Why does God have a gender?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Why does God have a gender?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

The bible speaks of God as a 'he' or 'him'.
Is it possible that's not true? Is it possible God is an 'it' more than a 'he' or even a 'she'?

If God is not a 'he', would that change how you think of 'him'?
Would it change anything about 'his' story?

I've seen some believers see this concept as offensive. Are you one of those people that are offended if God is spoken about as a 'it' or 'she'?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #241

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmYes - although i do not think it is necessary to add [4] as it is really a mix between [1]&[2] where the beliefs cross over, and your beliefs are positioned in that cross over, which is aligned with your position of having not yet decided.
I'm open-minded, but I have decided on a position.
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmThe data about additional body type and form [and thus matter] existing in other universes and having a kind of influence on our own universe, seems besides the point.
What "data about additional body type and form..." are you talking about? I didn't say anything about that.
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmYour position is not the imaginary [4] but an attempted morphing of [1]&[2]. [While you have yet to make up your mind as to how you best self identify as being...]
That's news to me. Tell me how you know this is true, when I actually think I have made up my mind on a position that is neither [1] nor [2]?
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmWhat can I say which you could accept? It depends on which way your prefer to lean. Spirit. Or. Flesh.
A false dilemma, if my view is true. Defining my view out of possibility simply begs the question against me.
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmDo you think that the new body you get in the next phase will still bleed, suffer, be 'human'...or something different [perhaps better-from the other universe] in makeup and performance?
I'm not sure if it will bleed. I think it won't suffer. Thus, yes, I don't think drawing blood is necessarily 'suffering'. I've had a good day's work out in the sun that has drawn some blood but didn't see myself as suffering because of it. I think it will be fully what human was always meant to be but different than what it is for us right now. I don't think it comes from an other universe (whereas I understand 'universe' to be defined as something like 'all of physical reality').
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmAs you know, my position is [3] and as you know, I expect the campfire and access to all of the holographic universes. Different bodies depending upon need/use. Freedom of movement. No one telling me how I should do things. Just as a Spirit [of The Creator] would have.
Yes, I am aware of that. And, in a sense, I agree with this last line. I also think we will all just be doing the things we want to do freely because of the love spilling out of us, coming from God, of knowing and being known in that loving community, not that we will have to be told what to do.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #242

Post by William »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:17 pm
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmYes - although i do not think it is necessary to add [4] as it is really a mix between [1]&[2] where the beliefs cross over, and your beliefs are positioned in that cross over, which is aligned with your position of having not yet decided.
I'm open-minded, but I have decided on a position.
So yes - apart from these things which you have yet to decide upon, which makes your position still open to changing;
The Tanager wrote:b. I'm undecided on whether I think the temporary disembodied state is temporally experienced by the soul or if the resurrected body is experienced as immediately following the death of one's physical body.

c. I'm undecided on whether I think Hell is annihilation or self-inflicted eternal isolation.
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmThe data about additional body type and form [and thus matter] existing in other universes and having a kind of influence on our own universe, seems besides the point.
What "data about additional body type and form..." are you talking about? I didn't say anything about that.
You said you saw yourself as;
A human being, in my use of the term, is a hylomorphic being, i.e., a being composed of spirit and matter. I see myself as a spiritual and material being.
With my further comments on your introducing "hylomorphic" you clarified by writing;
"Why do you think 'form' is of the physical universe only? It exists in the physical world, there is a form to an apple, but in De Anima Aristotle speaks of the soul and body in form-matter terms as well."
That is the "data about additional body type and form..." I am saying is besides the point - as in superfluous to the overall debate.
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmYour position is not the imaginary [4] but an attempted morphing of [1]&[2]. [While you have yet to make up your mind as to how you best self identify as being...]
That's news to me.
It's a start...
Tell me how you know this is true, when I actually think I have made up my mind on a position that is neither [1] nor [2]?
I did tell you. Perhaps you skipped the news and went straight to the weather?

Re what I wrote again in light of this;

I did not say your position was [1]or[2]. I said your position was a mixture of both [1]&[2] and that the things you were still to make up your mind on, would depend on which way you leaned in regard to [1]&[2].

The outcomes are fairly similar with both [1]&[2] but if you do get around to ever deciding on which of those extra bits [the non similar incompatible parts of [1] against [2]/ [2] against [1]] then you will be positioned in either [1] or [2] depending on which story you gravitate more toward [in supporting of].
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmWhat can I say which you could accept? It depends on which way your prefer to lean. Spirit. Or. Flesh.
A false dilemma, if my view is true.
You are still undecided on those details so that [claiming a false dilemma, if your view is true.] is the same as saying [1] and [2] are both correct and true.
How can you know if your view is true? Are you saying [for example] that if when you experience the next phase and it works out that it isn't on earth but some other place and there is a heaven and there is a Hell which are experienced by those who once were humans on earth then "William had made a false dilemma" or;

Are you saying [for example] that if when you experience the next phase and it works out that it is on earth but there isn't a heaven and there isn't a Hell and all those who experienced being humans on earth are raised from the dead and then some are judged acceptable while others are exterminated, then "William had made a false dilemma" or;

Some further mix of said [1]&[2] if as both will allow, then "William had made a false dilemma"

How is that reasonable on giving you the better position in this argument we are now having?
Defining my view out of possibility simply begs the question against me.
Well you should be thankful my friend, that I am taking the time in attempting this great potentially beneficial thing.
But seriously? I am simply trying to show you what it is that can be seen and offer you to consider [3] as the best option to believe in relation to the next phase experience.
That way you can shift positively away from the dilemma of undecidedness.

That is what friends are for.
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmDo you think that the new body you get in the next phase will still bleed, suffer, be 'human'...or something different [perhaps better-from the other universe] in makeup and performance?
I'm not sure if it will bleed.
Add that to the list of uncertainty...
I think it won't suffer.
Add that to the list of uncertainty...unless of course you know it won't cause suffering...remember - it doesn't [won't] suffer. The wearer of it suffers. Is the new body going to cause you the Eternal Spirit wearing it, any suffering?
Thus, yes, I don't think drawing blood is necessarily 'suffering'.
I suppose not. It depends on whether it is designed to allow suffering. We could 'agree' that any form which is torn [thus bleeds] must at least be 'damaged' so therefore is imperfect...
I think it will be fully what human was always meant to be but different than what it is for us right now.
I would argue that right now the bodies we Eternal Spirits are inside of, were meant to be as intended. The way they were created to be.
I don't think it comes from an other universe (whereas I understand 'universe' to be defined as something like 'all of physical reality').
"Something like"? as in Hylomorphic

Communicating
Nurturing
Soul Has an Agenda
Source Sync
Get Comfortable
Redefine Oneself

Perhaps one simulates the other etc.., as places in which we Eternal Spirits can investigate through experience.
William wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:12 pmAs you know, my position is [3] and as you know, I expect the campfire and access to all of the holographic universes. Different bodies depending upon need/use. Freedom of movement. No one telling me how I should do things. Just as a Spirit [of The Creator] would have.
Yes, I am aware of that. And, in a sense, I agree with this last line.
As I wrote;

"The way they were created to be."
I also think we will all just be doing the things we want to do freely because of the love spilling out of us, coming from God, of knowing and being known in that loving community, not that we will have to be told what to do.
Which is what I get with "the campfire and access to all of the holographic universes. Different bodies depending upon need/use. Freedom of movement. No one telling me how I should do things. Just as a Spirit [of The Creator] would have."

The differences of that [3] and of [1]&[2] is in the form. Not being restricted to the one form.
Also the environment. Not being restricted to the one environment.
Also the community. Not being restricted to the one community.

All a product of the love spilling out of us, as an image of The Creator.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #243

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pmWell you should be thankful my friend, that I am taking the time in attempting this great potentially beneficial thing.
But seriously? I am simply trying to show you what it is that can be seen and offer you to consider [3] as the best option to believe in relation to the next phase experience.
That way you can shift positively away from the dilemma of undecidedness.

That is what friends are for.
I am thankful for you taking the time, as always, friend.
William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pmSo yes - apart from these things which you have yet to decide upon, which makes your position still open to changing;
b. I'm undecided on whether I think the temporary disembodied state is temporally experienced by the soul or if the resurrected body is experienced as immediately following the death of one's physical body.

c. I'm undecided on whether I think Hell is annihilation or self-inflicted eternal isolation.
I don't see how those indecisions would change it from being a mix-up of [1] and [2] to only a [1] or a [2].

I'm definitely not a [1]; I'm completely clear that I don't believe humans are spirit alone. Even if (b) involves a temporary disembodied state, then I still wouldn't think the human is the spirit alone (i.e., a [1]). This state would be an incomplete temporary state, not what is truly 'human'. And as you say yourself, [1] can include both eternal existence in Hell and extermination.

I'm definitely not a [2]. Regardless of whether I believed in annihilationism/extermination or a self-inflicted isolated eternal existence, I believe those individuals who aren't a part of Heaven will also be resurrected before their final judgment. Your [2], as worded, rules out the resurrection of "unsaved" individuals.

And I defnitely wouldn't be a [3] because I see no good reason whatsoever to believe that any of that is true.

It appears that your categorization is incomplete.
William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pm
A human being, in my use of the term, is a hylomorphic being, i.e., a being composed of spirit and matter. I see myself as a spiritual and material being.
"Hylomorphic" appears to be defined differently than how you are using it. There is only 'matter' and 'form' both of the physical universe.
"Why do you think 'form' is of the physical universe only? It exists in the physical world, there is a form to an apple, but in De Anima Aristotle speaks of the soul and body in form-matter terms as well."
That is the "data about additional body type and form..." I am saying is besides the point - as in superfluous to the overall debate.
You brought it up. You claimed 'hylomorphic' didn't mean what I said it meant. I responded to that. Aristotle uses form and matter to speak of humans. Is this your way of admitting you were wrong about something?
William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pm
What can I say which you could accept? It depends on which way your prefer to lean. Spirit. Or. Flesh.
A false dilemma, if my view is true.
You are still undecided on those details so that [claiming a false dilemma, if your view is true.] is the same as saying [1] and [2] are both correct and true.
I think [1] and [2] are both incorrect, as shown above.
William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pmHow can you know if your view is true? Are you saying [for example] that if when you experience the next phase and it works out that it isn't on earth but some other place and there is a heaven and there is a Hell which are experienced by those who once were humans on earth then "William had made a false dilemma" or;

Are you saying [for example] that if when you experience the next phase and it works out that it is on earth but there isn't a heaven and there isn't a Hell and all those who experienced being humans on earth are raised from the dead and then some are judged acceptable while others are exterminated, then "William had made a false dilemma" or;

Some further mix of said [1]&[2] if as both will allow, then "William had made a false dilemma"

How is that reasonable on giving you the better position in this argument we are now having?
First, I'm not claiming I 'know' my view is true. I believe it is true. I ultimately believe it is true because of the soundness of the historicity of the Resurrection. I think the only 'reasoning' you've offered for your view is that it is logically possible. I think the reasoning for my beliefs outweighs the mere logical possibility of your view being true.

Second, I don't think heaven is a different location from earth, as though it's a different planet in existence somewhere out there. I think this world is currently getting renewed into heaven and will be fully renewed for eternity.

Third, the false dilemma is your categorization of Christian views as only [1] or [2]. I reject both, for reasons given above, yet still have a Christian view.
William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pmAdd that to the list of uncertainty...unless of course you know it won't cause suffering...remember - it doesn't [won't] suffer. The wearer of it suffers. Is the new body going to cause you the Eternal Spirit wearing it, any suffering?
I believe the human spirit-matter composite will neither cause suffering nor experience suffering.
William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pmWe could 'agree' that any form which is torn [thus bleeds] must at least be 'damaged' so therefore is imperfect...
No, I don't agree to that, given what I understand by 'imperfect'.
William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pmI would argue that right now the bodies we Eternal Spirits are inside of, were meant to be as intended. The way they were created to be.
That is you claiming this, not arguing it. Do you have an argument to support this claim for me to consider, since I disagree?
William wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:21 pmThe differences of that [3] and of [1]&[2] is in the form. Not being restricted to the one form.
Also the environment. Not being restricted to the one environment.
Also the community. Not being restricted to the one community.

All a product of the love spilling out of us, as an image of The Creator.
If it is left up to us, then what we create is not simply a product of love spilling out of us. We simply don't always act out of love, perhaps not usually so. History tells us this. Personal interaction tells us this. Introspection tells us this.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #244

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #244]

Post#72
"The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife"

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #245

Post by Miles »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:57 am
Does the biblical God have a biological gender? No, the God of the bible is neither male nor female, it states : "God is a spirit" and therefore biblically not gender bound.
Who says spirits are not gender bound, bibically or otherwise, and where have they said it?

Why does the bible liken God to a man/male/Father? Because that is a useful metaphor to help humans understand certain aspects of His nature.
But wasn't god the father of Jesus? Sure he was because he, not Joseph, got Mary pregnant.


Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:


So god was far more than a metaphorical father. He was an actual father.


...............................................
Image



.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #246

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Miles wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:34 pm [GOD] not Joseph, got Mary pregnant....So god was far more than a metaphorical father. He was an actual father.
A metaphor is still a metaphor even if it is literally true in some aspect.
To illustrate: calling one's child his bunny does not mean the child is a small rabbit even if technically both a real bunny and a child are alive and warm blooded creatures. Calling a helpfull nurse your "Florence Nightingale" doesnt mean she is literally Florence Nightingale. The point is to illustrate a common feature they share (compassionate caregiver). They may both be nurses and female but that doesnt mean they are both 5"4, white or from England.
A father is a MALE parent. Biblically, while God was is quite literally Jesus parent and lifegiver he is not male (or female) nor is he biological as are human fathers. So when Jesus taught his followers to pray to God as "Our Father" and addressed God as such himself, this in no way proves God is biologically male.


JW




RELAYED POSTS


Does God have a biological GENDER?
viewtopic.php?p=1035024#p1035024

Can God die?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 77#p951877

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

GOD, OUR FATHER and ... THE DIVINE NAME
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #247

Post by Tcg »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:02 am
Biblically, while God was is quite literally Jesus parent and lifegiver he is not male (or female) nor is he biological as are human fathers.

JW
If God is neither male nor biological, he could not possibly be the father of the biological Jesus.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #248

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Tcg wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:34 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:02 am
Biblically, while God was is quite literally Jesus parent and lifegiver he is not male (or female) nor is he biological as are human fathers.

JW
If God is neither male nor biological, he could not possibly be the father of the biological Jesus.


Tcg

I believe biblically, there is nothing impossible for God. We call that in the vernacular "a miracle".





JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to

MIRACLES , JESUS' MIRACLES, and MESSIANIC PROPHECY
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #249

Post by Tcg »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:37 am
Tcg wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:34 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:02 am
Biblically, while God was is quite literally Jesus parent and lifegiver he is not male (or female) nor is he biological as are human fathers.

JW
If God is neither male nor biological, he could not possibly be the father of the biological Jesus.


Tcg

I believe biblically, there is nothing impossible for God. We call that in the vernacular "a miracle".

JW
In what way did this "miracle" involve the biological and how could that biological component be considered of God given that you've already testified that God isn't biological?


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Why does God have a gender?

Post #250

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Tcg wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:41 am In what way did this "miracle" involve the biological and how could that biological component be considered of God given that you've already testified that God isn't biological?


Tcg
I don't believe God is biological, that is not to say I don't believe God can create and/ or manipulate the biological.

For example according to the bible God both invented dust and manipulated it to create a biological human male (Adam). My personal, faith based belief is that God created and manipulated the physical cells that went on to grow into the human baby Jesus.





JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply