Talarico recants past statements, says he was 'intentionally provocative' by calling God 'non-binary'

ViaCrucis said:

No, He literally received a body in the Incarnation. A human body.

God, in His Divine Essence, doesn't have a body. To say that He does is, as I said, the heresy of Audianism.

Click to expand...

Vambram said:

John 14:1-11

Multiple times, Jesus Christ referred to God the Father. This is merely just one passage of Scripture that does so. There are many more. GOD the FATHER is male.

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

So is it your position that God the Father has testes and a penis? I'm not being crude--I'm asking seriously. Is that what you believe?

I suspect that isn't what you believe, as that would be an absolutely insane thing for a self-proclaimed Christian to believe.

So perhaps you could explain what it would even mean for God the Father to be male. And since you, I'm sure, reject the idea of gender being different than biological sex, do so in a way where you don't accidentally defend "transgenderism" as I'm sure you'd call it.

Thank you, I'll be awaiting your reply.

Click to expand...

Vambram said:

The Lord God does NOT have a physical body. I'm sure that you know that. However, He IS male. Otherwise, Jesus would have prayed to the Heavenly mother instead of the Heavenly Father. Why does this appear to be a radical doctrine to you?

Click to expand...

Vambram said:

The Lord God does NOT have a physical body. I'm sure that you know that. However, He IS male. Otherwise, Jesus would have prayed to the Heavenly mother instead of the Heavenly Father. Why does this appear to be a radical doctrine to you?

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

Because some people would rather just accept what theyre told based on doctrinal traditions of their denomination and are afraid to consider alternatives than what they are told. So anything outside what they are told, is "radical".

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

I'm certainly glad you don't think God, in His Divine Essence, has a body (physical or otherwise). But then that does require you to explain what you mean by "male". Do you associate maleness with something other than biological sex? And if so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that many people who may be of one biological sex don't associate with it as their gender (and, ergo, identify as non-binary or transition from their assigned gender to another). I'm not trying to turn the debate that direction, I'm just not sure how you can hold these two things together without serious cognitive dissonance here.

But if you prefer not to answer all of that, please explain in what way God is "male". How can the Divine Essence have gender?

Why would God be "mother" if God has no gender? Explain your reasoning.

My problem isn't that this is a "radical doctrine", my problem is that it's a false doctrine. I reject that God is male for the same reason that I reject Arianism.

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

You clearly know my own personal faith story better than I do.

With my sarcasm out of the way.

I grew up in a very conservative Evangelical tradition. My family's church, until I was eight years old, was a non-denominational church, my education was, until I was 12, a school attached to an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church. When I was eight, my family switched to the local Foursquare (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, a Pentecostal denomination). I attended the Foursquare Church with my family until my mother passed and my father moved due to work, when I was 18 years old.

I began to take an interest in more serious biblical, theological, and historical study when I was about 17. This eventually led me to exposure to a larger spectrum of Christian views from across many denominations and traditions. And I began to have some of the ideas I grew up believing without question challenged, and I sought answers by more intensively reading the Bible, and working with both Hebrew and Greek interlinear texts and lexicons to help me better understand the original language of the texts. I took a strong interest in Patristics, the historic Creeds, and being concerned with not just coming up with whatever I wanted based on my personal opinion about what Scripture taught, but how it was read and understood historically.

Over a number of years this led me to many conversations with many Christians in many contexts and from many different backgrounds. But ultimately I found myself in the Lutheran tradition primarily because of the way Lutherans preached the Gospel in a radically Christ-centered and Grace-centered way that answered deep spiritual questions in my soul, both ones I was conscious of and many I wasn't conscious of.

I have continued in that process of questioning, searching, learning, and seeking to be informed and faithful to Jesus--even when and where it has meant butting heads with others. In my early years, I lost friends because of this. I faced ostracization. And even as some of those people who condemned me for questioning some ideas, all the while I remained devoutly Christian, have turned away and abandoned their Christian faith.

My singular drive, over the 25 years since this journey began, has been to be faithful to Jesus Christ.

So, with all due respect, you don't know me, or what I've been through.

Click to expand...

Delvianna said:

My response still stands based on what you've said thus far in this post. Your history doesn't matter and your "working with both Hebrew and Greek interlinear texts and lexicons to help me better understand the original language of the texts" doesn't matter when your current actions on refusal to accept what the "flesh" word actually means, makes this rant invalid.

Click to expand...