Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply Gaian Theology Guild
G-d, Male or Female? Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Cougar Draven

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:54 pm


Moonlite Symphony
Cougar Draven
Personally? I have personal evidence leading me to believe that our Creator was genderless.


That's good for you...

Mind sharing it?


Sorry...I was tired, forgot to actually voice my opinion. redface

The way I see it, both genders have equal faults, and neither is inherently better than the other, so why should we believe our Creator to be one or the other? No man would give other men the sole weakness of having our most sensitive bits of anatomy hanging out for the world to see, and no woman would give other women the sole responsibilities of menstruation and bearing of children.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:38 pm


Cougar Draven
Moonlite Symphony
Cougar Draven
Personally? I have personal evidence leading me to believe that our Creator was genderless.


That's good for you...

Mind sharing it?


Sorry...I was tired, forgot to actually voice my opinion. redface

The way I see it, both genders have equal faults, and neither is inherently better than the other, so why should we believe our Creator to be one or the other? No man would give other men the sole weakness of having our most sensitive bits of anatomy hanging out for the world to see, and no woman would give other women the sole responsibilities of menstruation and bearing of children.


I honestly think those are very simple and poorly thought examples.
I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it just doesn't make much sense.

Honestly what's so bad about menstruation or outward hanging genitals? It's so far the most efficient means in which we can exist. Does it seem right to question a creator's intentions for your construction or existance?
Because if they are so supreme it obviously has it's purpose.

And I think people could do with having some of the responsibilities that come with their bodies.

Mongler Of Cocks


Cougar Draven

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:28 am


Moonlite Symphony
Cougar Draven
Moonlite Symphony
Cougar Draven
Personally? I have personal evidence leading me to believe that our Creator was genderless.


That's good for you...

Mind sharing it?


Sorry...I was tired, forgot to actually voice my opinion. redface

The way I see it, both genders have equal faults, and neither is inherently better than the other, so why should we believe our Creator to be one or the other? No man would give other men the sole weakness of having our most sensitive bits of anatomy hanging out for the world to see, and no woman would give other women the sole responsibilities of menstruation and bearing of children.


I honestly think those are very simple and poorly thought examples.
I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it just doesn't make much sense.

Honestly what's so bad about menstruation or outward hanging genitals? It's so far the most efficient means in which we can exist. Does it seem right to question a creator's intentions for your construction or existance?
Because if they are so supreme it obviously has it's purpose.

And I think people could do with having some of the responsibilities that come with their bodies.


I look at it as any creator that had a gender would not want to make that particular gender suffer. Perhaps that's flawed thinking, but that's just what I believe.

And yes, I think it's just fine to question my creator. That's what life is about.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:42 pm


G-d does not have genders. we attribute aspects to G-d that we usually associate with a gender, such as praying to the femminie aspect of G-d when we are ill to plea to G-ds motherly tendinces. no, G-d cannot have a gender because this would mean that G-d was corperal (has a body) and If G-d has a body then G-d is confined by that body and no longer infinite. G-d is an incorperal entity. this is also why G-d cannot have an actual name because to name G-d would be to designate G-d or rather to seperate him fro existance and infinity. Jews call G-d by the way he interacts with us like if i am refered to by my teacher as "one who turns in assignments" as opposed to "Jonathan". Adonai (merciful G-d) Eloheinu (rightous judge) Elohim (G-d creator) and so forth. G-d tells the Jews that G-d does not have a corperal body. this is what humans and G-d have in common. a soul.

b'shalom.

Lyyov


Stxitxchxes

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:54 am


Lyyov
G-d does not have genders. we attribute aspects to G-d that we usually associate with a gender, such as praying to the femminie aspect of G-d when we are ill to plea to G-ds motherly tendinces. no, G-d cannot have a gender because this would mean that G-d was corperal (has a body) and If G-d has a body then G-d is confined by that body and no longer infinite. G-d is an incorperal entity. this is also why G-d cannot have an actual name because to name G-d would be to designate G-d or rather to seperate him fro existance and infinity. Jews call G-d by the way he interacts with us like if i am refered to by my teacher as "one who turns in assignments" as opposed to "Jonathan". Adonai (merciful G-d) Eloheinu (rightous judge) Elohim (G-d creator) and so forth. G-d tells the Jews that G-d does not have a corperal body. this is what humans and G-d have in common. a soul.

b'shalom.


QFT
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:43 am


Freud, Favazza, and several other respect psycholigists would most likely tell you that God is generally accepted as a male due to the fact that he serves a "Father" figure to us. This would in turn make Jesus the Son and The Holy Spirit possibly a mother-type figure. It depends on how you choose to view it. Freud's analysis of The Holy Spirit is quite entertaining.

Mallorys Wedgie Friend


Sir BlackHeart

PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:09 am


Mallorys Wedgie Friend
Freud, Favazza, and several other respect psycholigists would most likely tell you that God is generally accepted as a male due to the fact that he serves a "Father" figure to us. This would in turn make Jesus the Son and The Holy Spirit possibly a mother-type figure. It depends on how you choose to view it. Freud's analysis of The Holy Spirit is quite entertaining.
how is his description entertaining.
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:41 pm


Personally I do not believe in God, however, my speculation on this matter is that God would be ambiguous and indifferent in His/Her gender. The reason why I say this is that you almost never see, in a polytheistic religion, that is, a lack of female gods. It is generally in monotheistic religions that you find male Gods, however, in certain sects of Wicca they only accept and/ or believe in the female goddess of Wicca (Dianic Wicca I think it's called). The reason why I figure most religions have male gods that are monotheistic is because the God/ god is generally to be a father figure. A father figure in the sense that the times these religions were created in that the father was a symbol of power, control, guiding light, et cetera, et cetera. However, in recent years, this idea of the father being the only one who can represent these virtues is gradually changing.

Personally though, I wouldn't imagine a truly wise createor of religion would say whether the god is male or female unless they had something against the other gender. By naming the gender of the God(s) you are setting a stone rolling for sexism.

Mallorys Wedgie Friend


Mallorys Wedgie Friend

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:46 pm


Moonlite Symphony
Cougar Draven
Moonlite Symphony
Cougar Draven
Personally? I have personal evidence leading me to believe that our Creator was genderless.


That's good for you...

Mind sharing it?


Sorry...I was tired, forgot to actually voice my opinion. redface

The way I see it, both genders have equal faults, and neither is inherently better than the other, so why should we believe our Creator to be one or the other? No man would give other men the sole weakness of having our most sensitive bits of anatomy hanging out for the world to see, and no woman would give other women the sole responsibilities of menstruation and bearing of children.


I honestly think those are very simple and poorly thought examples.
I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it just doesn't make much sense.

Honestly what's so bad about menstruation or outward hanging genitals? It's so far the most efficient means in which we can exist. Does it seem right to question a creator's intentions for your construction or existance?
Because if they are so supreme it obviously has it's purpose.

And I think people could do with having some of the responsibilities that come with their bodies.


Whether it is the right question or not does not really matter. Humans are naturally inquisitive and will ask irrelevant questions.

However, concerning purpose in relation to the anatomy of a human, and everything having a purpose, please explain to me the purpose of an appendix?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:47 pm


wow, sorry, please ignore the post above this post, as I had forgotten I had already put in a view point.

Mallorys Wedgie Friend


Mallorys Wedgie Friend

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:49 pm


NewFoundLight
Mallorys Wedgie Friend
Freud, Favazza, and several other respect psycholigists would most likely tell you that God is generally accepted as a male due to the fact that he serves a "Father" figure to us. This would in turn make Jesus the Son and The Holy Spirit possibly a mother-type figure. It depends on how you choose to view it. Freud's analysis of The Holy Spirit is quite entertaining.
how is his description entertaining.

I should have said entertaining to me. Many Christian's would probably find Freud's analysis quite insulting and blasphemous.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:07 pm


this is very subjective... so I will pull a George Carlin...

" I believe that if there is a god, that it is male. Because No female would ever F**k things up so badly" - Carlin
(prolly not quoted entirely correctly)

Belial750


Deilann

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:15 am


Aren't we stretching it a bit here to force a dichotomy on a deity? Male, female, or genderless? Isn't there anywhere in between?

If you think about it, an omnipresent being, would have to encompass both the male and the female, putting said deity as neither male nor female, but not genderless either. Who else could understand the human dilemma?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:07 pm


I agree... but then again... you are hitting the thing that riddles it with contradictions...

Belial750


Deilann

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:41 pm


The genderqueer community doesn't see a contradiction in there at all.
Reply
Gaian Theology Guild

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum