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'?

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #191]

This is another example of what occurs when images are placed upon The Creator through the medium of religious mythology...

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #191]

This is another example of what occurs when images are placed upon The Creator through the medium of religious mythology...

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

Genesis 1:27
ERV
So God created humans in his own image. He created them to be like himself. He created them male and female.

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

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

NASB
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

etc.

etc.

And

Matthew 9:38
38 God owns the harvest. Ask him to send more workers to help gather his harvest.”

Luke 2:20
The shepherds went back to their sheep, praising God and thanking him for everything they had seen and heard. It was just as the angel had told them.

Exodus 15:2
The Lord is my strength. He saves me, and I sing songs of praise to him. He is my God, and I praise him. He is the God of my ancestors, and I honor him.

And to my knowledge, there's no reference in the Bible to god as a female or an it.



.

[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...

[The Tanager]

This thread has already expanded to include the discussion of imaging The Creator and in that 'afterlife expectations' would be relevant.

The overall point being that we do each have reasons for why we think what we do about what we each expect to happen re The Next Phase and these reasons include what Jesus has shown each of us, because we both declare as much...

I absolutely agree it is relevant. You shared your view and I like challenging my views, so I asked for your reasons for believing your view to be true. As you know, I usually like to stay as focused as possible and didn't want an analysis of my view to overtake us talking about your view. That was simply my thinking.

As for percentage, with the amount of info we have shared already we have an inventory to compare. as we have discussed these at length already.

So from what you already have, how much of my WV do you reject percentage wise...then we can compare the math.

50%? More? Less?

Honestly, I don't know. It's much easier to focus on and remember where we disagree, so I gather it's more balanced than an initial gut reaction would seem to say. I don't know if that puts it at or above 50% or not, but we certainly disagree on some key elements that then will affect other issues. So, 50%? What do you think?

The context I am using 'reject' is in that I do not reject any of your beliefs as coming true for you to experience. From what I can gather, you reject everything I think will happen for me, in the next phase.

Yes.

Sure, I reject that what you will experience is the truth as in 'something I would want to experience for myself in the Next Phase' but to me it seems a redundant form of argument for you to have brought into this discussion. So what that we reject wanting to experience one another's preferred reality experiences [re afterlife]?

I didn't mean 'reject' in the sense of what we want to experience, but what we believe is actually, ultimately true concerning reality and the Creator. We have differing beliefs, where at least one of our beliefs is not true there.

As to the bigotry - My main point was that I like to see evidence of someone's claims. You had the opportunity to complain about this false teaching in that thread and didn't use it.
That in turn tells me that your claims don't align with your actions. Therefore I can assume your claim is false.

I rejected that teaching as grounded in Gen 1:27. Going beyond that to complain about Christian bigotry in general would be to go against the purposes of that section of this website. I try my best to honor the original poster's intentions of their threads rather than hijack them.

I chose not to start a different thread in a different section mainly because I've already got plenty of conversations going on and I like to stay more focused. I will gladly turn to that conversation, in a new thread, once my current conversations die down.

You didn't answer my question re while you are doing whatever it is you are doing, what will the guy on the throne be doing?

I'm sorry, I thought I did. I said that I would be in deep relationship with the Creator (and others), i.e., Whom I think you were referring to by "the guy on the throne". The Creator is there with us. But if you meant that literally, I don't think a guy will literally be on a throne. The Creator will be with His people.

[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.

eta:

I rejected that teaching as grounded in Gen 1:27. Going beyond that to complain about Christian bigotry in general would be to go against the purposes of that section of this website. I try my best to honor the original poster's intentions of their threads rather than hijack them.

I chose not to start a different thread in a different section mainly because I've already got plenty of conversations going on and I like to stay more focused. I will gladly turn to that conversation, in a new thread, once my current conversations die down.

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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Miles in post #191]

This is another example of what occurs when images are placed upon The Creator through the medium of religious mythology...

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

Genesis 1:27
ERV
So God created humans in his own image. He created them to be like himself. He created them male and female.

The creation of Eve was significantly a separate event.

Genesis 2 (KJV)
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

(8-17 Lots of other stuff being made, but still only Adam)

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

It seems that Adam was made in God's image, male. Since all the animals were made both male and female, God seems to have decided to do the same for his lonely man as an afterthought.

[Miles]

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?


.

[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.]

Generally Christian Thinking has been presented in their script and in their artwork that The Creator is a male, but some Christians don't see it that way. Thus, the confusion...

[Even the Christian name for The Creator is masculine - "God" - [not "Goddess"]

[Miles]

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.


.

[RJG]

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!