God is non binary. All right, let’s hear it. It’s all right, let’s see it. If man is made in God’s image, and woman is made in God’s image, and there’s one god. Well, what? Being made in the image of god does not refer to our individual biology or gender. On the contrary, Genesis 1:27 closely connects being created in God’s image with biological sex. Says, and god created humanity in his image. In the image of god, he created him. Male and female, he created them. And the scholarly consensus is that image and likeness fundamentally had to do with form and with outward appearance. And so male and female presenting bodies would be manifestations of the image and the likeness of god. There are ancient Jewish traditions about Adam being created circumcised precisely because he was created in the image of god, and god had a perfect male body, which is a circumcised body. There are ancient Jewish traditions about the first human being created with both sexes. And then in Genesis 2, when woman is taken from the side of man, that individual is separated into two individuals, each with their own distinct sex. So there are a lot of different ways that this has been interpreted historically. And just denying that this has anything to do with biology or with gender is just trying to cut the Gordian knot by denying it exists. This doesn’t even acknowledge or manifest any awareness of the exegetical complexity. And the history of this passage and its relationship to how women and men appear and how they appear differently, and what that has to do with how god appears. God in his transcended divine essence, does not fit into these human categories. So two things to say here. First, this is a post biblical concept of god that rejects the overwhelming consensus view of the biblical authors who understood god to not only have a corporeal anthropomorphic body, but to have a male body with a penis and testicles and a capacity for arousal and ejaculation. The notion that god was transcendent and doesn’t fit into these categories is actually the product of the superimposition of Greek philosophical frameworks on Greco Roman period Jewish ideologies and then later on Christian ideologies. That’s what initially gave rise to questions about God’s anthropomorphism and corporeal reality, which really wouldn’t be done away with until well after the Bible was completed. An origin of Alexandria in the third century CE very helpfully tells us the origins of that pivot away from an anthropomorphic male presenting deity. He says that the Jewish people and even Christians think that god has a corporeal body, but the philosophers despise it. So this is really Athens overruling Jerusalem. And you are endorsing this post biblical renunciation because that’s the tradition that you have received and that’s what you hold to be most authoritative. And this brings up the second thing. The notion that god is non Binary because god is not reducible to either male or female. Gender falls closer to what you just asserted. Then the notion you are going to go on to assert that god must be talked about as if god were male, even though god is definitely not male. Especially the concept you’re referring to, which is very modern and cannot be coherently defined. Both your renegotiated concepts are post biblical. It doesn’t matter how many centuries after one the other is, when neither of them are what the biblical authors and earliest audiences had in mind. But additionally, conceptual categories can’t be coherently defined. That’s just the nature of conceptual categories. They don’t exist outside of discourse about them, and so they are whatever the discourse determines they are. That’s why you cannot coherently define furniture or game. Any definition that you look up or try to come up with yourself is inevitably going to include items that aren’t part of the category and omit items that are part of the category. That’s just the nature of conceptual categories. But in fact, why don’t you respect God’s preferred pronouns? Those are not God’s preferred pronouns. Those are the linguistic expressions of humans who are trying to represent their own conceptualizations of god, which almost unilaterally understood god to be corporeal, anthropomorphic male presenting with a functioning penis. Conceptualizations that you entirely reject, even as you demand others honor and respect the linguistic husks of those conceptualizations. You should have used Haven then you would have had your question answered and seen other examples of verses. So I love how you insist that Genesis 1:27 is not about gender and that god transcends gender. And every last appeal to the Bible unilaterally endorses a masculine conceptualization of god. Including your appeal to this chatbot which says Genesis 1:27 is about gender and that god is gendered masculine in the Bible. Which makes my point for me that I already made. The notion that god transcends gender is a post biblical philosophical innovation, and you’ve just demonstrated that for me. The video obviously has an agenda. So does yours. You just imagine that yours is the default and so is therefore exempt from critique. You are not being genuine in your arguments. You have absolutely no data whatsoever that suggests that. You just again assume that your perspective is the default and therefore is exempt from critique and anyone who disagrees must not be genuine. It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? At least one thing is be a better Christian. And the fit for this video has been the Mcfarlane Spider Man.