When will you become a Christian?

[chrispalasz]

What would it take for you to become a Christian?

What is an example of one specific, hypothetical situation that would have to occur in order for you to become a Christian?

Do you think it's possible that you will ever become a Christian? Do you think it's probable?


Christians: What DID it take for you to become a Christian?

8)

[dangerdan]

So, as a correction, the subject of this thread is the Christian God. And the Christian God is a He, not a "she". Please note that for future reference. Thanks.

Bah, I’ll continue to use “she” as my gender-neutral singular pronoun of choice thanks. I think it has a certain progressive and academic flair to it. May as well give the members of the fairer sex a go when it comes to linguistic conventions, we’ve hogged it for too long.

I don’t believe God would be accurately described as male or female, seriously. I think perhaps the authors of the bible referred to God as a “he” because that was the language convention…aaaand they were a tad bit misogynistic. Though yes, this debate is probably best suited for a different thread.

[Bro Dave]

You missed an option in your poll;

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!

Now, if you want to talk about following Jesus, and doing God's Will, I am rarin' ta go!

Bro Dave

8)

[DanMRaymond]

I think it's silly for any atheist to say no! If a God came down from the sky, stood before me and told me that he was indeed real, not only would I become a Christian, but I would become a monk as well.

[bernee51]

I think it's silly for any atheist to say no! If a God came down from the sky, stood before me and told me that he was indeed real, not only would I become a Christian, but I would become a monk as well.

Are you an atheist?

[DanMRaymond]

Yes I am

[Arch]

So, as a correction, the subject of this thread is the Christian God. And the Christian God is a He, not a "she". Please note that for future reference. Thanks.

Bah, I’ll continue to use “she” as my gender-neutral singular pronoun of choice thanks. I think it has a certain progressive and academic flair to it. May as well give the members of the fairer sex a go when it comes to linguistic conventions, we’ve hogged it for too long.

I don’t believe God would be accurately described as male or female, seriously. I think perhaps the authors of the bible referred to God as a “he” because that was the language convention…aaaand they were a tad bit misogynistic. Though yes, this debate is probably best suited for a different thread.

I was going to say exactly what you said for me, So I will make something up something else to say...lol

The act of creation, creativity, birth, wisdom, mercy are all feminine attributes. Thus I also will say she. If there is a creator it wouldnt be a man anyway. (man meaning physical flesh that distinguishes gender).

[potwalloper.]

What is an example of one specific, hypothetical situation that would have to occur in order for you to become a Christian?

Do you think it's possible that you will ever become a Christian? Do you think it's probable?

If I developed Alzheimer's disease, developed a brain tumour, or had some other form of degenerative brain disorder I might become a christian I suppose (I might also start talking to the fridge )

As to the probability ... some studies have indicated up to 75% of the population who are over 80 can suffer a degree of Mild Cognitive Impairment and dementia is, unfortunately, common. A stroke might also effect my brain function severely...

So it is possible

Not that I am saying that christians are somehow demented of course - I'm just trying to picture a situation where I might become a christian...

[chrispalasz]

dangerdan & Arch & if there's somebody I'm missing:

Well, I'm in no position to stop you, you can do what you want of course. But I would like to politely ask the both of you (and anyone else) to please, at least on this thread, refer to God as a He if you are talking about the Christian God.

By referring to Jesus Christ as a "she" you are denying Christianity and mocking it in those very words. You are also making a blatantly false claim and statement. There are so many reasons why the Christian God cannot be referred to as a "she", I could write a multiple page paper on it.

If you don't want to discuss the issue on this thread, then by all means continue using "she" - but by using "she" in whatever statement you make, you are in no way referring to the Christian God, even if you think you are.

I will just ignore all further posts/users that refer to Jesus Christ as a "she" on this thread. And that's pretty much all I'll say on the issue.

BTW - did you see this? ==> How cool is that?

[potwalloper.]

Well, I'm in no position to stop you, you can do what you want of course. But I would like to politely ask the both of you (and anyone else) to please, at least on this thread, refer to God as a He if you are talking about the Christian God.

Surely the determination of gender in a human sense depends upon two key factors - genetic make up and genital form.

I cannot see how this can be extrapolated to some divine being - are you saying that God has male genitalia or male genes? If not then surely gender allocation to god depended purely upon the social protocols at the time when biblical stories were being written down?

This issue is an important one - the anthrompomorphic view of a male god continues the perceived devaluation of females within society and propogates false views that "maleness" is somehow of greater value than "femaleness".

Surely any god that lacks physical form must, by definition, be gender neutral. As such they should be referred to as "it". However I cannot see any problem with the use of the female pronoun in these circumstances and cannot see how this in any way mocks or devalues a christian god (unless of course you feel that men are more important than women).

References to Christ (who in the stories was male) should, I agree, have the proper pronoun applied when referring to physical form rather than as a god...

[chrispalasz]

potwalloper wrote: Surely the determination of gender in a human sense depends upon two key factors - genetic make up and genital form.

The use of the term "He" is not in reference to His gender. Otherwise we might use "It" rather than either he or she. In a human sense, you are correct. There are other important factors that play a role in the gender-specific pronoun used in reference to God.

potwalloper wrote: I cannot see how this can be extrapolated to some divine being - are you saying that God has male genitalia or male genes?

Jesus was male. Jesus was God. Jesus was a "He". If God had become flesh in the form of a woman... you would have some sort of good excuse to be confused or some sort of grounds to make an argument. But, this isn't the case. With this argument aside (since I know this isn't where you're going with your argument), I'll move on to another point.

potwalloper wrote: If not then surely gender allocation to god depended purely upon the social protocols at the time when biblical stories were being written down?

Surely not. There are specific symbolic and theological purposes to God being referred to as a He, and it is by no human convention that He is a He. God being a He speaks towards Christianity to the very foundation.

potwalloper wrote: This issue is an important one

This issue is an imporant one. And that is why I object to the use of "she" in reference to God when a person is knowlingly and specifically talking about Christianity... especially if that person seeks to make some sort of point or statement beyond mocking or slandering the religion.

potwalloper wrote: the anthrompomorphic view of a male god continues the perceived devaluation of females within society and propogates false views that "maleness" is somehow of greater value than "femaleness".

This is one of the many many exaggerated, abused, and misused concepts that the Bible teaches. Men are not more important than women. Women are not more important than men. Your statement may be true for some other religion, but it is not true at all for Christianity, as it says in Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

potwalloper wrote:Surely any god that lacks physical form must, by definition, be gender neutral. As such they should be referred to as "it". However I cannot see any problem with the use of the female pronoun in these circumstances and cannot see how this in any way mocks or devalues a christian god (unless of course you feel that men are more important than women).

Again, surely not. The gender specific pronoun of "He" is applied to God for reasons beyond the scope of human genetalia. Most, if not all things that God establishes have symbolic meanings that have been established to show aspects of God or His plan or His nature, and remind us of Him in some way, shape or form. Using the pronoun "she" when talking about the Christian God implies that there is a "he" that is playing a more authoritative role over the "she". In the New Testament, there are parables using genders as representations, the wedding feast for example. Christ is referred to as the Groom and the Church of Christ is referred to as the Bride. They get married and become one. This is a symbolic theological representation, but is very important too. Christ lives and works inside Christians, and all True Christians together function as one body, the Body of Christ. God isn't a "she" if the Church is referred to as a "she". Also, God is referred to as the Father. Is your father a "she"? Do you mind if I use the pronoun "she" when referring to your father? You list that you are male. Are you a father? Can I call you a "she"? The Bible also states that men were created first, then women. I could also say, then, that referring to God as "she" indicates that there is a "he" that preexisted God: this is, of course, paradoxal nonsense. However, if human genetalia is the only reason you'll accept (which would be unreasonable), see below.

potwalloper wrote: References to Christ (who in the stories was male) should, I agree, have the proper pronoun applied when referring to physical form rather than as a god...

When we're talking about Christianity, what's the difference between talking about God and talking about Christ? Christianity makes the claim that Christ IS God. If you want to incorrectly state that Jesus is a "she", then go ahead and also incorrectly state that God is a "she".

Gospel of John
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I could go on about this, but I've made my point, as I said I could.

RESPONSES TO THIS POST SHOULD BE REDIRECTED TO A NEW THREAD THAT WAS CREATED HERE:

http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... 0789#10789