Jadespring and 's/he-is-all-in-all'

[Jadespring]

Nice to know I'm having impact, though not intentional.

My avatar is such because I tend to save spectacular astronomy and hurricane satellite
pictures from time to time, so that one was handy...

Dave

It's a good kind of freaking.....
Here's some fun you can have with it. See if you can spot in the cloud and land formations: A genie like man, with a woman with a big nose next to him and holding a baby, the spaceman head with a round helmet and a squid creature.

 

[Rimi]

Jadespring blithered:

Actually God does allow for it Rimi. He's not fussy.

uuuuhmmmmm, no He doesn't. You just can't get around Jesus calling God FATHER. A male title. Sounds fussy enough to any thinking person.

And I don't have to wait for this "one day" to come to find out. I've already seen.

Aren't you in for a big (unpleasant) surprise.

You guys really seem to be fixated on this whole 'materialistic, flesh and blood, non spirit type of God image." The word 'transgendered ' is a modern human created concept based on a physical image of the human body. It does not apply in a spiritual understanding of the many 'aspects' of God.

Still, you'll have to take this up with Jesus. It's how HE referred to God. And the fact that when God became flesh, he chose to come as a male.

Jesus himself brought a new, gentler, maternal and paternal understanding of the nature of God to the Jewish people by refering to him as Abba, or Father. The equivilent today would be refering to God as Dad or PaPa. It's an intimate and loving way of addresss. Before then God was very a very remote, Lord and King of the Sky, punishing, angry and distant.

You couldn't be more mistaken. God was not remote at all. Ask Pharoah when you see him.

Calling God Abba was a concept that was unheard of at that time and one of the reason that Jesus was so revolutionary. Unfortunately this understanding of the importance and the concept behind Jesus using this word has been lost over the eons, through translation and bad theology that has been developed long after Jesus's time, by those who wouldn't have a clue because the society was so different. It's too bad because this intimancy with God, the closeness between God and human's as illustrated by Jesus constantly refering to himself as being one, the same, with, of etc etc is a central concept to Jesus's teachings about the nature of our relationship to God.

Abraham, Moses, and many others in the OT had wonderfully intimate (not in the Beanie way) relationships with God. They talked, He comforted, they calmed him down. It is people who want to do things their own way and only commune with Him on their own terms who screw it all up. As you would know.

 

[Jadespring]

Aren't you in for a big (unpleasant) surprise.

Still, you'll have to take this up with Jesus....

No surprises here...
And "taking it up?" It's already been done, but thanks for the advice. :thumb:
Jesus and I are a-ok on this issue.

But like I said before I am in no way suggesting or forcing everyone to think this way and neither is he. It's a minor detail compared to all the big stuff we're supposed to be doing. Let's not get bogged down in pronouns and human biological conceptions that we place on our image of God here.

'Flesh", "spirit", "oneness" as Dave so eloquently put it. Lot of work to do.

 

[Rimi]

Jadespring vomited all over itself:

No surprises here...
And "taking it up?" It's already been done, but thanks for the advice. :thumb:
Jesus and I are a-ok on this issue.

If I were a betting person, I'd clean up on this one.

But like I said before I am in no way suggesting or forcing everyone to think this way and neither is he. It's a minor detail compared to all the big stuff we're supposed to be doing. Let's not get bogged down in pronouns and human biological conceptions that we place on our image of God here.

'Flesh", "spirit", "oneness" as Dave so eloquently put it. Lot of work to do.

He? HE? HE! Yes, Jesus, Who IS God, . . . . HE.
Minor, another debate. If you can't get this "minor" detail, you won't get anything else. THIS is why you're not right with Jesus Who is God. HE is the one you don't seem to like how HE refers to HIMself.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jadespring]

Abraham, Moses, and many others in the OT had wonderfully intimate (not in the Beanie way) relationships with God. They talked, He comforted, they calmed him down. It is people who want to do things their own way and only commune with Him on their own terms who screw it all up. As you would know.

They weren't intimate in the same way as Jesus taught. Also these people were one among many. They acted as the go betweens, they were the special ones. They then went about telling everyone else what to do. God was out there somewhere.....
Jesus came and was like, 'people! all of you! No go betweens necessary, you're all special" Believe as me, in me and you can find him, God is like your Dad. It's personal. God is here with us. " Big difference.

Then the as the new church formed it fell back into the old way of thinking and you had to go through a priest etc to get to God. He became remote again and we fell into God the punisher and judge mentality. Then Luther and friends came and said no, everyone has the ability to pray and develop a personal relationship with God and we kinda got back on track. Still it's a work in progress.

And as far as your last statement about knowing about people screwing up I'm not sure exactly what you are refering to. Me personally or historical evidence?

 

[Jadespring]

Rimi,

Do you have a personal relationship with God/Jesus? Have you ever conversed about these questions?

 

[Rimi]

Jadespring, are you saying you're hearing voices?

 

[Jadespring]

Jadespring, are you saying you're hearing voices?

No. *looks around* did you see those words in the post? I don't.
I just asked you a simple question.

If you don't wish to answer it. No biggie.

 

[Rimi]

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, yes. Of course, I had to decide to have that relationship on HIS terms, not mine. Unlike yourself.

BTW, since you believe God is in all and is all, you must claim to be having talks with Him every time you speak to anyone/thing.

 

[Jadespring]

BTW, since you believe God is in all and is all, you must claim to be having talks with Him every time you speak to anyone/thing.

Actuallly no. That's even remotely close to the understanding that I have of God. You're taking a spiritual concept and looking at it through a 'literalist' lens.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, yes. Of course, I had to decide to have that relationship on HIS terms, not mine. Unlike yourself.

Woah. Now that's really assuming a lot. There is absolutely no way that you would be even capable of passing judgement on my relationship with Jesus. Sorry, but that's why it's called personal.
All I asked was if you felt you had one. I would never presume to pass judgement on the quailty or terms of it.

 

[Rimi]

Jadespring spewed:

Actuallly no. That's even remotely close to the understanding that I have of God. You're taking a spiritual concept and looking at it through a 'literalist' lens.

I can only go by how you presented your views.

Woah. Now that's really assuming a lot. There is absolutely no way that you would be even capable of passing judgement on my relationship with Jesus. Sorry, but that's why it's called personal.
All I asked was if you felt you had one. I would never presume to pass judgement on the quailty or terms of it.

I can assume based on your own words; therefore, I am making a judgment.

Personal, yes. Not private.

The fact that you asked me of my relationship with HIM is suspicious at best. You are leaning towards that I don't because I don't accept homos, prolly.

 

[Rimi]

BTW, Jade-ster. I really like how you've avoided Jesus calling HIS FATHER "FATHER". Still hoping on the transgendered thingie, eh.

 

[Jadespring]

Jade-ster here:

Personal, yes. Not private.The fact that you asked me of my relationship with HIM is suspicious at best. You are leaning towards that I don't because I don't accept homos, prolly.

Rimi. Chill.
I don't really don't care who you accept or don't accept here in this thread. We aren't discussing that here. The question had nothing to do with that issue at all.
All I wanted to know was whether part of your faith included having a personal relationship.
You answered in the affirmative.
So in this we have something in common.


Still don't agree with your desire to judge mine though. I try to abide by lest not judge, speck and log in the eye line of teaching that's in the first part of the passage where your sig. quote comes from.

 

[Rimi]

Jade-ster here:



Rimi. Chill.
I don't really don't care who you accept or don't accept here in this thread. We aren't discussing that here. The question had nothing to do with that issue at all.
All I wanted to know was whether part of your faith included having a personal relationship.
You answered in the affirmative.
So in this we have something in common.


Still don't agree with your desire to judge mine though. I try to abide by lest not judge, speck and log in the eye line of teaching that's in the first part of the passage where your sig. quote comes from.

Sure you do. You want me to believe as you do or you wouldn't be here in the first place. And no, we're not discussing that, and NO we do not have anything in common at this point. But we are discussing HIM, which you can't seem to bring yourself to admitting.

Since you can't even figure out that God refers to HIMself as a HE, then no I suspect my judging you on what you say would make no sense to you either. Tho, it strikes me as hypocritical of you to tell me to chill, as tho you've judged that I was getting upset or something?? You go on ahead and worry about your own logs, and then you won't have to worry about what HE says in my sig. :chuckle:

 

[Jadespring]

Actually no. I'm here to discuss and learn about the difference in the way people approach Christ and their faith.

Actually I presumed it must be bothering you a little because of the provocative words you're using to describe the way I'm speaking and the sarcasm that seems to come through in your posts about me. But then I'll be the first to admit my error and perhaps this is just the way you treat and speak to people where you live or it's just a product of the failure of this medium to communicate are true intentions and the tone of what we are thinking. Dunno.

Anyways. If you wish to keep discussing the topic of this thread perhaps you could respond to the texts I posted a while back that Nin asked for or you could reclarify exactly what you're asking or trying to prove to me.

And yes I get the fact that we disagree on pronoun usage. : )

 

[Jadespring]

Some more stuff about God and gender if anyone is still interested.




Distinctly feminin representations of aspects of God:

Wisdom (already covered)

The Hebrew word for spirit is ruaḥ, meaning wind, breath, inspiration; the noun is grammatically feminine.
In the "Odes of Solomon'; the oldest surviving Christian hymnal, the word for "Holy Spirit" is grammatically female.

Language and translation issues around gender neutrality concepts.

The Greek word, 'pneuma', spirit has neutral grammatical gender. The Holy Spirit is translated in masculine terms only in languages such as Latin and English.
We don't have a gender neutral english pronoun to deal with this translation problem. (Many people use s/he to try to convey this idea instead of just using "it". Other solutions are to just use the word 'they' but this can lead to contextual problems with some texts.):

The Greek pronoun (αὐτ translated "Him" in John 14, speaking of the Holy Spirit, refers to self in all persons: him, her, it. "Him" in John 14 is a pronoun without gender.
The New Testament refers to the Spirit (πνεῦμα with grammatical neuter. "

In Hebrew apparently many of the names of God such as s YHVH, Adonai, YHVH are considered gender neutral. A gender-neutral translation of these is "Sovereign".
We only run into the problem of conveying gender neutral aspects of God when translating into English. It's not and issue if you read Hebrew.



Apparently RCC catachism teaches that God is neither man nor woman because God is pure in spirit and sexless. God can be reflected in both father aspects and mother aspects. However it is proper to refer to him as "Father" because of his role in the world as an authority figure.


Some mothering imagery....

Isaiah 49
3 Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult, O earth; break forth, O mountains, into singing! For the Lord has comforted his people, and will have compassion on his suffering ones. 14 But Zion said, "The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me." 15 Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you

Isaiah 66
13 As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

Psalm 131
2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me

 

[Rimi]

Jadespring lied:

Actually no. I'm here to discuss and learn about the difference in the way people approach Christ and their faith.

Not the purpose of this thread.

Actually I presumed it must be bothering you a little because of the provocative words you're using to describe the way I'm speaking and the sarcasm that seems to come through in your posts about me. But then I'll be the first to admit my error and perhaps this is just the way you treat and speak to people where you live or it's just a product of the failure of this medium to communicate are true intentions and the tone of what we are thinking. Dunno.

The sarcasm is only because you're insulting God and deserve it. But, yeah, you're right, it's sarcasm.

Anyways. If you wish to keep discussing the topic of this thread perhaps you could respond to the texts I posted a while back that Nin asked for or you could reclarify exactly what you're asking or trying to prove to me.

The topic of this thread as posited by Ninevah:

In reply to your above statement I asked you if you believed your god was a transgendered child rapist. You declined to answer, twice. Either God really is "s/he-is-all-in-all" or He is not. So, is your god really a "transgenedered" (He/She) "child molester" (is all) or not?

And yes I get the fact that we disagree on pronoun usage. : )

No. You disagree with HIM: Jesus Christ, the SON of God. If you have a problem, it's with HIM and HIS FATHER. (ouch, all those male references)

 

[Rafael Almeida]

Perhaps Jadespring is a supporter from feminist theology.

 

[Jadespring]

Rimi peeped:

Jadespring lied:
Not the purpose of this thread.

I thought you were refering to the big picture of why we were here on these boards.
I did not lie about this reason.

In reply to your above statement I asked you if you believed your god was a transgendered child rapist. You declined to answer, twice. Either God really is "s/he-is-all-in-all" or He is not. So, is your god really a "transgenedered" (He/She) "child molester" (is all) or not?

Yes. And I said no God wasn't.

No. You disagree with HIM: Jesus Christ, the SON of God. If you have a problem, it's with HIM and HIS FATHER. (ouch, all those male references)

[/QUOTE]

*laugh* Did you actually read my last post at all? *shakes her head in disbelief*

Look Rimi, if you're not actually going to respond to any of the biblical and information I post about gender neutrailty of the language used in the originial Bibical texts, and keep on blithering about like a broken record then there isn't much point in this is there?

She/he is not meant to be "transgendered" prounoun. It's meant to convey gender neutrality which is a very Bibilical concept

So in case you miss the point. Using s/he, she/he, it, they to refer to God is not in anyway way going to DAMN me to anything. Sorry to dissappoint. GOD used this way to describe (insert gender neutral pronoun that just doesn't exist in English here)-self in the Bible

 

[Jadespring]

Perhaps Jadespring is a supporter from feminist theology.

Hello Rafael,

I have no idea if I would be or not be a supporter of 'feminist theology". I've never actually studied it as a specific subject so don't even know what you would mean by it.

The she/he use is not at all about transgendered issue or even calling God a woman as we define it in human terms. It's a genderless issue.