Consider the passage in Ephesians 5:22ff. The passage makes a doctrinal comparison of Christ as Husband to the church being the bride.Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
Printable View
Consider the passage in Ephesians 5:22ff. The passage makes a doctrinal comparison of Christ as Husband to the church being the bride.Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Then consider Ezekiel 16Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
This is in reference to Jehovah. Who Christ refers as the Father in the New Testament.Quote:
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.
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
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
From a 'Jesus point' of view it is rather contrived to think that Christ woud marry a church (a thing/a building).Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
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!
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
It is important because for one to presume that God is a He another can easily presume that God is a She.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowsCool
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.