Him, Her, Them,?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an inanimate object have a gender? Like a boat for example. Boats and ships are she… why?

God is he because men wrote the Bible, men with biases….

Is it possible that two things are true?
A. God is indeed "he"
AND
B. Biased men wrote the Bible

It seems that one does not strictly refute the other. If God is genderless, what is your source for positing this?

God doesn't exist and men wrote the rules to the control society as the size of civilizations grew. When they wrote that God created men in his own image, they did this to retain control over women.

They were also also scared of women's reproductive powers and earth mother goddesses common in pagan religions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an inanimate object have a gender? Like a boat for example. Boats and ships are she… why?

God is he because men wrote the Bible, men with biases….

Is it possible that two things are true?
A. God is indeed "he"
AND
B. Biased men wrote the Bible

It seems that one does not strictly refute the other. If God is genderless, what is your source for positing this?

God doesn't exist and men wrote the rules to the control society as the size of civilizations grew. When they wrote that God created men in his own image, they did this to retain control over women.

They were also also scared of women's reproductive powers and earth mother goddesses common in pagan religions.

No. This is just bad history and wrong as a matter of fact. Abrahamic religions posit that both male and female are created in God's image.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The construct of "man" meaning "male only" is modern and anachronistic to read back on a passage like this. Hence modern translations will correctly say that "God created mankind in his own image". In either case (old or new translation), it is clear that "male and female" refers to two genders of "man/mankind" the species.

[Anonymous]

What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an inanimate object have a gender? Like a boat for example. Boats and ships are she… why?

God is he because men wrote the Bible, men with biases….

Is it possible that two things are true?
A. God is indeed "he"
AND
B. Biased men wrote the Bible

It seems that one does not strictly refute the other. If God is genderless, what is your source for positing this?

For Christianity:

The Father is male, at least in one specific sense, but arguably that's not really how we understand Mary's conception. The Son is male.

The Holy Spirit, what would gender even mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an inanimate object have a gender? Like a boat for example. Boats and ships are she… why?

God is he because men wrote the Bible, men with biases….

Is it possible that two things are true?
A. God is indeed "he"
AND
B. Biased men wrote the Bible

It seems that one does not strictly refute the other. If God is genderless, what is your source for positing this?

God doesn't exist and men wrote the rules to the control society as the size of civilizations grew. When they wrote that God created men in his own image, they did this to retain control over women.

They were also also scared of women's reproductive powers and earth mother goddesses common in pagan religions.

No. This is just bad history and wrong as a matter of fact. Abrahamic religions posit that both male and female are created in God's image.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The construct of "man" meaning "male only" is modern and anachronistic to read back on a passage like this. Hence modern translations will correctly say that "God created mankind in his own image". In either case (old or new translation), it is clear that "male and female" refers to two genders of "man/mankind" the species.

God using the same pronoun as men doesn't make God a male. The male pronoun was long used for a generic unspecified person.

Also "image" is not nearly so concrete or superficial. The idea that God would literally have a human body and a penis and lungs and toes is absurd. "His own image" is a spiritual concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

[Anonymous]

https://www.bible.com/bible/114/ISA.54.5-8.NKJV#:~:text=Isaiah%2054%3A5%2D8%20NKJV,refused%2C%E2%80%9D%20Says%20your%20God.

Hmm seems humanity is nonbinary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we use He, Him for God? Why assign gender if we see him as gender free?

Male (or masculine) is God’s revealed gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Who was the writer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

QED, I guess.
Stating the obvious is dull and unhelpful.