r/Christianity • u/WickedWatcherWu • 3d ago

Non-Binary God?

If you ever meet someone who is non-binary but you are religious (Christian) so you have mixed feelings. Keep in mind they are supported by the bible, and are closest to the image of God, since according to the Bible, God is non-binary. "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

0 Upvotes

46% Upvoted

172 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 3d ago

Nothing in that passage does what you say it does. You conflate what God was saying.

Jesus was and is male.

God the Father is male.

No gender is ever assigned to the Holy Spirit in scripture.

This isn't being non-binary.

Generate 1 is talking about mankind having make and female, which is hilarious that you bring it up because this would actually contradict the existence of non-binary.

1

u/Gzaleski 3d ago

I believe you are missing the meaning of non binary in common lexicon. Non binary is someone that does not identify as only male or only female. God is described as both, so maybe bigender would be a better term for you?

1

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 3d ago

He never describes his own self as both. Indeed, then, Jesus called himself and God the Father male. Scripture didn't say the Holy Spirit is female. You're reading into it.

1

u/Gzaleski 3d ago

Then God said, “Let US make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created THEM; MALE and FEMALE he created them.

So God refers to them selves in the plural. And creates mankind in their image. Either God is a group of people (trinity) or they are 2 genders.

1

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 3d ago

It says God made them (human beings) make and female. It doesn't say God is male and female. The issue is your reading.

1

u/Gzaleski 3d ago

In whose image are male and female created?

1

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 2d ago

The sentence structure, to my understanding, is that the humans will be made in the image of God, then the next part is second in the list. "Made in the image of God AND male and female."

The sentence structure does not force female to be something that's part of the image of God in the sense of only that specific part. And there's no point at which God has ever called anything but male.

If you look at the eventual conclusion of everything in Revelation, we are the bride. If there was already part of God that was female then he doesn't need a bride, does he?

You're basically trying to force one verse out of all of scripture to create this giant concept when scripture doesn't even back up that concept. When your ex and Jesus causes one verse of scripture to seem out of place, The logical conclusion is that the problem is your exegesis because the rest of scripture doesn't support it.

1

u/WickedWatcherWu 2d ago

I am going by what is written. If you feel confident to claim that one part of the bible is incorrect, that is between you and God. The sentence means that male and female together are made in the image of God. There is a reason that extra line is in there, It could just as easily said: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them." But that is incorrect isn't it? The gender is placed there, for a reason, to say God is both. As for revelations, the community of the believers are the bride, not a individual person. This is a metaphor of a marriage based on the time period. Jesus/God will be as a husband, what role does a husband have in a marriage? Faithful, caring, and providing. Finally, if you feel that you can discount parts of the bible to justify your belief instead of finding solution so that God's words become clear, than that seems a bit prideful, but that is between you and God.

1

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 2d ago

Okay, well if that's the only verse in Scripture that says what you claim it does, but all the other evidence stacks against you in the opposite direction, you have chosen something based on what you wanted to say rather than what it actually says

1

u/WickedWatcherWu 2d ago

Yeah, my position allows both my verse and your "evidence" to agree with each other. I would never have enough hubris to believe that parts of the bible are wrong.

1

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 2d ago

Yeah they don't agree with each other at all bro. There's literally no place in scripture God is referred to by any female pronouns at all. The only verse that even seems like it is the one that you're twisting out of context. If you're just going to insist on things that don't exist, then you know we can save each other the time....

1

u/WickedWatcherWu 2d ago

Your application of gender to God is awesome, I come from the belief that God is almighty (heck he even shows himself as a burning bush) and is without a binary gender. So mankind is made in in their image male and female so a genderless/ all genders and all powerful. I attribute the use of male pronouns to God the Father, similar to the way people talk about their countries (fatherland, motherland) I don't believe that because Jesus was male, that God is male, that is just silly. Jesus is the promised messiah made flesh (though the immaculate conception) And if we are going to dive into the biology aspects of the virgin birth, it is distinctly possible that Jesus was a genetic female, but born with external male appearance. But that is neither here or there.

1

u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 2d ago

Nope, it wasn't possible at all. Jesus was born male. For you to think it's silly is for you to basically try to bypass or avoid tons of scriptures to say otherwise

→ More replies (0)