God, the Father...?

[Tru Mackney]

Okay, I'm not trying to offend anyone with this thread. I'm just wondering everyone's opinion on this. This thread is mainly for BB's Christian members, but you all are open to post your opinion.

Okay, so the story is like this...

I was in Spanish class today and I was looking up "poner" in my Spanish-English dictionary. As I was looking for this word, I stumbled upon the Spanish word for "penis" and for some strange reason, I began to wonder if God (the Christian God) had a gender. You hear him referred to in the Bible as "the Father" or "Him", but does he have a gender? Does God really need a Penis? Also, if God does have a gender, is he male or female? Is God a masculine being, a feminine being, or did society just assign him this gender role?

The concept of God has always confused me, and I think that's why I'm so fascinated by him/her/it.


So...what do you all think of this? Do you think he's a man? Does God have a Penis?

[The Chosen]

Very interesting question. I've thought about that a bit.

While I think it WAS society that assigned God that gender, it'll always be impossible to find out one way or the other. And since "Father" is a term created by mankind, it's even harder to figure out. In my mind, anyway.

Did that make sense?

[Tru Mackney]

I actually had a dream once where I saw God. He told me something, but I can't remember what it was. That was one of the most amazing dreams I have ever had.

[palabravampiress]

The Christian concept of God comes from the Jewish concept of God mixed in, of course, with various polytheistic concepts of God popular throughout the Roman Empire. The Jewish concept of God is predated by the early Semitic concept, which was itself polytheistic. There is even still evidence of this in the Bible today, especially in those passages in which God is referred to in the plural ("elohim," often translated into English "us," as in "let us go down and...") and in which he is referred to as having sons (the sons of God mating with the daughters of Man, for instance). This polytheistic concept of God was similar to most polytheistic concepts, with one God and his female consort standing as the creators at the top of a hierarchy of gods, all of whom had different powers and dominions. So, originally, yes -- El, the father god and creator god who eventually became The One God of the Hebrews probably did have a penis (or at least some celestial sort of reproductive function), as he would have needed it in order to father children with his consort.

But, of course, the concept of God is about more than what we can trace back through the ages. It is also about what people believe in the here and now. In the here and now, this same God is called by many names, but he is worshiped by the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, and various sects and offshoots of those religions as a single entity (with some allowances made for the Christian trinity and also for vestigial remnants of polytheism like angels and jinn). In this monotheistic concept of God, he lacks a consort and is instead an individual creator. This more recent concept of God has no consort and therefore has no need of gender. Even the Christian version of God, who does father a son, makes it clear that the human mother is a virgin and, therefore, was impregnated by mystical means rather than by normal sexual intercourse. In this case, the gendered pronoun "he" is as vestigial as is the use and translation of the plural elohim and the inclusion of lesser gods translated as angels, jinn, and other creatures.

One must not also forget the cultural influence of the religions, nations, and ethnic groups in which the monotheistic God is worshipped. The male gendered pronoun must also be indicative of the largely patriarchal cultures from which monotheism sprung and into which it was most easily assimilated later. I think it fairly reasonable to assume that, was the monotheistic concept of God adopted by a matriarchal society with a language reflective of those values, the gendered pronoun in common use would probably be female. If it was adopted into a gender neutral society with a language reflective of those values, the pronoun would probably be gender neutral. As Western Civ becomes increasingly influenced by feminism and open to gender neutrality, I think it very likely, even, that the language (and the pronoun for "God") may change accordingly over time.

So that is my opinion. I think El had a penis. I think God/Allah/Yaweh/Etc. has no practical need of one and is increasingly conceived of as gender neutral. In the future, I think it likely that the language will change to reflect that. It's all just a matter of etymology + culture.

[The Kinslayer]

palabravampiress: Seems like a great post, but I have a little problem grasping all of it. I think I need a translation, so I could give a proper response. I´ll leave that to other members for now.

I´ll simplify this way to much but "God the father" and "Mother earth" sounds like a good combination. But personally I think God is more like a concept than an actual being with gender.

[LorneyTunes]

God its a bit hard to make that choice because in my eyes God is just a being of great mass and if you meet God i think God a appears the way you choose like the big cat , because having faith is all your idea your not forced to believe it ! Its all about how you feel and In the eyes of a child Mother is GOD . I almost lost my belief when i lost my mother but i believe shes up there drinkin tes more likey so yeah God isn't a he or a she its what u think it is , thats just my op x

[ILLYRIAN]

Going back to the Jewish thing, in Jewish mythology Adams first wife was kicked out of the garden because she wouldn't submit to Adam.
The first wife's name was Lilith she became the first demon. As far as I remember Adam and Lilith's first born was Cain, he killed his brother. Lilith and Cain got together, literally, when they had both been thrown out of the garden as all their children were demons, if the Jewish faith is anything to go by was Lilith the first vampire?
The only reason I know that stuff is because I was researching for my fanfic.

[Hello Cutie]

I don't know much in terms of other religions etc, but I can tell you that in Islam, God is very rarely referred to as him, except for when ease of speech requires it. I think the whole useage of a gender term is purely for ease of referral, rather than because Allah/God has a gender that is male.

Also, a rough translation of part of our prayers into english say- 'He begot none, nor was he begotten'. Aka, that didn't help create life by birth through penetration and insemination, and that Allah wasn't created that way either. So, no, judging by that, no penis, no gender.

[Blondie Bear]

I think God is neuter, but in English we have only one neuter pronoun, and it seems sort of disrespectful to run around calling God "it." I think "he" is just a convenience that got turned into doctrine through long use. I don't think God cares WHAT pronoun you use, as long as you're using it respectfully.

[randiann]

I agree with BB and Hello Cutie. I think its just more for practicality than anything else that we tend to refer to God as "he". Except when God is played by Alanis Morresette (sp??? help with that one please!!!)

[The Kinslayer]

I agree with BB and Hello Cutie. I think its just more for practicality than anything else that we tend to refer to God as "he". Except when God is played by Alanis Morresette (sp??? help with that one please!!!)
Yeah, Alanis was quite good as god, and quiet.

Even if it´s practical to say "he" I believe that the fact that it´s a "he" and not a "she" is simply because that men ruled the world (so to speak) and they had no desire to give the position of creator and "master" to a woman. No matter how pathetic it sounds. But I do know there is other religions wiyh female gods.

And I´m sorry but I don´t understand what you want help with.

[ILLYRIAN]

Sorry Hello Cutie, but if the First was Lilith then because Lilith gave birth to Cain, and Adam was male. That would mean that the first was corporeal and female.
I didn't put the specifics of Lilith being booted from eden as I didn't want to be seen as inferring the Jewish faith was sexist, but Lilith was seen as not subservient to Adam because she refused to have sex in the missionary position.
But getting back to the question, wasn't there a thing that about the holy ghost Jesus and God being the holy trinity. If that's so then as Jesus was a man then God is a man.
What's that bit in Genesis 1:26 about we created him in our image after our likeness. We it is argued is the holy trinity. Adam was the first, so that would indicate God was/is a man.
Me saying Lilith being the first vampire was speculation, a vampire is a demon and as nothing was mentioned about what type of demon [they needed Anya there] I simply suggested Lilith was a vampire.
Then there's the thing about God being referred to as he. But I reckon that's got more to do with men running religions, I mean how many religions are there that have the head figure of a woman? Yet a lot of the pagan religions did have women up there.
Most witches are meant to be women, who states you shall not permit a witch to live.?
If God showed up tomorrow and God was a woman, but that open's up a whole different can of worms.

[JCC]

God is referred to as a 'he' because that's the basis of most religion. Male superiority.

[ILLYRIAN]

Ooh, I like that one JCC. If each religion states God is a he, then that is sexist, is being sexist illegal? I'll have to check.

[ILLYRIAN]

Ooh, I like that one JCC. If each religion states God is a he, then that is sexist, is being sexist illegal? I'll have to check.

[apocalypse]

Why does it even matter? What is the point of debating whether or not God is male, when in all likelihood God doesn't even exist?

[Crazy Flakes]

Well, I'm agnostic, but if God does exist, I'm almost certain that He/She/It doesn't have a gender. I don't think God is really a being...I've always though of God as sort of an entity or presence instead of the old, gray-haired guy in the sky. I actually think that if God does have a gender, it'd make more sense for Him to be a female. He is depicted as the entity that gave life to everything, and that sounds very motherly to me.

Referring to ILLYRIAN's first comment, I think that the Bible's stories are, as Willow would say, "a load of horse hooey." The Bible depicts women as inferior. God is thought to see everyone as an equal. It just doesn't balance out. There are a million other reasons, too. To be honest, the more I hear about the Bible, the less convincing it sounds.

[littlewilly]

The Bible is man made though, it aint like God wrote it, and it aint like the western bible is the same as the original.
And it dosnt make sense god would be female. it dosnt make sense for god to be male either though.
Only reason for male/female is to reproduce, otherwise whats the point, God didnt need to do that. And it takes female and male to give life, so it isnt just motherly.

[InsaneMystic]

Me saying Lilith being the first vampire was speculation, a vampire is a demon and as nothing was mentioned about what type of demon [they needed Anya there] I simply suggested Lilith was a vampire.
It's a well-grounded speculation. The probably first known vampire myth was from ancient Mesopotamia/Babylon, involving noncorporeal female demons who turned into the corporeal form of winged and clawed beautiful women in order to seduce men and feed on their blood... and they were called the Lilitu (from this point there probably spawned both the vampire and the Succubus/Incubus legends).

If I got the timeline right, it's likely that the ancient Jews picked the name "Lilith" from this demon instead of the other way around, so Lilith was in all likelyhood supposed to be the first of the Lilitu.

[Angel's vision]

First off, Adam and Eve were the first humans as I believe the Bible depicts.They dissobey God and get kicked out of Eden, then they have their first offspring. The comment about man and women dipicted as unequal has annoyed me, the Bible does not depict one master over the other, rather both are equal and both should in a love relationship for example obey each other. Eph 5 says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves us, in that he gave his life for us.Wives are to respect their husbands. That does not depict any unequality at all. Queen Esther was chosen to save her people, there was also a prophetess named Deborah.

People can say they believe the Bible to be written by man, or that they don't believe in God but to say it like it is fact is another thing. You can't proove both.
As for God having a gender, he doesn't need one. Jesus was the vessel in which God was seen and heard. God created both sexes with organs for multiplying over the earth to create new life as he can and did.

[JCC]

First off, Adam and Eve were the first humans as I believe the Bible depicts.They dissobey God and get kicked out of Eden, then they have their first offspring. The comment about man and women dipicted as unequal has annoyed me, the Bible does not depict one master over the other, rather both are equal and both should in a love relationship for example obey each other. Eph 5 says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves us, in that he gave his life for us.Wives are to respect their husbands. That does not depict any unequality at all. Queen Esther was chosen to save her people, there was also a prophetess named Deborah.

People can say they believe the Bible to be written by man, or that they don't believe in God but to say it like it is fact is another thing. You can't proove both.
As for God having a gender, he doesn't need one. Jesus was the vessel in which God was seen and heard. God created both sexes with organs for multiplying over the earth to create new life as he can and did.
Why do you think that it was the woman that doomed mankind? That was the message.

[Angel's vision]

Both did. ^^^ I never meant to imply that is was all Eve's fault!
yes she took part in the event,after the tempter put the doubt in her mind, but Adam knew his own mind enough to make the choice not to "Doom mankind" as much as Eve. As the story goes.

[JCC]

Both did. ^^^ I never meant to imply that is was all Eve's fault!
yes she took part in the event,after the tempter put the doubt in her mind, but Adam knew his own mind enough to make the choice not to "Doom mankind" as much as Eve. As the story goes.
Even the seating in synogogues is sexist.

[ILLYRIAN]

Here we go, religion bashing. As Angel's Vision says the bible states.....what religion is that?, cos I was talking about Jewish Mythology.
InsaneMystyic, I used the bible as a tool, for a timeline. I know that there's a difference between the religions as to what happened and when. The bible puts it that the world started October 23rd 4004 BC. I couldn't find a date for the Mesopotanian/Babylonian
legends.

[littlewilly]

The bible thinks the worlds only about 6000 years old? i did not know that one.

[Blondie Bear]

Here we go, religion bashing. As Angel's Vision says the bible states.....what religion is that?, cos I was talking about Jewish Mythology.
InsaneMystyic, I used the bible as a tool, for a timeline. I know that there's a difference between the religions as to what happened and when. The bible puts it that the world started October 23rd 4004 BC. I couldn't find a date for the Mesopotanian/Babylonian
legends.

Is that date actually in the Bible somewhere, or is that the date from people extrapolating the "begats?"

[InsaneMystic]

InsaneMystyic, I used the bible as a tool, for a timeline. I know that there's a difference between the religions as to what happened and when. The bible puts it that the world started October 23rd 4004 BC. I couldn't find a date for the Mesopotanian/Babylonian
legends.
Actually, I was talking about when the believers wrote down the stories about their faith. And if I'm not totally wrong, the Mesopotamian legends are significantly older than the Jewish creation stories.

Though noone can prove it this way or the other, even as a religious person I tend to disregard the Biblical claim of a 6000 year old world since Adam and Eve physically walked Eden as "erm, probably not correct". :wink:


Is that date actually in the Bible somewhere, or is that the date from people extrapolating the "begats?"
The latter. :)

[ILLYRIAN]

The only time I've read the bible would have been when I was blind drunk, and I can't remember it. I've used the bible several times though, in seances, after being in contact with dead people just to see if they were telling the truth.

I was told about that date by a Catholic and it was on a tv show by some religious bloke. Think he was a Southern Baptist or Mormon, I think his name was Copeland.

I wouldn't believe the Adam and Eve stories either, as I heard all life came from them. Or that the world is only 6000 years old, I like there being dinosaurs on earth.

Edit:

Ye gods, I've just been to look about that date, didn't know there was so many bibles. And all those people having different opinions about the same thing.

To my way of thinking if its all the same thing, shouldn't they agree?

Anyway, James Usher, Anglican Archbishop of Amagh, Primate of all Ireland came up with 23/10/4004
and Dr John Lightfoot Hebrew Scholar said it was 9 am
couldn't count how many disagreed with them.
I'm tempted to use The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy here. The answer to the question is 42, and the question is ......what is, 9 X 6 =

[The Ferg]

I believe that the only reason that god is seen as a guy is because back in the day, girls didn't really have a right to anything did they? Everyone thought men were like higher beings to women.

(Then Buffy changed that train of thought. ;) )

[Dlou444]

I agree with Palabra. I think the "He" was just passed down. I also think it has a LOT to do with men being the superior ones back in the Biblical times.
God being seen as the "Father" I feel is just a metaphor. Maybe because Mother's are typically more "hands on" while Father's have been seen as venturing out in the world, making the living and kind of "guiding" the family more from afar than Mothers. (At least back in the day.)

I fail to see how God would have a need for a penis or any other reproductive part of the body. If he's God, who's he gonna reproduce with and why would he NEED to? If he's the almighty creator and able to make the world, animals....us. Couldn't he just say, "You there! You're pregnant!" and POOF!

[Blondie Bear]

The latter. :)

The problem I've heard with that one (and I'm not a Bible scholar, so this is hearsay), is that the chroniclers used to skip over entire generations if they weren't interesting or had done something really wrong. And it didn't change the truth of it in their eyes; if you were descended from someone, you were their "son," or "begat" from them. We see this in "Jesus, son of David," even though King David was TONS of generations before Jesus.

Also, the word "day" in Genesis can apparently also be translated from the Aramaic as "an age"; hence it's possible that it wasn't a literal day but just a span of time. It's entirely possible that it took several million years for God to create the earth. I personally don't see why He/She/It wouldn't choose to use evolution as His/Her/It's method of creation if He/She/It felt like it.

This is, of course, assuming that there IS a God and that the Bible is an account of His/Her/It's activity.

[littlewilly]

^ Thats how i look at it, God basically put all the ingrdients for universe/life out there and let them develope and evolve throgh time.
Speaking of which, evolution. I watch quite alot of stuff on the internet about the universe and evolution on earth.
And thing is, do people on this board believe that humans evolved from fish? although things can and do evolve, theres never been any evidence of one species evolving into another entirely different species. and the chart showing an ape changing into a man, thats totally just theory.
No proof at all to back that up. To think that EVERYTHING living on this planet came originaly from one type of single celled organism, changing into a billion different things from spiders to birds to elephants to people seems a bit insane. Is this any more sane than believing a god could have created everything.

[Dlou444]

Someone said people evolved from fish? I don't think that's what we learned in school.
Maybe evolved from something that once broke off into branches and one was a fish, but not FROM fish...right?

[palabravampiress]

^ Thats how i look at it, God basically put all the ingrdients for universe/life out there and let them develope and evolve throgh time.
Speaking of which, evolution. I watch quite alot of stuff on the internet about the universe and evolution on earth.
And thing is, do people on this board believe that humans evolved from fish? although things can and do evolve, theres never been any evidence of one species evolving into another entirely different species. and the chart showing an ape changing into a man, thats totally just theory.
No proof at all to back that up. To think that EVERYTHING living on this planet came originaly from one type of single celled organism, changing into a billion different things from spiders to birds to elephants to people seems a bit insane. Is this any more sane than believing a god could have created everything.

Someone said people evolved from fish? I don't think that's what we learned in school.
Maybe evolved from something that once broke off into branches and one was a fish, but not FROM fish...right?


I'm more with Diou444 on this one.


We find intermediate species in the fossil record all the time. What about all of those winged, feathered dinosaurs with hollow bones and other bird-like features that they're finding? What about freakin' ostriches? I mean... yes, there are gaps in the fossil record, but it doesn't take a genius to follow that pattern to its logical conclusion, which is that it is very likely that birds (themselves possessing vestigial reptilian traits, like scaled legs) share a common reptilian ancestor from the era in which reptiles are known to have developed flight, feathers, and sometimes both. No one is saying that starling on your telephone wire had a great-great-great... great-grandpa who was a T-Rex -- or even that that T-Rex had a great-great-great... grandma who was a fish. Evolution just looks at the pattern and theorizes a connection in the form of a common ancestor of some sort, likely one of the light, feathered, flying creatures that sort of straddle the line between dino and bird.

Human fossils offer up similar sorts of evidence. So do modern chimps. Chimps share somewhere between 94% and 99% of our DNA. In theory, it would be possible to breed hybrids (like we do with horses and donkeys or with lions and tigers or with buffalo and cattle). That's a pretty compelling argument for some sort of genetic relationship between two species. Now, no one is saying humans came FROM chimps; instead, what the theory of evolution says is that the evidence supports the notion that there is almost certainly a common ancestor between chimps and humans. No one is saying anyone's great-great-great...great-grandma was a chimp (well, that's not entirely true; I've seen one or two studies suggest that the human and chimp lines split, interbred again, and then split once more) or that her great-great-great... great-grandpa was a fish. They're just saying that when combined with the striking genetic similarities between the two species, the fossil evidence supports the notion that a common ancestor once existed.

To say humans "come from" fish is really sort of oversimplifying matters. It's not like a fish gives birth to a frog, which in turn gives birth to a newt, which in turn gives birth to a rat, which in turn gives birth to a monkey, which in turn gives birth to a person. It is more likely that a few fish species developed traits that allowed them to seek out a coastal or shallow-water niche, that some of these species developed into amphibians or possibly other types of creatures, that some of these developed into reptiles or other types of creatures, that some of these developed into mammals or other types of creatures (like birds, as mentioned above), that some of these developed into primates or other types of creatures, that some of these developed into hominids or other types of creatures, and that some of these developed into what we would now call humans, and then -- and this is really the part that is weird -- that from all of the various hominid types that evolved, only homo sapiens sapiens survived. There is a lot of room in this theory for stagnation (some fish, for example, have lungs to this very day; others have legs), for reverse evolution (aquatic mammals making the opposite journey from seashore to sea), and for tons and tons of variation (note the absolute plethora of avian species) within closely related groups. With all of this diversity, it would be nearly impossible to trace a line back from one human to one fish. It's less of a stretch, though, to say that humans probably share, along with other mammals (except those that may have developed mammalian traits independently, as sometimes happens in nature) a common ancestor that was some sort of fish.

[littlewilly]

Yeah, there are quite a few different scientific theories to how we came to be here.
But, my point was, out of all the fossils discovered in the history of mankind, there has never been one
single fossil, ever, to be found to support the thoery that species can evolve into a different kind of animal,(like a missing link bone/s) which going
by the general evolution theory, must have happened, and happened quite alot.(im not saying a fish gave birth to a frog or a mouse turned into a bird) but to get to the amount of different animals we have today, alot of species must have changed.

another recent theory i seen was, now this may seem far fatched but, that the reason modern humans are here is a meteor from space.
Now, humans need so much to survive, air, water, heat, vitamins and even iron and carbon(to name a few)
Now thousands of years ago there was lots of different types of humanoids, but only one type survived.
What if a meteor stuck earth, releasing a vital ingredient(eg. something like carbon) and that was the thing that one
of the human types needed , like a trigger, to evolve further and become more intelligent!
(this is an actal theory i seen on the internet)

these theorys ive written aint my point of view exactly, just some ive seen or heard and im just puting them out there.
No one theory seems more likely than the other to me.
But one thing for sure, whatever crazy theory turns out to be true, with how amazing the universe is, is it that hard to believe
some being/conscience could be responsible for it all?

pS. one more thing, if anyones interested, go and look up DNA on the internet.
You will see that chimps having simelar DNA to us actually means nothing.
There is an INSECT that shares....... 99% DNA with us.
lots of other theories to suggest simelar DNA dosnt prove anything on the net too.

[Dlou444]

LTH: I'm not sure I get you.


We can see evolution in LOTS of places. If you take a species of frogs and disperse them all over the planet, some will die, some will live, and in a hundred or so years the ones that lived will look little to nothing like either what you put there or their "family" that you dropped someplace else.
Evolution works in the way that the strongest survives and that usually happens because one is a mutant and ends up forming something that helps them in their habitat.

I've never heard anyone supporting evolution that says anything about one species TURNING INTO another. Giraffes don't give birth to sperm whales and anyone would be stupid to say otherwise.

I HAVE heard that giraffes didn't always have long necks. And that over time, the ones with the longer necks survived better because they could reach the higher branches, they mate, they're kids have longer necks, the live, they mate, their kids have longer necks.

I can go with the the idea that God put "life" on the planet. Now whether God is some mystical being in the clouds or an Alien race, like the Mayan's believed or time in general, is up in the air.

But, I DO believe life started with a single cell. In order to survive, those cells had to mutate or they'd just all grow and multiply eat all the food and die out.
So, eventually one had to learn to eat the others, one had to mutate to venture onto the land.
Men didn't "evolve" from chimpanzees in the sense that one day a chimp popped out a human. More like the branch of a tree. We're a LOT like apes in many ways, not just DNA. A tree branch pops off and it one pretty BIG thing. On it are TONS of tiny branches where one evolved into cute tree monkeys, one in to chimps, one into gorillas and one into our earliest ancestors...be that Adam and Eve or Cavemen.
Actually, not much different than a FAMILY tree. Sure, you can have a group of 100 people with the same last name, does that mean they're remotely similar or even LIKE each other? No. It does mean that when looking closely at the group you probably COULD be able to say, "Hmmm, this eye color seems prominate and so do these two nose structures" but that's about it.

There most certainly ARE fossils that document the animals of today with the ones of before. We can show how elephants and whales evolved from something almost totally unrecognizable into the animals we have today.
http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/elephants/images/elephant-evolution.jpg

[JCC]

Evolution started in the bacteria that developed in the Archean era. This was then affected by the Oxygen Catastrophe whereby oxygen was released by the photosynthesizing foliage, killing all of the anaerobic bacteria of the time and forcing it to change to cyanobacteria, bacteria that respirates through oxygen. That is the basis of life.

It's basic Geology.

[palabravampiress]

I don't really wanna get into an Evolution vs. Creationism debate. I believe in Evolution because I think it makes sense. I think science finds evidence of transitional species all the time, as with whales (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html), but how you interpret that evidence is up to you and probably has no influence on the question of God's gender. When push comes to shove, I'm with those who don't understand why Evolution and Creationism are in opposition to one another. Evolution can only go so far. Eventually, it draws a blank. There is nothing saying a creator God can't be that blank. There is nothing saying multiple creator gods can't be that blank. If a single deity is in fact that blank, though, I'm gonna agree with the majority and say that he/she/it creates via some method other than sexual reproduction and therefore has no need of a gender.

Of course... then there is the question of sex vs. gender to consider. The hard and social sciences are increasingly considering gender and sex as two separate concepts, with sex describing a genetic trait and gender describing a social construct. Marginalized populations, like hermaphrodites or transgendered people, tend to bring that difference into sharp focus. For example, someone who is genetically male but raised to serve a female role in society would have a male sex and a female gender. So perhaps God has no sex, but the pronoun "he" is in reference to character traits or duties that human society has generally and traditionally interpreted as male (at least in the societies that adopted the monotheistic worldview). Maybe there is something about patriarchal societies that leaves them more open to the idea of monotheism, and so the monotheistic concept of God as a father figure grew out of those societies as a direct result of that cultural value?

[ILLYRIAN]

Here's a thought, if God was both sexes and he/she gives life by some means or other. Isn't the life that is from another form of life evolution? and because it is of god, creationalism?

IF that is true, then no to the initial question.

[Dlou444]

Here's a thought, if God was both sexes and he/she gives life by some means or other. Isn't the life that is from another form of life evolution? and because it is of god, creationalism?

I wouldn't call just giving life evolution. Animals give birth to "mutated" forms all the time that die quickly instead of it being an improvement. So, the general idea would be that technically, I can (PERSONALLY) give God credit for creating life in single cell or other form on this planet and it moving on from there. In which case, many of these forms have turned out to be horrible. I don't think that's God's design that sometimes things are born flawed.
IF we were to say God "gave birth" to us, and God being different from us, for it to be evolution, we'd have to be better than God. Personally, I'm not sure we're even better than monkeys or gophers most of the time.

But, I'm not sure that answers anything.

[littlewilly]

Heres a thought. Seeing as some people want to know peoples views on....... wait for it......... Gods gender(which i find insane)
heres another simelar question.
What colour is god? How tall is god? whats his cloths like?

[Dlou444]

What colour is god? How tall is god? whats his cloths like?


Yellow when he's happy, scary reddish purple when he's mad and blue when he's sad. 25 feet 4 inches tall (He doesn't use the metric system as it's far too simple) and he like's Levi's and Hane's T-Shirts.
Happy?

[The Kinslayer]

Yellow when he's happy, scary reddish purple when he's mad and blue when he's sad.
Ok, I´m sorry for going off topic but that just got me thinking of this (which I really like).

When I was born, I was Black
When I grow up, I'll be Black
When I get sick, I am Black
When I get cold, I am Black
When I die, I will be Black

BUT YOU...
When you were born, you were Pink
When you grow up, you'll be White
When you get sick, you turn Green
When you get cold, you turn Blue
And when you die, you will turn Purple

and you call me coloured?

Now back to topic

[littlewilly]

Seems your the last person i gave reputation to.
I like the poem thing you done.
Ive never liked the term 'coloured' though
I have a 4 black mates and they dont like 'coloured' and i can
see what they mean.

[ILLYRIAN]

Some-body [cough] mentioned that mankind came from fish. I hope that was a once only thing and not ongoing, I like fish 'n' chips and that would make me a bit of a cannibal. Salt and vinegar any-one?

[Tru Mackney]

Here is the painting that was derived from all of this. It's a picture of God as both a man and a woman in the same body. It's really not my best at all. I could have done better if I had more time.


I Am
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll77/alanisluvr/100_0834.jpg

[Angel's vision]

Wow! You have talent!

[Randy Giles]

Personally, I consider God to be a physical being with a body like ours. When it's stated that "God created man in his own image" I basically take that to mean we're lesser forms of him. Our body is shaped after his. I don't believe that God is "everywhere at once". And I do not believe that he and Jesus Christ are one and the same, either.

And while most Christian religions do not accept this idea at all, I believe that there is a Heavenly Mother too, who is God's wife, and equal.

[littlewilly]

I talk to God. He tells me to do things.

[Buffanator]

Heh. Some of y'all are too funny! :D

Here's my wacky doodle on the subject... logically speaking, of course!

A penis is good for TWO things, & God doesn't need to do either, hence God has no penis.

Also, there are no testicles in heaven. (just ask all the neutered pups out there!)

Thank you, I'll be here all week! :lmao:

[InsaneMystic]

A penis is good for TWO things, & God doesn't need to do either, hence God has no penis.
IMO, it's only good for one thing, a total waste of cellular material for the other. But then again, I'm cranky. :silly:

Also, there are no testicles in heaven. (just ask all the neutered pups out there!)
I for once couldn't call a place/state/concept/whatever "Heaven", if it still had a gender difference in it (as that's pretty much top on my personal "most hellish" list about this world). So, definitely no testicles. :biggrin:

[littlewilly]

A penis is good for TWO things, & God doesn't need to do either, hence God has no penis.

:

Classy. And Hot. Are you Australian?

[Yam Sham]

To be honest, if there is a God, I don't think he/she/it has a gender, or anything of the sort. I think God is just a presence...I just tend to say 'Him' out of habit, and saying 'it' seems disrespectful.

[littlewilly]

Lets be honest here. Gods a MAN. He's as Manly as Man can be, got MAN written all over him. Just Man. manmanman.
I mean, if HE was a woman, he could never have invented the earth.

[Fake Shemp]

SKY BULLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[littlewilly]

^^Re Crazy Flakes.
Oh Right, sorry. Its the rude, mysoginistic thing. I forgot its hard to tell.

[Yam Sham]

I'm no femenist and O, but that's just rude. =/
Stupid enter button.
Here's the full comment:
I'm no femenist and I'm not offended or anything, but that's just rude. =/ Especially since more than half of the BB members are female.

[hyperballadbrad]

It just stems from patricarchy really, and the subjugation of women... and all that stuff.

But I don't believe in anything mystical on any level. It's probably overly secular lol

[Buffanator]

Classy. And Hot. Are you Australian?

Heh. No. But I've often thought I should be! ;) :D

[OldSwede]

^ Thats how i look at it, God basically put all the ingrdients for universe/life out there and let them develope and evolve throgh time.
Speaking of which, evolution. I watch quite alot of stuff on the internet about the universe and evolution on earth.
And thing is, do people on this board believe that humans evolved from fish? although things can and do evolve, theres never been any evidence of one species evolving into another entirely different species. and the chart showing an ape changing into a man, thats totally just theory.
No proof at all to back that up. To think that EVERYTHING living on this planet came originaly from one type of single celled organism, changing into a billion different things from spiders to birds to elephants to people seems a bit insane. Is this any more sane than believing a god could have created everything.

Far from being an insane idea, there is tons of evidence (from fossils and DNA) that support this view of evolution, which is why almost all biologists (like me) believe in this "insanity". I shouldn't get started on this topic, but I can't let a post like that stand unanswered, either.

[littlewilly]

I didnt really mean 'insane', more like 'amazing' that this is not only possible, but more than likely.
I actually believe the 'insanity' that is evolution too.

[OldSwede]

I didnt really mean 'insane', more like 'amazing' that this is not only possible, but more than likely.
I actually believe the 'insanity' that is evolution too.

I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. It really is amazing!