Is God male?

[Henny]

The idea of a gendered monotheistic god was one that was as bizarre to me as the idea of a caucasian, hunch-backed, bisexual, Episcopalian, Sagittarian, or zebra-striped god. Why would a deity need any other qualifiers than of that of being a deity? Biological sex is a material, physical thing--for a supposedly intangible immaterial being to possess gender or sex would be contradictory.

If you call god a male, you might as well call god Gandalf. Not that I believe in an anthropomorphic god in the first place, but if you're going to anthropomorphize God to that extent in the first place, why not go all the way?

I don't think it's too unreasonable, actually. What is the only example of intelligence (or, more accurately sapience)? Humanity, evolved through natural selection. What is an attribute of humans? Sexes. If "god" actually isn't sapient, what exactly makes it "god"? I don't think trying to picture a god emerging from evolution in one way or another is that farfetched compared to trying to figure out an entirely new plausible way for sapience to arise. A far better explanation, of course, is that "god" is a quirk of the human mind.

[Henny]

RADICAL. Look behind an abortion clinic bombing, and you find a radical Christian. Regimes that use religion as an excuse to oppress people are perverting that religion. Do you agree with Catholicism being outlawed in England way back when?

Catholicism was not "outlawed" in England. People continued to practice it after the Reformation and the decree of one king, Henry VIII.

If the religion had been outlawed, then there would have been no Catholics in England after the decree.

As it was, Catholics were kept out of the corridors of power.

I'm not following. If all religions except Mormonism was outlawed in America today, would there only be Mormons tomorrow?

[mindlife]

RADICAL. Look behind an abortion clinic bombing, and you find a radical Christian. Regimes that use religion as an excuse to oppress people are perverting that religion. Do you agree with Catholicism being outlawed in England way back when?

Catholicism was not "outlawed" in England. People continued to practice it after the Reformation and the decree of one king, Henry VIII.

If the religion had been outlawed, then there would have been no Catholics in England after the decree.

As it was, Catholics were kept out of the corridors of power.

I'm not following. If all religions except Mormonism was outlawed in America today, would there only be Mormons tomorrow?

When a religious group or religion is "outlawed" in any community, there are several things that could happen.

In 1492, along with the voyage of Columbus, there was an order in Spain demanding the expulsion of all Jews and Muslims from the country.

In what was Arabia and a large part of the Middle East and North Africa, very soon after they were dominated by Muslim political authorities, all other religious groups were expelled from the Arabian peninsula specifically.

Do you think a non-Muslim would be allowed in Mecca? Think again.

The idea of a religiously "pure" state is not novel. It has happened. It could happen again.

And as for Mormons . . . if they became dominant and outlawed all other religious groups, that is, if they nullified the "establishment clause" and established themselves, don't believe for a minute that they would tolerate religious minorities kindly. Particularly if they were numerically superior.

I have lived in Salt Lake City, in their conformist "civilization." Believe me, it was not easy.

You'd be surprised the weapons a religious majority can bring to bear on a religious minority or a committed free-thinker in an informal sense, outside the rule of law.

The ridicule, the oppression, the brutality . . . it's all there.

[Guest member31022]

When a religious group or religion is "outlawed" in any community, there are several things that could happen.

In 1492, along with the voyage of Columbus, there was an order in Spain demanding the expulsion of all Jews and Muslims from the country.

In what was Arabia and a large part of the Middle East and North Africa, very soon after they were dominated by Muslim political authorities, all other religious groups were expelled from the Arabian peninsula specifically.

Do you think a non-Muslim would be allowed in Mecca? Think again.

Or you could be arrested if caught practising said 'outlawed' religion. As when Catholicism was outlawed in England. Outlawing something doesn't necessarily mean forcing everyone out of the country, it means banning practising a certain religion. If England outlawed Christianity today, do you really think people would stop being Christian? Or just hide it? As they did when Catholicism was outlawed?

[Missingno]

It depends on the person viewing him/her/it. Knowing his/her/its sense of humor, he/she/it just might look like Arceus in front of me.

[Sally]

When a religious group or religion is "outlawed" in any community, there are several things that could happen.

In 1492, along with the voyage of Columbus, there was an order in Spain demanding the expulsion of all Jews and Muslims from the country.

In what was Arabia and a large part of the Middle East and North Africa, very soon after they were dominated by Muslim political authorities, all other religious groups were expelled from the Arabian peninsula specifically.

Do you think a non-Muslim would be allowed in Mecca? Think again.

Or you could be arrested if caught practising said 'outlawed' religion. As when Catholicism was outlawed in England. Outlawing something doesn't necessarily mean forcing everyone out of the country, it means banning practising a certain religion. If England outlawed Christianity today, do you really think people would stop being Christian? Or just hide it? As they did when Catholicism was outlawed?

That's a false analogy. If England were to outlaw Christianity, that would mean that England was essentially no longer England; to even conceive of outlawing that religion which England had instituted as a state religion for so long, it would be a completely different state, with no prediction possible about how people would react.

Another analogy fail: When Catholicism was outlawed for a short time during Queen Elizabeth's reign, people hid it and simply went to Protestant church. But when Jews were forced to convert to Catholicism or die in Spain and later Portugal, the converts were hounded and many were burned after being reported to the Inquisition for minor acts like lighting candles on Friday night.

After the establishment of Israel in 1948, all the Muslim and Arab countries surrounding Israel forced their longtime-resident Jews out, including about 40,000 Jews whose families had lived in Iraq for centuries.

Both the Catholicism of centuries ago and Islam today are politically authoritarian and repressive religious institutions. To try to compare the behavior of either of those to the current England of 2010, or some unimaginablly different England, is impossible.

[mindlife]

Or you could be arrested if caught practising said 'outlawed' religion. As when Catholicism was outlawed in England. Outlawing something doesn't necessarily mean forcing everyone out of the country, it means banning practising a certain religion. If England outlawed Christianity today, do you really think people would stop being Christian? Or just hide it? As they did when Catholicism was outlawed?

Catholicism was never outlawed in England.

Every reputable history of the era says that England "broke away" from the Church, or ceased to recognize the authority of the Pope.

There was no backlash against Catholic worship.

There was a huge dissolution of Catholic monasteries and other large institutions. If anything, the attack on the Catholic Church was institutional with some legal elements.

It turned very intense in the later reign of Elizabeth I and beyond intense in the reign of Oliver Cromwell, read, Puritan Zealot.

Even so, Catholic worship was not suppressed by any law, even though it was subject to many of the hardships I described as being informal.

In Ireland, the story is much, much different.

[Tabula Rasa]

This is an entry from my ex-christian blog:

The Christian god is male. His character is conveyed through a book, the Bible. He is loving, and he has a son (John 3:16). He has experienced feelings of regret (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, 1 Samuel 15:35). He laughs (Psalm 2:4). He takes revenge on those who do things of which he does not approve (Romans 12:19).

According to the Bible, the Christian god has human attributes, and he can be made known. He acts very much like the gods of other pantheons.

Why? Because this god is of human origin. This god is man-made.

If a God exists, then that God is beyond us, and cannot be named or known. Yet, even to say that this God cannot be named or known is to set up limitation. This God has no human parameters, and is thus the culmination of all possibilities.

[Sally]

This is an entry from my ex-christian blog:

The Christian god is male. His character is conveyed through a book, the Bible. He is loving, and he has a son (John 3:16). He has experienced feelings of regret (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, 1 Samuel 15:35). He laughs (Psalm 2:4). He takes revenge on those who do things of which he does not approve (Romans 12:19).

According to the Bible, the Christian god has human attributes, and he can be made known. He acts very much like the gods of other pantheons.

Why? Because this god is of human origin. This god is man-made.

If a God exists, then that God is beyond us, and cannot be named or known. Yet, even to say that this God cannot be named or known is to set up limitation. This God has no human parameters, and is thus the culmination of all possibilities.

That's not the "Christian" God, Tabula. Christian's didn't write Genesis, the Psalms, or Samuel. Christians wrote the New Testament.

[mindlife]

The Christian god is male.

No.

The Christian God is one in three and three in one.

The Holy Spirit in medieval and even current theological writing is often figured as female.

[Aimeendfire]

It turned very intense in the later reign of Elizabeth I and beyond intense in the reign of Oliver Cromwell, read, Puritan Zealot

England during the Protectorate was more religiously tolerant than it had been previously.

He was most committed to a wide measure of religious liberty - there was a state church under Cromwell, but no-one was required to attend it, and almost everyone, Catholics and Jews included, was allowed to worship privately in the light of conscience. Membership of the state church was not a qualification (as it was to be before 1649 and from 1660 until the nineteenth century) for entry to the universities, the professions, public office. Those who abused liberty to disturb the liberty of others (Quakers), as a front for political ambition (Catholics), or who promoted beliefs against the Creeds (especially those who denied that Jesus Christ was God) were subject to regulation, but otherwise this was a remarkable period of religious freedom.

(Source)

He did ban theatres and Christmas though.

[Sally]

He was most committed to a wide measure of religious liberty - there was a state church under Cromwell, but no-one was required to attend it, and almost everyone, Catholics and Jews included, was allowed to worship privately in the light of conscience. Membership of the state church was not a qualification (as it was to be before 1649 and from 1660 until the nineteenth century) for entry to the universities, the professions, public office. Those who abused liberty to disturb the liberty of others (Quakers), as a front for political ambition (Catholics), or who promoted beliefs against the Creeds (especially those who denied that Jesus Christ was God) were subject to regulation, but otherwise this was a remarkable period of religious freedom.

(Source)

He did ban theatres and Christmas though.

Jews had been banned from England starting in 1290. Cromwell took power in 1649; it wasn't until 1656 or 1657 that Jews were allowed to return to England, with restrictions. Charles II took back the throne in 1660. Cromwell's reign was not religiously (or politically) tolerant for anyone other than Quakers.

[mindlife]

England during the Protectorate was more religiously tolerant than it had been previously.

Of Jews? Yes. Absolutely. It was in the Protectorate that they were allowed back into England.

To Catholics?

To Catholics in Ireland?

Oh, think again! There was blood in the streets for decades over this!

It was one of the myriad of mistakes English authorities made in dealing with Catholicism, Catholics and the Irish.

Anti-Catholicism, and a denial of the place of this religion in British history, is a hatred that has disfigured English scholarship and culture for centuries.

[Sally]

England during the Protectorate was more religiously tolerant than it had been previously.

Of Jews? Yes. Absolutely. It was in the Protectorate that they were allowed back into England.

See my post above. Cromwell only did that because he wanted the Jews' financial connections with Portugal, and he did it over a lot of opposition from Parliament, and 8 years into his reign. That's not being "tolerant"; it's self-interest.

[thylacine]

A lot of stuff that appears "nice" is self interest, unfortunately. Sad but true.

[*Starfish*]

God Doesn't have a gender

[never odd or even]

ok so i read the first half of the first page it was TL;DR.

so the torah was written by misogynistic men, we know that. of course they are going to say he was male, they would harldy denote God to be feminine? however, if there are no gender neutral pronouns then the default was probably going to end up being he.

he made man and woman in his image, not just adam...

man(kind) is often used to refer to the entirety of the human race, not just men.

ergo my logic explains why God is characterised male.

however, in various passages of the bible, although in the translations they have reverted to he, God is described with feminine language, not just male language. my guess as to why not many people know that as it was kept quiet cause they didnt want to encourage the pagan religions which were ruled by a Godess and people getting confused.

as for my own opinion, why would God have a gender?? What use would it be to him? its human interpretation of the male gender and of GOd that makes them assume maleness. yet they ignore the huge message of love that jesus portrays... speaking of which, does Jesus seem masculine or feminine or neither or both to you?

[cthuvianace]

During the time that I was christian, I never thought of God as having a gender, although everyone around me thought God was, without a doubt, male. I often referred to God as "she", just to throw people off. My biggest question as far as God's gender is, "Why the hell not?"

[oneofthesun]

*warning the following is not politically correct.* Of course God (if he exists) is male. How else do you explain the fact that women got the short end of the stick, biologically speaking?

[NothingHere]

Whenever I think of God, I think of it being genderless. In my opinion, a true Deity would need to be able to transcend human perceptions of gender, because it would really make no sense if it were male or female. Plus I don't even picture God as having a material form, per se.

[Goldberry]

Man created "God" in his image.

In order to write about God people go from their own limited knowledge of what God is supposed to be. They might have some glimmer of insight, or a lot of insight, or be totally wrong in their ideas. Me, I'm not much of a theologian or historian, sorry. I'd like to understand all the major religions someday, but that's a massive undertaking that I don't feel quite ready for. Religious texts can be ambiguous, controversial, or even plain contradictory and people are free to fuss about what they mean. And when something's open to interpretation, then someone out there will be more than happy to interpret it according to what they want to believe.

I think of "God" as something abstract, intangible. When I think of Masculine/Feminine, I guess I kinda think of a yin-yang. They're like two different types of energy that support each other, of which the male and female bodies are the physical manifestations. So I reckon that at a supreme level some sort of creator must either transcend them or blend the two in perfect balance.

[Chindra]

Whenever I think of God, I think of Morgan Freeman.

Whenever I think of God as a woman, I think of Alanis Morissette.

I [obviously] grew up watching a lot of television.

[Elliekat]

I don't think that a God would be male (you'll notice I'm being a lot more vague about what I believe religionwise because I don't even know anymore.) just because that seems like something men in BCE times would use as another excuse to oppress women. And oppressing women is not right.

[Kurai-Tenshi_Niks]

I don't think God is mean't to be human.

If God was human, I would imagine s/he would be gender neutral.

[{deleted}]

This is an entry from my ex-christian blog:

The Christian god is male. His character is conveyed through a book, the Bible. He is loving, and he has a son (John 3:16). He has experienced feelings of regret (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, 1 Samuel 15:35). He laughs (Psalm 2:4). He takes revenge on those who do things of which he does not approve (Romans 12:19).

According to the Bible, the Christian god has human attributes, and he can be made known. He acts very much like the gods of other pantheons.

Why? Because this god is of human origin. This god is man-made.

If a God exists, then that God is beyond us, and cannot be named or known. Yet, even to say that this God cannot be named or known is to set up limitation. This God has no human parameters, and is thus the culmination of all possibilities.

That's not the "Christian" God, Tabula. Christian's didn't write Genesis, the Psalms, or Samuel. Christians wrote the New Testament.

And the New Testament features Jesus, who I hear was God on earth. And also male.

Aside from the stuff Christians wrote, as far as I know, Christians still have the Old Testament as part of their bible. Although they're mainly supposed to follow the teachings of the New Testament, I hear that they still refer to the Old Testament from time to time on matters they feel the new one is ambiguous on, and still accept it as the truth and the word of God. It's not considered completely invalid.

Aside from that, no, I don't think if there was a God he would be male. That seems sort of pointless. Wait. What am I saying? If God was real, his maleness or not maleness wouldn't really matter, because none of us would be able to comprehend it. Whatever gender he would have would be assigned by the observer/ the listener/ the believer; his actual form would be beyond us, just like the rest of him, his love and teachings aside.