I am really proud of this lineup today, folks. I feel like it’s gotta be one of the broadest ranges of topics I’ve had in a while and they are all very interesting reads, at least in my opinion! Several of them are not just about what the title implies, but about something interesting related to that topic (like the one on pro-life being not just about the pro-life position but about how it might relate to evangelism). I’m pumped to share these posts. Let me know what you think in the comments here, and be sure to let the authors know you enjoyed their posts as well!
How Pro-Life Apologetics Helps Strengthen Your Evangelism– The case for the pro-life position is, in my opinion, absolutely philosophically and scientifically insurmountable. Here, Wintery Knight shares some thoughts on how learning the ins-and-outs of pro-life apologetics can also help evangelism.
Ehrmann Errors on Jesus’ Authority to Forgive– Noted skeptic Bart Ehrmann has argued that the notion that Jesus is divine was a later development in Christianity. What might the Bible itself–the earliest documents we have on the topic–reveal?
Observations About Commenting on Young Earth Creationist Facebook Pages– Let’s clear the water: commenting on Facebook pages is almost always going to get into some random fight about something… probably something completely unrelated to the original comment. The greater the importance of the topic, the more off the rail it often gets. That happens everywhere. However, here, the “Geochristian” shares some insights specific to discussing young earth creationism.
In the Image of Man they Created God; Male They Created Him– God is not male. God is Spirit. It is not inappropriate to use biblical pronouns for God like “He”; however, the danger is that we begin to think of God as a kind of Grandpa in the sky. Here’s some insight into the problems with assigning gender to God.
Scientific Mythologies: How Science and Science Fiction Forge New Religious Beliefs– Here, Anthony Weber shares a brief book review along with some insights related to this wonderful work by James Herrick. I do highly recommend the book to my readers. I shared a Sunday Quote about it some time ago.
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 
“God is not male. God is Spirit.”
Why should we think gender is a strictly biological phenomena? How much do you want to bet that Rachel Held Evans sides with the transgender narrative about women being stuck in men’s bodies and vice versa?
Posted by Remington | January 16, 2015, 9:42 AMThe comment on Rachel Held Evans seems to be guilt by association.
Regarding the rest, I’d simply appeal to much of what was said in the post. God is described in both feminine and masculine metaphors; male and female are both created in the image of God; the Godhead is not physical and so clearly not physically male; etc.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | January 16, 2015, 9:58 AM“The comment on Rachel Held Evans seems to be guilt by association.”
I doubt Rachel Held Evans would view that association as one of guilt.. that’s just your own colors showing. Anyway the point is that some of the same persons who want to decry God being male, based on the fact that God is not physical, are some of the same ones who take the position that gender isn’t physical!
“Regarding the rest, I’d simply appeal to much of what was said in the post.”
But nothing that was said in the post addressed the issue of whether gender is strictly biological.
“God is described in both feminine and masculine metaphors”
That’s true, but things like ‘As the eyes of a female servants look to the hand of her mistress, So our eyes look to the LORD our God…’ don’t strike me as having any more relevance to God being gendered or not gendered than ‘As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you O God’ has relevance for whether or not David is cervidae.
“male and female are both created in the image of God”
That’s true, but I’ve never heard of anyone thinking being made in God’s image involves being their gender. Almost everyone grounds the imago dei in things like “rationality” and “communal” and “authority”. Just like I don’t think the human species having hair is what the text has in mind when it speaks of humankind being in God’s image, I don’t think gender has anything to do with it either. So the fact that both women and men are made in God’s image has as much relevance to God’s being gender neutral as us having different color eyes has relevance to God’s being iris-neutral.
“the Godhead is not physical and so clearly not physically male”
Agreed.
Posted by Remington | January 16, 2015, 10:44 AM“I doubt Rachel Held Evans would view that association as one of guilt.. that’s just your own colors showing. Anyway the point is that some of the same persons who want to decry God being male, based on the fact that God is not physical, are some of the same ones who take the position that gender isn’t physical!”
Really, this is absolutely a textbook case of the logical fallacy of “guilt by association.” Oh look, someone who has ideas you disagree with also holds to the same position on this other topic!
And?
Again, this is an absolutely textbook case of fallacious reasoning.
Regarding the rest, I simply stand by what I said. None of it has been refuted, and as you have done at multiple points elsewhere, the appeal simply seems to be “well look at this other possible interpretation, therefore yours is wrong.” I’m not going to go down that rabbit trail. I’ve said my piece, and you’ve used fallacious reasoning and just appealed to other possible interpretations. I’ll let readers decide by reading the post and these comments.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | January 16, 2015, 11:08 AMYou’re mistaken on the guilt by association fallacy. I didn’t use Evans to show that anyone else was wrong, I used Evans as a likely candidate for an inconsistency in those who seem to understand gender as strictly biological when it comes to the question of whether God is gendered (they argue he can’t be because he isn’t biological) and yet don’t view gender as biological when it comes to transgendered persons. And the reason I used Evans as the candidate is because the article you link to defends Evans and Evans shows up in the comment section of the article.
I also didn’t appeal to any alternative possibilities and then conclude you were wrong. Rather, I demonstrated why the points you and the article you link to appealed to (feminine metaphors, females in image of God, etc) don’t support the conclusion that God isn’t gendered.
Posted by Remington | January 16, 2015, 12:47 PM