Is God a man,a woman or both?

[cacian]

Iwould say God is word made up word by somebody, a man, to refer to a spiritual higher being.
I am not too keen on the word 'GOD' because it has a masculin tone to it.

I would prefer a word that would mean both man and woman to refer to a spiritual higher being for balance and obvious reasons.

I am sure that our higher spiritual beings is/are both man and a woman because that is a just way , the correct wy for a higher being that gives/gave and created both man and woman.

[a4et2n]

Well, none really. "God" is a concept of some sort of higher power and while certain cultures have assigned human traits (such as gender) to it, the concept itself remains an abstract idea and by default, genderless.

[cacian]

Well, none really. "God" is a concept of some sort of higher power and while certain cultures have assigned human traits (such as gender) to it, the concept itself remains an abstract idea and by default, genderless.

genderless?
I never thought of that.
I would have assumed we are the exact copy of a higher power.:blush2:
what is genderless and what makes you think that?

[j.hart]

If we are talking about the Christian God, I would have to agree that he is genderless. I would also have to say that He embodies both genders. God created man and woman in his own image, which means that we are a reflection of who he is. He displays tenderness, affection, and nurturing- typically "feminine" characteristics. He also displays power, justice, logic and wonders that excite scientific minds- traits that are considered more "masculine." But to say He is either/or limits him.

[cafolini]

God is a cleaning company with a detergent made of silence.

[smerdyakov]

Even if there was a God, I still wouldn't believe in him. :D

[cacian]

Even if there was a God, I still wouldn't believe in him. :D

ah does that mean he/she do not believe you either?:biggrin5:

[YesNo]

I prefer Goddesses. I also tend to think of angels as female.

[Darcy88]

If we are talking about the Christian God, I would have to agree that he is genderless. I would also have to say that He embodies both genders. God created man and woman in his own image, which means that we are a reflection of who he is. He displays tenderness, affection, and nurturing- typically "feminine" characteristics. He also displays power, justice, logic and wonders that excite scientific minds- traits that are considered more "masculine." But to say He is either/or limits him.

In that case should you not refer to God as an it rather than as a he? The bible makes it pretty clear that God is a he, that he is the father.

[cafolini]

In that case should you not refer to God as an it rather than as a he? The bible makes it pretty clear that God is a he, that he is the father.

Now, He's a travesti, then?:rolleyes:

[cacian]

Now, He's a travesti, then?:rolleyes:

:rofl:
you never know...LOL
brilliant answer cafolini:banana:!!!

[cacian]

In that case should you not refer to God as an it rather than as a he? The bible makes it pretty clear that God is a he, that he is the father.

about the bible, with all duerespect, it is written by a group of men so of course it would be a man.
there are two possibilites to be taken into consideration about the make up of the bible and God being a man
one those who wrote the bible made it up
or
they would have met god in which case they could not would not be back to confirm it.
As to refer to god as father is a bit of lie because
He is not my father nor yours.
Plus if god was a father then we are all his sons and his daughters how is that possible?
a bit twisted if you ask me.

ever wondered what the word BIBLE mean?

[phoenixtears]

You cannot associate any human quality with God (and that includes gender as well). The 112th chapter of The Quran describes God in the best possible way. I suggest you read that.

[Habdou]

God is neither a man nor a woman and should never be compared to creatures nor be exemplified on the basis of the profane objects we see or the imperfect people we know, because God is just unperceivable if we are to depend on our mundane senses.

[Darcy88]

about the bible, with all duerespect, it is written by a group of men so of course it would be a man.
there are two possibilites to be taken into consideration about the make up of the bible and God being a man
one those who wrote the bible made it up
or
they would have met god in which case they could not would not be back to confirm it.
As to refer to god as father is a bit of lie because
He is not my father nor yours.
Plus if god was a father then we are all his sons and his daughters how is that possible?
a bit twisted if you ask me.

ever wondered what the word BIBLE mean?

If you disregard the bible, and you're not a Muslim or a Hindu or some other variety of believer, then where does your knowledge of God come from?

The Christian God is masculine. Or, if He's not, then the bible is incredibly misleading.

Someone who asks "what gender is God" has to specify what they mean by "God." Your "God" sounds like a generalized new age almost Vedantic type concept. And if its not based in any text, then its pretty much a purely imaginative, perhaps mystical, thing.

[BienvenuJDC]

ever wondered what the word BIBLE mean?

Biblos....Greek for BOOK

[Darcy88]

Biblos....Greek for BOOK

Bien, God as presented in the bible is masculine right? I don't mean a flesh and blood man like the mormons believe. I mean masculine in a general sense as the father, as Him.

Edit: Nevermind. The answer is so obvious the question seems absurd.

[BienvenuJDC]

Bien, God as presented in the bible is masculine right? I don't mean a flesh and blood man like the mormons believe. I mean masculine in a general sense as the father, as Him.

Edit: Nevermind. The answer is so obvious the question seems absurd.

You are absolutely correct. If you refer to the Christian God, He is undoubtedly masculine. If you want to make God genderless, then you have to go to some other religion.

[Zemouli Chahra]

why seeking behind those questions ... they can lead to disbelief.... and also it is one of the mind limitations the enability to think in God's idendity

[PoeticPassions]

You are absolutely correct. If you refer to the Christian God, He is undoubtedly masculine. If you want to make God genderless, then you have to go to some other religion.

Hence the problem. Because God is not human... so how can 'God' even have a gender? I think this is illustrative of the limits of human imagination and the inability to grasp the idea of God. We are so limited in our perceptions and ideas that we must have categories and descriptions for things by attributing human or familiar characteristics to ideas... ideas which are beyond our comprehension.

who created who first?

[cacian]

If you disregard the bible, and you're not a Muslim or a Hindu or some other variety of believer, then where does your knowledge of God come from?

The Christian God is masculine. Or, if He's not, then the bible is incredibly misleading.

Someone who asks "what gender is God" has to specify what they mean by "God." Your "God" sounds like a generalized new age almost Vedantic type concept. And if its not based in any text, then its pretty much a purely imaginative, perhaps mystical, thing.

I would not rely on book that tells me that God is man unless of course they can prove.
Anyone can believe in the existence of God but that does not make them necessarily stupid. They can sure think for themselves.
To make a statement such as this one needs to ensure there is a proof to it, otherwise it is all a make up or just a book.
God is what you want to believe.
A mystical force an energy, a more beyond but not a man.
If it is going to be remotely like us then by order of logic it has to be 50/50 a man and a woman.
I am more inclined to believe then to believe that God is a man and a father.

[JuniperWoolf]

If there is a monotheistic god, then why would it have a gender? It doesn't have a mate. Clearly the big three intended for it to be seen as male, however.


God is a cleaning company with a detergent made of silence.

You are so weird.

[BienvenuJDC]

Hence the problem. Because God is not human... so how can 'God' even have a gender? I think this is illustrative of the limits of human imagination and the inability to grasp the idea of God. We are so limited in our perceptions and ideas that we must have categories and descriptions for things by attributing human or familiar characteristics to ideas... ideas which are beyond our comprehension.

who created who first?

The gender is representative of certain aspects. There is much symbolism involved. God created man, and God is eternal, so no one created God.

As far as the question goes as to who does God mate with...Jehovah in a spiritual representation was married to Israel, but Israel was unfaithful, so a divorce (spiritual separation) occurred. Then Christ was wed to the church.

[cacian]

The gender is representative of certain aspects. There is much symbolism involved. God created man, and God is eternal, so no one created God.

As far as the question goes as to who does God mate with...Jehovah in a spiritual representation was married to Israel, but Israel was unfaithful, so a divorce (spiritual separation) occurred. Then Christ was wed to the church.


Then Christ was wed to the church
wow what a story I never knew that.
I wonder what Jesus think/thought of that being wed to an object/church.
I am guessing is that why monks are wed to no one?

[BienvenuJDC]

wow what a story I never knew that.
I wonder what Jesus think/thought of that being wed to an object/church.
I am guessing is that why monks are wed to no one?

He wasn't wed as a man, but as God. If you look at passages as Ephesians 5, you can see the connection. The passage may seem sexist to some, but try to view the passage in understanding the religion, please don't take the passage personally. There's a bigger responsibility placed on the man than on the woman. Few men live up to it.



15 See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, 16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.[c]
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[d] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[e] 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Don't let your cultural biases confuse what this passage is actually saying. For a woman to submit to and respect her husband is not to say that a woman is lesser...or is dominated by her husband. For those who believe in the spirit, it is more of spiritual guidance to understand relationships. But many pervert this passage to their own benefit.

[odliam]

This is a very interesting thread, I have followed it closely.

As an intent to give some different viewpoint I'd like to add that maybe, just maybe, we are putting the horses behind the cart.

When we are trying to define God, we can be sure of what he is not, and not too sure about what he is.

From a scientist point of view, gender seem to be a kind of insurance to get healthy zygotes. Then think about God's gender is a bit irrelevant.

Sometimes, and in most cases following old written words, we are prone to give human characteristics to the Deity. I am not sure, of course, but reality as we know it, does not seem to be but a blurring mirror image of Reality.

I think that "The rest is silence"! As Shakespeare choose to close Hamlet locutions!

¬O.

[JuniperWoolf]

Then Christ was wed to the church.

Does that make the church symbolically female?

[cafolini]

Does that make the church symbolically female?

Not necessarily. But it is based on the mother of all mothers.

[BienvenuJDC]

Does that make the church symbolically female?

Symbolically, yes...if one accepts that point of view.

[JuniperWoolf]

Why is calling something "female" always so controversial?

[cacian]

Why is calling something "female" always so controversial?

good point.:wink5:

[cafolini]

Why is calling something "female" always so controversial?

They want to protect themselves from the wild allowance of the Song of Songs.

[JuniperWoolf]

They want to protect themselves from the wild allowance of the Song of Songs.

What's the Song of Songs?

[Bonsai Ent]

What's the Song of Songs?

Saucy poem in the Old Testament, sometimes called Song of Solomon.

It's kind of a call and response poem between two lovers.

[cacian]

Saucy poem in the Old Testament, sometimes called Song of Solomon.

It's kind of a call and response poem between two lovers.

sorry to ask what does a call and response poem mean?

[byquist]

God as Father-Mother, which has been gaining as of late, may not make everyone here happy, but it is a worthy stance. Also, as capital letters, not small letters, keeping the Creator (Spirit) distinct from, but available to, the realm of human and physical matters.

[JuniperWoolf]

Saucy poem in the Old Testament, sometimes called Song of Solomon.

It's kind of a call and response poem between two lovers.

Ahh, I see. So it's "no no, it's not about sex between two lovers - it's symbolic for god and the church, yeah that's it!"

[BienvenuJDC]

Ahh, I see. So it's "no no, it's not about sex between two lovers - it's symbolic for god and the church, yeah that's it!"

As for me, I believe that it's a love story between Solomon and his true love. It's ironic though that this is the man who had 300 wives and 700 concubines. How do you really make that ONE woman feel special in his situation?

[Darcy88]

As for me, I believe that it's a love story between Solomon and his true love. It's ironic though that this is the man who had 300 wives and 700 concubines. How do you really make that ONE woman feel special in his situation?

That's insane. You'd have to have intercourse 3 times a day with 3 different women everyday for almost a year to get through them all.

[BienvenuJDC]

That's insane. You'd have to have intercourse 3 times a day with 3 different women everyday for almost a year to get through them all.

Who said that he had intercourse with them all? Some of them were just a token of an alliance between two kings. Some were probably a mere status symbol or trophy. He may have slept with some of them just one time. It IS insane, and when you read some of his writings, you can see that he later condemns the idea of even having TWO women in the same house.

[Kyriakos]

I think that if a god exists, it might be beyond being feminine or masculine. Then again it might even have a gender, but this would assume that god is not perfect by itself, since genders exist so as nature can divide the burden of any complicated species (or at least it seems possible that this is so).
Personally i would not mind if god was a female, but obviously it would not be something having to do with human base understandings of a female or male :)

[BookBeauty]

I think humanity has personalized things since the dawn of the realization of time.

Before there were Gods, we believed in the spirits of ancestors, and that even rocks had personality.

To think that the very cobblestones and pavement we walk today has a 'soul' or a 'spirit' that reacts to the vibrations of our footsteps.

I think that we're looking at this all wrong. Man? Woman? Genderless? The concept of something that we can't even comprehend, something that actually began the universe, perhaps is not even conscious in the way that we might conceive. It could be a force working in much the same way as gravity, or time.

The imagination of humanity is sometimes astounding, and even amazing. But Richard Feynman said it best:

“I think nature’s imagination is so much greater than man’s that she’s never going to let us relax.” - Richard P Feynman

[Arrowni]

Jesus was a dude. Does that make God a dude? I mean, Jesus had flora in his stomatch but that doesn't make God a bunch of cells. If we still had the overzealous theological mindset of the early/mid christianity, it would be classified as a heresy in two seconds. I like mixing modern science with ancient world conceptions, it always makes for fun discussion.

That said, there is this part of the Genesis about the original sin that I always found interesting form the narrative standpoint, which related to this difference between men and women. According to the book of genesis, the Adam disobeyed a direct order from God, while Eve only disobeyed the order from Adam who told her the rule God had imposed. Because of it, Adam owns a big debt to God, but Eve implicitly has a debt to Adam because he's the one she actually disobeyed. Hence the servitude of women. I don't claim this to be an accurate depiction of theology or religious thinking behind the passage, but from a folktale point of view it seems coherent.

[PMLondonderry]

Why is "neither" not an option?

[PMLondonderry]

Jesus was a dude. Does that make God a dude? I mean, Jesus had flora in his stomatch but that doesn't make God a bunch of cells. If we still had the overzealous theological mindset of the early/mid christianity, it would be classified as a heresy in two seconds. I like mixing modern science with ancient world conceptions, it always makes for fun discussion.

That said, there is this part of the Genesis about the original sin that I always found interesting form the narrative standpoint, which related to this difference between men and women. According to the book of genesis, the Adam disobeyed a direct order from God, while Eve only disobeyed the order from Adam who told her the rule God had imposed. Because of it, Adam owns a big debt to God, but Eve implicitly has a debt to Adam because he's the one she actually disobeyed. Hence the servitude of women. I don't claim this to be an accurate depiction of theology or religious thinking behind the passage, but from a folktale point of view it seems coherent.

I think these arguements would be exclusive to Christians. There are those of us Abrahamic individuals who believe entirely in God but hold Jesus as a prophet only.

God, in my opinion, is neither a male nor a female, but was simply given the gender of male in English/German/etc. holy texts because the English/German/etc. languages lack a gender-neutral word for a human being other than "it". "It", when refering to a human, is dehumanizing and is used in derogatory ways so it would hardly be appropriate to associate that term with God. Therefore, God has been called "he" ever since.

Food for thought: If God had not been called "he" throughout these holy texts and had been refered to as "she" instead (perfectly acceptable considering God doesn't have an exclusive gender), how would our perceptions of God change? What characteristics would we apply to "her" simply based on what gender "she" is called in the holy texts?

Using this reasoning, this puts into perspective why some Abrahamic peoples, namely Muslims, do not have pictures of God. To have a picture of someone is to associate characteristics with them automatically. Depending on what God would "look like" would be what he would "be like." If he were depicted as a male, we would always associate him with masculinity and not with femininity. If he were depicted as strong, with a beard, with brown hair, with curls, with a crown, etc. we would automatically view his personality depending on those physical characteristics. I think putting a gender to God holds the same kind of "sin." It limits God to a box which he far transgresses. In order to create both males and females, God must have male and female characteristics. God must "be" both.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from: http://muslimahsoapbox.blogspot.com/2011/12/god.html

I believe that human beings have the instinct to turn mysterious things into something relatable in order to understand it. The way a cat lowers its legs and sneaks around in caution when it sees something it doesnt know, a human reacts much the same way mentally. We are afraid of the unknown and, if it is not relatable to us, we cast it away as something that is not OF us and, therefore, dangerous to us. We've seen ourselves do this to other humans since humans were able to record history.

In order for human beings to relate to God, we naturally turn God into one of us. Whether we are the Druids of the ancient Celts, the shamans of the Native Americans, or the Arabs and Jews, we give God our own face and call Him by our own names and turn Him into a member of our family so that we feel safe around Him. "Our" God is different than "their" God because "our" God would never do the things that they do.

....

Unfortunately, humans naturally have turned God into "one of us" and have made Him part of our posse and unattainable to others. It is as though in order for other people to have access to God, they now have to view Him the same way that the followers of certain religious paths view Him. Unfortunately, this mindset has caused a great battle within myself. Perhaps if I only knew Christianity before I became a Muslim, I wouldnt have a problem with this way of thinking. However, I come from a way of life that is NOT considered Abrahamic. I come from a very spiritual path, where I could see God however I wanted to and no one had the right to tell me that I was wrong. I wish I could say that I hated my pagan past and that it was awful and that Islam is the best thing that has ever happened to me but that is simply not true. I love Islam but I love God more than a religious path. Islam, for me, is not "my religion" at all. It is simply my existance. My life. I do not want to buy into the doctrine and strict, cold rhetoric that many sheikhs and leaders use because I often disagree with them. They dont come from the same world that I come from and they dont see through the same eyes as me. Therefore, we may interpret things a little differently. We both share the same book, but we may read it through differnet eyes and read differnet things between the lines. Who is right?

This is not Islams fault nor it is Gods fault. This is the fault of mankind. It is our natural instinct to take God and mold Him into what we think He is and then tell others that they need to see Him that way too. Muslims are victims of this as well. If you think you don't do this, I want you to test yourself. I want you to picture calling God "she" instead of "he." Could you do it? Could you say "I love God. She's a wonderful God." I know I couldn't. It would feel unnatural. However, I find it entirely comfortable to say "I love God. He's a wonderful God." God is neither male nor female so why are we comfortable calling God "he" but we suddenly feel as though we are worshipping something else if we call God "she?" This problem stems from the fact that we have no gender-neutral term in English that can refer to a human being without being gender specific. The only word that we have that comes close is "it" but that word is hardly appropriate for God. "It" is only attributed to people when we dehumanize someone. "It" carries too negative a connotation for it to apply to our diety. Therefore, we have decided to call God "he" instead. What if we decided to call God "she"? How would our perception of God change? Would we view God differently? Would we attribute different characteristics to God if we called him "she" all along? I think perhaps we would have.

Now that we have touched on God's "gender" (or lack thereof), why don't we take a look at God's characteristics. I think the world is under the assumption that God needs to be a 100% "positive" god in order for God to be true. If things like war or famine plague the earth, people question Gods existance as though God would never allow negativity to happen. However, I have learned to view God very differently when I viewed God in nature. Take a look at nature: it is a constant struggle for survival. There is death and darkness in nature, but there is also light and birth. Nature is a yin and a yang and it has to be. In order for happiness to exist, there must be sadness to counter it. If humans never felt sad and they only felt happy, happy would become the new "medium" and happiness wouldnt exist anymore. Happy is only happy because it has the ability to get worse. God is not always positivity. God has characteristics that are "negative." God feels anger and wrath and jealousy. God addresses things like war and death and punishment because God understands that this is reality. This is nature. War is in the Qur'an because war is inevitable and a reality.

There is a verse in the Qur'an that says that all animals, doing their natural thing, are worshipping God. If that is true, then both death and life are of God. A lion killing a gazelle, a wolf eating a bunny, etc. are things that God willed to happen. These actions have a purpose (to keep the animal alive. Survival of the fittest), but the point is that these actions are not always entirely positive. It is positive for the predator; he gets to survive. It is negative, however, for the prey. Sometimes negativity happens, but that is essential for positivity to exist. Positivity without negativity is no longer positivity at all.

[cacian]

Why is "neither" not an option?

I did not think about it.
but if that is something you thought about then it is perfect.:)

[Arrowni]

@PMLondonderry: I was citing a christian example because it's a religion with a logic behind the male attribute of God, Jesus who is in turn God, would be male and not ambiguously female.

Also, the notion of positivity and negativity are faulty linguistic constructs at best. Considering the notion of right, let's say that taking an step foward is the right thing. No verb is truly opposite to stepping foward, since steping back only changes directions and not moving at all is an absence not just of stepping foward but of many other gestures. Hence, if we consider something positive, we just need to admit the idea of "something else" to imagine something negative, but that's a false opposition, because in every possible action out there, the notion of negativity would be different. Just having a "right" doesn't make it so there is a "wrong".

[PMLondonderry]

@PMLondonderry: I was citing a christian example because it's a religion with a logic behind the male attribute of God, Jesus who is in turn God, would be male and not ambiguously female.

Also, the notion of positivity and negativity are faulty linguistic constructs at best. Considering the notion of right, let's say that taking an step foward is the right thing. No verb is truly opposite to stepping foward, since steping back only changes directions and not moving at all is an absence not just of stepping foward but of many other gestures. Hence, if we consider something positive, we just need to admit the idea of "something else" to imagine something negative, but that's a false opposition, because in every possible action out there, the notion of negativity would be different. Just having a "right" doesn't make it so there is a "wrong".

I never used the words "right" nor "wrong" in the arguement about God being both negative and positive becuase I dont believe "positive" and "negative" to mean "right" and "wrong". If you translate those words to mean "right" and "wrong" then my post is entirely changed into something that I wasn't saying. I will explain it more when I have a chance.

As for Jesus, I see where I misunderstood you. Thanks for the clear up.

[Arrowni]

I understand that the words I used seem a bit different, but the way in which negative and positive are implied in your post don't seem to undermine my observation one bit, because we're still opposing positive and negative.

[PMLondonderry]

I understand that the words I used seem a bit different, but the way in which negative and positive are implied in your post don't seem to undermine my observation one bit, because we're still opposing positive and negative.

Negativity and positivity are not synonymous to right and wrong. "right" can be both negative and positive. An example would be hunting or the classic "lying to hide a Jew from the Nazis" scenerio. A lion needs to hunt in order to eat. That is a "good" or a "right" coming out of a negative (killing). A person who lies to nazis to keep a Jew safe is doing a negative (lying) to produce a "right" (saving a life). I never used "right" or "wrong" deliberately when arguing that God is both negative and positive because I believe those words are not related automatically. They are only related when someone suggests that they are. I did not.

[Taliesin]

I am not really religious, but negative theology (the point that divine concepts cannot be described in any other ways except saying what they are not) has always been to my liking. And I think that there are not many who surpass some of the buddhists in negative theology:


It is not assumed that the Blessed One exists after death. Neither is it assumed that he does not exist, or both, or neither. It is not assumed that even a living Blessed One exists. Neither is it assumed that he does not exist, or both, or neither.

If I were religious, I'd probably would reason similarly about questions regarding the gender of God.

[Arrowni]

Negativity and positivity are not synonymous to right and wrong. "right" can be both negative and positive. An example would be hunting or the classic "lying to hide a Jew from the Nazis" scenerio. A lion needs to hunt in order to eat. That is a "good" or a "right" coming out of a negative (killing). A person who lies to nazis to keep a Jew safe is doing a negative (lying) to produce a "right" (saving a life). I never used "right" or "wrong" deliberately when arguing that God is both negative and positive because I believe those words are not related automatically. They are only related when someone suggests that they are. I did not.


But you say that killing is negative, how and why? The opposition of positive and negative still exists, you're just displaying the difference at a different level, as far as I saw in your argument.

@Taliesin: I knew a Talie once in another forum, he wrote stuff too. It might be you Moth Tamer?

[Brett Cottrell]

God talks about the impossibility of having a gender in my novel The Valley of Fire - laughs about it. God says the reason humans think they're made in God's image is because it keeps them at the center of the universe. Then God downs a beer and burps.

[Patito de Hule]

Learn Turkish, move to Turkey, and you won't have to worry about it.

[PMLondonderry]

But you say that killing is negative, how and why? The opposition of positive and negative still exists, you're just displaying the difference at a different level, as far as I saw in your argument.

@Taliesin: I knew a Talie once in another forum, he wrote stuff too. It might be you Moth Tamer?

Killing would be a "negative" act but could be used to achieve a positive ending. Much like the example I used with the prey and predator. The prey lost their life (negative), but the predator was sustained (positive.)

[PMLondonderry]

Learn Turkish, move to Turkey, and you won't have to worry about it.

And why would that be? The majority of Turks are Muslims. While Turkey is quite liberal, the inhabitants still hold to a particular view of God. I don't see how Turkey would be any different than the United States or Great Britain.

Unless you were telling a joke. In which case, I don't get it.

[Patito de Hule]

And why would that be? The majority of Turks are Muslims. While Turkey is quite liberal, the inhabitants still hold to a particular view of God. I don't see how Turkey would be any different than the United States or Great Britain.

Unless you were telling a joke. In which case, I don't get it.

Most of us are bound to a language (English) that has biological gender = grammatical gender. It affects the way we think in that when we refer to God, we use the pronoun "he" which we strongly associate with the male gender.

Other Indo-European languages and the Semitic languages also have grammatical gender. In Arabic, for example, which has a masculine and a feminine gender, God (allah) is masculine and requires masculine verbs, adjectives, and pronouns. An Arab referring to God with a pronoun must use huwa (he). God is masculine, but the association of God with male is weaker. God is not a biological object. Spanish is like Arabic (masculine, feminine, but no neuter) but uses gender specific articles and gender-free verbs. In Spanish, the association of God with male exists, but for a different reason--the metaphorical usages involve masculinity. The association is stronger than Arabic, but less than English.

In Uralic and Altaic languages like Turkish, there is no grammatical gender at all. Turks who speak only Turkish have a hard time understanding why on earth we think of God (or Allah) as male.

This is a literature forum, however. The reason all this would be of interest to a teacher or student of literature, or to a writer, is that there are subtle differences in the way people think and talk. If I were writing a novel about the Ottoman Empire I would want to be very careful to avoid subtlties that suggest my Turkish characters think of God as eitherr masculine or male. I might even want to include an incident of misunderstanding between a European and a Turk involving such a difference. This is part of making characters real.

Some applications:
When I read Chinhua Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart, one of the special pleasures was that the protagonist Okonkwo repeatedly did and said things that reminded me of a friend I had in Lagos, Nigeria, when I lived there.
It was one of the most enjoyable, novel experiences I've had reading. Cultural aspects of Ben Okri's novel The Famished Road similarly affected me. Likewise for Debo Kotun's Abiku.

When I read Bapsi Sidhwa's Crow Eaters I noticed some repetitions that I thought must have been word play and foreshadowing. I asked an Indian and he enhanced considerably my understanding of that book as well as of Cracking India or Candyman. Again for Dostoevsky's and Tolstoy's works, discussing them with a Russian friend made them even better.

We join forums like this hoping to learn from others things that we missed, perhaps because of cultural (or sub-cultural) differences. How can you ever write a short story or novel without discussion and criticism from others for the same reason.

[PMLondonderry]

^ I see what you are saying now entirely. Very good argument. I actually just had this discussion with someone last week about why God is referred to as "he" in the Qur'an, Hebrew Bible, and Gospel. It is entirely to do with the fact that Hebrew and Arabic do not have a gender neutral term like "it". In Arabic, the masculine version of a noun is common whereas the feminine is the exception. Therefore, it was only natural that God ("lah") would be referred to as "he" as it is the norm with most Arabic vocabulary.

I presented the experiment that I feel is very relevant and that most followers of Abrahamic religions, myself included, sometimes forget. Since it is socially acceptable to refer to God as "he," even though he technically has no gender at all, I wonder how the majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims would feel if we told them/us to start using "she." At least for myself, it would feel unnatural because I have been linguistically and culturally conditioned to refer to God as a male. Through that conditioning, I have also naturally applied masculine traits to God, completely ignoring the fact that he would also have just as many feminine traits. In fact, he would embody all that is both masculine and feminine as he is the creator of both.

If people were to start calling God "she," how do you think our persceptions of God would change? How would "her" attributes change? Would we feel like we were suddenly overstepping our boundaries as an Abrahamic family and going into a pagan way of thinking since we would essentially be calling God a Goddess? And, would that be so bad? Would that be "against the rules" Abrahamically speaking? I don't think it would. Just as calling God "God" and "he" is natural for us but not necessarily correct, changing to "she" and "Goddess" would be just as acceptable.

However, to argue against my own argument (I love playing Devils Advocate with myself), a Muslim is required to believe in the purity of the Qur'an, as opposed to Jews and Christians, who are not religiously required to believe in the untainted purity of the Hebrew Bible and Gospel, but are allowed to have a more "this is a collection of works recorded by holy people" sort of approach to their holy texts. If Muslims believe in the untainted purity of the Qur'an, would God calling himself a male then need to be literally accepted by Muslims or is God himself bound by the literary rules that we humans have created? Would God, in order to make his word accessible to us, need to follow these linguistic rules and can they then be argued and interpreted as "God has no real gender?"

Thoughts?

[BienvenuJDC]

However, in the Greek there is a gender neutral article. Have you considered the Septuagint translation? Nonetheless, once you get to the New Testament writings, there are some very strong reasoning for a masculine reference to God. Again, if you are referring to any other god than the God of Christianity (Jehovah, Christ and the Spirit), then the argument doesn't apply, but in the discussion of Christianity, there is specific discussion of the reasoning found in Ephesians, and the numerous references of the Father and the Son.

And there are some Christian that do believe in the inerrant Bible.

[PMLondonderry]

However, in the Greek there is a gender neutral article. Have you considered the Septuagint translation? Nonetheless, once you get to the New Testament writings, there are some very strong reasoning for a masculine reference to God. Again, if you are referring to any other god than the God of Christianity (Jehovah, Christ and the Spirit), then the argument doesn't apply, but in the discussion of Christianity, there is specific discussion of the reasoning found in Ephesians, and the numerous references of the Father and the Son.

And there are some Christian that do believe in the inerrant Bible.

I didn't consider the Septuagint since that text was translated from the Hebrew which does not have gender neutral. Since the original text used the masculine form, it would only make sense that it would be translated over into the Greek.

Some thoughts:

1) Perhaps God is simply seen as a male through Jesus because he chose to come to earth as a male (this would be me taking the side of a Christian and arguing using Christian theology. As I am not a Christian, I don't believe he did come through Jesus but I am arguing as a Christian for the sake of presenting an idea.) He could have easily chosen to come to earth through a woman. He couldn't have come as both (unless he wanted to come as a hermaphrodite of course). Do you think the fact that he chose to come as a male is the only reason why we would associate God himself as being fully male? And do you think he chose a male because of social/political reasons? Being a male gave Jesus a lot more social mobility and freedom that being a woman would not have given him. God knows human culture and would have planned accordingly.

2) You mentioned that we start seeing some gender characteristics about God especially in the New Testament. Do you think this could be influenced by the writings in the original Hebrew Bible, characterizing God as male? Since Christianity was influenced by Judaism and Islam was influenced by both, do you think we picture God as being male because our Abrahamic predecessors did?



And there are some Christian that do believe in the inerrant Bible.

Of course. I simply mean that it is not religiously required to believe so. In Islam, it's written in the Qur'an that the Qur'an is untainted and perfect. To believe it isn't is blasphemous to a Muslim (even though it's teachings may be interpreted differently among individuals.) The text and words themselves, in the original Arabic only, is believed to be literally the words spoken FROM God himself to Angel Gabriel and then from him through Prophet Muhammad. It isn't the same for Christians and Christians have the freedom to choose whether they believe the Bible is the perfect word of God, or whether they believe it to be a collection of works put together by others. The same goes for the Hebrew Bible.

[BienvenuJDC]

2) You mentioned that we start seeing some gender characteristics about God especially in the New Testament. Do you think this could be influenced by the writings in the original Hebrew Bible, characterizing God as male? Since Christianity was influenced by Judaism and Islam was influenced by both, do you think we picture God as being male because our Abrahamic predecessors did?


Consider the passage in Ephesians 5:22ff. The passage makes a doctrinal comparison of Christ as Husband to the church being the bride.

[Arrowni]

Killing would be a "negative" act but could be used to achieve a positive ending. Much like the example I used with the prey and predator. The prey lost their life (negative), but the predator was sustained (positive.)


Where do you come up with the negativity of killing? Why is it negative? How is sustaining the life of a predator possible? You could say also say that eating is positive if that was the case, and eating almost always consumes a previously living creature and can make you sick. I mean, where does the duality negative/positive comes from in the system of belief you're describing?

[PMLondonderry]

Consider the passage in Ephesians 5:22ff. The passage makes a doctrinal comparison of Christ as Husband to the church being the bride.

But it doesn't answer my question nor does it consider the point I made in #1. Just because Jesus was male doesnt mean that God is a male. If God chose to come to earth as a woman, and not as a male, we would see him as a woman. Ephesians calls Christ the Husband since Jesus is a male. Perhaps if God gave Mary a daughter instead, Ephesians would call Christ the wife.

Do you see what I am saying? God choosing to come down as a male doesnt mean that God is male. He had to choose a gender when he arrived in the flesh. Choosing a male was simply the road he chose. He could have chosen a female.

[PMLondonderry]

Where do you come up with the negativity of killing? Why is it negative? How is sustaining the life of a predator possible? You could say also say that eating is positive if that was the case, and eating almost always consumes a previously living creature and can make you sick. I mean, where does the duality negative/positive comes from in the system of belief you're describing?

This is confusing because you are still making "negative" and "bad/wrong" the same thing. They are not the same thing. Negativity and positivity do not make something right or wrong. Culture is what places emphasis on what is right and what is wrong.

If your culture believed that touching the saliva of a dog was "wrong" then you would associate doing so with being "negative." However, does the average everyday American see touching the saliva of a dog as negative? No. Culture is what defines our right and wrong. Negativity and Positivity are simply nature. They are a yin and a yang and must work together in order for anything to happen. Because they are nature, they are also of God and God must embody both.

[Arrowni]

I see, so you assume that negative and positive are natural instead of an opposition created by the way we understand the universe through language? This is the point of contention to me, you are still postulating an opposition, so I have to assume you have sensorial evidence that creates such opposition aside from the limitiations of argumentative thinking. What's the evidence you presume?

[PMLondonderry]

I see, so you assume that negative and positive are natural instead of an opposition created by the way we understand the universe through language? This is the point of contention to me, you are still postulating an opposition, so I have to assume you have sensorial evidence that creates such opposition aside from the limitiations of argumentative thinking. What's the evidence you presume?

I believe they are opposites but that one is not "bad" and one is not "good" since "bad" and "good" are words relative to ones cultural conditioning.

[Arrowni]

Could you give me an example of a hard opposition? Because I mostly can't figure out a real life example, take love for example, it's not the opposite of hate nor sadness, they are just different things. Death is just the absence of life, but it doesn't really opposes life, sickness is a more fitting antagonist, but even there some sickness is just caused by a different type of life developping, so the opposition is contrived.

[BienvenuJDC]

But it doesn't answer my question nor does it consider the point I made in #1. Just because Jesus was male doesnt mean that God is a male. If God chose to come to earth as a woman, and not as a male, we would see him as a woman. Ephesians calls Christ the Husband since Jesus is a male. Perhaps if God gave Mary a daughter instead, Ephesians would call Christ the wife.

Do you see what I am saying? God choosing to come down as a male doesnt mean that God is male. He had to choose a gender when he arrived in the flesh. Choosing a male was simply the road he chose. He could have chosen a female.

Then consider Ezekiel 16


16 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: “Your birth and your nativity are from the land of Canaan; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. 4 As for your nativity, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. 5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you; but you were thrown out into the open field, when you yourself were loathed on the day you were born.

6 “And when I passed by you and saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ 7 I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed, your hair grew, but you were naked and bare.

8 “When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,” says the Lord God.

9 “Then I washed you in water; yes, I thoroughly washed off your blood, and I anointed you with oil. 10 I clothed you in embroidered cloth and gave you sandals of badger skin; I clothed you with fine linen and covered you with silk. 11 I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your wrists, and a chain on your neck. 12 And I put a jewel in your nose, earrings in your ears, and a beautiful crown on your head. 13 Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth. You ate pastry of fine flour, honey, and oil. You were exceedingly beautiful, and succeeded to royalty. 14 Your fame went out among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through My splendor which I had bestowed on you,” says the Lord God.

This is in reference to Jehovah. Who Christ refers as the Father in the New Testament.

[martunia99]

I think the catholic God is a man
1. His Jesus's FATHER not mother.
2. He made Adam first
3 I just think he's a man by the way he acts.
But we are only human beings and we won't find out if God is genderless or not until we die

[ShadowsCool]

I would say the fact alone that God made man before woman
tells me God is a male. Also His Son is Jesus, no?
Anyway, since we are talking God, is it of importance? I doubt it matters

[cacian]

Consider the passage in Ephesians 5:22ff. The passage makes a doctrinal comparison of Christ as Husband to the church being the bride.

From a 'Jesus point' of view it is rather contrived to think that Christ woud marry a church (a thing/a building).
I never can understand the idea that a church could be refered to a the bride.
This makes sense now about those who marry in the church.
Thank you Bien for this piece of information it is truly fascinating!

[abeltarver]

God is self-existent, all-powerful, all seeing, all knowing Spirit, the Creator, not a human. God became flesh in the bodily form of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son, born of a woman, dying on the cross for the expressed purpose of redeeming man from his sin. There is gender only as long as we are in the flesh. In the Kingdom of God, we are glorified spirits, members of the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, we are one with Christ, therefore there is no male nor female nor nationality.

[miyako73]

I believe god can be male, female, or without gender. Spirits materialize through entering vessels that temporarily host them until the same vessels decay and ruin. I like the Buddhist explanation of gender and humanhood. Gender is immaterial since our bodies are just vessels of reincarnated souls. Even sex is just friction, so any two bodies of any gender can copulate as they are just mere vessels in erotic encounters. What matters most is the soul that lives in the body and loves another soul. I know it is too queer, but that is the teaching of Tsem Tulku Rinpoche.

[cacian]

I believe god can be male, female, or without gender. Spirits materialize through entering vessels that temporarily host them until the same vessels decay and ruin. I like the Buddhist explanation of gender and humanhood. Gender is immaterial since our bodies are just vessels of reincarnated souls. Even sex is just friction, so any two bodies of any gender can copulate as they are just mere vessels in erotic encounters. What matters most is the soul that lives in the body and loves another soul. I know it is too queer, but that is the teaching of Tsem Tulku Rinpoche.

I see, however I do not know about love one another but more chill/respect one another is more important to me.

[cacian]

I would say the fact alone that God made man before woman
tells me God is a male. Also His Son is Jesus, no?
Anyway, since we are talking God, is it of importance? I doubt it matters

It is important because for one to presume that God is a He another can easily presume that God is a She.
It is in human nature to want to contradict or go agaisnt an established theory.
I however would prefer it that God is both he and she. It makes it even in the eyes of the individual well to me anyway.
Symmetry is it is all about in my opinion and a he/she God in this instance offers that symmetry to me.
As to Jesus is his son I could not tell you for sure I have no proof of that in the same that I have no proof that God made a man before a woman. These are unverified, unproved statements. I can only go with what I see and not what I hear, even seeing is not entirely hundred per cent, so I will go with my instinct which tells me that I cannot vouch for Jesus being a son of God.