Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Masculine God, Feminine Spirit? (Should we think of God as male or female)
Patheos ^ | 02/09/2012 | By Kyle Roberts

Posted on 02/09/2012 10:27:16 AM PST by SeekAndFind

John Piper, at a recent pastors conference, declared, "God has given Christianity a masculine feel." This is based, for Piper, on several things: God is revealed in the Bible in male images (king and father). The second person of the Trinity is named as "Son" and is incarnated as a man. The 12 apostles were men, and men are declared to be the heads of the church and home.

But has God really "given Christianity a masculine feel"? Or has Christianity given God a masculine feel?

Granted, there are plenty of male-oriented images, allusions, and references in Scripture that are male-oriented. (And it doesn't surprise anyone to learn that the Bible's authors are mostly if not exclusively men writing in mainly patriarchal contexts). "Father" and "Son" are unmistakably male references. The term "masculine," however, is an ambiguous, socially constructed, and culturally dependent concept. As Scot McKnight points out, the Greek word for "masculine" (andreia) never properly appears in the New Testament.

But I want to focus on another issue. Piper rests his argument on the idea that God is revealed in male terms and images. God (Yahweh) is the eternal "Father" and the eternal "Son of God" becomes incarnate as a human male in Jesus of Nazareth. What do we make of this language? Is "Father" and "Son" supposed to be interpreted literally, or do these terms denote the familiarity and intimacy of the relationship itself? Here we are flung headlong into a debate regarding the nature of religious language. Piper's literalistic hermeneutic involves a univocal view of language, whereby "Father" becomes exclusive of anything "feminine" and is used to prioritize the male over the female. It's a handy move if you want to retain patriarchy.

But is God actually gendered as male and therefore exclusively or primarily masculine (whatever that might actually mean)? Any literal ascription of gender to the eternal divine being (think "ontological Trinity") has generally been ruled quite out of bounds in Christian orthodoxy. Notions like divine simplicity, unboundedness, and incorporeality, long have prevented theologians from taking gender references to God literally.

In the incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity quite literally becomes in-fleshed in the Jewish, male body of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians rightly take joy and comfort in the particularity of the incarnation for, in Jesus, God was and is healing and reconciling the world. What is not assumed is not healed; therefore God becomes a particular human being in order to redeem humanity. The Jewish flesh of Jesus makes sense given that Jesus was to be the Messiah and his mission was to announce and embody the kingdom for Israel and on behalf of the world. But nothing suggests that the incarnation required male flesh for our salvation. Perhaps, as some have suggested, the Logos became a man because, to become incarnate as a woman, and to sacrifice oneself for the world as a woman, would have been rather unsurprising and unremarkable to first-century observers. That's just what women do. But when this Jewish Rabbi willingly set aside his "rights" and his power for the salvation of humanity, he made quite an impression (Phil 2:1-11).

Furthermore, according to orthodox theology, we must be careful when conceptually transferring from the human particularity of Jesus to his divine nature. The Council of Chalcedon asserts the two natures of Jesus are related "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence." The human nature of Jesus, having the particularity of male humanity, does not imply that the divine nature of Jesus became distinctively male -- or most certainly—"masculine." The incarnation, by the logic of the creed, does not imply that "God is male." Furthermore, we should keep in mind that Jesus' male body was resurrected and ascended to God. Do we have any idea what bodily resurrection and ascension imply for gender particularity?

Also, has Piper forgotten the Holy Spirit? Irenaeus suggested memorably that the Son and the Spirit are the two hands of God in the world. If the Son causes us to think of God in terms of maleness and "masculinity" (which, again, is a constructed notion), then the Spirit might draw our attention to more "feminine" aspects of God. The Spirit (ruach in the Old Testament and pneuma in the New) suggests creative and re-creative (nurturing, sustaining, and life-giving) activities. "Ruach," in fact, is grammatically feminine. In Genesis 1, the Spirit hovers over the waters and gives life to human and animals. The Spirit re-creates the earth (Isaiah 44:3), the Spirit comforts (Jn. 14), teaches (Lk. 12:12) and heals. Images of the Spirit in the Bible include breath, wind, and wisdom (the latter is often personified in Scripture as female).

The prevalence of what could be seen as female allusions in Scripture's depiction of the Spirit led some early Christians to refer to the Holy Spirit in explicitly female language. Consider this one: "By baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, and at that moment when the priests invoke the Spirit, she opens the heavens and descends and hovers over the waters, and those who are baptized put her on" (Aphrahat's Demonstration 6:14). Several medieval theologians were rather creative with gender distinctions in the Godhead, certainly allowing for a female dimension in God. But while some early Christians were happy to speak of the Spirit as "she," the Spirit is conveniently neglected in these discussions of "God and masculinity." As Elizabeth Johnson pointed out in She Who Is, the marginalization of the Spirit in the church corresponds to the marginalization of women in the church.

So, if one wants to speak in terms of "masculine" and "feminine" traits in Scripture and in God, one should do so hesitantly. Our talk about God must always take into account the mystery of God and the anthropomorphic nature of theological language—yes, even Scripture's inspired language. To the degree that the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are helpful distinctions, the two hands of God in Jesus and the Spirit ought to inspire gender inclusivity and equality. We should not make a habit of saying that God is, in any literal sense, either male or female.

In any case, if one wants to insist that Jesus was "masculine," remember that Jesus redefines what it means to be a human, and therefore what it means to be male and female. We dare not define Jesus' "masculinity" in the image of our culture's ideals. Furthermore, if Jesus is "masculine," then let's agree that the Spirit is "feminine." We, male and female together, are created in the image of the Triune God; God is not created in our image.

God has not given us Christianity with a masculine feel. Rather, Christianity has created a God with a masculine feel, to the extent we have forgotten that (1) God is not literally gendered (except in the incarnation) and (2) The Spirit and the Son—the two hands of God—suggest an inclusiveness that affirms the diversity in human creation and values equally, not just both sexes, but all configurations and combinations, in individual persons, of what society has traditionally called "feminine" and "masculine."

-- Kyle Roberts is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and Lead Faculty of Christian Thought, Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN). He researches and writes on issues related to the intersection of theology, philosophy, and culture


TOPICS: Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: gender; god

1 posted on 02/09/2012 10:27:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Does God sexually reproduce?
2 posted on 02/09/2012 10:31:57 AM PST by Joe the Pimpernel (Too many lawmakers, too many laws, too many lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The only way to the FATHER is through ME”

LLS


3 posted on 02/09/2012 10:33:17 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Hey repubic elite scumbags... jam mitt up your collective arses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
...has Christianity given God a masculine feel?,/I>

God was considered masculine long before Christianity.

4 posted on 02/09/2012 10:33:39 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Except when He was a goddess...


5 posted on 02/09/2012 10:34:53 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why lessen God by considering male or female?


6 posted on 02/09/2012 10:35:46 AM PST by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

> Kyle Roberts is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology

Systematic Theology is one of the most consistent threats to Living Faith. Faith is not an intellectual exercise, nor an academic pursuit.

Look, what was Jesus? Male or female?

Is the Holy Spirit referred to as He or She? Forget that the word for spirit is feminine in the Hebrew and neuter in the Greek. Is the pronoun for the Holy Spirit masculine or feminine?

Does not Jesus Himself refer to God the Father?

Who was formed first, Adam or Eve?

This “theologian” should meditate on the words of “Jesus Loves Me”. There’s more accurate theology in that children’s hymn than anything written in the article.


7 posted on 02/09/2012 10:38:47 AM PST by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Probably more like...’has the bible really “given Christianity a masculine feel”? Or has Christianity given the bible a masculine feel?’


8 posted on 02/09/2012 10:43:26 AM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We should think of God as He has revealed Himself through the Scriptures. In critical ways, this self-revelation is masculine, as Father and Son. However, He has also, at times, chosen to use maternal imagery for Himself, so He clearly has qualities that we consider “feminine.”

The fact that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, male and female He created them, tells us that both maleness and femaleness are necessary for humans fully to exemplify the image of God. However, God is not bound by our limited conceptions of “male,” “female,” or even “person.”


9 posted on 02/09/2012 10:46:12 AM PST by Tax-chick (Email your grandmother!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

God is so powerful beyound our comprehension that God is more than likely beyond gender.

It would be like a bacteria trying to figure out what version of windows a computer is running.

God’s Gender is Pure Love, I will stick with that answer for now.


10 posted on 02/09/2012 10:47:20 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Yes...one of the maternal references:

Mat 23:37 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!

Since they are “one”, I have no problem with Jesus referring to himself as a mother hen.

Interesting too, Scripture refers to the nature of the Father and Son more than the nature of the HS...
“She” IS somewhat mysterious after all - just the way daddy ‘warned’ me :)


11 posted on 02/09/2012 10:56:49 AM PST by spankalib (The Marx-in-the-Parks crowd is a basement skunkworks operation of the AFL-CIO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I like your comment. God tells us that he is the only one and there is no other like him.


12 posted on 02/09/2012 11:00:27 AM PST by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This "Theologian" has confused the WORD of YHVH and
the heresy created at Nicea by the Roman Pontiff Constantine.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

13 posted on 02/09/2012 11:02:14 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It has been the norm since at least the Cappadocian Fathers for Christians to insist that God transcends all binary distinctions, even the distinction between being and non-being, and surely the distinction between male and female or masculine and feminine.

On the other hand, there is a reason, I think why, for our sakes, God has chosen to “gender” His self-revelation, and it has nothing to do with traditional gender roles or “social construction” of anything: those who conceive of the deity as female, are invariably drawn to thinking of creation as birth-giving, thereby effacing the radical distinction between the Uncreated and the created.


14 posted on 02/09/2012 11:04:10 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Such questions attempt to bring God down to our level. God is great. He is above all. He made His son to be like us so to save us from ourselves. How can we say God has our traits?

And, frankly, it doesn’t matter one whit. God is God. We are unable to understand all that He is. So be it.


15 posted on 02/09/2012 11:11:36 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Should we think of God as male or female?

No.

Just think of God——always.


16 posted on 02/09/2012 11:13:28 AM PST by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: spankalib; The_Reader_David

Jesus’s choosing to use a simile that references motherhood, or God’s inspiring a prophet or psalmist with a female image, doesn’t affect the basic identity of Father and Son, particularly with Jesus’s having an unquestionably male human body. It just reminds us that certain qualities of God are associated with motherhood, which I find inspiring, as a mother myself.

I thought “The_Reader_David’s” comment, above, was very perceptive.


18 posted on 02/09/2012 11:15:36 AM PST by Tax-chick (Email your grandmother!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It would seem that an Entity able to create ex nihilo would have little need for a procreative role. Just saying


19 posted on 02/09/2012 11:18:22 AM PST by muir_redwoods (No wonder this administration favors abortion; everything they have done is an abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“But is God actually gendered as male ...”

What a deceptive and stupid thing to say at this turn in the article. We’re talking about masculine, not male; gender, not sex.


20 posted on 02/09/2012 11:21:04 AM PST by Theo (May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

-—those who conceive of the deity as female, are invariably drawn to thinking of creation as birth-giving, thereby effacing the radical distinction between the Uncreated and the created.-—

Yup.

I am curious about your statement regarding God transcending Being and non-being. Can you clarify?

Catholics, in the Scholastic tradition, see God’s Essence as Existence Itself, or Being. Non-being doesn’t exist, except as a logical concept. In that sense, it can be said to exist, and that which exists, even as an idea, must exist in the Mind of God.


21 posted on 02/09/2012 11:24:39 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

“...the radical distinction between the Uncreated and the created.”

David - what is the distinction?


22 posted on 02/09/2012 11:26:54 AM PST by SuzyQue (Don't believe everything you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Doesn’t the Bible say that G-d is spirit (not a spirit)?


23 posted on 02/09/2012 11:39:49 AM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Regret Anything Because At One Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theo
We’re talking about masculine, not male; gender, not sex.

THANK you!

24 posted on 02/09/2012 11:40:14 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

I forget which of the Cappadocian Fathers said “I believe in God, God does not exist.” The point is that when we think of Being (existing) or its negation “non-Being” (not existing) what we think of does not apply to God. The distinction is a merely created one, and not applicable to God. (In the East, we regard “seeing” God’s Essence as anything as mistaken and likely a step on the road to delusion.)


25 posted on 02/09/2012 11:41:54 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I think it better to keep silence before that mystery. No explanation of the distinction between the Uncreated and the created will explain it.


26 posted on 02/09/2012 11:46:41 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Why lessen God by considering male or female?

Because it's an important issue. Jesus did not say, "I and the Great Questionably-asexual Divine Being are One." He said, "I and the Father are One." Frankly, I'll take Jesus' word for it over anyone else's.
27 posted on 02/09/2012 11:53:03 AM PST by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I always say, a world with boogers and flatulence could never have been created by a woman.


28 posted on 02/09/2012 12:00:27 PM PST by lazypadawan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Westbrook saith:

Systematic Theology is one of the most consistent threats to Living Faith. Faith is not an intellectual exercise, nor an academic pursuit.

No actually the most consistent threat to (Christian) living faith is 1. speaking in public on topics of which one knows nothing about, and 2. Stating opinion as fact.

Before you tell other people what they should do, you might consider finding out what systematic theologuy is all about and learn to spot a liberal by their theology. You might be interested in knowing that a lot of greats in the faith are/were systematic theologians. It is a lack of systematic theology that allows the cults to thrive, the "sign gifters" to do what ever feels right at the moment and in some respects gives Rome her ability to contradict herself theologically and keep her members in line.

I would submit to you that the only consistent threat to the faith is a lack of Biblical literacy.

29 posted on 02/09/2012 12:02:28 PM PST by fatboy (This protestant will have no part in the ecumenical movement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: UriĀ’el-2012

Good gravy!


31 posted on 02/09/2012 12:09:33 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: spankalib

I don’t think Jesus referred to himself AS a mother hen, i.e
that he WAS a mother hen, but that the act of protection
and love and nurturing AS SEEN with a Mother Hen is the
way He would love you. Human men also protect their children,
but not necessarily as tender as human woman do.

Using the term “masculine” when referring to God is problematic,
He is much greater than man (immeasurably), but it is a
reasonable way(though certainly incomplete) to describe some of his
attributes. Fortunately He doesn’t alway behave like men, (i.e. He forgives, and
even blesses people who, while on this earth, hate Him(at least
until the final judgement).


32 posted on 02/09/2012 12:17:22 PM PST by Getready (Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

OK, David, but it’s not exactly kosher to use a concept to make an argument and then demur when asked to define the concept.

I remain uninformed, and now slightly piqued.


33 posted on 02/09/2012 12:20:01 PM PST by SuzyQue (Don't believe everything you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“In any case, if one wants to insist that Jesus was “masculine,” remember that Jesus redefines what it means to be a human, and therefore what it means to be male and female. We dare not define Jesus’ “masculinity” in the image of our culture's ideals. Furthermore, if Jesus is “masculine,” then let's agree that the Spirit is “feminine.” We, male and female together, are created in the image of the Triune God; God is not created in our image”.

Well yes, I would insist was masculine. You know beard, son, man, all that. But how “redefine what it means to be human”? People confused humans with cabbages? or chipmunks?

Spirit is feminine? If not masculine why feminine?
Male and female in the image of triune God? We have three heads?

Professors of Theology must feel the need to crank out babble to justify their pay. Better they mopped the floors or bussed tables in the cafeteria.

34 posted on 02/09/2012 12:34:14 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Yet we will continue to fight each other over our beliefs in God...


35 posted on 02/09/2012 12:54:03 PM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Speculation in the absence of revelation is dangerous. The "Divine Feminine" appeals greatly to the heterodox, but it takes a mighty excursion of wishful eisegesis to find it in scripture.

In other words, this newchurchgirlyboi clown isn't worthy to tie John Piper's shoes, let alone lecture him about the the Christian "invention" of a masculine God. Yuk.

36 posted on 02/09/2012 1:11:37 PM PST by jboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
The fact that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, male and female He created them, tells us that both maleness and femaleness are necessary for humans fully to exemplify the image of God. However, God is not bound by our limited conceptions of “male,” “female,” or even “person.” I would agree. And I would disagree with the writer, because I think I am in disagreement with what I believe are his motives - to encourage people to think of G-d as feminine (as well as masculine. But, given the true mystery of G-d that we can not even dare to imagine, wouldn't it be better to think of G-d without gender, and thereby not impose our, human, gender values on G-d? Why not think of G-d as G-d, who is, we are also told, above "gender".
37 posted on 02/09/2012 1:24:28 PM PST by Wuli (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

It’s not every day you see a guy “make it personal” AND ping the mod to the post in which he does it.


38 posted on 02/09/2012 1:29:11 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Any one who has to even wonder about it, much less deny it does not believe in God any way so why even bother with it.


39 posted on 02/09/2012 1:32:37 PM PST by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I’m sorry, but the Eastern in Eastern Orthodox Christianity is a bit stronger than just simple geography. I sometimes like to tell people I’m a adherent of an Eastern religion, and when they ask which one, replying “Christianity”. (Look up the word “apophatic”. It won’t explain the radical distinction between the Uncreated and the created, but you’ll understand why I’m wrote as I did, and won’t attempt explanation.)


40 posted on 02/09/2012 1:57:40 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Why not think of G-d as G-d, who is, we are also told, above "gender".

One reason would be God's revelation of Himself, through Jesus Christ, as "Father." Clearly the distinction was important enough to Jesus that he used a word with gender (in the grammatical sense) rather than "parent," "ancestor," "progenitor," or another word of neuter gender.

A non-Christian believer in God, of course, would probably not find this point very relevant!

41 posted on 02/09/2012 2:22:44 PM PST by Tax-chick (Email your grandmother!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Agreed.

It seems that it should be a fairly short debate:
Q: How did Jesus describe God?
A: As his father


42 posted on 02/09/2012 2:37:31 PM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fatboy
> I would submit to you that the only consistent threat to
> the faith is a lack of Biblical literacy.

With that I can agree 100%.

But, Faith is not based on scholarly dissection of the Bible or any "system". It is rather by introspective and prayerful reading thereof that we grow in Faith. The Biblically astute will not be swayed by the signs and wonders crowd (A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign) or the cultists and false prophets.

While there were many "systematic theologian" who were champions of living Faith, and who doubtless were filled with the Spirit, there are also many who were bloody tyrants and cult leaders.

I just read the Bible. I try to do what I can understand. What I don't understand, I leave to the Holy Spirit to reveal in His Time. And He does, a little bit at a time.

Let me quote from the Pilgrim Fathers who wrote the Mayflower Compact.


43 posted on 02/09/2012 4:21:43 PM PST by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Human nature after the Fall.


44 posted on 02/10/2012 8:47:47 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

It’s just playing out as He knows it will. Can’t be any different.


45 posted on 02/10/2012 9:02:35 AM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Very true.


46 posted on 02/10/2012 9:07:01 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Yep, just think, 10000y ago God knew how people would be going to war and killing each other over how they worship and understand Him.


47 posted on 02/10/2012 9:17:24 AM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

G-d does not have a body so G-d cannot be a male or a female. G-d is unseen. This is spelled out clearly in the Hebrew Scriptures.

G-d is not a MAN that He should lie,nor a mortal that He should change His mind.(Numbers 23:19)

You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens,with black clouds and deep darkness. Then the L-rd spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw NO IMAGE; there was only a voice. (Deut.4:11-12)


48 posted on 02/21/2012 10:35:05 PM PST by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Future Meteorologist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson