Why does God have a gender?

[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'?

[nobspeople]

If any god does exist I reckon it would be genderless. The writers who created the documents making up the Bible were born in the days when men were thought to be the superior gender!

That seems to be the consensus among most, today. I wonder if it would be the same, say, 500 years ago?
Meaning, maybe society changes the POV those living in it at the time?

But, if what you say is correct, it (IMO) should concern those who believe in the bible. Why did God allow this to happen if it's not true? What else is like this in the bible? How can we believe the bible is 100% true if .1% isn't?
Just something to consider I suppose.

[The Tanager]

Why do you image The Creator on a throne being worshipped. Do you think that someone who will be among the people requires being worshipped in the first place?

The imagery of the one doesn't align with the imagery of the other.

The image of the Creator on the throne speaks to His loving guidance, care, reign over His people. The Creator isn't going around seeking personal fulfillment in people worshipping Him but I do think the Creator will rightly be worshipped (i.e., adored and revered for His goodness, His mercy, etc.) by His creation. Worship is our rightful approach to the Creator and is for our own good and enjoyment.

The sub-forum where the bigotry example I linked you to, has this to say about its purpose;

The purpose of this bible study is to read the bible in a logical way as a narrative and as a religious text that has shaped the practices of those religions that follow it.

This is not a "Christian" bible study, although people of all religious backgrounds are welcome to participate. It is meant to be a study of the bible as a text, to better understand the book in a scholarly manner.

The discussion of origin is outside the scope of the study - this group is not for debating whether something is the word of man or god.

Discussions regarding interpretations of the text are entirely allowed and encouraged, this is the main purpose of the discussion.

Discussions regarding implications of different interpretations may arise but should be kept from disintegrating into which is the correct interpretation.

From this description what do you think I'm misunderstanding in my choice to focus on what Gen 1:27 says or doesn't say versus a more wide-reaching discussion on how Christians should treat intersex individuals, transgender individuals, etc.? That thread is a poster's commentary on Genesis.

[William]

Why do you image The Creator on a throne being worshipped. Do you think that someone who will be among the people requires being worshipped in the first place?

The imagery of the one doesn't align with the imagery of the other.

The image of the Creator on the throne speaks to His loving guidance, care, reign over His people.

If this were the case, why are there no such images within Christian places of worship [churches] here on this planet now, in which Christians could worship?

The Creator isn't going around seeking personal fulfillment in people worshipping Him

Beings sitting upon thrones are not going around anywhere seeking worshipers.

but I do think the Creator will rightly be worshipped (i.e., adored and revered for His goodness, His mercy, etc.) by His creation.

One can do so without the added prop of a guy on a throne, yes?

Worship is our rightful approach to the Creator and is for our own good and enjoyment.

In what way is worshiping an image on a throne for our own good? I accept the 'for our own enjoyment' part as this aligns with my understanding that we each create our next reality, so in that - having a guy on a throne to worship is part of that individual's creation. One which the individual [you] expect to see.

- So anyway, the overall image I get is that you expect your final destination as it were to being that of similar to Earth-life [the gardening etc] but with the added beckon on the throne [seen from wherever you are within your environment] and the subtraction of anything you regard as being 'evil'.

You will have this experience but will also remember this conversation. Now suppose sometime you get a visit in your particular Heaven, from a Soul Retriever telling you there is so much more for you to experience outside of your environment, and offering to show you this is the case. What would you say?

[William]

So you're saying the god is genderless despite what the Bible says?

No. I am saying that placing an image on The Creator through the medium of religious mythology - obviously - leads to confusion, contradiction etc...

Even when it's consistent? From what I've read god has always been presented as a male, so what confusion, contradiction etc. has this led to?


.

Read the thread and you will discover for yourself... Not all Christians believe that The Creator is a male and claim there is scripture to back that up...[The Creator is "Spirit" as one example - there are more.]

Yeah, I know, although, I don't recall any scripture backing it up. I guess for some people nothing the Bible says should be accepted as-is, or at least without serious examination. Words like "he," 'him," and "his" don't necessarily indicate a masculine being at all, even though the other personal pronouns are never used. And because scripture is interpreted in accordance with a particular theology, such interpretation is seldom useful and meaningful to the rest of Christianity. But that's the nature of a Do It Yourself religion like Christianity, which has fostered 200+ denomination in the USA alone.


.

All religions are 'do it yourself' in that regard. They each start of as cults [in the scholarly sense of the word] until their numbers increase sufficiently to be accepted by the culture in which they are taking over. Christianity is the mainsail of many such cultures in the world.

But where is that ship taking those souls?

To places in the afterlife which keep said souls safety contained in relative comfort.

I suppose there are worse things to experience. I also suppose there are far better things to experience too.

[William]

If any god does exist I reckon it would be genderless. The writers who created the documents making up the Bible were born in the days when men were thought to be the superior gender!

That seems to be the consensus among most, today. I wonder if it would be the same, say, 500 years ago?
Meaning, maybe society changes the POV those living in it at the time?

But, if what you say is correct, it (IMO) should concern those who believe in the bible. Why did God allow this to happen if it's not true? What else is like this in the bible? How can we believe the bible is 100% true if .1% isn't?
Just something to consider I suppose.

You suppose correctly.

That is the problem with objects of worship. The Bible is often worshiped [focused upon revered etc] as "The Creator's Word" and in that, there is little which can be done to convince the worshipper to question truthfully, and they will argue that others are simply interpreting the content incorrectly and other such arguments...they cannot even agree altogether about any interpretation and will look at those who do not agree with their particular interpretation, as being under the spell [directive] of some evil influence.

500 years ago we would likely be burned alive by Christians, for writing such critique - today we are freer to do so, but Christianity is still a leading force in how the world is turning out...which most Christians [strangely enough] seem to agree is not a nice world to be living in...it is a world ruled by "The God of This World" - often referred to as "Satan/The Devil" - another being who coincidently sits on a throne... and given Christianity's dark history - it is easy to confuse one for the other...perhaps in all honesty, actually impossible not to...truth be told.

[Miles]

Yeah, I know, although, I don't recall any scripture backing it up. I guess for some people nothing the Bible says should be accepted as-is, or at least without serious examination. Words like "he," 'him," and "his" don't necessarily indicate a masculine being at all, even though the other personal pronouns are never used. And because scripture is interpreted in accordance with a particular theology, such interpretation is seldom useful and meaningful to the rest of Christianity. But that's the nature of a Do It Yourself religion like Christianity, which has fostered 200+ denomination in the USA alone.

All religions are 'do it yourself' in that regard. They each start of as cults [in the scholarly sense of the word] until their numbers increase sufficiently to be accepted by the culture in which they are taking over.

From what I've seen of other religions, none have fractured into the myriad factions like Christianity has (a staggering 45,000+ denominations globally, source), which is why I see it as a Do It Yourself religion; anyone can make of it as they will. Whereas, from what I can gather of other religions, Buddhism appears to have 7 different factions; Hinduism, 12; Islam. 23-47; Sikhism, 11; Judaism, 30; and Zoroastrianism, 0.


.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #207]

I am not sure what you are trying to point out with these statistics re thread subject. ...will you elaborate

[The Tanager]

The image of the Creator on the throne speaks to His loving guidance, care, reign over His people.

If this were the case, why are there no such images within Christian places of worship [churches] here on this planet now, in which Christians could worship?

Christians worshipping actual, physical images of the Creator on the throne?

Beings sitting upon thrones are not going around anywhere seeking worshipers.

I already said I don't think the Creator will literally appear as a being sitting on a throne.

One can do so without the added prop of a guy on a throne, yes?

Of course, but the imagery fits the (supposed) truth of the Creator.

In what way is worshiping an image on a throne for our own good?

Well, I was meaning worshipping the Creator is for our own good. Imagery can help point one to worship the Creator.

You will have this experience but will also remember this conversation. Now suppose sometime you get a visit in your particular Heaven, from a Soul Retriever telling you there is so much more for you to experience outside of your environment, and offering to show you this is the case. What would you say?

Show me. But since I'm here now, why would this need to wait until my "particular Heaven" in the next phase of my life. Why can't a Soul Retriever visit me now and show me the truth of your worldview? Not just tell me that such a state is true, but actually show it to me?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #207]

I am not sure what you are trying to point out with these statistics re thread subject. ...will you elaborate

Because in answer to my comment " . . . that's the nature of a Do It Yourself religion like Christianity, which has fostered 200+ denomination in the USA alone," you said "All religions are 'do it yourself' in that regard," which prompted me to point out that all religions are not "do it yourself" in that regard. That most are far, far less fractured. For which I gave the number of factions of the world's other major religions as best as I could determine.


.

[William]

The image of the Creator on the throne speaks to His loving guidance, care, reign over His people.

If this were the case, why are there no such images within Christian places of worship [churches] here on this planet now, in which Christians could worship?

Christians worshipping actual, physical images of the Creator on the throne?

Beings sitting upon thrones are not going around anywhere seeking worshipers.

I already said I don't think the Creator will literally appear as a being sitting on a throne.

One can do so without the added prop of a guy on a throne, yes?

Of course, but the imagery fits the (supposed) truth of the Creator.

In what way is worshiping an image on a throne for our own good?

Well, I was meaning worshipping the Creator is for our own good. Imagery can help point one to worship the Creator.

You will have this experience but will also remember this conversation. Now suppose sometime you get a visit in your particular Heaven, from a Soul Retriever telling you there is so much more for you to experience outside of your environment, and offering to show you this is the case. What would you say?

Show me. But since I'm here now, why would this need to wait until my "particular Heaven" in the next phase of my life. Why can't a Soul Retriever visit me now and show me the truth of your worldview? Not just tell me that such a state is true, but actually show it to me?

Yes. Focusing their intent upon outward images of The Creator on a throne.

You claim you were not being literal regarding falling on your face before The Creator sitting on a throne, when you begin your next phase reality experience. .. might I suggest that in future you spare us the time otherwise wasted by saying as much from the go get.

So there is no literal image or beacon [like a lighthouse] to remind you of The Creators eternal presence. You were being figurative?

Maybe the "supposed truth" the image of The Creator represents is also not to be taken literally.

For example, examining the Beloved John's experience [Revelations] one could understand that recorded event as being specific to that individuals personal expectations [LITERALLY] but rather, something we need take as figatitive.

While imagery can assist one in pointing to The Creator [even real experienced imagery re my argument as the Earth being a living self conscious entity and quite The Creator for that -if the shoe fits] these are best not taken literally. For there really are no images of The Creator which can be taken literally.

There is no point in assuming an atheist position of argument as in a Soul Retriever showing their self to you. One already has done so for the specific purpose of setting up the next phase of operation.

In the phase, if more are needed, more will be provided. This,because of that.