https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11722729/God-non-gendered-Church-England-services.html

Quote:

---

Breaking with centuries of tradition, bishops have announced they are launching a major 'project on gendered language' this spring.

It may suggest that priests can stop using the male pronouns 'He' and 'Him' when referring to God in some prayers, or even that they can drop the famous phrase 'our Father' from the start of the Lord's Prayer.

---

I'm not particularly religious anymore, but this is insane(yet, also somehow totally predictable). I can't do anything but laugh

Why is gendered language so problematic?

I mean, god isn't a man right?

amercer said:

---

I mean, god isn't a man right?

---

The world is way too illogical for that

If this guy was around some folks would be headless by now.



Bummer, my Henry VIII pic isn't coming through.

They need to stop calling them bishops and priests……. They are no longer that

rocky the dog said:

---

---

I still have my pope soap on a rope.

Church of Sardis

I see the Church of England is back to doing a solid job of driving people away.

Though I doubt they had the guts to make that move when Queen Elizabeth was still alive…she was a staunch believer.

When are they going to address the issue of Jesus being a man and referring to His Heavenly Father? Or are they going to come out with the Drag Queen's Version of the Bible to replace King James Version?

I was fine with Alanis Morisette being god. Why does this crap still being made an issue.

Singularly, God would be the thing where I could understand not assigning a gender.

I never particularly considered God to be of any gender/sex. God is an infinite, all encompassing, universal entity. Gender/sex is a necessary product of biology and the biological need to procreate. God is not a biological being, therefore… "I am that I am".

amercer said:

---

I mean, god isn't a man right?

---

Thanks for explaining your earlier comment. You are correct.

Rossticus said:

---

I never particularly considered God to be of any gender/sex. God is an infinite, all encompassing, universal entity. Gender/sex is a necessary product of biology and the biological need to procreate. God is not a biological being, therefore… "I am that I am".

---

So when Jesus, a biological human man, and also God, refers to the first person of the Trinity as our "Father", how do you reconcile that with your notion of universal entity?

I don't think we've evolved to the point where we're so enlightened that we can take God Himself to school on Christian metaphysics.

amercer said:

---

I mean, god isn't a man right?

---

Not the way we understand it, but Jesus repeatedly referred to his father in heaven, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unless the suggestion is Jesus didn't really know, this is essentially denying God's chosen gender identity.

Well they also want to claim nowadays that Jesus was actually a black gay transgendered migrant/refugee.

It's useless to try to argue/reason with people whose use of language is so thoroughly dishonest.

Don't worry everyone...the Holy Ghost is going to fix all of this!

dannyv said:

---

amercer said:

---

I mean, god isn't a man right?

---

Not the way we understand it, but Jesus repeatedly referred to his father in heaven, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unless the suggestion is Jesus didn't really know, this is essentially denying God's chosen gender identity.

---

I mean take it to the religion board, but to actually answer your question would require a study of grammatical gender in Aramaic. Also probably consideration should be given to the fact that Jesus tended to speak in symbolic language and parables to make concepts understandable to a 1st century audience of mostly illiterate sheep herders.

amercer said:

---

dannyv said:

---

amercer said:

---

I mean, god isn't a man right?

---

Not the way we understand it, but Jesus repeatedly referred to his father in heaven, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unless the suggestion is Jesus didn't really know, this is essentially denying God's chosen gender identity.

---

I mean take it to the religion board, but to actually answer your question would require a study of grammatical gender in Aramaic. Also probably consideration should be given to the fact that Jesus tended to speak in symbolic language and parables to make concepts understandable to a 1st century audience of mostly illiterate sheep herders.

---

My post was in response to yours, which appeared on the politics board. Aramaic has been studied thoroughly, which is how we know things like Jesus was using different versions of the word "love" when asking Peter three times if he (Peter) loved him (Jesus). My point is not to get into a theological discussion, but to point out that there is a lot of evidence that this change by the Church of England is stupid, and virtually no evidence that it isn't.

amercer said:

---

dannyv said:

---

amercer said:

---

I mean, god isn't a man right?

---

Not the way we understand it, but Jesus repeatedly referred to his father in heaven, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unless the suggestion is Jesus didn't really know, this is essentially denying God's chosen gender identity.

---

I mean take it to the religion board, but to actually answer your question would require a study of grammatical gender in Aramaic. Also probably consideration should be given to the fact that Jesus tended to speak in symbolic language and parables to make concepts understandable to a 1st century audience of mostly illiterate sheep herders.

---

It is beyond idiotic to suggest that God is not male. It is throughout the Bible beginning in Genesis. God didn't make Eve in his own image and create Adam from Eve to be Eve's help mate.

Either you believe the word or you do not. But is you don't, you are not a christian.

.

amercer said:

---

dannyv said:

---

amercer said:

---

I mean, god isn't a man right?

---

Not the way we understand it, but Jesus repeatedly referred to his father in heaven, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unless the suggestion is Jesus didn't really know, this is essentially denying God's chosen gender identity.

---

I mean take it to the religion board, but to actually answer your question would require a study of grammatical gender in Aramaic. Also probably consideration should be given to the fact that Jesus tended to speak in symbolic language and parables to make concepts understandable to a 1st century audience of mostly illiterate sheep herders.

---

Wait. Are you implying that such a study has never been done?

So basically, the Church of England is just becoming a branch of Universal Unitarians.

Based on logic, philosophy, and religious dogma all working in unison and individually,

God must be masculine in essence.

/Theology.

There is very little true reason that can say otherwise. Not shocking the Church of England goes against all of those disciplines and does what they perceive as being popular.

Not exactly how I would go about the argument and logic behind what I have said, but Dennis does OK here:


Quite simply--God, the Christian God, has his work dependent on going out and seeking and penetrating our minds, body, and souls which are lost without "taking God in" and letting the Holy Spirit fill our hearts.

This is totally incongruent with a feminine essence.

So is Jesus the daughter of her mother?

Bryanisbest said:

---

So is Jesus the daughter of her mother?

---

Don't ever watch Dark on Netflix if you don't want to go down the I'M My Own Grandpa rabbit hole.

For the God is a dude crowd… in the words of Hillary, what difference does it make?

That was my point. I can see of no differences or impacts on my relationship with God whether God be male or female. As such, why care if Church of England wants to make it gender neutral?

In fact, taking any sort of sexual consideration surrounding God seems to make things clearer.

fka ftc said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

So is Jesus the daughter of her mother?

---

Don't ever watch Dark on Netflix if you don't want to go down the I'M My Own Grandpa rabbit hole.

For the God is a dude crowd… in the words of Hillary, what difference does it make?

That was my point. I can see of no differences or impacts on my relationship with God whether God be male or female. As such, why care if Church of England wants to make it gender neutral?

In fact, taking any sort of sexual consideration surrounding God seems to make things clearer.

---

Because only a fool would follow a religion where they believed that the book is not the inerrant word when the book claims exactly that.

I would have more respect for those that just admit that they just believe in "their" god rather than trying to morph him into their own world views.

The Church of England has always been heretical from its very founding. It was created so that a murderous king could justify a divorce. The Episcopal church is its heretical offspring that is now being used to justify other unrepentant sin like sodomy. Neither is or has ever been a legitimate Christian church.

Houston Lee said:

---

Honest question. On earth we have male and female for us to procreate and continue the species. When you go to heaven are there males and females? Is there procreation going on in heaven? If there is, what is being procreated? If not, then there is no need for male and female. Right?

---

Christ actually addresses this topic:

Quote:

---

23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, "Teacher, Moses said, u'If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.' 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her."

29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 z'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. Matthew 22:23-33

---

It's pretty clear that after our resurrection, we'll have no need of the marriage institution(since we won't need to procreate).

The motto of both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church should be "adulterating Gods word to suit the desires of man".

fka ftc said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

So is Jesus the daughter of her mother?

---

Don't ever watch Dark on Netflix if you don't want to go down the I'M My Own Grandpa rabbit hole.

For the God is a dude crowd… in the words of Hillary, what difference does it make?

That was my point. I can see of no differences or impacts on my relationship with God whether God be male or female. As such, why care if Church of England wants to make it gender neutral?

In fact, taking any sort of sexual consideration surrounding God seems to make things clearer.

---

Because we care about what is Biblical, as should you if you're Christian.

Tom_Fox said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

So is Jesus the daughter of her mother?

---

Don't ever watch Dark on Netflix if you don't want to go down the I'M My Own Grandpa rabbit hole.

For the God is a dude crowd… in the words of Hillary, what difference does it make?

That was my point. I can see of no differences or impacts on my relationship with God whether God be male or female. As such, why care if Church of England wants to make it gender neutral?

In fact, taking any sort of sexual consideration surrounding God seems to make things clearer.

---

Because only a fool would follow a religion where they believed that the book is not the inerrant word when the book claims exactly that.

I would have more respect for those that just admit that they just believe in "their" god rather than trying to morph him into their own world views.

---

You are talking about that book as if it was written by God himself and has been unchanged in content since the beginning of time. Me thinks you may not be very familiar with the history of the modern day Bible. Instead, you take a jab at me as if I am not Christian if I do not take the Bible at its literal word and voice my support that God has a weenus. Bizarre sect you must follow.

A debate on the literal meaning of stories in the Bible is NOT a political discussion. Agree that should be on the R&P board and I am happy to provide lots of history and context on how we arrived at the modern day Bible.

redcrayon said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

So is Jesus the daughter of her mother?

---

Don't ever watch Dark on Netflix if you don't want to go down the I'M My Own Grandpa rabbit hole.

For the God is a dude crowd… in the words of Hillary, what difference does it make?

That was my point. I can see of no differences or impacts on my relationship with God whether God be male or female. As such, why care if Church of England wants to make it gender neutral?

In fact, taking any sort of sexual consideration surrounding God seems to make things clearer.

---

Because we care about what is Biblical, as should you if you're Christian.

---

Didn't realize I had the FBC of TexAgs Tuesday prayer group on the politics board.

It's sort of not Christian to say others are not Christian because they have questions or different views on how the Bible has been assimilated, redacted, corrected, translated, disassembled, reassembled over a couple of thousand years by folks ranging from tribes around the read see to a bunch of white dudes under the directions of King James.