Sexuality of the God concept

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:39 pm

A specific question crossed my mind tonight that I thought should be approached individually. I thought of it as a philosophical question but as it has to do directly with a concept of God I thought the religious approach was the way to go. How does one assign a gender to God?

weber · Post by **weber** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:45 pm

koan wrote: A specific question crossed my mind tonight that I thought should be approached individually. I thought of it as a philosophical question but as it has to do directly with a concept of God I thought the religious approach was the way to go. How does one assign a gender to God?

One doesn't assign a gender to God. Where would we come by the authority to do that? God is spiritual and spiritual needs no gender or all gender. I trust God enough to know what He was doing (He is just a human pronoun that we need), I think He knew what He was doing when Jesus was born male. I see no reason to argue with that. It gives us that pronoun that we need.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:50 pm

I object to a pronoun as well. How can God be limited?

weber · Post by **weber** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:00 pm

koan wrote: I object to a pronoun as well. How can God be limited?

God can't be limited but we most definitely are limited. Without a pronoun, we are limited to repeating God over and over and over to become bland so to speak. I don't think we want that. We need the pronoun. God certainly doesn't. I wrote a little poem and in it the pronoun for God was I, and for Jesus I Am. I don't think it would work but I had fun with it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:08 pm

weber wrote: God can't be limited but we most definitely are limited. Without a pronoun, we are limited to repeating God over and over and over to become bland so to speak. I don't think we want that. We need the pronoun. God certainly doesn't. I wrote a little poem and in it the pronoun for God was I, and for Jesus I Am. I don't think it would work but I had fun with it.
Perhaps you could quote it here?

I am not adverse to the word God being used to describe the concept of the divine. It is as useful a word as any. The problem is with the attachments of a defining word. To avoid bastardisation it should be thought of as an "it". The divine began as a feminine concept because the physical reality of birth giving was seen to be a female quality and God seen as the creator. That was wrong. The current association as a He is also wrong. To use either provides an excuse for limitation. IMO.

911 · Post by **911** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:30 pm

Jesus referred to Him as "My Father". That naturally, to us, makes Him a male. I think God is everything to everybody and giving Him a gender or not, is up to us. I refer to Him as a male because that's the way I see Him.

You can see Him as an "it" but that makes me think of an insect or something I'm not familiar with. I am familiar with God so I call Him Him.

People put too many restrictions on religion and try to get eveyone else it see it their way. As I said, I think God is everything so if you choose to call Him 'it' then so be it. That's your choice. It, Him, her, He is all that and more.

That's just the way I see it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:43 pm

The reason for this thread is that I think refering to God as "Him" or "He" brings a limited conception of God. Whether intended or not. I think the assignation of gender has a subconscious effect.

911 · Post by **911** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:04 pm

koan wrote: The reason for this thread is that I think refering to God as "Him" or "He" brings a limited conception of God. Whether intended or not. I think the assignation of gender has a subconscious effect.

I don't understand. Do you think referring to God as "Him" makes His powers limited? That subconsciously one may think that He is incapable of understanding anything female or vice versa? (Sorry, I can be a little dense sometimes)

If that's the case, then it's us that limited. Regardless of what pronoun you give God, it makes him limited. Unless by calling God "it" someone may think that He can get a better grasp of all things--people, plants, animals, etc.

I don't think you need a pronoun to give him unlimited powers. I think He has all powers for male, female, plants, animals, etc.

Just think of Him as the ONE MALE that really does understand women and everything else. :wah:

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:31 pm

911 wrote: I don't understand. Do you think referring to God as "Him" makes His powers limited? That subconsciously one may think that He is incapable of understanding anything female or vice versa? (Sorry, I can be a little dense sometimes)
yes

If that's the case, then it's us that limited. Regardless of what pronoun you give God, it makes him limited.
yes

Unless by calling God "it" someone may think that He can get a better grasp of all things--people, plants, animals, etc.
perhaps

I don't think you need a pronoun to give him unlimited powers. I think He has all powers for male, female, plants, animals, etc.

Just think of Him as the ONE MALE that really does understand women and everything else. :wah:
point in case

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:14 am

koan wrote: I object to a pronoun as well. How can God be limited?

Can God draw a four sided triangle?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:51 am

William Ess wrote: Can God draw a four sided triangle?

LOL, in reality there are no triangles.

Leave it to Koan to come up with some thought provokers.

For my two cents I'll just say it all depends on why you are assigning the gender. I don't really believe God has gender but I usually refer to God as him becuase I have been trained that way and old habits die hard. Therefore for me it does not limit "his" definition.

I think God is all loving, one, limiltless, genderless, abstract and absolutely unknowable to the human brain because "he" is formless..

SOOOO, if God is formless and everything around us seems to have form there must be something incorrect about our perception of reality...

Erm, I better stop before I get smitted by lightening!!:eek:

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:03 am

zinkyusa wrote: LOL, in reality there are no triangles.

:

The three-sided efforts that Pythagorus spent so much time studying ere real enough.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:04 am

God?

English, Conservative, male. What more do you need to know...............?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:06 am

William Ess wrote: The three-sided efforts that Pythagorus spent so much time studying ere real enough.

Nope Billy Ess, you just believe they are..

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:11 am

zinkyusa wrote: Nope Billy Ess, you just believe they are..

I believe therefore they are.

What do you call a three sided figure whose angles add up top 180 degrees?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:16 am

William Ess wrote: I believe therefore they are.

What do you call a three sided figure whose angles add up top 180 degrees?

an illusion of course.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:27 am

zinkyusa wrote: an illusion of course.

So if I get three pieces of wood and nail them into a three sided structure, would that be an illusion or a triangle?

In my view it would be a pretty substantial object in the shape of what is commonly known as a triangle. To prove that it is more than an illusion I could hit someone over the head with it.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:36 am

William Ess wrote: So if I get three pieces of wood and nail them into a three sided structure, would that be an illusion or a triangle?

In my view it would be a pretty substantial object in the shape of what is commonly known as a triangle. To prove that it is more than an illusion I could hit someone over the head with it.

hmmm, do you have anyone in mind?;)

it's solidity is illusory as well as the apparent pain this "hypothetical" person would feel..

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:42 am

zinkyusa wrote: hmmm, do you have anyone in mind?;)

it's solidity is illusory as well as the apparent pain this "hypothetical" person would feel..

Give me an example of something that is not an illusion.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:43 am

William Ess wrote: Give me an example of something that is not an illusion.

reality

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:45 am

Hamster wrote: I prefer to look at "God" as a force or essence...

"It" is impartial and needs no gender as it takes no form as Zinky said.

It has also been described as the Universal Mind, Christ Consciousness, Spirit and countless other names..

To assign a gender (i.e. male) only poses more questions..for if God created man in his own image then why go on to create women? I think we need to assign gender because we have a need sometimes to put things in boxes and label them as things we can understand.

This is a consciousness so big that we cannot percieve it in our logical minds and so we humanise it to make it easier...

well said grasshopper, um I mean furball..

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:52 am

Hamster wrote: Er..does that actually mean we agree on something Z??? :wah:

maybe, but I wouldn't use the world conscious to describe God. To me God would be all inclusive love or oneness. To be "conscious" would mean to be aware that one is separate from that oneness...

consious bad..

one good..

ouch my beenie hurts now

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:02 am

[QUOTE=Hamster]To assign a gender (i.e. male) only poses more questions..for if God created man in his own image then why go on to create women?

I think you will find the answer in Genesis.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:05 am

William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=Hamster]To assign a gender (i.e. male) only poses more questions..for if God created man in his own image then why go on to create women?

I think you will find the answer in Genesis.

Literally or metaphorically?

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:09 am

zinkyusa wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]

Literally or metaphorically?

An allegory but it defines the relationship of women to men more than adequately.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:13 am

William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=zinkyusa]

An allegory but it defines the relationship of women to men more than adequately.

humanity divided into sexes = the image of God?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:20 am

911 wrote: I don't understand. Do you think referring to God as "Him" makes His powers limited? That subconsciously one may think that He is incapable of understanding anything female or vice versa? (Sorry, I can be a little dense sometimes)

It cannot make his powers limited but it limits our perception of him.

The subconscious effect you mention is only one of many. Probably one of the more insidious is the distancing of women from God - if God were perceved as female do you imagine that the Church would have banned women from holding office for so long?

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:35 am

zinkyusa wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]

humanity divided into sexes = the image of God?

If I remember correctly, God made man in his own image and woman later, as an afterthought.

There are times when I wish Adam had died with a full set of ribs.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:38 am

William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=zinkyusa]

If I remember correctly, God made man in his own image and woman later, as an afterthought.

There are times when I wish Adam had died with a full set of ribs.

uh oh, I think you're in deep do do now William..

911 · Post by **911** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:55 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: It cannot make his powers limited but it limits our perception of him.

The subconscious effect you mention is only one of many. Probably one of the more insidious is the distancing of women from God - if God were perceved as female do you imagine that the Church would have banned women from holding office for so long?

The "Church" being "man"?

I see what you are saying but I still perceive Him as 'Him' and not but as all. Neither gender but as all gender. Just because I refer to Him as 'Him' does not mean to me that He doesn't recognize females or care for them any more or less. He is All.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:20 pm

Hamster wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]

Excuse me? Care to explain that statement?

It seems plain enough to me. What is it that you don't understand?

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:23 pm

911 wrote: The "Church" being "man"?

I see what you are saying but I still perceive Him as 'Him' and not but as all. Neither gender but as all gender. Just because I refer to Him as 'Him' does not mean to me that He doesn't recognize females or care for them any more or less. He is All.

God is male. Quite apart from making man in his own image, the relationship between men and woman is quite clearly set out in several parts of the New Testament.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:24 pm

William Ess wrote: God is male. Quite apart from making man in his own image, the relationship between men and woman is quite clearly set out in several parts of the New Testament.

do elaborate please william:D

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:26 pm

911 wrote: The "Church" being "man"?

I see what you are saying but I still perceive Him as 'Him' and not but as all. Neither gender but as all gender. Just because I refer to Him as 'Him' does not mean to me that He doesn't recognize females or care for them any more or less. He is All.

Very definitely man.

Whilst you can recognise God as All, there have been two millenia where the people have been left in the dark - not allowed to read the Bible, preached at in Latin and tought fire and brimstone and a vengeful Lord. This has left a mark on the collective psyche that fixes God is male and on the side of men. I fear it will take a long time for this to be overcome.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:33 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Very definitely man.

Whilst you can recognise God as All, there have been two millenia where the people have been left in the dark - not allowed to read the Bible, preached at in Latin and tought fire and brimstone and a vengeful Lord. This has left a mark on the collective psyche that fixes God is male and on the side of men. I fear it will take a long time for this to be overcome.

The reason that only clerics were allowed to read the Bible was a very sound one and showed its worth after Henry VIII revoked the law. The confusion caused by ill-educated people drawing dangerous conclusions from isolated portions of the scripture became so dangerous that Henry was obliged to repeal the law after a few years. Latin was not an impediment and until quite recently most educated men had reasonable fluency in the tongue. It is a sobering fact that two hundred years ago men of learning could converse far more freely at an international gathering than is the case now.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:34 pm

Hamster wrote: How do you know God is male? Where is your evidence?

Go and read the Bible

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:37 pm

Hamster wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]

I dont understand how you can think it is acceptable to wish that women had never been created? You also have no evidence that women were created as an "after thought".

Apart from the occasional trials of wives, daughters and mothers-in-law, has freedom of expression been abolished.

If I remember my scriptures correctly, God created the animals and gave Adam dominion over them. When Adam could not find a suitable companion amongst the animals, God created woman out of Adams ribs.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:39 pm

William Ess wrote: The reason that only clerics were allowed to read the Bible was a very sound one and showed its worth after Henry VIII revoked the law. The confusion caused by ill-educated people drawing dangerous conclusions from isolated portions of the scripture became so dangerous that Henry was obliged to repeal the law after a few years. Latin was not an impediment and until quite recently most educated men had reasonable fluency in the tongue. It is a sobering fact that two hundred years ago men of learning could converse far more freely at an international gathering than is the case now.

So we should go back to the days when 90% were illiterate and it was a sin to for the common man to read the Bible?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:41 pm

Hamster wrote: Yes it says so in the bible I agree-but that is the only evidence you have? Something that was written by men?

You have never seen God yourself have you so how do you know? This is like saying there are martians on Mars and it has to be true because you read it in the Sunday paper.

go girl:D

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:42 pm

Hamster wrote: Yes it says so in the bible I agree-but that is the only evidence you have? Something that was written by men?

You have never seen God yourself have you so how do you know? This is like saying there are martians on Mars and it has to be true because you read it in the Sunday paper.

It is no good blaming me for the Bible. I didn't write it. If I may say so you are confusing function with hierarchy. Woman and men have different roles and separate functions. It does not mean that one is inferior to the other nor is it implied.

I have never seen God but I have felt the results of his presence.

911 · Post by **911** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:47 pm

William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=zinkyusa]

If I remember correctly, God made man in his own image and woman later, as an afterthought.

There are times when I wish Adam had died with a full set of ribs.

Gosh, I thought he was kidding. Like he had an ex-wife who took him to the cleaners or something.

I thought it was a joke. It wasn't? :-3

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:48 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: So we should go back to the days when 90% were illiterate and it was a sin to for the common man to read the Bible?

I think we are heading in that direction very quickly. Apparently something like 15% of the adults in this country are illiterate which was not the case forty years ago. It was not a sin for the layman to read the Bible, it was against the law and the first attempt to address the law resulted in failure.

The Bible is a complex work and poor interpretations have consistently resulted in hardship and bloodshed. A reasonable analogy would be trying to perform a complicated piece of surgery by reading a medical directory.

Anyone can read the Bible, not everyone can understand it.