HuffPo: Isn’t it time for the Pope to declare that God is bisexual?
posted at 10:29 pm on April 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
No, silly, not bisexual in orientation, merely bisexual in gender identity. Androgynous, in other words, like an early 1970s David Bowie except a lot older and even more charismatic. And maybe hermaphroditic? It’s all a bit vague.
Thus does freaky deaky sex ‘n religion day at Hot Air end with a bang:
The Church’s opposition to birth control and to abortion even early in pregnancy is largely an outgrowth of its all-male composition and those males’ attempts to degrade women’s physical powers by asserting that women and the intercourse into which they putatively tempt men are necessary evils (“It is well for a man not to touch a woman,” Paul instructed the Christians of Corinth), the only purpose of which is procreation. The condemnation of homosexuals is based entirely on Old Testament rules established by men who feared anything that placed in question their insistence on the polarity of the sexes.
The idea that God is solely male is the work of the Church Fathers who chose which gospel accounts to include in the official New Testament and excluded all the Gnostic Gospels that contain references to an androgynous God, and of the bishops who met at Constantinople in 381 and modified the Creed to say that the Holy Spirit is male. The idea that a Creator could be of only one sex is absurd on its face. Yet this nonsensical belief, which actually diminishes God, has been one of the main bases for the subordination of women and values associated with them — precisely the values taught by Jesus — throughout the history of the Church…
During the second week of his papacy in 1978, John Paul I sensibly declared that God “is a Mother as well as a Father.” Eighteen days later John Paul I was dead, only 33 days after his election. Despite that unfortunate example and his own stance against desperately needed reform, Benedict XVI owes it to Catholics to take the bold steps needed to break the hold on the Church of earlier flings with relativism and to bring the institution he heads into line both with the needs of the modern world and with the teachings of Jesus.
Forgive the atheist for quibbling about theology but doesn’t Church dogma about Christ’s parentage make this a hard argument to pull off? Not an impossible argument — by definition, nothing is impossible if God is omnipotent — but it does raise the question of why He/She chose to be father to Jesus instead of taking on some more nuanced role. Also, Christ himself specifically refers to God as “Father” numerous times, doesn’t he? That would seem like … a clue. I’ve got no dog in this hunt, though. Catholics, want to take it from here?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I think you’re missing the other part of the story, there.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 2:22 PM
well…I can’t reproduce the whole Summa here, but here it is in horribly truncated layman’s language:
It can be shown by reason that it is more likely that the world has an intelligent creator (not necessarily a personal God or anything like it) than that the world “just happened” or “just evolved.” (BTW evolution and the Big Bang could be tools of this intelligent force, and science shows us that there is much evidence for both, so if it is true, then they were used as part of the creative process. )
None of the above proves love or even a personal God.
But. At some point certain tribe of people, later called the Jews, first one of them, then many, claimed to have had revelation experiences from this being who claimed to be creator of the world and told them that he/she loved them. All this history of their encounters with this being (again, horribly truncated here) was passed down orally and later written down. Much later, one of these Jews, a proven historical figure called Jesus of Nazareth, claimed to be the “Son of God” (whatever that was) and claimed he had to die for men’s sins against this creator-of-the-world who claimed to love human beings. It is recorded historical fact (recorded separately by both Romans and Jews) that this Jesus was crucified under a Roman prelate called Pontius Pilate who ruled at the time, and that people later claimed he rose from the dead and appeared many times to them, and that he wanted to “build my church” ((again, whatever that meant) and “send the Holy Spirit” (whatever that meant).
Some people today believe this man’s claims were true and that he rose from the dead, based on the testimony of his followers, many of whom died for this belief. Others think it was a hoax, or that he and/or his followers were deluded or liars. (Some atheists claim that only physical evidence should be admitted here, but humans accept as true many things based on authority we think is trustworthy, in court testimony, for just one of many examples.)
Some theists are Jews and believe that God revealed Himself to the Jews but not that the man Jesus rose from the dead or is God. Some theists are Christians and believe everything the Jews believe but in addition that Jesus is God as well as man, and the Jewish Messiah. I won’t go on; there are many other theists’ beliefs but the point here is, there is reason, and there is revelation involved and automatically expelling as “inadmissable!” any testimony based on people’s word you have reason to accept as trustworthy is not even good human practice, let alone theological practice.
BTW this is exactly why I have respect for honest atheists (the ones who for a good reason don’t consider theists’ claims true, as by definition there is SOME revelation involved) as opposed to those who close their eyes and ears and won’t even consider the claims of reason, let alone revelation. Am not speculating on which you are. But IF there is a God and IF He/She exists and loves us and has a claim on our obedience and trust, and one has reason to believe it might be true, then not taking any trouble to even seriously investigate the claims is, as Thomas Dubay puts it, very morally wrong.
Lest you assume I’m saying atheists go to hell I’m not saying that at all. Can’t speak for all theists but the Catholic Church teaches that, while Jesus said he’s the only way to the Father, some will be saved by Jesus by living according to their best lights – and honestly followed reason and conscience – without necessarily knowing His name this side of heaven.
Long enough post for ya? :)
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 2:27 PM
As rodney king once said “cant we all just get along?”
I think you’re missing the other part of the story, there.
RiverCocytus on April 16, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Lol, yeah I know…I thought it was kinda funny….i need to drink more coffee
SoCalInfidel on April 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Wow … just … wow. HuffPo wants to quibble about the gender identity … of a deity. Wow.
I’m taken aback by the titanic stupidity that represents.
A being of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and goodness who is complete and perfect in every way, and we’re going to talk about whether it’s a boy or a girl? This is like speculating on whether or not an advanced array of supercomputers runs on triple A batteries or D cells, but infinitely worse.
Oy. He. She. These terms refer to mortals and we use them on the Most High because it helps us understand. But to Him … I don’t see why human ideas about gender are in any way important.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 16, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Wheres the beef?
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM
ronsfi, I trust I’ve made my respect for your unbelief clear. Now I will add a coda. Most theists claim, in one
form or another (I’ll pick the most gentle form) that God told them that those who tell Him they have no interest in an eternal relationship with Him, He’ll respect their desire for that situation. Only they won’t like it when they get it, so because He loves them, He warns them to look at the evidence and choose wisely.
I don’t mind you making fun of my overlong posts (and they are overlong – cf Pascal). But I feel a bit like the Missionaries of Charity nun in India who asked for alms and a man spat in her hand. She wiped her hand and held it out again and said, “Thank you; I deserved that. Now what will you give for Jesus?”
I’m probably the 1000th person telling you He loves you and died for your (and my) sins and wants a personal relationship with you. Many theists have told you no doubt that someday you are going to be face to face with Him. If that’s true, what will you do when it happens? Will you be able to honestly (honestly now) tell Him that you searched out the claims and just could not believe, but that you did the best your conscience told you, all the time? That you did your best to live well? That you’re sorry but you didn’t know He loved you, and no one explained it well enough to make it reasonable for you?
I’m sure I’ll get a snarky answer but that doesn’t matter. What matters is what you do about the claim once you stop posting on this board. Gotta get to work so I hope you have a good day.
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Thank you, well put.
One also wonders why those who don’t believe and won’t listen to the Pope exercise their free will to tell the Pope what to preach within his Church.
There is a general depressive air with all the damned politics perpetuating ad infinitum, while observers find little hope for our Constitution’s conservation from the remaining DNC/GOP candidates.
No ONE has all answers. But the Pope is one of the most observant, educated, genteel and internationally experienced people alive. That he honors us with his attention is a blessing, IMHO. I wish him well, and am glad for his visit to the USA. I hope we greet him well and enjoy an uplifting exercise in civility and/or respect.
maverick muse on April 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I wouldn’t want to disappoint. However heartfelt, your testimony is not evidence. I remember the story of Jesus from Sunday School. Still though, outrageous claims but no proof. While the prospect of me, a godless heathen getting his comeuppance on the day of judgment may warm the cockles of your heart. I feel so very fortunate that I don’t have to live such a fearful cruel world view. I hope one day you may come to know a life free from the fear of eternal agony at the hands of an all seeing, ever watchful, “loving” torturer.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM
The polar opposite of my worldview, and my intentions. It’s just sad that you’ve misinterpreted my intentions so completely. See you on another thread I guess.
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I know where you are coming from. I was being facetious.
Till next time.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM
This scripture is why God is referred in the masuline.
Comes from Genesis 1, the KJV 1611 Edition.
26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The “our” refers to the existence of the Holy Trinity from the beginning of time.
usarmyretired on April 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM
IF ANYONE WANTS TO KNOW CATHGOLIC THEOLOGY ON THIS GE TO http://WWW.IGNATUIS SPIRIT.COM NOV 2005 ARCHIVES ,,, ITWS COVERED IN DEPTH
rico101 on April 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
http://WWW.IGNATIUSINSIGHT.COM
rico101 on April 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Wow what a disgusting post. It’s time for even the leftists to boycott Huffpo.
You can think whatever you want now, but it’s not going to change anything for you on judgement day!
Just because you don’t believe it does not change the fact that there is a moral law and an inevitable judgement day.
That’s like walking out into oncoming traffic and saying “It’s ok..I don’t believe in cars”.
Or like jumping out of a plane at 20,000 feet and saying, “It’s ok,I don’t believe in gravity”. It doesn’t change anything.
God says throughout the Bible
Every single person on earth has a conscience and knows what is right and what is wrong.
All around us we are surrounded by very harsh laws…law of gravity, law of thermodynamics, electricity etc..
Nobody gets mad at the law of gravity… you don’t stick your finger in a electrical socket. You work with these laws.
Just because you don’t believe in it, does not change the fact that God’s moral Law (which is written in all mankind’s hearts) exists.
Unless you have ALWAYS kept God’s Law(which no man has) and have never lied,stolen,blasphemed,lusted,unjustly hated,committed idolatry (i.e not believed God’s Word),not honored your parents,coveted,not kept the Sabbath, or not put anything ahead of God in importance ever, then you are not completely holy and on judgement day you will be cast into the lake of fire!
Many people mistakenly believe that God will just forgive people for no reason. Make no mistake…He will not.
When you are born again you will not only see God as a god of forgiveness but see Him as He truly is…a God of Holiness…a God of Justice and a God of Truth!
God is Holy and will not allow unholiness into His presence!
God is Just and if He does not judge all unholiness He would be a corrupt judge!
A debt needs to be paid or there is no justice!
There is only ONE WAY to transcend God’s judgement on judgement day..and God loves us enough to give us this option..God came to earth as a man(He begot His Son), Jesus Christ, He lived a perfect life, He never sinned once in thought, word or deed. Even though He was innocent He was killed and in doing so He paid our fine for us!
The last thing He said on the cross was “It is finished”
He had done what He had come here for..to die for our sins.
He was crucified, buried and three days later rose from the grave, he conquered death and lives today….all who repent,turn from sin and put their whole faith in Jesus Christ will be born again, all your sins will be washed away(as the fine was paid already) and you will be filled with His Holy Spirit.
You will take on Jesus Christ’s righteousness before God on judgment day! This is the ONLY WAY that anyone gets to heaven!
All men who do not believe in Jesus and who are not born again will not go to heaven but will instead face God’s righteous judgement on judgement day!
Think about this, even theoretically,(pay attention jews)if the Bible IS true..and God sent His only begotted Son to die for our sins, that all who believe in Him shall be given everlasting life, and we rejected Him…How big of an insult is that to God?
Man’s damning sin is not believing in Jesus Christ and accepting His free gift!
SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM
It is impossible for God to lie. It is impossible for God to do something counter to His nature. It is impossible for God to not be Good, the very essence of goodness.
God is the Mother and the Father in the same sense that Eve physically came from Adam. Adam was not female before his rib was removed, nor did he become “more male” after its removal, but the physical essence of Woman came from Man. Her bodily potentiality existed as part of Man. Thus, the complete potentiality of Woman exists within the Logos (mind of God). That doesn’t make God female (or male, for that matter). His attributed gender is not a function of physical reality (except with respect to the corporeal essence of Jesus, which is male); it is a function of role or intrinsic authority associated with His nature.
spmat on April 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
The point still stands that all living people have souls. The reason I made my post was because someone started talking as if that weren’t true. My only goal was to point out how ignorant he was.
Reading Aquinas has no correlation at all with making a logical argument. But you’ve piked my interest; what work of his do I need to read (that I haven’t already) to truly and logically argue God, and why only that work and not others?
Nonfactor on April 16, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Twisted.
ronsfi on April 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Um, after reading that Huffpo article, I would not trust the authors opinion on Scripture for alot of reasons. For example he writes, “The condemnation of homosexuals is based entirely on Old Testament rules established by men who feared anything that placed in question their insistence on the polarity of the sexes.” Huh? Well, in my opinion this is a lie, or he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The New Testament speaks against it as well:
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, … Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:26-32
I agree with Skidd who writes, “This is a secular cry-baby WILLINGLY distorting scripture and turning logic on it’s head, then stating, “See, my logic is the TRUE logic.” There’s too much in HuffPo’s pathetic post to deconstruct.” –Skidd on April 15, 2008 at 10:44 PM
This is another sad attempt at skewing God’s Word. These are people who want nothing to do with God and everything to do with their own leftist slants on sexuality, politics, and lifestyles.
apacalyps on April 16, 2008 at 7:25 PM
AP,
God is not a man. He is a Spirit. However, it is clear in the Bible that God chose masculine pronouns and responsibilities to reveal Himself to us. By using the male titles, God made it easier for us to understand Him. Jesus said, “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirL
apacalyps on April 16, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Ughh, I didn’t proof read before pushing send and the bold letters below got scrambled in my above post.
Jesus said, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24)
apacalyps on April 16, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Bottom line: The Bible says God is a Spirit (John 4:24), but by using the male titles, God made it easier for us to understand Him. Christ Himself left us the perfect example (as He always did) when He said: “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.” (Matthew 6:9). God has determined that “Fatherhood” best describes in human terms what He did in creation.
apacalyps on April 16, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Dude! Nice job of sharing the GOOD NEWS (gospel means good news) of the love God showed us by offering the supreme sacrifice of the blood of his unblemished son, once and for all, instead of the blood of the sheep and doves that the Levitical priests kept offering, which had to be offered over and over! I applaud you!
Vntnrse on April 16, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Am glad I’ve piqued your interest, but
I never said this; please read more carefully. “Reading” Aquinas may not directly correlate with making a logical argument, but responding to him will.
Please quote my entire sentence and not part of it. I said,
“[T]o take one example” means, of course, that I wasn’t only recommending that author, nor only one of his works, and no others. This is so obvious I’m embarrassed to have to write it, but apparently you’re not reading carefully in the least.
Why am I pointing this out and making an issue of it? Because you say you’ve read Thomas Aquinas but if you’re reading him as “carefully” as you read a simple sentence in a non-philosopher’s thread post, I seriously wonder if you understood much of what he said and am fairly certain you couldn’t make a logical and well-thought-out response. Sorry to be so blunt but your careless reading asks for bluntness.
To answer your question on the specific work, why don’t you start with Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Question 2, Articles 1 through 3, and continue from there. Please read it carefully and thoroughly.
Have already spent way too much time on this thread today so I have to attend to other things but happy reading, and see you around the threads.
inviolet on April 16, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Uh, the theology on this is actually pretty straightforward folks. Being male means you propagate by giving something to another. Being female means you propagate by receiving something from another. God does the former. Ergo He’s male.
The sexes in humans and other animals are just a representation of this very simple concept.
Suggestion for Huffpo: take a course in Catholic theology at a good Catholic university (i.e. not one of the name-only ones that are all over the US) before you start dusting it up with Ratzinger. He’s a master on this terrain.
Gaunilon on April 16, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Much better than my explanation. It even explains why we are the bride and He is the Bridegroom. Thanks. :)
spmat on April 17, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Vntnrse said,
Did you forget the sarcasm tags?
unclesmrgol on April 17, 2008 at 1:08 AM
There are a few serious mis-statements in this thread.
One is that on judgment day, the decision is made about whether one’s sins are forgiven. This is false. Yeshua (Jesus) already forgave all sins ever committed by permitting himself to be sacrificed on the cross.
Two is that anybody is going to hell or that hell is the lake of fire. Nobody can go to hell since we are all born into hell (this planet under the curse). The real issue is who is going to get out of here by returning to the Father’s house to dwell there forever.
Yeshua made that perfectly clear – no one gets to the Father except through Him (Yeshua). That means a person must be born again of the Spirit. Your first birth got you here – your second birth gets you out of here.
Believing this is a choice but it is written, thus it is forever and unchanging.
platypus on April 17, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Like the Huffpo article, you are making wide generalizations and un-Biblical statements.
Judgements made on Judgement day,unregenerate man cast into “Hell” the lake of fire.
Next.
Now you’re making it sound like the “new age” doctrine,”there’s no hell..earth is hell..everyone goes to heaven no matter what”….also,like your statement, completely false and un-Biblical.
The fallen earth is not hell. A cursed earth is just that, a cursed earth. The earth is no way the same thing as the final destination of unregenerate man.
The lake of fire or the outer darkness, whatever it is called, is where unregenerate man is heading and will not be a fun place to be, by any stretch of the imagination.
SaintOlaf on April 17, 2008 at 6:37 AM
No, because I was being quite serious! I think he told the good news of God’s love for what he created very very well! I was NOT being sarcastic because I agree with St. Olaf! This is one subject where I refuse to exhibit sarcasm…
Vntnrse on April 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3