Beaneater

Follower of Jesus. Husband, father, linguist, translator.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@SIGSECV @Valantina888 @primediscussion @ZaidJilani Let's grant what you sayfor the sake of argument. That would be *exactly* why I object to Talarico saying that God is non-binary. Because he is (implicitly, I admit) stating that God is for example gender non-conforming, which is at best a category error and at worst just wrong.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@dosbottim @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani Sorry, I should have been more clear. Would you ever call your backpack non-binary in the sense that (I posit) Talarico means? That would be the identity-politics sense that basically didn't exist until 2010.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@thicc_gandalf @primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani We are not going to find common ground, which is a shame because I can usually find common ground with people, even if it's just agreeing on where we disagree. AT, for instance, just said something I agree with 100%. That is always rewarding.

So have a great rest of your day.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@primediscussion @thicc_gandalf @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani I agree 100%. That is why I object to the term "non-binary" for God. Because it implies that a) God is part of a sex or gender binary, and that b) God does not identify with either pole of that binary. I'm glad we agree!

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@thicc_gandalf @primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani (Inanimate) things don't have sex. Some languages have noun systems that include grammatical gender. Grammatical gender does not equal biological sex.

My argument is about sex. Grammatical gender is indeed irrelevant.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@Valantina888 @primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani The use of the word non-binary is a tell-tale. It is a word that essentially didn't exist until 2010. It is inextricably associated with modern identity politics.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@thicc_gandalf @primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani Masculine in grammatical gender does not equal male (or sexed in any way at all). Grammatical gender is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@thicc_gandalf @primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani I don't think we're going to find any common ground.

*I* have made an argument (namely, that non-binary is not a relevant category for God, and that therefore Talarico was making a political statement that I disagree with). No one has really engaged with that.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@SIGSECV @thicc_gandalf @primediscussion @ZaidJilani My brother, please note that I am not the one who started this useless (I agree!) gotcha on the word "being". That would be AT. I am more than happy to move back to the larger topic at hand.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@thicc_gandalf @primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani I will simply point to the definition as given. I agree that none of the examples are inanimate.

Will it make you happy if I take the word "being" out of the post in question and substitute "thing"? Then we can actually talk about the question at hand.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@thicc_gandalf @primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani You should take the L. You clearly stated that the word "thing" is (and I quote you) "not used to represent an inanimate object".

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani And that is not my point. Sentience was not and never has been my point. Sexed vs. not-sexed is.

And "non-binary" *is* functionally restricted to the modern political lens. See https://t.co/cAwdYvnfu0 and let me know when people started using the word.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani It's not critical at all. God is a thing that is not a sexed thing. God is a being that is not a sexed being. It works either way.

You have not engaged with my argument at all, so I will disregard your evaluation of it at this point.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@adjustleft @ZaidJilani Well, there's our true point of disagreement. I strongly disagree that Christians should agree with the statement "God is non-binary". It is a category error and a political statement.

But thanks for a productive chat (well, not the part where you called me a moron! 😃).

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@adjustleft @ZaidJilani I think there's more than you concede here, though of course I agree with you that there is a leap of faith at some point, though I would argue a) it's not a totally blind leap and b) every worldview has a leap of faith at some point.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

So we've found our point of agreement! High fives all around! 🙌🙌

I'm nor being snarky. I like being able to find where I can agree with someone and where we have fundamental disagreement. Thanks.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani I am not tied to the word "being". My argument works just as well without it, so all the semantic quibbling is beside the point.

"Non-binary" is an irrelevant word outside the domain of sexed things.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@thicc_gandalf @primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani So you're telling me, and please note that I am quoting your post, that "'thing' is not used to represent an inanimate object." That is the hottest take of all time.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani Ah, so we're arguing which dictionary is correct now. Not super fruitful.

[Beaneater @Beaneater___]

@primediscussion @SIGSECV @ZaidJilani "A backpack is not a 'being' of any sort."

Cambridge Dictionary: BEING – a person or thing that exists.

Well, I don't know about you, but my backpack certainly exists.