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'?

[Purple Knight]

When challenged sometimes some Christians resort to 'definitions' as if somehow their arguments are rescued by this ploy.

It's true and it's happening in this thread and Christians happen to be the ones doing it.

The original is a masculine term, 'Pater'. Using a male term is different than calling someone a male, though.

If the original is a masculine term, there must be a reason it was used, apparently by Jesus himself, than an other available term.

So this would tend to show God is masculine, having masculine qualities, not feminine or neutral (even though some earlier biblical writings point to a more feminine status as outlined earlier in this tread). Thus, according to Jesus, God is masculine or the biblical writing isn't totally correct.

What are "masculine qualities" (as opposed to "feminine qualities")? Could you a few so we can see what you are referring to?

Considering Jesus said it, probably best to ask him to what he was referring.

My question is could you name one or two of the "masculine qualities" to show what you meant. You posted (not culture) so you must have had something in mind. When you posted the words "masculine qualities" what (give us the name of one) did you have in mind?

However, it's not as if atheists don't also do the same thing. And yes, sadly, atheists have also been known to "burn witches" after a fashion (I... I don't think anyone actually died... but it's China so who knows).

Everyone would be wise to remember that definitionalism is the lowest form of argument, suited only to libertarians.

Jill: I think blackmail is wrong because it forces people into a position of what is basically slavery, putting them in the power of another, because if that person can really ruin them, they now have to do or give whatever that person demands. They no longer own their own life. They're basically a slave to the blackmailer.
Bill: Idiot. You don't know what force is. He's not "forced" to do anything. He can tell the blackmailer no.

See how Bill has inserted his personal definition of force, assumed a position of authority on what force means, and thereby refuted Jill's argument? Another form of definitionalism. Jill has no option to preserve her argument even though it is valid with her less strict definition of force. If she decides to dispute what force means, Bill will simply cite the dictionary, highlight the seventeenth definition (which happens to support him) and declare himself the victor.

So you know what? I'm planting the flag of logic and declaring this a fallacy. Informal fallacies come into being. The universe is not made with them already in place, and people who come after the big bang can plant this flag just as the Niblonians have done. The fact that they happened to do it before the big bang is meaningless.

Definitionalism is now an informal logical fallacy.

Definitionalism (or Definitional Fallacy, or Argument ad Verbis)
1. To pick a random word out of an opponent's argument and demand a definition in the attempt to fish for a definition that can ruin the argument, when the argument would be valid with one of the common definitions
2. To insist that a term in an opponent's argument means what you want it to mean, when the argument would otherwise be valid with the presenter's meaning, regardless of whether that meaning is in the dictionary or not

example of 1: see this thread
example of 2: see above

[JehovahsWitness]

When challenged sometimes some Christians resort to 'definitions' as if somehow their arguments are rescued by this ploy.

It's true and it's happening in this thread and Christians happen to be the ones doing it.

What are "masculine qualities" (as opposed to "feminine qualities")? Could you [name] a few so we can see what you are referring to?

Considering Jesus said it, probably best to ask him to what he was referring.

.... You posted... the words "masculine qualities" what (give us the name of one) did you have in mind?

Are you suggesting that

(a) that Jesus is ever recorded as saying the words "masculine qualities"?

(b) it is misplaced, dishonest or otherwise a negative behaviour in a debating forum to request clarification of expressions used by a poster before responding to a point?

To the best of my knowlege defining one's terms is a basic requirement in debate.


JW

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #82]

Not to forget that his tactic does come with the expression along the lines of "I only want to know what you mean by 'such and such' in order that I can agree or disagree with your argument" which is to imply that your argument is rendered "illogical", or somehow falsely based upon some "misunderstanding" of that which is being critiqued...

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #82]

Not to forget that his tactic does come with the expression along the lines of "I only want to know what you mean by 'such and such' in order that I can agree or disagree with your argument" which is to imply that your argument is rendered "illogical", or somehow falsely based upon some "misunderstanding" of that which is being critiqued...

Are you suggesting that "agreeing or disagreeing with an argument" based on said argument being "illogical" or because of a evident misunderstanding of that which is being critiqued, has no place in debate? Would the above not be the very essence of debate, ie challenge (or agree) with that which can be shown to be inaccurate or illogical based on what bas been said?




JW

[Purple Knight]

Are you suggesting that

(a) that Jesus is ever recorded as saying the words "masculine qualities"?

I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying you didn't address the point. Now I didn't fact-check whether Jesus used the word pater or whether it really ascribes masculine qualities, but you didn't either. You glossed over that and demanded to know what Nobsy meant by masculine qualities. He didn't mean anything by it because he didn't say it. Jesus did. (Again I didn't fact-check this but neither did you.)

Look. Look at what you did.

Purple Knight: Two birds flew out of my window in the morning.
Nobspeople: Purple Knight said there were two birds; he ascribed the quality of more than one to the birds, because that's what two implies.
JehovahsWitness: What on Earth do you mean by more than one?
Nobspeople: But... I didn't say it. Purple Knight did.
JehovahsWitness: Please give a few examples of what you mean by more than one.

(b) it is misplaced, dishonest or otherwise a negative behaviour in a debating forum to request clarification of expressions used by a poster before responding to a point?

Sometimes, yes.

Now remember that my position (on the actual issue of this thread) has been that:
1. No, if God exists, it probably does not have a gender, however
2. Ancient people were not wrong to ascribe the male gender to God because they understood God in the context of their culture and era wherein it would have reasonable been male and
3. I was wrong to call them primitive or outright claim they couldn't have understood something, but why would God make it difficult when it could be made easier?

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you suggesting that

(a) that Jesus is ever recorded as saying the words "masculine qualities"?

I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying you didn't address the point.

No I did not address the point because in order to do so I needed clarification I did not obtain despite asking twice for said clarification. I have addressed the point of the masculine imagery in scripture and asked my question as I suspect it supported what I posted but needed to be sure. I was unable to go further due to the evasion of the poster.

Now I didn't fact-check whether Jesus used the word pater {snip: irrelevant}

I did not ask about the term "father" (pater) my question was about the expression "masculine qualities". I am very, very precise about what I ask and have no time for evasion, smoke screening or strawman.



JW

[Purple Knight]

No I did not address the point because in order to do so I needed clarification I did not obtain despite asking twice for said clarification. I have addressed the point of the masculine imagery in scripture and asked my question as I suspect it supported what I posted but needed to be sure. I was unable to go further due to the evasion of the poster.

It's probably (but, I am not Nobsy, nor am I Jesus) not going to be possible to pin this down more because some words aren't that precise. If the word pater really ascribes masculine qualities, I think it's a little unfair to ask Nobsy to narrow down what Jesus meant because he isn't Jesus either.

It would be like asking Nobsy to name a few examples of what I might have meant if I said "some birds".

[JehovahsWitness]

No I did not address the point because in order to do so I needed clarification I did not obtain despite asking twice for said clarification. I have addressed the point of the masculine imagery in scripture and asked my question as I suspect it supported what I posted but needed to be sure. I was unable to go further due to the evasion of the poster.

It's probably (but, I am not Nobsy, nor am I Jesus) not going to be possible to pin this down more because some words aren't that precise

Well then the poster in question should probably not have attempted to use the term (masculine qualities) in a debate. I think you know me well enough to know that you cannot and will never be able to subtly shift the term I asked about (masculine qualities) to another word that I did not ask about (pater).



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I think it's a little unfair to ask Nobsy to narrow down what Jesus meant because he isn't Jesus either.

Are you suggesting I asked Nobsy (nobspeople) about an expression Jesus used?

You ...demanded to know what [nobspeople] meant by masculine qualities. He didn't mean anything by it because he didn't say it.

Yes he (nobspeople) did

So this would tend to show God is masculine, having masculine qualities, not feminine or neutral....

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #82]

Not to forget that his tactic does come with the expression along the lines of "I only want to know what you mean by 'such and such' in order that I can agree or disagree with your argument" which is to imply that your argument is rendered "illogical", or somehow falsely based upon some "misunderstanding" of that which is being critiqued...

Are you suggesting that "agreeing or disagreeing with an argument" based on said argument being "illogical" or because of a evident misunderstanding of that which is being critiqued, has no place in debate? Would the above not be the very essence of debate, ie challenge (or agree) with that which can be shown to be inaccurate or illogical based on what bas been said?




JW

Not at all. The context of this thread clearly shows Christians are presenting a false image of The Creator in their artwork and religions which create and promote these false images are being untruthful.

Just as it is seen that those who deny that the bible has a clearly masculine.image.of The Creator and even refers to The Creator as "God " [also masculine as."Goddess" is the feminine] and they expect to see The Creator as a male being enthroned in whatever versions of the afterlife they each belive in ...to blantantly plead ignorance as to what "masculine" means in the thread context is not a great retort in a debate setting. Just as surely as the worship of false images of The Creator are regarded as blashphmy, even according to the script.

False imagrs such as the one exampled from the Jehovahs Witnesses catelog of art, used by me as evidence that indeed The Creater is presented in the masculine...and Christains are not so much denying this is the case as they are feigning ignorance as to what those critiquing the use of such imagery [written word and pictures] mean by "masculine" even remaining apparently ignorant after it has been clearly explained.
So either we are dealing with genuine ignorance or we are dealing with purposeful deception ... neither of which are acceptable strategies in a debate setting.