Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Whatssnew · Feb 29, 2008, 09:53 pm

Male and Female, two halves to existance of life on this earth. So when we reffer to God as "he" is this not blasphomy? You are in effect calling God 1/2 of somthing are you not? Personaly I feel that God exhibits many of the behavioural aspects of a males, but is not in some ways. "Do not make any graven image." By using "he" would this not be to some extent a graven image? I understand the us of the word "he" is not intended offensivley, and that it is just a way of more casualy reffering to God. However it is in my opinion dissrespectful. If you dissagree, please explain why I am not closed minded.

**Jack** · Feb 29, 2008, 09:59 pm

There are hundreds of references throughout the Bible (presuming here that we're discussing the Christian god) to god as "he", "Father", "lord" (a male title, the female equivalent is "lady"). Then you've got god impregnating a female. That's a rather masculine act.

The Christian god is not considered male and female because those who started the Jewish and Christian faiths were members of a strictly patriarchal society. Contending god had female characteristics would have been an insult as women weren't highly regarded in their societies.

ShadowFox · Feb 29, 2008, 10:00 pm

You forget about asexual reproduction

I think one reason people call their god a he is because some people from earlier times (and still today as well) had the opinion that men are better than women, so therefore their god must be a male

Just an educated guess though.

Judicator · Feb 29, 2008, 10:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Whatssnew

Male and Female, two halves to existance of life on this earth. So when we reffer to God as "he" is this not blasphomy? You are in effect calling God 1/2 of somthing are you not? Personaly I feel that God exhibits many of the behavioural aspects of a males, but is not in some ways. "Do not make any graven image." By using "he" would this not be to some extent a graven image? I understand the us of the word "he" is not intended offensivley, and that it is just a way of more casualy reffering to God. However it is in my opinion dissrespectful. If you dissagree, please explain why I am not closed minded.

I think we use He because of our patriarchal history and because "he/she" sounds awkward, while "it" would make it harder for Christians to talk about having a personal relationship with an "it."

"He" isn't really a graven image...you aren't worshipping a physical idol and "he" is a way of referring to God; you aren't in any way worshiping males (or something else) instead of god.

I don't really see how the fact that half of people are males makes using "he" offensive. God (i think) lacks gender so it wouldn't really matter what pronoun you use.

**Jack** · Mar 1, 2008, 12:52 am

If god were a woman this world wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

Can I get an "Amen" ladies?

WakeTFU · Mar 1, 2008, 05:31 am

Quote:

Quote by: Whatssnew

Male and Female, two halves to existance of life on this earth. So when we reffer to God as "he" is this not blasphomy? You are in effect calling God 1/2 of somthing are you not? Personaly I feel that God exhibits many of the behavioural aspects of a males, but is not in some ways. "Do not make any graven image." By using "he" would this not be to some extent a graven image? I understand the us of the word "he" is not intended offensivley, and that it is just a way of more casualy reffering to God. However it is in my opinion dissrespectful. If you dissagree, please explain why I am not closed minded.

If you understood it's not meant offensively than how come you think it's disrespectful? I'm not so sure you're being logical in this.

LOGAN · Mar 1, 2008, 11:19 am

Man was created first.....and "wo-man" was created from the pre-existing "man". Thus, as clearly and distinctly explained by the apostle Paul, one finds the "Divine" Hierarchy of nature. God, Christ, man, and woman. 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God." Logan

treme · Mar 1, 2008, 11:45 am

Quote:

Quote by: Whatssnew

Male and Female, two halves to existance of life on this earth. So when we reffer to God as "he" is this not blasphomy? You are in effect calling God 1/2 of somthing are you not? Personaly I feel that God exhibits many of the behavioural aspects of a males, but is not in some ways. "Do not make any graven image." By using "he" would this not be to some extent a graven image? I understand the us of the word "he" is not intended offensivley, and that it is just a way of more casualy reffering to God. However it is in my opinion dissrespectful. If you dissagree, please explain why I am not closed minded.

I agree with you, mostly. I'd actually take it farther than that. God may be responsible for sexual reproduction. If that's the case then God is also responsible for asexual reproduction, crystallization, oxidization and mastu...

I think it would be blasphemous to diminish God's glory by limiting him (

) to a human form.

**Jack** · Mar 1, 2008, 01:03 pm

Quote:

one finds the "Divine" Hierarchy of nature

I see the term "divine" appears in quotation marks, so I must not be the only one who thinks that is a nonsensical attribute of nature. This Biblical progression raises another question; if man was created in god's image, whose image was woman created in? Of course if the OP is accepted, and you propose god has both masculine and feminine characteristics, why did he feel compelled to create an individual to represent each of his "sides"? Why not one human form that contained both male and female characteristics and could self-replicate? Where is there a "divine" explanation for the two sexes?

HelioPrime · Mar 1, 2008, 02:03 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Whatssnew

Male and Female, two halves to existance of life on this earth. So when we reffer to God as "he" is this not blasphomy? You are in effect calling God 1/2 of somthing are you not? Personaly I feel that God exhibits many of the behavioural aspects of a males, but is not in some ways. "Do not make any graven image." By using "he" would this not be to some extent a graven image? I understand the us of the word "he" is not intended offensivley, and that it is just a way of more casualy reffering to God. However it is in my opinion dissrespectful. If you dissagree, please explain why I am not closed minded.

The female was made from the male in Genesis. So they both come from the same creational substance or w/e.

The difference would be the application of writings to fit within the patriarchal society. Writers most likely used "he" as they saw fit.

LOGAN · Mar 1, 2008, 10:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

I see the term "divine" appears in quotation marks, so I must not be the only one who thinks that is a nonsensical attribute of nature. This Biblical progression raises another question; if man was created in god's image, whose image was woman created in? Of course if the OP is accepted, and you propose god has both masculine and feminine characteristics, why did he feel compelled to create an individual to represent each of his "sides"? Why not one human form that contained both male and female characteristics and could self-replicate? Where is there a "divine" explanation for the two sexes?

God was never created, God is eternal, no beginning no ending. Thus the "paradox" that you are trying to establish exists only in the fact of circumstance, If there is no God, How did creation come about? You are declaring that the universe is a product of self creation? Just how can something exist before it is created? Is this not a physical law, that for anything to exist it must have a "cause and effect"? Just what cause and effect gestated the existence of the universe? This is why all the "nonsense" exists only in theory, because it can not be "proven" to breach the physical laws of nature that God implemented upon creation of the universe. Are we really to believe that Hydrogen Gas, by volume the only thing existing after the "supposed" big bang, with only slight traces of other gases, if left alone for billions of years, approximately 13.5 billion, this odorless, invisible gas will evolve into man? And yet some declare that religion is a product of someones imagination, really? Most laughable indeed. Logan

Tycoon · Mar 1, 2008, 11:28 pm

Quote:

The difference would be the application of writings to fit within the patriarchal society. Writers most likely used "he" as they saw fit.

I'd have to agree. There's no reason not to expect a degree of human error.

**Jack** · Mar 2, 2008, 01:31 am

Quote:

Quote by: LOGAN

God was never created, God is eternal, no beginning no ending. Thus the "paradox" that you are trying to establish exists only in the fact of circumstance, If there is no God, How did creation come about? You are declaring that the universe is a product of self creation? Just how can something exist before it is created? Is this not a physical law, that for anything to exist it must have a "cause and effect"? Just what cause and effect gestated the existence of the universe? This is why all the "nonsense" exists only in theory, because it can not be "proven" to breach the physical laws of nature that God implemented upon creation of the universe. Are we really to believe that Hydrogen Gas, by volume the only thing existing after the "supposed" big bang, with only slight traces of other gases, if left alone for billions of years, approximately 13.5 billion, this odorless, invisible gas will evolve into man? And yet some declare that religion is a product of someones imagination, really? Most laughable indeed. Logan

I could debate several of your contentions, but won't here, as this post is entirely off topic. If you'd like to post this to one of the "creation" threads I'd be willing to debate it.

WakeTFU · Mar 2, 2008, 03:41 am

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

I could debate several of your contentions, but won't here, as this post is entirely off topic. If you'd like to post this to one of the "creation" threads I'd be willing to debate it.

I don't think it's off topic, you are trying to discuss god are you not?

**Jack** · Mar 2, 2008, 10:29 am

Quote:

Quote by: WakeTFU

I don't think it's off topic, you are trying to discuss god are you not?

Not in general, no. The OP was specific in the aspect of god that's being debated in this thread.

Quote:

Quote by: Whatssnew

Male and Female, two halves to existance of life on this earth. So when we reffer to God as "he" is this not blasphomy? You are in effect calling God 1/2 of somthing are you not? Personaly I feel that God exhibits many of the behavioural aspects of a males, but is not in some ways. "Do not make any graven image." By using "he" would this not be to some extent a graven image? I understand the us of the word "he" is not intended offensivley, and that it is just a way of more casualy reffering to God. However it is in my opinion dissrespectful. If you dissagree, please explain why I am not closed minded.

zcbt3 · Mar 11, 2008, 03:03 am

What do you suggest we call God? "Shemale"? "It"? I bet that would cause a lot more of an uproar.

**Jack** · Mar 11, 2008, 10:32 am

In the case of the Christian god, "it" would be more appropriate. They will tell you that we were created in the image of god's spirit, not his physical form. Further they contend that their god cannot be imagined or conceived of in human terms. The many references to their god as "father" notwithstanding, "it" appears to best embody their god's attributes.

grandpa · Mar 11, 2008, 10:42 am

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

In the case of the Christian god, "it" would be
more appropriate.
They will tell you that we were created in the
image of god's spirit, not his physical form.

Many evangelists seem to fancy themselves as better, clearer "reflections of God." Pat Robertson claims to have heard God's call in his life and became the 'father' of those
who have faith. That's basically true of the other bigwigs. Anyone who claims to be God's representative on earth is incredibly pompous, yet these people enjoy an alarming level of support.

Grandpa h.

Walrus · Mar 11, 2008, 05:39 pm

Just as a matter if interest, there was once supposed be a Hebrew goddess who represented the sacred feminine. She was the Goddess Asherah, who was the consort of Yahweh and held the title of God-the-Mother. It is believed that she was removed from the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures around 400 or 500 B.C.

An exponent of this theory is Raphael Patai (an Hungarian-Jewish ethnographer and anthropologist, ) his book “The Hebrew Goddess,” supports this idea through the interpretation of textual and archaeological sources.

Court463 · Mar 11, 2008, 06:43 pm

I think its dumb to give something so powerful and intelligent a human gender. I really don't think that god would be male or female because god probably wouldn't even exist in a way we even know about yet, more likely god exists as pure energy. Like we see in some science fiction films.

Feb 29, 2008, 09:53 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Whatssnew Yellowstone is home Location: Greater Yellowstone Region Posts: 109	1/2 is God? Male and Female, two halves to existance of life on this earth. So when we reffer to God as "he" is this not blasphomy? You are in effect calling God 1/2 of somthing are you not? Personaly I feel that God exhibits many of the behavioural aspects of a males, but is not in some ways. "Do not make any graven image." By using "he" would this not be to some extent a graven image? I understand the us of the word "he" is not intended offensivley, and that it is just a way of more casualy reffering to God. However it is in my opinion dissrespectful. If you dissagree, please explain why I am not closed minded.

Feb 29, 2008, 09:59 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,786	There are hundreds of references throughout the Bible (presuming here that we're discussing the Christian god) to god as "he", "Father", "lord" (a male title, the female equivalent is "lady"). Then you've got god impregnating a female. That's a rather masculine act. The Christian god is not considered male and female because those who started the Jewish and Christian faiths were members of a strictly patriarchal society. Contending god had female characteristics would have been an insult as women weren't highly regarded in their societies. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Feb 29, 2008, 10:00 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
ShadowFox formerly Halofan48 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,617	You forget about asexual reproduction I think one reason people call their god a he is because some people from earlier times (and still today as well) had the opinion that men are better than women, so therefore their god must be a male Just an educated guess though. Knowledge is power, use it well. Don't fear the unknown, seek to understand it Formerly Halofan48 Fun game!!!

Mar 1, 2008, 12:52 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,786	If god were a woman this world wouldn't be in the mess it's in. Can I get an "Amen" ladies? The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Mar 11, 2008, 10:32 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,786	In the case of the Christian god, "it" would be more appropriate. They will tell you that we were created in the image of god's spirit, not his physical form. Further they contend that their god cannot be imagined or conceived of in human terms. The many references to their god as "father" notwithstanding, "it" appears to best embody their god's attributes. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Mar 1, 2008, 11:19 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
LOGAN Molten Ash Posts: 59	Man was created first.....and "wo-man" was created from the pre-existing "man". Thus, as clearly and distinctly explained by the apostle Paul, one finds the "Divine" Hierarchy of nature. God, Christ, man, and woman. 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God." Logan

Mar 11, 2008, 03:03 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
zcbt3 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 12	What do you suggest we call God? "Shemale"? "It"? I bet that would cause a lot more of an uproar.

Mar 11, 2008, 05:39 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Walrus Cabbages and Kings Location: England Posts: 261	Just as a matter if interest, there was once supposed be a Hebrew goddess who represented the sacred feminine. She was the Goddess Asherah, who was the consort of Yahweh and held the title of God-the-Mother. It is believed that she was removed from the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures around 400 or 500 B.C. An exponent of this theory is Raphael Patai (an Hungarian-Jewish ethnographer and anthropologist, ) his book “The Hebrew Goddess,” supports this idea through the interpretation of textual and archaeological sources. If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years. Bertrand Russell

Mar 11, 2008, 06:43 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Court463 Molten Ash Posts: 101	I think its dumb to give something so powerful and intelligent a human gender. I really don't think that god would be male or female because god probably wouldn't even exist in a way we even know about yet, more likely god exists as pure energy. Like we see in some science fiction films.