Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

This reminds me of the argument Paul condemned, which said, "let us commit evil so that grace might increase!"

In my view, that's very similar to the argument some make today which says, "let us commit evil because human evolution is enhanced by pain, and curiosity comes from pain, and without pain life would be boring, so doing evil is good for our species!"

[Rían]

More re Lief's HSpirit female thing - I just remembered Jesus specifically using "He" when mentioning the HSpirit (in John chpt 16 for example) ...

Well, I don't think God can be strictly classified as male/female, anyway, and it's clear that men AND women are made in God's image, so ...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

More re Lief's HSpirit female thing - I just remembered Jesus specifically using "He" when mentioning the HSpirit (in John chpt 16 for example) ...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, I don't think God can be strictly classified as male/female, anyway, and it's clear that men AND women are made in God's image, so ...

I'm going to give you a long post responding, and giving the scripture-based reasons why I view the Holy Spirit as female. Why? For fun . If you have any objections to any point in my reasoning, please bring them up.

The Old Testament word for spirit that was used to describe men's spirits and the Holy Spirit was "ruwach", which meant breath, inspiration or wind. The Old Testament noun was feminine, according to this website, America and Israel in Bible Prophecy and another I've found. I chose this particular website as a citation because it seems trustworthy, especially in view of the fact that the site is of the position that the Holy Spirit is male rather than female. It doesn't try to make an argument on the subject, but it does assume it in its text.

Here's what it says about ruwach.

In the Old Testament in Isaiah 11:2 the word spirit is taken from the Hebrew word,xwr Ruwach (roo'-akh); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 7307. With this word not being capitalized it becomes a common noun. It's usage is that of a feminine sense.

The term "Holy Spirit," is extremely rare in the Old Testament. It is pretty common in the New Testament though, in the form of the Greek word "pneuma", which is neutral, not denoting masculinity or femininity (this link and this link support this. Paragraph 3 of the first link, and around the middle of the second link's page, you'll see the words in bold). Seizing upon the neutrality of the New Testament term, some people have claimed that the Holy Spirit is a neutral force rather than a person. I vehemently disagree with these people, because of many passages in the New Testament that describe the Holy Spirit in such terms that (s)he is clearly a person and a part of God, rather than a force. Also, the Old Testament word describes the Spirit as feminine rather than neutral.

The English and Latin translations of the Bible term the Holy Spirit as "he", but this choice is rather arbitrary and doesn't actually have any ties to the words actually used to describe the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments.

There also are other places in the scripture which I feel clearly describe the Spirit as female. In Proverbs, Wisdom is constantly described as a person and as a woman. Jesus also described Wisdom as female in the New Testament when he said, "wisdom is proved right by her actions."

The Spirit of the Lord is also described as the "Spirit of Wisdom," in the Old Testament.

Originally Posted by Isaiah 11:2

And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord

All these descriptions of the Holy Spirit could have been taken straight out of the descriptions of Wisdom in Proberbs. Compare them to Proverbs 8:12-14. There, Wisdom is described as possessing discretion, sound judgment and understanding, counsel and power, knowledge and the fear of the Lord. Everything in Isaiah 11:2 that describes the Spirit is contained in those three verses describing Wisdom.

Wisdom is also described there as having been given birth before the world began. Wisdom was "from the beginning," "appointed from eternity," and in 8:30 it says she was the craftsman at the Lord's side during creation, "filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind." This rejoicing and active creating role sounds like the description of a vibrant, thrilled person, NOT a mere attribute . IMHO.

The logical next question is, "well, if the Holy Spirit was Wisdom, then how could she have been created by the Lord? The Spirit of God is eternal."

I think that asking this question is missing the description of the Spirit's birth.

Originally Posted by Proverbs 8:22-23

"The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began."

This description of the birth of Wisdom doesn't seem to show her being created. She was "brought forth," "appointed from eternity." The added emphasis is simply to indicate a second possible interpretation of those words. It says of Wisdom in verse 25 that she was certainly given birth. She was one of God's works. However, we already all say exactly the same thing about Jesus. He was given birth, and through the Incarnation was one of God's works. He was certainly created in a certain form, though he too was from eternity. He was "brought forth," on Earth, in a certain form. If that can happen with Jesus, I don't see why it should be strange to people that this could happen with the Spirit. That the Spirit should change shape in some way in order to interact with us and creation, and that this new form should be one of God's works, is neither a very bizarre idea, nor out of character for God. He's done it before .

Then there also is the character of the Holy Spirit, as revealed from scripture, to consider. The Spirit is a Counselor, a child-bearer ("flesh gives birth to flesh, but Spirit gives birth to spirit"), a Comforter, a Teacher, a Helper. The Spirit also is submissive to the Father, as a wife bends to a husband. Again, not that they are husband and wife in the same way humans can be husband and wife, but God often gives physical symbols to reveal deeper spiritual realities. This might be another layer of the Earth family symbol God has created for us.

I asked a pastor once why it is an unforgiveable sin to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and not an unforgiveable sin to blaspheme Jesus. She answered that the Spirit was innocent, defenseless and pure, desiring only good. She explained further by saying that blaspheming the Spirit was different from blaspheming Jesus in that it was "like striking a woman." I think that this is literally true. Not that the Spirit is literally a woman, but that she is feminine in nature and fulfills this role in the Godhead. Just as striking a defenseless woman is worse than striking a man, so blaspheming the Spirit is unforgiveable.

So here's my rather lengthy description of the scripture reasons why I think the Spirit is feminine .

[Rían]

Interesting!

Do you know about this, though:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The English and Latin translations of the Bible term the Holy Spirit as "he", but this choice is rather arbitrary and doesn't actually have any ties to the words actually used to describe the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments.

When Jesus uses the pronoun "he" (as opposed to the word "spirit"), are you saying that the pronoun is neuter, too?

[Lief Erikson]

Here's a quotation from Wikipedia on the subject:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Many prayers use one or more of the names for God many times within the same paragraph. The first time it appears a proper name is used, while further instances use a third person pronoun. English speakers usually use masculine or feminine third person pronouns to refer to people, and the third person pronoun "it" to refer to non-people. Traditionally, in both Jewish and Christian cultures, the third-person pronoun "He" has been used to refer to God in English translations. Functionally, even in non-religious contexts, English speakers have generally used the word "he" as a substitute for a gender-neutral third person pronoun. While grammatically male, the word "he" is often functionally used in a non-male sense.

In all languages with grammatical gender, the grammatical gender of words often has little or no relation to biological or sexual gender. With regard to the pronouns employed in speaking of the Holy Spirit, in Indo-European languages (and some other languages as well), the masculine pronoun can be used in either a masculine or a gender-indefinite sense, while the feminine pronoun is always feminine.

In English, it is improper to speak of a person with the neuter pronoun "it". Since the Bible teaches that God is in many ways like a person, English speakers have avoided using "It", and instead used "He".

Full article. Just citing.

[Nurvingiel]

Er, what thread is this? Did "Theology" get merged with "The REAL discussion thread on RELIGION"? I just want to add that I started Theology.

Anyway, about the gender of the Holy Spirit thing, I view the Holy Spirit as not having a gender at all. Of course, seeing the Spirit as a male or a female is perfectly valid too. I think references in the Bible to the Spirit as "He" is due to pronouns in the English language. "It" could refer to a genderless entity, but it is disrespectful to refer to a person or Spirit as "it" thus, He (or She).

That's my take on it anyway. (Not quite as detailed as Lief's. )

[Rían]

from Lief's article
The Greek pronoun [can't print] 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.

This appears to be what I was referring to - does the actual pronoun in GREEK (the original language) have a gender? There are several references to "He" in John 16; do those pronouns have a gender? Do ANY pronouns referring to the HSpirit have a gender in the original language? (English doesn't matter) They only mention John 14 in the article.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, it's certainly a valuable gift. But I don't think it's anything to be proud of in the way that one can be proud of an achievement, because we had nothing to do with how much intelligence we ended up with. I think we can be proud (or ashamed) of what we DO with our intelligence, though. And we can be grateful for our intelligence and our other strengths, if you think there's anyone to be grateful TO . If you believe in evolution, though, then I suppose you can just be grateful to "blind luck" or any of the other evolution gods.

Actually, I believe that behind every person, there's only their selves, and that all their intelligence and accomplishments are reflections of the stregnth of their selves and their own awareness of that stregnth. I'm proud of myself and grateful to myself. I know there have been outside influences on me, but it was just me who got me to the point I'm at now.

I think of the self as some force or something comparable to a conscience, that's inside each person, giving them stregnth, confidence of character, and consistency.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you think this is a good thing [that allowing allegorical interpretations of certain parts of the Bible "allows more people to believe in the religion"]? If so (or if not), why?

I think it's obviously a good thing for the religion. That's one reason why I sort of shake my head at the more stubborn Creationists, whose disections of the Bible distract from its message and do more harm than good. But really I think religion in general is bad, because it distracts from the meaning of life, which is, there is no meaning to life and so we should make the most of it.

From a slightly less far-seeing point of view, it is good for certain people who cannot build a relationship between themselves and their actions, themselves and society, or themselves and nature in any other way. IOW, sometimes people are too weak or too stupid to develop their own values, and they turn to religion. That's good because, if they adhere to that religion's teachings, they're less likely to do harm. Just keep in mind that I know this is certainly not the case with everybody and probably rarely the case at all.

What a complicated question!

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

Do you think it's right to beleive in two things simultaneously that others are constantly at odds about?

If the others are all wrong, sure! If you think your two things really do contradict each other, at least that's a start. Just think harder on each of those opposing views and come to some compromise, for lack of a better word. For example, my seventh-grade science teacher said "the Big Bang created the universe, because God wanted it."

Also, you reminded me of something I'd like to address in this thread, but I'll wait untill all of your questions are answered to your satisfaction before I bring it up again. In the meantime, having to contain myself here is killing me.

Probably though, you'd have been more satisfied with a separate thread, yes. You're just looking for a way to find harmony with two of your own beliefs, right? Other people's opinions would complicate that severely, I think. I just hope you figure it out. If you want, you can PM me (and probably at least a few others) if this thread strays to far from the info you're looking for. I promise not to subject you to my biases.

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

I don't say it like it is, I say it as though it is.

Cool.


NOTE: I can't read past page 23 of this thread tonight. I skimmed through the rest and noticed that I hadn't been quoted or anything , so now it's bedtime. Good night all!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

But really I think religion in general is bad, because it distracts from the meaning of life, which is, there is no meaning to life and so we should make the most of it.

Then each person has the right to make up their own meaning of life, since "there is no meaning to life"?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This appears to be what I was referring to - does the actual pronoun in GREEK (the original language) have a gender? There are several references to "He" in John 16; do those pronouns have a gender? Do ANY pronouns referring to the HSpirit have a gender in the original language? (English doesn't matter) They only mention John 14 in the article.

I didn't notice that I'd quoted a statement about Indo-European languages rather than the Greek. My bad. *Goes and does more research. Finds a debated point and examines it closely, which takes a lot more research. Then returns with findings.*

Throughout the New Testament, the word "pneuma", or "Spirit" is a neutral term with genderless pronouns to match. However, in John the pronoun "ekeinos", which indicates masculinity, is used to describe the Greek masculine word "paraklétos", "Comforter". Many words in Greek are either masculine or feminine, like in French, and the pronouns used to describe them must be male or female to match. For example, if someone asks me "where is my book?" in French, I might answer, "he is on the table!" Since "book" in French is masculine, my pronoun has to be the same. The Greek word for heart is karidia, which is Greek and feminine. One might say of a human heart in Greek, "She is still pumping."

In Greek, the grammar must match in case, number and gender. The pronoun "ekeinos", "he," is used in John 15 and 16 to refer to the Comforter, because in Greek, the word "comforter" is masculine. Perhaps when John chose the word "Comforter," he purposely wanted to also express the masculinity of the Spirit through the use of this word. However, since many words in Greek are masculine or feminine, this could also easily have been a simple coincidence of the grammar.

Meanwhile, whenever the word "Spirit," is used in the New Testament, a neutral pronoun referenced it.

So we can see all three ways of referring to the Spirit in the Bible. The Old Testament is chock full of a feminine word. The New Testament description of the Spirit is almost exclusively done with the neutral word, though with "Counselor," it is masculine. Jesus also refers to the Holy Spirit as "it," when he isn't talking about it as the Counselor. Though he refers to Wisdom as she, when he says, "wisdom is proved right by her actions."


An interesting sidenote: "Ekklesia", the word for the church in the original Greek, is feminine. The word "church" was apparently referred to with the female pronoun "she" throughout the Greek text . One could also, of course, say that that was merely a trick of the grammar. And perhaps it was coincidence! Whether it was or not, however, I thought it was pretty cool in view of how the church is portrayed in Revelation and Song of Songs.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Er, what thread is this? Did "Theology" get merged with "The REAL discussion thread on RELIGION"? I just want to add that I started Theology.

And we are still discussing theology!

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Anyway, about the gender of the Holy Spirit thing, I view the Holy Spirit as not having a gender at all. Of course, seeing the Spirit as a male or a female is perfectly valid too. I think references in the Bible to the Spirit as "He" is due to pronouns in the English language. "It" could refer to a genderless entity, but it is disrespectful to refer to a person or Spirit as "it" thus, He (or She).

That's my take on it anyway. (Not quite as detailed as Lief's. )

Yes, the "he," except where it is tied to the Comforter, is interpretation rather than translation. The actual translation says "it", in the New Testament. Though there are many New Testament passages that suggest the Spirit is a person rather than a neutral force.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

from Wiki...


Bizarre!

No one gets my joke? Anyone?

...oh well. Coney would have gotten it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

An interesting sidenote: "Ekklesia", the word for the church in the original Greek, is feminine. The word "church" was apparently referred to with the female pronoun "she" throughout the Greek text . One could also, of course, say that that was merely a trick of the grammar. And perhaps it was coincidence! Whether it was or not, however, I thought it was pretty cool in view of how the church is portrayed in Revelation and Song of Songs.

And consistent with Catholic tradition stretching back quite a way.

Many words in Greek are either masculine or feminine, like in French, and the pronouns used to describe them must be male or female to match. For example, if someone asks me "where is my book?" in French, I might answer, "he is on the table!" Since "book" in French is masculine, my pronoun has to be the same. The Greek word for heart is karidia, which is Greek and feminine. One might say of a human heart in Greek, "She is still pumping."

Well, gee, I coulda just told you that! Pronouns have to match their antecedents in number and gender, and usually case.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then each person has the right to make up their own meaning of life, since "there is no meaning to life"?

And the responsibility to respect other people's "meanings of life".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then each person has the right to make up their own meaning of life, since "there is no meaning to life"?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And the responsibility to respect other people's "meanings of life".

So..."Then each person has the right to make up their own meaning of life, since "there is no responsibility to respect other people's "meanings of life"."

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So..."Then each person has the right to make up their own meaning of life, since "there is no responsibility to respect other people's "meanings of life"."

No, the statement has two parts.

Part one, allows for each individual to come to their own conclusion of what the meaning of life is.

Part two, as long as you do not persecute someone for a different belief than you don't have a resposibility to respect it. Just don't 'diss 'em'

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I know, I know... note the

[Spock]

Oh!

[brownjenkins]

embrace paradox!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And consistent with Catholic tradition stretching back quite a way.

You know I've never said all Catholic tradition is bogus. I'm sure they're on target about plenty of things. I think some parts of Catholic tradition are bogus, though .

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well, gee, I coulda just told you that! Pronouns have to match their antecedents in number and gender, and usually case.

I'll ask you to do my research for me, next time .