Biblos....Greek for BOOKQuote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Printable View
Biblos....Greek for BOOKQuote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
who created who first?
I would not rely on book that tells me that God is man unless of course they can prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
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.
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.
You are so weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
The gender is representative of certain aspects. There is much symbolism involved. God created man, and God is eternal, so no one created God.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
wow what a story I never knew that.Quote:
Then Christ was wed to the church
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Does that make the church symbolically female?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Not necessarily. But it is based on the mother of all mothers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Symbolically, yes...if one accepts that point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Why is calling something "female" always so controversial?