Sexuality of the God concept

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:54 am

William Ess wrote: To be a Christian one has to do no more than follow the teachings of Christ who does not himself, after throwing out the money changers, seem to have been an attendee himself although detail on the matter is sparse.I would note that he was dead within a week of that incident, and that we're not talking here about missing Evensong for a few days!

911 · Post by **911** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:05 am

William Ess wrote: [QUOTE=911]

Check it for yourself. I can't quote the thing word for word but God created woman after the animals and after Adam reported that there was no suitable companion for him. You seem to have summed the position up more or less adequately.

There. That's sounds a lot better.

Actually, I think it was God who said that Adam should not be alone so he put Adam to sleep and created woman. My Bible says nothing about Adam complaining to God that he needed a companion. It was God's idea.

(Something is definitley wrong with my quotey thingy!) :-5

911 · Post by **911** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:07 am

I think to throw out gender in the Bible is ridiculous. If you were to throw that out, are you willing to throw out the crucifixion, the resurrection, the great flood?

Although we do it, it is unwise to pick and choose what to keep and what not to keep. Other than the Ten Commandments, I consider most of the Bible to be a guideline on how to live and treat others. But, throughout the Bible it refers to God as He, Father, and Him consistently. It is not implied, it's there. It is one of the few consistent things in there.

I believe people should feel God in their own way and learn the way they choose. I do not think anyone is completely wrong and no one is completely right. That's why there are Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherns, Amish, Quakers, etc. It's OK if you do not want to refer to God as a man but give him no gender at all then. As I said earlier, I think of him as a male, but I also think he is everything and everywhere. If I choose to worship in the trees in my backyard alone, that will be my church.

If I may get a little off subject sort of. . . . I saw part of a news show the other day of a man claiming to be Jesus resurrected. They showed a map of his followers. Canada was completely in red and were several countries in Great Britian, Asia and several states in the US. He is slightly Asian looking and speak with a heavy non-English as his first language accent. The people who are following him are amazing. They give him everything. He said we should all be wealthy including himself. He also said that the devil is something Hollywood made up and he does not exist. He specifically said HE WAS JESUS. Has anyone else heard of him?

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:17 am

911 wrote: I think to throw out gender in the Bible is ridiculous. If you were to throw that out, are you willing to throw out the crucifixion, the resurrection, the great flood?That sums up for the Christians, then. Meanwhile, the other two thirds of us can carry on considering the Sexuality of the God concept. Thank God Christianity isn't the be-all and end-all of religion.

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:21 am

i don't see what all the fuss is about....somebody should just check under god's skirt.:wah:

You can't assign gender to an entity that as far as anyone knows has no genitalia and no need for it. :wah:

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:41 pm

Pinky:-6

I loved that post. LOL. Don't forget about asking for directions and reading the instructions. LOL I confess. I'm guilty.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:37 pm

Hamster wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARgi

You can't assign gender to an entity that as far as anyone knows has no genitalia and no need for it.

And true....

but I tought that God created MAN in HIS image

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:48 pm

Pinky wrote: Ah, you're believing what you read again Bryn!
Terrible habit I know - I'm just a simple soul who's easily confused.

eta - I think that translates to "I'm a bear of very little brain and big words bother me"

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:48 pm

There's no doubt that the qualities traditionally ascribed by society as masculine and feminine are culturally conditioned, and that the ones associated with the all-high leader have been attributed to God as a means - illfounded, in my opinion - of praise. Even those boundaries occasionally break down. I spent some while dating a woman with all the associated aspects of the Almighty - she saw everything, she knew everything, she seemed to get everywhere and by crikey she was definitely all-powerful. I'm still getting over the damage, as is the world viv-a-vis God. The parallels are significant.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:21 pm

The idea of being created in God's image does not have to mean physically. It could mean spiritually.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:43 pm

Ted wrote: The idea of being created in God's image does not have to mean physically. It could mean spiritually.

Shalom

Ted:-6

It could, but given how spiritually constipated mankind is that's hardly likely.

From the KJV :-

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

"In our image, after our likeness" does appear to be fairly specific but verse 27 does appear to use MAN as the generic term rather than gender specific when it goes on to say "male and female created he them".

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:57 pm

Bryn Mawr:-6

Yep, that is what it says. One must remember that first of all it is a patriarchal statement by a patriarchal writer. Secondly, it is the use of anthropocentrism to explain the inexplicable. We are getting away from understanding the divine in this way. Many no longer think of God in those terms.

There are still of course a branch of Christianity who cannot seem to accept anything but the anthropocentric thinking.

Shalom

Ted:-6

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:11 am

ARgi wrote:

You can't assign gender to an entity that as far as anyone knows has no genitalia and no need for it. :wah:

The Romans had three genders: Male, Female and Neuter. The early Latin scripts could quite properly have described God as neuter but decided that the male gender was the more apporopriate of the two,

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:22 am

911 wrote: [QUOTE=William Ess]

if we discount gender for God then we must discount gender for Jesus and Moses and Abraham and all the other 'males' in the Bible. )

Why? If convention decided to address God in the neuter - which might not be unreasonable - why should this affect the gender of the males in the Bible?

911 · Post by **911** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:36 am

spot wrote: That sums up for the Christians, then. Meanwhile, the other two thirds of us can carry on considering the Sexuality of the God concept. Thank God Christianity isn't the be-all and end-all of religion.

Wow. That was a little harsh.

I never tried to impose my way of thinking on anyone. I believe in gender and that's my opinion.

I have read many things and yes, some are a little convincing but I always go back to my traditional values. Can't help it, just me.

I even read somewhere that it's possible that the Vatican has hundreds of chapters that never made it into the Bible. One specifically stating that Jesus never said you had to worship in a building. Wouldn't that hurt the Catholics?:p And after all, this is a mans version of the Bible, King James, and who knows what he left out? Or put in? That's why I say, to each his own.

Why? If convention decided to address God in the neuter - which might not be unreasonable - why should this affect the gender of the males in the Bible?

Why? You don't think God would have given a female the Ten Commandments? If you're going to say God is neutral, why can't we say Moses was a woman?

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:50 am

911 wrote: [QUOTE=spot]

That sums up for the Christians, then. Meanwhile, the other two thirds of us can carry on considering the Sexuality of the God concept. Thank God Christianity isn't the be-all and end-all of religion.Wow. That was a little harsh.

I never tried to impose my way of thinking on anyone. I believe in gender and that's my opinion.

[/QUOTE]Harsh? Not in the slightest. The thread's in the Religions & Beliefs General Religious Discussions area, not the Christianity area. Nominal Christianity accounts for a third of religious belief around the globe. Yes, most Nominal Christians would say God is male, and that's what we've heard mostly in this thread. The general assumption by Christians that their faith is the only true faith, that the other religious traditions of the world are in error and inferior, quite reasonably annoys me. The question of the sexuality of God can only be discussed within Christianity if the actual experience of Christians is taken as authentic, but the bible-pushers put a total reliance on inerrancy in their scriptures. My comment is an indication of frustration with that blinkered fundamentalist approach, to the extent that I'm quite happy to abandon the entire messed-up Church and Authority question and go looking elsewhere for insight. "Thank God Christianity isn't the be-all and end-all of religion" is a fair shorthand for that.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:05 am

911 wrote: I even read somewhere that it's possible that the Vatican has hundreds of chapters that never made it into the Bible. One specifically stating that Jesus never said you had to worship in a building. Wouldn't that hurt the Catholics?:p And after all, this is a mans version of the Bible, King James, and who knows what he left out? Or put in? That's why I say, to each his own.

Why? You don't think God would have given a female the Ten Commandments? If you're going to say God is neutral, why can't we say Moses was a woman?

The books making up the bible were put together under one cover after a very lengthy process in the fourth century. There was much debate as to which should be included and those excluded are doubtless stored in the Vatican or some other notable library. The greatest debate concerned the Apochrypha which had been excluded by the Jews from the Old Testament and this is sometimes included in certain editions of the bible although it is generally regarded as being less spiritually significant than those of the original (Vulgate) Bible.

It is not necessary to seek guidance ibn these documents on the issue of worship since Christ was quite specific on the matter, stating that people should pray in the privacy of their own rooms. He did however endorse meetings by adding that whenever two or more gathered in his name, he would be present.

It is however difficult if not impossible to main any sort of society without having some sort of form to the meetings. In this respect, the church is no exception.

Hence the order of service (the proper of the mass).

It is beyond my powers to suggest why God chose a man and not a woman to give the ten commandments to a woman to. Perhaps the Almighty followed the old Germanic law: "In terram Saliquam, mulieres non succeedant!"

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:28 am

Or perhaps it was the old usual partriarchal society milieu that allowed the writers to write that story in the way they did. Patriarchy has been around far too long and it is time to let it die ASAP.

Shalom

Ted:-6

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:08 pm

Ted wrote: Or perhaps it was the old usual partriarchal society milieu that allowed the writers to write that story in the way they did. Patriarchy has been around far too long and it is time to let it die ASAP.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I am all for reform provided the process is going to see the old order replaced by something better. What are you proposing as an alternative?

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:33 pm

Ted wrote: Or perhaps it was the old usual partriarchal society milieu that allowed the writers to write that story in the way they did. Patriarchy has been around far too long and it is time to let it die ASAP.

Shalom

Ted:-6

A patriachal society may be usual to you but here we have had women in charge for 120 of the last 170 years.................

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:42 pm

William:-6

Most societies are changing but some far too slowly. I can't speak for Britain but here in Canada women are still trying to catch up.

Shalom

Ted:-6

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:48 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: but I tought that God created MAN in HIS image

...if god is a man then god is not a god.

either the interpretation is wrong or the text is wrong.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:50 pm

ARgi wrote: ...if god is a man then god is not a god.

either the interpretation is wrong or the text is wrong.

argh, it's a green tape worm with legs:-3

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:58 pm

Ted wrote: William:-6

Most societies are changing but some far too slowly. I can't speak for Britain but here in Canada women are still trying to catch up.

Shalom

Ted:-6

If Patriarchal society is wrong, then it naturally follows that Matriarchal society is wrong. Jesus Christ is He simply because He was born male. Jesus is God so we refer to God as He but most certainly, God is not up there somewhere with head, arms, legs, torso and genitals. Gracious, what would He do with those genitals. He is nothing more than a pronoun and if we have a Patriarchal sociaty, it is because we, the people, us, made it so. Or you can check the bible and it seems to be quite clear if you wish to follow it that way.

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:00 pm

William Ess wrote: The Romans had three genders: Male, Female and Neuter. The early Latin scripts could quite properly have described God as neuter but decided that the male gender was the more apporopriate of the two,

But what about the earlier hebrew text?

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:02 pm

ARgi wrote: ...if god is a man then god is not a god.

either the interpretation is wrong or the text is wrong.

Methinks the interpretation.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:07 pm

The Bible was written by men in a strongly patriarchal society. That is precisely what one would expect.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:07 pm

ARgi wrote: ...if god is a man then god is not a god.

either the interpretation is wrong or the text is wrong.

I think the interpretation is that man is a pale shadow of the glory that is God - a likeness rather than a direct copy. A black and white photocopy of a Michaelangelo is a likeness but can never be compared to the original.

Nowhere does it suggest that God created man as his equal or as an identical copy.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:09 pm

For centuries men debated whether women were even human.

Shalom

Ted:-6

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:12 pm

ARgi wrote: But what about the earlier hebrew text?

That is a very good point and one I should have though of. Hebrew does not have a neuter as Latin and Greek have but on the other hand the gender of a noun does not indicate that the article itself is necessarily of the same gender. Thus noun (fem) could refer to object (mas) and vice versa.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:17 pm

William Ess wrote: A patriachal society may be usual to you but here we have had women in charge for 120 of the last 170 years.................

Maybe so but the establishment sure pulled their teeth. Of the past 100+ years women have had a significant say in the running of thing for 13 - that includes in the home and in the factory as well as in the administration.

A reasonble approximation to a Patriarchal society I'd say.

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:19 pm

William Ess wrote: Methinks the interpretation.

or the person writing it.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:20 pm

Ted wrote: The Bible was written by men in a strongly patriarchal society. That is precisely what one would expect.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I really don't see what is wrong with a patriarchal society unless you are going to change it for something materially better. The society in which I was brought up was well ordered, people knew their position and responsibilities and there was very little friction over this. It was not, however, so rigid that exceptions were not tolerated.

The role of women in that society was of such fundamental importance that to tamper with it is to court very grave danger. In some respects woman have been encouraged to leave this traditional role to compete with men in theirs. I am not sure the results in terms of social cohesion have been positive.

The patriachal is, I suspect, the natural order and we tamper with nature at our peril.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:21 pm

William Ess wrote: That is a very good point and one I should have though of. Hebrew does not have a neuter as Latin and Greek have but on the other hand the gender of a noun does not indicate that the article itself is necessarily of the same gender. Thus noun (fem) could refer to object (mas) and vice versa.

How does that work?

The word brick is a noun that represents in text the object that is a brick. How can the noun have a different gender to the object?

Confused of London

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:22 pm

William Ess wrote: I really don't see what is wrong with a patriarchal society unless you are going to change it for something materially better. The society in which I was brought up was well ordered, people knew their position and responsibilities and there was very little friction over this. It was not, however, so rigid that exceptions were not tolerated.

The role of women in that society was of such fundamental importance that to tamper with it is to court very grave danger. In some respects woman have been encouraged to leave this traditional role to compete with men in theirs. I am not sure the results in terms of social cohesion have been positive.

The patriachal is, I suspect, the natural order and we tamper with nature at our peril.

better duck willie boy:wah:

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:34 pm

We are all made in God's image, our souls that would be. It is our bodies that have gender. Is someone going to tell me that God, super power, omni everything, is walking around with a physical body to give gender to. Who are we to decide anyway?

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:49 pm

William Ess wrote: I really don't see what is wrong with a patriarchal society unless you are going to change it for something materially better. The society in which I was brought up was well ordered, people knew their position and responsibilities and there was very little friction over this. I recall singing the appropriate hymn to this in my youth - and I'm not making that up.

The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,

He made them, high or lowly,

And ordered their estate.

All together now for the chorus...

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful:

The Lord God made them all.

edit add: From Samuel Pepys diary, Sunday 11 November 1660:

There being no woman this day, we sat in the foremost pew, and behind us our servants, and I hope it will not always be so, it not being handsome for our servants to sit so equal with us.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:50 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: How does that work?

The word brick is a noun that represents in text the object that is a brick. How can the noun have a different gender to the object?

Confused of London

It is rather difficult to grasp but some objects are deemed female (ship, for example) and others masculine. The Hebrew gender doesn't always follow the rule.

French occasionally takes itself up in similar knots - I recall a few years ago there was a proposal to name a ship (le bateau) after the country (la France). There was a fair old row about it until French Lines CGT compromised by renaming the ship 'France' pure and simple.

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:54 pm

brick and brain maybe:D

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:57 pm

spot wrote: I recall singing the appropriate hymn to this in my youth - and I'm not making that up.

The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,

He made them, high or lowly,

And ordered their estate.

All together now for the chorus...

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful:

The Lord God made them all.

Yes indeed. One of Alexander's masterpieces! He (God) didn't, however. order things so rigidly that the rich and poor man could not change places. Alexander lived of course at a time of unparalleled opportunities for thousands of people who a generation earlier would never have had two pennies to rub together.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:00 pm

[QUOTE=weber]We are all made in God's image, our souls that would be. It is our bodies that have gender. QUOTE]

Excellent point!

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:01 pm

William Ess wrote: It is rather difficult to grasp but some objects are deemed female (ship, for example) and others masculine. The Hebrew gender doesn't always follow the rule.

French occasionally takes itself up in similar knots - I recall a few years ago there was a proposal to name a ship (le bateau) after the country (la France). There was a fair old row about it until French Lines CGT compromised by renaming the ship 'France' pure and simple.

Ahhh Mr Ess.........we label ships, etc. as female and some things masculine. Are we to place God in with tall these material things that we give gender to. Or is maybe God special and different, very different than us, he, she, it,......

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:02 pm

William Ess wrote: It is rather difficult to grasp but some objects are deemed female (ship, for example) and others masculine. The Hebrew gender doesn't always follow the rule.

French occasionally takes itself up in similar knots - I recall a few years ago there was a proposal to name a ship (le bateau) after the country (la France). There was a fair old row about it until French Lines CGT compromised by renaming the ship 'France' pure and simple.

Fine, ships are always female - in a gendered language this is determined by the gender of the noun. How do you know, in Hebrew, that the ship is feminine if the noun used is not?

As the boy named Sue can tell you, the gender of the name given to a specific instance of an object does not determine its gender, the gender of the noun does that.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:13 pm

What is wrong with patriarchy?

"They knew their position". How nice. Woman stay in your position and don't meddle in mine. What makes man think he is so damned hot and good.

"Tolerated". Another dandy. I wonder how women like to be "tolerated". It sounds worse than demeaning.

We are all humans and we are all created in God's image. In fact we are all equal. Of course there are some gender specific roles men don't have babies and women don't have a penis. Patriarchy is disgusting to say the least. Women are no longer content to be baby machines or lay around on their backs for men to play with.

What is wrong with patriarchy? It is blatantly sexist and unfair and immoral to everyone. Of course when the men were off fighting in the wars it was OK for women to build weapons and ships and planes. Without them the boys at the front would have been royally screwed.

If we stop to think about it women are genetically stronger than men. They live longer to begin with. Their intelligence is on a par with man's. They make good doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. BTW women are far better at multitasking than men.

That's my rant for the day.

Shalom

Ted:-6

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:17 pm

weber wrote: Ahhh Mr Ess.........we label ships, etc. as female and some things masculine. Are we to place God in with tall these material things that we give gender to. Or is maybe God special and different, very different than us, he, she, it,......

I think Mr Weber dealt with this matter far more competently than I could. There is nothing I can add to his reply.

W. Ess (Dr)

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:24 pm

Sorry Dr. Ess, I meant no disrespect. I didn't know you were Dr.