Church of England and a "Gender-Neutral God"

smac97 · February 8, 2023

Quote

For decades, the gender of God has prompted debate within the Church, with many calling for male pronouns He and Him, as well as reference to Our Father, to be scrapped in favour of either gender neutral or female alternatives.

I could see how Genesis 1:27 might create some measure of confusion: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

There are some biblical descriptions of God using "female" imagery or comparative allusions:

Deuteronomy 32:11–12, 18 - "As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. ... Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee."
Isaiah 42:14 - "I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman..."
Isaiah 49:14-15 - "But Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee."
Isaiah 66:13 - "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem."
Hosea 13:8 - "I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them."
Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 - "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"

All of these seem to be "feminine" metaphors. There are, of course, "masculine" metaphors as well. See, e.g., Psalm 103:13 ("Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him."), Proverbs 3:12 ("For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth."), Luke 15:18 ("I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee."),

I am not aware of any "feminine" pronouns in the Bible as referencing God. There are also some extensive references to God as "male" in the Bible. See, for example, 2 Samuel 7 (and 1 Chron. 17:13) :

Quote

4 ¶ And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying,
...

12 ¶ And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.|
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son.

Also see:

2 Kings 2:12 - "And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof..."
Matthew 23:9 - "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
Matthew 26:39, 42 - "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. ... He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.").
Matthew 27:46 (and Mark 15:34) - "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ("Eli" being a masculine noun).
Luke 23:34, 46 - "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. ... And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.")
John 5:19 - "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
Hebrews 1:1-3 - "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person...").
Hebrews 1:5 - "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
Hebrews 12:9 - "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

And many, many more.

However, the grammatical gender setting seems to be a bit mixed. From Wikipedia:

Quote

The first words of the Old Testament are B'reshit bara Elohim—"In the beginning God created."^[1] The verb bara (created) agrees with a masculine singular subject.^{[citation needed]} Elohim is used to refer to both genders and is plural; it has been used to refer to both Goddess (in 1 Kings 11:33), and God (1 Kings 11:31;^[2]). The masculine gender in Hebrew can be used for objects with no inherent gender, as well as objects with masculine natural gender, and so it is widely used, attributing the masculine gender to most things.^{[citation needed]} However, the noun used for the Spirit of God in Genesis—"Ruach"—is distinctly feminine, as is the verb used to describe the Spirit's activity during creation—"rachaph"—translated as "fluttereth". This verb is used only one other place in the Bible (Deuteronomy 32:11) where it describes the action of a mother eagle towards her nest. The consistent use of feminine nouns and verbs to refer to the Spirit of God in the Torah, as well as the rest of the Jewish Scriptures, indicates that at least this aspect of Elohim was consistently perceived as feminine.^[3] Genesis 1:26-27 says that humans were made male and female in the image of elohim.^[4]^[5]

Two of the most common phrases in the Tanakh are vayomer Elohim and vayomer YHWH—"and God said". Again, the verb vayomer (he said) is masculine; it is never vatomer, the feminine of the same verb form. The personal name of God, YHWH, is presented in Exodus 3 as if the Y (Hebrew yod) is the masculine subjective prefix to the verb to be.^{[citation needed]}

In Psalm 89:26 God is referred to as Father. "He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation."^[6]

In the book of Isaiah, the prophet himself brings up feminine imagery for God, comparing God to a woman in labor in multiple verses throughout the book.^[7] The book also refers to God as a nursing mother.^[8]

And apparently our Catholic friends have, since 1992, held the following position:

Quote

239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

Interesting stuff. I was not previously aware of this. Anyway, back to the article:

Quote

Now, in what would mark a departure from centuries of tradition, bishops are to launch a project “on gendered language” referencing God in church services later this year.

The move has been criticised by conservatives, who have warned that “male and female imagery is not interchangeable”. However, liberal Christians have welcomed it, claiming that “a theological misreading of God as exclusively male is a driver of much continuing discrimination and sexism against women”.

Details of the plans emerged in a written question to the Liturgical Commission, which prepares and promotes forms of service and religious worship in the Church, at General Synod, the Church’s lawmaking body, which is sitting this week.

Any permanent changes or rewriting of scriptures with gendered language would have to be agreed by a future meeting of Synod.

Hmm. I don't see this ending well for our Anglican friends. It will alienate traditionalists and old-timers, and probably have little to no effect on the intended target: the younger - and ever-more-secularized-and-indifferent - set.

Quote

‘God is not sexed, unlike humanity’

However, the Rev Ian Paul, a member of the General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, warned against any departure from the original scriptures, saying: “The use of male pronouns for God should not be understood as implying that God is male – which is a heresy. God is not sexed, unlike humanity.

“The Bible uses feminine imagery and metaphors of God, but primarily identifies God using masculine pronouns, names, and imagery. Male and female imagery is not interchangeable.

“The fact that God is called ‘Father’ can’t be substituted by ‘Mother’ without changing meaning, nor can it be gender-neutralised to ‘Parent’ without loss of meaning. Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but relate to their offspring in different ways.

“If the Liturgical Commission seeks to change this, then in an important way they will be moving the doctrine of the Church away from being grounded in the Scriptures.”

This is an interesting perspective.

Latter-day Saints appear to avoid these issues by teaching that "all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother," and also that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

MiserereNobis · February 8, 2023

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Latter-day Saints appear to avoid these issues by teaching that "all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother," and also that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

And also that LDS teach that God the Father is literally a father, where for Catholics that is a metaphor used to describe that which is very difficult to describe.

smac97 · February 8, 2023

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

Latter-day Saints appear to avoid these issues by teaching that "all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother," and also that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

And also that LDS teach that God the Father is literally a father, where for Catholics that is a metaphor used to describe that which is very difficult to describe.

Yes, that is so. Could you summarize what Catholics generally believe about Psalms 82:6 ("Ye are gods, children of the most High"), Acts 17:29 ("We are the offspring of God") and Hebrews 12:9 ("Be in subjection unto the Father of spirits")? These are only "metaphorical" in Catholic thought?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Nehor · February 8, 2023

I was just informed by someone that all demons are transgendered. So what pronouns do we use for Lucifer?

Pyreaux · February 8, 2023

Dr. Margaret Barker, was awarded a Doctorate of Divinity by the archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop and a principal leader of the Church of England. She thinks the feminine metaphors of Yahweh are whitewashed to conceal a divine feminine figure that was once there.

Also, since there are both beings that are consistently only ever male and others constantly only ever female. El Elyon and his son Yahweh are always Lords, Kings, Fathers, etc is contrasted by the Ruah Kodesh, that is always a female, a Mother. Strongly suggests genders do apply to spiritual beings in some fashion. It's almost exactly like the El and Asherah in Canaanite religion which is more continuous with Israelite religion than once thought, who like human genders together conceive Ba'al and the seventy sons of God, the Lord-gods of the nations (including Yahweh, the God of Israel). Not commenting on the biophysics of spiritual conception, only the aspect of how the need of both a father and mother in the process tells me spiritual gender goes beyond pronouns. Without spiritual gender, spirit children seem possibly...

Image result for inconceivable

Edited February 8, 2023 by Pyreaux

CV75 · February 8, 2023

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I could see how Genesis 1:27 might create some measure of confusion: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

There are some biblical descriptions of God using "female" imagery or comparative allusions:

Deuteronomy 32:11–12, 18 - "As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. ... Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee."

Isaiah 42:14 - "I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman..."

Isaiah 49:14-15 - "But Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee."

Isaiah 66:13 - "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem."

Hosea 13:8 - "I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them."

Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 - "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"

All of these seem to be "feminine" metaphors. There are, of course, "masculine" metaphors as well. See, e.g., Psalm 103:13 ("Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him."), Proverbs 3:12 ("For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth."), Luke 15:18 ("I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee."),

I am not aware of any "feminine" pronouns in the Bible as referencing God. There are also some extensive references to God as "male" in the Bible. See, for example, 2 Samuel 7 (and 1 Chron. 17:13) :

Also see:

2 Kings 2:12 - "And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof..."

Matthew 23:9 - "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Matthew 26:39, 42 - "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. ... He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.").

Matthew 27:46 (and Mark 15:34) - "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ("Eli" being a masculine noun).

Luke 23:34, 46 - "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. ... And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.")

John 5:19 - "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

Hebrews 1:1-3 - "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person...").

Hebrews 1:5 - "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

Hebrews 12:9 - "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

And many, many more.

However, the grammatical gender setting seems to be a bit mixed. From Wikipedia:

And apparently our Catholic friends have, since 1992, held the following position:

Interesting stuff. I was not previously aware of this. Anyway, back to the article:

Hmm. I don't see this ending well for our Anglican friends. It will alienate traditionalists and old-timers, and probably have little to no effect on the intended target: the younger - and ever-more-secularized-and-indifferent - set.

This is an interesting perspective.

Latter-day Saints appear to avoid these issues by teaching that "all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother," and also that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

If we're talking about God the Godhead or Elohim (in the literal plural and not the singular name sense), I guess it's OK to use "Them/They/Their".

Saint Bonaventure · April 16, 2023

On 2/8/2023 at 3:52 PM, smac97 said:

Yes, that is so. Could you summarize what Catholics generally believe about Psalms 82:6 ("Ye are gods, children of the most High"),

Here are some quotes that will give the flavor of Catholic interpretation:

The Navarre Bible on Psalm 82:6:

Quote

82:2–7. Here God delivers his sentence on the “gods”, the “sons of the Most High” (v. 6). Maybe the background to this passage is the kings of the nations bordering Israel, who saw themselves as gods and who governed unjustly, or maybe it refers to the gods that these people worshipped. The text itself seems to refer to the leaders of Israel (kings or judges) who abuse their power (cf. 1 Sam 8:3; Ezek 34:4, 21) to the detriment of the poor (cf. Is 1:16–17), even those that owe their office to God: in that sense they are called “gods, sons of the Most High” (v. 6; cf. Ps 58:1), and their behaviour undermines the order willed by God (v. 5). God issues his judgment against these “gods”. By failing to acknowledge him as the only Judge, their injustice rocks the order established by God himself when he created the world (v. 5, which may be a comment by the psalmist on the oracle). God’s sentence reduces them to their proper level: they will die as all men do (v. 7). God is the only true Judge and King. Jesus quoted the words of v. 6, “I said, you are gods”, against Jews who called him a blasphemer because he said he was the “Son of God” (Jn 10:34–36). Like the Jews of his time, Jesus could call the leaders of the people, those to whom the word of God was given, “gods” because God had given them the special talent and wisdom to guide the people. Since they did not guide with justice and truth (cf. Jn 10:12), and “scripture cannot be broken” (Jn 10:35), Jesus, who was sanctified and sent into the world by the Father to lead the people to salvation, can truly be called the Son of God. This bears out the words of the psalm.

From St. Robert Bellarmine’s Commentary on the Psalms:

Quote

6 Having hitherto censured those judges for their respect of persons, their injustice, and their ignorance, he now shows how derogatory such vices are to the high position in which God had placed them. “I have said;” I have asserted, that you judges and princes “are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High.” He calls them the sons of the Most High; either, because they were nearly equal to the Angels who, in Job, are called “sons of God;” or to show that these judges were not gods, strictly speaking, as is the true supreme God, who has neither beginning nor end; but that they may be called gods, inasmuch as they are sons of God, of the one true God; and made, to a certain extent, gods by him when he gave them a share in his authority, and power of sitting in judgment. In the Gospel of St. John, our Lord, in quoting this passage, says, that they are called gods, because “the word of God was spoken to them.” Then said he, “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken; Do you say of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” The meaning of the expression, “To whom the word of God was spoken,” is the being appointed to, or entrusted with, some particular duty by God. Thus, “The word of God came to the prophets whom he sent to preach;” and in Luke 3, “The word of the Lord came to John.” Hence, we see the force of Christ’s argument. If those whom God entrusted with any particular duty or mission were called gods, how much a better title thereto have I not, who am the Son of God, sent with all power into the world by my heavenly Father? We are not, however, to infer from this passage that all princes and judges have their power immediately from God. Some have, such as Moses in the Old, and Peter in the New Testament. Others have it through the consent of the people, who give up the power of the natural law conferred on them, which power had its origin in God, “For there is no power but from God,” Rom. 13.

7 I have told you what you were through God’s mercy. I will now tell you what you are through your own perversity. Through God’s mercy you were gods, and like Angels; but, from the sin you inherit from your first parent, “like men you shall die;” and, from your own wickedness in abusing the power committed to you, “you shall fall” from the highest pinnacle of glory to the lowest pit of hell, “like one of the princes,” the fallen angels.

8 The prophet concludes by asking God’s assistance against the injustice of the princes and judges of this world, and prays that he who is the real master and owner of this world may correct the judgments of man, may punish unjust judges, and relieve the oppressed poor according to his own power and wisdom; the prayer being a prophetic one, in which he predicts the coming of the Messias, who, as he will come in for the inheritance of the world, will also see that justice be fairly administered therein, through his princes and judges, and afterwards by himself on the day of judgment. “Arise, O God, judge the earth;” since the judges so abuse their authority, you, that are the supreme Judge, arise and “judge the earth,” including the judges themselves, and deliver the suffering poor from their unjust oppressors; “for thou shalt inherit among all the nations;” because all nations, as they ever did, so they ever will belong to you; because you never placed any one in power here below without reserving the supreme authority to yourself above.^{^[1]}

St. Ambrose cites Psalm 82:6/John 10:34 to refute the Arians:

Quote

117. Thus let the followers of Arius and Photinus speak. “I deny Thy Godhead.” To whom the Lord will make answer: “ ‘The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God’ Of whom, think you, is this said?—of Jew or Gentile, or of the devil. Whosoever he be of whom it is said, O disciple of Photinus, he is more to be borne with, who held his peace;³ thou, nevertheless, hast dared to lift up thy voice to utter it, that thou mightest be proved more foolish than the fool. Thou deniest My Godhead, whereas I said, ‘Ye are gods, and ye are all the children of the Most Highest?’ And thou deniest Him to be God, Whose godlike works thou seest around thee.”^{^[2]}

The Navarre Bible on John 10:34:

Quote

10:34–36. On a number of occasions the Gospel has shown our Lord replying to the Jews’ objections. Here he patiently uses a form of argument which they regard as decisive—the authority of Holy Scripture. He quotes Psalm 82 in which God upbraids certain judges for acting unjustly despite his reminding them that “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you” (Ps 82:6). If this psalm calls the sons of Israel gods and sons of God, with how much more reason should he be called God who has been sanctified and sent by God? Christ’s human nature, on being assumed by the Word, is sanctified completely and comes to the world to sanctify men. “The Fathers of the Church constantly proclaim that what was not assumed by Christ was not healed. Now Christ took a complete human nature just as it is found in us poor unfortunates, but one that was without sin, for Christ said of himself that he was the one ‘whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world’ ” (Vatican II, Ad gentes, 3).

By using Sacred Scripture (cf. Mt 4:4, 7, 10; Lk 4:1) Jesus teaches us that Scripture comes from God. Therefore, the Church believes and affirms that “those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Holy Mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles, holds that the books of both the Old and New Testament in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19–21) they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church. […] Therefore, since everything is asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 11).^{^[3]}

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on John 10:34:

Quote

Sometimes this expression refers to the OT in general and not just to the Pentateuch (12:34; 15:25; 1 Cor 14:34). I said, you are gods: A citation from Ps 82:6. ● The psalm is a prayer for Yahweh to punish the corrupt shepherds of Israel. These leaders, who are charged with teaching and enforcing divine Law, are called “gods” by the Psalmist because of the divine authority they wield over the people. The abuse of this power makes their corruption all the more insidious. Jesus reasons that if sinful authorities are given a divine title because of their duties, how much more is he entitled to it who is guiltless and who speaks the words of God (8:45–47).^{^[4]}

^{^[1]} Robert Bellarmine, A Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. John O’Sullivan (Dublin, London: James Duffy & Co., 1866), 393–394.

^{^[2]} Ambrose of Milan, “Exposition of the Christian Faith,” in St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin, and H. T. F. Duckworth, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 239.

^{^[3]} Saint John’s Gospel, The Navarre Bible (Dublin; New York: Four Courts Press; Scepter Publishers, 2005), 123–125.

^{^[4]} Curtis Mitch, “Introduction to the Gospels,” in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 182.

On 2/8/2023 at 3:52 PM, smac97 said:

Acts 17:29 ("We are the offspring of God")

The Navarre Bible on Acts 17:29:

Quote

If men are God’s offspring, and are in some way like him, clearly an inanimate representation cannot contain the living God. Men have God’s spirit and therefore they should recognize that God is spiritual. However, material representations of God do serve a useful purpose, due to the fact that human knowledge begins from sense experience. Visual images help us to realize that God is present and they help us to adore him. Veneration of images—as encouraged by the Church—is, therefore, quite different from idolatry: an idolator thinks that God dwells in the idol, that he acts only through the idol, and in some cases he actually thinks that the idol is God.^{^[1]}

The Little Rock Catholic Study Bible on Acts 17:22-31

Quote

17:22–31 In Paul’s appearance at the Areopagus he preaches his climactic speech to Gentiles in the cultural center of the ancient world. The speech is more theological than christological. Paul’s discourse appeals to the Greek world’s belief in divinity as responsible for the origin and existence of the universe. It contests the common belief in a multiplicity of gods supposedly exerting their powers through their images. It acknowledges that the attempt to find God is a constant human endeavor. It declares, further, that God is the judge of the human race, that the time of the judgment has been determined, and that it will be executed through a man whom God raised from the dead. The speech reflects sympathy with pagan religiosity, handles the subject of idol worship gently, and appeals for a new examination of divinity, not from the standpoint of creation but from the standpoint of judgment.

17:23 ‘To an Unknown God’: ancient authors such as Pausa-nias, Philostratus, and Tertullian speak of Athenian altars with no specific dedication as altars of “unknown gods” or “nameless altars.”

The Acropolis in Athens

17:26 From one: many manuscripts read “from one blood.” Fixed … seasons: or “fixed limits to the epochs.”

Ruins of ancient Corinth

17:28 ‘In him we live and move and have our being’: some scholars understand this saying to be based on an earlier saying of Epimenides of Knossos (6th century b.c.). ‘For we too are his offspring’: here Paul is quoting Aratus of Soli, a third-century b.c. poet from Cilicia.^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Catherine Upchurch, Irene Nowell, and Ronald D. Witherup, eds., Little Rock Catholic Study Bible, Revised Edition. (Little Rock, AR: Little Rock Scripture Study, 2011), 2268–2269.

^{^[1]} The Acts of the Apostles, The Navarre Bible (Dublin; New York: Four Courts Press; Scepter Publishers, 2005), 139.

On 2/8/2023 at 3:52 PM, smac97 said:

and Hebrews 12:9 ("Be in subjection unto the Father of spirits")? These are only "metaphorical" in Catholic thought?

-Smac

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on Hebrews 12:9:

Quote

12:9 earthly fathers: Literally, “fathers of our flesh”, which sets up a contrast with God as the Father of spirits.^{^[1]}

From a Homily of St. John Chrysostom on Hebrews 12:

Quote

Ver. 9. “Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence.” Again, [he reasons] from their own experiences, from what they themselves suffered. For as he says above, “Call to mind the former days” (c. 10:32), so here also, “God” (he saith) “dealeth with you as with sons,” and ye could not say, We cannot bear it: yea, “as with sons” tenderly beloved. For if they reverence their “fathers of the flesh,” how shall not you reverence your heavenly Father?

However the difference arises not from this alone, nor from the persons, but also from the cause itself, and from the fact. For it is not on the same grounds that He and they inflict chastisement: but they [did it] with a view to “what seemed good to them,” that is, fulfilling [their own] pleasure oftentimes, and not always looking to what was expedient. But here, that cannot be said. For He does this not for any interest of His own but for you, and for your benefit alone. They [did it] that ye might be useful to themselves also, oftentimes without reason; but here there is nothing of this kind. Seest thou that this also brings consolation? For we are most closely attached to those [earthly parents], when we see that not for any interests of their own they either command or advise us: but their earnestness is, wholly and solely, on our account. For this is genuine love, and love in reality, when we are beloved though we be of no use to him who loves us,—not that he may receive, but that he may impart. He chastens, He does everything, He uses all diligence, that we may become capable of receiving His benefits. (Ver. 10.) “For they verily” (he says) “for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure, but He for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness.”

What is “of his holiness”? It is, of His purity, so as to become worthy of Him, according to our power. He earnestly desires that ye may receive, and He does all that He may give you: do ye not earnestly endeavor that ye may receive? “I said unto the Lord” (one says) “Thou art my Lord, for of my good things Thou hast no need.” (Ps. 16:2.)

“Furthermore,” he saith, “we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live?” (“To the Father of spirits,” whether of spiritual gifts, or of prayers, or of the incorporeal powers.) If we die thus, then “we shall live. For they indeed for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure,” for what seems [so] is not always profitable, but “He for our profit.”

[4.] Therefore chastisement is “profitable”; therefore chastisement is a “participation of holiness.” Yea and this greatly: for when it casts out sloth, and evil desire, and love of the things of this life, when it helps the soul, when it causes a light esteem of all things here (for affliction [does] this), is it not holy? Does it not draw down the grace of the Spirit?^{^[2]}

I missed this thread entirely when it was new. I apologize for a tardy reply and look forward to an interesting conversation.

^{^[1]} The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 434.

^{^[2]} John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. T. Keble and Frederic Gardiner, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 500–502.

Kenngo1969 · April 16, 2023

:unknw: "Our Entity, Who Art in Heaven ..."??? :unknw:

Bernard Gui · April 18, 2023

On 4/16/2023 at 5:40 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

"Our Entity, Who Art in Heaven ..."???

Quote

Dwarfs were not a naturally religious species, but in a world where pit props could crack without warning and pockets of fire damp could suddenly explode they'd seen the need for gods as the sort of supernatural equivalent of a hard hat. Besides, when you hit your thumb with an eight-pound hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a very special and strong-minded kind of atheist to jump up and down with their hand clasped under their other armpit and shout, "Oh, random-fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!" or "Aaargh, primitive-and-outmoded-concept on a crutch!

Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay.

MustardSeed · April 18, 2023

Truth is reason

Truth eternal

Tells me I’ve a mother there

mfbukowski · April 18, 2023

On 4/16/2023 at 2:40 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

"Our Entity, Who Art in Heaven ..."???

Or "Being" ?

Yes, we all "be" so which one did you have in mind? 😉

pogi · April 18, 2023

On 2/8/2023 at 12:17 PM, smac97 said:

Latter-day Saints appear to avoid these issues by teaching that "all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother," and also that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Yes and no. The issue expressed is that it is a "driver of much continuing sexism and discrimination against women". That issue and complaint has not disappeared in out theology. While we believe in heavenly parents, we don't refer to heavenly mother as our "God". We don't officially acknowledge her as part of the Godhead (Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, Holly Ghost). We are discouraged from having any communion with Her. We have zero understanding of her role in creation, rearing/nurturing, relation with her children, or active participation in our spiritual well-being. She is merely a suppressed idea that we have no relational experience with. Some Latter-day Saints, therefore argue that the same issues of sexism and discrimination exist in our church with the suppression of women (even our own Mother).

The eternal nature of gender also creates other complications and unanswerable questions about intersex individuals.

Edited April 18, 2023 by pogi

smac97 · April 18, 2023

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

Latter-day Saints appear to avoid these issues by teaching that "all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother," and also that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Yes and no. The issue expressed is that it is a "driver of much continuing sexism and discrimination against women".

An issue I find eminently debatable, and far from established.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

That issue and complaint has not disappeared in out theology.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

While we believe in heavenly parents, we don't refer to heavenly mother as our "God".

That seems to be a fairly distinct issue from "continuing sexism and discrimination against women." And I also don't think it is correct. See, e.g., the "Heavenly Mother" article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the idea found in some religions that the spirits or souls of individual human beings are created ex nihilo. Rather it accepts literally the vital scriptural teaching as worded by Paul: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." This and other scriptures underscore not only spiritual sibling relationships but heirship with God, and a destiny of joint heirship with Christ (Rom. 8:16-18; cf. Mal. 2:10).

Latter-day Saints believe that all the people of earth who lived or will live are actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father (Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9). In this perspective, parenthood requires both father and mother, whether for the creation of spirits in the premortal life or of physical tabernacles on earth. A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness.

Elohim, the name-title for God, suggests the plural of the Caananite El or the Hebrew Eloah. It is used in various Hebrew combinations to describe the highest God. It is the majestic title of the ultimate deity. Genesis 1:27reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them" (emphasis added), which may be read to mean that "God" is plural.
...
Belief that there is a Mother in Heaven who is a partner with God in creation and procreation is not the same as the heavy emphasis on Mariology in the Roman tradition.

From the Proclamation:

Quote

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.

From Elder Renlund's 2022 remarks:

Quote

The second truth is that we have heavenly parents, a father and a mother. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother comes by revelation and is a distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints. President Dallin H. Oaks explained the importance of this truth: “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”

Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application. Once you have read what is there, you will know everything that I know about the subject. I wish I knew more. You too may still have questions and want to find more answers. Seeking greater understanding is an important part of our spiritual development, but please be cautious. Reason cannot replace revelation.

Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed. For example, the Savior taught His disciples, “Always pray unto the Father in my name.” We follow this pattern and direct our worship to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ and do not pray to Heavenly Mother.

You seem to be implicitly claiming that the Church's instruction to "not pray to Heavenly Mother" is evidence of "continuing sexism and discrimination against women." I see no particular evidentiary or logical connection between these two concepts.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

We don't officially acknowledge her as part of the Godhead (Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, Holly Ghost).

This also seems to be a fairly distinct issue from "continuing sexism and discrimination against women."

4 hours ago, pogi said:

We are discouraged from having any communion with Her.

Again, a distinct issue.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

We have zero understanding of her role in creation, rearing/nurturing, relation with her children, or active participation in our spiritual well-being.

This seems to fundamentally undermine your implied argument. If we as a church are governed by revelation, and if no revelation (or insufficient amounts of revelation) has been given to us by God, and if we have been given instruction on this issue by living prophets and apostles, and if following prophetic counsel is an intrinsic part or our system of beliefs, then this set of circumstances is the far better explanation for our limited interaction/communion with Her.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

She is merely a suppressed idea that we have no relational experience with.

"Suppressed" by whom, do you think?

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Some Latter-day Saints, therefore argue that the same issues of sexism and discrimination exist in our church with the suppression of women (even our own Mother).

Latter-day Saints can "argue" whatever they like, but the evidence for this is essentially nonexistent, and the reasoning is weak, tendentious, and accusatory (and hence not particularly compatible with Latter-day Saint belief in relation to prophets and apostles).

4 hours ago, pogi said:

The eternal nature of gender also creates other complications and unanswerable questions about intersex individuals.

I don't think so. See, for example, Intersex: What It Is And Is Not:

Quote

Intro to Intersex
Intersex is a colloquialism for what is more formally titled Disorders of Sex Development (DSD). Per psychiatrist Karl Benzio in an article published in Today’s Christian Doctor in 2015: “Intersex – People who have anatomy that is not considered typically male or female or have anatomy not matching their genetic sex of XX or XY. Most come to medical attention because healthcare professionals or parents notice something unusual about their bodies or puberty or fertility isn’t normal, but some are not known until death/autopsy.”

The term intersex leans to the ideological, and clarity is needed here. A DSD consistently means a definable, objective underlying medical problem. We should not conflate a condition with an identity. California’s 2019 Assembly Bill 201 makes precisely that type of error in section 2295(a)(2): “Intersex people are a part of the fabric of our state’s diversity to be celebrated, rather than an aberration to be corrected.” That is both a straw argument and misdirection because a medical condition is something one has, not who one is. Celebrate the person, yes, and recognize that person’s disorder of sex development, which may or may not need correcting.

"Intersex is a colloquialism..."

"The term intersex leans to the ideological..."

"{Intersex is} a medical condition is something one has, not who one is."

Quote

Intersex, Round Two
The nomenclature “intersex” acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not “extrasex,” therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex. Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one.

"{Intersex is} not a third sex."

"Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one."

These clinical statements were, until very recently, quite unremarkable.

Quote

Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright rejects the “sex is a spectrum” mantra with clear reasoning: “a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time.” Dr. Wright continues, “any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.”

Intersex/DSD is Not Gender Dysphoria or Trans-identification
Intersex is not a subjective ideation. There is always an objective underlying medical origin. The DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria criteria states: “Specify if: With a disorder of sex development (e.g., a congenital adrenogenital disorder such as 255.2 [E25.0] congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 259.50 [E34.50] androgen insensitivity syndrome).” Intersex is what they mean, and it is different than gender dysphoria.

Intersex/DSD is Rare
Wildly inflated claims of the prevalence of DSD are common, but untrue. Dr. Leonard Sax exposed the source of some of this in his article, “How common is intersex.” Dr. Sax writes that Anne Fausto-Sterling asserted in her 2000 book Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality that intersex totaled 1.7 percent of human births. However, Sax shows that she included in her calculations common conditions having nothing to do with DSD. Dr. Sax notes that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are the most common DSDs, which is in keeping with the previously stated DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria specification. Dr. Sax concludes that DSD/Intersex, “far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than two out of every 10,000 births.”

Similarly, a 1992 Danish study found their rate of “testicular feminization syndrome” to be 1:20,400. A 2001 Dutch study stated their rate of androgen insensitivity syndrome “with molecular proof of the diagnosis is 1:99,000.”

And a 2016 Danish study examining all their known 46XY karyotype females (androgen insensitivity syndrome) born since 1960 found the prevalence at 6.4 per 100,000 live born females. Intersex/DSD is rare.

Conclusion
A disorder of sex development/intersex uniformly signifies the presence of a definable, objective underlying medical problem. Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex. DSD/intersex represent rare conditions requiring highly individualized therapeutic approaches and timelines, not a blanket one-size-fits-all prescription.

"Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex."

The scriptures are pretty darn clear on there being man and woman, that's it. No third sex. So modern notions about a third sex, about intersex, etc., can be safely set aside as not pertinent to our eternal disposition.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2023 by smac97

The Nehor · April 19, 2023

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so. See, for example, Intersex: What It Is And Is Not:

"Intersex is a colloquialism..."

"The term intersex leans to the ideological..."

"{Intersex is} a medical condition is something one has, not who one is."

"{Intersex is} not a third sex."

"Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one."

These clinical statements were, until very recently, quite unremarkable.

"Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex."

The scriptures are pretty darn clear on their being man and woman, that's it. No third sex. So modern notions about a third sex, about intersex, etc., can be safely set aside as not pertinent to our eternal disposition.

What a horrifically badly written article by the “Christian Medical and Dental Association”. You seem to be suggesting that the conclusions of this article are mainstream. They are not. I suspect you know that too.

Claiming a medical condition cannot have an impact on who someone is as if that is a meaningful distinction is silly.

Endlessly insisting there is no “third sex” is neither helpful or meaningful. People born with intersex conditions sometimes don’t fit into your neatly ordered two sexes. So where do they fit? Do you think insisting there is no “third sex” somehow helps clarify anything for them? The scriptures might be clear on men and women being the only people mentioned but what does that mean to someone whose sex is ambiguous? Historically it has led to things like infanticide and discrimination. Gee thanks, Christianity, you are a big help here.

Nofear · April 19, 2023

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What a horrifically badly written article by the “Christian Medical and Dental Association”. You seem to be suggesting that the conclusions of this article are mainstream. They are not. I suspect you know that too.

Claiming a medical condition cannot have an impact on who someone is as if that is a meaningful distinction is silly.

Endlessly insisting there is no “third sex” is neither helpful or meaningful. People born with intersex conditions sometimes don’t fit into your neatly ordered two sexes. So where do they fit? Do you think insisting there is no “third sex” somehow helps clarify anything for them? The scriptures might be clear on men and women being the only people mentioned but what does that mean to someone whose sex is ambiguous? Historically it has led to things like infanticide and discrimination. Gee thanks, Christianity, you are a big help here.

Mainstream or not, there is at least one atheist biologist of some "renown" who agree with the position.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/two-sexes-biologist-jk-rowling-comments

Edited April 19, 2023 by Nofear

smac97 · April 19, 2023

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What a horrifically badly written article by the “Christian Medical and Dental Association”.

You essentially never have anything substantive to say. Just conclusory remarks, taunts, and risible stuff.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You seem to be suggesting that the conclusions of this article are mainstream.

I am suggesting that the statements in this article are substantively correct.

Ascertaining truth is not a popularity contest.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are not. I suspect you know that too.

Again, you pretty much never have anything substantive to day.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Claiming a medical condition cannot have an impact on who someone is as if that is a meaningful distinction is silly.

That is not a remotely accurate summary of the article.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Endlessly insisting there is no “third sex” is neither helpful or meaningful.

I think clarifying that there is no "third sex" is very helpful and meaningful. There are all sorts of logical fallacies in play on this topic. Equivocation. Argument by Assertion. Ad Hominem. Appeal to Ridicule. Special Pleading. Appeal to Emotion.

I think people like you cannot advance this or that iteration of this or that trans ideology without almost immediately resorting to these and other fallacious arguments. This is, I think, why you never get into substance. It relieves you of any obligation to present and defend a cogent argument with evidence, reasoning, etc.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

People born with intersex conditions sometimes don’t fit into your neatly ordered two sexes.

That is one of the points made in the article (a few times over, actually) :

“'Intersex – People who have anatomy that is not considered typically male or female or have anatomy not matching their genetic sex of XX or XY. Most come to medical attention because healthcare professionals or parents notice something unusual about their bodies or puberty or fertility isn’t normal, but some are not known until death/autopsy.'"
"Biological sex is established at conception, declared in utero, and recognized or not at birth."
"Every nucleated cell in our bodies has a sex. There are only two gametes, sperm and egg, that participate in the generation of new life. There is no third gamete active in that process."
"The nomenclature 'intersex' acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not 'extrasex,' therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex."
"Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one."
"Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex."
"DSD/intersex represent rare conditions requiring highly individualized therapeutic approaches and timelines, not a blanket one-size-fits-all prescription."

You don't address any of this, because - again - you essentially never have anything substantive to say.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So where do they fit?

Persons with Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) "fit" into the gender binary. Again from the article: "Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third {sex}."

Also: "The nomenclature 'intersex' acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not 'extrasex,' therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex."

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do you think insisting there is no “third sex” somehow helps clarify anything for them?

Yes, I think it is clarifying. For them and us.

And I think this clarity, the effort to hew more closely to truth and reality, is increasingly important as radical ideologues are aggressively pushing a profoundly misleading and damaging set of claims, usually via coercive means and fallacious reasoning.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The scriptures might be clear on men and women being the only people mentioned

The scriptures are not the only source of clarity on this subject.

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

but what does that mean to someone whose sex is ambiguous?

I think there is substantial confusion on this subject, much of which is driven by extremist ideologues who, again, cannot present or maintain a cogent argument to support their position without resorting to a litany of logical fallacies.

I think DSD is a very rare medical condition, and it needs to be treated as such, not as an ideologically-driven "identity." Again from the article: "A disorder of sex development/intersex uniformly signifies the presence of a definable, objective underlying medical problem. Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex. DSD/intersex represent rare conditions requiring highly individualized therapeutic approaches and timelines, not a blanket one-size-fits-all prescription."

I think this is some pretty sound reasoning.

Here's some more:

Quote

In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error.

Denying the reality of biological sex and supplanting it with subjective “gender identity” is not merely an eccentric academic theory. It raises serious human-rights concerns for vulnerable groups including women, homosexuals and children.

The entire article is worth a read.

Church of England and a "Gender-Neutral God"

Recommended Posts

‘God is not sexed, unlike humanity’

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members