Official Blog of the Bishop of Durham

The Prosperity Gospel: The Argument from God’s Tits

Posted by NT Wrong on September 6, 2008

One of the more amusing (and at the same time appalling) rationales used to support the Prosperity Gospel is an argument derived from God’s breasts.

“The Hebrew Shaddai comes from the Hebrew root shad, which refers to a woman’s breast, the part of her body that provides nourishment for and to the baby. With this etymology in mind, El Shaddai can literally be translated: The Breasted One, or God the Breasted. This name indicates a very important aspect of his nature — that he is the source of all substance [sic], the one who supplies all our needs (Ph 4:19). For this reason, many people translate El Shaddai simply as: God Who Is More Than Enough. The name, El Shaddai, speaks volumes about God’s intentions to prosper us. How could God, whose very name (one of many) means ‘more than enough’, not want his children to have more than enough?”
– R. D. Weekly, Financial Prosperity Unveiled (2008): 26.

There’s really no need to satirize fundies… they do such a good job of it themselves.

“His name is El Shaddai, not El Cheapo. Our God is described as the all-breasted one… We serve the God who created and owns everything… Ask yourself, does it glorify or insult God when we insist on living in poverty?”
– Bernard Grant, Roadblocks To Prosperity. Armour of Light Publishing, 2006.

It all goes to prove — these people really are complete tits.

10 Responses to “The Prosperity Gospel: The Argument from God’s Tits”

  1. Jim said

    i’m speechless.

  2. steph said


  3. Matthew said

    I’m entirely in favour of breasts, but… whoa

  4. cssweatman said

    If I remember correctly, good ol’ Rob Bell made a similar argument in a sermon a few years back–I think it was entitled, “The Mother God”. Such an asinine conclusion then was just as laughable as it is now.

  5. Andrew Bourne said

    From an academic point of view apart from being incredulous the picture show are not breasts but testicles which the Galli in the cult of the Great Mother adorned her.

  6. steph said

    it’s just the same old stunning fundy logic – 1 over 2 plus 1 over 2 equals 2 over 4 🙂

  7. ntwrong said

    Odd. My review of the ‘breast versus testicle, etc’ debate on Artemis suggests that academic opinion is divided. If viewing the orbs as breasts is wrong, it’s at least an ancient error:

    “Diana is sometimes short¬kilted for the hunt, while at Ephesus she is figured with many breasts and paps”
    – Minucius Felix, Octavius 23.5.

  8. Moshe said

    In Scripture God is presented in terminology that recalls both masculine and feminine characteristics. This is reflected in male and female being created in God’s image. El Shaddai shows God as a nurturing Being. Scripture sees nothing inherently crude in sexuality, nor in definitive body parts. Of Abraham and Sarah, we have, “look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you.” No problem. “Tits” might be a little less dignified in this context…

  9. ntwrong said

    Moshe said:
    “Scripture sees nothing inherently crude in sexuality, nor in definitive body parts.”

    Well, ‘scripture’ gets a little crude and dirty when scripture wants to be crude and dirty. Let’s try Ezekiel 23.19-21 as a good example of scripture’s dirtier and cruder moments:

    “Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose cum was like that of stallions. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians fondled your bosom and caressed your young tits.”

    That’s filthy.

  10. Shub-Niggurath! Ia ftagn!

    (Sorry I couldn’t resist. I came from Ambassador Watch BTW.)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: