If the story is to be believed, Jesus was conceived via parthenogenesis (aka immaculate conception aka unfertilized egg). This means Jesus had only X chromosomes and yet presented as male. Jesus was definitely somewhere on the line of intersex, transgender, non-binary, et. al.
He had a Holy Father who was into rape.
This is funny and makes me smile
Yeah, no way an omnipotent God could do anything about the lack of Y chromosomes. He can create a new life in the womb of a virgin woman, but put a Y in the kid? Nope, His hands are tied, apparently.
Come on, lol.
My wife is a geneticist and we discovered she has an inactive y chromosome, so she is xxy, but a woman, and had babies.
All she needed was one gene SRY and she would be an odd looking male and likely infertile
I think they mean if the story that it was a virgin birth is real, not the story of God, because that for sure isn’t. Parthenogenesis is a real thing, though very rare in humans. It allows for virgin births. If the story is to believed that it was a virgin birth, then this is what it was. I don’t believe that story, but it is theoretically possible. I think it’s much more likely she slept with someone else and got pregnant. It wouldn’t be the first or last time a woman did that and said she was still a virgin, and it was a miracle.
Imagine working so hard to keep up a lie that you accidentally create a religion with billions of followers and people still telling your
lietale 2000 years later.
And he make out with Judas. Always surrounded himself with poor hard working people.
If conservative Christians cared what the Bible said, I’m sure they would be very upset!
Christians Read the Bible Challenge (they never do)
As living proof to the contrary, I wouldn’t say never. :p
But we sure are a rarity, I’ll give you that! (And admittedly, I could stand to be more thorough.)
Nothing infuriates me more than cherry-picking things out of context to support heinous and inhumane ideas, the way they do. The Americhristian cult is one of evil’s most potent weapons right now…
Certainly one topic I’m always happy to be proven wrong on
Are you trying to say God isn’t a man? Preposterous! Next thing you’re going to claim Jesus wasn’t blond and blue eyed!
next you’ll be trying to convince me the 12 apostles wasn’t his gay harem. preposterous!
Nowhere in the Holy Bible is it implied God is anything other than a dude. It’s always father this and king that when referring to God.
Unless you mean Joseph is non-binary? In which case, again, no. He’s just a cuckold who didn’t ever consummate his marriage to Mary, and they both died as virgins. Which is honestly the most unbelievable part of the whole story.
Man, imagine being cucked by the actual GOD himself, like, the holy father?!
I’m honestly surprised that all the incel NEETs haven’t formed a religion around that, I mean come on! At least that would be sociologically interesting. But no, we just get that Andrew Taint fellow instead.
IIRC, the virgin Mary stuff is mostly Catholic sanctification stuff. They wanted to make her “pure” so they said she was a virgin.
“… died as virgins.”
Holy shit, one of us?
God is three entities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That sounds like an extension of the nonbinarism of Two Spirit to me.
Yahweh was always a dude and even had a wife before these new age cultists wrote her out of the story. Typical.
Ashera was not completely erased but to a degree merged with her husband and therefore gave him female and arguably non binary features
The people believing in this deity today don’t think so and you won’t convince them otherwise.
Yeah, even if there were a whole section of the bible describing god as a woman people would still fight you for even suggesting that they’re not 100% man.
God is described as a nurturing mother sometimes
Those people aren’t a monolith. Some do think so
I was pondering altering my post to “(Most of) the people” but honestly, from what I know, I don’t think the people considering the Christian god anything other than manly masculine male are a significantly large group to have any effect on anything. At some point it’s impossible to take any and all aberrations into account if you want to have a meaningful discussion.
In your last comment you said “this deity” and that includes Christians with different views on God. But if you ment it in the sense of a very masculine conceptualization, I misunderstood and totally agree
RIP Asherah. #neverforget
- The Father, God, is referred to as “He” consistently thousands of times in modern translations of the Bible, and he’s either literally or metaphorically “the Father”.
- The Son, Jesus, is unambiguously male in his earthly incarnation, and he’s either literally or metaphorically “the Son”.
- The Holy Spirit is referred to as masculine in English translations of the Bible, while Greek translations treat the Spirit more like an object-force-of-nature type whose pronouns change at any time to coincide with the type of object describing it (e.g. “comforter” is masculine, but “spirit” is neutral) and Hebrew just sticks with the feminine pronoun of the noun “spirit”.
If you read a modern English version of the Bible, you have three entities in one which all are all consistently identified as masculine. Trying to treat God as non-binary with regard to modern English translations is more mental gymnastics than arguing why Kris Dreemurr isn’t non-binary.
Given this is all fiction, it’s safe to say that death of the author is in play here, namely that 99.99% of the modern Christians who’d get offended at non-binary people existing would also not think of God as non-binary even after pondering on it, because their culture and holy book categorically treat God as masculine.
I don’t dispute the male attributes. The superposition of gendered entities is what someone could argue makes God not just “a male” but rather “multiple males in one”. Is there any history of people with dissociative identity disorder (DID) identifying as some level of not-straight on the basis of their DID? Are there any other analogous cases that have been linked to identifying as not one of the two main genders due to a level of plurality?
We do not have DID, but we are plural. Some of us are female, some male, some nonbinary.
Each of us identifies as our own respective gender. But what gender is a community? We submit that even groups consisting of a single gender are not considered to have a group gender. A sorority’s membership may be entirely comprised of women, but is the sorority itself considered female?
Ignoring for a second all the controversy around the term “two-spirit”, even if we say that two-spirit is the extremely Western concept – detached from indigenous culture – of a male and female in the same body (or even just generically two genders in one body), that still doesn’t apply, because all of the entities are male. In set theory, if you keep adding the same element to the set over and over, the set doesn’t change.
Moreover, even if there were the kind of history you’re talking about, I’m not sure why dissociative identity disorder is being brought up here, because that categorically isn’t how God as multiple entities works within the fiction of the Bible. We see God and Jesus talking to each other back and forth multiple times, and that’s not how DID works. DID – a controversial diagnosis – isn’t a sitcom where two flatmates hang out inside your mind and banter. You’re dissociating so badly that you lose continuity, but God is clearly able to work as all three just fine at the same time.
Jesus had siblings. There is even a record of one, John, being executed by being thrown from a high place.
I hate to be the “umm actually guy🤓”, but in the bible God is described as both man and woman. God is described as a being beyond gender as God is a spirit.
The most promiment ones describe God as father, but he’s also often described as mother and attributed female traits to them.
But as I said that’s none of my business.
often described as a mother [in the Bible]
Definitely going to need a source for that one. Isaiah 66:13 is a one-off similie to mothers comforting their children, but I don’t think you’d then turn around, read Psalm 42:1, and think that David is an otherkin and that God identifies as waterself.
hey leave your heteronormativity out of the bible david can be whoever they want
I recall (but am not up to finding at this hour) one spot in the OT where someone is talking about God feeding mankind with the milk from his breast. And I think he “birthed” ice and snow in the book of Job?
But in this case, the Holy Spirit is the one that “came on Mary.”
God the father and God the son are masculine, but God the spirit is without gender.
Also, Jesus had brothers in the story, and they don’t seem to be supernatural beings, so I think it was consummated eventually.
Jesus had brothers in the apocryphal books, that are not usually recognized as part of the Bible (the church says because they have been written later than the four main ones)
The book of Acts is not generally considered apocryphal.
Is it possible for a concept of binary gender to exist in a species which has only ever had one member?
species which has only ever had one member?
That is a fascinating approach. What does it eat? Where does it live? What are its habits? I strongly suspect Jane Goodall is on the case, but I don’t expect to hear back from her anytime soon…
If I remember correctly, there are older pieces of the Bible that come from a time where Jahve was only one of a duality of Gods, male god Jahve and a female god that later got incorporated into Jahve.
Shady reference that just partially overlaps
I’m sorry, does the holy spirit have a gender? Because god is also the holy spirit and Jesus. So while the “Father” part may be a man, and I think it’s probably correctly translated as such. I don’t think there’s any assumption of such for the holy spirit.
Not so sure about any of that. Sounds pretty non-binary to me.
Not a definite disagreement on the the non binary part but overwhelmingly, the God of the bible is male presenting including having a penis
Man, it’s always fun listening to scholars make vague and circular arguments like you see in that video. So many times there’s an interpretation that’s taken as fact, and bolstered by other parts that both support and rely on the initial supposition to be true to be true themselves, or could have been referring to the initial supposition but now used to support it.
Was Adam’s penis created circumcized? Of course, because he’s made in gods image and God has a circumcized penis. How do we know God has a penis? There are euphemisms in semitic languages that use the same words to refer to penises, so clearly that’s what they meant. No, it doesn’t say it for sure, but it has to be true! There’s no way the men writing the mythos would anthropomorphize god and give it masculine characteristics while writing a text that was extremely patriarchal, as was the society at the time.
I mean, all of it is made up bullshit, so analyzing it to that degree is silly.
Yeah, how silly to critically analyze ancient historical/cultural texts to better understand history. Obvious the study of history is just about judging how stupid people in the past were compared to us modern day geniuses. That’s the real value of reading history - the schadenfreude of “lol those stupid ancient Greeks didn’t understand how thunder works. I’m so much smarter than they were.”
It’s not like there’s any value in trying to watch the evolution of a cultures belief over time, and try to see if you can better understand patterns and trends in human behavior. The Bible is poopoo for dumdums, and there’s no value in anything that isn’t STEM.
Thank you SO much for this comment. Elegantly put.
As a person of faith myself I’m a touch biased, but I’m so weary of that seemingly compulsive online behavior to take every possible pot-shot at peoples’ belief systems and ancient texts and history, to appear oh-so-enlightened for easy points. It’s such reddit-farmer behavior that seems to be consistently rewarded.
It’s painful how devalued the study of humanity has become, and crazy how close history can feel when you study it in context rather than just cramming facts for a test.
We ridicule the past at our peril.
Random tidbit: you might enjoy an anime called “Termae Romae Novae” (spelling?) about a Roman bath house constructor who time travels to modern Japan. The woman who wrote it is a historian who studied the topic deeply!
It’s so endearing and really drives home how, if we could only talk to these people now, we might find each other to be absolutely brilliant. The fallacy of the “idiot ancestors” needs to be put down.
deleted by creator
The bible is not a historical text though. It was made up hundreds of years after the time it claims to depict.
Look up when Tacitus was writing his histories versus when they happened. Most ancient history is written years after the fact.
They also give us historical information about the time they were written, even if we can’t trust their accounts of the time they claim to describe.
Also, most books in the New Testament were written within a matter of decades.
Y’all really need to take some history classes. We don’t treat sources as if they are infallible depictions of events. We think about bias. We think about corroborating evidence. And if there are problems in a source, that doesn’t mean it has no value.
The scholar in the video literally includes an image of God with his penis from 800 BCE at the end of the video. Maybe actually watch the thing before you decide he’s making “circular arguments.”
Yeah, well most (if not, all) religion is male-dominated, so it’s natural to think God is a man. That’s a pretty unhealthy point of view, especially considering that the entire world is run by men, which means egos running wild, one-upmanship on the reg, violence ad nauseum, not to mention followers oppressing anyone that doesn’t fit the mold. That’s not religion; that’s dominator culture. Knocking your head on the floor is just going to give you brain damage.
One of his fathers was also his son
Dude had a mom and an adopted father but retditard write shit like that.
