that they brought from God to them. The stories we read show that these angels or messengers appeared in the form of men, not women. God's messengers represented God himself, and many times they were treated as if they were God himself, since God spoke through them. Biblical writers spoke of lived experiences in the first person.

Deborah (Judg. 5) and other women were the direct authors of some biblical passages, and the Bible speaks of women who played a fundamental role in many important events for the entire community of God's servants.

The opinion of someone who does not believe in the biblical accounts, or has never even read them to know what they actually say, is irrelevant to us.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1553 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #53

Post by POI »

Eloi wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:27 pm Last post is based on assumptions, meaning it is of no real value on debates with believers.

Many biblical characters received visits of angels coming from heaven, although they appeared in human forms, with human bodies, until they realized that they were spirits that had materialized in order to be seen and have direct communication with humans, to give them messages that they brought from God to them. The stories we read show that these angels or messengers appeared in the form of men, not women. God's messengers represented God himself, and many times they were treated as if they were God himself, since God spoke through them. Biblical writers spoke of lived experiences in the first person.

Deborah (Judg. 5) and other women were the direct authors of some biblical passages, and the Bible speaks of women who played a fundamental role in many important events for the entire community of God's servants.

The opinion of someone who does not believe in the biblical accounts, or has never even read them to know what they actually say, is irrelevant to us.
Creating a strawman argument does not mean you are fruitful in a debate.

Tcg stated:

- "All the biblical writers were men." (Are you going to suggest some of the writers were women?)

- "Those who invented this god were part of a male dominated society." (Until one can demonstrate that your believed upon God does indeed exist, one can continue to reasonably ponder the phrase "did God create humans, or did humans create god?". Further, I doubt you would disagree that (2K - 4K years ago), such societies in question were male dominated?)

- "their perceived superiority over women..." (Are you going to deny the Bible suggests such a hierarchy --- God>Jesus>men>women?)

A strawman argument is a fallacious argument. "Meaning, it is of no real value on debates". So please stop.
-
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #54

Post by Goat »

Eloi wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:11 pm Calling God HE has biblical reasons:

Exo. 15:3 Jehovah is a manly person of war. Jehovah is his name.

The hebrew word used there (ish) means "a male, husband, ...", which of course does not mean that God has human gender, but that His personality is like masculine, manly, powerful in strength... and his relationship with his faithful universal family is like that of a husband, or Father in other aspects.

The personal pronoun used by Jesus (who is the Son of Jehovah and was at his side before becoming a human being) and by all the biblical writers to refer to Jehovah, is HE/HIM (3rd Person, Singular Masculine).
Yet, when God is called by the term 'Holy Spirit' , which is most often done during God's act of creation, that term is feminine in Hebrew.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #55

Post by Miles »

bjs1 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:57 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 7:24 am :) I bet they do. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a colleague and i observed that applying gender to a god (name your own) was rather absurd. It should logically be gender neutral. She replied that this was 'disrespectful' to God. This was a woman, mind in the 70's when Feminism was just getting it up the nose. Verily, verily, Faith in Christian Dogma messes with the head.
Did you call God “it”? If so, I would agree with your colleague that this was disrespectful.

Every person I have ever encountered irl who has called God an “it” did so with the goal of being disrespectful (more to the believer they were talking to than to God).
But if it wasn't made with any disrespect then why take it as such? Just because someone uses "it" in disrespect doesn't make all other uses of it disrespectful. And, while I agree that calling a person "it" is a bit disrespectful, one should keep in mind that god is not a person, a human, but a supernatural being, deity, or spirit.


per·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person

1. a human being regarded as an individual.


God
/ɡäd/
noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.


From Wikipedia

Judaism
Although the gender of God in Judaism is referred to in the Tanakh with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, traditional Jewish philosophy does not attribute the concept of sex to God. At times, Jewish aggadic literature and Jewish mysticism do treat God as gendered. The ways in which God is gendered have also changed across time, with some modern Jewish thinkers viewing God as outside of the gender binary. Guillaume Postel (16th century), Michelangelo Lanci (19th century), and Mark Sameth (21st century) theorize that the four letters of the personal name of God, YHWH, are a cryptogram which the priests of ancient Israel would have read in reverse as huhi, “heshe,” signifying a dual-gendered deity.

Christianity
Most Christian groups conceive of God as Triune, believing that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one being that is wholly God.
[In which case I believe "it" is quite appropriate.]

God the Son (Jesus Christ), having been incarnated as a human man, is masculine. Classical western philosophy believes that God lacks a literal sex as it would be impossible for God to have a body (a prerequisite for sex). However, Classical western philosophy states that God should be referred to (in most contexts) as masculine by analogy; the reason being God's relationship with the world as begetter of the world and revelation (i.e. analogous to an active instead of receptive role in sexual intercourse). Others interpret God as neither male nor female."
[In which case "it" would be wholly justified.]


.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #56

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I see no disrespect in seeing things as they really are, and the invisible spirit that (supposedly) created everything has to be non -gender- specific. It is partisan and parochial to insist that it has a beard and male parts and is no more than the prejudice of the ancient (Male) writers to see it as such.

No disrespect is intended to any such cosmic spirit and I'll take my chances on it being offended.

What this is really about is the opinions and beliefs of these people being offended. Well, it's a free country (so far) and they have every right to be offended as they like. The self important arrogance of them pretending to speak for a Cosmic creator and say whether it is offended or not is, I'd suggest, more disrespectful than any suppositions I might make.

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #57

Post by bjs1 »

Miles wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:26 pm But if it wasn't made with any disrespect then why take it as such? Just because someone uses "it" in disrespect doesn't make all other uses of it disrespectful. And, while I agree that calling a person "it" is a bit disrespectful, one should keep in mind that god is not a person, a human, but a supernatural being, deity, or spirit.
Did you read the rest of my post, where I explicitly pointed out that "person" in this context does not mean "a human"?
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #58

Post by bjs1 »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:06 am I see no disrespect in seeing things as they really are, and the invisible spirit that (supposedly) created everything has to be non -gender- specific. It is partisan and parochial to insist that it has a beard and male parts and is no more than the prejudice of the ancient (Male) writers to see it as such.

No disrespect is intended to any such cosmic spirit and I'll take my chances on it being offended.

What this is really about is the opinions and beliefs of these people being offended. Well, it's a free country (so far) and they have every right to be offended as they like. The self important arrogance of them pretending to speak for a Cosmic creator and say whether it is offended or not is, I'd suggest, more disrespectful than any suppositions I might make.
As I said in my earlier post, no one is suggesting that God is offended. Speaking only from personal experience, every person without exception who used the pronoun "it" for God was attempting to offend or degrade human believers.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #59

Post by TRANSPONDER »

bjs1 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:23 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:06 am I see no disrespect in seeing things as they really are, and the invisible spirit that (supposedly) created everything has to be non -gender- specific. It is partisan and parochial to insist that it has a beard and male parts and is no more than the prejudice of the ancient (Male) writers to see it as such.

No disrespect is intended to any such cosmic spirit and I'll take my chances on it being offended.

What this is really about is the opinions and beliefs of these people being offended. Well, it's a free country (so far) and they have every right to be offended as they like. The self important arrogance of them pretending to speak for a Cosmic creator and say whether it is offended or not is, I'd suggest, more disrespectful than any suppositions I might make.
As I said in my earlier post, no one is suggesting that God is offended. Speaking only from personal experience, every person without exception who used the pronoun "it" for God was attempting to offend or degrade human believers.
Personal experience? Just how did you get into the head of the other people? The person who accused me of being disrespectful wasn't reading my mind. And in fact any 'disrespect' was in her mind because of her concept of God. In my mind calling a possible cosmic creator a male was the disrespect or at least illogical. The disrespect she saw was in her own mind, not mine. And I suggest the disrespect you saw was in your mind.

Though at least they may have been using a non -male God -concept to undermine your Male Biblegod position which again you'd see as disrespect but in fact, we aren't trying to rob you, but help you :)

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: The Biblically Minded

Post #60

Post by Miles »

bjs1 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:20 pm
Miles wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:26 pm But if it wasn't made with any disrespect then why take it as such? Just because someone uses "it" in disrespect doesn't make all other uses of it disrespectful. And, while I agree that calling a person "it" is a bit disrespectful, one should keep in mind that god is not a person, a human, but a supernatural being, deity, or spirit.
Did you read the rest of my post, where I explicitly pointed out that "person" in this context does not mean "a human"?
I did, but don't regard ”person” as having any kind of philosophical sense.

.

Post Reply