Originally posted by LDHZenkai
In a thousand years it's quite possible people will look back and look at everyone believing in magical deities as just silly.
I think it would be much more interesting for God to be proven through science within the next 1000 years. That would show all those "rational atheists" how foolish they are.
Heh . . .
Re: who created god
Originally posted by mega punk1235That's the whole point of the term "God" - Eternal
who ever created god if he created us
if God was created we can continue the cycle forever by asking who created the being that created god.etc
The chance of God existing might be minimal especially the concept of god we humans have created.
The bible said God created man and woman in his image.
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Seems clear based on how people use the term man to refer to our species that God created the human race in his image. So God is obviously a hermaphrodite. If you belive in God anyway.
Originally posted by LDHZenkaiGod doesn't necessary have to be something that's from the bible , Geeta etc?
The bible said God created man and woman in his image.
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Seems clear based on how people use the term man to refer to our species that God created the human race in his image. So God is obviously a hermaphrodite. If you belive in God anyway.
Does it.
Shiva is represented with 3 lines on his/her forehead.
The first two represent maleness and femaleness, the third represents a third gender, which is more than just the synthesis of male and female, but can generally be referred to in that way.
Given gender, in Christian terms, deals with power structure and reproductive rights, God likely has none, in the human sense. He might be considered male, as he is the grand patriarch, but that association is only based on his role of having authority over us. Using specifically Christian iconography, the symbolism of creation of humanity and of the universe itself, is a clearly female reference.
Biblical interpretation, done within highly gender stratified societies, obviously emphasizes the former, though instances of the latter are there, I'm sure.
I'm still with the Muslims though, stop trying to define what or who God is. I can only imagine how pissed that would make him/her.
Originally posted by inimalist
Shiva is represented with 3 lines on his/her forehead.The first two represent maleness and femaleness, the third represents a third gender, which is more than just the synthesis of male and female, but can generally be referred to in that way.
Given gender, in Christian terms, deals with power structure and reproductive rights, God likely has none, in the human sense. He might be considered male, as he is the grand patriarch, but that association is only based on his role of having authority over us. Using specifically Christian iconography, the symbolism of creation of humanity and of the universe itself, is a clearly female reference.
Biblical interpretation, done within highly gender stratified societies, obviously emphasizes the former, though instances of the latter are there, I'm sure.
I'm still with the Muslims though, stop trying to define what or who God is. I can only imagine how pissed that would make him/her.
What if God defined himself...through his incarnation and Holy Spirit?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What if God defined himself...through his incarnation and Holy Spirit?
I can't argue with dogma.
the last thing I would ever claim is the ability to interpret scripture.
I'd like to hear that in the context of patriarchy though, as in, how is this self-definition not a construct of the societies in which religion was used to oppress women. Not that I don't think it is possible, just that the "Fatherness" and "maleness" of God, imho, seem to be tools of control.
A lot like veiling in Muslim countries, where there might be some scriptural reference or what have you, but has largely become a way that sexual expression has become oppressed.
but ya, you would know WAY better than I
Originally posted by inimalist
I can't argue with dogma.the last thing I would ever claim is the ability to interpret scripture.
I'd like to hear that in the context of patriarchy though, as in, how is this self-definition not a construct of the societies in which religion was used to oppress women. Not that I don't think it is possible, just that the "Fatherness" and "maleness" of God, imho, seem to be tools of control.
A lot like veiling in Muslim countries, where there might be some scriptural reference or what have you, but has largely become a way that sexual expression has become oppressed.
but ya, you would know WAY better than I
Wow...I thought you were up for reasoned discussion...judging by your final sentence however I guess not. That is a pity.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow...I thought you were up for reasoned discussion...judging by your final sentence however I guess not. That is a pity.
I'll discuss it, but it really isn't something I'm very knowledgeable about
like, I've never read through the bible, so there could be some non-debatable sections that define the gender of God, but in my personal opinion, it is too anthropomorphizing to give a human gender to our creator.
Honestly, its fear of looking a fool for my ignorance, especially given that you are fairly knowledgeable about these things.
Could God define himself through the spirit and Christ? (I'm assuming this is what incarnation means?): I don't see why not. But wouldn't that be like identity politics? Why would God have need of a self-defined gender? Did this gender exist before life, making gender a quality beyond the physical plain? Or did he gender himself in order to commune with man? And if God has a gender, that, in a nearly eastern sense, makes him only half whole, does it not? To have the 3 O characteristics, wouldn't there have to be a both female and gender neutral aspect to God?