name and link to friendly conversers..

Put some text here ...

Put some text here ...

    If you'd like to join this conversation you can do so by leaving comments for particular entries. Or, you may also send an email with the permalink to your video, audio, or text post that you would like to be considered for posting on this page. The email address is:


    Comment moderation has been discontinued in hopes that this will better promote a freer flowing converstion. It would be appreciated if we could work together to ensure that spam or disrespectful comments do not have part on these pages. Comments or posts will not be excluded for differences of beliefs or opinions. This should be a place where people can feel free to share and converse.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

A Video Response to " There Are So Many Of Us"

This video was made mainly in response to the video by Dave of 90 Seconds of Dave entitled: "There Are So Many of Us".

I was a bit discouraged to see that Dave made a reference to God as being female. I left a short comment on his vlog. Later Andrew Huth also left a comment and directed some questions in my direction.

I decided to just talk about my thoughts. This is unscripted me chatting with you, as I drive, about what I think regarding God, how He describes Himself and also why how we use our language is import.

I would have liked my speaking in this to include less uh's and to flow a bit better but then I would have had to have read you points that I had listed on a page. I choose to share with you in this form instead. It is much more natural though may not always be as concise as I'd like.

With that said please feel free to ask for any clarification on any of the points I make.

Ps. Just so you know this is not a personal attack on anyone. I have enjoyed getting to know Dave in my contact with him and also the friendship I have been able to begin building with him. This is why in part I feel at liberty to challenge Dave regarding this area. I look forward to any conversation this may develop into. And I thank Andrew also for his kindness in the way he presented his thought provoking questions.


Comments on "A Video Response to " There Are So Many Of Us""


Blogger Erin said ... (1:44 PM) : 

Great points Anthony. I agree. I thought Dave's video was great (as always!)... but I would for sure like to hear why Dave used "She" to describe God.

To be fair, I at least attempted to consider Andrew's question but just couldn't see a reason to entertain the thought of God being a woman because that's just not the way it is written in the Bible. I just can't get around the idea that if this fact were up for debate, there would have been SOMETHING in the Bible to indicate that.

Dave is smart.. I'm sure he has a good reason for this and I'd like to hear it :) I'm a fairly open minded person, so I figure discussing this will either help me consider something I haven't before, or help re-affirm my belief that God should be referred to as male. In either case, it will force me to study my Bible, which is always a good thing.

Dave and I are friends, so he should know, but in case he doesn't... my questions come with respect, care and love as well :)


Blogger Dave H. said ... (5:58 PM) : 

Hey guys, thanks for continuing an interesting discussion!

First of all, i don't intend to argue or debate anything, but i don't mind describing or explaining what i think if people are interested. I certainly couldn't say anything new in a debate. There are lots of good books on the subject, and all sides do a great job of picking apart the arguments of the other side.

I guess I'll state up front a couple assumptions and premises I start with so you know where I'm coming from, and then just answer Erin's question of "why."

1. I agree with Anthony that God is not male or female. Sometimes I think about god in female terms and sometimes male terms, because i don't believe god is one or the other.

2. I always regret when i say or do things that disappoint or upset people i care about (that's you Anthony). I apologize if i can't find a way to express myself without offending. That's not what I want to do at all.

3. Sexism and patriarchy are sin, and I think the church has had trouble with these in recent history. i think one cause of that could be when Christians say that god must be referred to in exclusively masculine terms.

4. I simply disagree with a bunch of the theology and biblical interpretation in Anthony's video response, eg. the gendering of the trinity, the second adam soteriology, metaphorical language, etc. This is not a big deal to me, there's much more important stuff that we agree on.

5. I'm not a fan of most gender construction overall. I resist gendered language, I resist gender role assignment, I resist assigning gendered attributes. I just don't see any reason to accept it as normative, so I don't.

So anyway, now to answer Erin directly, why did I refer to god in female terms in my video?

The answer is because I'm a christian who considers the Bible authoritative, and the Bible refers to God often in feminine terms. It doesn't make sense to me to avoid using "she" for a god referred to as a mother bird hovering over her eggs, a woman breastfeeding her children, a mother clutching her family against her breasts, a female bear protecting her cubs, a woman giving birth, a woman baking bread, a woman making clothes, a woman looking for lost money, etc. etc. In the Bible God specifically makes reference to her own womb. I would feel silly thinking about that metaphor and calling God "Him." Since the imagery I borrowed from the Bible in my video was about God giving birth to us, I used a feminine pronoun.

That's it really.

Thanks again for the great discussion. I really like you guys very much!

Your pal,



Blogger Andrew Huth said ... (7:02 PM) : 


Thanks for taking the time to make this video reply.

My first post was a series of questions and nothing more. I want to be a bit more transparent now in light of the continuing discussions here. I am truly happy to have watched your video and now have read Dave's reply to your video. You both made a very important point, that being your beliefs that God is neither male or female. I believe this as well. I guess that is one of the reasons for making my reply to your first post regarding the reference to God as she in Dave's videoblog. You have said some things regarding what you believe about God in terms of gender, and because of the language of the Bible (mainly because of the man of Jesus and the term "God the Father") you feel it appropriate to refer to God as a man. You fear that changing this would somehow confuse people and would make the conversation more difficult to have. I see it just the opposite. I think only acknowledging the male aspect of God in our language is more confusing and less helpful in conversations. As Dave wrote so clearly above, there are plenty of references to God in feminine terms across the Bible. I can't ignore this fact simply because God chose to reveal himself through Jesus as a man rather than a woman. There are just too many possible reasons why God might have chosen that form over the form of a woman. I don't believe God did that simply because God is really a man at heart. It's possible that the message God had to carry to his world would have been best suited to be shared from the male form due to cultural reasons or some other reason I can't understand.

When I asked the question of why it bothered some people when they hear God being referred to as a woman rather than a man, it was not because I believe God is a woman, rather because I believe God is neither. I feel that to insist only on the male assignment of God can only exclude and move further from the truth of the Bible. I guess I am not worried about the confusion it might generate in language because I don't know that it really does. Clearly, we are able to talk about these matters here pretty plainly and without misunderstanding each other. Certainly, I think there is enough evidence in the Bible of the feminine God for us to be free enough to reference God in those terms as well as in the masculine terms.

Thanks again Anthony for your video. I hope this post clears up one of the reasons I asked the question.



Blogger Andrew Huth said ... (7:20 PM) : 

Hi Anthony, I just wanted to share this one other thing. I use to find it very difficult (sometimes still) to not substitute the word God with he or him. I think this has in some part to do with how I was raised in the evangelical faith. I found that I rarely if ever heard about God in feminine terms. I feel now that was a bit misleading or at least not the full truth. I suppose it was partly because I wasn't a very good student of the Bible as well. I just thought I would share that so you can understand that I struggled with these issue.


Blogger Erin said ... (10:02 PM) : 

Hey Dave! I very much appreciate you taking the time to answer so quickly! I'm sure you expected that Anthony and I would have some questions for you (at least Anthony anyway ;) ) Also, Andrew thanks for your contribution as well! I've seen your photos and they are really great. Maybe you will get vloggy someday?? :)

First of all, as expected... you provided a good reason behind referring to God in the feminine. I can understand your use of it in terms of the Biblical metaphors you mentioned... though I'm still not sure I agree with freely referring to God that way without the context of the metaphors. That's just my opinion. It's OK to disagree though... that's what this site is about, sharing our different perspectives on God :)

My main reason for my asking is because I was simply curious as to where you are coming from, not because I wanted to start a debate (I stink at that anyway!). Now I can understand a little better. I haven't really even thought of these things before. Thanks for getting me thinking.



Blogger Andrew Huth said ... (11:00 PM) : 

Thanks Erin for checking out my blog. Perhaps I am a bit like you as well. I stink at debate and like you I didn't write my posts to have one. I like how this post has progressed so far as I feel like it's an honest dialog between strange (me and the rest of you) and friends. One of the things I fear most in society is the inability of people to have honest dialog without always having hidden motives or agendas. I only sense genuine honesty and exchange of ideas from you, Dave, and Anthony. I am grateful for that.

Yeah, Dave (my older brother by the way) is on me to start a video blog. I haven't started one for 2 main reasons (that might change some day). One reason being I am not all that proficient at working with video (I know my way around, but it takes me some time). The second reason is that I fear that I don't know that I have all that much to say. I watch the blog of people like my brother, ze frank, and others and I sometimes come to the conclusion that perhaps I don't have too many more original ideas I can add to the mix out there. Maybe that will change someday. I hope so. Maybe I don't know how to best say what I want to through moving pictures in comparison to still pictures.



Blogger SoyChapin said ... (3:43 PM) : 

WOW! that was a long vlog... but i guess here is the least appropriate place to discuss medium rather than message.

So, what is the message?

I got two things:
You TOTALLY and deeply believe what you are saying,
You felt totally hurt and saddenned by the fact that other people don't share the same worldview.

I respect deeply that you take the time to share your innermost convictions, and I can tell about your honesty not only in communicating, but in loving and defending the God you believe in.

I also respect how cautious but straightforward you are in stating your point.

But then again, what is the point?

To defend how he might be seen by others?

Anthony, theology can/shouldn't be so complex/complicated. He IS.. mather of fact, He is who He is... and no misinterpretation will change that, but for people like me, who have no argument at all about a gender, but about a state, the dilemma goes even deeper.

Should I trust God? Should I BELIEVE him, and Should I believe IN HIm?

I totallly encourage you to keep doing what you are doing, but remember, if this is a pearl, and I can tell by the way you talk it IS a valuable pearl to you... who are you throwing it to?


Blogger SoyChapin said ... (3:45 PM) : 

Definitely NOT for the sake of argument, but to share my own deep belief... "what if god is love but hates me?.. or, what if He is asleep to care?"

I mena, just the honesty of my deceitful disilussioned heart. And no, I haven't spoken to him, but heard form his people....


Blogger Anthony said ... (4:08 PM) : 

I have continued to think about this discussion and how I'd like to continue to discuss it here. I'm still not sure what is best but I'd like to share some of my thoughts. The other day I was thinking about how God is referred to in the bible. In reading just 3 chapters of the book of Psalms I found nearly 20 references to God as he. And that just happended to be in the few chapters I was reading. According to my recollection and research God is never referred to in the bible as she. Yes there passages that make reference to the character of God as being similar to a mother, or a woman. These are here to help us understand God better they are pictures or analogies. The important words to notice in these verses are those words "like" or "as". God is never said to be a woman though his characteristics may be compared to those we understand as motherly or femine.

The other morning I woke up and must have been thinking about stuff too much and imediately thought of this discussion. I thought: I wonder how many men would agree they have gathered up their children like a hen gathers her chicks, I wonder how many men would say that they are as protective over their children as a mother bear is over her cubs? I wonder how many of these men would think it okay for others to refer to them as she because they have characteristics considered to be feminine?

God refers to himself as he. The scriptures are authoritative because they are given us by God. He is the divine author of the words found in its pages. He has chosen to refer to himself with masculine pronouns. I wouldn't think of refering to a man who is protective over his children with a femine pronoun. Why should anyone think it is ok to change the way that God refers to himself.


Blogger Anthony said ... (4:25 PM) : 

Ha, I don't even know how I should refer to the comments from SoyChapin. Should I call you Chapin? Or W.? Or Wilmar? I don't know. Let me know how you'd prefer to be addressed. It is kinda funny to have that problem here within these posts.

But seriously. Thanks for you comments. I think you bring up some interesting questions. Regarding the why. I have a post that has been submitted for this site that I will be putting up shortly. It is from a guy named Michael who also thought that to be a good question to ask. He shares how he came to a conclusion and what he thinks others should do in order to come to a conclusion of their own. It may be a little long too. But this site is for conversation. It is a bit different than just showing moments or entertaining. It is a place where we can engage in dialog, exchange thoughts, ask questions and do all this in the context of speaking about religion and God. Sometimes it can be very difficult to condense thoughts or work out ideas in less than two minute videos. If we can do that cool. If more people feel they need more time than I hope they feel free to create something longer that is going to communicate more clearly.

You ask other questions also that are good. Questions I am glad to hear someone asking. What if God is love and hates you? What if he is sleeping and doesn't care? I wonder what you think about the answers to those questions would you be willing to tell me what you think about those things maybe even with a video?


Blogger Anthony said ... (4:28 PM) : 

Hey Andrew.
I wonder, what has your study from your Bible taught you about this topic we are discussing? I think it would be neat if you would share with me some of the things you have discovered as you became a better student of the Bible that might challenge me more in my thinking about this area we are discussing.


Blogger Andrew Huth said ... (9:09 PM) : 

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for writing back. Okay a few things.

1. I am not sure that I can challenge you or even get you to change your mind about the okayness (not a word I know :-) about people referring to God as a she. Actually, I am not sure that I really care too much about trying to challenge you about it at all. Unlike you I just feel that God doesn't really much care if I use male or female pronouns when I talk. It's certainly a difference of opinion, but nothing that should challenge our faith.

2. I'm not sure that I can write here to tell you what I have learned from the Bible about whether God likes to be called by a male or female pronoun. I don't think the Bible really talks about this matter. Certainly, the Bible uses male and female metaphors to talk about God's qualities, but I'm not convinced that it is done so to teach us how we ought to refer to him. If nothing else, I feel it was done so to be inclusive so that we (both men and women) all can have a way of relating to our maker. I don't know about you, but I have a difficult time understanding my relationship with God in terms other than human relationship terms. I know there are plenty of people out there who feel very comfortable with God as a non human entity. Nothing wrong with that (I also believe this), but as for me the closest proximity I have to understand God is through my relationships with family, friends, and strangers. There are other ways to experience God, but none that I feel as comfortable with as through the human race. At least for me.

3. In light of what I wrote in number 2, I am not sure of the wisdom or point in trying to only refer to God in the male pronoun. If we both think God is neither a man or a woman, what is the harm of using both he and she when we talk? None that I can think of. You wrote that it could be confusing, but as I wrote before I simply do not believe that to be true. I'm not confused and nobody I have ever spoken about this matter with felt confused. Now, someone might not agree that I do that, but certainly I have never had anyone confused. However, is there some harm in telling people that they can only call God a he? I believe there is. Let me start out by saying that I have never heard anyone tell me that I could not use the female pronoun to refer to God without it being for simply sexist reasons. I think when we exclude and forbid the use of the female pronoun in the dialog about God, it tends to promote sexism. As with Dave, I believe sexism is sinful and as such don't endorse it. Mind you I don't try to convince people that they have to call God a she, rather simply that we can and should be able to talk about God with both male and female pronouns. In doing so I feel that I am promoting the Biblical truth of including everyone in sharing in the life of Christ. To tell people that God might be offended if they were to call God a she is something I feel can hurt people, and hurt them needlessly. I don't mind telling people they are wrong and maybe in the process hurt them if I thought I would help them be a better person (like telling someone hey I know they called your mom fat, but I think your plan of burning down their house is a bad idea), but not when it's needlessly hurting them as in telling my wife she can't call God a she simply because Jesus was a man. I don't believe God is either a man or a woman so why not let her relate and experience God in terms other than only male terms. Besides, it makes talking about God so much more honest and inviting. I know when I have talked with non Christian people about God in inclusive pronouns I can almost always sense that no matter who I am speaking with (a man or a woman) they feel their gender is included in the dialog and therefore feel more at home. In my book that is always a good thing when talking about God.

4. Like you I also believe the Bible is God breath and therefore truthful. I also believe that the Bible was written by people with each writing in their own style. This does not take away from the truth of the Bible, but certainly it leaves some room for different interpretations of language.

Lastly, Anthony I am a bit sorry that I made an introduction of myself to you in this dialog in that our first conversations with each other is born from a disagreement. If you are a friend of my brother Dave, I am sure there is a great deal more stuff (more important too) that we agree on that I wish I could have known before talking about this issue. I do feel in all this you are truly an honest person who really wants to have sincere conversations about God.

Thank you for that.



Blogger Andrew Huth said ... (9:23 PM) : 


Let us rember that God was not only shown to us in the form of Jesus the man. God was also revealed to us in people's dreams (who knows what they saw), as a buring bush, as a whisper to Elijah, etc. These are distincly non-human ways God was revealed.



Blogger Erin said ... (10:28 AM) : 

Hey all! Thanks again Andrew for your contribution. I've been thinking a lot about this conversation on and off. I didn't really think I had anything else to contribute to it, but after Andrews latest entry I wanted to say a couple of things.

First of all, I think Anthony and I have really similar beliefs. We both are passionate about wanting others to believe the same that we do, and I think that's true of anyone who believes something strongly. It's not often that I get into a discussion concerning theology, and whenever I do, it's always frustrating (because like I said before, I really am not good at debating things!) I get a bit emotionally involved sometimes ;) So whenever I do find myself in the middle of a discussion... especially with people I care about as in this case, I have to ask myself the question of whether the topic is important to their salvation. If it is, and they are willing to discuss, then I think it is definatel worth pressing on! If it isn't, then I have to ask myself the question of whether it's just best to agree to disagree.

I think there are things in the Bible that we just won't know the answers to until we get to heaven. People have interpreted them differently and that's why we have different denominations within the Christian faith. As an example, my Mom strongly believes in speaking in tongues, which I personally disagree with. Do I think she's still a Christian? You bet! I don't think it's one of those things that's important in the long run. Not saying that it should not be discussed at all, but just with the mindset that it is OK to just disagree about it when all is said and done. I do however believe that there are certain beliefs that are a common denominator within all denominations of the Christian faith that we must believe in order to be saved and bear the name of a Christian. Do I think that always referring to the God in the masculine is one of the fundamentals of Christian faith?

That's what I've been thinking about. I'm really not sure. So far as I can see.. I can't see that it is a fundamental, but I could be wrong. What do you think Anthony? If we were discussing the question of whether or not JESUS was a man or a woman, that would be different, but I don't think we are. I'm not at all saying that this discussion is not worth having. Do I think it's wrong to refer to God in the feminine.. personally I do (seeing as God is primarily referred to in the Bible as He, and I have to think there's a reason for that).

Do I think that Dave and Andrew aren't Christians then, because they choose to understand God in the feminine sometimes? Personally, as far as I can see, I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I hope not :)

So these are my thoughts. Hopefully I've made some sense out of them and not come across as judgemental in any way. Lots of things to think about. As Dave and Andrew both mentioned, I am sure there are lots of things we all do agree on :)


Blogger Erin said ... (11:29 AM) : 

One more thing I want to add for Dave. I know you didn't intend on this kind of discussion coming out of your video. Apologies if we've taken the focus off of what you were trying to communicate. With all discussion of this particular part of it aside, I thought your video was thought provoking and inspiring! :)


Anonymous Anonymous said ... (6:25 PM) : 

Can I be Johnny come lately to this conversation? Here are a couple of my thoughts:

1) Anthony, I disagree with your statements that God referred to himself as masculine in Scripture. I think people and specific cultures referred to God in the masculine and that was scribed into Scripture. When you refer to Jesus addressing the God-head as Father we shouldn't remove that from the context of a patriarchial society. God as Father rather than Mother makes sense within its context. In certain matriarchial societies, God as Mother may make more sense. Or, to one who has been severely abused by a father and cannot understand the Judeo-Christian God as father. Brings me to point #2...

2) I admire your heart to take a stand for God to make sure the Lord is addressed properly. However, I also think it is unnecessary. I wonder if God even cares what pronoun, images, descriptors are used to address him (I typically speak of God in the masculine). Applying self-reasoning to how God might feel has some holes too (i.e. You do not like to be called Tony because your name is Anthony, so God must not like being called She because he prefers He).

This conversation brings to my remembrance the historical discussion to address God as "G-D" or not. The belief was the name, "God" was to holy to utter. Hence, why in part so many names and descriptives exist for the Judeo-Christian God. Is God really concerned with human semantics OR has Dave just challenged religious thinking? I put my money on the latter.

I have some other thoughts about Conversation God that I'll email you instead.

Thanks Anthony for the discussion,


Blogger SoyChapin said ... (10:43 AM) : 

Well, Anthony.. thanks for your response. I'm somewhat late to answer but coul not articulate thoughts properly about your re-questioning me.

I guess Chapin is fine, which, btw, you an find out what it menas in my vlog.. oh! but you already know that!

About a video response.. I'm still thinking about it, but honestly.... I'm afraid people will be ofended, which, would definitely be my intention, but not as an ultimate goal, but as a means for them to reflect, and I'm afraid the reflection will be lost in the midst of so much anger..... just like it has happenned to me with the very same quesitons I stated previously.

Thanks and Allah bless (don't get lost in translation)


Blogger Toma said ... (5:41 AM) : 

(parentheses alert!)

Yo, Anthony and gang!

And Yo, Aaron! My new baby reminds me of you! (seriously!) Hope things are well with the famo over in Cali!

I want to start with this. It's a comment I found when researching this response and it's by a really famous Bible translator, "Mr. Dynamic Equivalence" himself, Eugene Nida. Too apropos, I thought! -

"When we bring together a group of folks who want to be translators, it takes a month to get them willing to make sense intellectually. It takes another two weeks to make them willing to do it emotionally. They can accept it ("meaning-based" translating) intellectually but not emotionally because they've grown up worshiping words more than worshiping God."

Ouch! That hits me! Not supa hard, though. Cos I REALLY love Jesus (Yeshua) a LOT. He SO rocks. i just also love His word! He said, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." (Luke 16:16-17) And I totally believe.

Also, I have to throw in this thought about the "root problem" of our whole conversation (soon to appear in detail, hopefully, in my first video post to this site) -


Also, Aaron, the "G-d" term is a twice-removed deal. It was a "hebrew roots" thing about the ol' "tetragrammaton" (YHWH) being "protected" (by Talmud-worshipping rabbinics) then, to protect it further, after the term "God" (which has pagan roots) became popular, they made it "G-d". It's a "talmud code!" (gasp!)

Also, Aaron, regarding societal "relevance" of the Bible, I think it's an amazing book that is currently, purposefully being derided as "irrelevant" and various ancient Hebrew colloquialisms are conjured up as proof of that irrelevance. The "camel through the eye of the needle," for example. But... well... it's an awesome book - written by ancient Hebrews! So what'd God do? Resurrected (for the first time functionally) an ancient language (and it's people and nation!) so we could actually understand those idioms again! Cool, huh?

Also, Erin, no offense to you personally, but I've heard "we'll all know the answers when we get to heaven" for 25 years now and, frankly, it kinda bums me out. It's a pretty clear-to-understand book if you read it on it's own terms (which are patently Hebraic).

Both Old and New Covenant's ("Testaments") primary original language was absolutely Hebrew (there may even be existing transcripts of the original Hebrew gospels hidden away from public view). The common language of the Jews of Jesus' day was NOT ARAMAIC! Aramaic was used by Jews in Israel for commerce only. So hebrew is this really, really ancient and yet also modern language. This means (*gasp*) studying the hebrew language and its idioms/usages in the Bible is an imperative for anyone who really wants to "Do your best to present yourself to God as a tried-and-true worker who isn't ashamed to teach the word of truth correctly." (2nd Timothy 2:15) (1st Timothy 4:10-16 rocks, too). Monumental, yes. Impossible, no. Required? Hmmmm.... Yeshua was taught under some of those really well-studied teachers, so WWJD?

He will come back "the same way he left" (Acts 1:11) - speaking Hebrew, most likely... and a Man, definitely!

But, Dave! Your first comment in this string is so over-the-top brilliant - did you do all that research in the Bible by yourself? I just want to show it again for other evangelical fundamentalists (with a liberal, straight, activist, compassion-focus) such as myself who love the Word of God (the Bible) - there is such a great study to be had here! -

"...referred to as a mother bird hovering over her eggs,
a woman breastfeeding her children,
a mother clutching her family against her breasts,
a female bear protecting her cubs,
a woman giving birth,
a woman baking bread,
a woman making clothes,
a woman looking for lost money, etc. etc.
In the Bible God specifically makes reference to her own womb."

Good job! Soooo...

As I read that, I remembered some student-friend of mine saying Elohim (a plural name for God) was in feminine form so I googled "feminine form elohim". But apparently it's not! I'll let y'all search that cos I'm getting tired of working on this post (now at 2 hours!).

So that makes your point, Anthony, even more poignant to me -

"wonder how many men would agree they have gathered up their children like a hen gathers her chicks, I wonder how many men would say that they are as protective over their children as a mother bear is over her cubs? I wonder how many of these men would think it okay for others to refer to them as she because they have characteristics considered to be feminine?"

And, Soychapin, (God bless you, man! Remember "God so loved the world" includes you and it's ABSOLUTELY true... trust me!) about "Casting Pearls"... Hm...

Everyone coming to this page is pretty qualified in my humble opinion (at least right here I feel humbled by this thought) to be recipients of the ABSOLUTE BEST all of us claimants-to-the-faith-of-Yeshua can possibly offer!

Kudos to you, Anthony, for putting us all up!

Toma - the guy


Anonymous Anonymous said ... (7:02 PM) : 

"wonder how many men would agree they have gathered up their children like a hen gathers her chicks, I wonder how many men would say that they are as protective over their children as a mother bear is over her cubs? I wonder how many of these men would think it okay for others to refer to them as she because they have characteristics considered to be feminine?"

...and I wonder how many women find it offensive for others to refer to them as he because they have characteristics considered to be masculine?


post a comment