God is everyone?

[Purple Knight]

It is pretty obvious that God is supposed to be male. It is Adam who is made in his image.

That begs the question: Does God have a penis? If so what is it for? If he has one, then he is not only male but the male of his species, because if he's perfect and he has one, it has to be for something and must go somewhere and therefore there must be more of those things. It's just that none of them created Earth or humans.

[gadfly]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

There are many assumptions in the post, most based on modern English. Image in the ancient Hebrew meant something other than what modern English speakers mean by image: we mean something akin to "accurate PHYSICAL representation". That is not what ancient people (Hebrews or otherwise) meant by image. They meant something more like representation. But that is probably too vague. It would be best to avoid English definitions and use analogies. The ancient Hebrew indicates something like an ambassador.

[bjs1]

But it's in the context of Jesus supposedly having to be one sex or the other.

Okay. There was a 0.1% chance that Jesus could have had one of a few genetic disorders which would have decreased but not eliminated his physical sexual distinction. Does this change really change anything?

It means that he didn't have to choose A or B,

This is not precisely true. Conditions like Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome can have terrible symptoms, such as reduced hormone production, weakened immunity, and infertility. However, those who suffer from these syndromes still have a biological sex,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20360782

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20353949

and there should be some significance to choosing male.

Please explain your reasoning here. Even if we grant that there exists some syndrome that places a person outside the two sexes, how does that add significance to Jesus being male? As I have said, Jesus was male but he didn’t have to be. What exactly changes by creating the possibility of a third option?

I'm familiar with the technical explanation that he was both all god, and all human. In common sense we call someone with a father or one kind, and a mother of another kind, half.

Reality does not always follow “common sense.” Regardless, if you build any argument about Christianity on something other than what Christians believe then that is a straw argument by definition.

[Purple Knight]

This is not precisely true. Conditions like Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome can have terrible symptoms, such as reduced hormone production, weakened immunity, and infertility. However, those who suffer from these syndromes still have a biological sex,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20360782

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20353949

Because we define it that way. It is certainly possible for someone's primary and secondary sexual characteristics to all be absent. We can still define them as male or female but functionally they would be neither. Alternatively, Jesus could have chosen to be born as a true hermaphrodite, and have the characteristics of both sexes.

and there should be some significance to choosing male.

Please explain your reasoning here. Even if we grant that there exists some syndrome that places a person outside the two sexes, how does that add significance to Jesus being male? As I have said, Jesus was male but he didn’t have to be. What exactly changes by creating the possibility of a third option?

You're correct that it's possible it was a random choice. However, with the neither or both options, it's reasonable to assume a party who was really neutral to the male and female options, would choose one of those. What I'm trying to address is your idea that because there are only two options, it must have been a coin flip, or at least, we can't know that it wasn't a coin flip.

I'm familiar with the technical explanation that he was both all god, and all human. In common sense we call someone with a father or one kind, and a mother of another kind, half.

Reality does not always follow “common sense.” Regardless, if you build any argument about Christianity on something other than what Christians believe then that is a straw argument by definition.

I don't have to think you believe Jesus was half human and half god, nor do I have to be building an argument that requires him to be half, to use the term half as a shorthand descriptor for having a mother of one kind and a father of another kind. I'm not building an argument on him being half human and half God. I'm saying that what he was (which I can still describe as half because that's a legitimate use of the term) was not within normative human experience. So the argument that he had to be normal, therefore being a hermaphrodite or having all his sex characteristics absent was not a real option, does not hold water.

[JehovahsWitness]

Therefore there was some reason to select male. I put that as a counter argument to the idea that Jesus had to be either male or female, so the choice for male might as well have been a random one.

It could have been that in a patriarchal society, a female did not have a chance to be recognised as a prophet or saviour. But it was God who created that society, that way, from the very beginning.

You are correct, God did instigate a primarily patriarchal system within the kingdom of Israel and it would have been counter productive to send a female to fulfill a role contrary to the established system at the time, but that was not the only (or primary) reason Jesus had to be born a male. Scripturally speaking Jesus did have to be a male (and without physical defect) to provide a "corresponding ransom" to redeem mankind.

NOTE According to scripture, Jesus wasn't god or a demi-god and while being a perfect human was indeed outside of the "normative human experience" it didn't render him any less human than being physically or mentally handicapped would.










JW

DISCLAIMER: I hereby state for the record the above comment contains an unsupported Bible reference, that is considered no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book in this forum.

The above is specifically used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says.

==================================

This post is NOY for the purpose if having a theological discussion but to propose a possible response to the OP. I am making no claim , nor is the bible reference for the purpose of proving that Christianity is true.
[/quote]

[Purple Knight]

Scripturally speaking Jesus did have to be a male (and without physical defect) to provide a "corresponding ransom" to redeem mankind.

Why? Because male is better than female, so a perfect male sacrifice would cover everyone, but a perfect female sacrifice would only cover females? By my thinking, it was Eve who did a bad, so we owe God a female, not a male.

NOTE According to scripture, Jesus wasn't god or a demi-god and while being a perfect human was indeed outside of the "normative human experience" it didn't render him any less human than being physically or mentally handicapped would.

Or being female?

I'm going to be straight about my purpose here. I do think that if we are to believe fully in the modern morality that is all about individual responsibility, equality, and fairness, and that it is an advancement from a system like that of Israel which was patriarchal, tribal, hierarchical, and eye-for-an-eye, it does kind of provide a reductio against the Bible being perfect and true. However, and this is a big however, the Bible is not the only possible rat in this soup, and I've admitted before (see below) that individualism can't possibly fairly cover every situation. Not only that, but females basically do not commit violent crimes (this is not the 60/40 split for Black/White that can be explained away; this is more like 95/5 which cannot) so the idea that everyone is equal is kind of out the window right there. But it is very much a "pick at most one" type situation.

Is the Bible evil or is Individualism Wrong?
viewtopic.php?p=1158661

[Dimmesdale]

It is pretty obvious that God is supposed to be male. It is Adam who is made in his image.

That begs the question: Does God have a penis? If so what is it for? If he has one, then he is not only male but the male of his species, because if he's perfect and he has one, it has to be for something and must go somewhere and therefore there must be more of those things. It's just that none of them created Earth or humans.

Yes. God is male. And he has genitals. Which are the hallmark feature of maleness. And yes, since genitals point to their usage, inherently, it follows that they can and are used. God is not only the Father, but also the Husband. This is all plain logic.

So, yes, there is God; but also Goddess, who is therefore united with him in the Absolute Godhead, there being only One God. If this weren't the case, if there were no God-Goddess Principle or Moiety, how could anything follow?

[JehovahsWitness]

Scripturally speaking Jesus did have to be a male (and without physical defect) to provide a "corresponding ransom" to redeem mankind.

Why?

Because Adam (not Eve) was held responsible for the fall of mankind, so a replacement Father (not mother) had to be found.

[JehovahsWitness]

I do think that if we are to believe fully in the modern morality that is all about individual responsibility, equality, and fairness, and that it is an advancement from a system like that of Israel which was patriarchal, tribal, hierarchical, and eye-for-an-eye, it does kind of provide a reductio against the Bible being perfect and true.

I suppose for those believe patriarchy is bad, matriarchy is good, men are bad, women are good ...then they have no choice but to come to that conclusion. I'm not sure how many people actually hold to that dichotomy though in reality ...

[Purple Knight]

I do think that if we are to believe fully in the modern morality that is all about individual responsibility, equality, and fairness, and that it is an advancement from a system like that of Israel which was patriarchal, tribal, hierarchical, and eye-for-an-eye, it does kind of provide a reductio against the Bible being perfect and true.

I suppose for those believe patriarchy is bad, matriarchy is good, men are bad, women are good ...then they have no choice but to come to that conclusion. I'm not sure how many people actually hold to that dichotomy though in reality ...

Most of the modern morality believers are cognitively dissonant. But somehow they seem to be capable of bullying everyone else into regurgitating their dogma. Don't think I don't notice because they're areligious. I notice more.

[JehovahsWitness]

Most of the modern morality believers are cognitively dissonant. But somehow they seem to be capable of bullying everyone else into regurgitating their dogma....

Ad hominem duly noted but I don't personally hold that being a male makes one automatically bad or that all women are good.

But somehow they seem to be capable of bullying everyone else into regurgitating their dogma. Don't think I don't notice because they're areligious. I notice more.

So are you claiming there are no atheists? Since you claim that believers have bullied "everyone else into regurgitating their dogma" is not belief in an intelligent creator part of that dogma, and if so do you have a different definition of "everyone" since if what you are saying is true, atheists would be saying that there is an intelligent creator.