Religion

[XxdragicexX]

God would have to have two genders then.

Then your saying he has a * , a **, and ?

Edited February 1, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Awdz]

To me, saying that God is male or female is like saying a baker is one type or another kind of cookie. "Made in God's image" is so far beyond our understanding that we might as well be like cookies shaped and decorated like people, gingerbread cookies and sugar cookies both made in the image of a person. The type of cookie has nothing to do with the image.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[Kai]

If one part of god is so far out of our understanding then why not all parts, then we can just say worshipping is also out of our understanding and we can relax on sunday. Apparently it is ununderstandable enough that you can make an analogy about how out of understanding it is, which maybe means it is somewhat understandable.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Kai

[potterwolf]

But assuming that's the case, doing so enforces a not-so-covert sexism: the Creator/Divine Ruler of the universe is of course male, because"male" is the default/superior/obvious position for a being in authority.

 

I would challenge that on the strongest possible terms, but then again I come from a religious tradition where the Divine is honored in male/female complementary polarity, and the Goddess is conceived as the eternal/ultimate principle. Without the God, She is barren, but the God represents all transitory life rather than the grounding force that everything else springs from.

It would be just as sexist to presume that such a being is female by using the word "her". So what is the alternative? There's no singular gender-neutral pronoun. Technically, you could say him/her, but then again, if God is genderless, then the pronoun isn't unknown, it's just not applicable. So God really is neutral. "They" isn't grammatically correct. It would seem disrespectful to say "it". Unless there's an alternative, "him" is just the pronoun we typically use. There's no good way to get around it, so why get worked up?

 

If one part of god is so far out of our understanding then why not all parts, then we can just say worshipping is also out of our understanding and we can relax on sunday. Apparently it is ununderstandable enough that you can make an analogy about how out of understanding it is, which maybe means it is somewhat understandable.

 

If one part of our universe is so far out of our understanding, then why not give up on trying to understand any of it? Why not forget chemistry, physics, biology, medicine, and just sit back and relax.

 

You can't take a characteristic of one part of something and extend it to all other parts. It just doesn't make sense.

Edited February 1, 2012 by potterwolf

[Princess Artemis]

But assuming that's the case, doing so enforces a not-so-covert sexism: the Creator/Divine Ruler of the universe is of course male, because"male" is the default/superior/obvious position for a being in authority.

Since we are speaking English and English lacks a genderless/neutral/transcending gender personal pronoun which is suitable to apply to not just a person but a Person, we've got to use something.

 

This, of course, does not say anything about what Hippo Knives meant by it, and it'd be nice to know his answer.

[Hippo_Knives]

I'm curious... why do you see Him as necessarily male?

As Kiffren said "They might have just been using 'him' as a placeholder. If you can't say what exactly God is, then how can you give him a gender?"

I feel that the word "man/mankind" is an acceptable synonym for "human/humankind".

Also in a sort of related note, I also feel that "him/his" can be used to describe a being whose gender you are unsure of, or if they have gender at all.

[Kestra15]

*I don't care who you are, but if you can remember the last 10 minutes of your life, you cannot tell me that there isn't at least some sort of force guiding the universe. Whether it be a fully conscious being capable of bending reality to its will, or just an accidental effect that has shaped the universe to the way we perceive it.

Nothing in the last ten minutes indicates to me the presence of God.

[Kai]

If one part of our universe is so far out of our understanding, then why not give up on trying to understand any of it? Why not forget chemistry, physics, biology, medicine, and just sit back and relax.

 

You can't take a characteristic of one part of something and extend it to all other parts. It just doesn't make sense.

I ASPIRE THAT NO PART OF THE UNIVERSE IS OUT OF OUR UNDERSTANDING

[NobleOwl]

But if God made people to look like him, would he have a gender because people have genders?

 

G-d on Judaism, is intersexd. As was humankind when G-d created it. It isn't until the split between Adam and Khavah that a gender binary existed.

 

God would have to have two genders then.

 

Exactly. This is why there are multiple words for G-d some of which are feminine and some of which are gender neutral along with masculine words.

 

Isaiah refers to G-d crying out as in childbirth, later as a mother not forgetting a child she's nursed, a mother who births and protects Israel, G-d as a midwife attending a birth -- and that's only one book.

[potterwolf]

I ASPIRE THAT NO PART OF THE UNIVERSE IS OUT OF OUR UNDERSTANDING

You think that we understand every aspect of our universe? Really? It's certainly out of our current understanding.

 

Also....aspire? Why "aspire"? You hope that no part of the universe is out of our understanding? You long for that to be the case? That doesn't make it true.

[prairiecrow]

On a different note...

 

A Blessed Imbolc to all northern hemisphere Pagans on the board who celebrate it, and a blessed Lughnassad to all southern hemisphere Pagans on the board who celebrate it.

[Alpha1]

You think that we understand every aspect of our universe? Really? It's certainly out of our current understanding.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

 

"We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

 

The total gravitational energy in a flat universe is zero. Something from nothing.

 

G-d on Judaism, is intersexd. As was humankind when G-d created it. It isn't until the split between Adam and Khavah that a gender binary existed.

 

If God is formless, how is he intersex?

[potterwolf]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

 

"We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

 

The total gravitational energy in a flat universe is zero. Something from nothing.

Cool. But not relevant. At least I don't know why it would be relevant to what I posted. But it's still cool.

[NobleOwl]

If God is formless, how is he intersex?

 

One doesn't need form to be a gender. And I never said G-d was without form. Judaism doesn't touch on whether G-d is formless or not.

[Princess Artemis]

If God is formless, how is he intersex?

I would suspect this is English being a very rich language but not quite rich enough to describe the innate gender of a person who has both male and female in them without bringing along baggage about their bodies with one word. Intersex is close. Androgynous might work as well, though its connotation is more watered down with being about indeterminate appearance than what its parts suggest, containing both andro and gyni.

[Alpha1]

 

Cool. But not relevant. At least I don't know why it would be relevant to what I posted. But it's still cool.

 

Well, isn't knowing the shape of the universe a big understanding? This also concurs with the idea that the universe can arise through quantum fluctuations because the total energy would be zero (gravitational and mass cancel out -- mistake in last post.). If this is possible, no supernatural explanation is needed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Kilometer_Array

 

This might firmly put the issue of the shape of the universe to rest.

 

One doesn't need form to be a gender. And I never said G-d was without form. Judaism doesn't touch on whether G-d is formless or not.

 

Your views can be confusing at times. If the definition lacks physical features, then what is it? Behavior?

 

Boys are made up of snips and snails and puppy dog tails? Girls are made up of sugar and spice and everything nice?

 

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/03/aaassocialselection219.html

 

Nature can sometimes go the other way. Like in birds, snakes, and fish. Even another gender or two.

 

"Behavior is not tied to one's chromosomes, either -- many species have three or more genders. For instance, bluegill sunfish have two different male genders -- "parental" males who control territory and mate with females, and "end-runner" males, who are smaller with different coloring. End-runners will dart in and release sperm where a female and parental male are mating."

 

Poor fella

 

Do you believe humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees?

 

[NobleOwl]

Alpha, I will attempt to discuss this with you, but you've never been very quick in the past.

 

Gender has nothing to do with sex. Period. It doesn't get more basic than that. Have you ever studied gender at all?

 

What kind of stupid questions are these? I believe in evolution, yes.

[Alpha1]

Gender has nothing to do with sex. Period. It doesn't get more basic than that. Have you ever studied gender at all?

 

Okay, I understand. That's why I said does it have to do with behavior. What are we an image of?

 

What kind of stupid questions are these? I believe in evolution, yes.

 

I know you believe in evolution. You seem to believe the creation story for Adam and Eve. That's why I'm asking it.

[NobleOwl]

Okay, I understand. That's why I said does it have to do with behavior. What are we an image of?

 

 

 

I know you believe in evolution. You seem to believe the creation story for Adam and Eve. That's why I'm asking it.

Behaviour makes gender sound like a choice. That's why many cultures had two sexes but as many as five genders.

 

Let me see if I can put this in the smallest possible words. Believing G-d created adam (which means man) in his image, is not contradictory with evolution.

[Alpha1]

Let me see if I can put this in the smallest possible words. Believing G-d created adam (which means man) in his image, is not contradictory with evolution.

 

Here's the issue. I've mentioned before about the corkscrew/hooked reproductive organs, and you said God doesn't direct evolution. If we came from a common ancestor, how do you reconcile it with the Adam and Eve story?

[potterwolf]

Well, isn't knowing the shape of the universe a big understanding? This also concurs with the idea that the universe can arise through quantum fluctuations because the total energy would be zero (gravitational and mass cancel out -- mistake in last post.). If this is possible, no supernatural explanation is needed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Kilometer_Array

 

This might firmly put the issue of the shape of the universe to rest.

So what? I said that we don't understand everything about the universe, which is undoubtable true. I never said that we specifically couldn't explain the shape or size of the universe or anything like that.

 

Also, I'm an atheist. So...I frankly don't know what you're talking about. I never said that a supernatural explanation was necessary. I was merely replying to Kai's snarky comment.

 

Your views can be confusing at times. If the definition lacks physical features, then what is it? Behavior?

 

I know this isn't my fight, but I feel the need to step in. Alpha, sex is determined by physical differences between males and females. Sometimes, patterns of behavior can be attributed to one sex or the other, although usually not exclusively.

 

Neither of these are determinants of gender. Gender is about the way a person thinks or feels. It's an aspect of a person's brain or consciousness. Although we can't define exactly what determines gender, we know that some people "know" that they're boys, some "know" that they're girls, whether or not their perceived gender fits their physical description. If God is (or has) a consciousness, there is nothing wrong with saying that he could have an intersexed gender.

 

(At least, that is what I understand about gender, but I learned it from people on the forum. Correct me if I'm mistaken)

 

[Alpha1]

So what? I said that we don't understand everything about the universe, which is undoubtable true. I never said that we specifically couldn't explain the shape or size of the universe or anything like that.

 

I know you said "everything". I just thought it was interesting that there's a rather firm explanation for how the universe came to be.

 

Dawkins remarks on The Grand Design, for example:

 

"Darwinism kicked God out of biology but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."

 

Also, I'm an atheist. So...I frankly don't know what you're talking about. I never said that a supernatural explanation was necessary. I was merely replying to Kai's snarky comment.

 

My intention wasn't to start an argument.

 

I know this isn't my fight, but I feel the need to step in. Alpha, sex is determined by physical differences between males and females. Sometimes, patterns of behavior can be attributed to one sex or the other, although usually not exclusively.

 

Neither of these are determinants of gender. Gender is about the way a person thinks or feels. It's an aspect of a person's brain or consciousness. Although we can't define exactly what determines gender, we know that some people "know" that they're boys, some "know" that they're girls, whether or not their perceived gender fits their physical description. If God is (or has) a consciousness, there is nothing wrong with saying that he could have an intersexed gender.

 

(At least, that is what I understand about gender, but I learned it from people on the forum. Correct me if I'm mistaken)

 

I know the difference. Noble used the word "intersex". There's writings on Adam being a "hermaphrodite" before being cleaved.

 

Regarding behavior itself, I pointed out examples in nature of what could be considered reverse from the social constructs in society.

 

What I'm pointing out is if we're an image of God, what is it about God that we're an image of? Noble seemed to imply that intersex was a part of it.

 

Many people who feel they identify with the different sex feel that they're in the wrong body. Others feel it has little to do with physical attributes than how they feel they should express themselves in society.

 

Would God feel like he's in the wrong body? Some studies show brain structure in transgender people is similar to the sex they want to be. Judaism is monotheistic. Isn't it reasonable to assume he probably didn't develop reproductive organs? If so, why would his mind incorporate these feelings of being male and female?

 

Gender is a social construct. One person can identify as "male" and "female" and express behavior similar to both sexes. Another person can exhibit the same behaviors, yet identify as pangender, non-gendered, etc.

 

http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/to...ender-neutrois/

 

Here's an example of a poll that shows people are confuzzled on definitions.

[NobleOwl]

and you said God doesn't direct evolution

 

It's possible I said this, but if I did, there's a difference between directing every single animal and every single mutation, which he does not, and intervening now and then.

 

If we came from a common ancestor, how do you reconcile it with the Adam and Eve story?

 

Simple, homo sapien sapiens came about as a result of interference, G-d stepping in to tweak it.

 

I know the difference. Noble used the word "intersex". There's writings on Adam being a "hermaphrodite" before being cleaved.

 

I don't like the word hermaphrodite, so I don't use it, but that was my point, yes.

 

What I'm pointing out is if we're an image of God, what is it about God that we're an image of? Noble seemed to imply that intersex was a part of it.

 

And it was.

 

Isn't it reasonable to assume he probably didn't develop reproductive organs?

 

No.

 

However, I am stepping away from this particular topic of conversation on the thread, as I've already been warned twice for perceived rudeness where none was intended.

[Kai]

You think that we understand every aspect of our universe? Really? It's certainly out of our current understanding.

 

Also....aspire? Why "aspire"? You hope that no part of the universe is out of our understanding? You long for that to be the case? That doesn't make it true.

no i meant that we can make it so using infinite hard work and killing backwards thinking that hinders such progress

 

accepting that something is not understandable is called giving up

Edited February 3, 2012 by Kai

[Darth Krande]

Do you think it's fair to write fanfic to the Holy Bible? For some odd reason I can't help thinking about a Judas - Jesus story, but I fear that I wouldn't get them 100% in-character. I'm kinda sure about them 99% but.... yes. With fictious characters I wouldn't worry about that 1% missing. Since they are real people, I do. Fanfic.net doesn't allow real-people stories, and I can understand why. Also, who needs one more explaining Judas story? But I soooo want to write it.

*is unsure*